SANTA CRUZ — From approving a gas-powered leaf blower ban in the city of Santa Cruz to re-approving the Cruz Hotel project and placing a soda tax on the November ballot, the Santa Cruz City Council tackled numerous items at the body’ last meeting before a month-long summer break.
After approving the meeting’s consent agenda, which included items related to the restoration of West Cliff Drive and the Santa Cruz Wharf, among others, the City Council voted to unanimously adopt a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers, which will become effective Jan. 1, 2025.
The final adoption of the ordinance means that as of next year, property owners in the city are prohibited from using gas-powered leaf blowers on their property at any time. The property owner is also responsible for the use of the gas-powered devices on their property, despite the user, and will receive a warning for the first violation and escalating fines for subsequent violations. The use of gas-powered generators to charge batteries for an electric leaf blower is also prohibited in the ordinance alongside blowing debris and waste into a neighbor’s yard, street, sidewalk or storm drain.
Exceptions to the new ordinance include land parcels that are 10 acres or larger, discluding homeowners associations, and certain city parks such as DeLaveaga Park, Depot Park, Harvey West Park, Neary Lagoon, San Lorenzo Park, the Rail Trail, University Terrace Park, the Riverwalk and West Cliff are all exempt from the prohibition.
Following the second reading and final adoption of the ordinance, the Cruz Hotel project, which was approved by the City Council on March 26, was before the body again after three appeals were filed against the project to the California Coastal Commission. Appellants argue that the proposed six-story, 232-room hotel is not doing its fair share of on-site, low-cost visitor accommodations.
With the appeals in mind, the developer of the project, SCFS Venture LLC met with city staff and staff from the local California Coastal Commission staff to remedy the concerns of the appellants.
After the discussion, the developer agreed to modify the application and provide some additional benefits, which were included that standard double-occupancy low-cost rate rooms shall be made available for a minimum of 3,650 guest nights per year, and that low-cost room availability shall be evenly distributed across the four quarters of the fiscal year with a minimum of 912 rooms during any one quarter of the year, among others.
Another stipulation that the developer agreed to is to pay an in-lieu fee for low-cost visitor accommodations of $5 million, which was then revised after the agenda report was released last week.
“The discussion with Coastal Commission staff has been ongoing and as of even in the last few days and some revision to the conditional language was recently amended since the council packet went out,” said Santa Cruz Senior Planner Ryan Bane, at the meeting.
The changes to the original benefits include swapping out the condition that standard double-occupancy low-cost rate rooms shall be made available for a minimum of 3,650 guest nights per year, which is no longer a part of the conditions, for one that stipulates that no less than 10 lower-cost onsite rooms are made available daily and at rates no more than 75% of the cost of the average 2023 statewide summer season rate.
Another change came with how the in-lieu fee of $5 million will be distributed. Under the conditions, the funds would be used to develop low-cost overnight accommodations at the Greyhound Rock site, outside the city limits, which according to the applicant’s representative at the meeting was suggested by Coastal Commission staff.
The council approved the changes to the conditions of approval in a vote of 5-1 with Councilmember Sandy Brown voting no and Councilmember Sonja Brunner recusing herself.
One of the last actions of the City Council before its summer vacation began was the placement of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, or soda tax, on the Nov. 5 ballot. The general tax of 2 cents per fluid ounce will be paid by distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages, not consumers. The tax is estimated to generate about $1.4 million annually for the city’s general fund.
The process of placing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax goes back to 2018, and was halted by a state law. After Councilmember Martine Watkins and nonprofit Cultiva La Salud filed a lawsuit against the state, the court ruled that charter cities such as Santa Cruz cannot be financially penalized by the state for lawfully implementing a sugary drink tax, or soda tax, on residents.
Before the vote, Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley highlighted that councilmembers should be prepared for vehement opposition to the initiative by the sugar-sweetened beverage industry.
“We are obviously doing something that no city and no county has decided to do and we believe that if we do this and we prevail we may be the pointy end of the spear that allows other jurisdictions to do this,” said Keeley. “If I was the industry, any industry, fighting a little city, I would make it a resource mismatch and take it to the trial court, the appellate court, the court passed that and the court passed that, to see just how far I could go and whether this little city is going to blink.”
The City Council voted unanimously to place the tax measure on the November ballot.
To watch the meeting, visit cityofsantacruz.com.
