5. Cleaning of Structures and Vehicles. The cleaning of building exteriors, mobile homes, cars, boats, and recreational vehicles unless the hose is equipped with an automatic shutoff nozzle.
6. Fountains. The operation of an ornamental fountain, unless such water is recycled in the fountain.
7. Cooling. The use of water in new ice-making machines and any other new mechanical equipment that utilizes a single pass cooling system to remove and discharge heat to the sanitary sewer. Water used for all cooling purposes shall be recycled.
8. Commercial Car Washes. The washing of vehicles at a commercial car wash unless the facility utilizes water recycling equipment, or operates on a timer for a limited time period and shuts off automatically at the expiration of the time period.
9. Construction. The use of potable water for dust control or soil compaction purposes in construction activities where there is a reasonably available source of reclaimed water appropriate for such use.
10. The indiscriminate running of water or washing with water not otherwise prohibited in this section, which is wasteful, and without reasonable purpose.
11. Use of potable water to irrigate turf, lawns, gardens, or ornamental landscaping between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. unless by drip irrigation, or by hand watering with a quick acting positive shut off nozzle. (Exceptions may be made by the director for professional gardeners where there is no ability to not water between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.).
12. (a) The use of potable water for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties (other than a cemetery), and on properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities is prohibited as of the following dates:
(1) All properties owned by the Department of General Services, beginning January 1, 2027. (2) All properties owned by local governments, local or regional public agencies, and public water systems, beginning January 1, 2027.
(3) All other institutional properties and all commercial and industrial properties, other than cemeteries, beginning January 1, 2028.
(4) All common areas of properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities, beginning January 1, 2029. (5) All properties owned by local governments, local public agencies, and public water systems in a disadvantaged community, beginning January 1, 2031, or the date upon which a state funding source is made available to fund conversion of nonfunctional turf on these properties to climate-appropriate landscapes, whichever is later.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the use of potable water is not prohibited by this section to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf plantings, or to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need.
(b) Imposition of State Mandated Restrictions. From time to time the city may require additional water use restrictions in order to comply with state mandated restrictions on water use to address state-wide drought conditions when local supply conditions do not warrant implementation of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The water director shall provide notification to city council and the public before any such restrictions are put into effect. Such restrictions may include, but are not limited to:
1. Landscape Irrigation. To prevent unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, the number of days per week on which landscape irrigation is allowed may be limited and/or specific watering days may be assigned on which landscape irrigation is allowed.
26.13 Santa Cruz Municipal Code
Chapter 16.02 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION AND
OTHER WATER USE REGULATIONS
2. Nonfunctional Turf. To prevent the unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, the use of potable water for nonfunctional turf by commercial, industrial, or institutional users (as defined at 23 CCR 996) may be restricted or prohibited. The use of water necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf landscaping is not prohibited.
3. A prohibition on serving drinking water to any customer, unless expressly requested, by a restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria, or other public place where food is sold, served, or offered for sale.
4. The use of potable water for washing sidewalks, driveways, buildings, structures, patios, parking lots, or other hard surfaced areas, except in cases where health and safety are at risk.
5. The use of potable water for street cleaning or construction site preparation purposes, unless no other method can be used or as needed to protect the health and safety of the public.
6. The application of water to irrigate turf and ornamental landscapes during and within forty-eight hours after measurable rainfall of at least one-fourth of one inch of rain. In determining whether measurable rainfall of at least one-fourth of one inch of rain occurred in a given area, enforcement may be based on records of the National Weather Service, the closest CIMIS station to the parcel, or any other reliable source of rainfall data available to the entity undertaking enforcement of this subsection.
7. The use of potable water for irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians.
16.02.050 REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Violations of this chapter shall be subject to any or all of the remedies set forth in this section:
(a) Administrative Enforcement. Any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, political entity or other water department customer violating any provision of this chapter may be subject to the administrative enforcement provisions, and assessed administrative penalties, in accordance with the administrative enforcement provisions of Section 16.01.140.110 and 16.01.120. An administrative penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection may be appealed in accordance with Section 16.01.100(b).
(b) Disconnection.
1. Any person in violation of the provisions of this chapter who fails to take corrective action within fifteen days of receiving written notification of the violation may be subject to disconnection of water service or installation of a water flow restrictor as deemed appropriate by the director or designee. Prior to disconnection or installation of water flow restrictor, reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure shall be given. Upon disconnection of water service a written notice shall be served upon the violator, or conspicuously posted at the entrance of the violator’s premises, and shall state the time, place and general description of the violation and the method by which reconnection can be accomplished.
2. Where water service is disconnected, as authorized above, it shall be immediately reconnected upon correction of the condition or activity and the payment of the reconnection charge in an amount specified by resolution of the city council.
(c) Infraction Citation. In accordance with Consistent with applicable law (including 23 CCR 995(e)), and 996(d)(3), any person violating this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars for each day in which the violation occurs. Any fine imposed pursuant to this subsection is in addition to, and does not supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal, including those provided for in Title 4 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Each and every day a violation of this chapter exists constitutes a separate and distinct offense for which enforcement action may be taken.
16.02.060 CITATION AUTHORITY.
All peace officers and persons authorized by law to issue citations within the water service area shall, in conjunction with duties imposed by the law, diligently enforce the provisions of this chapter. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 836.5 of the State Penal Code, the following officerswater department director and water department
26.14 Santa Cruz Municipal Code
Chapter 16.02 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION AND
OTHER WATER USE REGULATIONS
employees ofdesignated by the city of Santa Cruzdirector are hereby designated and authorized to issue citations for enforcement of this chapter:.
Director of the water department;
Deputy director/operations manager;
Deputy director/Engineering manager;
Water quality manager;
Customer service manager;
Meter shop supervisor;
Water meter specialist;
Utility supervisor;
Production superintendent;
Water distribution superintendent;
Water distribution crew chief;
Water conservation representative;
Utility services field technician;
Utility service representative;
Water department employees designated by the director.
26.15 California’s
Non-Functional Turf
Irrigation Ban
AB 1572 Overview
1 26.16
AB 1572
Overview
2 Passed in 2023, AB 1572:
Prohibits use of potable water for irrigation of
nonfunctional turf located on commercial,
industrial, and institutional properties (including
government) and common areas of HOAs
Requires water suppliers to update their
codes/policies accordingly.
26.17 AB 1572
Overview
3 What is nonfunctional turf?
• Solely ornamental
• Not used for human recreation or
gatherings
• Within street rights-of-way,
parking lots
• Inaccessible
What properties are affected?
• Affected: Commercial, industrial,
and institutional properties
(including government),
common areas of HOAs
• Not affected: Single-family
residences, cemeteries
Example nonfunctional turf (streetscape)
Image source: nonfunctionalturfca.org
Example functional turf (athletic field)
Image source: City of Santa Cruz
26.18 Implementing
AB 1572 in
Santa Cruz
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the compliance deadlines?
How will these requirements be enforced?
What actions do other City departments need to take?
How will plan reviews/new developments be impacted?
What outreach is planned?
4 Graphic source: California Water Efficiency Partnership
26.19 Questions?
5 26.20
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/19/2025
AGENDA OF: 01/13/2026
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Climate Action Plan 2030 – 2022-2025 Citywide Implementation Workplan Progress Report and Proposed 2026-2029 Citywide Implementation Workplan (CM)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030) - 2022-2025 Citywide Implementation Workplan Progress Report; and
2) Approve CAP 2030 – Proposed 2026-2029 Citywide Implementation Workplan.
BACKGROUND: The Communitywide Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030, accessed at www.santacruzca.gov/Government/Climate-Initiatives/Sustainability/Climate-Action-Plan) was adopted in September 2022 after nearly 2 years of community engagement, technical analysis and plan development. The CAP 2030 includes both a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) qualified emissions target that is consistent with the State target for 2030 and is deemed reasonable and achievable: a 40% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. The CAP 2030 also recognizes scientific consensus around the need to accelerate beyond the State target and sets an aspirational voluntary target of carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2035. The cost inaction on climate change in the community of Santa Cruz is estimated to be at least $25 million annually in the form of adverse impacts to health, infrastructure and the economy.
Table 1 summarizes historical mass community-wide and average per capita (i.e., per person) emissions (in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent [MT CO2e]) as they relate to the 2030 and 2035 emissions targets. The emissions inventories consider only the sectors regulated by the State’s scoping plan. For 2022, overall emissions increased slightly (4.4%). 72% of emissions were from transportation and mobile services such as landscaping, construction equipment (up 3% since 2019), 22% was due to energy use (down 2% from 2019), and 5% attributable to solid waste (down 2% from 2019). It is difficult to determine the cause of changes between 2019 and 2022 emissions output. However, staff expects that emissions trajectories in 2022 were impacted by the pandemic as is also reflected in all transportation commute mode shares (i.e., since telecommuting increased substantially, all other mode shares decreased). Staff will compile the
27.1 2025 community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory in calendar year 2026 and will be able to better report on the City’s progress towards the emissions targets.
Table 1. Mass and Per Capita Historical Emissions and Targets Year Mass Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Per Capita Emission
(MT CO2e)
1990 302,319 6.08
2005 355,669 5.53
2019 274,584 4.22
2022 286,674 4.67
2030 – target 181,391 2.74 CEQA 2030 target
1.32 Carbon Neutral 2035
aspirational target
2035 – target 0 0
It is also important to note that a 2.74 MT CO2e per capita emission reduction target by 2030 is the minimum the community must achieve for CEQA target compliance. The community must go beyond this per capita emissions reduction by 2030 to achieve the aspirational carbon neutrality target in 2035. Considering only emissions from the State Scoping Plan sectors, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035, per capita emissions must be reduced to 1.32 MT CO2e by 2030. As called for by Action W-2, the City was able to complete a consumption-based and supply chain emissions inventory to better characterize the per capita emissions impact of other sectors and activities not regulated by the State scoping plan. This inventory included producing, transporting, using, and disposing of products and services including food. As such, it was found that under this methodology, per capita emissions are about 15.7 MT CO2e, nearly 3.5 times the per capita emissions from the 2022 regulated State Scoping Plan activities alone.
The CAP 2030 contains 31 measures and 152 actions – the programs, policies and projects - to meet the targets and address non-State Scoping Plan sectors - and are listed by type in Table 2.
When considering the cumulative impact of state legislation and implementation of the CAP 2030 measures, the resulting emissions reductions meet the 2030 per capita and mass emissions reduction targets. It is important to highlight that emissions reductions were quantified for those measures that address sectors contained California Scoping Plan and where a legally justifiable methodology to determine emissions reductions exists. Some measures are also considered “supportive” meaning that when implemented, they contribute to the success of achieving the quantifiable emissions reduction measures. Those measures that are “supportive” may or may not address a State Scoping Plan sector and may or may not have a means to estimate emissions reduction potential. But, for CEQA purposes, the legal defensibility of those measures is not strong and thus not included in quantification. As data becomes available and methods to estimate the emissions reduction potential of measures outside the State Scoping Plan become more robust, the City will complete further quantification work.
Table 2. At a Glance: CAP 2030 Measures and Actions
Measure Type No. Measures No. Actions
Sustainable Government 9 43
Climate Mitigation
-Building Energy
-Transportation
17 90
27.2 -Water, Waste, Wastewater
Climate Economy 2 4
Climate Restoration 3 15
Total 31 152
At the time of adoption of the CAP 2030, the Council also adopted a 3-year (i.e., 2022-2025) Implementation Workplan for the City to carry out. Each department, the external Sustainability and Resiliency Committee and internal Sustainability Team also develop 1-year workplans, tiered from the overall citywide 3-year workplan. The Climate Action Program staff (4.5 FTE currently with one shared community relations specialist and 1 intern) work with the internal Sustainability Team, the new external Sustainability and Resiliency Committee as well as key departmental staff and community partners to implement and track progress on the CAP 2030.
The Sustainability and Resiliency Committee pilot commenced in August of 2025, will conclude in January of 2027 and recently adopted a calendar year 2026 workplan. To advise partners and residents to take actions to make maximum impact in reducing emissions, the CAP 2030 identifies the most impactful actions residents can take and encourages residents to commit to actions in the Resilient Santa Cruz community activation platform (https://resilientsantacruzcounty.org/santacruz).
DISCUSSION: The annual progress update includes four sets of performance indicators (as specified by the CAP 2030 or directed by prior City Councils): (1) progress toward achieving the adopted greenhouse gas emissions target for 2030; (2) progress on 3-Year Implementation Workplan activities; (3) progress relative to peer jurisdictions, and (4) funding status.
In sum, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, it is too early to know the impact of the CAP 2030 3-Year Implementation Workplan’s implementation on the emissions trajectory.
Progress on the activities modeled to reach the emissions reduction target for 2030 is mixed as while many activities were initiated, many have not been fully implemented in the modeled timeframe. Lags and availability of data also hamper quantitative reporting of the progress on the measures modeled to reach the emissions reduction target for 2030. To the City’s credit, every activity in the 3-Year Implementation Workplan was started, is ongoing or was completed.
Overall, the City remains a leader in its climate action work in the United States and, relative to other jurisdictions, the City is fairly well resourced to address climate change. However, while the City has invested in capacity and is making substantial progress relative to peer jurisdictions, like nearly all jurisdictions, the City is not on track to reach its emissions reduction targets. A variety of factors contribute to this finding, including under-investment in climate measures from federal to local scale, a lack of collective societal behavior change, and back-sliding in federal climate policy and resources.
Progress in each performance indicator area is described in fuller detail as follows:
Performance Indicator 1: Progress toward achieving the adopted GHG emissions target for 2030 Specifically, the CAP 2030 activities that contribute to achievement of the CAP 2030 targets are tracked both quantitatively and qualitatively. There are 16 quantitative activities being tracked that, when completed, will ensure the City meets its 2030 CEQA target. These activities, and progress made on each, are included in Attachment: Progress on Quantitative Measures and Actions to Reach CAP 2030 Target. The City has achieved over 50% progress on most of the 16 measures and actions since the CAP 2030 adoption in 2022. Eleven of the 16 activities are high
27.3 impact activities, i.e., those that have the largest impact on emissions reductions, which are denoted by an asterisk (*). High impact activities include choosing renewable electricity from Central Coast Community Energy, reducing air travel, eating more plant-based meals, taking public transportation, buying or leasing an electric vehicle, electrifying; installing electric heat pump water heater or space heating, using active transportation: bike, walk, skateboard, or scooter, and installing solar panels.
Performance Indicator 2: Progress on each 3-Year (2022-2025) Implementation Workplan Activities
Qualitatively, Table 3 includes the implementation year and status of each of the projects and initiatives contained in the adopted CAP 2030 3-year Implementation Workplan. The 3-year Implementation Workplan includes planning and implementation, organizational change and accountability related projects, policies and initiatives. The City has made substantial progress on the adopted CAP 2030 3-Year Implementation Workplan (2022-2025), having started and/or completed each of the 17 activities to be completed by the end of FY26, where 58.8% of activities were completed.
Table 3. Three-Year (2022-2025) CAP 2030 Implementation Workplan Status Year to be
Implemented
Workplan Activity
FY
23 FY
24 FY
25 FY
26 Status
Responsible
Department
*Implement fossil fuel
divestment policy •
In progress FN
*Completion of Active
Transportation Plan •
Grant funds secured; to
be completed in early
2026
PW
*Fleet Electrification Master
Plan •
Completed and under
revision. Substantial fleet
electrification and
charging infrastructure
planned/installed
PW
Update food waste to energy
feasibility and design
facilities
•
Complete PW
*Adopt equitable
electrification ordinance/
programs for existing
residential and commercial
buildings by 2024
• • •
Complete. Adopted
residential and
nonresidential reach
codes in 2025
CMO, PL
Integrate CAP into Master
Investment Strategy,
Financial Plan Development,
Master Fee and Cost
Evaluation Study
• •
Partially completed FN, CMO
27.4 Evaluate state compost
application requirement and
obtain funding for tree
projects
• •
Evaluation complete.
Tree planting is ongoing:
$1M grant for tree
planting in
implementation
PW, PR
*Complete municipal
building electrification/
decarbonization master plan
•
Project scoping
complete; new energy
manager will complete in
calendar year 2026
PW, CMO
Fund/hire an Energy Manager
•
Mid-year position
request made and
anticipate hire by
summer 2026.
PW, CMO,
FN, HR
Update Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Policy •
Complete and currently
training staff
FN
* Municipal Transportation
Demand Management Plan • •
Complete and ongoing.
GO Santa Cruz
incentives available to all
city employees (with 312
employees participating
in 2025)
PW, HR,
CMO
* Develop remote work
program plan • • • •
Ongoing. IT, HR,
CMO
* Plan to electrify and
improve health and safety of
affordable housing stock by
2035
• •
Incomplete. Grant
funding efforts
unsuccessful.
CMO, PL,
ED
Pursue green workforce
development opportunities • • • •
Complete and ongoing.
Successful Monterey Bay
Green Service Corps
hired 107 youth in region
PW, WT,
ED, CMO,
PR
Develop Urban Forest Master
Plan and plant ~400 trees per
year
•
Incomplete but delayed
$1M grant for tree
planting awarded will
enable capacity for
master plan; 364 trees
planned/planted at new
developments in 2025;
~300 trees planted in
public spaces in 2025
PR+PL
* Complete Rail trail
Bikeways and plan light
transit to Rail Line
• • •
Complete. City trail
segments funded and/or
constructed. Continue to
partner on long term rail
planning
PW
27.5 * Indicates a High Impact Measure in terms of emissions reduction potential.
Performance Indicator 3: Progress relative to peer jurisdictions The City is performing well in implementing high impact emissions activities relative to many other jurisdictions, likely due to its dedicated resourcing, community and leadership support, and success in accessing resources for emissions reduction activities. The City has typically scored an A or A- score over the past 5 years by disclosing the City’s climate risk and progress on emissions mitigation with the Carbon Disclosure Project (cdp.net). Submission to CDP fulfills the City’s reporting commitment to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, which the City joined in 2018. However, staff were capacity constrained and while the City submitted partial disclosure data, it was not scored in 2024. Staff submitted a full disclosure in fall of 2025 that will be scored in early 2026 and reported on during the CAP 2030 progress update in January, 2027. Finally, staff hold leadership roles in the Central Coast Community Energy Operations Board, Central Coast Climate Collaborative, Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group and Green Cities California among other peer network groups.
Performance Indicator 4: Funding Update
The City continues preparing applications for and securing grant funding for climate action. In calendar year 2023, , the City stood up the Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG) via charter with four other Monterey Bay jurisdictions. The City’s Sustainability and Resiliency Officer is currently serving as chair of the working group. The RCPWG's mission is to collaborate among groups and organizations in the Monterey Bay Area region, including Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties, to develop, prioritize, secure funding for, and equitably advocate for and implement regionally beneficial climate mitigation and adaptation projects and programs. Through nominal contribution of funds by each jurisdiction, the RCPWG hired a governance and grant writing firm, has submitted six joint grant applications and been awarded $32M in grant funding for the region for fleet electrification and charging, adaptation planning, and capacity building.
The City itself has had great success in applying for and accessing funding for implementing emissions reductions actions which include the following efforts in 2025:
Federal Highway Administration to expand public EV charging ($15M total; City share at $2M) awarded but contracting has not proceeded due to the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order from the president of the United States. In December, 2025 a group of states, including California, filed a suit in a US District Court in Seattle to force the federal administration to release the funding appropriated by Congress for this grant. California Air Resources Board Greenzones Grant for Fleet Electrification ($15.7M total; City share at $1M) awarded and in contracting to fund 15 medium and heavy-duty fleet vehicles with charging infrastructure.
California Volunteers workforce development grant ($2M) to hire 107 youth fellows in climate related roles.
Citywide Intersection Daylighting HSIP 12 ($2,147,000) to implement daylighting and pedestrian crossing improvements at 88 nonsignalized locations. Water St. Protected Bike Lanes HSIP12 ($381,000) to implement protected bike lanes on Water St. between N. Branciforte and Poplar.
27.6 In addition to grant funding, through the City’s internal Carbon Fund, the City annually invests in internal grants as a way to engage and catalyze employee driven climate efforts. Since its first grant round in 2016, the Carbon Fund has awarded over $460,000 to almost 50 projects, funding fleet ebikes, streetlight assessments, expansion of electronic plan review systems, an urban tree inventory CalFire grant match, Harvey West pool pump controls, microgrants for Green Business certification, employee alternative commute incentives, and much more. In 2025, due to energy incentive revenue, the City was able to allocate $90,000 to the Carbon Fund, the most since its inception, and will fund 10 municipal projects as a result in 2026.
Proposed 2026-2029 CAP 2030 Implementation Workplan (attachment) The internal Sustainability Team, other departmental staff and directors met over 2025 to identify the following new activities the City will complete between calendar years 2026 and 2029 to advance progress on CAP 2030 implementation to reach emissions reduction targets.
The Attachment includes a description of each activity, co-benefits, community partners, timeline and responsible department. This draft 3-Year Implementation Workplan was informed by input from Spanish speaking community member focus groups through a partnership with Ventures’ Promotoras Cooperative (see Attachment: Spanish Resident Listening Sessions and Prioritization Report) and incorporated input from the public through a webinar conducted in December, 2025. Activities denoted with an “*” are “high impact actions.” Priorities indicated by the Spanish speaking resident focus groups are indicated with a “+”. Expand food recovery with food service policies.
+*Leverage Affordable Housing Development to advance other active transportation improvements around development sites.
*Remove parking in favor of multimodal improvements, e.g., bike lanes, transit improvements; Implement bus rapid transit along Soquel Avenue.
+*Adopt and conduct outreach on energy efficiency ordinances for new building construction and existing multi-family renovations.
*Complete revision to, and implement Active Transportation Plan, complete Rail Trail paths, and complete at least one bulb-out traffic calming pilot project. *Pursue funding to incentivize commercial electric vehicle fleets and car share and provide education on available funding.
+
Implement and secure future funding for continuing Monterey Bay Green Youth Service Corps.
*Reassess exemptions to ordinance banning gas leaf blowers and consider limiting other gas landscaping equipment.
+*Advocate for state and federal regulatory changes to enable neighborhood electrification, community solar, and energy rate stabilization. Complete 2025 Community wide GHG Inventory.
27.7
+Develop Community Resilience Centers project and conduct neighborhood community resilience workshops.
Internal Municipal Change Management: integrate 5 key best practices into City operations.
The Sustainability and Resiliency Officer will report to City Council in January of each year on the 2026-2029 Implementation Workplan progress.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:
CEQA review is not required for this item because the action recommended does not meet the definition of a Project under CEQA.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The CAP 2030 and its focus on the nexus of equity, public health and sustainability epitomizes the intention of the City’s HiAP initiative. The CAP 2030 was developed through the use of an equity screening tool, ensuring all actions do not result in negative impacts to equitable community well-being outcomes. Measures and actions were linked to the adopted HiAP community well-being outcome metrics they support such that indicators related to equity and public health could be tracked in addition to the GHG emissions reduction progress. The adopted HiAP community well-being outcome metrics are updated biannually and will be included in the HiAP progress update to City Council in early 2026, denoting those that support the CAP 2030. As computed during CAP 2030 development, 70% of the 152 actions support improvement in community health.
Further, the City helped stand up and participates in the Monterey Bay Area Climate Justice Collaborative (MBACJC), a working group of public agencies, nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations and tribal organizations that seek to develop equitable climate response programs and grant proposals that quickly reduce emissions and promote health, economic stability and community well-being for all.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No
2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No
3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: There is no fiscal impact associated with this annual progress update. Implementation of the CAP 2030 is partially funded by grants, enterprise funds and the General Fund. However, it is not possible to quantify the impact on the General Fund since CAP 2030 implementation activities are diffused broadly across departments. Nevertheless, implementation of the CAP 2030 requires substantial investment and resources by the City, its partners and residents to achieve the targets specified. Public and private climate investment could create up to 2,400 jobs by 2030 as per the CAP 2030 Green Economy appendix. Those jobs help generate revenue for the City that can be reinvested into climate work. Staff have estimated a low and high five-year projection for CAP 2030 implementation that is being integrated into future budgets and financial planning. In FY26, climate and equity were decision making priorities in the city budget. The funding and financing implementation appendix to the CAP 2030 provides guidance to facilitate implementation in a rapid and focused way.
27.8 Prepared By:
Tiffany Wise-West, P.E.
Sustainability & Resiliency
Officer
Submitted By:
Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PROGRESS ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURES AND ACTIONS TO REACH CAP 2030 TARGET.DOCX
2. CAP 2030 PROPOSED 2026-2029 IMPLEMENTATION WORKPLAN.PDF
3. CAP 2030 SPANISH RESIDENT LISTENING SESSIONS AND PRIORITIZATION REPORT.PDF
27.9 Attachment: Progress on Quantitative Measures and Actions to Reach CAP 2030 Target Measure Unit Goal Data
Year
% Progress
Notes
*Measure BE-1: Enforce the
City’s new construction
natural gas prohibition
ordinance (SCMC 6.100) and
inform the community
regarding the available
technology and benefits of
electrification.
Number of
employees
working in new
all electric
buildings
5,251 -- --
Replaced natural gas ban with
ultra efficient new construction
ordinance in 2024. No metric
to track
*Measure BE-1: Enforce the
City’s new construction
natural gas prohibition
ordinance (SCMC 6.100) and
inform the community
regarding the available
technology and benefits of
electrification. Funding:
Grants, Grants/Accelerator
Number of all
electric
residential units
built
1,851 2025
49.2%
that are
either
elect. or
ultra
efficient
Replaced natural gas ban with
ultra efficient new construction
ordinance in 2024. 140 units
built under old/new ordinance;
771 in construction
Unable to accurately track until
new land management system
comes online. 2,179 units
somewhere in planning
pipeline
*Measure BE-2: Electrify
31% of existing residential
buildings by 2030 and 53%
by 2035.
Therms below
forecast 2,660,343 -- --
No measurable progress
although state energy code is
driving electrification
naturally; energy efficient
renovations ordinance adopted
in 2024 and goes into effect in
2025; data available in 2025
inventory to be prepared in
2026
*Measure BE-3: Electrify
26% of existing commercial
buildings by 2030 and 45%
by 2035.
Therms below
forecast 1,257,239 -- --
No measurable progress
although state energy code is
driving electrification
naturally; commercial efficient
AC ordinance adopted in 2025
and goes into effect in 2026;
data available in 2025
inventory to be prepared in
2026
Measure CS-1: Develop an
Urban Forest Master Plan
and plant 3,000 new trees by
2030.
Trees Planted 3,000 2025 30% On track
*Action M1.3 - Electrify
100% of municipal buildings
by 2040
% Municipal
Buildings
Electrified
100 2025 3%
1 building: City Hall Annex; 9
water heaters replaced with
electric heat pumps in 2024; 3
battery storage systems to be
installed in 2026
Action M1.4 - Implement
plan to retrofit all remaining
streetlights, facility lighting,
and traffic signals to LEDs
by 2040
% Municipal
lighting
converted to
LEDs
100 2025 96% On track
27.10 Action M5.1 - Decarbonize
municipal fleet by 2035
% Municipal
fleet
decarbonized
100 2025 6%
Not on track but compliance
with state rules will accelerate
progress starting in 2025 and
grant will enable progress to
10% by 2028
Action M5.3 - Procure 100
percent renewable diesel as a
transition fuel until complete
fleet electrification in 2035.
% of municipal
fleet fuel
purchased that
is renewable
diesel
100 2025 57%
6% decrease from 2023 (63%)
due to more unleaded fuel
vehicles than diesel vehicles
during this year as compared to
prior year
*Measure T-1: Implement
programs for active
transportation (walking and
biking) that achieve 23% of
bicycle mode share by 2030
and 30% by 2035.
% of Passenger
Transportation
by Bicycle (%)
23 2023 66%
Baseline was 19.5% (2019).
In 2023 (latest year data
available) at 15.2%; active
mode shifts have not recovered
yet from pandemic reductions
due to increased
telecommuting
*Measure T-2: Implement
programs for public
transportation that achieve
8% of public transportation
mode share by 2030 and 12%
by 2035.
Percentage of
Passenger
Transportation
by Public
Transit (%)
8 2023 60%
Baseline was 7% (2019).
In 2023 (latest year data
available) at 4.8% (up from
4.1% in 2022); increased
telecommuting from pandemic
caused reduction in transit and
active transportation mode
shares
*Measure T-4: Increase
passenger electric vehicle
(EV) adoption to 35% by
2030 and 40% by 2035.
Electric
Vehicle
Adoption as
Percentage of
Passenger Fleet
(%)
35 2025 14.6%
In 2024, 4%
Currently at 5.1 o 2025%
(3,449 vehicles of 67,376)
*Action T4.1 - Increase the
number of public electric
vehicle (EV) chargers
installed to support EV
adoption goal - Install at least
1,247 new public EV
charging stations prioritizing
frontline neighborhood and
high usage areas by 2030.
Funding: Taxes, Fees,
Private, Grants,
Grants/Accelerator, Bonds,
Private
Total Public
EV Chargers
Installed
1,247 2025 9.8%
Currently
122 (up from116 EV charging
stations in 2024).
Not on track; substantial
increases expected in 2026
onward due to Central Coast
Community Energy investment
and grants pending
*Measure T-5: Increase
commercial EV adoption to
25% by 2030 and 35% by
2035.
Electric
Vehicle
Adoption as
Percentage of
Commercial
Fleet (%)
25 2025 4%
Not on track
1% of all commercial vehicles;
18 vehicles of 1,871
27.11 *Measure T-6: Electrify or
otherwise decarbonize 50%
of off-road equipment by
2030 and 75% by 2035.
Percentage of
off-road
equipment
decarbonized
50 -- --
data unavailable but recent
adoption of gas leaf blower ban
will increase electrification of
offroad equipment
Measure W-2: Reduce
organic waste by 75% by
2030 and 90% by 2035; and
reduce inorganic waste by
35% by 2030 and 40% by
2035.
Metric Tons of
Organic Waste
Diverted per
Service Person
(MT)
0 2023 65%
Metric no longer appropriate.
Metric will be revised as part
of 2026-2029 workplan since
organic waste collection is now
increasing due to state law
* Indicates a High Impact Measure in terms of emissions reduction potential.
27.12 1
City of Santa Cruz
Climate Action Plan 2030 -
Proposed 2026-2029
Implementation Workplan
Revised: 12/16/25
Community Activities and Activities with Community Impact (*high emission reduction action and “+” indicates Spanish speaking resident priority) +*Leverage Affordable Housing Development to advance other active transportation improvements around development sites: New construction provides the opportunity to improve multi-modal mobility (e.g., transit, the existing infrastructure immediately surrounding the area to include better sidewalks and bike lanes and more bike shares and bike parking). • Co-benefits: Public health and safety
• Community Partners: Housing developers, Ecology Action, Bike Santa Cruz County • Timeline: ongoing
• Responsibility: Economic Development, Planning, Public Works Department • Cost: staff time, TBD $
+*Remove parking in favor of multimodal improvements, e.g., bike lanes, transit improvements; Implement bus rapid transit along Soquel Avenue: Use parking spaces along roads to implement protected bike lanes that offer more space and safety for cyclists and safer sidewalk and intersection designs for pedestrians.
• Co-benefits: Public health and safety
• Community Partners: Ecology Action, Bike Santa Cruz County, Center for Aging • Timeline: ongoing
• Responsibility: Planning Department, Public Works Department • Cost: staff time, TBD $
+*Adopt and conduct outreach on energy efficiency ordinances for new building construction and existing multi-family (MF) renovations. Consider exterior luxury load fee to disincentivize excessive exterior energy loads (e.g., natural gas spas, pools, fireplaces, and outdoor heaters).
New construction and multi-family renovation projects are key opportunities to implement efficiency measures into local buildings. Luxury energy loads waste energy and should be discouraged. The City and its partners will conduct outreach on the new rules, the benefits of energy efficiency measures and the incentives available. • Co-benefits: Public health and safety, cost savings, jobs • Community Partners: Central Coast Community Energy, Ecology Action, building owners
• Timeline: Adopt ordinances in 2026; consider fee in 2027; conduct outreach 2026+ • Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Planning Department, Economic Development • Cost: Staff time, consultant time covered by Central Coast Community Energy
27.13 2
*Complete revision to and implement Active Transportation Plan, complete Rail Trail paths, and complete at least one bulb-out traffic calming pilot project.
View current Active Transportation Plan here. The City is in the process of updating the Active Transportation to align with current goals, opportunities and community priorities. The final segments of the Rail Trail within the City limits are funded for completion to provide cross-city bike and pedestrian access. Bulb-outs are a traffic calming measure whereby adding curb extensions at intersections to reduce cross-walk distances, pedestrians are more visible and vehicles move more slowly. Bulb-outs are also key sites for tree planting (another climate action).
• Co-benefits: Public health and safety, resilience
• Community Partners: Ecology Action, Bike Santa Cruz County • Timeline: Plan adoption in 2026; Rail Trail completion in 2028; Bulb-out Completion in 2027
• Responsibility: Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation • Cost: Staff time, Grant covering ATP development; Rail Trail construction funded by various grants; Bulb out pilot $20,000
+*Pursue funding to incentivize commercial electric vehicle (EV) fleets and electric car share and provide education on available funding: The City will work with commercial fleets (e.g., car rentals, schools, delivery companies, construction firms, food and beverage distributors, health case services, transit like LiftLine) to electrify their vehicles and access incentives available to do so. Pursue grants to facilitate the transition to EVs by certain business sectors as funding in available.
• Co-benefits: Public health, cost savings
• Community Partners: Commercial fleet owners
• Timeline: 2028-2029
• Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Economic Development • Cost: Staff time; TBD $
*Reassess exemptions to ordinance banning gas leaf blowers and consider other limiting other gas landscaping equipment: Consider eliminating exemption for properties of 10 acres or more from the ordinance prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers. As the State of California continues to phase out the sale of gas-powered landscaping equipment, conduct outreach with the community and consider adopting ordinances banning the of other gas-powered landscaping equipment.
• Co-benefits: Public health and safety
• Community Partners: Landscapers, Day Labor Center/County, Property Owners • Timeline: Reassess gas leaf blower ban exemptions in 2026; consider banning other equipment in 2027-2029.
• Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Planning, Parks and Recreation • Cost: Staff Time; minor General Fund for outreach
+*Advocate for state and federal regulatory and legislative changes to enable neighborhood electrification, community solar, and energy rate stabilization: Local governments collectively have a powerful voice in advancing climate supportive policies. As gas infrastructure becomes older and more expensive, policies that facilitate neighborhood
27.14 3
electrification will facilitate emissions reductions while making neighborhoods safer. Policies to make it easier and more cost effective to install solar power will enable residents, businesses, and renters to benefit from solar. It is important that electricity prices are affordable to ensure the transition to electrification and solar are cost effective. Planning and implementation of community solar projects and neighborhood electrification pilot projects (with implementation funded by investor- owned utilities required by state) will demonstrate cost effective ways to rapidly draw down emissions at scale while improving public health and safety. • Co-benefits: Public health and safety, cost savings, jobs • Community Partners: Central Coast Community Energy Climate Advocacy groups, Local Government Climate Policy Alliance, Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group, solar advocates
• Timeline: Ongoing 2026-2029
• Responsibility: City Manager’s Office
• Cost: $5,000 membership to Local Government Climate Policy Alliance, portion of existing state advocate retainer
Plant 1,000 Trees by 2030: Trees sequester carbon and the City is implementing its Street Trees Master Plan. CAP 2030 calls for an Urban Forest Master Plan. Tree mitigation is required in new developments and tracked by the Planning Department. The Water Department also plants trees regularly at their properties
• Co-benefits: Resilience, quality of life
• Community Partners: community groups
• Timeline: 2026-2030
• Responsibility: Parks and Recreation; Planning Department; Water Department • Cost: Staff time; Requires replacement of USDA grant ($2M) +Complete 2025 Community wide GHG emissions Inventory, update the Climate Action Plan and Update General Plan to include CAP 2030: The City conducts a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory every 3 years to assess our local GHG emissions trajectory, the impact of implementing climate actions and progress towards meeting goals. The Climate Action Plan 2030 was adopted with the direction to update the plan in 2026-2027. The update is not intended to be an entirely new climate action plan development process but rather is intended to comprehensively assess progress, update measures and actions to reflect current legislation, technological advances and funding opportunities.
• Co-benefits: Education
• Community Partners: Climate Advocacy groups, community • Timeline: 2027-28
• Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Planning
• Cost: Staff time; The update will require up to $75,000 to be budgeted for FY 27 or done internally.
+Expand food recovery with food service policies: Improve the citywide composting program, making it easier for businesses and households to compost. Implement programs to help grocery stores and restaurants to limit food waste. Conduct education on the importance of food waste prevention and recovery as a means to eliminate food insecurity. • Co-benefits: Cost savings
27.15 4
• Community Partners: Commercial businesses, homeowners and renters. • Timeframe: 2026 – 2029
• Responsibility: Public Works Department; Economic Development (outreach) • Cost: Staff time, TBD $
Develop Community Resilience Centers projects and conduct neighborhood community resilience workshops: Community resilience can be built by conducting outreach to connect residents with resources to help them prepare and respond in the case of an emergency or disaster. Likewise, community resilience centers serve as hubs for resilience education, act as a distribution center for air purifiers, emergency radios, water and other supplies, and when part of a renewable energy microgrid, can provide power and other services for residents in the event of an emergency or disaster.
• Co-benefits: Education, resilience, public health and safety • Community Partners: Ecology Action, Libraries, Emergency Services, CERT, other nonprofits and social services organizations.
• Timeline: Gather information and interest in 2026; Develop concept and pursue funding in 2027, design and construct/retrofit buildings in 2028+ • Responsibility: City Manager’s Office, Fire Department, Economic Development • Cost: TBD but grant funds will be pursued in 2026
Implement and secure future funding for continuing Monterey Bay Green Youth Service Corps: The City is the lead agency with 4 nonprofits on a grant from California Vounteers to hire 107 youth ages 16-30 years old for full time benefitted jobs in energy, climate education, food insecurity and restoration through the end of 2026. The City has hired two youth fellows through this funding. The City has applied for California Volunteers funding to continue the Monterey Bay Green Youth Service Corps through 2027 and expand to include other nonprofits.
Green jobs are an enabling condition to facilitate the implementation of actions that have high impact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Co-benefits: Public health and safety, resilience, jobs, education • Community Partners: Ecology Action, Food What?!, Watsonville Wetlands Watch, Central Coast Energy Services
• Timeline: Implement current grant funded activities through 2026; Apply for continuation grant in 2025; Administer continuation grant, if awarded, in 2027-2028 • Responsibility: City Manager’s Office (could involve PR, PW) • Cost: staff time; Grant is $2M
Internal Municipal Activities:
The City’s 2026-2029 Proposed Climate Action Workplan also includes 16 activities that will enable better integration and normalization of sustainability practices and efforts through the organization along with 5 specific change management best practices.
Responsibility: City Manager’s Office and all departments • Fund and complete municipal facility decarbonization roadmap (PW, CMO, all); Install battery storage systems at City facilities (London Nelson, Fire Station 2 and Fire Admin (CMO/PW/PR/FD)
27.16 5
• Refine / Develop travel policies and remote work program plan with milestones + evaluate co-working sites (IT + HR)
• Evaluate purchasing 100% RE for municipal accounts to reach climate goals on a municipal level (PW, all)
• Revise fleet electrification and implement fleet, public and employee charging planning and installation (PW)
• Implement electric 1st fleet policy to meet Advanced Clean Fuel Rules; Implement California Air Resources Board Greenzones grant for fleet electrification, charging and community of practice training (FN, PW)
• Integrate sustainability Champion into employee recognition awards (HR) • Embedding sustainability checklist into all calendar invites for conference rooms as a default/promote to administrative services (IT)
• Hire Energy Manager and evaluate need for environmental compliance staffing (PW/CMO)
• Keep apprised of Environmental and Energy Cost Impacts with use of AI (IT/CMO) • Develop sustainability micro trainings and promote revised Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (CMO, FN, IT)
• Integrate equity and sustainability into new employee orientations, supervisory and leadership trainings, and self evaluation performance review form (HR) • Implement fossil fuel divestment policy, Integrate CAP into Master Investment Strategy, Financial Plan Development, Master Fee and Cost Evaluation Study as opportunities arise. (FN)
• Develop new permit tracking software to include CAP 2030 tracking (eg, CEQA streamlining, trees, solar, all electric bldgs., etc).(PL, IT) • Allocate portion of annual CIP budget for projects that implement climate action. (FN)
Municipal Change Management Activities:
• Workplans & Budgets: Include CAP 2030 activities in annual departmental planning and budget cycles
• Meeting Integration: Discuss ownership, progress, and barriers regularly in all-hands, departmental, division and other team meetings
• Staff Development: Commit to employee CAP 2030 literacy onboarding training and support ongoing training for all staff
• Procurement Alignment: Train staff and integrate new Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EP3) into purchasing and contracting practices
27.17 6
• Value CAP 2030 Staff Time Accordingly: Assign a departmental representative, recognize the leadership of departmental Sustainability leads and empower Sustainability Team members to serve as a departmental resource to ensure departmental engagement in meeting workplan goals. In future compensation discussion, consider stipend for Sustainability Team members, in alignment with peer agencies.
27.18 1
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS – POLICY PRIORITIZATION REPORT (2026–2029)
Report prepared by Ventures
Executive Summary
This report summarizes findings from three Spanish-language community listening sessions conducted in fall 2025 to inform the City of Santa Cruz’s three-year workplan. A total of 33 residents participated, ranking policy actions most important to their families and neighborhoods.
Sessions were facilitated in Spanish by local Promotoras from Alcanza to ensure cultural and linguistic accessibility. Participants identified priorities around affordable housing, transportation, workforce development, and environmental sustainability, focusing on issues that directly affect their daily lives. Their input highlights the importance of centering Spanish-speaking residents in civic planning and maintaining culturally grounded engagement as the City establishes funding priorities for the next three years.
Methodology
Three virtual listening sessions were held via Zoom and conducted entirely in Spanish. Each session was facilitated by at least two community health workers (Promotoras) from Alcanza, a local cooperative of trusted Spanish-speaking community leaders. Their deep relationships, cultural awareness, and language accessibility ensured that the sessions were sensitive, relevant, and comfortable for participants. All participants were residents of the City of Santa Cruz and were recruited through trusted local partners.
During the sessions, participants reviewed and ranked two sets of policy actions: 12 focused on Climate Action and 10 on Health in All Policies. They used a 1 to 5 scale to rate each action based on its importance to their families and community. In total, 33 residents participated. Data were collected through pre-session surveys, in-session polls, and postdiscussion debriefs. Participants also shared qualitative feedback about how these policies affect their lives. The team analyzed both quantitative results and qualitative insights to identify shared themes and priorities.
Participant Demographics
Of the 33 participants, 29 identified as female and 4 as male. Most were between 30 and 49 years old. One participant was under 20, six were between 20 and 29, eleven were between 30 and 39; twelve were between 40 and 49, and three were between 50 and 59. There were no participants over 60.
Only three participants reported prior knowledge of the initiatives discussed, while the others were learning about them for the first time. This reflects significant progress in reaching new residents, particularly those from Spanish-speaking and working-class communities that have been historically underrepresented in city engagement processes.
27.19 2
Policy Priority Rankings Results
Across all three sessions, participants showed clear and consistent priorities. In the Climate Action category, the top-ranked items centered on transportation, food access, and clean energy, with Active Transportation and Rail Trail / Traffic Calming, Expand Food Recovery Programs, and Neighborhood Electrification / Energy Efficiency consistently appearing in the top three.
Similarly, in the Health in All Policies category, Equitable and Sustainable Housing ranked first every time, followed by Job Fairs and Workforce Development, Citywide Accessibility, and the CORE Report. Together, these patterns show strong consensus that housing stability, economic opportunity, and accessible infrastructure are the most impactful healthrelated policy directions for the City. The next three pages illustrate each group’s rankings, with priorities listed from most to least important.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Gender
F M
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
<20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
Age Distribution
27.20 3
27.21 4
27.22 5
27.23 6
Climate Action Priorities Analysis
Rank Policy Action
1 Active Transportation and Rail Trail Improvements
2 Food Recovery and Food Service Policies
3 Electrification and Neighborhood Energy Programs
4 Climate Transportation Integration (Multimodal, Bus Rapid Transit) 5 Affordable Housing Development Linked to Transportation Improvements Discussions about climate action showed that participants preferred visible, neighborhoodlevel improvements over broad or abstract environmental goals. Residents expressed greater enthusiasm for policies they could experience directly, such as safer walking routes or food recovery programs. Infrastructure or regulatory actions felt distant without context or examples.
Participants repeatedly asked for Spanish-language explanations, visuals, and communityled demonstrations to make climate policy more relatable. When facilitators linked policies to tangible benefits, such as lower household energy bills or safer routes to school, participants showed more interest by asking questions and sharing with the group. This demonstrates that the barrier to engagement is not lack of interest but lack of accessible communication and perhaps a space to have these discussions. “…But I know that many people have not had the information or have not heard about it. Because there has not been… that outreach… and it has not really been heard in local media, much less.… And if it has been shared in the media, it is in English… not in the media where people speak Spanish.”
-Participant, translated from Spanish to English for this report Health In All Policies Priorities Ranking Analysis
Rank Policy Action
1 Equitable and Sustainable Housing Policies
2 Youth Workforce Development and Trades Fairs
3 Accessibility and Disability Infrastructure
4 Homelessness and Health Campus Expansion
5 Civic Engagement and Representation Programs
Housing emerged as the most urgent and consistent issue, viewed as both a health and equity priority. Participants linked housing access to mental health, family stability, and financial pressure, often describing the difficulty of finding affordable rentals and the stress of overcrowded living conditions. Youth employment and job training followed as major themes, seen as essential for economic mobility and family well-being. Accessibility and unhoused individuals were discussed with empathy and practicality, with participants emphasizing that improving sidewalks, lighting, and ramps benefits everyone, and that care-centered approaches to homelessness support the entire community.
27.24 7
Civic engagement ranked lowest, not due to disinterest but because residents were unsure how to participate. Several expressed confusion about city processes, describing them as distant or overly formal, especially for Spanish-speaking residents. “There is a lot of need for housing, but unfortunately… how can I say it… there are people like us who work, both partners, the husband and the wife, but we still do not earn enough to buy a house. And at the same time, you are not starving or struggling enough to qualify for low-income housing. So you end up in this limbo… neither one thing nor the other.”
– Participant, translated from Spanish to English for this report Key Themes Emerging from All Sessions
When viewed together, both policy sets reveal consistent community priorities. Residents prioritize immediate, tangible needs such as housing, transportation, and safety as the foundation for long-term stability. Practical solutions that improve daily life were favored over technical or abstract policy language. Participants expressed a strong desire to collaborate with the city, provided that communication is clear, bilingual, and followed up consistently.
There was clear overlap between climate and health priorities. Actions such as food recovery, safe transportation, and integrating energy efficiency into housing resonated most because they connect environmental goals to economic and social wellbeing. Participants across sessions called for more promotion through Spanish-language media, clearer explanations of policies, and visible Latine participation in planning processes. Many said that they trust City initiatives when they are informed early and in their own language. “Another thing that is important is that there are many resources we do not know exist. And because of that… because we do not ask for them, sometimes they are taken away, because no one requests them. So, it is also about… being well informed.” – Participant, translated from Spanish to English for this report Across all sessions, most participants had not previously heard about many City initiatives, especially climate related ones described with technical language such as multimodal improvements or electrification, while health and housing actions were more familiar because they relate directly to daily life. Although initial understanding was limited, participants became strongly engaged once policies were clearly explained and quickly recognized how these efforts connect to mobility, affordability, and health, showing that the barrier is communication rather than interest. Based on these discussions, the project should allocate sufficient funding and time for outreach and engagement at the earliest stages of planning to ensure that community members are informed, included, and able to build long term buy in, alongside expanded Spanish language media coverage and greater Latine representation in City planning.
27.25 8
Conclusion
The listening sessions demonstrate that Spanish-speaking residents in Santa Cruz are eager to help shape City policies when engagement is culturally accessible and inclusive.
Participants consistently prioritized housing, transportation, and safety as the foundations of community wellbeing. They also identified key barriers to participation, including limited awareness of opportunities, overly technical language, and a lack of representation in early decision-making stages. Participants felt comfortable sharing personal experiences, supported by the trusted presence of Alcanza’s Promotoras, whose relationships and cultural awareness strengthened the dialogue.
When given space to engage and clear information, participants connected strongly with both climate and health policy goals. Their feedback demonstrates readiness for deeper collaboration and offers concrete pathways to strengthen equity in City planning. Future engagement should focus on simplifying policy language, developing visual and bilingual materials, and building partnerships with trusted community organizations. By embedding equity and inclusion into every phase of planning, the city can ensure its next workplan reflects the lived experiences and priorities of all residents.
Acknowledgements
• City of Santa Cruz Staff – Tiffany Wise-West and William Kelley for their partnership, commitment to community-driven policy development, and support throughout the process.
• The Alcanza Cooperative – for their leadership and cultural expertise in guiding the facilitation of the listening sessions.
• Futuro (Ventures) – for co-coordinating outreach, logistics, and overall project support in alignment with the City’s equity and engagement goals. • Ventures Power and Community Building Team – for training, data analysis, and ensuring that community voices were accurately represented in the findings. • Community Participants – the 33 Spanish-speaking residents of Santa Cruz who generously shared their time, experiences, and insights.
27.26 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/23/2025
AGENDA OF: 01/13/2026
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Terminate Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Contract; Cease ALPR Use; Direct Conditional Return Only if a Fully-Vetted, Values-Aligned ALPR Alternative is Identified (CN)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Terminate the City’s contract with, and discontinue use of, Flock Safety ALPR services effective immediately and direct the City Manager/City Attorney to provide the necessary notice; and
2) Direct staff to return to City Council with a recommended approach for reinstituting ALPRs, only if and when a viable option is identified, including:
a. Recommended vendor/system that provide stronger local controls; and b. Recommended contract and policy safeguards to ensure system transparency, protect civil liberties, and reduce cybersecurity risks, including strict controls on data access/sharing and independent auditability.
BACKGROUND: The City implemented ALPR technology to support public safety investigations and improve the efficiency of identifying investigative leads. The City also has a responsibility to ensure surveillance technologies are governed in a manner consistent with Santa Cruz values, including privacy, civil liberties, transparency, and public trust.
Over the past year, Flock Safety’s ALPR platform and networked data-sharing practices have become the subject of heightened controversy nationwide, including concerns that Flock’s ALPR data can be accessed or used in ways that exceed local intent, and that external agencies may seek access for purposes that conflict with local values and policies, particularly immigration enforcement concerns.
In addition, the current federal administration has increased community concern that surveillance datasets, if shared or accessed outside strict local controls, could be used in ways that intensify fear and chill community participation in public life, with disproportionate impacts on immigrant communities.
28.1 City staff have been working on a contract amendment to reduce risk; however, this Council action proposes that risk cannot be adequately mitigated under the current vendor relationship and federal administration, and that a pause is warranted to reassess vendor selection and safeguards.
DISCUSSION: Recent events in other jurisdictions have reinforced local concerns about Flock Safety, vendor governance and operational control. For example, the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts terminated its Flock ALPR contract after concluding concerns were substantiated when Flock technicians installed cameras without the City’s awareness following a pause/deactivation.
Separately, ongoing litigation and investigative reporting in California continues to amplify concerns about ALPR systems as large-scale location surveillance and about cross-jurisdictional access inconsistent with local rules, including immigration-related access concerns.
Flock states that customers control data sharing (including 1:1, geographic radius, or statewide sharing). However, recent reporting and advocacy have questioned whether settings, contracts, and multi-agency practices sufficiently prevent problematic access in all cases, particularly when data is shared onward by other agencies.
This motion is not a statement against the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) or against ALPRs as a tool. The undersigned Councilmembers recognize that ALPRs can materially improve investigative efficiency and help solve crimes, especially for time-sensitive investigations and vehicle-related crimes. The undersigned Councilmembers also recognize that eliminating ALPRs will reduce investigative efficiency and effectiveness, creating additional burden for an already under-resourced department. At the same time, public trust is a core component of effective public safety, and continued use of a vendor whose governance model is widely contested may undermine that trust.
The undersigned Councilmembers recommend staff explore other ALPR options and prepare a report that evaluates those ALPR options and recommends a system and safeguards that demonstrate enforceable local control, including:
Vendor/system recommendation with comparative analysis (capabilities, costs, governance model, security posture, and local control); Policy safeguards (purpose limitation, minimization/retention, access controls, logging, supervisory review, training, sanctions);
Contract safeguards (no vendor secondary use; strict subcontractor controls; clear limits on sharing; audit rights; breach notification).
The Flock experience should be used to ensure that any ALPR contract considered in the future limits the risk of data sharing as much as possible, including by prioritizing enforceable local control and the strongest available restrictions on access and sharing.
The conditional return report should be provided by staff only at which time a viable option is identified, fully evaluated and is demonstrated to meet the City’s expectations for data governance, privacy/civil liberties protections, transparency, and enforceable limits on access and sharing. The undersigned Councilmembers are hopeful that the issues surrounding Flock’s business practices will catalyze new opportunities for more values-aligned ALPR approaches that can be responsibly considered in the future.
28.2 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. This proposed action aligns with HiAP principles by balancing public safety benefits with equity, civil liberties, and community trust, particularly for communities that may be disproportionately harmed by inappropriate surveillance or data sharing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No
2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No
3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The Santa Cruz Police Department’s currently-existing, fully paid contract with Flock Safety ends on March 27, 2026. The contract allows for termination of the contract agreement with 30 days’ notice, which would bring the end of the contract to February 12, 2026. Police Department will not plan to further budget for the Flock Safety ALPRs unless, and until, Council approves of a viable option to move forward.
Prepared and Submitted By:
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Vice Mayor, District 3
Renee Golder
Councilmember, District 6
Susie O'Hara
Councilmember, District 5
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
28.3 Brittany Inclan
From: fred geiger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 4:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No flock cameras!!!
Pls stop the contract for spy cameras that are not - in spite of misleading promises- secure in the data collected.
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
28.4 Brittany Inclan
From: Susan Renison <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 3:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: End the Flock Safety contract
Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I add my voice to those asking for an end to the Flock Safety contract.
While the previous sharing of data was unintentional, it points to one of the built-in problems of this type of data which is that the data, once collected, becomes a tool for whoever can get access to it.
I urge an immediate end to the contract and a covering of the cameras until they stop being functional.
Sincerely,
Susan Renison
Santa Cruz, CA
28.5 Brittany Inclan
From: Kaitilin Gaffney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 3:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to Flock cameras
Dear Mayor Keeley and Members of the City Council:
I am writing as a 26 year resident of Santa Cruz, a homeowner, and a parent, to express my strong opposition to the continued use of Flock cameras in Santa Cruz.
I understand that this technology can provide important utility to law enforcement, but the risks of misuse of the data are simply too high and there is no ironclad way to prevent use of this data in ways that violate civil rights and the values of our community.
Please act immediately to end the City’s contracts with Flock.
Thank you,
Kaitilin Gaffney
179 Pryce Street
Santa Cruz, CA
95060
28.6 Brittany Inclan
From: Bob Lamonica <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 7:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: [SC4B AdvisoryTeam] Flock Safety cameras being installed across Shasta County FYI. Thank you. Bob
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bob Lamonica <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 6:37 PM
Subject: [SC4B AdvisoryTeam] Flock Safety cameras being installed across Shasta County To: SC4B Advisory Team <[email protected]> Michele Chandler
Redding Record Searchlight
Jan. 9, 2026, 4:04 a.m. PT
Two dozen automated surveillance cameras designed to help law enforcement officials investigate crime should be installed in various Shasta County locations by mid-January.
The automated license plate readers are expected to help the Shasta County Sheriff's Office investigate cases involving everything from arson, adults reported missing under suspicious or unexplained circumstances and child abduction reports, as well as reports of stolen vehicles and general crime.
Shasta County law enforcement is joining several thousand other communities in the U.S. that use Flock Safety’s license plate readers, which sit atop poles near neighborhoods, schools and shopping centers, snapping encrypted photos of passing vehicles.
How does the Flock Safety system work?
The Atlanta-based company's technology uses cameras to capture vehicle images and identify license plates which law enforcement officials can compare to their databases. After logging into a dashboard, police can enter a case number and search by the car's plate number, make, model and even bumper stickers or dents.
Similar systems are already in use in Anderson and Redding. Law enforcement agencies in Siskiyou, Trinity, Humbolt and Tehama counties are close to adding them, Lt. Kody Bodner of the Shasta County Sheriff's Office said recently.
Cameras are going up on the side of public roads in unincorporated Shasta County and the automated system can also be installed along private roads where the owner has given permission. Exact installation locations will not be given to discourage vandalism of the cameras, he said.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors authorized spending $550,000 for the program's five-year contract in November, the sheriff's office said. Funds from the 2023 Zogg Fire settlement with Pacific
28.7 Gas and Electric Co. is paying for the system, which could be another tool in an arson investigation.
Bodner said law enforcement officials could request information from the license plate readers to find out which vehicles were in an area at the time that a fresh fire was reported.Back in 2018, he said, having the technology could've helped more quickly identify a man who was ultimately convicted of setting a series of fires in Cottonwood: "We would've found that commonality of vehicles being driven way earlier in that process."
Can the public access information from Flock Safety cameras? Some organizations believe that the system can also be used to watch activists or people attending protests.
In November, the Electronic Frontier Foundation digital civil liberties nonprofit partnered with the ACLU of Northern California to file a lawsuit against San Jose and its police department, challenging warrantless searches of millions of ALPR records. Some communities have resisted the system, with cities from Austin to Evanston to Eugene canceling or refusing to renew their Flock contracts, according to the EFF.
Footage from the automated license plate reader system "will not be available for the public at any time outside any applicable Public Records Act request, as the information of vehicles is confidential," said sheriff's office spokesman Tim Mapes in an email.
Mapes added: "However, there is a portal being created via Flock Safety for the public to see our policy on ALRPs, what agencies the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office shares ALPR data with, and what officer conducted searches for."
Michele Chandler covers public safety, dining and whatever else comes up for the Redding Record Searchlight/USA Today Network. Accepts story tips at 530-338-7753 and at [email protected]. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SC4B Advisory Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sc4b[email protected].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sc4b-advisoryteam/069b7da9-9169- 4545-a07c-87878dc4e695n%40googlegroups.com.
28.8 Brittany Inclan
From: Nita nita <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 8:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Cancel FLOCK
Dear Council,
Why do we need surveillance in Santa Cruz? Are the benefits espoused by the police department really a justification for the kinds of abuses we are seeing throughout the nation? I think not. It's time to let go of this notion and move away from further harassment of our populations, whether immigrant or not.
Please vote to cancel our contract with FLOCK and put that money into other much needed projects, like day services for the homeless for example!
thank you,
Nita Hertel
831-345-7082
28.9 3
Jenna Shaffer
From: mary eriksen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: CANCEL FLOCK NOW
To all council members
I am shocked after living and working here for over 50 years that I even have to send this email demanding that you cancel Flock!!! You seemingly adopted a surveillance program without fully
understanding its data sharing complexities!!!! In todays world! Really?
You should have immediately known better if it was paid for by Homeland Security!!!
Santa Cruz residents DO NOT want to be recorded automatically without reason!!!! Let alone have their information shared potentially worldwide and in particularly the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! CANCEL FLOCK NOW!!!
I thought you were elected to protect us not hand us over on a money platter!!!
NO KINGS
ICE OUT 4 GOOD
PEACE and JUSTICE FOR ALL
Mary Eriksen
28.10 2
Jenna Shaffer
From: Dan Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Flock Surveillance Cameras
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my opinion that the city of Santa Cruz should terminate its current contract with Flock license plate surveillance cameras, and refrain from doing business with the company until they can guarantee privacy of the surveillance data and only lawful access to it. From what I have read in the news they do not currently have the ability, and maybe desire, to provide this guarantee.
My concern is only with the company, and not the Santa Cruz Police Department.
Sincerely,
Dan Chen
240 Walk Cir
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
28.11 1
Jenna Shaffer
From: Dusten Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Don't Cancel Flock Contract
Dear Council,
As a resident in the city I am more concerned with safety and supporting our Law Enforcement. I have had to call the police multiple times recently and giving them all the tools we need to enforce laws is my priority. I am aware there were some missteps in the program but these are far outweighed by the benefits.
Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St
Santa Cruz CA 95062
28.12 1
Jenna Shaffer
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 2:32 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Gabriela Trigueiro; Scott Newsome
Subject: 1/13/2026 Council Agenda Item#28: Terminate Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Contract; Cease ALPR Use;...
Re. 1/13/2026 Council Agenda Item#28: Terminate Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Contract; Cease ALPR Use;…
Esteemed Council and Mayor.
I want to be clear and direct. The FLOCK contract must be cancelled immediately. The potential harm from this surveillance system far outweighs minimal potential benefits. The contract cannot merely be amended because the only way to guarantee that the data is not misused is to not collect it in the first place.
Santa Cruz Police Department Policy (SCPD) 415 states:
"Prohibits ALPRs from being used for: 1) Immigration enforcement (Senate Bill 54) 2) Harassment or intimidation of protected classes 3) Reproductive or gender-affirming care enforcement 4) Personal use Non-evidential ALPR data can be stored for a maximum of 30 days" and that SCPD "Cannot share data with private, federal, and out-of-state entities (Senate Bill 34).” Yet Police Chief Escalante has said the City’s ALPR data has been seen by Federal agencies. To my knowledge SCPD nor Mike Gennaco and the OIRGroup that monitors SCPD policies, practices, and complaints has not publicly investigated these violations of State law and SCPD policy.
SCPD has explicitly allowed every law enforcement agency in California to access its Flock data. Every officer in every one of those agencies has the ability to search the database for any reason whatsoever. Multiple news reports and analyses have established that many agencies - including Capitola PD - have searched the database on behalf of ICE.
Unfortunately, and as SCPD knows, SCPD has no way of preventing "private, federal, and out-of-state entities" from accessing SCPD's Flock data once that data is captured by the FLOCK cameras.
Additionally it’s been reported that SCPD FLOCK data can be hacked from the dark web. The cameras and data are hackable.
The FLOCK cameras pick up bicycles and whatever else is around bedsides vehicle license plates.
The data has been misused and abused repeatedly, for example:
- to track ex-wives and girlfriends
- to track someone seeking an abortion
- to falsely accuse and violently detain people of crimes due to ALPR mistakes - to share information with ICE, CBP, and other immigration enforcement agencies
28.13 2
Law enforcement agencies can get access to the data by entering a general, misleading, or false reason for seeking access. There’s no accountability or verification process in order to access the data.
It is not physically possible to meaningfully review and address every request for the data, as there are too many requests.
FLOCK is openly working to create a national surveillance system (see recent contract with Ring/Amazon) with constant surveillance of everyone, everywhere.
All this means is there is really no way the city can protect us. Our goal as a community is for all our members, is to feel safe, to feel secure, and to feel our non-harmful daily activities are private. The FLOCK system does the opposite.
Many other jurisdictions are cancelling their contracts with Flock so Santa Cruz is safe from being a targeted leader.
Today let’s begin this first step to protect our community from mass surveillance by cancelling the FLOCK contract immediately, and do not stop until we take all the continuous steps to protect our community from mass surveillance.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Ron Pomerantz
28.14 3
Jenna Shaffer
From: Chris Krohn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 2:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 28, Jan. 13th agenda, please vote No on Flock contract Dear Mayor Keeley and City Councilmembers,
I appreciate the council making time for discussion of this important issue, Item 28 on the Jan. 13th city council agenda. Thank you.
I agree with the sentiment of the stated agenda item. Please cancel this contract and vote NO.
It’s important to cancel this contract because mass surveillance does NOT provide any real public safety. As we now know, it is too easy for this camera-collected information to fall into the hands of Homeland Security, ICE, and end up being used against our neighbors and fellow residents across the state of California.
I urge you to not vote on any other ALPR contract at this time. We need to come together as a community and engage more deeply in discussing the issue of surveillance, how it affects residents, and if any use of these cameras would be right for Santa Cruz. I do not believe they would be at all helpful at this time.
Again, I do not support any use of mass surveillance in the Santa Cruz community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for making time for this important discussion.
Sincerely,
Chris Krohn
—————————————
__________________________
28.15 4
Jenna Shaffer
From: Ami Chen Mills-Naim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 3:07 PM
To: Ron Pomerantz
Cc: City Council; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Gabriela Trigueiro; Scott Newsome
Subject: My last email? Terminate Flock Safety: All the Reasons Dear Council:
Well, I dearly pray, and I imagine you do too, that this is my last email to all of you for some time.
First, I want to thank those of you who worked very hard on creating the agenda item to cancel the Flock contract. I know this was challenging for some of you, maybe all of you, and I appreciate it greatly.
If you have any concerns, after having done months and months of research into this company, I can guarantee they are up to no good.
Please see this Community Voices piece in Lookout from yesterday, which lists all the ways Flock has broken state laws, the Constitution (IMHO), and exposed our personal travel data to bad actors, along with links to all sources. This Community Voices article includes supporters from across the county, the county DCC and elsewhere.
The simple fact that data appears to be hackable and available for sale on the dark web both seem like reasons to instantly cancel the contract and take the cameras down immediately. https://lookout.co/mass-surveillance-is-not-public-safety-santa-cruz-must-cancel-its-flockcontract/story If you do not have a subscription, use this link w/ no
paywall: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1dRAj_CkPGZ8LI3ON7JVRt0CH3supwhPU My belief is that the current administration and its tech supporters very much want to create a mass surveillance state. (Larry Ellison: "We will be monitoring everyone, everywhere.") We do not need to help them by welcoming supporting technology into our communities. We should, rather, be seeking every possible way to stop them and protect our privacy as securely as we can.
I do not know what kind of ALPRs would be immune to abuse, but I am happy to have these conversations with you, and organize others to do so, going forward.
PLEASE VOTE TO CANCEL THE FLOCK CONTRACT. And be advised that this is exactly when Flock gets very shady and may turn cameras back on (as they did in Eugene) or literally put them back up on poles (as they did in Evanston.)
Thank you so much, again.
28.16 5
Ami Chen Mills
Author, Coach and Trainer
www.AmiChen.com
Sign up for newsletter at link above.
Producer/Host for
Moment of Truth with Ami Chen Mills, at Apple, YouTube, Spotify ... And Substack (Moment of Truth Dispatch)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 2:32 PM Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]> wrote:
Re. 1/13/2026 Council Agenda Item#28: Terminate Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Contract; Cease ALPR Use;…
Esteemed Council and Mayor.
I want to be clear and direct. The FLOCK contract must be cancelled immediately. The potential harm from this surveillance system far outweighs minimal potential benefits. The contract cannot merely be amended because the only way to guarantee that the data is not misused is to not collect it in the first place.
Santa Cruz Police Department Policy (SCPD) 415 states:
"Prohibits ALPRs from being used for: 1) Immigration enforcement (Senate Bill 54) 2) Harassment or intimidation of protected classes 3) Reproductive or gender-affirming care enforcement 4) Personal use Non-evidential ALPR data can be stored for a maximum of 30 days" and that SCPD "Cannot share data with private, federal, and out-of-state entities (Senate Bill 34).” Yet Police Chief Escalante has said the City’s ALPR data has been seen by Federal agencies. To my knowledge SCPD nor Mike Gennaco and the OIRGroup that monitors SCPD policies, practices, and complaints has not publicly investigated these violations of State law and SCPD policy.
SCPD has explicitly allowed every law enforcement agency in California to access its Flock data. Every officer in every one of those agencies has the ability to search the database for any reason whatsoever. Multiple news reports and analyses have established that many agencies - including Capitola PD - have searched the database on behalf of ICE.
Unfortunately, and as SCPD knows, SCPD has no way of preventing "private, federal, and out-of-state entities" from accessing SCPD's Flock data once that data is captured by the FLOCK cameras.
Additionally it’s been reported that SCPD FLOCK data can be hacked from the dark web. The cameras and data are hackable.
The FLOCK cameras pick up bicycles and whatever else is around bedsides vehicle license plates.
28.17 6
The data has been misused and abused repeatedly, for example:
- to track ex-wives and girlfriends
- to track someone seeking an abortion
- to falsely accuse and violently detain people of crimes due to ALPR mistakes - to share information with ICE, CBP, and other immigration enforcement agencies Law enforcement agencies can get access to the data by entering a general, misleading, or false reason for seeking access. There’s no accountability or verification process in order to access the data.
It is not physically possible to meaningfully review and address every request for the data, as there are too many requests.
FLOCK is openly working to create a national surveillance system (see recent contract with Ring/Amazon) with constant surveillance of everyone, everywhere.
All this means is there is really no way the city can protect us. Our goal as a community is for all our members, is to feel safe, to feel secure, and to feel our non-harmful daily activities are private. The FLOCK system does the opposite.
Many other jurisdictions are cancelling their contracts with Flock so Santa Cruz is safe from being a targeted leader.
Today let’s begin this first step to protect our community from mass surveillance by cancelling the FLOCK contract immediately, and do not stop until we take all the continuous steps to protect our community from mass surveillance.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Ron Pomerantz
28.18 7
Jenna Shaffer
From: Maureen Farris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: the Flock contract vote
Hello City Council,
Please vote in favor of the resolution to cancel the contract with Flock Safety, because mass surveillance is NOT safety, and the people of Santa Cruz have not been consulted.
I do not approve of another ALPR system coming into our city. While voting for cancellation, please do not immediately vote to contract with another ALPR company.
24/7 ALPR cameras involve mass unwarranted surveillance, violate the Fourth Amendment, are being litigated, and have not been ruled as constitutional. I urge you to engage the community in a deeper dialogue around mass surveillance, the Fourth Amendment and consensual forms of crime prevention before considering another contract with any companies that provide surveillance technology or automated license plate readers.
Thank you!!
Maureen Farris
536 S Branciforte Ave, Canta Cruz CA 95062
"Be humble, be simple, and bring joy to others" ~ St. Madeleine Sophie Barat
28.19 8
Jenna Shaffer
From: Leslie Potenzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 5:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Cancel The Flock Contract!
Dear City Council,
I strongly urge you to cancel the Flock contract for the many reasons that make it very dangerous and harmful to everyone in the county.
And, I also urge you not to replace it with a different system of surveillance.
Thank you,
Leslie Potenzo
Santa Cruz County resident and small business owner
28.20 29.1
29.2 29.3
29.4 29.5
29.6 29.7
29.8 29.9
29.10 29.11
29.12 29.13
29.14 29.15
30.1 31.1
31.2 31.3
31.4 31.5
31.6 32.1