Santa Cruz County 2025-2026 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (6)

June 27, 2026 — The Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line

28 pages 17 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: The physical condition of the infrastructure on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, including embankments and bridges dating to the 1870s, has degraded over time. As a result, any e_orts to utilize the rail corridor face high costs for restoring and replacing degraded infrastructure. R1,

F2: The RTC’s history and culture are that of a planning agency. As a result, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission has performed a long series of planning studies that have focused on the potential uses of the rail corridor, with less focus directed towards managing the realities of the physical corridor and its associated infrastructure. R1, R2

F3: Early studies commissioned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission failed to accurately estimate the actual cost to build out passenger rail infrastructure along the rail corridor. As a result, significant decisions were made without a complete understanding of the cost to complete a passenger rail system. R1, R2

F4: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) lacks su_icient financial resources to accomplish all its transportation priorities and is typically reliant on grant funding to support its projects. As a result, the RTC must e_iciently manage project sequencing and contracting and be strategic about how it uses local transportation funding. R1, R2, R3

F5: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) lacks a unified strategic plan that lays out the commission’s vision for delivering capital projects and allocating limited local and grant funds. As a result, the RTC lacks a true north that it can refer back to when making these di_icult decisions. R3

F6: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and the larger community in Santa Cruz County have had many ideas for how to use the rail corridor, but no overarching vision. As a result, the RTC has been gripped by political paralysis, swinging back and forth as its political makeup has changed, rather than remaining directly focused on implementing a specific aspect of the project. R3

F7: The Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line traverses a narrow and geographically constrained route between Davenport and Pajaro Junction. As a result, there is limited space for construction of both rail and pedestrian infrastructure in the corridor and the cost to construct this infrastructure is elevated relative to otherwise comparable projects. R4

F8: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) purchased the rail corridor with Proposition116 funds allocated by the California Transportation (CTC), which was initially skeptical of the RTC e_orts to acquire the rail corridor and required additional documentation and assurances. As a result, the RTC agreed to plan for and work to implement rail along the SCBRL or return $11 million in Prop 116 funding used to purchase the corridor. R4

F9: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has operated under the assumption that the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line would eventually host both passenger rail and coastal rail trail infrastructure. As a result, the RTC has prioritized building trail segments in an “ultimate” configuration (trail next to rail) to reduce long-term costs associated with relocating the trail infrastructure to accommodate passenger rail instead of an “interim” alignment (trail over rail) that is less expensive in the short term. R4

F10: Inflation and unanticipated engineering requirements have dramatically increased cost estimates associated with building the “ultimate” configuration (trail next to rail). As a result, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has been forced to shift its focus to an “interim” alignment (trail over rail) for some segments to preserve grant funding that has already been allocated. R4

F11: The Zero Emissions Passenger Rail and Trail (ZEPRT) Concept Report, which marks the first study of passenger rail on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line to incorporate significant engineering rigor into its analysis, found the cost to build a passenger rail system of $4.3 billion to be an order of magnitude higher than previous estimates. As a result, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) and the larger community have been forced to re-evaluate the current feasibility of building a passenger rail system in Santa Cruz County. R5

F12: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) does not have direct experience building rail infrastructure. As a result, the RTC worked with outside rail transportation professionals to perform a peer-review on the Zero Emissions Passenger Rail and Trail (ZEPRT) Concept Report to provide subject matter expertise and advice. R5

F13: The property ownership experience and project capacity of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) sta_ at the time the RTC acquired the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line did not align with the requirements to maintain and build infrastructure on the rail corridor. As a result, the RTC relied on consultants and studies with insu_icient engineering scope as it worked to develop expertise, manage its obligations and plan for next steps. R6

F14: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) sta_ model has historically reflected its role as a planning agency rather than a project delivery organization. As a result, the RTC’s sta_ capacity was not aligned to its mandate to build infrastructure on the rail corridor. R6

F15: The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has historically failed to e_ectively communicate to the public complete and accurate information regarding the financial, engineering and legal challenges associated with building infrastructure on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, including during the 2022 Measure D election campaign. As a result, competing advocacy groups have produced misleading information, and the public has lacked a source for timely, objective, and authoritative information. R7

F16: The twelve-member board of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission has an even number of commissioners. As a result, the board is vulnerable to tied votes and deadlock, delaying proactive governance. R8

F17: The twelve-member board of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission draws its membership from a wide range of jurisdictions and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation District, as well as their alternates, often with competing agendas. As a result, it is di_icult to achieve consensus, build institutional knowledge, and make timely progress to utilize the rail corridor. R8

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) develop a Capital Project Advancement Framework for future major capital projects. The framework should define the information required before projects advance through major policy, funding, and implementation milestones and should require that cost estimates, schedule projections, contingencies and other key assumptions be accompanied by a clear assessment of their level of confidence and uncertainty. The RTC should direct sta_ to initiate development of such a framework no later than December 31, 2026, and present to the Commission no later than December 31, 2027.

R2: F2: The RTC’s history and culture are that of a planning agency. As a result, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission has performed a long series of planning studies that have focused on the potential uses of the rail corridor, with less focus directed towards managing the realities of the physical corridor and its associated infrastructure. R1, R2

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) direct sta_ to create and adopt a comprehensive strategic planning framework that establishes clear organizational priorities, decision-making criteria for evaluating major transportation investments, transportation assets, and policy decisions and guidance for resolving conflicts among competing transportation objectives. The RTC should direct sta_ to begin creating this strategic plan no later than December 31, 2026, and review and adopt the strategic plan by December 31, 2027.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) evaluate options for phased implementation of projects along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, including trail segments 13-20. This framework would investigate “interim”, “hybrid”, and “ultimate” trail configurations and apply these options to future design work, environmental review, and engineering. The RTC board should direct sta_ to incorporate these multiple options into planning and environmental documents no later than December 31, 2026.

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) follow best practices for complicated rail and trail projects by directing sta_ to follow the recommendations of the Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail Project peer review and continue to take advantage of opportunities to work with peer organizations. The RTC should commit to following these recommendations no later than December 31, 2026.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) direct the Executive Director to periodically review and reassess the organization’s structure to ensure that sta_ing reflects the combination of transportation planning and project implementation that currently represents the RTC portfolio. The RTC should do so no later than December 31, 2026, and every 3 years subsequently.

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) direct sta_ to develop a plan to strengthen public communication and ensure timely and accurate dissemination of information about RTC projects, with the goal of improving public understanding and reducing misinformation. The RTC should initiate this process no later than December 31, 2026.

R8: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) investigate options to change the makeup of the RTC board of commissioners. By ensuring an odd number of commissioners and reducing the total number of commissioners on the board, the RTC can better avoid deadlocks and delays. Changing the makeup of the board would require an act of the State Legislature. The RTC board should direct sta_ to begin assessing options and next steps no later than December 31, 2026. END NOTES 1 History of Rail Transportation in Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/Rail-Event-Timeline-Posters-final.pdf 2 RTC Sta_. (n.d.). The Coastal Rail Trail. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/623e54d528d5412fab0e60a998446579 3 Government Code - GOV TITLE 7.94. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [67940 - 67941]. (2001). California Legislative Information. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=67941.&nod eTreePath=31&lawCode=GOV 4 2016 Measure D: Transportation Improvement Expenditure Plan for Santa Cruz County Amendment 1. (2020). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/MeasureD-ExpenditurePlan.pdf 5 Measure D Transportation Sales Tax Taxpayer Oversight Committee Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2023/2024. (2025). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MD-Annual-Report-FY23-24- Final.pdf 6 State Approves $115 million for Coastal Rail Trail, Active Transportation in Santa Cruz County. (2022, December 7). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/state-approves-over-115-million-for-coastal-rail-trail- active-transportation-in-santa-cruz-county/ 7 RTC Receives $128.7 Million from State for Multimodal Projects Connecting Watsonville and Santa Cruz - SCCRTC. (2025, June 27). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/rtc-receives-128-7-million- from-state-for-multimodal-projects-connecting-watsonville-and-santa-cruz/ 8 Ortega, N. (2011, January 19-20). FINANCIAL ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL PROPOSITION 116 MASS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT. California Department of Transportation. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/FinalCTCapprovalProp116nSTIPjan2011_RBI_Tab25_2_6d_BI_rev.pdf 9 Remen, R.I. (2000, May 15). Letter from the Chair of the California Transportation Commission to SCCRTC Executive Director Linda Wilshusen. Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/CTCMay2000onProp116.pdf 10 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA (pp. 2– 3). (2012, June 14). Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2012-06-14-rtc-agenda.pdf#page=15 11 Ibarra, N. (2018, June 14). Progressive Rail contract approved in decision shadowed by rail- trail debate. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2018/06/14/progressive-rail-contract-approved-in- decision-shadowed-by-rail-trail-debate/ 12 Guzman, K. M. (2020, July 3). Rail operator could leave Santa Cruz County - Santa Cruz Local. Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://santacruzlocal.org/2020/07/02/rail- operator-could-leave-santa-cruz-county/ 13 Request for Proposals (RFP) 2607 for an Operator of Freight Rail Service on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line in Watsonville, California (pp. 48–51). (2026). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2026/01/RFP2607-Common-CarrierAttachments.pdf#page=51 14 Clark, M. (2025, November 30). Letter from Roaring Camp Railroads CEO to SCCRTC Commissioners. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/12/Handout-item-25.pdf#page=2 15 Regional Transportation Commission Formally Terminates Agreement with Progressive Rail. (2026, February 5). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/regional-transportation-commission-formally-terminates- agreement-with-progressive-rail/ 16 RTC Sta_. (2026). Approval of a Separation Agreement and Mutual Release with the current Rail Operator for the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) and for an Administration, Coordination, and License Agreement with a new Rail Operator over portion of the SCBRL (pp. 21–1 to 21-9). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-04-02-agenda- packet.pdf#page=240 17 Feasibility of Rail Passenger Service: Watsonville/Santa Cruz. (1983, February). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c96943c840b16870d5c01fe/t/686e99e132cb63720dd 421e3/1752078820802/1983-02-SCC-RTC-Feasability-Study.pdf 18 Brinckerho_, P. (1998, December 10). MTIS FINAL REPORT/SELECTION OF LOCALLY PREFERRED INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR THE WATSONVILLE JUNCTION TO SANTA CRUZ CORRIDOR. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/981210-MTIS-FinalReport- SlectofLocal-PreferredInvest.pdf 19 LS Transit Systems, DKS Associates, & Nelson/Nygaard. (1998, July). Around the Bay Rail Study. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and Transportation Agency for Monterey County. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/980700-AroundTheBayRailStudy.pdf 20 Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Acquisition - Due Diligence Docs. (n.d.). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/projects/rail/rail-line-purchase/ 21 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan. (2014, February 6). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/projects/trail/monterey-bay-sanctuary-scenic-trail/mbsst-master-plan/ 22 Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Rail Transit Feasibility Study Final Report. (2015, December). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RailTransitStudy_FullDoc.pdf 23 Kimley-Horn. (2019, December). FINAL Unified Corridor Investment Study. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/projects/multi-modal/unified-corridor-study/ 24 Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis & Rail Network Integration Study: Watsonville to Santa Cruz. (2021, February). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, in collaboration with Santa Cruz Metro and Caltrans. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TCAA-RNIS-Final.pdf 25 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Meeting MINUTES (pp. 6–10). (2021, April. 1). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Approved-Minutes-RTC- 04.01.2021.pdf#page=7 26 Munz, S. (2026, January 15). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Meeting Highlights. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1-15-2026-RTC-Meeting-Highlights- 1.pdf 27 Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail Project Concept Report. (2025, October 24). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/10/ZEPRT_Final_Project_Concept_Report_2025-10-24.pdf 28 RTC Sta_. (n.d.). The Coastal Rail Trail. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/623e54d528d5412fab0e60a998446579 29 Feasibility of Rail Passenger Service: Watsonville/Santa Cruz. (1983, February). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c96943c840b16870d5c01fe/t/686e99e132cb63720dd 421e3/1752078820802/1983-02-SCC-RTC-Feasability-Study.pdf 30 Whaley, D. (2026). Santa Cruz County Railroading since 1996. Santa Cruz Trains. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.santacruztrains.com/2016/06/santa-cruz-county-railroading- since-1996.html 31 Preston, G. (2021, September 2). Preservation of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (p. 20–2). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-09-02-RTC-agendapacket.pdf#page=131 32 Ibid. (p. 20-1) 33 Alta Transportation Consulting, Inc., & R.L. Banks Associates. (2002). Administrative Draft - Santa Cruz Branch Line Economic Analysis (p. 20). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/021104-EconAnal-SCBranchLine.pdf#page=20 34 Christensen, S. (2025, April 4). Contract TP2218 with Lotus Financial Solution, Inc. for Special Advisor Services (p. 1). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/SR-Special-Advisor- Services_COMPILED.pdf#page=1 35 Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis & Rail Network Integration Study: Watsonville to Santa Cruz (p. 5-27). (2021, February). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, in collaboration with Santa Cruz Metro and Caltrans. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TCAA-RNIS-Final.pdf#page=120 36 Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Rail Transit Feasibility Study Final Report (pp. 18-19). (2015, December). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RailTransitStudy_FullDoc.pdf 37 HMH. (2024, September 5). DRAFT Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Mobile Home Encroachment Removal Analysis. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SCBRL- MobileHomeEncroachment-RemovalOptions.pdf 38 Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Corridor Climate Resilience Study. (2026). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/projects/rail/scbrlclimatestudy/ 39 Commission Members. (n.d.). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/about/commission-members/ 40 Barrington, C. (2024, February 16). Friends of the Rail and Trail. KSQD Community Radio 90.7 FM Santa Cruz. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://ksqd.org/friends-of-the-rail-and- trail/#gsc.tab=0 41 Barrington, C. (2024, January 26). The Rail and Trail: 2006-2018 featuring George Dondero, John Leopold and Cory Caletti. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from KSQD.org. https://ksqd.org/the- rail-and-trail-part-2-2006-2018-george-dondero-john-leopold-and-cory-caletti/#gsc.tab=0 42 Our Plan. (n.d.). Santa Cruz County Greenway. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://sccgreenway.org/our-plan 43 Santa Cruz Local Sta_. (2022). Election Guide: Measure D in Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://santacruzlocal.org/measure-d/ 44 Hattis, P. K. (2023, August 15). Concept report studying zero emission rail in Santa Cruz County fully funded. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/08/15/concept-report-studying-zero-emission-rail- in-santa-cruz-county-fully-funded/ 45 Guzman, K. M. (2021, April 2). Santa Cruz County transportation leaders deadlock on passenger rail plan. Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://santacruzlocal.org/2021/04/02/santa-cruz-county-transportation-leaders-deadlock-on- passenger-rail-plan/ 46 National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI). (n.d.). U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://explore.dot.gov/views/NHIInflationDashboard/NHCCI_1?%3Aiid=1&%3Aembed=y&%3A isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_ share_link 47 Cannestra, B. S. (2025, December 5). Update: Santa Cruz transportation olicials pivot towards temporary trail design. Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://santacruzlocal.org/2025/12/05/santa-cruz-transportation-o_icials-pause-part-of- passenger-rail-project/ 48 Request for Proposals (RFP) 2603 for Professional Engineering Services: Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Coastal Rail Trail Southern Segments Project. (2025, December 3). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/RFP-South-County-CRT- PAED_Combined.pdf 49 Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). (update 2026, June 12). Caltrans. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-project-development- procedures-manual-pdpm?utm_source=chatgpt.com 50 Saleem, M. (n.d.). Design-Build vs. Progressive Design-Build: Addressing Key Dilerences and Common Misconceptions. Construction Management Association of America. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.cmaanet.org/sites/default/files/resource/Design-Build.pdf 51 CALTRANS PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (CMGC) PROJECTS. (2021). Caltrans. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/caltrans-cmgc-procedures_7-19-21-ada-compliant- a11y.pdf 52 Innovative Project Delivery Manual and Guidelines: Construction Manager/General Contractor, Progressive Design-Build, Design-Build. (2023, July). Illinois Department of Transportation. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idot/documents/transportation- system/planning/ipd/idot-ipd-guide_V1.1.pdf 53 Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis & Rail Network Integration Study: Business Plan for Electric Passenger Rail on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line – Draft (p.29). (2021, March). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20530702-passenger-rail-business-plan-santa- cruz-county-regional-transportation-commission-march-2021/#page=29 54 CALTRANS PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (CMGC) PROJECTS. (2021). Caltrans. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/caltrans-cmgc-procedures_7-19-21-ada-compliant- a11y.pdf 55 RTC to Consider Adoption of Final 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. (2026, May 21). Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://www.sccrtc.org/rtc-to-consider-adoption-of-final-2050-regional-transportation-plan/

June 22, 2026 — Santa Cruz County's Housing Crisis

19 pages 17 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: regulatory constraints that are most limiting to construction

F2: adjustments that would materially increase the number of units being built

F3: the extent to which the County’s current approach can actually achieve its housing targets The risks of inaction are substantial. Continued underperformance will expose the County to increasing State intervention, including further loss of discretionary control over land use decisions. More importantly, it will perpetuate the ongoing housing shortage which is already pricing out large segments of the County’s workforce and risks fundamentally altering the character of the community. The County faces a clear choice: it can continue to rely on a framework that achieves compliance on paper while falling short in practice, or it can take bold action to align its policies with economic reality and enable housing to be built at scale. The tools to do so are available. What is required is the willingness to act. Absent strong leadership willing to use the tools at their disposal, Santa Cruz County will continue to merely satisfy statutory requirements while failing to address the housing crisis confronting its residents and workers. FINDINGS

F4: F1. Over the past 40 years, the County of Santa Cruz has adopted land-use and growth- management policies designed to limit the pace and location of development. These policies have limited housing production, exacerbating severe housing affordability challenges for residents and workers who are increasingly priced out of living in the County.

F5: F2. Despite adopting a State-certified Housing Element, the County of Santa Cruz has fallen significantly behind on progress toward permitting sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County is unlikely to adequately address the housing needs of County residents and workers increasingly priced out of living in the County.

F6: F3. The County of Santa Cruz has failed to create a housing plan likely to generate sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County faces an increased risk of State-imposed consequences. 12

F7: F4. The County of Santa Cruz has not conducted and published a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis of housing development in the County. As a result, the extent to which zoned capacity will ultimately be converted into new housing units is not reliably known.

F8: F5. Because the County of Santa Cruz has not performed a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, the County lacks an important tool to identify and remedy regulatory constraints impeding its ability to achieve its housing goals.

F9: F6. The failure of the County of Santa Cruz to publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis means that the public is deprived of a concrete way to judge the County’s use of its regulatory power to address the housing crisis.

F10: F7. The County of Santa Cruz has not created an easily accessible public dashboard for tracking progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation. As a result, the public must piece together data from multiple sources to understand what progress is being made to meet the County’s housing goals.

F11: F1. Over the past 40 years, the County of Santa Cruz has adopted land-use and growth- management policies designed to limit the pace and location of development. These policies have limited housing production, exacerbating severe housing affordability challenges for residents and workers who are increasingly priced out of living in the County.

F12: F2. Despite adopting a State-certified Housing Element, the County of Santa Cruz has fallen significantly behind on progress toward permitting sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County is unlikely to adequately address the housing needs of County residents and workers increasingly priced out of living in the County.

F13: F3. The County of Santa Cruz has failed to create a housing plan likely to generate sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County faces an increased risk of State-imposed consequences. 12

F14: F4. The County of Santa Cruz has not conducted and published a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis of housing development in the County. As a result, the extent to which zoned capacity will ultimately be converted into new housing units is not reliably known.

F15: F5. Because the County of Santa Cruz has not performed a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, the County lacks an important tool to identify and remedy regulatory constraints impeding its ability to achieve its housing goals.

F16: F6. The failure of the County of Santa Cruz to publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis means that the public is deprived of a concrete way to judge the County’s use of its regulatory power to address the housing crisis.

F17: F7. The County of Santa Cruz has not created an easily accessible public dashboard for tracking progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation. As a result, the public must piece together data from multiple sources to understand what progress is being made to meet the County’s housing goals.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to take all steps necessary or appropriate to increase the likelihood that the number of housing units identified in the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation will actually be built.

R2: R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to conduct and publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis. We recommend the analysis: (i) determine how many housing units are likely to be built in the County of Santa Cruz during the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle; (ii) identify key local regulatory barriers to building; (iii) provide policymakers with recommendations regarding which changes to local regulations would spur actual construction; (iv) provide the public with reliable measurable information regarding the County’s progress toward, and commitment to, addressing the housing crisis. The analyses should be initiated no later than February 1, 2027, and completed and published by September 30, 2027.

R3: R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors (i) formally identify the recommendations it wishes to adopt from the comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, (ii) adopt those recommendations, and (iii) direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to implement the adopted recommendations. The Board of 13 Supervisors should do so no later than 90 days following completion of the analysis.

R4: R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to publish online the County’s Annual Progress Report (APR) once it has been submitted to the State. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to do so by December 31, 2026, and complete such publication for subsequent years no later than April 15th, 2 weeks after the APR is due to the State.

R5: R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to ensure that the existing affordable housing and major projects dashboards are updated quarterly. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to begin doing so no later than December 31, 2026.

R6: R6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to explore options for creating a single, regularly updated dashboard for all new housing units being developed in the County of Santa Cruz linking the newly permitted units to Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets that can utilize existing and future planning workflows. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to do so no later than December 31, 2026, and CDI should report back to the board on these options no later than April 1st, 2027.

June 17, 2026 — Walking in the County of Santa Cruz is Not for the Faint of Heart

16 pages 14 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: The County of Santa Cruz County has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.

F2: Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.

F3: The County of Santa Cruz does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.

F4: Because sidewalk repairs can be expensive, repairs may be delayed or hazards go unreported, resulting in dangerous sidewalks for pedestrians.

F5: Many pedestrians are unaware of how to walk safely, resulting in higher rates of pedestrians killed and seriously injured.

F6: The City of Watsonville has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.

F7: Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.

F8: The City of Watsonville does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.

F9: Law enforcement has prioritized enforcement of Driving Under the Influence laws over speeding violations, resulting in an imbalance that may lead to more pedestrian injuries and deaths.

F10: The City of Santa Cruz has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.

F11: Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.

F12: The City of Santa Cruz does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.

F13: Because sidewalk repairs can be expensive, repairs may be delayed or hazards go unreported, resulting in dangerous sidewalks for pedestrians.

F14: Law enforcement has prioritized enforcement of Driving Under the Influence laws over speeding violations, resulting in an imbalance that may lead to more pedestrian injuries and deaths.

Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors direct their Public Works Department to work with the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct the County Health Services Agency to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct their County Public Works Department to develop a policy to actively identify sidewalk hazards and markings with faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct their Public Works Department to create and publish a policy to financially assist homeowners with sidewalk repairs by June 1, 2027.

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct the County Health Services Agency to provide more public outreach to educate pedestrians on how to walk safely, including the hazards of walking while intoxicated, by March 1, 2027.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works and Police Departments to work with the County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works Department to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.

R8: The Grand Jury recommends the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works Department to enact a policy to annually review and identify sidewalk hazards and markings with faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.

R9: The Grand Jury recommends the Watsonville City Council direct the Chief of Police to annually review Office of Traffic Safety pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured data to ensure enforcement priorities are balanced based on the Vision Zero Plan. The annual review should be published and updated each year beginning June 1, 2027.

R10: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works and Police Departments to work with the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.

R11: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Dept. to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.

R12: The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Department to develop a policy to actively identify sidewalk hazards and faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.

R13: The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Department to create and publish a policy to financially assist homeowners with sidewalk repairs by June 1, 2027.

R14: The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct the Chief of Police to annually review Office of Traffic Safety pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured data to ensure enforcement priorities are balanced based on the Vision Zero Plan. The annual review should be published and updated each year beginning June 1, 2027.

June 30, 2025 — Human Trafficking in Santa Cruz County Voices Unheard, Signs Unseen

28 pages 13 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: There is currently no consolidated data being collected on Santa Cruz County human trafficking cases. This causes an understatement of the problem and makes it difficult for stakeholders to obtain additional funding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Department of Human Services should designate a qualified staff member to take the lead in forming a countywide human trafficking coalition, including the District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Office. Members should include stakeholders discussed in this report who are involved in the prevention and interdiction of human trafficking. The focus should include the consolidation of human trafficking data and the procurement of additional funds, potentially to fund law enforcement task forces. This should be completed by December 31, 2025. (F1,F2,F13)

F2: The potential passage of AB 379 may provide grants for the District Attorney’s Office for the prosecution of traffickers and grants for community-based organizations for direct services and victim outreach. This could provide the resources necessary to ultimately reduce human trafficking and reduce the likelihood of victims returning to trafficking.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The tri-county CSEC steering committee for the prevention of human trafficking has not met for a full year as of the publication of this report. Therefore, there is no active body that could potentially monitor trafficking cases across the tri-county area.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Program Manager of Family & Child Services should coordinate with Monterey and San Benito County peers for the purpose of reconvening the tri-county Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children steering committee. This team would meet regularly to review and track intercounty human trafficking cases and activity in our region and participate in regional prevention activities. This should be completed by December 31, 2025. (F3)

F4: The County Family & Child Services CSEC-required monthly multidisciplinary team meetings have not been held since November 2023, despite biennial reporting otherwise to the State Department of Social Services. Therefore, known cases of human trafficking have not been properly overseen.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Program Manager of County Family & Child Services should resume and maintain monthly multidisciplinary team meetings, required as a condition of receiving Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children funding, to review ongoing human trafficking cases and discuss other potential cases involving high-risk youth. This should commence by August 31, 2025. (F4)

F5: Staff and administration of the County Office of Education report they are not adequately trained and do not receive regular training regarding human trafficking as required by AB 1227. This is in spite of the fact that free training is available from local providers that could bring COE into compliance if enforced. This deficiency can lead to a failure in the staff’s ability to identify cases of trafficking.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The County Office of Education should come into compliance with AB 1227, providing human trafficking-related training, led by survivors, to students and staff as required. This should be completed by February 28, 2026. (F5)

F6: Very few businesses in Santa Cruz County are in compliance with SB 1193 signage requirements. This results in the reduction of community awareness of the problem and the likelihood that trafficking victims will be able to reach out for help.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should adopt an umbrella countywide ordinance requiring human trafficking signage currently mandated by the State to be part of all existing permitting and licensing procedures for affected businesses. This should be completed by June 30, 2026. (F6)

F7: Existing human trafficking signs at farm worker contractor sites are not readily accessible to farm workers and are in poor condition. This can result in farm workers being unaware of available resources and an inability to reach out for help.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner should come into compliance with SB 1193 by ensuring that existing human trafficking signs are refreshed annually. In addition, it should require all farm labor contractors to include the SB 1193 sign in employee handbooks for easy accessibility. A review for compliance should be done on an annual basis. This should commence by September 30, 2025. (F7)

F8: The mix of County and local municipal ordinances regarding the licensing and inspection of massage businesses varies, possibly causing confusion and inconsistent enforcement of existing regulations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should adopt a countywide ordinance regulating the licensing, employee certification, and inspection requirements for massage businesses consistent with California Massage Therapy Council certification and licensing requirements. This should be completed by June 30, 2026. (F8)

F9: Annual inspections are required of massage businesses in jurisdictions with massage business ordinances, but inspections are generally not being conducted. This can result in undetected human trafficking activity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Local law enforcement agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office, Santa Cruz Police Department, Scotts Valley Police Department, Capitola Police Department, and Watsonville Police Department, should enforce massage business licensing, certification, and inspection requirements. This should include compliance with SB 1193 signage requirements. Enforcement of existing ordinances should commence by September 30, 2025. However, if/when the Board of Supervisors agrees to the Jury’s recommendation to adopt a countywide ordinance, law enforcement should come into compliance with this new ordinance within 30 days of adoption. (F9)

F10: Calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline on existing signs have unacceptably long wait times and can result in a lost opportunity to assist human trafficking victims.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require that county-specific human trafficking awareness and support signs include at least one 24/7 local hotline number, and staff should collaborate with local non-profits providing support to human trafficking victims to develop an effective sign for countywide posting and distribution. This should be completed by June 30, 2026. (F10, F11)

F11: Local nonprofit organizations have 24/7 hotline numbers that are staffed, and calls can be answered immediately or within minutes, greatly increasing the likelihood of contacting victims and providing assistance in real time.

Related Recommendations (1)

F12: There has been a lack of human trafficking presentations to law enforcement. Local law enforcement jurisdictions could request the no-cost training that is available from local human trafficking service providers. This can lead to officers learning to identify human trafficking victims and reduce further victim trauma.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Each law enforcement agency in Santa Cruz County, including the Sheriff’s Office, Santa Cruz Police Department, Scotts Valley Police Department, Capitola Police Department, and Watsonville Police Department, should require law enforcement officers to receive an annual human trafficking awareness training, preferably led by human trafficking survivors. This should commence by December 31, 2025. (F12)

F13: Law enforcement task forces focused solely on human trafficking are very effective methods of detecting and preventing human trafficking activities. Such task forces could increase the rate of interdiction and the successful prosecution of human trafficking cases.

Related Recommendations (1)

June 23, 2025 — Navigating the Building Permit Process Again “Site Plans, Septics, and Plan Checks, oh my!”

24 pages 10 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Excessive delays in the building permit process increase costs to applicants in cash, time, and frustration.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The BoS should have staff review best practices from other jurisdictions and then select strategies that will reduce costs and delays in our county’s Permitting Services by January 1, 2026. (F1, F2, F7, F8)

R8: Santa Cruz County BoS should direct the Building Department and any other relevant departments to review the State code parameters that allow county adjustments for building permit fees and find the least-cost, least-delay alternative. Anything that can be free should be free. This recommendation should be accomplished by Jan 1, 2026. (F1, F2, F3)

F2: The permitting process has become so detailed and intricate that it often requires applicant homeowners to hire professionals to make submissions, thus increasing cost and time.

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: The BoS should direct staff to adopt software that removes barriers to applicants and is comprehensive to all departments. The software should flag any permits that have been unaddressed for longer than two weeks to avoid application delays. This recommendation should be accomplished by January 1, 2026. (F7,

R5: Santa Cruz County should develop a plan to educate the population about different permit types to reduce illegal builds through staff participation in community events, newspaper articles and/or other Unified Permit Center media involvements by Jan 1, 2026. (F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F10)

F3: Homeowners are often unaware that ordinary household maintenance requires a permit, leading them to unknowingly have the work performed illegally.

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: Santa Cruz County should establish a walk-up front desk service four hours per workday to assist home-owners, non-building professionals and small contractors navigate the permit process. This service should be posted on the website, implemented by Jan 1, 2026. (F3, F4, F5, F10)

F4: Some people willfully ignore obtaining a building permit because they think it's too costly, it takes too long, or they think they can’t get the improvement they want by obeying the law.

Related Recommendations (2)

F5: Ignoring obtaining building permits causes a loss of revenue for the County, both in one-time fees from permits and, more importantly, in ongoing tax revenue from improved property.

Related Recommendations (2)

F6: Professionals in the county can be difficult to find for a project because the permitting process is so difficult.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: Applicants have a hard time tracking their project’s progress because applications are not tracked end-to-end by permitting software.

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: The County of Santa Cruz should separate the Ombudsman duties from Manager of Unified Permit Center resulting in two separate positions: a full-time, dedicated Ombudsman and a full-time Manager. The resulting new staff position should be filled by June 1, 2026. (F7, F8)

R4: The Ombudsman function should be clearly identified and publicized to make the public aware of the additional customer services that position provides. This recommendation should be accomplished by June 1, 2026. (F7, F8)

F8: The services of an Ombudsman could be utilized by tradespeople and homeowners to make the permitting process smoother and less costly.

Related Recommendations (3)

F9: The BFCA Board was disbanded, and the Appeals process, as currently constructed, is little known, not staffed by trade professionals, and therefore an ineffective means for resolving disputed decisions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Santa Cruz County BoS should reconvene the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board, populated by seasoned building professionals, to adjudicate permit disputes quickly, publicly, and professionally, and with less cost. This recommendation should be accomplished by Jan 1, 2026. (F9)

F10: The DIYer and the small contractors need the support and/or instant answers they get from a knowledgeable staff person at the counter. However that service no longer exists.

Related Recommendations (2)

June 17, 2025 — Honoring Commitments to the Public: 2022-2023 Recommendations Review

24 pages 7 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The City of Watsonville does not have an Incident Response Plan. Funds have been identified in the city IT budget, and a vendor has been selected. In April 2025, the kickoff for this project begins. Items covered in the project are an incident response plan, playbooks, training, and cybersecurity scenarios that test the incident response plan. Envisioning the Future of Our Jails

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The City of Watsonville should develop a formal Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack. They should complete the plan by October 31, 2025. (F1) Envisioning the Future of Our Jails

F2: The Blaine Street Women’s Jail was reopened May 19, 2023. Incarcerated persons earn the privilege to move from the Main Jail to this minimum security women’s facility.

F3: The “S” unit of Rountree detention center was re-opened in March 2025.

F4: The County issued a Request for Proposal for a needs assessment and received two proposals. The County states that due to cost they will not complete the Needs Assessment for the Jail. Code Compliance Division - Out of Compliance

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: In the next budget cycle, the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors should include the funds to complete the Needs Assessment for the jails. The goal of this assessment is to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. The Needs Assessment for the Jails should be completed by October 31, 2026. (F4) Code Compliance Division - Out of Compliance

R4: “The policies and procedures manuals for the Planning Department and Code Compliance Department should be completely reviewed, updated as prescribed in the policy and procedures manual, and digitized. Each section should be dated, and all future revisions should include date markings for any changes. This process should be completed by the end of 2023.” IN PROGRESS 🔁 Expected completion in 2026 The Code Compliance Manual was reviewed and fully revised for clarity in June 2024. It is available online.[58] In 2022-23, the Planning Department and Public Works Department were integrated to form the Community Development and Infrastructure Department. Since combining these departments, “an effort has been underway to review the policies and procedures of both departments in order to update and create a single set applicable to the whole department. Due to multiple reviews, including reviews by Personnel and the Union, (the county expects) this effort to take another year before it is ready for distribution.”[59] _______________________________________________________________

F5: The Code Compliance Policies and Procedures Manual was reviewed and fully revised for clarity in June 2024. It is available online.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: “By Fall 2023, Santa Cruz should identify and implement creative approaches to hiring and retention so they can maintain a fully staffed IT Department despite the competition with surrounding counties. The City should investigate potential partnerships with one or more of the 18 California colleges and universities with National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity.” DONE ✅ The City of Santa Cruz has implemented innovative hiring and retention strategies, resulting in IT vacancy rates consistently remaining between 0% and 5% since Fall 2023. They are conducting targeted outreach through professional networks such as the Municipal Information Systems Association of California (MISAC), while also supporting internship and mentorship programs to develop local talent and strengthen career pipelines.[18] [19] _______________________________________________________________

F6: There is no evidence that the Policies and Procedures Manual for the Planning Department is updated and available online.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The recently formed Community Development and Infrastructure Department (CDI) should review the policies and procedures of both the Public Works and Planning Departments and create a single set applicable to the whole CDI. Each section should be dated, and all future revisions should include date markings for any changes. This set of policies and procedures should be completed by the CDI and posted online by April 30, 2026. (F6, F7)

R6: “By Fall 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should assign one individual responsible for cybersecurity. Adoption of a managed service provider arrangement will boost its security posture, although it does not eliminate the need for a dedicated security lead within the City's IT Department.” DONE ✅ The City of Santa Cruz has expanded its IT Department staff from 23 to 26 full-time positions, including the addition of a Cybersecurity IT Manager. This senior-level management role is responsible for developing, enhancing, and overseeing the City's cybersecurity initiatives, significantly strengthening its overall security posture.[18] [19] _______________________________________________________________

F7: In 2022-23, the Planning Department and Public Works Department were integrated to form the Community Development and Infrastructure Department. Since combining these departments, there is an effort underway to create a single set of policies and procedures, applicable to the whole department.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: “By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City of Santa Cruz should develop and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that encompasses all aspects of information security.” DONE ✅ The City of Santa Cruz has developed and published a comprehensive Cybersecurity Plan, detailing all aspects of information security. This plan is reviewed and updated annually by the Cybersecurity IT Manager to ensure continued effectiveness and alignment with best practices.[18]

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: “By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City should complete an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail for city officials to use as a step-by-step guide in the event of a cyber incident.” DONE ✅ The City of Santa Cruz has successfully created and published a detailed Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan. The plan outlines the designated Incident Response Team and their roles/responsibilities, a step-by-step guide for handling cyber incidents, and annual reviews and updates led by the Cybersecurity IT Manager to ensure ongoing relevance and alignment with best practices.[18] C) 2023 Recommendations for the City of Watsonville

R10: “Watsonville should conduct an evaluation of its recently expanded IT Department, critical IT upgrades, and the status of cybersecurity measures by the end of 2023. Based on this assessment, the City should allocate existing or newly identified resources to ensure cybersecurity is adequately addressed going forward.” DONE ✅ The City did an evaluation of its IT Department, approved a position reclassification, and hired staff to focus on cybersecurity as a major job function. All cyber issues in Watsonville are handled by their IT Department, which reports directly to the City Manager. Additionally, in December 2024 the city hired a Deputy City Manager who works closely with the IT Department.[20] [21] [22] [23] _______________________________________________________________

R11: “Given the size of Watsonville, the City should have a dedicated position for cybersecurity by the end of 2023, to ensure adherence to best practices, mitigation of potential threats, and education of city staff and leadership.” DONE ✅ A position reclassification was approved and staff have been hired to focus on cybersecurity as a major job function. The IT Department has a dedicated position, Cybersecurity IT Analyst, who reports directly to the IT Director. In adhering to best practices, the approach taken by the IT Department is that cybersecurity is an ongoing program.[23] [24] [25]

R12: “By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that addresses all of the best practices for strong cyber hygiene.” DONE ✅ The City of Watsonville worked with other local agencies and the County and created a Cybersecurity Plan in September 2023.[23] [26] [27]

R13: “By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack.” IN PROGRESS 🔜 Expected completion in 2025 The City of Watsonville applied for and was awarded a State and Local Government Cybersecurity grant. This is a federal grant, and the funding status is unknown at this time. However, funds have been identified in the city’s IT budget, and a vendor has been selected. The project kickoff begins in April 2025, and includes an incident response plan, playbooks, and training. A training exercise will be conducted where the participants engage in a simulated, discussion-based activity that tests the incident response plan. Team members discuss their roles and responses to a simulated emergency or crisis to identify gaps in plans and procedures. The Incident Response Plan should be completed in the summer of 2025.[4] [23] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] _______________________________________________________________

R14: “Upon completion of IT structural upgrades and a higher level of cyber maturity, and by the end of 2023, Watsonville should participate in local, regional, and state information sharing initiatives.” DONE ✅ Along with participation in the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) and Multi-State Information Sharing & Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), the City subscribes to California Cybersecurity Integration Center (Cal-CSIC) information sharing. The City of Watsonville IT Department is involved and participates regularly in the Cybersecurity Consortium, led by the ISD of Santa Cruz County. Watsonville’s IT Director meets regularly with the CISO of the County.[23] [33] [34] [35] [36] D) 2023 Recommendations for the City of Scotts Valley

R16: “Working with its IT contractor, by Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that is shared with all city officials to demonstrate comprehensive security measures and executive-level cyber threat awareness.” DONE ✅ In September 2023, the City of Scotts Valley created a Cyber/Information Security Plan. This plan is intended to be updated as new cybersecurity threats and advancements progress.[37] [38]

R17: “By Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write an Incident Response Plan that clearly delineates the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack.” DONE ✅ In November 2023, the City of Scotts Valley created a very detailed Cyber Incident Response Plan. This plan establishes City-Wide cyber incident response capability including the formation of the City of Scotts Valley Cyber-Incident ResponseTeam (CIRT). The document details the specifics outlined in the recommendation along with contact information for the CIRT, Cyber Best Practices, and Guidelines to Follow for various types of incidents.[38] [39] _______________________________________________________________

R18: “Scotts Valley should participate in local, regional, and state cybersecurity organizations for information sharing by the end of 2023.” DONE ✅ The City of Scotts Valley participates regularly in the regional Cybersecurity Consortium. The CISO of the County, who leads the Consortium, is part of CCISDA, a very strong IT coalition within the state of California. The City of Scotts Valley and participants of the Consortium benefit from leveraging CCISDA’s collective experiences and a robust level of information sharing.[8] [15] [16] [40] [41] E) 2023 Recommendations for the City of Capitola

R21: “Capitola should establish and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023. Several resources exist to provide a foundation or templates for these plans including NIST Guidelines, CISA resources, and Cal-CSIC guidance.” DONE ✅ The City of Capitola issued a Cybersecurity Plan in September 2023.[42] [43] _______________________________________________________________

R22: “By Fall 2023 Capitola should prepare an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed guidance for a city response to a cyber attack.” DONE ✅ The City of Capitola issued an Incident Response Plan in 2023 and updated the plan as recently as October 2024.[44] 2. Envisioning the Future of Our Jails Santa Cruz County is a compassionate community. The Prior Jury published a report challenging the Sheriff’s Department to improve the treatment and safety of jail inmates living with mental illness and to develop innovative and effective post-release reentry programs. The question was posed, “In the real world, with the funding constraints in this County, what is the best solution to both the aging Main Jail and to the distressingly high recidivism rate?” The Current Jury followed up on the 2023 Recommendations and evaluated the actions taken and determined current dispositions. 2023 Recommendations