Santa Cruz council approves support package for Seabright and Harbor businesses during Murray Street Bridge retrofit

Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday voted to adopt a multi‑pronged package to support Seabright and Harbor businesses affected by the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project.

The measures — proposed by Council member Bruner and seconded by Vice Mayor Kalantari Johnson — direct staff to implement marketing and promotional support, explore short‑term grants and low‑interest loans for impacted businesses, extend certain temporary outdoor‑dining provisions, coordinate increased transit and water‑taxi service, and form a three‑member council ad‑hoc committee and staff team to continue outreach and problem solving. The motion passed on a 5–1 roll call (Aye: Tragero, Bruner, Golder, Kalantari Johnson, Mayor Keeley; No: O’Hara).

City staff framed the decision around a detailed project update. Nathan Nguyen, director of public works, said the retrofit has long‑standing coordination needs with the port district and multiple permitting agencies and that city teams have been “working at a fever pitch” to analyze mitigation options. City Engineer Kevin Crossley described the schedule constraints driven by in‑water work and permits and told the council the team expects to be “out of the water by the end of next summer,” a milestone that creates flexibility to accelerate later work only within regulatory windows.

Transportation Manager Matt Starkey laid out feasible temporary access options for pedestrians and cyclists along the rail corridor between Seabright and Seventh Avenue and provided cost estimates: “prices could range anywhere from $650,000 up to $7,400,000,” he said, with an intermediate trail estimate in the $900,000–$1.2 million range and an upper bound near $1.7 million depending on scope. Starkey also reviewed transit alternatives — restoring Route 3 service, expanding the harbor water taxi and investigating a short shuttle or light‑rail demonstration — and cautioned that rail‑corridor solutions require negotiation with rail owners and regulatory clearance.

Rebecca Unert, economic development manager, described short‑term business aid proposals including a potential low‑interest loan program (city guarantee up to $25,000; loans to $50,000 with partial guarantee) and a grant program modeled on examples from other cities (up to $20,000 per business), and recommended extending temporary outdoor dining permits through July 1, 2029 for affected businesses. She said staff would need identified funding sources for grants and that some programs could be launched quicker with attestation‑based verification pending delayed sales tax data.

Council members stressed multiple goals: accelerate construction where feasible, avoid undue legal or safety risk, and target relief to businesses showing documented need. Council member O’Hara opposed parts of the motion, urging data‑driven relief and warning against taking on infrastructure liability for the rail corridor; she said, “A well designed relief package can be based on actual lost data, revenue documentation, and business self reporting.”

The motion directs staff to return with implementation details, funding options and an operational plan and establishes an ad‑hoc committee to coordinate ongoing efforts and business outreach. Staff also committed to ongoing marketing, one‑on‑one business consulting services and exploring transit and water taxi enhancements to maintain customer access during the construction period.

What happens next: staff will draft program details, identify funding sources, and return to council with recommendations and timelines. The council’s vote authorized leaders to pursue the recommended mitigation work while continuing to coordinate with regional partners and state/federal funders.