Santa Cruz City Council
April 26, 2022

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting – April 26, 2022
Updated April 25, 2022
11:00 A.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM
12:30 P.M. CONSENT, CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL

CHAMBERS/ZOOM
6:30 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND GENERAL BUSINESS, COUNCIL

CHAMBERS/ZOOM
IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Pursuant to California Government Code 54953(e)(1)(A) and (C), and the City of Santa Cruz’s resolution authorizing continued virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings of the Santa Cruz City Council are being conducted with a hybrid format, providing both in-person and virtual participation in order to promote social distancing and protect the health and safety of attendees, staff, and Councilmembers.

In order to minimize exposure to COVID-19, the meeting may be viewed remotely, using any of the following sources:
 Click on Zoom link (no time delay): https://zoom.us/j/94684401344  Online at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council/council-meetings  Online at Watch – Community Television of Santa Cruz County  Comcast Channel 25
Or: Call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.  1-833-548-0276 (Toll Free)
 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
 1-877-853-5247 (Toll Free)
 1-669-900-9128
Enter the meeting ID number: 946 8440 1344
 When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
 Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.  It will be your turn to speak when the Mayor calls on you. Press *6 to unmute yourself.

The timer will then be set to 2 minutes.

Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 5:00 pm on Monday, April 25th.

April 26, 2022 City Council 2
PLEASE NOTE:
 Councilmembers may participate in person or virtually.  In-person attendees will be required to show proof of vaccination before entry.  Be mindful of those around you, and maintain 3-feet social distancing.  Requests for extra speaking time on items other than Oral Communications must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 24th by emailing the Mayor and the City Clerk.

Approval will be confirmed via email.
[email protected] [email protected]
The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the City Clerk’s Department at 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such special assistance, or email [email protected]. The CalRelay system number: 1-800-735-2922.

Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 420-5030 al menos cinco días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected]. El número del sistema Cal-Relay es: 1-800-735-2922.

Closed Session
11:00 AM
Closed Session

1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
Trujillo, Emanuel v. City of Santa Cruz, et al
(United States District Court, Northern District Case No. 5:21-cv-06477- NC)

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(2))
Significant exposure to litigation (1 potential case to be discussed) April 26, 2022 City Council 3
City Council
12:30 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Presentations

3. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring May as Affordable Housing Month

4. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring May 1 - May 7, 2022, as Municipal Clerks Week
The below presentation will occur at or around 4:00 p.m.

5. Outstanding Volunteer Recognition
Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification
Additions and Deletions
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Council Meeting Calendar

6. The City Council will review the meeting calendar attached to the agenda and revise it as necessary.

April 26, 2022 City Council 4
Council Memberships in City Groups and Outside Agencies

7. The Presiding Officer will provide Councilmembers with the opportunity to update Council on any external committee meetings that occurred since the last Council meeting.

Consent Agenda

8. Minutes of the April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.

9. Minutes of the April 19, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.

The grant name for the below item was corrected.

10. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant - Grant Acceptance, Authorization and Appropriation (CM) Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, authorize and appropriate funds from California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to complete the 5-year updates to the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

11. Opposition to Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and Reiterated Support for Continued Rail Planning on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (CN)
Resolution opposing Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative on the June 2022 ballot and reiterating the City of Santa Cruz’ support for continued rail planning on the Santa Cruz Branch line.

12. Senate Bill 886 – California Environmental Quality Act Exemption for University of California Housing Developments (CN)
Motion to direct the Mayor to send a letter opposing Senate Bill 886, which would exempt University of California on-campus housing developments from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act.

April 26, 2022 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Clean California Local Grant Program – Acceptance of Grant Award and Use of Park Facilities Tax Funds for the Main Beach Public Restroom Renovations Project (PR, ED, CM)
Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution authorizing and directing staff to accept and appropriate funds from an application request to the California Department of Transportation’s Clean California Local Grant Program, and
2) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2022 budget for the use of $26,183 in Park Facilities Tax Funds to renovate the public restrooms located at Main Beach at 120 Beach Street.

14. Cowell Beach Concession Second Contract Amendment (PR) Resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute a second contract amendment with Ed Guzman to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement for the operation of an ocean and beach related concession on Cowell Beach.

15. Approval of the Santa Cruz Friendship City and Sister City Adoption Policy (PR)
Review draft policy and approve the revised Santa Cruz Friendship City and Sister City Adoption Policy as recommended by the Sister Cities Committee.

16. Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation (c401709) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion to accept the work of The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Salinas, CA) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation Project (c401709).

17. Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project - Phase I (c401307, c401810) – Budget Adjustment (PW)
Resolution amending the FY 2022 budget by transferring funds from supporting projects in the amount of $299,595 to fully fund the Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project (c401307, c401810).

April 26, 2022 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)

18. Agreement with Carollo Engineers for Application Assistance for the United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan and State Revolving Loans for Backbone Water Infrastructure Projects (WT)
Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement in the amount of $335,419 with Carollo Engineers to support the Water Department’s application for a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan (WIFIA) and State Revolving Loans to support the Capital Investment Program (CIP) in a form to be approved by the City Attorney and to authorize the Water Director to execute future contract amendments within the approved budget.

19. Approval of Exemption from Local and Apprentice Employment (SCMC Ch. 3.10.080(2)) for Coast Pump Station Powerpack Construction Agreement, Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) (WT)
Motion exempting Tesla, Inc. from the City’s local hiring and local apprentice employment requirements as part of the Coast Pump Station Powerpack Construction Agreement, pursuant to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).

20. Hydrologic Modeling Support from Shawn Chartrand, Simon Fraser University (SFU), for the Water Supply Augmentation Strategy, Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Conservation Plan, and Water Rights Project (WT)
Motion authorizing the Water Department to issue annual direct contracting purchase orders, for a period not to exceed five years, exceeding the formal bid limit to Simon Fraser University for ongoing water supply modeling to support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy, Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Conservation Plan, and Water Rights Project.

April 26, 2022 City Council 7
Consent Agenda (continued)

21. University Tank 4 Replacement Project – Award of Professional Services Agreement (WT)
Motion to:
1) Accept the proposal of Mesiti-Miller Engineers, Inc. (Santa Cruz CA) for Engineering Consulting Design Services for the University Tank 4 Replacement Project in the amount of $427,660 and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, and reject all other proposals.
2) Authorize the Water Director to approve change orders with MesitiMiller Engineers, Inc. in a form to be approved by the City Attorney for amounts that are within the approved adjusted budget.

End Consent Agenda
Consent Public Hearings

22. Municipal Code Amendments Relating to Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Responding to Modifications Requested by the California Coastal Commission (PL)
Motion to:
1) Adopt resolution acknowledging receipt of the resolution of certification from the California Coastal Commission, including the suggested modifications.
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapters 24.04 and

24.12 of the Municipal Code related to small cell wireless telecommunications facilities in response to action by the California Coastal Commission.

23. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-04 Green Building Program Proposed Fee Increase (PL)
2nd reading and final adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-04 amending Chapter 24.15, (Green Building Regulations), to specify that the fee associated with the Green Building Educational Resource Fund will be established by resolution of City Council.

April 26, 2022 City Council 8
Consent Public Hearings (continued)

24. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-05 Public Gathering and Expression Events Ordinance Amendment (CA) 2nd reading and final adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-05 amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 10.65 – Public Gathering and Expression Events.

25. 415 Natural Bridges, 2931 Mission Street (Application No. CP21-0059) - Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 003-011-06 and 003-011-10 - Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to Transfer 4,054 Square Feet of Land from APN 003-011-10 to APN 003-011-06, Remove Four Heritage Trees, and Construct a 100 Percent Affordable, 20-Unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) Project with a Variation to Allowed Uses to Allow an SRO Use and Variations to Development Standards for Building Height, Side Yard Setback, and Number of Required Parking Spaces on a Vacant Lot in the R-L/CZO/SP-O/P-F (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/Public Facilities) Zone District (PL)
Resolution acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, Coastal Permit, and heritage tree removal to construct a 20-unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) development based on the findings contained in the attached draft resolution and the Conditions of Approval.

Public Hearing

26. A20-0008: Slope Regulation Ordinance Amendments to Chapters 18.45,

24.04, 24.08, 24.14, and 24.22 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (PL) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapters 18.45,

24.04, 24.08, 24.14, and 24.22 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC), acknowledging the Addendum to the 2030 General Plan certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Recess - The City Council will recess to the 6:30 p.m. session.

April 26, 2022 City Council 9
City Council
6:30 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Oral Communications Announcement – Community members may address the Council for three minutes or less about any matter not on the agenda. 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications. No extra time for groups will be granted.

Oral Communications
General Business

27. AB 481 - Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy (PD) Motion to:
(1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 9.90; and
(2) Approve Santa Cruz Police Department (“Department”) Policy 705 and an inventory of military equipment as defined by AB 481; and (3) Provide direction as necessary.

28. Parks & Recreation Department Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021 (PR) Review, provide feedback, and accept the Parks and Recreation Department FY 2021 Annual Report.

Adjournment
April 26, 2022 City Council 10

INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – APRIL 26, 2022

29. Water Department: Recommended Framework and Decision-Making Schedule for the Securing Our Water Future Process to Complete the 2014-2015 Water Supply Adivsory Committee Work - 4/13/22 (WTFYI 080)

MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – APRIL 26, 2022
Advisory Body Appointments
The following positions are vacant. Council will make the appointments at a future meeting.

Historic Preservation Commission One opening
Sister Cities Committee Two openings
Transportation and Public Works Commission One opening
Parks and Recreation Commission One Opening
County Latino Affairs Commission One opening
April 26, 2022 City Council 11
Public Hearing
If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

Any person seeking to challenge a City Council decision made as a result of a proceeding in which, by law, a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action either 60 days or 90 days following the date on which the decision becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Please refer to code of Civil Procedure 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes “final.” The 60-day rule applies to all public hearings conducted pursuant to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Title 24, Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The 90-day rule applies to all other public hearings.

City Council Agenda Legislative History Addendum
No information was submitted.

City staff is responsible for providing the City Clerk with such documentation and information for the Legislative History Addendum. The information will be on file in the City Clerk’s Department.

The Addendum is a listing of information specific to City Council business, but which does not appear on a Council meeting agenda. Such entities would include, but not be limited to: Court decisions, Coastal Commission Appeals of City Council actions, Closed Session Agreements/Settlements, which are public record, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Local Agency Formation Commission.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONTH
IN-PERSON EVENTS:

Affordable Housing Self-Guided Bike Tour Tour map linked on City Website Santa Cruz-Available ALL Month
Affordable Housing Month Kick Off See Housing Santa Cruz County link Aptos-May 1st 2-4pm
Affordable Homecoming RSVP at www.hlcsmc.org
San Mateo-May 6th 5-7pm
Advancing Innovative Housing RSVP at www.hlcsmc.org
Redwood City-May 10th 5-6pm
Groundbreaking (1500 Capitola Rd) See Housing Santa Cruz County link Santa Cruz-May 11th 11am-12pm
Habitat for Humanity Monterey Bay RSVP on Eventbrite
Open House (Rodeo Creek Court)
Santa Cruz-May 11th 4-6pm
Affordable Housing Projects RSVP to [email protected] Groundbreaking (Pacific Station South & Cedar Street Apartments) Santa Cruz-May 19th 11am-12pm

Grand Opening of Arroyo Green RSVP at www.hlcsmc.org
Redwood City-May 25th 11am-1pm
VIRTUAL EVENTS:

Affordable Housing Finance 101 Class Virtual Recording linked on City Website Housing Choice Voucher Program Webinar
Available ALL month
Mythbusting Affordable Housing Costs Part 2 www.hlcsms.org for details May 12th, 1-2pm
Affordable Housing for the Next Generation www.hlcsms.org for details May 17th, 5-6pm
Tackling the Challenge of Producing Deeply Affordable Housing www.hlcsms.org for details May 19th, 5-6pm
For more event information:
*Visit the City of Santa Cruz Afforadable Housing Page for all relevant links above. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/affordablehousingmonth
https://www.housingsantacruzcounty.com/affordable-housing-month https://hlcsmc.org/events/affordable-housing-month/
2022

3.1 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
May 24 and 25 TBD Budget Hearings
May 30
June 7 TBD 4:30 p.m. Council Special Meeting ‐ Open to the Public TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
July 4
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
September 5
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
September 25/26
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
October 4/5
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
November 11
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
November 24
November 25
December 18/19
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
December 25
December 27 Meeting Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
Yom Kippur (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
Rosh Hashanah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
November 8
October 11
October 25
City Hall Closure ‐ Veteran's Day (observed)
May 24
City Hall Closure ‐ Memorial Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Labor Day
August 23
July 12 and 26 Meetings Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
August 9
City Hall Closure ‐ Independence Day
June 14
May 10
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2022
November 22
December 13
City Hall Closure ‐ Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Day After Thanksgiving Day
June 28
September 13
September 27
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change

6.1 Council Membership in City Groups and Outside Agencies (2022) Councilmembers may provide direction, request additional information or that a topic raised be agendized for future Council action. The Presiding Officer may request oral updates from Council Ad Hoc Committees.

City Council Standing Committees Councilmember

Assigned Staff
Community Programs Watkins, Brown, Kalantari-Johnson Tiffany Wise-West Public Safety Watkins, Golder, Cummings Sara De Leon
City Council Ad Hoc Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee Brown, Watkins, Brunner Laura Schmidt Oversized Vehicles Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner Brian Borguno Charter Amendment Committee Meyers, Golder, Watkins Casey Hemard Health in All Policies Committee Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson, Watkins Tiffany Wise-West External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG)
Cummings, Brown (alternate) Lee Butler
City–Santa Cruz City Schools Committee Watkins, Golder, Kalantari-Johnson Tony Elliot City Select Committee Brunner Matt Huffaker
Library Financing Authority Brunner, Watkins (alternate) Matt Huffaker Homelessness 2x2 Committee Watkins, Brunner Lee Butler
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (City Nominee) Brown Tiffany Wise-West Central Coast Community Energy Policy Board
Central Coast Community Energy Operations Board

Meyers, Brunner (alternate)
Mark Dettle, Tiffany Wise-West (alternate)
Mark Dettle
Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local
Task Force
Golder, Cummings (alternate)
Bob Nelson, Leslie
O’Malley (staff
alternate)
Santa Cruz County Consolidated Redevelopment
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Meyers Bonnie Lipscomb
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board (METRO) Meyers, Kalantari-Johnson Claire Gallogly Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC)
Brown, Golder (alternate) Nathan Nguyen
Claire Gallogly
(alternate)
Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Councilmember Meyers, Water Commissioner David Baskin, Water Commissioner Doug Engfer (alternate)
Rosemary Menard

7.1 External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff
Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency Water Commissioner Doug Engfer, Former Water Commissioner David Baskin (citizen alternate)
Rosemary Menard
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
(Santa Cruz holds the City Seat through May 2022)
Cummings Matt Huffaker
Joint Powers Authorities/City Groups Staff Appointments Agency Contact Information Santa Cruz County Animal Services
Authority
Laura Schmidt, Bernie Escalante Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority 2200 7th Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
https://www.scanimalshelter.org/
Santa Cruz Public Libraries Matt Huffaker Santa Cruz Public Libraries 117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
https://www.santacruzpl.org/
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 Laura Schmidt Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 495 Upper Park Rd.

Santa Cruz, CA 95065
(831) 471-1000
External Community Organizations Councilmember/Staff Agency Contact Information Area Agency on Aging (AAA) Advisory
Council
Brown, Brunner (Council alternate), Rita
Hester (citizen alternate)
Seniors Council, Clay Kempf
234 Santa Cruz Ave.

Aptos, CA 95003
Phone: (831) 688-0400
Climate Action Task Force Cummings, Dr. Tiffany Wise-West (staff) Dr. Tiffany Wise-West [email protected]
Cowell Working Group Meyers, Tony Elliot (staff) CWG Facilitated by Save the Waves Criminal Justice Council Cummings, Kalantari-Johnson (alternate), Bernie Escalante
Criminal Justice Council of Santa Cruz County
[email protected]
Downtown Management Corporation Meyers, Cummings, Bonnie Lipscomb (staff) Downtown Management Corporation [email protected]
337 Locust Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Santa Cruz County Youth Action Network
Kalantari-Johnson
[email protected]
United Way of Santa Cruz County
4450 Capitola Rd, Ste 106
Capitola, CA 95010
Santa Cruz Community Farmers’ Market Watkins, Brunner (alternate) Bonnie Lipscomb (staff)
Mr. Nesh Dillon Executive Director SCCFM
P.O. Box 8189
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Visit Santa Cruz County Watkins, Brunner, Bonnie Lipscomb (staff) Visit Santa Cruz County 303 Water Street, Suite 100
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
800-833-3494 or 831-425-1234
Community Action Board (CAB) Kalantari-Johnson, Eve Bertram, UCSC Professor (alternate)
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.
406 Main St. STE 207
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-763-2147

7.2 MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 12, 2022
10:30 AM
Mayor Brunner opened the City Council Closed Session at 10:31 a.m. in a public meeting via Zoom, for the purpose of announcing the agenda, and receiving public testimony.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Cummings (via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (arrived at 10:37 a.m. via Zoom); Mayor Brunner (via Zoom).

Absent: Councilmember Golder.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti (via Zoom), Interim Finance Director B. Magee (via Zoom), Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler (via Zoom), Human Resources Director L. Murphy (via Zoom), Water Director R. Menard (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

Public Comment
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period at 10:33 a.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period at 10:34 a.m.

8.1 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6026
Closed Session

1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy

2. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) Claimant: Chris and Scott Pinheiro
Claim against the City of Santa Cruz

3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) Dervishian v. Mott, Konzen, Gieringer, City of Santa Cruz, et al. (Santa Cruz Superior Court, Case No. 18CV01510)
2) Regents of the University of California, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 20CV02152)
3) City of Santa Cruz v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00373)
At this time, the meeting was closed to the public. (See pages 6028—6029 for a report on Closed Session.)

8.2 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6027
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 12, 2022
1:00 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Golder (arrived at 4:54 p.m. via Zoom), Cummings (via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (arrived at 1:39 p.m. via Zoom); Mayor Brunner (via Zoom).

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti (via Zoom), Interim Chief of Police B. Escalante (via Zoom), Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler (via Zoom), Interim Finance Director B. Magee (via Zoom), Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Director of Human Resources L. Murphy (via Zoom), Interim Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Water Director R. Menard (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Superintendent of Parks T. Beck (via Zoom), Housing and Community Development Manager J. de Wit (via Zoom), Senior Professional Engineer S. Wolfman (via Zoom), Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen (via Zoom), Office Supervisor T. Hedden-Jones (via Zoom), Communications Manager E.

Smith (via Zoom), Deputy City Attorney C. Bronson (via Zoom), Principal Management Analyst V. Nguyen (via Zoom), Chief Building Officer J.

Gervasoni (via Zoom), Senior Planner M. Ferry (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

8.3 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6028
Presentations

4. Small Business Development Center Presentation
Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb introduced the item. Brandon Napoli, Director and Financial Advisor with Small Business Development Center, gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

5. Jane Mio - Service Award of Excellence Awardee
Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot and Superintendent of Parks T. Beck spoke regarding the Service Award of Excellence Awardee Jane Mio. Jane Mio spoke.

6. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring March 15, 2022 as Equal Pay Day for Women Mayor Brunner read the proclamation declaring March 15, 2022 as Equal Pay Day for Women. Laura Nolan, representing the Santa Cruz County Branch of the American Association of the University of Women, spoke.

Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification – None.

Additions and Deletions – None.

City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy
Council received a status report from the City Negotiator, and took no reportable action.

8.4 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6029
City Attorney Report on Closed Session (continued)
Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) Claimant: Chris and Scott Pinheiro
Claim against the City of Santa Cruz
By motion, Council approved the settlement of the liability claim in the amount of $170,773.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) Dervishian v. Mott, Konzen, Gieringer, City of Santa Cruz, et al. (Santa Cruz Superior Court, Case No. 18CV01510)
2) Regents of the University of California, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 20CV02152)
3) City of Santa Cruz v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00373)
Council approved a settlement agreement relating to item 3.1 that has been negotiated through the court process.

Council received a status report, and took no reportable action on items 3.2 and 3.3.

City Manager Report

7. The City Manager provided a report and updates on the City's business, COVID19 response, and events.

City Manager M. Huffaker provided updates on the City’s homelessness response, upcoming community meetings, and called on Sustainability and Climate Action Manager T. Wise-West to speak regarding Santa Cruz becoming recognized as a Certified Blue City. Evelina Marchetti and Alisan Amrhein, working on Project O with Blue City Network, spoke. Water Director R. Menard was called on to speak regarding the 2022 water supply outlook.

Council Meeting Calendar

8. The City Council reviewed and did not revise the meeting calendar attached to the agenda.

8.5 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6030
Consent Agenda
Councilmember Cummings pulled item 13 for further discussion.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson made a comment on item 14.

Councilmember Cummings made a comment on item 15.

Councilmembers Cummings, Brown, and Kalantari-Johnson made comments on item

17. Councilmember Cummings made a comment on item 20.

Housing and Community Development Manager J. de Wit responded to Councilmember Cummings’ questions regarding item 16. Beckie Flores, Project Developer with Mercy Housing, responded to Councilmember questions.

Councilmember Cummings pulled item 16 for further discussion.

Senior Professional Engineer S. Wolfman responded to Councilmember Cummings’ questions regarding item 19.

Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen responded to Councilmember Cummings’ questions regarding item 22.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke via teleconference:

Unidentified person spoke regarding item 17.

Unidentified person spoke regarding item 18.

Unidentified person spoke regarding item 9.

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to approve the remaining Consent Agenda.

8.6 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6031
Consent Agenda (continued)
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

9. Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
Resolution No. NS-29,954 was adopted authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

10. Minutes of the March 22, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

11. Minutes of the March 29, 2022 City Council Study Session (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

12. Minutes of the March 29, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

13. Resolution Declaring the City Council’s Intent Regarding Possible Proceeds from Measure F, a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Item on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election (CN)
City Attorney T. Condotti responded to Councilmember questions.

City Manager M. Huffaker responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

8.7 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6032
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Resolution Declaring the City Council’s Intent Regarding Possible Proceeds from Measure F, a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Item on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election (CN) (continued)
SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Ron Pomerantz
Unidentified person
Ken Bare
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to adopt Resolution No. NS-29,955 declaring the City Council’s intent regarding the use of potential revenues generated by Measure F, a sales and use tax ballot item on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution No. NS-29,955 declaring the City Council’s intent regarding the use of potential revenues generated by Measure F, a sales and use tax ballot item on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election, with the following changes:

WHEREAS, the revenue generated by this measure may help with: mitigating the impacts of homelessness, including but not limited to, supporting services and programs that address mental and behavioral health, substance abuse prevention, safe sleeping and safe parking programs, etc.; the need for more affordable and workforce housing; downtown and business support; workforce development; actions to help address the high cost of housing in Santa Cruz; creating and supporting programs and service to reduce carbon emissions to meet our climate action plan goals, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and make our city more resilient to climate change impacts, including but not limited to reduction of wildfire risk; maintenance of City facilities and essential infrastructure such as streets, transit, parks and recreation facilities for all residents, including but not limited to youth and seniors; and prevention of reduction to important City services along with supporting and expanding City services to increase efficiency and promote sustainability of services and service providers.

8.8 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6033
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Resolution Declaring the City Council’s Intent Regarding Possible Proceeds from Measure F, a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Item on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election (CN) (continued)
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Watkins requested to refer the language proposed by Councilmember Cummings to the Council Ad-Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee to incorporate as appropriate based on further analysis and input from Council and members of the public. Councilmember Cummings accepted, so long as the final version is made public.

After discussion, Vice Mayor Watkins withdrew her friendly amendment.

ACTION: The motion to accept the substitute motion failed with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

ACTION: The original motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

14. Resolution Condemning Antisemitism (CN)
Resolution No. NS-29,956 was adopted condemning antisemitism and expressing solidarity with the Jewish people in the community, in the United States, and around the globe.

8.9 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6034
Consent Agenda (continued)

15. Council Support of the Establishment of a New CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County in Order to Provide Skilled Nursing and Memory Care Services for Aging, Disabled, and Homeless Veterans Living in the Central Coast Region of California (CN)
Motion carried to direct the Mayor to write a letter to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and to California State Legislators in support of the establishment of a new CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County.

16. Loan Consolidation and Affordability Term Extension for Sycamore Street Commons and La Playa Residential – Affordable Housing (ED) Housing and Community Development Manager J. de Wit responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to:
 Approve loan terms for the consolidation and extension of City of Santa Cruz loans for Sycamore Street Commons and La Playa Residential and authorize the City Manager to execute the loan documents in a form to be approved by the City Attorney for the purpose of rehabbing this affordable housing and extending the affordability period; and
 Support staff to work with Mercy Housing and relevant stakeholders to determine whether the affordability term can be extended in perpetuity and bring back an item for Council consideration at a future meeting.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.10 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6035
Consent Agenda (continued)

17. Expiration of Statewide Evictions Moratorium – Authorization to Enter into an Agreement with the Community Action Board for $150,000 for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance through December 31, 2022 (ED)
Resolution No. NS-29,957 was adopted appropriating $150,000 from the CA state funding for homelessness response and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Community Action Board, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to provide tenant-based rental assistance through December 31, 2022.

18. Amend Lease with 1200 Pacific, LLC. to Include Conference Space at 1200 Pacific Avenue for use by the City’s Finance Department and Appropriate $442,827 for Conference Space, Space Improvements and Infrastructure, Lease Deposit, Office Furniture Move, Rental, and Purchase (FN) Motion carried to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-29,958 amending the FY 2022 budget to increase appropriation in the amount of $442,827 for conference space, space improvements and infrastructure, deposit rental, office furniture move, rental, and purchase.
 Authorize and direct the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Lease Agreement with 1200 Pacific, LLC, and any amendments thereto, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, for premises located at 1200 Pacific Avenue to serve as office space for the Finance Department.

19. UV Bypass Valve Repair (m409659) – Notice of Completion (PW) Motion carried to accept the work of Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc., (Santa Clara, CA) and to authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the UV Bypass Valve Repair Project (m409659).

8.11 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6036
Consent Agenda (continued)

20. High Voltage Portable Battery Charger for First All Electric Refuse Truck (g402205) – Budget Adjustment (PW)
Motion carried to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-29,959 amending the FY 2022 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $179,552.38 to fully fund the high voltage portable battery charger; and
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-29,960 to authorize the City Manager to apply, accept, and appropriate funding from California Energy Commission’s grant programs that the City is eligible for a five-year term; and  Authorize the City Manager to apply, accept, and appropriate grant funds from California Energy Commission (CEC) Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-Emission Commercial Vehicles (EnergIIZE Commercial Vehicles) and authorize FreeWire Technologies to apply for funds on the behalf of the City for the Ultrafast EV Charger with Integrated Storage (g402205).

21. 3 Water Cogeneration Cooling Line Replacement (c401407) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW)
Motion carried to approve the plans and specifications for 3 Water Cogeneration Cooling Line Replacement (c401407), authorize staff to advertise for bids, and award the contract. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Director of Public Works is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

22. T2 Systems Parking Pay Stations - Award Contract (PW) Motion carried to award a contract for the purchase of 10 Luke II Parking Pay Stations from T2 Systems (Burnaby, BC) in the amount not to exceed $148,009.04.

End Consent Agenda

8.12 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6037
Consent Public Hearing
Councilmember Cummings pulled item 24 for further discussion.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to approve the remaining Consent Public Hearing Agenda.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

23. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Hearing for Approval of the California Municipal Finance Authority for Issuance of Tax-Exempt Bonds for the Benefit of the Sycamore Street Commons and La Playa Residential Affordable Housing Projects (ED)
Motion carried to:
 Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-29,961 approving the issuance of Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) for the benefit of Mercy Housing California 72, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another entity to be established by Mercy Housing California or an affiliate thereof (collectively, the “Borrower”), in an amount not to exceed $28 million dollars to provide financing for Sycamore Street Commons and La Playa Residential (the “Project”); such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500.

8.13 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6038
Consent Public Hearing (continued)

24. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-03 Repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code ("SCMC") Chapter 5.81 ("Vending and Display Devices on City Property") and Adding SCMC Chapter 5.82 (CM)
Communications Manager E. Smith, City Attorney T. Condotti, Deputy City Attorney C. Bronson, and City Manager M. Huffaker responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Willamina Garcia
Dave Jones
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to adopt Ordinance No. 2022-03 repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 5.81 (“Vending and Display Devices on City Property”) and adding SCMC Chapter 5.82 (“Sidewalk Vending”).

AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by
Councilmember Brown, to amend the motion to add the following:
 Direct Parks and Recreation Department to draft a resolution establishing a limited vending zone and/or City-demarcated vending and display zones on the streets and sidewalks of Beach Street between the Municipal Wharf and Third Street, and on the City-owned deck behind Ideal Bar and Grill.  Direct staff to bring back an update on vendor space size in the downtown and implementation of the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance prior to enforcement.

8.14 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6039
Consent Public Hearing (continued)

24. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-03 Repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code ("SCMC") Chapter 5.81 ("Vending and Display Devices on City Property") and Adding SCMC Chapter 5.82 (CM) (continued) MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Golder, to call the question.

ACTION: The motion to call the question carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

ACTION: The amended motion was not accepted with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Councilmember Cummings stated for the record these amendments would not prevent Council from moving forward with the current ordinance. A lot of the impacts the City is facing are because of state law, and a lot of the amendments are meant to provide some legal coverage for the City.

ACTION: The original motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.15 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6040
Consent Public Hearing (continued)

24. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-03 Repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code ("SCMC") Chapter 5.81 ("Vending and Display Devices on City Property") and Adding SCMC Chapter 5.82 (CM) (continued) Councilmember Cummings stated for the record that he understands the impacts of what is being seen at the beach area and his motion was trying to move forward while also trying to find a way to mitigate some of those impacts.

His hope is that Council will be able to figure out a way forward with beach vending in the future, and will be working to ensure that vendors on Pacific and in other parts of the City will have sufficient space to be able to conduct their business. At this moment, he believes the City is putting itself in a legally liable position by outright prohibiting vending in the beach area.

Councilmember Brown stated for the record that she agrees with Councilmember Cummings, that nothing about his proposal was intended to delay this. Absolutely disagrees and is disturbed by Councilmember Meyers’ contention that this is intended to allow for continued mess in the beach area.

The idea was to ensure that the people who are playing by the rules are not doubly punished.

Public Hearings

25. Municipal Code Amendments Relating to Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Responding to Modifications Requested by the California Coastal Commission (PL)
This item was continued to the April 26, 2022 Council meeting and was not discussed.

26. Slope Regulation Ordinance Amendments to Chapters 18.45, 24.04, 24.08,

24.14, and 24.22 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (PL)
This item was continued to the April 26, 2022 Council meeting and was not discussed.

8.16 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6041
Public Hearings (continued)

27. Green Building Program Proposed Fee Increase (PL)
Principal Management Analyst V. Nguyen gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler and Chief Building Official J. Gervasoni responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following person spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to:
 Introduce for publication Ordinance No. 2022-04 an amendment to Chapter

24.15, (Green Building Regulations), to specify that the fee associated with the Green Building Educational Resource Fund will be established by resolution of the City Council; and
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-29,962 to increase the Green Building Fee from

0.0025 to 0.0100 times the overall valuation of a project to retain the $50,000 fee cap, and to incorporate said fee increase into the City Unified Master Fee Schedule with a footnote that annual Consumer Price Index increases do not apply to the fee; and
 Direct staff to update all associated fee schedules, such as user-friendly fee schedules developed by staff and post them online, where applicable, for the public.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmember Golder.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.17 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6042
General Business

28. Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) Appointment (CC) This item was continued to the May 10, 2022 Council meeting and was not discussed.

29. Parks and Recreation Annual Report (PR)
This item was continued to the April 26, 2022 Council meeting and was not discussed.

At this time, Mayor Brunner heard Oral Communications.

30. Public Gathering and Expression Events Ordinance Amendment (CA) Deputy City Attorney C. Bronson gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

City Attorney T. Condotti responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Robert Norse, Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Abbi Samuels
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Councilmember Golder, to introduce for publication Ordinance No. 2022-05 amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 10.65 – Public Gathering and Expression Events.

Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot responded to Councilmember questions.

Office Supervisor T. Hedden-Jones responded to Councilmember questions.

8.18 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6043
General Business (continued)

30. Public Gathering and Expression Events Ordinance Amendment (CA) (continued)
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cummings requested to amend the ordinance as follows:

10.65.050(3)(d): Is conducted on a regularly scheduled basis at a single location for more than four two consecutive days per week; and/or Councilmembers Meyers and Golder accepted.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmember Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.

Oral Communications
At 6:02 p.m. Mayor Brunner opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the City Council agenda.

Unidentified person spoke, providing a personal review of the Climate Action Plan’s proposals.

Jennifer Jaffé spoke regarding her ADU and recent changes to the standards.

Kyle Davenport spoke regarding being inauthentic and being in denial.

Serg Kagno spoke, inviting Council to an upcoming meeting of the Mental Health Advisory Board, which will include presentations on the 9-8-8 systems.

David van Brink spoke, thanking Council for their work on the biking infrastructure.

Robert Norse spoke regarding the anticipated closure of the Benchlands encampment with distrust for the statements made by the City Manager, and asking for a status of what shelter and storage services will be provided in its place.

8.19 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6044
Oral Communications (continued)
Unidentified person spoke regarding the anticipated Benchlands encampment closure without anticipation of available shelter for those who are inhabiting the encampment.

Unidentified person spoke, expressing hope that the plan to close the Benchlands encampment includes a plan for adequate shelter.

Abbi Samuels spoke, requesting Council meet in-person again.

Unidentified person spoke, stating people have been getting pushed into the Benchlands from smaller, self-managed encampments, and stated there needs to be better alternatives provided now.

Gillian Greensite spoke regarding technical issues she experienced accessing the Council meeting, and the anticipated July closure of the Benchlands homeless encampment.

Julie Schaul spoke, reading from the “about us” section of the fines and fees justice center website.

At 6:37 p.m. Mayor Brunner closed Oral Communications.

Public Hearing

31. City Council Review of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Coastal and Design Permits to Authorize the Development Associated with the Amended Municipal Code Pertaining to the Parking of Oversized Vehicles and to Implement City-wide Safe Parking Programs for Unhoused City Residents Living in Oversized Vehicles in the City of Santa Cruz (PL)
Senior Planner M. Ferry gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Lynn Renshaw, Santa Cruz Together
Unidentified person
Serg Kagno
Robert, Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom

8.20 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6045
Public Hearing (continued)

31. City Council Review of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Coastal and Design Permits to Authorize the Development Associated with the Amended Municipal Code Pertaining to the Parking of Oversized Vehicles and to Implement City-wide Safe Parking Programs for Unhoused City Residents Living in Oversized Vehicles in the City of Santa Cruz (PL) (continued) SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE (continued):

Rafa Sonnenfeld
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
John Do, ACLU
Debra Elston, Santa Cruz Neighbors
Sabina Holber, Santa Cruz Cares
Carol Polhamus, Westside Neighbors
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. NS-29,963 acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Coastal Permit and Design Permit based on the findings listed in the draft resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A”.

8.21 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6046
Public Hearing (continued)

31. City Council Review of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Coastal and Design Permits to Authorize the Development Associated with the Amended Municipal Code Pertaining to the Parking of Oversized Vehicles and to Implement City-wide Safe Parking Programs for Unhoused City Residents Living in Oversized Vehicles in the City of Santa Cruz (PL) (continued) AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by
Councilmember Brown, to amend the motion to amend the Conditions of Approval as follows:

Part 4:

Safe Parking sites will not be sited in mapped “high impact parking areas” within the Coastal Zone. Priority for locating safe parking spaces will be in the City of Santa Cruz.

There will be no costs to participants in the Safe Parking Program. Access to the Safe Parking program shall not be unreasonably restricted. However, the City may institute mandatory sign-ups and a tracking program and participants shall agree to a reasonable code of conduct.

Add:

Emergency parking may be allowed for up to 48 consecutive hours where an oversized vehicle is left standing on the roadside because of mechanical breakdown or the driver’s physical incapacity to proceed.

MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Councilmember Watkins, to call the question.

ACTION: The motion to call the question carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.22 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6047
Public Hearing (continued)

31. City Council Review of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Coastal and Design Permits to Authorize the Development Associated with the Amended Municipal Code Pertaining to the Parking of Oversized Vehicles and to Implement City-wide Safe Parking Programs for Unhoused City Residents Living in Oversized Vehicles in the City of Santa Cruz (PL) (continued) ACTION: The amendment was not accepted with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

ACTION: The original motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Councilmember Cummings stated for the record that until Council finds consensus on some of these controversial issues, they’re going to continue to find themselves getting appealed and legal battles, and wants the community to understand that this is going to be dragged out for much longer.

Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 10:06 p.m.

8.23 April 12, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6048
Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor

8.24 MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
April 19, 2022
3:30 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. via Zoom.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Golder (arrived at 4:20 p.m. via Zoom), Cummings (via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (arrived at 3:31 p.m. via Zoom); Mayor Brunner (via Zoom).

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), Deputy City Attorney C. Bronson (via Zoom), Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Human Resources Director L. Murphy (via Zoom), Interim Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Water Director R. Menard (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Communications Manager E. Smith (via Zoom), Principal Management Analyst C. Hemard (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

General Business

1. 2022 Legislative Program Manual and Platform (CM)
Communications Manager E. Smith gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

City Manager M. Huffaker responded to Councilmember questions.

Chris Giglio, Santa Cruz’s Federal Legislative Consultant, responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following person spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Reggie Meisler

9.1 April 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6050
General Business (continued)

1. 2022 Legislative Program Manual and Platform (CM) (continued) Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to approve the 2022 Legislative Program Manual and Platform.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Council took a break at 4:21 p.m. and returned at 5:00 p.m.

Public Hearings

2. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Doug Johnson, Demographer with National Demographics Corporation, gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Principal Management Analyst C. Hemard responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Candace Brown
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

9.2 April 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6051
Public Hearings (continued)

2. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) (continued) Deputy City Attorney C. Bronson responded to Councilmember questions.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to approve Draft Map 602 and its Proposed Election Sequence.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to approve Draft Map 604b with the Alternate Election Sequence.

ACTION: The substitute motion was not accepted with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

ACTION: The original motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

3. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Doug Johnson, Demographer with National Demographics Corporation, gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Principal Management Analyst C. Hemard responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

9.3 April 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6052
Public Hearings (continued)

3. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) (continued) SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Reggie Meisler
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Gillian Greensite
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Golder moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to approve Draft Map 101 with Proposed Election Sequence: 2022: 4, 5, and 6, and 2024: 1, 2,3, 7.

MOTION TO TABLE: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to table the following items until after the certification of the 2022 June primary results or indefinitely should the members of the public elect to move forward with six districts and a directly elected Mayor:
 Introduce for publication an ordinance adopting a final seven-district map and establishing a sequence of elections to establish district-based Council member elections commencing in November 2022.
 Selection of a seven-district map.

City Attorney T. Condotti responded to Councilmember questions.

ACTION: The motion to table was not accepted with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

9.4 April 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6053
Public Hearings (continued)

3. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) (continued) ACTION: The original motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to introduce for publication Ordinance No. 2022-06 adopting a final sevendistrict map and establishing a sequence of elections to establish district-based Councilmember elections commencing in November 2022.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 7:46 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor

9.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/12/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant - Grant Acceptance, Authorization and Appropriation (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, authorize and appropriate funds from California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to complete the 5-year updates to the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

BACKGROUND: The City is subject to a wide variety of natural and climate hazards and began to evaluate and plan for these hazards together in 2012 when the City adopted its first Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP) as an appendix to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).

The City adopted a 5-year update to those Plans in 2018 including a new sea level rise vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability to climate change analysis. The 2012 and 2018 LHMP was certified by California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), making the City eligible for certain categories of preand post-hazard mitigation funding. The City has applied for and been granted millions of dollars in these hazard mitigation funds over the years. The 2018 LHMP’s certification expires on January 18, 2024 and thus the City must prepare and adopt an updated LHMP integrated with an updated CAP and have it approved by that time horizon.

DISCUSSION: The City seeks funds from Cal OES for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to complete the 5-year integrated updates to the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City submitted a Notice of Interest to Cal OES in December, 2021 and was invited to be a subapplicant to Cal OES with a project eligible to submit a full grant subapplication. Subapplications are due April 8, 2022 and staff was unable to bring the resolution to City Council in advance of the subapplication deadline.

HMGP is authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c. The key purpose of HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to reduce the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster. This opportunity provides funding for communities to plan or implement mitigation activities to reduce risk to life and property from natural hazards. In CA, natural hazards include wildfire, earthquake, drought, extreme weather, flooding, and other impacts of climate change.

10.1 Through this funding, the City will make critical updates to its CAP and LHMP. As described in the subapplication (Attachment 2), these two plans will be merged into one comprehensive plan that considers potential effects of climate change on the City and its residents while specifying appropriate mitigation strategies. By integrating the two plans into a single jurisdiction plan, the City will more thoroughly characterize hazards confronting the City, equitably engage the community and stakeholders in planning, and deliver an implementable plan with a set of prioritized, sequenced hazard mitigation measures. In addition to a community-based discovery process, there will be accessible options for each engagement with translation, compensation where possible, food, childcare, and in person and self-guided options.

FISCAL IMPACT: The required cost share (25% of eligible project costs) must be from nonfederal sources. The total cost to implement this project should the grant be awarded is $200,000 and will be through a combination of federal ($150,000) and non-federal sources ($50,000). Thus the City is making an in kind contribution of staff labor valued at $50,000 for the project team and project manager.

Prepared By:

Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability and Climate
Action Manager
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. SUBAPPLICATION.PDF

10.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ TO APPLY FOR, ACCEPT AND EXECUTE A GRANT APPLICATION TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF

EMERGENCY SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN AND

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATES
WHEREAS, FEMA is committed to promoting resilience as expressed in PPD-8: National Preparedness; the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience; the Administrator’s 2011 FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement (Administrator Policy 2011-OPPA-01); and the 2014–2018 FEMA Strategic Plan WHEREAS, as the result of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds plans and projects that reduce the effects of future natural disasters. In California, these funds are administered by the Cal OES HMGP Unit.

WHEREAS, the City’s approved LHMP is set to expire on January 18, 2022 and the City is committed to updating that Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan strategies.

WHEREAS, the City submitted a HMGP Notice of Interest (NOI) prior to submitting a subapplication and was invited to submit a subapplication to update its Climate Adaptation Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plans.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, of the City of Santa Cruz, hereby:

1. Directs City of Santa Cruz staff to submit the grant subapplication package to California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purposes of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 930288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.

2. Authorizes the City Manager of the City of Santa Cruz, to apply for, accept, and execute, in the name of the City of Santa Cruz, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency to implement and carry out the scope of work attached hereto and any project approved through approval of the grant application.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

10.3 10.4

10.5 10.6

10.7 10.8

10.9 10.10

10.11 10.12

10.13 10.14

10.15 10.16
City of Santa Cruz: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Scope of Work Schedule
CalOES: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

1.0 Pre-Award

2.0 Issue RFQ; select consultant; contracting; develop and convene Steering Committee; hold kickoff /ongoing meetings with consultant and Team/ Steering Committee; public promotion of planning effort.

3.0 Thorough review of the existing plan, new studies, other data sources and existing and new planning documents. Identify all potential hazards.

4.0 Confirm all potential hazards; utilize existing data and new data from recent studies to assess risk; consultant review of risk assessment.

5.0 Identify goals of the mitigation strategy; identify and define objectives of the LHMP; assign mitigation levels of priority; conduct equity screening team review to refine strategies; use adaptation pathways approach to sequence initiation of mitigation strategy planning and; consultant review to refine mitigation strategies.

6.0 Consultant drafts other plan components, completes internal review draft, public review draft, final draft Plan for Cal OES/FEMA and Final Plan for adoption by City Council.

7.0 Submit finalized draft plan to Cal OES and FEMA for review and adoption; respond to questions or deficiencies and update the plan as needed.

8.0 Public Outreach/ Meetings/Public Hearings
Promote and conduct 4 community engagements draft versions of plan available to the public; generate summaries, confirm understanding, post to website.

9.0 Once approved by FEMA, present to commissions, City Council for adoption; submit proof of adoption to FEMA.

10.0 Final reporting, review final consultant invoices, and file grant reimbursement requests as per the grant administration guidelines provided by FEM and CalOES.

Project Close-Out
Task # Activity
Plan Adoption
Hazard Identification
The Planning Process
Risk Assessment
Mitigation Strategy
Plan Preparation
Plan Drafting
23-Month Timeline

10.17 10.18

10.19 10.20

10.21 1
Documents Supporting the Community Profile
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update

1. Community Profile……………………………………………………………………………………………………p. 1

2. DAC Map…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...p. 5

3. Letters of Support……………………………………………………..……………….……………………..…….p. 6 • Ecology Action
• Nueva Vista Community Bridges
• Downtown Association
• UC-Santa Cruz Coastal Science and Policy

10.22 anta Cruz may be a small city but we boast a lot of character and endless opportunities to enjoy the arts, connect with community, and explore the great outdoors. Flanked by the incredible redwood forests and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, our city feels infused with nature. It’s an incredible location with many opportunities within reach.

We’re a short skip away from the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. With easy access to major airports, sports and entertainment venues, nestled between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Monterey Bay, our unrivalled environment creates a thriving and open culture that invites innovation, entrepreneurship, and an ethos of keeping it real.

You don’t have to be a yogi or bicycle pump track superstar to appreciate how active and healthy Santa Cruz is as a community. We support all different kinds of activities, including park infrastructure that’s accessible to everyone, so you can get out and live a full life. Beyond a plethora of activities, we sport one of the highest densities of specialty grocers per capita, along with several active farmers markets where we enjoy food and drink that support the whole health of our active community.

Santa Cruz’ mild weather, proximity to several northern California metropolitan centers, and scenic and recreation resources make it a popular day and extended-stay recreation area. As a result, the population is subject to large seasonal variations due to an influx of visitors during summer and other peak recreational periods. Planning for potential hazards in Santa Cruz must address the safety of its visitor population as well as residents, large student population, and workers within the community.

Santa Cruz is the largest city in Santa Cruz County and serves as the County government seat.

Since its founding, it has been the urban center of the County, providing employment and commercial, governmental, social, educational and cultural services to the larger area. The establishment (1964) and growth of the University of California at Santa Cruz have reinforced the city's role as a major social, cultural and scientific research center.

Santa Cruz occupies a picturesque location along the banks of the San Lorenzo River, between the Pacific Ocean on the Monterey Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Public and privately owned lands along the city’s western, northern and eastern boundaries form a greenbelt of open space; land uses, including agriculture and grazing lands, natural areas, parks, coastal recreation and low-density residential areas. This picturesque location also contributes to the potential hazards faced by the city. The downtown and higher density urban core is located within a flood plain. There are only four bridges across the river connecting the two sides of the community.

Past experience has shown that losing even one of these bridges in a disaster presents significant problems in addition to traffic impacts.

The city’s Mediterranean climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, rainy winters. Warm temperatures and low precipitation are the norm from approximately April through August. November through March is dominated by cooler temperatures and heavy rains.

Though winters are typically mild, colder winds from inland regions with more continental climates can result in short-term cold snaps. During the year the average temperature is approximately 58° F. The average high temperature is 69° F and the average low temperature is S
Supporting Documentation for Community Profile - City of Santa Cruz - Excerpts from 2019 LHMP

10.23 1
47° F. Because of this temperate climate, extreme heat is rarely a threat to the community. Both summer and winter temperatures are moderated by the marine influence and summer fog is a common occurrence. Winds are generally northwesterly and seldom reach severe intensities. The Santa Cruz Mountains form a natural barrier to winds from the north and from the hot interior valleys. Rainfall averages approximately 31 inches per year. Over the past 25 years, it has ranged from 15 inches in 1989 to 59.8 inches in 1983 with an average 32 inches of rainfall annually (UCSC 2005 Long Range Development Plan [LRDP]).

Table 2-1 Temperature Averages for Santa Cruz
Average High/Low Temperature Average Rainfall
January 63˚/41˚F (17˚/5˚C) January 6.3 inches (160mm)
August 76˚/54˚F (24˚/12˚C) August 0.04 inch (1mm)
Source: U.S Climate Data
Table 2-2 City of Santa Cruz Population and Household Growth — U.S. Census 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Population(s) Number Percent
Total population 62,752 100.0
Sex and Age
Male 30,895 49.2
Female 31,857 50.8
Median age (years) 28.7
18 years and under 8,698 13.9
65 years and over 6,079 9.7
Disabled 4,639 7.4
Total households 21,657 100.0
Households with individuals under 18 years 4,817 22.2
Households with individuals 65 years and over 4,111 19.0 Average household size 2.39
Housing Occupancy
Total housing units 23,499 100.0
Occupied housing units 21,516 91.6
Vacant housing units 1,983 8.4
Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) 1.8
Rental vacancy rate (percent) 2.7
Owner-occupied housing units 9,459 44
Renter-occupied housing units 12,057 56
Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.47
Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.51
The population of the City of Santa Cruz grew an estimated 4.7% between 2010 and 2015, rising from an estimated 59,946 to 62,752 persons. Approximately 13.9% of households have residents under 18 years old. Approximately 9.7% of households have residents 65 or over. Approximately

10.24 2

COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The City of Santa Cruz owns or leases approximately forty significant buildings. These buildings are used for various purposes including government administration, providing essential and emergency services, recreation, cultural and performing arts. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the city began examining the risks to its buildings from disasters, particularly earthquakes. A number of buildings were assessed for seismic safety and, when warranted, strengthened. Some city buildings essential for emergency response activities have been assessed and repaired or replaced.

A list of City facilities appears in Appendix I. Appendix N shows the larger Santa Cruz County area including Loch Lomond Reservoir from which Figure 4 (above) is extracted.

City of Santa Cruz-owned infrastructure consists of the following elements:

Water Treatment Plant
Loch Lomond Reservoir
River levees
Roads, alleys, curbs, paths
Retaining walls
Storm drains
San Lorenzo River, creeks, open channels and culverts
Wastewater Treatment Facility and sanitary sewer system Water Street Bridge
Soquel Bridge
Laurel Street Bridge
Highway 1 Bridge (two sections)
Over 25 City parks and extensive network of street trees Municipal Wharf including Marine Safety and Lifeguard Headquarters Emergency Operations Center*
*leased: primary EOC site
Critical Facilities not owned by the City
There are a number of critical facilities within the city limits that are not owned by the City. The County Government Center, the County Jail, the National Guard Armory and the U.S. Post Office are some of the buildings that are within the city but are not owned by the City. The primary Emergency Operations Center is a leased facility.

Hospitals and schools are critical facilities that are not operated or owned by city government.

Hospitals
There are no hospitals within the City of Santa Cruz. There are several rehabilitation facilities, medical clinics, senior and long term care facilities.

10.25 3
Figure 5 – Public and Private Schools, Day Care and Senior Facilities Schools
Santa Cruz City Schools is independent from City government and manages primary and secondary education and education facilities, including all public schools in the city. The City government has no authority over these structures, but does provide police and fire services to the school district.

10.26 4
Supporting Documentation for Community Profile
City of Santa Cruz
Disadvantaged Communities Map
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/

10.27 5
March 30, 2022
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Hazard Mitigation Grants Program Unit
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Support for the City of Santa Cruz’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update Dear State Hazard Mitigation Officer,
Ecology Action strongly supports the City of Santa Cruz’s application to FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Ecology Action began in Santa Cruz on the nation’s first Earth Day, April 22, 1970. Since then, we have grown into an industry leader that empowers individuals and organizations to make positive changes for a healthier, more equitable, low-carbon future.

Our mission is to provide innovative energy, water, and transportation solutions to communities across California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at scale. We empower people, businesses, and communities to make simple, yet profound changes that have measurable, equitable economic and environmental impact.

Policy documents such as a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan allow jurisdictions to be pro-active in their approach to prioritizing and mitigating climate-related threats. We have worked with the City on previous plan updates and look forward to supporting this update as well. This is our future and shared reality; we must work together to get there.

We envision a future where sustainability is a cornerstone strategy in every business, large and small; where equitable, clean, affordable transportation is available to all; and where the positive impact of individual choices ripples outward creating a wave of awareness and positive action.

The City of Santa Cruz’s commitment to sustainability and climate change is critical, and Ecology Action strongly supports much needed funding for the City to update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. If you have any questions or comments about our support, feel free to contact me at (831) 332-3619.

Sincere Regards,
Kirsten Liske
Vice President Community Programs

10.28 6
April 4, 2022
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Hazard Mitigation Grants Program Unit
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Support for the City of Santa Cruz’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update Dear State Hazard Mitigation Officer,
On behalf of the Nueva Vista Community Resources, I’m happy to provide support for the City of Santa Cruz’s application to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Beach Flats neighborhood, located between the Santa Cruz Boardwalk area and the San Lorenzo River, is our primary service area in Santa Cruz. We fully support and look forward to opportunities to participate in this important plan update that will provide mitigation actions that will benefit Beach Flats residents, and the City as a whole.

Our mission is to deliver essential services, provide equitable access to resources, and advocate for health and dignity across every stage of life. Nueva Vista Community Resources is part of the Community Bridges family of programs, which has been a catalyst for a brighter future by delivering fundamental resources for the people of Santa Cruz County since 1977. We expand community access to recreation activities, academic empowerment and positive youth development.

In addition to being highly vulnerable to storm related flooding, the Beach Flats neighborhood is home to the City’s most vulnerable residents. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 population characteristics indicate that this neighborhood has housing burden in the 99th percentile, poverty in the 90th percentile, education in the 49th percentile, unemployment in the 36th percentile, and linguistic isolation on the 31st percentile. Recent data has suggested that the neighborhood has one of the highest social vulnerability ratings in the City and is also highly vulnerable to sea level rise by 2060.

We appreciate the opportunity to join this important conversation with the City and other stakeholder groups and look forward to working together to find solutions that will help mitigate the impact of future disasters and climate change. Nueva Vista Community Resources strongly supports this important plan update and we urge CalOES to fund the City of Santa Cruz’s update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Sincerely,
Pamela Nell
Program Manager

10.29 7

10.30 8

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

COASTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY GRADUATE PROGRAM

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
115 McALLISTER WAY
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060 csp.ucsc.edu
March 31, 2022
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Hazard Mitigation Grants Program Unit
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Letter of Support: City of Santa Cruz Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update Dear State Hazard Mitigation Officer:

The University of California- Santa Cruz Coastal Science and Policy Program is pleased to support the City of Santa Cruz’s application to FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).

The Coastal Science and Policy Program at UC Santa Cruz aims to educate emerging coastal science and policy leaders to identify critical threats to social and ecological systems, respond to complex problems with effective, practical alternatives, and advance innovative, interdisciplinary solutions. Our mission is to prepare students to design and implement solutions to the complex social, ecological, and technological problems facing the world’s coastal communities and ecosystems.

With our campus and climate research facility located in Santa Cruz, we are happy to support the City’s LHMP update. We have worked with the City on other climate policy documents, including the Climate Action appendix, which will be updated as a component within the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Local climate action and hazard mitigation planning is crucial to finding solutions to the increasingly complex challenges coastal communities such as Santa Cruz face. Our frequent interactions with the City of Santa Cruz have confirmed the high caliber of its innovative work on local hazard mitigation planning.

We look forward to working with the City of Santa Cruz on this important plan update, and providing supporting data and other input as needed. We strongly support this initiative, and hope that CalOES funds this critical project.

Sincerely,

Anne R. Kapuscinski
Director, Coastal Science and Policy Program
Professor, Environmental Studies Department
[email protected] | 831-502-8722

BERKELEY • DAVI S • IRVI NE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSI DE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCI SCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

10.31 9

10.32 10.33

10.34 10.35

10.36 10.37

10.38 1
Cost Estimate Narrative
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
The proposed project’s cost estimate is based on City of Santa Cruz cost estimates for similar planning projects completed in the past year. The budget narrative follows the cost classification categories designated in the CalOES’s Project Cost Estimate form in its online portal and in category instructions.

Cost Type 1: Force Account Labor: Project Management
The Force Account Labor: Project Management line item is based on the Climate and Sustainability Manager’s hourly rate, which is fully burdened and is comprised of salary and fringe benefits. The total Force Account Labor: Project Management for this project is $28,011, and is broken out by task as follows:

Activity 1: Pre-Award Not Applicable
Activity 2: Planning Process 30 hours x $93.37 per hour = $2,801.10 Activity 3: Hazard Identification 40 hours x $93.37 per hour = $3,734.80 Activity 4: Risk Assessment 40 hours x $93.37 per hour = $3,734.80 Activity 5: Mitigation Strategy 40 hours x $93.37 per hour = $3,734.80 Activity 6: Plan Preparation 40 hours x $93.37 per hour = $3,734.80 Activity 7: Plan Drafting 25 hours x $93.37 per hour = $2,334.25 Activity 8: Public Outreach/Meetings 40 hours x $93.37 per hour = $3,734.80 Activity 9: Plan Adoption 20 hours x $93.37 per hour = $1,867.40 Activity 10: Project Closeout 25 hours x $93.37 per hour = $2,334.25 Please refer to page 3 for Scope of Work Task List.

Cost Type 2: Contractor/Consultant: Planning Consultant The City of Santa Cruz will competitively procure a qualified consulting firm to develop the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan & Climate Adaptation Plan updates. The proposed sub-tasks are subject to change pending further collaboration with the procured consultant and their team but shall be completed with the requested grant funds and within the proposed timeline. Costs and hours are based on the assumption that a team of multiple staff will perform the proposed tasks over an 18-month period.

The proposed total consulting cost for this project is $140,000, and is broken out by task as follows:

Activity 1: Pre-Award Not Applicable
Activity 2: Planning Process 30 hours x $250 per hour = $7,500 Activity 3: Hazard Identification 60 hours x $250 per hour = $15,000 Activity 4: Risk Assessment 60 hours x $250 per hour = $15,000 Activity 5: Mitigation Strategy 120 hours x $250 per hour = $30,000 Activity 6: Plan Preparation 120 hours x $250 per hour = $30,000 Activity 7: Plan Drafting 80 hours x $250 per hour = $20,000 Activity 8: Public Outreach/Meetings 70 hours x $250 per hour = $17,500 Activity 9: Plan Adoption 20 hours x $250 per hour = $5,000 Activity 10: Closeout Not Applicable
Please refer to page 3 for Scope of Work Task List.

10.39 2
Cost Estimate Narrative
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
Cost Type 3: Force Account Labor: Plan Steering Committee The Plan Steering Committee will be comprised in part by key City of Santa Cruz staff members. Force Account Labor for the project reflects a combined hourly rate, which is fully burdened and is comprised of salary and fringe benefits. The proposed total Force Account Labor for the project is $21,989 and is broken out by task as follows:

Activity 2: Planning Process 12 hours x $785.32 per hour = $9,423.84 Activity 6: Plan Preparation 16 hours x $785.32 per hour = $12,565.12 Please refer to page 3 for Scope of Work Task List.

Cost Type 4: Office Supplies and Printing: Design, Printing, and Supplies The City anticipated needing $3,000 for design and printing of handouts, draft and final plans, as well as other supplies during the course of the 18-month planning process.

Cost Type 5: Other Direct Costs: Translation and Outreach Services The City has allocated $7,000 for translation services for this project that will be used to translate printed and digital information as well as provide a bilingual translator to support Public Outreach meetings with frontline groups and underserved communities.

Match Commitment
The City of Santa Cruz will provide a local match of $50,000 (25%) as in-kind allocation of funds. The $50,000 will be met with in kind allocation of staff time from staff members supporting the project in the role of Project Manager and as part of the Plan Steering Committee.

10.40 3
Cost Estimate Narrative
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
Scope of Work
Task List: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Activity 1: Pre-Award
No Pre-Award activities are included in the Scope of Work for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Please see Grant Management Cost Application for Pre-Award Subapplication Development request) Activity 2: Planning Process
The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Manager will be the Project Manager and will work closely with a Planning Consultant and lead the Plan Steering Committee (PSC). The Project Manager will maintain a website with project documentation and information. The PSC will be comprised of senior representatives from all departments, key community stakeholders/experts, and at least one member of a frontline group. The PSC will meet bimonthly with the Consultant to provide expert input and guidance and will be involved in all aspects of Plan development.

Upon consultant selection, the Project Manager and PSC will meet with the consultant for a kickoff meeting to refine the scope of work for the Plan update process. The consultant will provide agendas prior to PSC meetings, provide handouts and maps, track major decision points, and provide minutes summarizing each meeting.

The Consultant and PSC will complete an Equity Readiness Assessment to ensure equitable processes and outcomes. They will design and conduct community engagement, focusing on frontline and other historically under-represented and -served people, calling upon a broad stakeholder network to engage diverse voices. Social media, a frontline neighborhood liaison, media ads, online neighborhood groups, flyers, and fact sheets will be used to promote engagement, and all will be available in Spanish and in English. Compensation for outreach and translation services will be provided.

Activity 3: Hazard Identification & Data Collection
The PSC and Consultant will conduct community-based discovery process will enable identification of hazards, changes in trajectory, and their cascading and interacting impacts from local experts, stakeholders, and lived experiences of frontline groups. For example, the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean neighborhoods frequently experience flooding. With unmitigated future climate change, flooding threatens to cut the only access roads to the area, damage a community garden that acts as a food source, and jeopardizes life and property. Additionally, outreach with businesses and property owners in the City’s historic downtown commercial district is crucial as it is located within the San Lorenzo River floodplain. The Consultant will reference prior studies and planning initiatives that will inform hazard identification.

Activity 4: Risk Assessment
The Consultant will lead Risk Assessment activities, utilizing data (e.g., census, National Risk Index, US Climate Resilience Toolkit, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Resilience Toolkit) to characterize the magnitude, severity and frequency of each hazard and combinations thereof. The vulnerability of and impacts to people, infrastructure, ecosystems and economic activity

10.41 4
Cost Estimate Narrative
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
will also be assessed. Other resources and tools to assess these dimensions will also include GIS geospatial analysis, FEMA HaZUS tool, and the new ecosystem services layers on the US Geological Survey’s Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics tool, mapping potential areas of coastal flooding from storms and sea-level rise and providing maps of impacts to coastal residents, property, infrastructure, and critical facilities. The FEMA Resilience Analysis tool will be utilized to update and supplement the City’s understanding of social vulnerability to climate change assessment, building on the 2018 study.

The Consultant will develop compelling maps and tables of these findings and compile them into a draft Technical Memorandum 1.

Activity 5: Mitigation Strategy
The Consultant, in coordination with the PSC, will develop mitigation strategies using the framework established in the current plan as a starting point. The PSC will then identify mitigation actions that support those objectives across all hazards and for the most likely combinations of hazards. Mitigation actions will be assigned a level of priority (Very High, High, or Important) based on the FEMA STAPLEE prioritization matrix. Priority rankings will be based on several criteria, including (but not limited to) contribution to equitable outcomes. Contribution to equitable outcomes will be assessed through an equity screening tool the City developed with equity advisors for its Climate Action Plan 2030 development.

The PSC will review and adjust criteria scoring for each action and develop and refine strategies based on data identified during risk assessment, and recommendations identified by FEMA, CalOES and other expert resources. The Consultant and PSC will then develop an “acceptable level of risk” for each hazard and hazard combination, which, when exceeded, will necessitate a shift to a mitigation action. The acceptable level of risk will be translated into triggers and the thresholds for mitigation and a monitoring program to enable proactive Plan implementation. The Consultant will also conduct a “plan alignment crosswalk” indicating which City and regional plans require updating and integration of these findings.

The Consultant will document and refine the findings and include the plan alignment crosswalk to produce draft Technical Memorandum 2.

Activity 6: Plan Preparation
The Consultant will draft concepts for the remaining plan components, including the funding and implementation plan, continuous improvement/capability development, and tracking and reporting, and will review the approach with the PSC for feedback and to utilize in community engagement efforts to gather input to Plan Development. After conducting this outreach and engagement, the Consultant will utilize Technical Memorandums 1 and 2, and feedback from stakeholders in Engagement 3 to produce an administrative draft Plan.

Activity 7: Plan Drafting
Administrative Draft will be presented and provided to the PSC, key city staff, City attorney, other relevant City leadership, appropriate commissions with statutory authority, and regional planning agencies for review utilizing online draft plan review and comment crowdsourcing tool over a 4-week period. The Consultant will analyze comments, questions, and feedback, summarizing them into themes to address and review with internal stakeholders at a virtual 90-minute workshop with the aim of getting consensus on outstanding issues and to align across jurisdictional scales. The Consultant will

10.42 5
Cost Estimate Narrative
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
then produce a public review draft Plan including all Plan components, a full description of the planning process, data and maps used in the development of the Plan, and other elements prescribed by FEMA and/or CalOES. The public review draft Plan will be available for public review utilizing draft plan review and comment crowdsourcing tool over a 4-week period.

The City will also aim for optimal accessibility to the public review draft Plan, providing translated summaries, hard copies at community centers and will accept written and emailed comments. The public review draft plan will be graphically appealing, accessible in format and style and clearly delineate roles and responsibilities of the City and its stakeholders.

Activity 8: Public Outreach/Meetings/Public Hearings
The City will build on previous climate planning with frontline community groups to ensure equitable processes and outcomes. Inviting frontline groups to be part of the PSC will prioritize their needs, input, and voice at every stage. Outreach will allow the public to share input and ensures future implementation is grounded in community support. The PSC will develop a robust public outreach program with a goal of engaging City residents, business owners, and property owners, and particularly historically under-represented and -served people. Engagements will be held to gather questions, concerns, and ideas. There will be accessible options for each engagement with translation, in person and self-guided options. Participants will complete a short evaluation to assess efficacy in approach and make process improvements. The Consultant will summarize and provide to participants all engagement feedback to confirm accurate understanding and incorporate into final documentation. The Consultant will also analyze participants’ evaluations of each engagement to improve future engagements. All documentation, engagement summaries and materials will be translated and posted on the project website, and a bilingual interpreter will be available at in-person outreach opportunities.

Activity 9: Plan Adoption
The consultant will work with the PSC to follow local approval processes for the Plan update with one planning meeting dedicated to defining the steps to approval. After the public review period closes, the Consultant will produce a draft final Plan. The City, with the assistance of the consultant, will submit the updated draft final Plan to California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA, respond to questions that may arise during the review and adoption process, and incorporate any mandated revisions to ensure the Final Plan’s approval. Following approval by FEMA, City staff will present the Final Plan to relevant commissions with the goal of seeking recommendations to City Council to adopt the Plan.

The Consultant will draft a City Council agenda report and resolution to approve and accept the Final Plan. Members of the Team and Steering Committee will present the final Plan to City Council for adoption at a City Council regular business. The City, with assistance from the Consultant, will submit proof of adoption to FEMA for final approval of the updated plan.

Activity 10: Project Closeout
The Project Manager and Grant Manager will provide all reqiured and final reporting, review final consultant invoices, and file grant reimbursement requests as per the grant administration guidelines provided by FEMA and CalOES.

10.43 1
Cost Estimate Supporting Documentation
City of Santa Cruz LHMP Update
Documents attached to this memo were used to form the cost estimate for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, specifically to create a budget for the Planning Consultant, and for precontract application preparation completed by a Grant Management firm.

Exhibit 1: Planning Consultant Supporting Document (p. 1 – 46) The attached Executed Agreement between the City of Santa Cruz and the California Coastal Commission represents a similarly sized planning project recently completed to develop local coastal program strategies. The value of the contract is $200,000.

Exhibit 2: Grant Management Supporting Documents (p. 47 – 49) Blais and Associates completed application preparation work for the City of Santa Cruz’s Notice of Intent and Subapplication. Two documents are attached to support the City of Santa Cruz’s request for reimbursement of Grant Management Costs: 1) approved Purchase Order from the City of Santa Cruz to complete the NOI ($4,025); and 2) signed quote to complete the Subapplication ($7,590).

The total cost for Blais and Associates to complete this critical application preparation work is $11,615.

10.44 10.45
1 10.46
2 10.47
3 10.48
4 10.49
5 10.50
6 10.51
7 10.52
8 10.53
9 10.54
10 10.55
11 10.56
12 10.57
13 10.58
14 10.59
15 10.60
16 10.61
17 10.62
18 10.63
19 10.64
20 10.65
21 10.66
22 10.67
23 10.68
24 10.69
25 10.70
26 10.71
27 10.72
28 10.73
29 10.74
30 10.75
31 10.76
32 10.77
33 10.78
34 10.79
35 10.80
36 10.81
37 10.82
38 10.83
39 10.84
40 10.85
41 10.86
42 10.87
43 10.88
44 10.89
45 10.90
46 10.91
47 Quote Prepared By:

Whitten Guajardo
832-851-5923
[email protected]
www.blaisassoc.com
Client Name
Client Contact(s)
Grant Program
Project Due
Project Name
Date Prepared
Revenue Potential
Project Cost
Project Cost as % of Revenue Potential
Hourly Rate
Hours Total Cost
5 $575.00
1 $115.00
20 $2,300.00
5 $575.00
5 $575.00
5 $575.00
1 $115.00
2 $230.00
2 $230.00
20 $2,300.00
66 $7,590.00
Activity

SUBTOTAL
Allowance for conference calls with client and coordinating with other consultants, if necessary.

Provide 80% draft and 100% final to client for review. Incorporate client feedback and comments. Upload subapplication to Engage CalOES portal. Prepare final files for Client's permanent record keeping.

Review full application materials and develop checklist & timeline; prepare for and lead kick-off conference call with Client; prepare and distribute meeting notes; review Webinar slides.

Develop support letters.

Develop draft resolution
Complete Project Sub-Application Template. Includes developing narrative questions with 4,000 character limits (about one page single-spaced text per question). Questions may include: 1) Problem/hazards/risks; 2) Recent events that influenced selection of the project; 3) Scope of work, and 4) others, etc. Assumes 15 pages of single-spaced narrative @ 3 hours each.

Complete FEMA Locations template with property data as needed.

Develop project location maps and photo pages as needed.

Project Quote
November 23, 2021
$150,000
$7,590

5.06%
$115
City of Santa Cruz
Laura Schmidt, Assistant City Manager
Tony Elliot, Director of Parks and Recreation
Tiffany Wise-West, Sustainability and Climate Action Manager CalOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Full
Application
April 8, 2022
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Develop Budget and narrative (use CalOES Excel spreadsheet).

Complete Certification of Lobbying Debarment, etc. and other forms.

Develop a Match Commitment Letter, required to demonstrate local match is available (use template).

Santa Cruz: CalOES HMGP Full App 11/23/2021
48 1 of 2

10.92 Quote Prepared By:

Whitten Guajardo
832-851-5923
[email protected]
www.blaisassoc.com
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
66 $7,590.00
Signature Approving Costs and Authorizing Notice to Proceed Date Printed Name
Please note that this quote is fixed fee for service based on current conditions and understandings. Many factors may change during the development of a project, including Client requests, that may increase the amount of work required to successfully perform services. During the course of work, if there is a material change in scope, B&A will notify the point of contact and mutually agree to a change order or discuss alternatives.

SUBTOTAL

GRAND TOTAL
Final Files (link)
Reproduction for hard copy (not applicable)
Express Delivery mail or courier services (not applicable) Notes and Assumptions
1) Project maximum: $50 million. Local match is 25%.
2) Notice of Interest (NOI) due December 31, 2021; if invited, full application due March 10, 2022. 3) Performance Period: must be completed within 36 months. 5) This quote contains hours only for the full application. It does not include work for the NOI.

Direct Costs (charged at cost, no mark-up)
4) CALOES Portal does not support Internet Explorer. Must use Chrome or Microsoft Edge.

Santa Cruz: CalOES HMGP Full App 11/23/2021 2 of 2
Tiffany Wise-West
2/28/2022

10.93 49

10.94 10.95

10.96 10.97

10.98 10.99

10.100

10.101

10.102

10.103

10.104

10.105

10.106

10.107

10.108

10.109

10.110

10.111

10.112

10.113

10.114

10.115

10.116
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 4.26.22 Agenda Item # 10 Hazard Mitigation Grant

4.26.22 Agenda Item # 10 Hazard Mitigation Grant
Dear Council,
I am amused by the first sentence of Wiki-pedia's topic of "Sea Level Rise". It says "Tide gauge measurements show that the current global sea level rise began at the start of the 20th century." That of course is quite misleading or just false in that sea level rise began 20,000 years ago. We would have been under a mile of ice back then, and sea levels have risen 410 ft since then to present. Millions of years ago, sea levels were much higher.

While estimates vary, the actual rise in the last 25 years has been about 3 inches.

It is a real concern long term.

I would like the fruits of the last Climate Adaptation Plan to be known. Having read the last Plan over, I see it was about 100% concerned with studies, but actual action (that would make those studies worth a hoot mitigating sea rise as a result of those studies) missing or impossible to find for me.

I suspect this current grant will also fund studies, but with $50,000 of city salary committed to boot.

I'm not sure any studies are needed to be sure the sea will rise, and since we don't know by how much exactly, and your studies won't reveal that, more study seems a bit odd since study itself doesn't really do anything about that almost certainty.

Is there any way you could indicate exactly what actions have and will be undertaken if we only had these studies done to seriously mitigate sea level rise effect besides telling people someday, perhaps not in their lifetimes, they will need to move away from the shore?
Thanks, Garrett Philipp

10.117
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/08/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Opposition to Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and Reiterated Support for Continued Rail Planning on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution opposing Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative on the June 2022 ballot and reiterating the City of Santa Cruz support for continued rail planning on the Santa Cruz Branch line.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz has long supported rail with trail on the 32-mile Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. The Council has taken many actions to affirm support of continuing on a path towards implementation of passenger transit on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL), including: Council's resolution of support for rail with trail in 2015 (attached); sending a letter to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) in support of the Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Rail Network Integration Study (TCAA/RNIS) (attached); adoption of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan; and the aggressive push for implementation of Rail Trail in the County, including completion of Segment 7 Phase 1, upcoming construction of Segment 7 Phase 2, and design and preconstruction activities for Segments 8 and 9.

The Measure D-Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative (Initiative) is in direct opposition to the policies and values of the City of Santa Cruz. The Measure D initiative calls for the removal of tracks and eliminates any and all references to rail and rail planning, and would hamper existing rail and trail construction efforts. Measure D is bad for equity, mobility, and addressing the pressing threats of climate change. Measure D will bring trail work in the unincorporated County to a halt and cause years of community based planning work to be undone, necessitating long delays before progress on the trail can be made. While Measure D proponents claim that their vision is fully funded, this is factually inaccurate. The City of Santa Cruz is proving that we can have a world class trail adjacent to rail, with sections complete, underway, and in planning phases.

DISCUSSION: On May 6, 2010, the RTC unanimously decided to purchase the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line for $14.2 million. On January 19, 2011, the RTC secured approval and funding from the California Transportation Commission for purchase of the Branch Line. On October 12, 2012 — after more than ten years of extensive due diligence and negotiations — the SCCRTC closed escrow for the acquisition of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) from Union Pacific thereby placing a new transportation corridor in public ownership.

11.1 Since that time, the City of Santa Cruz has actively participated in SCCRTC planning processes for the future use of the rail line. To date, the Council has taken many actions related to transportation planning and policy on the Rail Corridor in support of trail with transit, with an unwavering position that both trail and transit meet the transportation needs of our growing community. These are summarized below:
 Adopted Resolution reaffirming support for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan and the preservation of the rail option (November 5, 2015,  Adopted the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan (Rail Trail Master Plan) and are moving forward with building the trail adjacent to the rail, in accordance with that adopted plan. Council approval of Segment 7 Phases 1 and 2, as well as Council approval of grant applications to proceed with Segments 8 and 9 in accordance with the Rail Trail Master Plan.
 Supported TCAA/RNIS Locally Preferred Alternative, with electric commuter rail or electric light rail on the rail line via letter to SCCRTC and resolution  Opposed the potential adverse abandonment actions for heavy rail service on the Felton Branch Rail Line (Attachment 4). This action would result in the eventual demise of Roaring Camp, a much loved and long standing local business that provides recreational freight services in Santa Cruz County.
 Adopted General Plan and Climate Action Plan policies supporting public transportation on the rail corridor.
 Committed to building the rail trail, including leveraging local funds to achieve project readiness and completion. To date, the City of Santa Cruz has had the most aggressive implementation of rail trail in the County. This includes:
o Segment 7 Phase 1 (Natural Bridges Dr to Bay St) - COMPLETE: this 1.2 mile section of trail was funded with a federal earmark, local and regional Measure D, STIP, and community donations.
o Segment 7 Phase 2 (Bay St to Wharf) - CONSTRUCTION 2022: This .8 miles section of rail trail will go to construction this year, funded by a Caltrans Active Transportation Program Cycle 5 grant and local and regional Measure D funds. o Segments 8 and 9 (Wharf to 17th Avenue) - UNDERWAY: The design, environmental and permitting phases of these sections of rail trail are underway, with anticipated completion in early 2023. This is funded by a Caltrans Active Transportation Program Cycle 3 Grant and a local match from the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. The City and County of Santa Cruz will jointly be applying for construction funding for these segments in June 2022.

Pursuing rail service between north and south Santa Cruz County and connecting to Monterey County and the rest of the state and national rail network meets a range of policy goals of the City of Santa Cruz specified in the General Plan and Climate Action Plan, including:
 Reduce single occupant vehicle trips by providing a fast and reliable travel option.  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vehicle miles travelled, both of which have been identified as key factors in fighting climate change and reducing the adverse impacts of global warming. This is supported by Council Adoption of local implementation of SB 743.
 Improve the jobs/housing/mobility balance by improving access to higher paying jobs and higher education opportunities located in north county for south county residents.  Address social, environmental, and transportation justice

11.2 The Measure D Greenways initiative would take us backwards. According to the impartial analysis of Measure D prepared by County Counsel, while the Initiative focuses on the segment of the Corridor between the San Lorenzo Bridge in the City of Santa Cruz and Lee Road in the City of Watsonville, because the County’s General Plan only applies to the unincorporated areas of the County, areas of the Corridor located within any city limits would not be impacted by the Initiative. Despite the Initiative not changing the planning in the City of Santa Cruz, through requiring language changes to the County General Plan to remove any and all references to rail and future rail planning, it would result in the City of Santa Cruz losing the connection to the statewide and national rail network. Additionally, through these changes, progress on further sections of rail trail in the unincorporated areas would be halted as a railbanking approval is sought from the federal government, freight operators, and the RTC. This will delay forward progress on a connected and continuous 32 mile trail, which the City of Santa Cruz continues to construct.

The City Council of the City of Santa Cruz opposes Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Submitted By:

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Donna Meyers
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Martine Watkins
Vice Mayor
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. NOVEMBER 10, 2015 AGENDA REPORT AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TRAIL WITH TRANSIT.PDF

3. RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,805 URGING THE SCCRTC TO IMPLEMENT PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON THE SANTA CRUZ BRANCH RAIL LINE.PDF

4. LETTER OPPOSE ADVERSE ABANDONMENT.PDF

5. EXISTING POLICY SUPPORT.PDF

11.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ OPPOSING MEASURE D – SANTA CRUZ COUNTY GREENWAY INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, the People of Santa Cruz County purchased a 32-mile railroad corridor parallel to Highway 1 in 2012 to provide multiple alternatives to sitting in traffic: clean-energy public transportation and a safe trail for walking and biking; and WHEREAS, trail segments from the plan are already complete in areas of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, and in 2016, voters further invested in the rail corridor by passing Measure D, which allocates ongoing funding to support both rail and trail projects; and WHEREAS, the Greenway measure calls for removal of existing tracks that could be used for clean-energy light rail public transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Greenway measure will eliminate Santa Cruz County’s best clean-energy public transportation strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change; and WHEREAS, there are no relevant examples in the U.S. that railbanking results in rail service actually being restored once tracks are removed and replaced by a paved trail; and WHEREAS, the Greenway measure rewrites the County General Plan to eliminate references to rail and all planning for future clean-energy light rail public transportation; and WHEREAS, ripping out railroad tracks will cost tens of millions of dollars and create health and safety hazards from exposure and disposal of toxic soil and metals; and WHEREAS, traffic jams on Highway 1 are one of the biggest problems in the County, with working people in South County often spending 90 minutes each way trying to get to work in Santa Cruz, often sitting in idling cars that create harmful greenhouse gases and carbon emissions and keep commuters away from their families; and
WHEREAS, if the Greenway measure passes, clean-energy, light-rail public transportation will be eliminated as an alternative to clogged Highway 1 traffic; and WHEREAS, the Greenway measure assumes hardworking South County commuters will switch from their cars to E-bikes and E-scooters for the 20-mile ride from Watsonville to Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, the Greenway measure would stop existing rail and trail construction efforts, leading to costly delays and potential lawsuits.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Santa Cruz City Council hereby endorses a No vote on the June 7 Greenway measure.

11.4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

11.5 11.6

11.7 11.8

11.9 11.10

11.11 11.12

11.13 11.14

11.15 11.16

11.17 11.18

11.19 11.20

11.21 11.22

11.23 11.24

11.25 11.26

11.27 11.28

11.29 11.30

11.31 11.32
General Plan
LU4.2.3 Prepare a Rail Transit Land Use Plan and recommend land use changes at and near proposed transit stops in anticipation of local rail service. Cf. LU4.5 and M1.4.1 and 1.4.2.

LU4.5 Seek opportunities to secure land for transit center development along rail lines. Cf. LU4.2.3, M1.4.1, M1.4.2, M2.2.

LU4.5.1 Consult with the Regional Transportation Commission on land dedications or land use changes related to future transit centers.

LU4.5.2 Condition projects located along rail lines for potential rail stops.

M2.2 Encourage passenger rail transit or other alternative transportation options via the continued support, acquisition, and expansion of railroad rights-of-way. Cf. LU4, LU4.5, ED1.9.2, M1, M2.3.2.

M2.2.1 Protect existing and potential railroad lines and rights-of-way, and other potential rightsof-way, from land uses that would prevent the development of rail or fixed-guideway services or other t transportation related uses in the future.

M2.2.2 Encourage the continued transport of goods by rail.

M4.3.2 Develop bike commute routes along railroad rights-of way (while ensuring the ability to develop rail transit) and along West Cliff Drive, Broadway, King, and other streets.

Climate Action Plan
4a. Work with the local partners and regional transportation planning groups to support the use of the rail corridor as a supplemental regional commute option. 5g. Participate in RTC processes to develop a rail corridor that provides an economically viable trail and rail service by 2020.

11.33 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: ROBERT STEPHENS <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Measure D
Attachments: Explainer - Santa Cruz Local.pdf
Dear City Council Members:

I see that you have a consent agenda item on not supporting Measure D on your next agenda. I view this as a huge mistake and wonder if you have asked both sides to present on this issue.  It appears that you don’t have any interest in hearing opposing  thoughts. This goes against all good rules of governance, but I don’t think that will stop you.

A sales tax, which is needed for a future train, is very much a regressive tax, which will hurt low income people. Climate change is real and needs solutions now, not 20 years from now. While the city of Santa Cruz has portions of a  trail the majority of the county will not get one because there is no room in the corridor for both a trail and a train. The RTC is currently looking at an alternate trail, which uses all of the corridor for a trail, so there will be no delay of the trail when Measure D passes.

The Santa Cruz County Business Council, heard both sides of the issue and has recently come out in support of Measure D, as have thousands of city residents.  I am attaching an article from Santa Cruz Local which is very balance. If nothing else please read this.

Sincerely,
Robert
Robert Stephens

11.34 Explainer: Santa Cruz County’s rail trail
ballot measure
By Stephen Baxter|April 8, 2022
Readers have asked many questions about Measure D and the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. In part of Aptos, the line runs near Mar Vista Drive. (Stephen Baxter — Santa Cruz Local file) Editor’s note: Additional information on proposed path widths have been added to image captions in this story.

SANTA CRUZ >> On June 7, Santa Cruz County residents will vote on Measure D, the Greenway ballot initiative.

The ballot measure, spurred by local nonprofit Santa Cruz County Greenway Inc. and more than 12,000 valid signatures, would change the Santa Cruz County’s General Plan to promote Greenway’s vision for a trail: two lanes of bike traffic, a divider and a walkway. Current plans call for a shared walk and bike path on the rail line or next to the rail line.

In recent weeks, Santa Cruz Local readers asked several questions about Measure D. Readers said they wanted to understand what’s at stake legally and symbolically for the rail trail and for potential passenger rail service on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. Readers also wanted to further understand railbanking and the role it plays in trail construction and rail transit.

To find the answers, Santa Cruz Local spoke to:

11.35 • Guy Preston, executive director of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. Preston runs the agency that owns the rail line, but he does not vote on the commission. Preston relayed information from Steven Mattas, attorney for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.
• Jason Hoppin, spokesman for the County of Santa Cruz. Hoppin relayed information from County Counsel Jason Heath.
• Bud Colligan, steering committee member of Greenway. Greenway gathered signatures to put Measure D on the ballot.
• Mark Mesiti-Miller, co-chair of No Way Greenway campaign committee. This group leads a campaign against Measure D.

Other information was gathered from:
• Full text of Measure D.
• County Counsel Jason Heath’s impartial analysis of Measure D. • County of Santa Cruz staff report on Measure D.
• County of Santa Cruz workshops on designs for the rail trail on Segments 8, 9, 10 and 11 in April.

Short background
The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission owns the 32-mile Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line from Watsonville to Davenport. Commission staff, as well as planners from the County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz and design consultants are now accepting public feedback on designs for two versions of a rail trail from Santa Cruz to Aptos in several segments:
• An “ultimate” plan would build a paved bike and walk path parallel to the railroad tracks and leave the tracks intact for future passenger rail service. • An optional “interim” plan would remove the tracks and build a paved bike and walk path on top of where the rails now stand. The plan is to eventually remove the path and build the “ultimate” path parallel to the tracks to make way for passenger rail. Building the trail twice with the interim plan is more expensive, everyone involved said. Many rail supporters believe the “interim” plan will make it difficult or impossible to create a passenger rail system because of costs, legal reasons, political will and other factors.

The 12 members of the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission are expected to vote on whether they want the “interim” plan with a path on the tracks or the “ultimate” plan of a path next to the tracks. A draft environmental impact report on the two plans is due at the end of the year and a final report is due in spring 2023.

11.36 Planners have described an “ultimate” plan with a path next to the railroad tracks. On Segment 9 from the San Lorenzo River to 17th Avenue in Live Oak, the ultimate path is planned about 10 to 12 feet wide because of constraints with trees, hills, legal right-of-way and other factors, engineers said. On Segment 10 from 17th Avenue to 47th Avenue, it is “generally 12 feet wide but reduced in some areas to navigate some constraints,” said Rob Tidmore, Santa Cruz County Public Works project manager, during an April 6 public workshop. (Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission)

11.37 Planners have described an “interim” plan with a path on the rail line. On Segment 9 from the San Lorenzo River to 17th Avenue in Live Oak, it is planned to be 12 to 16 feet wide, engineers said. On Segment 10 from 17th Avenue to 47th Avenue, it is “generally 16 feet wide,” said Tidmore. “But just like the other alternative it is reduced in some areas to 12 feet to navigate constraints.” (Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission) Reader questions
Here are answers to some questions from Santa Cruz Local readers.

What is the purpose of Measure D?
Measure D proposes changes to the County of Santa Cruz’s General Plan. The planning language would shift toward a paved bike and walk path on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. It takes out language in the General Plan related to “passenger rail service.” Measure D needs more than 50% of the vote to pass.
• Because the County of Santa Cruz and the Regional Transportation Commission are separate agencies — and the Regional Transportation Commission owns the rail line — Measure D does not legally decide whether there will be passenger rail on the rail line.

That is the legal opinion of leaders and attorneys from the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, the County of Santa Cruz and Greenway representatives who initiated Measure D.
• No Way Greenway representatives believe Measure D’s legal effects are further reaching, and we’ll get into that below.
• Measure D’s passage would not stop planning for the rail trail or passenger rail, according to the legal opinion of the County Counsel Jason Heath and Regional Transportation Commission attorney Steven Mattas. Decisions on planning for the rail trail and passenger rail will be made by a majority vote of members of the Regional Transportation Commission, Heath and Mattas said.

If the Regional Transportation Commission ultimately will decide on whether passenger rail service will be pursued, why should I vote on Measure D? Measure D will weigh county voters’ preference on whether they want to continue to pursue passenger rail. That’s according to the Regional Transportation Commission executive director, Greenway leaders, and a spokesman and county counsel for the County of Santa Cruz. It also could be interpreted as a poll on whether voters want the “interim” path on the rail line or the “ultimate” path next to it. But again, all of those decisions ultimately will be made by the Regional Transportation Commission rather than voters.
“The changes to the General Plan are more symbolic — that this is what the county overall is saying its direction is with transportation,” said Bud Colligan, the Greenway steering committee member. He essentially said the vote is not meant to be legally binding, but rather to help sway members of the regional transportation commission to vote for the “interim” path on the rail line that is closest to Greenway’s vision.

11.38 Santa Cruz County Counsel Jason Heath and Jason Hoppin, a spokesman for the County of Santa Cruz, agreed. “We think this vote is largely advisory and not prescriptive,” Hoppin said, after speaking with Heath on April 6. “The significance of the vote is what the people say: How many people are on one side or the other,” Hoppin said.

Mark Mesiti-Miller, the co-chair of the No Way Greenway campaign committee, said he believed that the changes to the county’s General Plan were legally binding ways to prevent the county from planning for passenger rail.

Wait, Measure D removes the word “rail” and the phrase “passenger rail service” from the county’s General Plan. Does that kill the rail project? Hoppin and Santa Cruz County Counsel Jason Heath said the removal of some rail language does not rule out passenger rail. “We do not believe that the absence of a word from a county planning document dictates or precludes any future uses of a piece of property — particularly one not owned by the county,” Hoppin said.

Leaders of the No Way Greenway campaign disagreed with the county’s interpretation. “It is effectively a poison pill that will effectively prevent passenger rail transit from ever happening in Santa Cruz County,” Mesiti-Miller said. “I suspect that a lot of these kinds of issues will be litigated.”
Why does Measure D change the General Plan of the County of Santa Cruz rather than a policy of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission?
“Changing the General Plan was the only way that we could get a countywide vote,” said Colligan, the Greenway steering committee member. A ballot initiative that addressed the Regional Transportation Commission would have required a statewide vote, Greenway supporters have said.

Why is Bud Colligan so personally interested in creating a paved path on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line?
Colligan was an early employee at Apple Inc. and CEO of Macromedia Inc. Macromedia is a software company that was sold to Adobe Systems Inc. in a $3.4 billion deal in 2005. Colligan helped start the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, Santa Cruz Works, the Monterey Bay Housing Trust and the Watsonville and Salinas tech training organization Digital NEST. He said those projects have improved many people’s lives, but a path on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line would be used by 2 million to 3 million people annually. That impact would dwarf his other efforts, he said.

County of Santa Cruz planners recently presented designs for paths on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line in unincorporated county areas such as Live Oak and

11.39 Aptos. If Measure D passes and the county’s General Plan excludes rail, can county planners continue work on rail trail plans if they involve potential passenger rail?
“Yes,” said Santa Cruz County spokesman Jason Hoppin. “We’re proceeding through our planning phases with both options in mind so that we can keep those options open and then implement whatever the [Regional Transportation Commission] wants to do.” Guy Preston, executive director of the Regional Transportation Commission, added that even if those county planners stopped work because of a conflict of the county General Plan, “We could just take over that section of the rail.” Preston said the Regional Transportation Commission and the county are in a cooperative agreement to design the “interim” and “ultimate” rail trail designs. “We would just terminate that agreement,” Preston said. The Regional Transportation Commission could hire consultants to continue the design. “I don’t think it’s insurmountable,” Preston said.

Mark Mesiti-Miller, co-chair of the campaign committee for No Way Greenway, expressed surprise at Preston’s position that county planners could be replaced if needed. “If that’s true, that’s great news,” Mesiti-Miller said.

If the Greenway ballot measure passes, does that jeopardize Roaring Camp Railroads’ ability to run trains from Felton to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk? Roaring Camp owns and operates the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific Rail from Santa Cruz to Felton.

Preston, the Regional Transportation Commission executive director, said if the Greenway ballot measure passes it would “not directly” jeopardize Roaring Camp’s ability to run trains to the Boardwalk. If the Regional Transportation Commission chooses the “interim” path on the rail line, it would require railbanking the rail line. Railbanking is a process that allows the railroad to be converted to a trail. The purpose of railbanking is to allow a path on a rail line with the intent to return rail service, Preston has said.

No Way Greenway is opposed to railbanking in part because in the roughly 40 years the federal government has allowed it, very few trails have transitioned back to train use. A rail line in Denton County, Texas is one that transitioned back to a railroad.

The federal Surface Transportation Board will decide whether the line will be railbanked. If railbanking is approved, it would cut off Roaring Camp from getting trains or other equipment from South County and connections to other rail lines, said Preston and Roaring Camp Railroads CEO Melani Clark. Because of storm damage to bridges and other parts of the rail line in 2017, the line has not been safe for freight and Roaring Camp has not used the line to replace equipment since then, Preston said.

Roaring Camp Railroads CEO Melani Clark has said the Regional Transportation Commission should repair the freight line with grants, public-private partnerships and money from the 2016

11.40 transportation initiative Measure D. Measure D’s 0.5% sales tax approved by county voters in 2016 is expected to raise $500 million in 30 years for transportation projects.

Measure D from 2016 provides about $2 million for rail preservation each year, said Preston.

That is far less than the estimated $50 million to $65 million needed for repairs. Because the line isn’t currently being used for freight, Preston has said it’s unlikely the commission would receive state or federal funds for repairs.

A map shows Santa Cruz County’s two rail lines: The Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line and Santa Cruz, Big Trees, and Pacific Rail, also known as the Felton Branch. (Caltrans) In February, the Regional Transportation Commission discussed a potential abandonment of a federal designation for freight on Roaring Camp’s railroad. Roaring Camp leaders opposed the change due to concerns about a potential loss of access to Santa Cruz. “I think the federal protections that [Roaring Camp] is talking about has to do with being a freight railroad,” Preston said. “Freight railroads have certain protections by the Interstate Commerce Act that preempts state law.” So railroad work does not have to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, for instance. Preston said, “If freight was to be abandoned and we were to not continue with freight on our line, we would railbank it. There’s no question about it. That’s the safest way to preserve the corridor. And as a preserved corridor, I still believe that if you’re preserving it for future freight reactivation, it’s quite possible that you’re still exempt” from state law. “If Roaring Camp can continue to use it for what they’re currently using it for, for rail repairs, I still think that they would” have federal protections, Preston said. So in that respect, I don’t think it’s as big of a deal as they make it out to be,” Preston said.

11.41 “Right now, the agreement that they have with the Boardwalk is with our operator (St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, a division of Progressive Rail). They have a 10-year agreement with us from 2018. So it’s four years old, there’s six years left on it. And when that expires, that agreement that they have comes over to us,” Preston said. “I think you could lock up a more secure situation than that today.”
The Greenway initiative removes mentions of passenger rail from the County of Santa Cruz’s General Plan. If it passes, are local governments unable to apply for grants and funding needed to maintain the rail line, resulting in deterioration and ultimately failure?
Jason Hoppin, spokesman for the County of Santa Cruz, said the county does not plan to apply for grants to maintain the rail line regardless of whether Measure D is adopted. Measure D’s passage also would not preclude the Regional Transportation Commission from applying for money related to maintenance of the rail line because the transportation commission is a separate entity from the county.

However, Guy Preston, the Regional Transportation Commission executive director, has said that because the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line is not used for freight and hasn’t since 2017, it’s unlikely the commission would receive state or federal funds for repairs.

The 2016 Santa Cruz County ballot Measure D provides about $2 million for rail preservation each year, Preston has said. That is far less than the estimated $50 million to $65 million needed for repairs. Because the line isn’t currently being used for freight, “We’re kind of stuck in this hole,” Preston has said.

Are the chances of railbanking low and what happens if the line cannot be railbanked? Could the trail still be built on the rail line or next to it? Could passenger rail service happen?
The federal Surface Transportation Board will decide whether the line can be railbanked. Either the whole line can be railbanked or none of it, said Preston, the executive director of the Regional Transportation Commission. If the line cannot be railbanked, then the “interim” path on the tracks cannot be built. Only the “ultimate” plan next to the tracks would be feasible.

As for the chances of railbanking approval, Preston had this to say: “When you really look at what the [Surface Transportation Board] considers with respect to railbanking and abandonment, really it’s abandonment first. If they’re willing to say that a line is in such poor condition and there’s not enough volume on it or need for it to financially justify the line anymore, that’s when they determine a line to be abandoned. And then railbanking at that point, it just becomes ministerial. They don’t get in the way of it one way or the other. So it’s really a determination of, is there enough freight on it versus the cost? Based on my calculations in terms of what it would take to bring this line back up, I can’t imagine that it would pencil out. It’s just a matter of how long the process is. But I think unless there is a major change in our use of this line for freight — if we went back to when it was built, with shipping and lumber. That’s how you justify the cost

11.42 of doing that sort of maintenance. Not a few loads with potential clients. When there’s opposition and it’s argued it takes a long time.”
Preston also said there are also risks and potential problems with the “ultimate” plan alongside the tracks.

The “ultimate design” is a narrower path parallel to the tracks. There are buildings, parking lots and other private property that have encroached on areas alongside the tracks. It’s not certain that those encroachments can be dealt with to fit a path alongside the rail line. Preston said, “You have to consider it’s going to take time and do final design and to acquire right-of-way no matter what. And there’s risk associated with acquiring right-of-way, and right-of-way is needed with the design at least for Segment 12. What happens if you can’t acquire the right-of-way? If you can’t acquire the right-of-way — whether the right-of-way means acquiring parking in front of businesses or somebody’s home or somebody’s business — it isn’t any different than not being able to railbank. If you can’t acquire the right-of-way for your project, you can’t build your project.”

11.43 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gregory Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:24 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Gregory Becker
Subject: Community Feedback: Consent agenda item 11
Attachments: The No Way campaign describes tearing out the rails on the Santa Cruz Branch Line as a bad thing.pdf
Dear City Council members
I was surprised and disappointed to see you opposing Greenway. Have you talked to anyone from Greenway? Almost none of the other endorsers of No Way have.

I hope you will take a few moments to read something I wrote (515 words), submitted to every publication, but not printed.

Thanks for your consideration.

Greg Becker
###
The No Way campaign describes tearing out the rails on the Santa Cruz Branch Line as a bad thing, a deceptive thing, an almost evil proposition.

It might be worthwhile to look at what we actually have in our rail transportation corridor.

According to the Union Pacific Track Charts, a rail-by-rail survey produced in 2001[i] , the Branch Line rails are “second hand”. This is not unusual for branch lines: rails from main lines are downcycled to the less profitable branch lines. These Track Charts give the age of each rail, under the heading of “Surfacing & Lining”. According to these charts our earliest rails date from around 1910, miles and miles from the nineteen teens, and the newest, a short stretch near California Street in Santa Cruz[ii], dated 1996. Even on newer bridge structures second-hand rails were used.

The Association of American Railroads says that "the lifespan of rail averages 50-60 years”[iii]. Our rails are older, mostly older than a century, and even they are secondhand. They are federally ranked “excepted track”[iv]. “Excepted track” is track that is limited to no more than ten miles per hour [v]. Keeping these failing rails will make for a long commute on the Coast Connect.

In 2018 the Regional Transportation Commission sponsored a speaker series called “Innovations in Transportation.” One of the speakers was Kurt Triplett , the City Manager of Kirkland WA. Kirkland had recently converted an unused rail line through railbanking to a greenway trail as an interim transportation solution. It is beloved by the community and embraced by the politicians.

In the question period following the presentation, RTC Commissioner Mike Rotkin opined that in order to preserve the transit option here we should “just leave the rusty old track that’s not going anywhere” [vi]. Triplett replied: “The wonderful thing about the interim solution is that it’s cheap and it’s cost effective and it's quick. We did it really fast, and in fact, on the salvage part of the ties and the rails you actually make some money on the thing”.
“Just leave the rusty old track that’s not going anywhere” is not No Way’s official campaign slogan, but it is its result. It is inaction, a complete locally-originated climate cop-out. Railbanking, while it sounds passive, is our most assertive action to preserve our public transit options. If we do not railbank we threaten the integrity of the rail right-of-way and its continued public ownership.

11.44 2
We’re having an election because our local transportation politics is at stasis. We can wait even longer for a “someday” solution, or we can act on the immediately possible. The adage “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is our way forward now. [i] https://sccrtc.org/projects/rail/rail-line-purchase/rail-line-due-diligence/draft-santa-cruz-branch-line-structural-assessment/ Please see Appendix B. It covers the entire right of way in five mile increments. [ii] https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9638163,-
122.0353767,3a,75y,196.4h,111.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sor0EevtTk01ERDrs7uqeLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[iii] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/wp/enterprise/ribbons-of-rail/ [iv] https://sccrtc.org › wp-content › uploads › 2011 › 07 › 100219-Prop116-STIP-FundsApplic.pdf Please look to page 6 in the downloaded .pdf
[v] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part-213/subpart-A/section-213.4 Please look to “section e” [vi] https://sccrtc.org/meetings/speaker-series/ See third video: “Implementing Trail and Transit Corridors – Creating Community Connections, not Conflicts” at minute 30:40
###

11.45 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lisa Sheridan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 6:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!]
Attachments: Dear Santa Cruz Mayor and City Council Members.docx Please submit my letter to the City Council regarding Consent Agenda #11.

Thank you,
Lisa Sheridan
Lisasheridanphotography.com

11.46 Dear Honorable Mayor Sonia Brunner and City Council Members, I’m confused why item #11 is on Consent Agenda and encourage you to add it as an agenda item.

The quote provided about the language of Measure D is factually incorrect and the writer gives an inaccurate interpretation of the outcome of D.

The Statement “The Measure D initiative calls for the removal of tracks and eliminates any and all references to rail and rail planning and would hamper existing rail and trail construction efforts.” It’s inaccurate to state that the initiative eliminates any and all references to rail and rail planning. Its well documented these tracks would not accommodate a passenger train moving over 15 mph so they will be removed one way or another.

This passage below is taken from the Santa Cruz County Greenway initiative Report (Pg. 4), also under appendix (A) showing specific language:

The Initiative proposes the development of an interim multi-purpose trail on the rail line that would require the removal of the railroad tracks. The Initiative also proposes the preservation of future rail use through railbanking. Under this scenario, removal of the interim trail, development of rail transit, and reconstruction of the trail next to the rail line could be implemented by the SCCRTC as a future option through the flexibility provided by railbanking.

Another of many examples in text Objective 3.7:

To encourage future connectivity to intra-county rail facilities including AMTRAK and High Speed Passenger Rail, using the Greenway, Metro bus service, and other transit options.

Here's a quote from the Santa Cruz Local article April 8th:
“Wait, Measure D removes the word “rail” and the phrase “passenger rail service” from the county’s General Plan. Does that kill the rail project?” Response: Santa Cruz County Spokesperson Hoppin and Santa Cruz County Counsel Jason Heath said the removal of some rail language does not rule out passenger rail. “We do not believe that the absence of a word from a county planning document dictates or precludes any future uses of a piece of property — particularly one not owned by the county.”
Another quote from this item states that the Measure D does not address the pressing threats of climate change. Consider the following:

11.47 If traffic is one of the overriding reasons for a train, there should be irrefutable data about train and trail impacts on autos. The average forecast for train ridership is 2,000 roundtrips per day; only about 300 of those are from Watsonville. Taking 1.7% of cars off Hwy 1 will not significantly impact traffic. The Passenger Rail Feasibility Study showed projected ridership to be very low for Watsonville commuters. Why? For Watsonville, the proposed station is in a mostly industrial neighborhood and tracks are not near major employers in north county (e.g. 2 miles to Dominican Hospital, 2 miles to Plantronics or Costco, 3.3 miles to UCSC academic buildings). The location does not bode well for passenger service as the rail line has a significant first mile/last mile problem. That makes sense since it was a FREIGHT line without a need for stops with the county.

Nationally recognized transportation consultant Nelson Nygaard has shown that a greenway that uses the entire width of the corridor with separate lanes for bikes and pedestrians can move 8,000 new cyclists per day. Presentation to Kimley Horn, Potential Total Daily Cyclist Usage, Mid-Point Estimate, slide 35, August 2017.

Another nationally recognized transportation consultant, Alta Planning and Design, has shown that a 21-foot-wide multi-use greenway with separate lanes for bikes and pedestrians has 5.8 times the capacity of a 12-foot-wide trail. Analysis of SCC Greenway Capacity and Usage, Alta Planning and Design, February 2018 If global warming or traffic is a priority, it makes no sense to wait two decades for the funding and infrastructure of a train. Waiting for a train to be built, is doing nothing for climate change in the next two decades.

Thank you for your consideration,
Lisa Sheridan

11.48 From: Mark Mesiti-Miller
To: City Council
Subject: Item 11- Opposition to Measure D on your 4/26/22 agenda Date: Sunday, April 24, 2022 1:23:21 PM
Dear Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers,
I was delighted to see Item 11- Opposition to Measure D on your agenda for this Tuesday, April 26th.

As a long-time city resident and steadfast advocate for a more equitable, more sustainable transportation system to serve the residents of and visitors to Santa Cruz, I urge your strong support and approval of the subject resolution.

THANK YOU,
Mark Mesiti-Miller
38 year resident of Santa Cruz

11.49 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: david van brink <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 1:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item Eleven -- "Opposition to Measure D"
Dear Santa Cruz City Councilmembers & Mayor,
I have lived in the city of Santa Cruz for 34 years. (Well, minus two years in San Francisco. I was just a kid, I didn't understand, it was the 90s, I came back!)
I hope our City Council will formally weigh in on opposing Measure D.

It's not merely a "poll on support for public transit." The measure is cleverly concocted to be abstract and confusing, ultimately representing "A vote of fealty to whatever SCC Greenway Inc says next." Please oppose this confusing, deceptive measure.

Warmly -- David Van Brink
__________________
david van brink / [email protected] / 831.332.6077

STOP DECEPTIVE GREENWAY
Join me in voting No on D June '22 Santa Cruz County
NoWayGreenWay.com

11.50 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Saladin Sale <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 7:04 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Saladin Sale
Subject: Item 11- Opposition to Measure D on the 4/26/22 Council Agenda Dear Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers:

I am heartened to note Item 11, Opposition to Measure D on the consent agenda for your meeting this Tuesday, April 26. As a longtime City resident I am frequently proud of my city as we stand up for the kinds of values that America was built on - foresight, justice, the betterment of society and creating a better future. I am justly proud in this case and urge you to adopt this position of opposing Measure D, the dark-money driven, deceptive campaign aimed at getting citizens to vote against their own best interest.

Fight climate change, finish the rail trail, bring the tracks to life! Saladin Sale
Santa Cruz, CA

11.51 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Trician Comings <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 7:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Approve Item 11
Dear Councilmembers,
I commend you for supporting Rail AND Trail over the years! As a homeowner and citizen of Santa Cruz, I expect you will pass this resolution opposing Measure D.

It is crucial that we do not rule out a sustainable transportation alternative to Highway One gridlock.

Thanks,
Trician Comings

11.52 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: MARK M-M <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 8:22 PM
To: Saladin Sale
Cc: City Council
Subject: Re: Item 11- Opposition to Measure D on the 4/26/22 Council Agenda Saladin,
You are eloquent in your words and hit the nail on the head with your comments.

Thank you !
Mark
Mark Mesiti-Miller
+1 (831) 818-3660
On Apr 24, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Saladin Sale <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers:

I am heartened to note Item 11, Opposition to Measure D on the consent agenda for your meeting this Tuesday, April 26. As a longtime City resident I am frequently proud of my city as we stand up for the kinds of values that America was built on - foresight, justice, the betterment of society and creating a better future. I am justly proud in this case and urge you to adopt this position of opposing Measure D, the dark-money driven, deceptive campaign aimed at getting citizens to vote against their own best interest.

Fight climate change, finish the rail trail, bring the tracks to life! Saladin Sale
Santa Cruz, CA

11.53 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Vicki Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 6:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Tuesday April 26 Agenda Item 11
Council Members,
As a long time Santa Cruz resident who works local, I urge you to strongly support a No vote on Measure D. As our county population increases and the need for alternative methods of transportation is very high, we need to keep all of our options available. We need to move traffic off of Hwy 1 and off our surface streets. If Measure D passes our rail options will become extremely limited as it removes rail from our General Plan.

I urge you to please continue to support a No vote on Measure D.

Thank you,
Vicki Miller
District 1 Resident

11.54 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: John Benito <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 7:27 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 26-Apr-2022 agenda item 11 - Opposition to Measure D Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers,
I am pleased to find that the Santa Cruz City Council has an item (Item 11) on the April 26th agenda to appose Measure D. As a life-time resident of Santa Cruz County and advocate of sustainable and equitable transportation systems I urge your support and approval of this important resolution.

Thank you,

- jb -

11.55 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Brian Peoples <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 6:58 AM
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Donna Meyers; City Council
Cc: Guy Preston; Matt Machado; Sarah Christensen; Manu Koenig; Bruce McPherson; Gine Johnson; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rachel Moriconi; Shannon Munz; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nathan Nguyen; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Zach Friend; Ryan Coonerty; Andy Schiffrin; [email protected]; [email protected];
'[email protected]'; [email protected] Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11: Opposition to Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and Reiterated Support for Continued Rail Planning on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (CN)
Santa Cruz City Council,
We request that City Council DO NOT support the proposed agenda item to "Opposition to Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative" for upcoming April 26th meeting.

Currently, Santa Cruz County General Plan calls out RAIL ONLY as the EXCLUSIVE TRANSIT MODE for the Santa Cruz Coastal Corridor. Restricting the Coastal Corridor to RAIL ONLY prevents our community from implementing other alternative transit modes along this valuable corridor. YES on D will allow our community to use other transit options, win more Grants (State/Federal) for alternative transit on the Coastal Corridor and build the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail NOW!
Please support Measure D to give our community more options.

Best regards,
Brian Peoples
Trail Now

11.56 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: paul rucker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Jack Brown; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Donna Meyers; City Council; Guy Preston; Matt Machado; Sarah Christensen; Manu Koenig; Bruce McPherson; Gine Johnson; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rachel Moriconi; Shannon Munz; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nathan Nguyen; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Zach Friend; Ryan Coonerty; Andy Schiffrin; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz City Council Agenda Item 11: Opposition to Measure D - Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and Reiterated Support for Continued Rail Planning on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (CN)
I am assuming this was the subject of your "open letter..." post that I can't load. If ND deleted it does anyone know why it would be in violation of guidelines?
From: greenway‐social‐media‐[email protected] <greenway‐social‐media‐[email protected]> on behalf of Jack Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 2:19 PM
To: Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Justin Cummings <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Guy Preston <[email protected]>; Matt Machado <[email protected]>; Sarah Christensen <[email protected]>; Manu Koenig <[email protected]>; Bruce McPherson <[email protected]>; Gine Johnson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rachel Moriconi <[email protected]>; Shannon Munz <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]‐cruz.ca.us <[email protected]‐cruz.ca.us>; Nathan Nguyen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Zach Friend <[email protected]‐cruz.ca.us>; Ryan Coonerty <[email protected]>; Andy Schiffrin <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Santa Cruz City Council Agenda Item 11: Opposition to Measure D ‐ Santa Cruz County Greenway Initiative and Reiterated Support for Continued Rail Planning on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (CN)

I find it odd that the Santa Cruz City Council finds the need to pass a resolution only in regards to Measure D and for no other measure on the ballot. Measure D was placed on the ballot by over 13,000 voters, a record number of voters in Santa Cruz County in the sole purpose of giving people the opportunity to decide and to direct you, our representatives, to use as direction on how to proceed with the direction of the corridor. If the Santa Cruz City Council intends on passing this resolution, you are telling voters, "WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU!" and are not only trying to write your own outcome, but creating fodder for the No Way campaign with yet another biased endorsement with no input from the Yes-Greenway side which is looking to

11.57 2
protect the corridor and open it now since the RTC TCAA Business Plan in 2021 showed the funding simply is not available for commuter rail at this time.

I urge the council to take a neutral stance on this matter and to NOT pass this resolution and instead, encourage citizens to educate themselves on the matter and come to their own conclusion. I think it was best stated by Shaz Roth, the CEO of the Pajaro Valley Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture when they rescinded their endorsement of the No Way campaign last week when he wrote:
"... it’s always best to make informed choices and the only way to be informed is to hear all sides of any situation. The Board decided yesterday it would be best for us to have a neutral stance on Measure D. By doing this, it will allow the Chamber to fairly direct folks who contact the Chamber seeking information regarding Measure D to the correct websites and contact sources to clearly answer their questions.

We all want to make the Pajaro Valley shine and appreciate all you have individually and collectively done for the community. "
Santa Cruz should follow Pajaro Valley's lead!
Respectfully,
Jack Brown
Citizen of Aptos
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Greenway Social Media Team" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenway-social-media[email protected].

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenway-social-mediateam/CAKJdN3USLXjV7P2596MWcYuaqQPW1fp0ZkdnMs6D-MezYjMRLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

11.58 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nadene Thorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 8:49 PM
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; City Council
Subject: Consent Agenda
Having read the Measure D item in your consent agenda, I am astonished that it would apparently be so easy for you to publicly support a resolution filled with such easily verifiable misinformation and ad baculum arguments designed to merely campaign for your? unsubstantiated opinion.

Should you decide to seriously consider this issue, see my annotations and sources below:

WHEREAS... in 2016, voters further invested in the rail corridor by passing Measure D, which allocates ongoing funding to support both rail and trail projects; "Measure D revenues do not include funding for any new train/rail service." Preservation of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, RTC Meeting Agenda, September 2, 2021 WHEREAS, the Greenway measure will eliminate Santa Cruz County’s best clean-energy public transportation strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change; surely, the expansion of Metro, in service NOW and far cheaper, would actually be the "best clean energy public transportation strategy: rail, if any, is DECADES into the future, what if climate change in the meantime?
WHEREAS, there are no relevant examples in the U.S. that railbanking results in rail service actually being restored once tracks are removed and replaced by a paved trail; in fact there are at least 11, according to the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Coming Conflict, Statutory Void, and Legal Uncertainties Riding with Reactivated Rails-toTrails, p. 485, 2015, Matthew J. McGowan WHEREAS, the Greenway measure rewrites the County General Plan to eliminate references to rail and all planning for future clean-energy light rail public transportation; anyone who had read the initiative would see that it does NOT eliminate all references to rail and merely prioritizes trails; further the RTC Director has stated "RTC staff will continue planning for electric passenger rail and seek the funding that may be needed." RTC Statement Regarding Future Rail Planning, sccrtc.org
WHEREAS, ripping out railroad tracks will cost tens of millions of dollars and create health and safety hazards from exposure and disposal of toxic soil and metals; Not only will it be necessary to replace all of these 100+year old tracks for any future train (
https://sccrtc.org/projects/rail/rail-line-purchase/rail-line-due-diligence/draft-santa-cruz-branch-line-structuralassessment/ appendix B) but the county will profit from the sale of scrap steel; so why wait? WHEREAS, traffic jams on Highway 1 are one of the biggest problems in the County, with working people in South County often spending 90 minutes each way trying to get to work in Santa Cruz, often sitting in idling cars that create harmful greenhouse gases and carbon emissions and keep commuters away from their families; the RTC's Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis estimates 2750 rail passengers, so with over 100,000 cars on Highway 1 daily it seems unlikely that rail will make enough of an effect on this traffic to be worth the considerable expense to the working people of South County. And by the way, California is planning for 100% of new cars to be electric by 2035.

WHEREAS, if the Greenway measure passes, clean-energy, light-rail public transportation will be eliminated as an alternative to clogged Highway 1 traffic; you have no basis for this statement - it's a silly ad baculum argument

WHEREAS, the Greenway measure assumes hardworking South County commuters will switch from their cars to E-bikes and E-scooters for the 20-mile ride from Watsonville to Santa Cruz; same as above, silly exaggeration. Further, you presume that South County residents are not entitled to the same recreational and outdoor amenities of wide, safe bike paths that the North County already has.

11.59 2
WHEREAS, the Greenway measure would stop existing rail and trail construction efforts, leading to costly delays and potential lawsuits. See RTC Director Preston's remarks, above. He also states, "...[railbanking, proposed in the Measure D initiative]... provides protections to the RTC from potential financial liability..." Informational Report on the Potential Preservation of the Santa Cruz Branch Line, RTC Meeting Agenda, February 3, 2022.

A few of us in Santa Cruz still believe we elect leaders to lead, not to chase public opinion from behind. While this isn't an issue of race or religion, I am old enough to remember when city councils approved redlining, for instance, and other sorts of segregation measures because it seemed like that was what the public wanted, - but not what was right. You all have to make a decisions in office about whether you'll do what's right, or do what (you believe) your constituents want. Certainly there are many instances when it must seem like choices are ambiguous. In this case, you're affirming outright untruths. Even more incredulous, there is no reason for the city council to even weigh in on Measure D: leave it for the voters!
Instead of contributing to the escalating divisions and anger in our community, this might have been an opportunity for you to actually LEAD, by acting like grownups who weigh the facts before taking a position - or, more rationally perhaps, choosing to NOT take a position, which might move our city in a healthier direction for civic engagement.

Alternatively, you might do what the Pajaro Valley Chamber of Commerce did - they asked for a presentation from Greenway and thereafter rescinded their support for the NoWay campaign. Something to think about? With sincere and deep disappointment,
Nadene Thorne
140 Averitt Street
Santa Cruz 95060
831-266-5552

11.60 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/19/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 886 – California Environmental Quality Act Exemption for University of California Housing Developments (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct the Mayor to send a letter opposing Senate Bill 886, which would exempt University of California on-campus housing developments from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act.

BACKGROUND: State law currently requires University of California campuses to periodically adopt a Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP). Similar to local general plans, LRDPs project campus growth and identify the facilities needed to support that growth. LRDPs are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) must be prepared to analyze the potentially significant impacts of proposed LRDP development, consider alternatives, and mitigate significant adverse impacts to the extent feasible. If substantial changes are made to the projections in an LRDP, the LRDP must be amended and a new environmental document prepared.

Senate Bill 886 (SB 886) would exempt University of California (UC) on-campus housing developments meeting certain criteria from complying with CEQA. The CEQA exemption would not apply if the housing project is located, in whole or in part, on a site that is any of the following:
- Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or certain protected farmland; - Wetlands;
- Within specified very high fire hazard severity zones; - Specified sites containing hazardous waste or hazardous substances; - Earthquake fault zone;
- Specified areas subject to flooding;
- Lands identified for conservation in a natural community conservation or similar plan; - Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by a state or federal agency, as specified; or
- Lands under a conservation easement.

For a housing project to qualify for the CEQA exemption, all project contractors and subcontractors must pay prevailing wage and use a skilled and trained workforce, as specified in the bill. If a project does not meet these exceptions, the bill essentially removes the requirement that the University of California ensure that the environmental protections contained in CEQA be

12.1 met. Program-level mitigations from an overarching LRDP EIR would presumably be included with the project, even if it is found to be exempt. However, as discussed below in more detail, the scope of LRDP EIRs was recently reduced through Senate Bill 118.

DISCUSSION: SB 886 represents a broader response from the legislature than recently adopted SB 118. SB 118 was drafted in response to a recent issue at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). UCB certified an EIR and adopted an LRDP for the campus in the early 2000s.

Subsequently, campus enrollment exceeded the LRDP’s projected enrollment numbers by several thousand students. The University, however, did not amend its LRDP. A group of neighbors sued UCB over the impacts, and the court determined that student enrollment could not exceed the projections in the adopted LRDP without the approval of an EIR that analyzed the impacts of this additional growth. UCB prepared an EIR that contained the required analysis, but the court found it to be inadequate. As a remedy the judge required UCB to freeze student enrollment at the 2020-21 level. This decision was sustained at the Appellate Court level.

UCB sent out acceptance letters to students prior to the final decision that froze enrollment.

Because many families would have been effected by the enrollment freeze, the Legislature and the Governor responded by quickly adopting SB 118. The bill (1) invalidates existing courtordered enrollment freezes; (2) eliminates the requirement that higher education campuses consider environmental impacts “relating to changes in enrollment levels” in a LRDP, requiring that LRDPs instead consider environmental impacts of “campus population plans;” and (3) creates a new procedure for plaintiffs seeking to enjoin a campus from increasing its “campus population” over LRDP projections. With this new bill, the analysis for an LRDP EIR will be modified in comparison to pre-SB 118 analyses. Thus, while LRDP EIR mitigations may still be included with a UC housing project, those program-level and LRDP-level mitigations may not address all of the impacts associated with said project.

At University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), since 1985 over nine student housing developments have been approved with EIRs and four approved with Negative Declarations.

Only the 2018 Housing West EIR has been legally challenged (see attached list). CEQA has only delayed this one UCSC housing project and remains an integral part of development within and around the community.

While this Council strongly supports UCSC constructing on-campus student housing and, in fact, has challenged the adequacy of the EIR on the 2021 LRDP for not meaningfully committing to providing such housing for its proposed enrollment growth, this does not mean that the environmental protections provided by CEQA to both the campus and local community should be lost.

Student housing developments are necessary and desirable, but their potentially significant environmental impacts need to be analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible. Given such, SB 886 could potentially have environmental consequences on both the UCSC campus and in the greater Santa Cruz community. Without CEQA, there is no avenue to take into account the full scope of implications and possible impacts of projects. Jurisdictions impacted by UC development, like the City of Santa Cruz, would also lose leverage on seeking mitigations to impacts as determined by an EIR. Without a CEQA process, opportunities for community feedback related to impacts would be reduced. The UC has many neighbors, and a system of accepting and responding to feedback from the community, students, faculty and staff should remain part of a development process.

12.2 Over the decades, CEQA has been a valuable tool to protect important environmental resources on and off campus and to mitigate potentially significant impacts of campus developments. SB 886 would reduce these protections. Rather than removing environmental protections, additional funding for the construction of new student housing units should be provided by the State to meet the needs of the next generation of Californians while reducing impacts on the community’s housing supply.

FISCAL IMPACT: Opposition to the legislation has no fiscal impact.

Submitted By:

Sandy Brown
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Justin Cummings
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Donna Meyers
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. TEXT - SENATE BILL 886.PDF

2. UCSC ON-CAMPUS HOUSING PROJECTS.DOCX

12.3 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 22, 2022
SENATE BILL No. 886
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Coauthor: Senator Hueso)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Medina, Mullin, and Robert Rivas) January 27, 2022
An act to add Section 21080.58 to the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 886, as amended, Wiener. California Environmental Quality Act:
exemption: public universities: university housing development projects.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.

This bill would exempt from CEQA a student housing project, as defined, or a faculty and staff housing university housing development project, as defined, carried out by a public university, as defined, on real property owned by the public university if the project meets certain requirements and the project is not located, in whole or in part, on certain sites, including a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as provided. The bill, with respect to a site that is within a

97 12.4
special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway, would prohibit a local government from denying an application on the basis that a public university did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government applicable to the site if the public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site meets these criteria and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above requirements. By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would provide that a student housing project or a faculty and staff housing university housing development project is not exempt from CEQA if, among other things, the project would require the demolition of specified housing or a historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local historic register.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21080.58 is added to the Public Resources line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 21080.58. (a)  For purposes of this section, the following line 4 definitions apply:
line 5 (1)  “Faculty and staff housing project” means one or more line 6 housing facilities to be occupied by faculty or staff of one or more line 7 campuses, and owned by a public university, including dining, line 8 academic, and faculty and staff support service spaces and other line 9 necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment. line 10 (2)  “Public university” means the University of California, the line 11 California State University, or the California Community Colleges. line 12 (3)  “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as line 13 in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of line 14 Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
97 SB 886 — 2 —

12.5 line 1 (4)  “Student housing project” means one or more housing line 2 facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and line 3 owned by a public university, including dining, academic and line 4 student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual line 5 attendant and related facilities and equipment.
line 6 (2)  “Project”
line 7 (5)  ”University housing development project” or “project” line 8 means a student housing project or a faculty and staff housing line 9 project that is not located, in whole or in part, on a site that is any line 10 of the following:
line 11 (A)  Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, line 12 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture line 13 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, line 14 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping line 15 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or line 16 land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation line 17 by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that line 18 jurisdiction.
line 19 (B)  Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife line 20 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
line 21 (C)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined line 22 by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178 of the line 23 Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard line 24 severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the State Fire line 25 Marshal pursuant to Section 4202. This subparagraph does not line 26 apply to sites excluded from the specified fire hazard severity line 27 zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section line 28 51179 of the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire line 29 hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards line 30 or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the project. line 31 (D)  Either a hazardous waste site listed pursuant to Section line 32 65962.5 of the Government Code or a hazardous substances release line 33 site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control line 34 pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless line 35 the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources line 36 Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has line 37 cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. line 38 (E)  Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by line 39 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State line 40 Geologist, unless the project complies with applicable seismic 97 — 3 — SB 886

12.6 line 1 protection building code standards adopted by the California line 2 Building Standards Commission under the California Building line 3 Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of line 4 Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local line 5 building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section line 6 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. line 7 (F)  Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by line 8 a 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined line 9 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official line 10 maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. line 11 If a public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal line 12 qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site satisfies line 13 this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from this line 14 division pursuant to this section, a local government shall not deny line 15 an application on the basis that the public university did not comply line 16 with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted line 17 by that local government that is applicable to that site. A project line 18 may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either line 19 of the following are met:
line 20 (i)  The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision line 21 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and line 22 issued to the local government.
line 23 (ii)  The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency line 24 requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management line 25 criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part line 26 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing line 27 with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the line 28 Code of Federal Regulations.
line 29 (G)  Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal line 30 Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published line 31 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the project line 32 has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section line 33 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a line 34 public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying line 35 criteria in order to demonstrate that the site satisfies this line 36 subparagraph and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from this line 37 division pursuant to this section, a local government shall not deny line 38 an application on the basis that the public university did not comply line 39 with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted line 40 by that local government that is applicable to that site. 97 SB 886 — 4 —

12.7 line 1 (H)  Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural line 2 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community line 3 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section line 4 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat line 5 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act line 6 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural line 7 resource protection plan.
line 8 (I)  Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, line 9 sensitive, or species of special status by a state or federal agency, line 10 fully protected species, or species protected by the federal line 11 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), line 12 the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing line 13 with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or line 14 the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with line 15 Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). line 16 (J)  Lands under conservation easement.
line 17 (3)  “Public university” means the University of California, the line 18 California State University, or the California Community Colleges. line 19 (4)  “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as line 20 in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of line 21 Division 2 of the Public Contract Code.
line 22 (5)  “Student housing project” means one or more housing line 23 facilities to be occupied by students of one or more campuses and line 24 owned by a public university, including dining, academic and line 25 student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual line 26 attendant and related facilities and equipment. line 27 (b)  Except as provided in subdivision (c), this division does not line 28 apply to a university housing development project carried out by line 29 a public university on real property owned by the public university line 30 that meets all of the following requirements:
line 31 (1)  All contractors and subcontractors at every tier on the project line 32 will be required to pay prevailing wages in accordance with line 33 Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division line 34 2 of the Labor Code.
line 35 (2)  (A)  An entity shall not be prequalified or shortlisted or line 36 awarded a contract to perform work on the project unless the entity line 37 provides an enforceable commitment to the public university that line 38 the entity and its contractors and subcontractors at every tier will line 39 use a skilled and trained workforce to perform all work on the line 40 project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the 97 — 5 — SB 886

12.8 line 1 building and construction trades, in accordance with Chapter 2.9 line 2 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the line 3 Public Contract Code.
line 4 (B)  This paragraph does not apply if any of the following line 5 requirements are met:
line 6 (i)  The public university has entered into a project labor line 7 agreement that will bind all contractors and subcontractors at every line 8 tier performing work on the project to use a skilled and trained line 9 workforce, and the entity agrees to be bound by that project labor line 10 agreement.
line 11 (ii)  The project is being performed under the extension or line 12 renewal of a project labor agreement that was entered into by the line 13 public university before January 1, 2023.
line 14 (iii)  The entity has entered into a project labor agreement that line 15 will bind the entity and all of its contractors and subcontractors at line 16 every tier performing the project to use a skilled and trained line 17 workforce.
line 18 (3)  The lead agency files a notice of exemption with the Office line 19 of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivisions (b) to (d), line 20 inclusive, of Section 21108.
line 21 (c)  The exemption from this division provided by subdivision line 22 (b) does not apply to a university housing development project that line 23 meets any of the following criteria:
line 24 (1)  The project would require the demolition of any of the line 25 following:
line 26 (A)  Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, line 27 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and line 28 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 29 (B)  Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control line 30 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. line 31 (C)  Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past line 32 10 years.
line 33 (D)  A historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local line 34 historic register.
line 35 (2)  The project is located on a site that was previously used for line 36 housing that was occupied by tenants and was demolished within line 37 10 years before the public university submits an application under line 38 this section.
line 39 (3)  The project is located on a site that contains housing units line 40 that are occupied by tenants and the housing units are offered for 97 SB 886 — 6 —

12.9 line 1 sale, or were subsequently offered for sale, to the general public line 2 by a subdivider or subsequent owner of the site. line 3 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 4 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 5 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 6 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 7 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 8 17556 of the Government Code.

O
97 — 7 — SB 886

12.10 UCSC ON-CAMPUS HOUSING PROJECTS
EIRS:

COLLEGE 8 / UC SANTA CRUZ CAMPUS EIR 5/26/1987
OAKES COLLEGE HOUSING ADDITION/UC EIR 3/11/1987
UC SANTA CRUZ COLLEGES NINE AND TEN EIR 2/13/1990
FACULTY HOUSING ADDITION EIR 12/4/1990
MODULAR HOUSING RELOCATION EIR 2/4/2000
COLLEGE INFILL APARTMENTS 3/23/2001
RANCH VIEW TERRACE EIR 1/26/2004
EAST CAMPUS INFILL HOUSING EIR 3/20/2009
KRESGE COLLEGE RENEWAL & EXPANSION EIR 11/14/2018
STUDENT HOUSING WEST EIRS 2018
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS:

FACULTY FOR-SALE HOUSING 8/27/1984
CROWN COLLEGE HOUSING ADDITION 4/3/1985
GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING 6/3/1985
KRESGE COLLEGE ADDITIONAL HOUSING 7/26/1986
OAKES COLLEGE HOUSING ADDITION 7/31/1986

12.11 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Henry Hooker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 11:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Remove SB 886 from consent agenda
Please!
Item #12 on the consent agenda for 4/26/22 should not be on the consent agenda.

This motion deserves discussion and a NO vote.

The narrow CEQA exemption in SB886 for student housing deserves the unanimous support of the City Council, and, indeed, anyone in Santa Cruz who believes that UCSC needs support in its efforts to provide housing for its students.

Thank you,
Henry Hooker

12.12 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joe Thompson, Candidate For CA State Assembly 28 <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Cc: elizabeth conlan; [email protected]
Subject: April 26 Agenda #12 Letter
Attachments: April 26 Agenda #12 - SB886.pdf
Hello Santa Cruz City Council,
I ask that you pull item 12 from the consent agenda. I further ask that you also retract the motion to oppose and instead issue a statement of support of SB 886. Lastly, I ask that you work with Students, especially the Student Housing Coalition to address the crisis of student homelessness in Santa Cruz, and the broader homelessness crisis within the city, attached is a letter in support of SB 886 from State Assembly Candidate Rob Rennie and I.

I hope that you will stand with the students who are facing this crisis and move swiftly to address this critical issue.

Best Regards,
Joe Thompson
Rob Rennie
Candidates For State Assembly, District 28

12.13 April 24, 2022
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Re: Agenda Item #12, Senate Bill SB886
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers:

I’m writing to you today as a Student, a low-income Barista, and as a Candidate for State Assembly. As a housing advocate with the Student Housing Coalition, I have fought for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population in response to the ever-increasing cost of living and the housing crisis in our region. Over 9% of UC Santa Cruz students experience homelessness. It is unacceptable that so many students face financial hardship and other difficulties from the lack of on-campus housing, and further lack of affordable housing almost anywhere in the city.

We are writing in unwavering support of SB 886, and against your proposal to send a letter of opposition. This item should not be on the consent agenda.

The proposed bill, SB 886 will only exempt the individual projects from CEQA, not the guiding plans that determine the location and environmental mitigations of university expansions. Projects still have to comply with all sustainable building codes of both the state and university standards. The CEQA exemption only streamlines the environmental review process for housing on university-owned land that is not environmentally sensitive.

The agenda report presents a skewed and inaccurate perspective on the intersection of CEQA and University housing. A 2021 Legislative Analyst Office’s report on student housing indicated that the CEQA review process can and does delay projects and increase costs. There are high-profile cases at UCSD, UCLA, and UC Davis that have required universities to delay and sometimes reduce the size of their projects. At UCSC, multiple CEQA lawsuits since 2018 have mired the progress of Student Housing West

12.14 which would add nearly 3000 additional beds. Roughly 2000 students experience homelessness at UCSC CEQA, is now routinely used to stop any project, of any size, in any neighborhood, when anyone doesn’t like it.

Students and employees attending and supporting California’s world-class universities are not pollutants – they represent the future of our state.

Achieving California’s climate goals is a critical part of that future, and that includes updating CEQA to make sure it’s focused on issues that pose a direct threat to the environment.

Sincerely,
Joe Thompson, Candidate for State Assembly

12.15 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Caitlin Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to SB 886
Attachments: 22_Opposition to SB 886.pdf
Good Afternoon,
Please see attached for a letter from Chair Koenig on which the Santa Cruz City Council has been copied.

Best,
Caitlin C. Smith
County Supervisors’ Analyst
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-454-3516
[email protected]
To email all five members of the Board of Supervisors at once, please use: [email protected]

12.16 12.17

12.18 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 5:12 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Please Support SB 886 to Streamline Student Housing - Agenda Item 12 Attachments: Agenda Item 12- Support SB 886.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: Elizabeth Conlan <[email protected]> Date: April 24, 2022 at 11:43:09 PM PDT
To: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <SKalantari[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>, Donna Meyers <[email protected]>, Justin Cummings
<[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Bonnie Bush <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support SB 886 to Streamline Student Housing - Agenda Item 12 Reply-To: Elizabeth Conlan <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmembers:

I urge you to issue a strong statement of support for Senate Bill 886, which would streamline approval for on-campus student housing, instead of sending a letter to oppose it. Please see my attached letter on why we need SB 886 and why this bill deserves your support.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Conlan

12.19 Dear Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmembers:

I urge you to reject the motion to send a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 886 (SB 886) (Item 12 on the agenda) and issue a strong statement of support for SB 886.

As a renter in Santa Cruz who competes with UCSC students for the limited supply of housing, one might think I’d be angry with the University for increasing enrollment. However, I deeply value the role that UCSC plays in our community -- culturally, economically, and socially. I am proud that our city hosts world-class researchers, educates many first-generation students, and is a ladder of upward mobility for many Californians.

As a renter, I also follow housing groups on social media for people looking for and offering housing. I have seen countless posts from students that are heartbreaking. Students desperate to find housing so that they can finish their degree (Appendix 1,2), students afraid that they might have to drop out of school because they cannot find housing (Appendix 3), students advised to live in places like San Jose and Monterey making them reliant on cars and contributing to our traffic and greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix 4), and students wondering about living in their cars (Appendix 5).

We need solutions! Student Housing West, which would add over 3,000 new beds has been delayed due to lawsuits for years. We need to give the University tools to build new student housing and SB 886 is one such tool. On-campus housing is among the most environmentally friendly options for students who can walk or bike to class instead of driving and building hundreds of new dorm rooms, paired with subsidies to improve affordability, could reduce student homelessness.

Please support SB 886 and continue working with UCSC and Senator Laird and Asm. Mark Stone to get housing built on campus fast.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Conlan

12.20 Appendix
I’ve compiled the following screenshots from several public forums including Facebook and Reddit. I think they provide valuable student voices and illustrate the critical need for student housing to be built on campus as quickly as possible. I’ve blacked out names for privacy.

1. 2.

12.21 3.

4. 12.22

5. Other posts detailing the stress, expense, and difficulty of finding housing here:

12.23 12.24

12.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 8:55 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Santa Cruz YIMBY - Agenda Item #12 on 4/26/22
Attachments: April 26 Agenda #12 - Santa Cruz YIMBY - SB886.pdf Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please find attached our letter regarding SB886, #12 on your 4/26/22 agenda.

We are in favor of SB886 and against your proposed action.

Santa Cruz YIMBY
We envision a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, abilities, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home.

12.26 April 21, 2022
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Re: Agenda Item #12, Senate Bill SB886
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers:

Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population in response to the ever-increasing cost of living and the housing crisis in our region. We know that students in our community are suffering from the affordability and housing crises: 9% of UC Santa Cruz students experience homelessness. It is unacceptable that so many students face financial hardship and other difficulties from the lack of on-campus housing.

We are writing in support of SB 886, and against your proposal to send a letter of opposition. This item should not be on the consent agenda.

SB 886 will only exempt the individual projects from CEQA, not the guiding plans that determine the location and environmental mitigations of university expansions. Projects still have to comply with all sustainable building codes of both the state and university standards. The CEQA exemption only streamlines the environmental review process for housing on university-owned land that is not environmentally sensitive.

The agenda report presents a skewed and inaccurate perspective on the intersection of CEQA and University housing. A 2021 Legislative Analyst Office’s report on student housing indicated that the CEQA review process can and does delay projects and increase costs. There are high-profile cases at UCSD, UCLA, and UC Davis that have required universities to delay and sometimes reduce the size of their projects. At UCSC, multiple CEQA lawsuits since 2018 have mired the progress of Student Housing West which would add nearly 3000 additional beds

Students and employees attending and supporting California’s world-class universities are not pollutants – they represent the future of our state.

Achieving California’s climate goals is a critical part of that future, and that includes updating CEQA to make sure it’s focused on issues that pose a direct threat to the environment.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Conlan
Henry Hooker
Kyle Kelley
Ryan Meckel
Janine Roeth
Rafa Sonnenfeld
On behalf of Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY Mission: We envision a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, abilities, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. In response to the ever-increasing cost of living, we advocate for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population.

Santa Cruz YIMBY is a chapter of YIMBY Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.

1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Regarding Agenda Item 12: Please Support SB 886 Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831-420-5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.

From: Ajay Shenoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:50 PM
To: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson <SKalantari‐ [email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Donna Meyers <[email protected]>; Justin Cummings <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding Agenda Item 12: Please Support SB 886 Dear Mayor Brunner and the City Council of Santa Cruz:

I'm writing to urge you to support rather than oppose SB 886, the pending legislation to grant expedited CEQA review to university housing developments. The agenda packet claims that "CEQA has been a valuable tool to protect important environmental resources on and off campus and to mitigate potentially significant impacts of campus developments."

The evidence for this is sparse. In 2018 the East Meadow Action committee sued under CEQA to stop the construction of Student Housing West for what they themselves acknowledge as "Bad Aesthetics" (https://www.eastmeadowaction.org/a‐great‐campus‐threatened). This is clearly not what the drafters of CEQA intended, but this lawsuit nevertheless delayed the project by years and forced the university to squander funds on lawyers and consultants that could have been spent on students. The consequences are real and tragic. As a professor at the university, I have spoken to students living in double rooms converted to triples, and lounges converted to dorms.

Some are forced to commute from far away because local housing is unattainable. Others are literally homeless. Their

12.29 2
suffering is completely unnecessary. Had SB 886 been enacted five years ago, the dorm rooms they need would be under construction right now.

I also don't agree with the implication that, because only Student Housing West has been challenged in court, CEQA generally does not impact the university's capacity to build housing. Even when a project is not literally challenged, the threat of a CEQA lawsuit forces the university to enter a protracted review process that creates enormous costs and delay. Since CEQA allows anyone with a lawyer to sue on grounds of dubious relevance to the environment, these reviews are far beyond what is standard in any other state in the U.S. Most tragically, CEQA's design is flawed because it only accounts for the impacts of building the project while ignoring the significant harm created by not building it. The lack of on‐campus housing forces many students into long commutes that put greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Instead of living in relatively water‐ and energy‐efficient dorms, they live in single‐family homes built to lower standards of efficiency. CEQA implicitly assumes that if the project is not built, these costs do not arise because the students cease to exist.

I want you to know that our students do exist, and they do matter. They don't have the time to draft a letter or show up at a mid‐Tuesday city council meeting. Please don't forget their needs. Their welfare is just as much your responsibility as that of any other resident.

Sincerely,
Ajay Shenoy

12.30 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:12 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder; Elizabeth Conlan; Bonnie Bush Subject: Re: Please Support SB 886 to Streamline Student Housing - Agenda Item 12 Please do NOT oppose SB-886. California universities, including UCSC, are currently experiencing an oncampus student housing crisis. This is a thoughtful bill which will streamline many on-campus student housing projects, so long as they aren't in very high fire hazard severity zones, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive areas. Contrary to what you may have heard, this bill does NOT reduce the leverage that the city or county have over UCSC in negotiating that the school build more on-campus housing. In fact, the city and county have already filed a lawsuit over the UCSC LRDP, and that lawsuit would not be affected by the passage of this bill. This bill would instead make it EASIER for the university to build the on-campus housing the city wants the university to provide.

I urge you to support students, including those at UCSC and Cabrillo, who desperately need housing now, and support SB-886.

Thanks,
Rafa
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:42 PM Elizabeth Conlan <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmembers:

I urge you to issue a strong statement of support for Senate Bill 886, which would streamline approval for oncampus student housing, instead of sending a letter to oppose it. Please see my attached letter on why we need SB 886 and why this bill deserves your support.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Conlan

12.31 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/14/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Clean California Local Grant Program – Acceptance of Grant Award and Use of Park Facilities Tax Funds for the Main Beach Public Restroom Renovations Project (PR, ED, CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution authorizing and directing staff to accept and appropriate funds from an application request to the California Department of Transportation’s Clean California Local Grant Program, and
2) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2022 budget for the use of $26,183 in Park Facilities Tax Funds to renovate the public restrooms located at Main Beach at 120 Beach Street.

BACKGROUND: The Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) includes nearly 296 million dollars of fiscal year 2021/22 State of California General Funds and is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). It was established under California Assembly Bill 149 (Sec. 16) and is part of a nearly 1.1 billion dollar Clean California Initiative focused at litter abatement, beautification, public safety, and public education to reduce trash.

Eligible projects under the CCLGP must meet the project goals which include reducing waste and debris, beautifying and improving public spaces, improving public spaces for recreation, and advancing equity for undeserved communities. Projects that are located in areas with “severely disadvantaged” populations do not require a local match of funding. One criterion demonstrating a higher severity is defined as census tracts within ¼ mile radius of the project site falling below the average median income of $48,903, or below 80% of the statewide average.

An interdepartmental meeting was held to discuss possible projects that could meet the eligibility and funding requirements and rank high through the competitive program. The Main Beach Public Restrooms Renovations Project was determined to be the highest ranking project which could feasibly be implemented within the required grant time frame. The project is listed on the City’s funded Capital Investment Program list. Staff have worked with an architect to evaluate code requirements as part of the preliminary floor plans and elevations (attached). The project has not progressed because recent assessments of the building have identified funding needs much greater than the $325,000 which had been assigned to the project during prior budget years.

13.1 Staff from Parks and Recreation Department, Economic Development Department, and the Sustainability and Climate Action Team collaborated on the grant application submission. On March 10, 2022, staff received formal notice that the project had been selected to be funded through the program.

DISCUSSION: The Main Beach Public Restroom Renovations Project involves nearly a complete re-build of the existing facility. A local artist will help perform outreach with residents of the surrounding Beach Flats neighborhood and then design two new 20’ x 7’ tile mosaic wall murals to beautify the exterior walls. The renovation will also include new ADA compliant water-conserving fixtures, including a bottle-filling station. Picnic tables, trash/recycling receptacles and signage will be also added outside the building, along with security cameras to monitor litter on the adjacent beach and study coastal resiliency to sea-level rise. A small addition on the eastern side of the building will allow for the existing kiosk space to be reconfigured into a small retail, improved kiosk space or visitor center. The existing trash bins on the western side of the building will be completely enclosed and fire sprinklered.

The Main Beach Public Restroom Renovations Project will include both participating and nonparticipating costs as part of the grant award. Participating costs are expenses that are eligible for funding through the grant program. Non-participating costs include additional expenses that are ineligible for reimbursement through the program but are necessary to complete the project. The program will fund $727,862 of participating costs. The remaining $351,183 of non-participating costs will be paid for in most part through the existing $325,000 which has been allocated to the project in the City’s Capital Investment Program budget. Staff recommends funding the remaining $26,183 through a budget adjustment from the Park Facility Tax Fund.

Permits will be required from the California Coastal Commission and City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Permit for the project. Staff have communicated to the California Coastal Commission the need to prioritize the project to keep the process within the grant schedule. The project must be completed by June 2024. Staff will use the funds to hire an architectural and engineering firm to complete the construction drawings, a local artist to perform outreach and design and install the mural, and a contractor to construct the project.

Acceptance of these grant funds will further the City’s Re-envision goals of business revitalization and infrastructure investment. It also aligns well with community well-being indicators of health & wellness and healthy environments by providing a renovated restroom, educational signs, trash and recycling receptacles, picnic tables, art, and cameras to monitor coastal resiliency and litter.

FISCAL IMPACT: $26,183 in Park Facilities Tax Funds will be added to the project to cover non-participating costs.

Prepared By:

Noah Downing
Park Planner
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks amd
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

13.2 ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION NO.DOCX

2. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

3. PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.PDF

4. PHOTOS.DOCX

13.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AUTHORIZING

AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S (CALTRANS) CLEAN

CALIFORNIA LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM TO RENOVATE THE PUBLIC RESTROOMS LOCATED AT MAIN BEACH AT 120 BEACH STREET
WHEREAS, the Clean California Local Grant Program was established under State of California Assembly Bill 149 (Sec. 16) and is part of the nearly 1.1 billion dollar Clean California Initiative to fund projects directed at litter abatement, beautification, safety, and public education; WHEREAS, the program includes nearly $296 million dollars to be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in fiscal year 2021/22 General Fund money; WHEREAS, the public restrooms located at Main Beach at 120 Beach Street have been in operation since the mid-1980s and have deteriorated from decades of heavy use and proximity to the sea air;
WHEREAS, the Main Beach Public Restroom Renovations Project has been selected to be funded by Caltrans through the grant program;
WHEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before program funds can be claimed; WHERAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows: that the City Manager, or his/her designee is hereby authorized to accept and appropriate grant funds, and execute in the name of the City of Santa Cruz all grant documents, including but not limited to, application, agreements, amendments and requests for payment necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

13.4 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
3XUSRVH

ACCOUNT REVENUE EDEN ACCOUNT TITLE

TOTALREVENUE

ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE EDENACCOUNT TITLE

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY

DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL
BUDGET/ACCOUNTING*

APPROVAL

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
&0)18VH2QO\

5HVR

-(3RVW

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
)LVFDO<HDU

'DWH

&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
Clear Form
2022
04/12/2022
Appropriate the awarded CalTrans grant funds into the Beach St Restroom CIP (c301913) and increase the project's Park Tax appropriation by 26,183 to reflect the updated cost estimate given the new influx of grant resources.
311-30-41-9120-43232 c301913-126-5026-0 State Operating Grants - Caltrans 727,862 311-00-00-0000-49109 c301913-908-0-0 From Parks and Rec. Facilities Tax Fund 26,183 754,045
249-00-00-0000-59103 To General Capital Improvement Fund 26,183 311-30-41-9120-57203 c301913-100-2020-0 Building remodeling 754,045 780,228
-26,183
Lindsay
Bass
Digitally signed by Lindsay Bass
DN: cn=Lindsay Bass, o=City of Santa Cruz,
ou=Parks & Recreation Administration,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.04.13 15:50:56 -07'00'
Anthony Elliot
Digitally signed
by Anthony Elliot
Date: 2022.04.14
08:45:00 -07'00'
Michael
Manno
Digitally signed by Michael Manno
DN: cn=Michael Manno, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Accounting,
[email protected]
m, c=US
Date: 2022.04.18 08:07:45 -07'00'
Bobby
Magee
Digitally signed by Bobby Magee
DN: cn=Bobby Magee, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected]
m, c=US
Date: 2022.04.18 09:04:57 -07'00'

13.5 13.6

13.7 Photos

13.8 13.9
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/14/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Cowell Beach Concession Second Contract Amendment (PR) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute a second contract amendment with Ed Guzman to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement for the operation of an ocean and beach related concession on Cowell Beach.

BACKGROUND: In 1994, the Parks and Recreation Department first advertised a request for proposals (RFP) for beach related concession services at Cowell Beach in response to City Council’s request to develop additional ways to generate revenue in the beach area. Originally staff operated the concession, until it became clear that an experienced outside vendor would be more successful. Ed Guzman who operates Club Ed was awarded an agreement in 1994 and subsequently in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2009 and 2012. The City entered into a first amendment to the 2012 Concession License Agreement which extended the term of the agreement until December 31, 2021.

Over the years, revenue generated from this concession varies due to weather and surf conditions. However, the average yearly amount is approximately $25,000. This revenue, along with the services that are offered to the community and visitors, make the concession a valuable asset to the beach area.

DISCUSSION: Staff has initiated a request for proposal (RFP) process for the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement. This fall, the City will initiate a RFP for the concession agreement and a RFP for surf school permits which will be effective next year. This second amendment to the Concession License Agreement to extend the term for one additional year to end in December 2022 will match the timeframe for the expiration of the surf school permits which also end in December 2022. This will streamline the application process for the RFP for the concession and also for the RFP for the surf school permits to both start at the beginning of 2023. This same timeline will benefit prospective RFP applicants and in administering the RFP and permitting process.

FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated revenues are approximately $25,000 per year based on a ten percent of concessionaire sales and rentals. No other impact to the General Fund is anticipated.

14.1 Prepared By:

Rachel Kaufman
Recreation Superintendent
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks &
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION NO.DOC

2. COWELL BEACH CONCESSION LICENSE AMENDMENT.DOC

14.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT, IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY,

TO THE COWELL BEACH CONCESSION LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH

ED GUZMAN AND THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2012, the City and Ed Guzman entered into the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement to operate a concession at Cowell Beach for the rental of beach equipment at a portion of Cowell Beach including providing beach oriented instructional classes; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a First Amendment to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement with Ed Guzman in January 2017 to extend the term of the agreement; and WHEREAS, the it is of benefit to the City to extend the existing agreement for another year; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz execute a second contract amendment to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement and that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute that second amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Santa Cruz and Ed Guzman for the operation of a concession on Cowell Beach.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

14.3 SECOND AMENDMENT TO COWELL BEACH CONCESSION LICENSE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND ED GUZMAN
This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”) to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement, effective January 1, 2022, is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Ed Guzman (“Licensee”). City and Licensee may be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. On January 11, 2012, the City and Licensee entered into the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement (“Cowell Beach Agreement”) to operate a rental of beach equipment at a portion of Cowell Beach including providing beach oriented instructional classes.

B. The Cowell Beach Agreement provided a one-year term (12) months beginning on January 11, 2012, and ending at midnight on December 31, 2012, with automatic annual renewals at the City’s sole option, for four additional one-year terms with a termination date of December 31, 2016. The City exercised its options to renew.

C. The City then entered into a First Amendment to the Cowell Beach Agreement on or about January 27, 2017, extending the term of the Cowell Beach Agreement for an additional one-year term from January 1, 2021, and subject to automatic annual renewals at the City’s option to December 31, 2021.

D. The City and Licensee now further agree to enter into a Second Amendment to extend the Cowell Beach Agreement for an additional one-year term to and including December 31, 2022.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the Parties to incorporate the above Recitals hereto, and that the Cowell Beach Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Cowell Beach Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
“1. TERM. The term of this License is for a one-year term (12) months beginning on January 1, 2022, and ending at midnight on December 31, 2022.”

2. Notwithstanding this amended term of the original Cowell Beach Agreement by this Second Amendment, all other applicable terms and conditions of the original Cowell

14.4 Beach Agreement and attachments, shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this Second Amendment shall control if any conflict exists.

3. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Second Amendment and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Second Amendment.

4. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision(s) of this Second Amendment shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.

5. The Parties may execute this Second Amendment in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile, or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

6. The signatories to this Second Amendment warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Second Amendment and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Second Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to the Cowell Beach Concession License Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

City of Santa Cruz Licensee, Ed Guzman
A Municipal Corporation
By: Matthew Huffaker, City Manager By: Ed Guzman
Date: Date:

Approved as to Form:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Cruz

14.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/14/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Approval of the Santa Cruz Friendship City and Sister City Adoption Policy (PR)
RECOMMENDATION: Review draft policy and approve the revised Santa Cruz Friendship City and Sister City Adoption Policy as recommended by the Sister Cities Committee.

BACKGROUND: At their March 8, 2021 regular meeting, the Sister Cities Committee (Committee) voted to approve the formation of an ad hoc drafting subcommittee (Drafting Committee) for the purpose of reviewing and updating the Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy. The Committee voted to extend the Drafting Committee beyond the six (6) month limit at their meeting on September 13, 2021. At their January 10, 2022 meeting, the Committee reviewed and approved the proposed revisions to the Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy as recommended by the Drafting Committee (10-0 with one vacancy). The City Attorney’s Office provided additional review and approval.

DISCUSSION: The revisions of the Drafting Committee were intended to make the policy as flexible as possible and to provide guidelines, rather than strict requirements, as to how Sister Cities are adopted and for setting statuses for inactive, emeritus, and terminated relationships.

Highlighted changes include removing restrictions requiring potential Sister Cities to start as Friendship Cities. The revised policy also clarifies that virtual exchanges can count as delegation visits during the Sister City exploration period.

Furthermore, the revisions reduces the number of years required for placing a Sister City on inactive or emeritus status and adds an extenuating circumstances clause to execute such action by the Committee with approval by Council. The time limit criteria for placing a Sister City on inactive status was reduced from five (5) years to three (3) years of having no or limited interactions. The time limit criteria for placing a Sister City on emeritus status reduced from ten (10) years to five (5) years when there has not been any significant interaction with the Sister City and section was added that outlines the process for terminating a Sister City relationship.

Although the policy revisions grant flexibility for the Committee to make recommendations on adoption, setting inactive/emeritus statuses, or terminating relationships, it remains clear that the Committee advises City Council, who makes all final decisions regarding sister city relationships.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

15.1 Prepared By:

Rachel Kaufman
Recreation Superintendent
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks &
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SANTA CRUZ FRIENDSHIP AND SISTER ADOPTION CITY POLICY (OLD).PDF

2. SANTA CRUZ FRIENDSHIP AND SISTER ADOPTION CITY POLICY (TRACK CHANGES).PDF

3. SANTA CRUZ FRIENDSHIP AND SISTER ADOPTION CITY POLICY (CLEAN).DOC

15.2 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy The intent of this document is to define the circumstances, criteria, and processes to nominate and adopt Friendship Cities and recommend to the Santa Cruz City Council the adoption of Sister Cities.

Additionally, a process to reconsider existing relationships is outlined.

Mission and Purpose
The City of Santa Cruz desires to establish relationships with towns and localities abroad to provide opportunities to build friendships, learn about other cultures, and foster international understanding. To this end, the City of Santa Cruz has established the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee, a volunteer group of ordinary citizens who, with the support of local elected officials, form long-term relationships with people and organizations in cities abroad. Through people-topeople relationships, the committee pursues activities and exchanges in thematic areas that are important to both communities, including municipal, business, trade, educational, and cultural exchanges.

I. Defining Friendship and Sister Cities
A. A Friendship City is a designated relationship for two years, where both cities have the opportunity to explore the potential for becoming sister cities. Both cities enter into an agreement to develop and strengthen relationships through a variety of activities, including but not limited to:
• Youth programs/exchanges
• Visitor exchanges
• Cultural and business exchanges
• School affiliations/pen pals (adult & children)
• Humanitarian projects
B. A Sister City relationship is a broad-based, long-term partnership between two communities in two countries. This relationship is officially recognized after the highest elected or appointed official from both communities sign an agreement. A city can have multiple sister cities, with community involvement by volunteers, civic organizations, nonprofits, municipal governments, the private sector, and others. Exchange possibilities are as described above for Friendship Cities.

II. Friendship City Selection Criteria & Process
A. Selection Criteria:

Friendship Cities should ideally meet three sets of criteria:
• Criteria related to structural similarities associated with compatibility; • Pre-existing or easily developed constituencies; and
• Geographic balance.

These criteria are described below.

15.3 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

1. Structural Similarities:

Potential Friendship Cities should ideally share certain structural commonalities with the City of Santa Cruz to better ensure compatibility and hence the circumstances needed for a long-lived and thriving relationship.

These structural criteria include:
• Population size
• Key industries
• Geographic characteristics
• Institutions of higher learning
For the City of Santa Cruz, a comparable city would be a university town of about 60,000 people located near the ocean or other large body of water with a municipal wharf or working harbor and served principally by tourism, technology, and agricultural industries.

While successful relationships are based, in part, on shared experiences that derive from structural similarities, the City of Santa Cruz should not insist on an exact match. In evaluating structural criteria, the committee should look for cities that share most, rather than all, of the above criteria.

2. Existing or easily developed constituencies:

The City of Santa Cruz should enter into Friendship City relationships only with cities for which a local base of support exists or can readily be developed. Support can take many forms. For example:
• Expatriate and ethnic ties
• Art and cultural relationships and exchanges
• Educational linkages, including alumni ties
• Service organization activities
• Economic and business relationships
• Youth organization activities
In choosing a Friendship City, the committee should take cognizance of the number, variety, and depth of relationships that already exist. The more existing ties the stronger the relationship will likely prove to be and the greater the likelihood that relationship will successfully transition to a Sister City. In the absence of a preexisting base, the potential to develop a broad base of support, can and should be considered. However, given that the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee is a volunteer organization, the committee should prefer those cities which already have local constituencies. The committee should avoid entering into Friendship City relationships with cities where the burden of developing interest among the community will not only fall primarily on its members’ shoulders but also be difficult to develop.

15.4 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

3. Geographic Balance:

The committee should seek geographic balance for its Friendship Cities. Ideally, selected cities should be spread out across the globe rather than clustered in one geographic region. Currently, the City of Santa Cruz has Sister and Friendship Cities dispersed as follows:

I. North America:
• Jinotepe, Nicaragua
• Chivirico, Cuba (Friendship City)
II. South America:
• Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela
III. Europe:
• Sestri Levante, Italy
• Alushta, Crimean Peninsula
IV. Africa:
• Kasese, Uganda (Friendship City)
V. Asia:
• Shingu, Japan
Future Friendship Cities would ideally be located in South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia/Oceania for geographic balance and a truly global network.

B. Process for Adding a Friendship City:

The Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee will frequently be faced with requests to establish Sister City relationships with cities abroad. As a rule, the committee should seek to preserve quality over quantity. Committee members’ time and energy are limited, and should be focused on preserving, deepening, and expanding already existing Sister City relationships. However, excellent matches will come along, and the committee should be prepared to identify them. The following process will help the committee do so.

1. Upon receiving a request to establish a Friendship City relationship, the Committee shall seek a volunteer champion from the Committee membership to actively shepherd the request through the Committee’s process. The champion will be a volunteer position only—neither the Chair nor the committee can summarily name a champion. If such a volunteer is not identified from the Committee membership, the Friendship City request will not be processed. The Parks and Recreation staff liaison cannot fulfill this responsibility.

2. Requests for establishing Friendship City relationships may originate from other cities, members of the public, or committee members.

3. If at all possible, Santa Cruz and the candidate Friendship City should attempt to exchange delegations prior to a formal designation. Its purpose is to explore and determine all initial exchange possibilities.

15.5 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

4. The champion will prepare a written report to include:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration.
b. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies for the Friendship City candidate in Santa Cruz.
c. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies in the city under consideration.
d. A description of potential focus areas for activities and exchanges with the Friendship City candidate, including a delineation of those potential activities and exchanges. This section of the report should describe how entering into a Friendship City relationship will benefit both cities. e. Once the report is complete, the champion will request the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair to put the report’s delivery on the next agenda and formally notify the City Council of this proposal; and If the City Council formally acts to object to the proposal, the process will be terminated. If there is no formal objection by the City Council within 45 days, the process shall proceed.
f. At a subsequent committee meeting, the committee will vote on whether or not to adopt the candidate city as a Friendship City.

III. Capacity

A. Ceiling:

There can be a maximum of two Friendship Cities at a time.

B. Length of Friendship City Status:

Friendship City status runs for a two-year term.

C. Possibility of Extending Term:

Under unusual and unexpected circumstances, the committee at its option may extend Friendship City status for an additional year.

IV. Sister City Selection Criteria & Process

15.6 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy A. Selection Criteria
At the conclusion of the Friendship City term, the city may be advanced to candidacy for sister city status, provided it meets the following additional criterion:

1. At least one bilateral exchange of delegations must have occurred after Friendship City status had been granted. That is, a delegation from the friendship city must have visited Santa Cruz, and a delegation from Santa Cruz must have visited the friendship city.

Selected delegates on the outbound delegation will have done the following:
a. They shall present to the full committee before the delegation departs an outline of what they hope to learn and accomplish while abroad. b. They shall solicit questions from committee members to be investigated while abroad.
c. Upon return, they shall report their findings to the committee and make recommendations.

B. Process:

If the Friendship City meets the additional above criterion, then the committee will consider recommending the Friendship City to the City Council for Sister City status. While the city is being considered for Sister City status, its Friendship City status will be automatically renewed until the process is completed. The process for granting Sister City status is as follows:

1. Prior to the end of friendship term, the chair of the subcommittee for the Friendship City seeking Sister City status will prepare a report that informs the members of the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee of the current scope of the relationship and its potential for growth. The report will contain at a minimum the following information:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration. b. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for the sister city candidate in Santa Cruz. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee intends to involve more segments of the community in the relationship.

15.7 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy c. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for making Santa Cruz a sister city in the city under consideration. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee knows of it counterpart’s plans to expand the relationship to other communities in the candidate city or if the subcommittee has plans to reach out to other community groups in the candidate city.
d. A description of the activities and exchanges that have occurred already involving the sister city candidate. This section should not only include a description of the inbound and outbound delegations, but also descriptions of other activities and exchanges in which the two cities have engaged. e. A description of the activities and exchanges that are anticipated for the next five years. With regard to exchanges, the five-year plan should provide a realistic description of their type, frequency, and method. f. A description of how a permanent relationship will be of mutual benefit. g. A recommendation for or against Sister City status.

2. At the last committee meeting before friendship term expires, the chair of the subcommittee will deliver the report to the full committee.

3. The committee will hear and discuss the report only; no action will be taken.

4. At a subsequent committee meeting, the committee will vote to recommend to the City Council the extension of Sister City status to the candidate city.

V. Active, Inactive, and Emeritus Sister Cities
The activity level of our relationships will vary. While active relationships with all sister cities would be ideal, the reality is that some relationships will become dormant. To deal with this situation, the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee needs a mechanism for distinguishing between active and inactive relationships. Sister Cities International has such a mechanism:
inactive sister cities can be formally transitioned to an emeritus status.

For our committee’s purposes, an intermediate step between active and emeritus should be added. This step would be an informal inactive status which Sister Cities International would not be informed about. It would be for our committee’s use only.

In practice, the committee should deem those Sister Cities for which there have been no interactions for 5 years to be inactive. All cities that are deemed inactive can be managed by one subcommittee. Once added to this subcommittee, they can return to active status, but until then, they will be less of an administrative burden on the committee.

In distinguishing between active and inactive Sister Cities, the committee’s online presence (City website, Facebook page) can list the active relationships as our Sister Cities and include

15.8 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy a section mentioning our inactive Sister Cities. By doing so, the committee can trumpet its active relationships and while also ensuring that inactive cities remain visible to the curious who might be inspired to help us restore these dormant relationships.

Sister Cities on the inactive list that have not had any significant interaction for 10 years can be considered for formal emeritus status. Sister Cities International would be informed of this change in status.

15.9 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy Sharing experiences and knowledge between the City of Santa Cruz and its Friendship and Sister Cities is a source of mutual enrichment. Successful Friendship and Sister Cities relationships promote peace and understanding by fostering mutual respect and cooperation between individuals and communities. They enhance the quality of life for citizens of both cities.

The intent of this document is to define the circumstances, criteria, and processes to nominate and adopt Friendship Cities and recommend to the Santa Cruz City Council the adoption of Sister Cities.

Additionally, a process to reconsider existing relationships is outlined.

Mission and Purpose
The City of Santa Cruz desires to establish relationships with towns and localities abroad to provide opportunities to build friendships, learn about other cultures, and foster international understanding. To this end, the City of Santa Cruz has established the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee (“Committee”), a volunteer group of ordinary citizens who, with the support of local elected officials and local organizations, form long-term relationships with people and organizations in cities abroad. Through people-to- people relationships, the cCommittee pursues activities and exchanges in thematic areas that are important to both communities, including municipal, business, trade, educational, and cultural exchanges.

I. Defining Friendship and Sister Cities
A. A Friendship City is a designated relationship for two years, where both cities have the opportunity to explore the potential for becoming sSister cCities. Both cities enter into an agreement to develop and strengthen relationships through a variety of activities, including but not limited to:
 Youth programs/exchanges
 Visitor exchanges
 Cultural and business exchanges
 School affiliations/pen pals (adult & children)
 Humanitarian projects
B. A Sister City relationship is a broad-based, long-term partnership between two communities in two countries. This relationship is officially recognized after the mayor or highest elected official or (or if elections do not take place, the highest appointed official) from both communities sign an agreement. A city can have multiple sSister cCities, with community involvement by volunteers, civic organizations, nonprofits, municipal governments, the private sector, and others. Exchange possibilities are as described above for Friendship Cities.

II. Friendship and Sister City Selection Criteria & Process A. Selection Criteria:

Friendship and Sister Cities should ideally meet three sets of criteria:
 Criteria related to structural similarities associated with compatibility;  Pre-existing or easily developed constituencies; and
 Geographic balance.

These criteria are described below.

15.10 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

1. Structural Similarities:

Potential Friendship and Sister Cities should ideally share certain structural commonalities with the City of Santa Cruz to better ensure compatibility and hence the circumstances needed for a long-lived and thriving relationship.

These structural criteria include:
 Population size
 Key industries
 Geographic characteristics
 Institutions of higher learning
 Similar values, such as tolerance and respect for the environment  Similar goals for their Sister Cities program
For the City of Santa Cruz, a comparable city would be a university town of about 60,000 people located near the ocean or other large body of water with a municipal wharf or working harbor and served principally by tourism, technology, and agricultural industries.

While successful relationships are based, in part, on shared experiences that derive from structural similarities, the City of Santa Cruz should not insist on an exact match. In evaluating structural criteria, the cCommittee should look for cities that share most, rather than or all, of the above criteria.

2. Existing or easily developed constituencies:

The City of Santa Cruz should enter into Friendship and Sister City relationships only with cities for which a local base ofcommunity support exists or can readily be developed.

Support can take many forms. For example:
 Expatriate and ethnic ties
 Art and cultural relationships and exchanges
 Educational linkages, including alumni ties
 Service organization activities
 Economic and business relationships
 Youth organization activities
In choosing a Friendship or Sister City, the cCommittee should take cognizance of the number, variety, and depth of relationships between the City of Santa Cruz and that city that already exist and the level of community support in both cities for the relationship.

The more existing ties, the stronger the relationship will likely prove to be and the greater the likelihood that relationship will successfully transition to, or be, a Sister City.

In the absence of a preexisting base, the potential to develop a broad base of community support, can and should be considered. However, given that the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee is a volunteer organization, the cCommittee should give preference to those cities which already have local constituencies and community support in both cities. The cCommittee should avoid entering into Friendship or Sister City relationships with cities where the burden ofit will be difficult to developing interest support among the community and the burden of such support will not only fall primarily on its the Committee members’ shoulders but also be difficult to develop.

15.11 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

3. Geographic Balance:

The cCommittee should seek geographic balance for its Friendship Cities. Ideally, selected cities should be spread out across the globe rather than clustered in one geographic region. Currently, the City of Santa Cruz has Sister and Friendship Cities dispersed as follows:

I. North/Central America:
 Jinotepe, Nicaragua
 Chivirico, Cuba (Friendship City)
II. South America:
 Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela
III. Europe:
 Sestri Levante, Italy
 Alushta, Crimean Peninsula
 Biarritz, France (Friendship City)
IV. Africa:
 Kasese, Uganda (Friendship City)None currently
V. Oceania
 None currently
V.VI. Asia:
 Shingu, Japan

Future Friendship and Sister Cities would ideally be located in South America, Africa, and/or Asia, andAustralia/Oceania for geographic balance and a truly global network.

B. Process for Adding a Friendship City:

The Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee will frequently be faced with requests to establish Sister City relationships with cities abroad. As a rule, the cCommittee should seek to preserve quality over quantity. Committee members’ time and energy are limited, and should be focused on preserving, deepening, and expanding already existing Sister City and Friendship City relationships. However, excellent matches will come along, and the cCommittee should be prepared to identify them. The following process will help the cCommittee do so.

1. Upon receiving a request to establish a Friendship or Sister City relationship, the Committee shall seek a volunteer champion from the Committee membership to actively shepherd the request through the Committee’s process.

The champion will be a volunteer position only—neither the Chair nor the cCommittee can summarily name a champion who has not volunteered. If such a volunteer is not identified from the Committee membership, the Friendship or Sister City request will not be processedproceed. The Parks and Recreation staff liaison cannot fulfill this responsibility.

2. Requests for establishing Friendship or Sister City relationships may originate from other cities, members of the public, or cCommittee members.

15.12 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

3. If at allWhen possible, Santa Cruz and the candidate Friendship/Sister City should attempt to exchange delegations or have other social or community exchanges prior to a formal designation. Its purpose is in order to explore and determine all initial exchange possibilities.

4. Prior to adoption as a Friendship City, Tthe champion will prepare a written report for the Committee to include:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration.
b. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies for the Friendship City candidate in Santa Cruz.
c. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies in the city under consideration.
d. A description of potential focus areas for activities and exchanges with the Friendship City candidate, including a delineation of those potential activities and exchanges. This section of the report should describe how entering into a Friendship City relationship will benefit both cities. e. Once the report is complete, the champion will request the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair to put the report’s delivery on the next Committee agenda and formally notify the City Council of this proposal; and If the City Council formally acts to object to the proposal, the process will be terminated. If there is no formal objection by the City Council within 45 days, the process shall proceed.
f. At a subsequent cCommittee meeting, the cCommittee will vote on whether or not to adopt the candidate city as a Friendship City; provided, that, if the City Council objects to such designation within 45 days of notification, the city will not become a Friendship City.

C. Capacity

1. Ceiling:

There can be a maximum of two Friendship Cities at a time.

2. Length of Friendship City Status:

The default is that Friendship City status runs for a two-year term.

3.Possibility of Extending or Shortening Term:

Under unusual and unexpected circumstances, tThe cCommittee at its option may extend the Friendship City status for an additional year or may decide to consider a transition to Sister City status before the completion of a Friendship City term.

15.13 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy

4. Informal Relationship. It is intended that Friendship City status be informal and need not be reported to Sister Cities International.

III. Sister City Selection Criteria & Process Selection Criteria At Before the conclusion of the Friendship City term, the city may be advanced to candidacy for sSister cCity status based on the totality of community and Committee support for such advancement and the interest expressed by the Friendship City in becoming a Sister City. It is expected but not required that a city will be a Friendship City prior to adoption as a Sister City and that, in addition to the criteria detailed in Section II, to become a Sister City a city will, provided it meets the following additional criterion:

1. At least one bilateral exchange of delegations must have has occurred after Friendship City status had been granted. That is, a delegation from the friendship city must will have visited Santa Cruz, and a delegation from Santa Cruz must will have visited the fFriendship cCity, or at least two virtual “visits” or exchanges will have occurred.

2. Selected delegates on the outbound delegationOne or more participating Committee members will have done the following:
a. They shall pPresented to the full cCommittee before the a delegation departs or a virtual meeting occurs an outline of what they hope to learn and accomplish from the delegation or exchange while abroad. b. They shall sSolicited questions from cCommittee members to be investigated while abroadduring the delegation or exchange. c. Upon return, they shall rReported their findings to the cCommittee and madke recommendations.

B. Process:

If the Friendship City meets the additional Based on the above criterion, then the cCommittee will may consider recommending the Friendship Citya city to the City Council for Sister City status. While the city is being considered for Sister City status, its Friendship City status will be automatically renewed until the process is completed. The process for granting Sister City status is as follows:

1. Prior to the end of any fFriendship City term, the chair of the subcommittee for the Friendship City seeking Sister City status will prepare a report, and deliver the report to the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair for provision to the Committee, that informs the members of the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee of the current scope of the relationship and its potential for growth. The report will contain at a minimum the following information:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence 15.14 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration.
b. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for the sister city candidate in Santa Cruz. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee intends to involve more segments of the community in the relationship.
c. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for making Santa Cruz a sister city in the city under consideration. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee knows of it counterpart’s plans to expand the relationship to other communities in the candidate city or if the subcommittee has plans to reach out to other community groups in the candidate city.
d. A description of the activities and exchanges that have occurred already involving the sister city candidate. This section should not only include a description of the inbound and outbound delegations, but also descriptions of other activities and exchanges in which the two cities have engaged.
e. A description of the activities and exchanges that are anticipated for the next five years. With regard to exchanges, the five-year plan should provide a realistic description of their type, frequency, and method. f. A description of how a permanent relationship will be of mutual benefit. g. A recommendation for or against Sister City status.

2. At the last committee meeting before friendship term expiressame time the report is delivered, the chair of the subcommittee will request the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair to put the status of the city on the next Committee agenda.

3. The cCommittee will hear and discuss the report at the next Committee meeting if possible and may either vote on whether to recommend to the City Council to advance the city to Sister City status, may request further information or may determine to hold such vote at a subsequent Committee meeting only; no action will be taken.

4. If not previously voted on, Aat a subsequent committee meeting, the cCommittee will vote on whether to recommend to the City Council the extensionto advance that city to of Sister City status to the candidate city.

5. In the event the Committee votes to recommend to the City Council to advance a city to Sister City status, the Committee Chair or subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will notify the City Council of such vote and will be responsible for working with the City Council to advance the candidacy of the city. If the City Council votes in favor of making the City a 15.15 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
Sister City, the subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will be responsible for (i) putting in place a formal agreement between the City of Santa Cruz and the Sister City which must be signed by the mayor or other highest elected official (or if no election, the highest appointed official) of both cities and (ii) forwarding such agreement to Sister Cities International.

4.6. In the event the Committee or the City Council votes not to advance a city to Sister City status, then any Friendship City status will expire at the end of the original term (or earlier if so voted by the Committee) and the city no longer will be a Friendship City. If such Friendship City status has been reported to Sister Cities International, the Chair or subcommittee chair shall notify Sister Cities International of the termination of the Friendship City status.

IV. Active, Inactive, and Emeritus Sister Cities
A. The activity level of our relationships will vary. While active relationships with all sSister Ccities would be ideal, the reality is that some relationships will become dormant. To deal with this situation, the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee needs a mechanism for distinguishing between active and inactive relationships. Sister Cities International has such a mechanism: inactive sister cities can be formally transitioned to an emeritus status or Sister City status can be terminated.

B. “Inactive” Status. For our cCommittee’s purposes, an intermediate step between active and emeritus should beis added: “Inactive” status. This step would be an informal inactive status which Sister Cities International would not be informed about.

It would be for our cCommittee’s use only. In practice, the cCommittee should deem those Sister Cities for which there have been no or very limited interactions for 5 3 years to be iInactive. The Committee may also deem a city to be Inactive if there are other extenuating circumstances that make Inactive status advisable or necessary. All cities that are deemed iInactive can be managed by one subcommitteeCommittee member who will report on the status of the relationship at least once per year or more frequently if significant interactions are restarted or the extenuating circumstances no longer apply. Once added to this subcommitteemade Inactive, they a city can return to active status, but until then, they will be less of an administrative burden on the cCommittee.

C. Website. In distinguishing between active and iInactive Sister Cities, the cCommittee’s online presence (City website, Facebook page) can list the active relationships as our Sister Cities and include a section mentioning our iInactive Sister Cities. By doing so, the cCommittee can trumpet identify its active relationships and while also ensuring that iInactive cities remain visible to the curious community for those who might be inspired to help us restore these dormant relationships. The website also may, but is not required to, list cities that are in Friendship City or Emeritus status.

D. Emeritus Status. Sister Cities on the inactive list thatfor which there have not had been any significant interaction for 10 a total of five years, or which have been in Inactive status for at least two years, or if there are other extenuating circumstances that make Emeritus status advisable, can be considered for formal emeritus status. The Committee periodically should evaluate whether to

15.16 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy recommend to the City Council to place any Sister City which meets such criteria into Emeritus status.

1. In the event the Committee votes to recommend to the City Council to place a Sister City into Emeritus status, the Committee Chair or subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will notify the City Council of such vote and will be responsible for working with the City Council to place such Sister City into Emeritus status, including obtaining a letter from the mayor or highest elected official of Santa Cruz to the Sister City indicating that Santa Cruz considers the relationship dormant and wishes to change its status to Emeritus.

In such case, a copy of such letter will be sent to Sister Cities International would beto informed of this change in status.

2. In the event the Committee or City Council votes not to place such Sister City into Emeritus status, the Sister City will continue to be a Sister City.

E. Re-Evaluation of Emeritus Status. While a Sister City is in Emeritus status, the Committee periodically may evaluate whether that Sister City should remain in Emeritus status or alternatively should be removed from Emeritus status because either (1) the Committee votes to revive the Sister City relationship or (2) the Committee votes to terminate the Sister Cities status entirely.

1. In the event the Committee votes either to revive or terminate the relationship, the Committee will designate a Committee member to work with the City Council either to revive such relationship or to terminate it respectively, including obtaining a letter from the mayor or highest elected official of Santa Cruz to the Sister City indicating that Santa Cruz wishes to end the emeritus relationship and either revive the Sister City relationship or terminate it respectively. In either event, the Chair or subcommittee chair shall notify Sister Cities International of the revival or termination (if required to so notify) of the Emeritus Sister City status.

2. In the event the Committee or City Council votes not to change a city’s Emeritus status, the city will continue to be an Emeritus Sister City.

15.17 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz 1 Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
Sharing experiences and knowledge between the City of Santa Cruz and its Friendship and Sister Cities is a source of mutual enrichment. Successful Friendship and Sister City relationships promote peace and understanding by fostering mutual respect and cooperation between individuals and communities. They enhance the quality of life for citizens of both cities.

The intent of this document is to define the circumstances, criteria, and processes to nominate and adopt Friendship Cities and recommend to the Santa Cruz City Council the adoption of Sister Cities.

Additionally, a process to reconsider existing relationships is outlined.

Mission and Purpose
The City of Santa Cruz desires to establish relationships with towns and localities abroad to provide opportunities to build friendships, learn about other cultures, and foster international understanding. To this end, the City of Santa Cruz has established the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee (“Committee”), a volunteer group of ordinary citizens who, with the support of local elected officials and local organizations, form long-term relationships with people and organizations in cities abroad. Through people-to- people relationships, the Committee pursues activities and exchanges in thematic areas that are important to both communities, including municipal, business, trade, educational, and cultural exchanges.

I. Defining Friendship and Sister Cities
A. A Friendship City is a designated relationship, where both cities have the opportunity to explore the potential for becoming Sister Cities. Both cities enter into an agreement to develop and strengthen relationships through a variety of activities, including but not limited to:
 Youth programs/exchanges
 Visitor exchanges
 Cultural and business exchanges
 School affiliations/pen pals (adult & children)
 Humanitarian projects
B. A Sister City relationship is a broad-based, long-term partnership between two communities in two countries. This relationship is officially recognized after the mayor or highest elected official or (or if elections do not take place, the highest appointed official) from both communities sign an agreement. A city can have multiple Sister Cities, with community involvement by volunteers, civic organizations, nonprofits, municipal governments, the private sector, and others. Exchange possibilities are as described above for Friendship Cities.

II. Friendship and Sister City Selection Criteria & Process A. Selection Criteria:

Friendship and Sister Cities should ideally meet three sets of criteria:
 Criteria related to structural similarities associated with compatibility;  Pre-existing or easily developed constituencies; and
 Geographic balance. 15.18
A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 2 of 8
These criteria are described below.

1. Structural Similarities:

Potential Friendship and Sister Cities should ideally share certain structural commonalities with the City of Santa Cruz to better ensure compatibility and hence the circumstances needed for a long-lived and thriving relationship.

These structural criteria include:
 Population size
 Key industries
 Geographic characteristics
 Institutions of higher learning
 Similar values, such as tolerance and respect for the environment  Similar goals for their Sister Cities program
For the City of Santa Cruz, a comparable city would be a university town of about 60,000 people located near the ocean or other large body of water with a municipal wharf or working harbor and served principally by tourism, technology, and agricultural industries.

While successful relationships are based, in part, on shared experiences that derive from structural similarities, the City of Santa Cruz should not insist on an exact match. In evaluating structural criteria, the Committee should look for cities that share most, or all, of the above criteria.

2. Existing or easily developed constituencies:

The City of Santa Cruz should enter into Friendship and Sister City relationships only with cities for which community support exists or can readily be developed.

Support can take many forms. For example:
 Expatriate and ethnic ties
 Art and cultural relationships and exchanges
 Educational linkages, including alumni ties
 Service organization activities
 Economic and business relationships
 Youth organization activities
In choosing a Friendship or Sister City, the Committee should take cognizance of the number, variety, and depth of relationships between the City of Santa Cruz and that city that already exist and the level of community support in both cities for the relationship. The more existing ties, the stronger the relationship will likely prove to be and the greater the likelihood that relationship will successfully transition to, or be, a Sister City. In the absence of a preexisting base, the potential to develop a broad base of community support can and should be considered. However, given that the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee is a volunteer organization, the Committee should give preference to cities which already have local constituencies and community support in both cities. The Committee should avoid entering into Friendship or Sister City relationships with cities where it will be difficult to develop support among the community and the burden of such support will fall primarily on the Committee members.

15.19 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 3 of 8

3. Geographic Balance:

The Committee should seek geographic balance for its Friendship Cities. Ideally, selected cities should be spread out across the globe rather than clustered in one geographic region. Currently, the City of Santa Cruz has Sister and Friendship Cities dispersed as follows:

I. North/Central America:
 Jinotepe, Nicaragua
II. South America:
 Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela
III. Europe:
 Sestri Levante, Italy
 Alushta, Crimean Peninsula
 Biarritz, France
IV. Africa:
 None currently
V. Oceania
 None currently
VI. Asia:
 Shingu, Japan
Future Friendship and Sister Cities would ideally be located in South America, Africa, and/or Oceania for geographic balance and a truly global network.

B. Process for Adding a Friendship City:

The Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee will frequently be faced with requests to establish Sister City relationships with cities abroad. As a rule, the Committee should seek to preserve quality over quantity. Committee members’ time and energy are limited, and should be focused on preserving, deepening, and expanding already existing Sister City and Friendship City relationships. However, excellent matches will come along, and the Committee should be prepared to identify them. The following process will help the Committee do so.

1. Upon receiving a request to establish a Friendship or Sister City relationship, the Committee shall seek a volunteer champion from the Committee membership to actively shepherd the request through the Committee’s process.

The champion will be a volunteer position only—neither the Chair nor the Committee can name a champion who has not volunteered. If such a volunteer is not identified from the Committee membership, the Friendship or Sister City request will not proceed. The Parks and Recreation staff liaison cannot fulfill this responsibility.

2. Requests for establishing Friendship or Sister City relationships may originate from other cities, members of the public, or Committee members.

3. When possible, Santa Cruz and the candidate Friendship/Sister City should exchange delegations or have other social or community exchanges prior to a formal designation in order to explore and determine all initial exchange possibilities.

15.20 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 4 of 8

4. Prior to adoption as a Friendship City, the champion will prepare a written report for the Committee to include:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration.
b. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies for the Friendship City candidate in Santa Cruz.
c. A profile of the existing or likely constituencies in the city under consideration.
d. A description of potential focus areas for activities and exchanges with the Friendship City candidate, including a delineation of those potential activities and exchanges. This section of the report should describe how entering into a Friendship City relationship will benefit both cities. e. Once the report is complete, the champion will request the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair to put the report’s delivery on the next Committee agenda and formally notify the City Council of this proposal. f. At a subsequent Committee meeting, the Committee will vote on whether or not to adopt the candidate city as a Friendship City; provided, that, if the City Council objects to such designation within 45 days of notification, the city will not become a Friendship City.

C. Capacity

1. Ceiling:

There can be a maximum of two (2) Friendship Cities at a time.

2. Length of Friendship City Status:

The default is that Friendship City status runs for a two-year term.

3. Possibility of Extending or Shortening Term:

The Committee at its option may extend the Friendship City status for an additional year or may decide to consider a transition to Sister City status before the completion of a Friendship City term.

4. Informal Relationship:

It is intended that Friendship City status be informal and need not be reported to Sister Cities International.

15.21 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 5 of 8
III. Sister City Selection Criteria & Process Selection Criteria Before the conclusion of the Friendship City term, the city may be advanced to candidacy for Sister City status based on the totality of community and Committee support for such advancement and the interest expressed by the Friendship City in becoming a Sister City. It is expected but not required that a city will be a Friendship City prior to adoption as a Sister City and that, in addition to the criteria detailed in Section II, to become a Sister City a city will meet the following additional criterion:

1. At least one bilateral exchange of delegations has occurred after Friendship City status had been granted. That is, a delegation from the friendship city will have visited Santa Cruz, and a delegation from Santa Cruz will have visited the Friendship City, or at least two virtual “visits” or exchanges will have occurred.

2. One or more participating Committee members will have done the following:
a. Presented to the full Committee before a delegation departs or a virtual meeting occurs an outline of what they hope to learn and accomplish from the delegation or exchange.
b. Solicited questions from Committee members to be investigated during the delegation or exchange.
c. Reported their findings to the Committee and made
recommendations.

A. Process:

Based on the above criterion the Committee may consider recommending a city to the City Council for Sister City status. While the city is being considered for Sister City status, its Friendship City status will be automatically renewed until the process is completed.

The process for granting Sister City status is as follows:

1. Prior to the end of any Friendship City term, the chair of the subcommittee for the Friendship City seeking Sister City status will prepare a report, and deliver the report to the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair for provision to the Committee, that informs the members of the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee of the current scope of the relationship and its potential for growth. The report will contain at a minimum the following information:
a. A profile of the city under consideration that details the structural characteristics of the city (population size, geographic location, presence of universities, key industries). Moreover, the profile should also detail the languages spoken in the area, give a brief introduction to the structure of the local government, provide a short history of the area, and describe any logistical challenges to travelling to and from the city under consideration.
b. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for the sister city candidate in Santa Cruz. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee intends to involve more segments of the community in the relationship.

15.22 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 6 of 8
c. A detailed profile of the existing constituencies for making Santa Cruz a sister city in the city under consideration. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided if the subcommittee knows of it counterpart’s plans to expand the relationship to other communities in the candidate city or if the subcommittee has plans to reach out to other community groups in the candidate city.
d. A description of the activities and exchanges that have occurred already involving the sister city candidate. This section should not only include a description of the inbound and outbound delegations, but also descriptions of other activities and exchanges in which the two cities have engaged.
e. A description of the activities and exchanges that are anticipated for the next five years. With regard to exchanges, the five-year plan should provide a realistic description of their type, frequency, and method. f. A description of how a permanent relationship will be of mutual benefit. g. A recommendation for or against Sister City status.

1. At the same time the report is delivered, the chair of the subcommittee will request the staff liaison and/or Committee Chair to put the status of the city on the next Committee agenda.

2. The Committee will hear and discuss the report at the next Committee meeting if possible and may either vote on whether to recommend to the City Council to advance the city to Sister City status, may request further information or may determine to hold such vote at a subsequent Committee meeting.

3. If not previously voted on, at a subsequent committee meeting, the Committee will vote on whether to recommend to the City Council to advance that city to Sister City status.

4. In the event the Committee votes to recommend to the City Council to advance a city to Sister City status, the Committee Chair or subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will notify the City Council of such vote and will be responsible for working with the City Council to advance the candidacy of the city. If the City Council votes in favor of making the City a Sister City, the subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will be responsible for (i) putting in place a formal agreement between the City of Santa Cruz and the Sister City which must be signed by the mayor or other highest elected official (or if no election, the highest appointed official) of both cities and (ii) forwarding such agreement to Sister Cities International.

5. In the event the Committee or the City Council votes not to advance a city to Sister City status, then any Friendship City status will expire at the end of the original term (or earlier if so voted by the Committee) and the city no longer will be a Friendship City. If such Friendship City status has been reported to Sister Cities International, the Chair or subcommittee chair shall notify Sister Cities

15.23 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 7 of 8
International of the termination of the Friendship City status.

IV. Active, Inactive, and Emeritus Sister Cities
A. The activity level of our relationships will vary:

While active relationships with all Sister Cities would be ideal, the reality is that some relationships will become dormant. To deal with this situation, the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee needs a mechanism for distinguishing between active and inactive relationships. Sister Cities International has such a mechanism: inactive sister cities can be formally transitioned to an emeritus status or Sister City status can be terminated.

B. “Inactive” Status.

For our Committee’s purposes, an intermediate step between active and emeritus is added: “Inactive” status. This step would be an informal inactive status which Sister Cities International would not be informed about. It would be for our Committee’s use only. In practice, the Committee should deem those Sister Cities for which there have been no or very limited interactions for 3 years to be Inactive. The Committee may also deem a city to be Inactive if there are other extenuating circumstances that make Inactive status advisable or necessary. All cities that are deemed Inactive can be managed by one Committee member who will report on the status of the relationship at least once per year or more frequently if significant interactions are restarted or the extenuating circumstances no longer apply. Once made Inactive, a city can return to active status, but until then, they will be less of an administrative burden on the Committee.

C. Website.

In distinguishing between active and Inactive Sister Cities, the Committee’s online presence (City website, Facebook page) can list the active relationships as our Sister Cities and include a section mentioning our Inactive Sister Cities. By doing so, the Committee can identify its active relationships while also ensuring that Inactive cities remain visible to the community for those who might be inspired to help us restore these dormant relationships. The website also may, but is not required to, list cities that are in Friendship City or Emeritus status.

D. Emeritus Status.

Sister Cities for which there have not been any significant interaction for a total of five years, or which have been in Inactive status for at least two years, or if there are other extenuating circumstances that make Emeritus status advisable, can be considered for formal emeritus status. The Committee periodically should evaluate whether to recommend to the City Council to place any Sister City which meets such criteria into Emeritus status.

1. In the event the Committee votes to recommend to the City Council to place a Sister City into Emeritus status, the Committee Chair or subcommittee chair (or other designated Committee member) will notify the City Council of such vote and will be responsible for working with the City Council to place such Sister City into Emeritus status, including obtaining a letter from the mayor or highest elected official of Santa Cruz to the Sister City indicating that Santa Cruz considers the relationship dormant and wishes to change its status to Emeritus. In such case, a copy of such letter will be sent to Sister Cities International to inform of this change in status.

15.24 A Policy of the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
P a g e 8 of 8

2. In the event the Committee or City Council votes not to place such Sister City into Emeritus status, the Sister City will continue to be a Sister City.

E. Re-Evaluation of Emeritus Status.

While a Sister City is in Emeritus status, the Committee periodically may evaluate whether that Sister City should remain in Emeritus status or alternatively should be removed from Emeritus status because either (1) the Committee votes to revive the Sister City relationship or (2) the Committee votes to terminate the Sister Cities status entirely.

1. In the event the Committee votes either to revive or terminate the relationship, the Committee will designate a Committee member to work with the City Council either to revive such relationship or to terminate it respectively, including obtaining a letter from the mayor or highest elected official of Santa Cruz to the Sister City indicating that Santa Cruz wishes to end the emeritus relationship and either revive the Sister City relationship or terminate it respectively. In either event, the Chair or subcommittee chair shall notify Sister Cities International of the revival or termination (if required to so notify) of the Emeritus Sister City status.

2. In the event the Committee or City Council votes not to change a city’s Emeritus status, the city will continue to be an Emeritus Sister City.

15.25 AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation (c401709) – Notice of Completion (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the work of The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Salinas, CA) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation project (c401709).

BACKGROUND: City Council approved the authorization to award the Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation project (c401709) during its March 8, 2022 meeting. The project was awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, The Don Chapin Co., Inc. and included the installation of a new 24-inch diameter pipe and a new drop inlet near the inlet of the culvert. The project rehabilitated the upstream portion of the culvert and stopped the creek overflow. A future project will address the remainder of the culvert.

DISCUSSION: The work for this project is now complete. The project has been inspected by staff and found to be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications.

FISCAL IMPACT: The total project cost was $116,546.82. This project was funded by two General Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects: Storm Drain Pipe Replacement (c401709) and Catch Basin Replacement Program (c401610). There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Cina Seyedkazemi
Engineering Technician
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. NOTICE OF COMPLETION.DOCX

16.1 Notice of Completion (Revised Oct 2021)
(Space above for Recorder’s use only)
This instrument is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Santa Cruz.

No recording fee is required pursuant to Government Code § 27383.

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(CA Civil Code Sections 8102 and 9204)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

The undersigned is an authorized representative of the owner of the interest or estate stated below.

1. The Owner’s Name and Address. The Project owner is the City of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation (the “City”). The City’s mailing address is 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060. The City of Santa Cruz has the following interest in the subject Property described: City right-of-way

2. Project Title and Number. The full name of the work of improvement/public works project (the “Project”) which is the subject of this Notice of Completion is: Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation c401709

3. Nature of Work Performed on the Property or Materials Furnished for the City. The Project consisted of work described as: Installation of a new 24-inch diameter pipe and a new drop inlet near the inlet of the culvert.

4. The general site location description or address (the “Property”) of the public improvement is located at: 662 Escalona Dr and within the City’s right-of-way adjacent to 662 Escalona Dr.

5. Name and Address of Contractor. The Contractor on the Project is: The Don Chapin Company, Inc. 560 Crazy Horse Canyon Rd, Salinas, CA 93907

6. Date of Completion. The Project on the Property was completed on: March 9, 2022

7. The filing of this Notice of Completion was authorized by the Santa Cruz City Council Minute Order on Tuesday, April 26, 2022
DATE: ___________________
Mark Dettle
Director of Public Works, City of Santa Cruz
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF:

City of Santa Cruz, Public Works
Attn: Cina Seyedkazemi
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk’s Department
809 Center Street, Room 9
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

16.2 AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project - Phase I (c401307, c401810) – Budget Adjustment
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution amending the FY 2022 budget by transferring funds from supporting projects in the amount of $299,595 to fully fund the Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project (c401307, c401810).

BACKGROUND: At its January 11, 2022 meeting, City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project - Phase I and authorized advertisement and award. The project was advertised in February 2022 and awarded to Devaney Engineering, Inc. (San Francisco, CA) in March 2022.

DISCUSSION: The original project scope includes the installation of 24-inch diameter storm drain pipe and infrastructure and the replacement of the sanitary sewer system from Soquel Ave to East Gate Ave. The project scope was expanded to install 30-inch diameter storm drain pipe and larger infrastructure up to Melrose Ave instead in order to be better equipped for various rainfall events. In addition, the deteriorating intersection at Trevethan and Melrose will be repaved as part of this project due to coinciding interest. The project scope for the sewer portion was also expanded to include installation of several manholes and realignment of sewer main and laterals. In order to fully fund the expanded scope of work, a budget adjustment is required.

FISCAL IMPACT: The budget adjustment transfers funds from the Sewer System Improvements fund (c401511), Street Paving fund (c400809), and Minor Storm Drain fund (m400028) to fully fund the Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project (c401307, c401810). There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Cina Seyedkazemi
Engineering Technician
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

17.1 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
3XUSRVH

ACCOUNT REVENUE EDEN ACCOUNT TITLE

TOTALREVENUE

ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE EDENACCOUNT TITLE

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY

DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
&0)18VH2QO\

5HVR

%$5HI

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
)LVFDO<HDU

'DWH

&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
Clear Form
2022
03/30/2022
To move resources to the two Trevethan Ave accounts to fully fund the Trevethan Ave Storm/Sewer Project - Phase I.
311-00-00-0000-49111 c401307-905-0-0 Transfer from WW 49,595 311-00-00-0000-49171 c401307-961-0-0 Transfer from Streets 35,000 311-00-00-0000-49101 c401307-912-0-0 Transfer from GF 75,000 159,595
721-40-62-7259-57301 c401810-100-2020-0 Trevethan Avenue Sewer 140,000 311-40-64-9340-57311 c401307-100-2020-0 Trevethan Storm Drain Project - Phase 1 159,595 721-40-62-7251-57304 c401511-100-2020-0 Sewer System Improvements -140,000 317-40-64-9311-57304 c400809-100-2020-0 City Arterial & Collector Street Recon/O -35,000 101-40-61-4210-54311 m400028-100-2020-0 Minor Storm Drain Maintenance -75,000 721-40-62-7251-57304 c401511-100-2020-0 Sewer System Improvements -49,595 721-00-00-0000-59103 Transfer to Gen CIP 49,595
317-00-00-0000-59103 Transfer to Gen CIP 35,000
101-00-00-0000-59103 Transfer to Gen CIP 75,000
159,595
0 Cina
Seyedkaze
mi
Digitally signed by
Cina Seyedkazemi
Date: 2022.03.30
15:17:35 -07'00'
Mark
Dettle
Digitally signed
by Mark Dettle
Date: 2022.04.07
12:34:38 -07'00'
Nicholas
Gong
Digitally signed by Nicholas Gong
DN: cn=Nicholas Gong, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected],
c=US
Date: 2022.04.13 16:06:57 -07'00'
Bobby
Magee
Digitally signed by Bobby Magee
DN: cn=Bobby Magee, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected]
m, c=US
Date: 2022.04.14 06:44:24 -07'00'

17.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Agreement with Carollo Engineers for Application Assistance for the United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan and State Revolving Loans for Backbone Water Infrastructure Projects (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement in the amount of $335,419 with Carollo Engineers to support the Water Department’s application for a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan (WIFIA) and State Revolving Loans to support the Capital Investment Program (CIP) in a form to be approved by the City Attorney and to authorize the Water Director to execute future contract amendments within the approved budget.

BACKGROUND: The Water Department is undergoing a historic reinvestment in the system’s infrastructure, as well as planning for improvements to increase the water system’s reliability and resiliency. As part of this effort, the Department is continuing to explore options to fund capital investments at the lowest possible cost to minimize the impact on water rates and our community.

The Environmental Protection Agency established the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program in 2017 to accelerate investment in water infrastructure by providing low-interest financing for planning/design and construction of large-dollar value water and wastewater infrastructure projects. WIFIA offers loans at lower rates and more flexible terms than conventional tax-exempt revenue bonds. For example, in 2020, Soquel Creek Water District was able to finance its Pure Water Soquel infrastructure with a WIFIA loan totaling $89 million at 1.34% maturing in 2059.

WIFIA works separately from, but in coordination with, the state revolving fund (SRF) programs in each state. The Water Department has executed two Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) loans at a

1.4% interest rate: $103.4 million for the Newell Creek Inlet/Outlet Replacement Project and a $45.9 million for the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Concrete Tanks Replacement.

Additional DWSRF loans may be available for the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facilities Improvement project and the Newell Creek Pipeline and may be used as the 51% match for WIFIA funds. The new SRF loan interest rate for 2022 is 1.1% for a maturity date of 30 years.

In July 2017, the Water Department issued a formal Request for Proposals for technical assistance related to applying for a DWSRF low-interest loan. Proposals were received from six firms and a contract was awarded to the highest-ranked firm, Carollo Engineers (Walnut Creek,

18.1 CA), to assist with the DWSRF process through development and submittal of the application, assisting with the application review and negotiation of the loan agreement, training staff on proper compliance reporting and on-going identification of low-cost funding opportunities.

At the end of December 2019, the Water Department conducted an informal bid process for WIFIA application support and interviewed two firms. Due to Carollo Engineers’ relatively low costs, success with WIFIA applications for other water agencies and familiarity with the Water Department’s CIP, Carollo Engineers was awarded a $59,790 contract on 2/14/2020 based upon the original scope of work. The contract was subsequently amended to add $28,134 on 6/3/2020 to include additional work on the project. Again, the contract was amended on July 1, 2021 to add $106,924 to file a Letter of Intent with EPA, which occurred on July 28, 2021. The total contract for the WIFIA assistance was $194,848.

On November 16, 2021, the Water Director was notified that the Water Department had been invited to apply for a $164 million loan.

Similarly, Carollo Engineers have assisted the Water Department in the acquisition of the SRF loans. For SRF assistance, the original contract and four amendments commenced on October 2, 2017 and authorized $593,061 for Carollo Engineers’ assistance. The total low-interest loans awarded to the Water Department is $149.3 million.

DISCUSSION: The WIFIA application process is competitive and complex. The Water Department requires the assistance of an experienced and successful consultant such as Carollo Engineers. Staff recommends pursuing the WIFIA loan in 2022. The Water Department and Carollo Engineers will leverage the work begun in 2020 and 2021 while updating the application to reflect the new funding priorities and application criteria for WIFIA.

The WIFIA Loan requires matching funds equal to 51%. The lowest-cost loan today is the DWSRF loan. Therefore, the proposed contract with Carollo Engineers will assist staff to obtain matching funds for eligible SRF projects.

Details of the technical assistance proposed by Carollo Engineers are summarized in the Scope of Work in the attached draft contract. Staff will return to the Council for approval of any final loan documents with WIFIA and SRF.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the City’s General Fund as a result from this action.

Funding in the amount of $335,419 for the proposed scope of work is available in the Water Department’s FY 2022 Budget. The consulting costs are expected to be more than offset by the more favorable interest rates available from the WIFIA and SRF loans relative to more conventional, fixed rate financings. The amount of the potential WIFIA loan will be approximately $164 million with a required 51% matching funds from other sources totaling $171 million, depending on the final costs and compliment of projects included in the loan.

Prepared By:

David Baum
Water Chief Financial Officer
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS.PDF

18.2 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE

REVOLVING LOAN (SRF) ASSISTANCE
THIS AGREEMENT for professional services is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Carollo Engineers, Inc. (“Consultant”) (referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”) as of May 1, 2022 (the “Effective Date”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of each other’s mutual promises, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant will furnish services as defined and described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as the draft contract with Carollo, incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSULTANT
All work performed by Consultant, or under Consultant’s direction, shall be rendered in accordance with the generally accepted practices, and to the standards of, Consultant's profession. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant: (i) is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the work and services provided for herein, (ii) has the financial capability required for the performance of the work and services, and (iii) is properly equipped and organized to perform the work and services in a competent, timely, and proper manner, in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.

Consultant shall not undertake any work beyond the Scope of Work set forth in The draft Consultant contract unless such additional work is approved in advance and in writing by City. The cost of such additional work shall be reimbursed to Consultant by City on the same basis as provided for in Section 4.

If, in performing the work, it is necessary to conduct field operations, security and safety of the job site will be the Consultant's responsibility excluding, the security and safety of any facility of City within the job site which is not under the Consultant's control.

Consultant shall meet with Rosemary Menard, Director of the Water Department, hereinafter called "Director", or other designated and authorized City personnel, or third parties as necessary, on all matters connected with carrying out Consultant’s services described in The draft Consultant contract. Such meetings shall be held at the request of either Party. Review and City approval of completed work shall be obtained monthly, or at other intervals as may be mutually agreed upon during the course of this Agreement.

Review, approval, or acceptance of Consultant’s work by City or others shall not relieve Consultant from responsibility for errors and omissions in Consultant’s work.

SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
City shall make available to Consultant all necessary data and information in the City's possession and shall actively assist Consultant in obtaining such information from other agencies and individuals as needed.

Consultant is entitled to reasonably rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such data and information, provided that Consultant shall provide City prompt written notice of any known defects in such data and information.

18.3 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 2
The Director may authorize a staff person to serve as his or her representative. The work in progress shall be reviewed at such intervals as may be mutually agreed upon between the Parties. The City will be the sole judge of acceptable work, provided that such approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the work is not acceptable, City will inform Consultant of the changes or revisions necessary to secure approval.

SECTION 4: FEES AND PAYMENT
For services actually performed, the City will compensate Consultant at the rates set forth in the attached draft Consultant contract and in accordance with the terms set forth therein. Payment for Consultant's services in carrying out the entire Scope of Work shall be made within the budget limit, or limits shown in the draft Consultant contract. Such payment shall be considered the full compensation for all personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment used by Consultant in the Scope of Work.

Consultant agrees that the payments to Consultant specified in this Section 4 will constitute full and complete compensation for all obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. Where conflicts regarding compensation may occur, the provisions of this section apply.

Variations from the budget for each task which are justified by statements indicating personnel time expended and submittal of a revised budget are only allowed with prior City approval; however, in no event shall the total fee charged for the Scope of Work set forth in the draft Consultant contract exceed the budget of $335,419 without advance written City authorization in the form of an amendment or change order.

Invoices shall detail the time worked by each class of employee on each task and the expenses incurred for which billing is made. Invoices shall indicate the percentage completion of each work task as identified in the Scope of Work in The draft Consultant contract and the overall percentage of completion of the total required services. Unless otherwise specified in the fee schedule, payments shall be made monthly by the City within 30 days based on itemized invoices from the Consultant which list the actual costs and expenses.

All invoices shall contain the following affidavit signed by Consultant a principal of Consultant’s firm:
"I hereby certify [or as principal of Consultant] that the charge of (Insert invoice amount) as summarized above and shown in detail on the attachments is a fair and reasonable use of public funds, is in accordance with the terms of Agreement dated (Insert Agreement Date), and has not been previously paid."
SECTION 5: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
OPTION 1: NO REIMBURSEMENT
The City shall not be responsible for any travel, meal, or lodging reimbursements to Consultant and/or Consultant’s employees, unless authorized by City.

SECTION 6: CHANGES IN WORK
City may negotiate changes in the Scope of Work. No changes in the Scope of Work shall be made without the written approval of City and Consultant. Any change requiring compensation in excess of the sum specified in The draft Consultant contract shall be approved in advance in writing by the City. Only City’s authorized representative(s) is authorized to approve changes to this Agreement on behalf of City.

18.4 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 3
SECTION 7: TIME OF BEGINNING AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION Consultant shall begin work as specified in a written authorization (e.g. Notice to Proceed) to perform services. The written authorization to perform work shall not be issued until after this Agreement has been approved and authorized by the City.

The Work Schedule for completion of the work shall be as shown upon the draft Consultant contract. In the event that major changes are ordered, the schedule for completion as stated in the draft Consultant contract may be adjusted by City so as to allow Consultant a reasonable period of time within which to complete any additional work which may be required as a result of the ordered changes.

Neither party will be held responsible for delay or default caused by declared emergencies, natural disasters, or any Force Majeure event which is beyond the party's reasonable control. Consultant will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement.

The City reserves the right to obtain the item(s) and/or services covered by this Agreement from another source during any on-going suspension of service due to the circumstances outlined above.

Consultant acknowledges that it is necessary for Consultant to complete its work on or before the completion date set forth in the draft Consultant contract in order to allow the City to achieve its objectives for entering into this Agreement. The Parties therefore agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

SECTION 8: TERMINATION
The City may terminate the Agreement for convenience by providing written notice to Consultant not less than 10 calendar days prior to an effective termination date.

The City or Consultant may terminate the Agreement for cause by providing written notice to the other party not less than 30 calendar days prior to an effective termination date.

The City may, at its option, allow Consultant to cure its failure to perform within 15 business days (or longer period authorized in writing by the City) from the date of the City’s termination notice. The termination shall be become effective if Consultant has not cured within such time period to the City’s satisfaction.

Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause if the City fails to cure a material default in performance within a period of 30 calendar days (or such longer period agreed to by the Consultant), from date of the Consultant’s written termination notice specifying the default in performance.

Upon notice of termination by either the City or Consultant, the Consultant will immediately act to not incur any additional obligations, costs or expenses, except as may be reasonably necessary to terminate its activities. The City’s only obligation to the Consultant will be just and equitable payment for services authorized by, and received to the satisfaction of, the City up to and including the effective date of termination less any amounts withheld. All finished or unfinished work or documents procured or produced under the Agreement will become property of the City upon the termination date. In the event of Consultant’s failure to perform pursuant to the Agreement, the City reserves the right to obtain services elsewhere and Consultant will be liable for the difference between the prices set forth in the terminated

18.5 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 4
Agreement and the actual cost to the City. Termination of the Agreement pursuant to this paragraph shall not relieve the Consultant of any liability to City for additional costs, expenses, or damages sustained by City due to failure of the Consultant to perform pursuant to the Agreement. City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due City from Consultant is determined. After the effective date of termination, Consultant will have no further claims against the City under the Agreement. No other compensation will be payable for anticipated profit on unperformed services.

SECTION 9: INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Agreement, Consultant will maintain and comply with the Insurance Requirements as set forth in Exhibit D. Consultant will insure the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder. The insurance coverages required shall not in any way limit the liability of the Consultant.

SECTION 10: INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, claim, action, loss, injury, damage, judgment, or expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs (“Losses”) caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors in any way related to this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees shall not apply to the extent such Losses are caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees, as determined by an adjudicatory body or court of competent jurisdiction. The obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that Indemnitees caused or contributed to the Losses.

In the event this Agreement involves the performance of design professional services by Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, Consultant’s costs to defend Indemnitees shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault per Civil Code §2782.8. This section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

SECTION 11: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES City’s policies promote a working environment free from abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and require equal opportunity in employment for all regardless of race, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), color, national origin (including language use restrictions), ancestry, religion, disability (mental and physical), medical condition, sex, gender (including gender identity and gender expression), physical characteristics, marital status, age, sexual orientation, genetic information (including family health history and genetic test results), organizational affiliation, and military or veteran status, or any other consideration made unlawful by local, State or Federal law. City requires Consultant to comply with all applicable Federal and State and local equal employment opportunity laws and regulations, and Consultant is responsible for ensuring that effective policies and procedures concerning the prevention of abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation exist in Consultant’s business organization. The City’s current Equal Employment Opportunity and NonDiscrimination policies to which this Section applies may be viewed at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/?SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0983.html and http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=59192.

18.6 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 5
SECTION 12: LEGAL ACTION/ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief. The laws of the State of California, with jurisdiction in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, shall govern all matters relating to the validity, interpretation, and effect of this Agreement and any authorized or alleged changes, the performance of any of its terms, as well as the rights and obligations of Consultant and the City.

SECTION 13: AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may not be amended in any respect except by way of a written instrument which expressly references and identifies this particular Agreement, which expressly states that its purpose is to amend this particular Agreement, and which is duly executed by the City and Consultant. Consultant acknowledges that no such amendment shall be effective until approved and authorized by the City’s authorized representative.

No representative of the City is authorized to obligate the City to pay the cost or value of services beyond the scope of services set forth in The draft Consultant contract. Such authority is retained solely by the City Manager, Director, or their designee. Unless expressly authorized by the City Manager or Director, Consultant’s compensation shall be limited to that set forth in The draft Consultant contract, Fee Schedule.

SECTION 14: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. Project Manager. Director reserves the right to approve the project manager assigned by Consultant to said work. No change in assignment may occur without prior written approval of the City.

2. Consultant Services Only. Consultant is employed to render professional services only and any payments made to Consultant are compensation solely for such professional services.

3. Independent Contractor. In the performance of this Agreement, it is expressly understood that Consultant, including each of Consultant’s employees, agents, subcontractors or others under Consultant’s supervision or control, is an independent contractor solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Consultant agrees to comply with AB5, codified at Labor Code section 2750.3, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents against any claim or liability, including attorneys’ fees and costs, arising in any manner related to this Agreement that an employee, agent or others under Consultant’s supervision or control was misclassified.

4. Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

5. Subcontractors. Consultant shall obtain prior approval of the City prior to subcontracting of any work pursuant to this Agreement. If at any time, the City determines any subcontractor is incompetent or unqualified, Consultant will be notified and will be expected to immediately cancel the subcontract.

Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all of the requirements stated herein, including naming the City of Santa Cruz, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds. Any modification to the insurance requirements for subcontractors must be agreed to by the City in writing.

18.7 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 6

6. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned without first obtaining the express written consent of the Director or after approval of the City Council. Neither party may assign this Agreement unless this Agreement is amended in accordance with its terms.

7. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant owes City a duty of undivided loyalty in performing the work and services under this Agreement. Consultant covenants (on behalf of Consultant and Consultant’s employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors) that there is no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required under this Agreement.

Consultant acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions of conflict of interest law and regulations, including the Political Reform Act, Section 1090 of the Government Code, and the City’s conflict of interest code. Consultant will immediately advise City if Consultant learns of a conflicting financial interest of Consultant during the term of this Agreement.

8. City Property. The work, or any portion, of Consultant in performing this Agreement shall become the property of City. The Consultant may be permitted to retain copies of such work for information and reference in connection only with the provision of services for the City. All materials and work product, whether finished or unfinished, shall be delivered to City upon completion of contract services or termination of this Agreement for any reason. Unless otherwise provided herein, Consultant agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of project-related documents and materials pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in the City and Consultant waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of City. Any work product related to this Agreement shall be confidential, not to be used by the Consultant on other projects or disclosed to any third party, except by agreement in writing by the City, or except as otherwise provided herein.

9. Intellectual Property and Indemnity. Consultant represents to City that, to the best of Consultant’s knowledge, any Intellectual Property (including but not limited to: patent, patent application, trade secret, copyright and any applications or right to apply for registration, computer software programs or applications, tangible or intangible proprietary information, or any other intellectual property right) in connection with any services and/or products related to this Agreement does not violate or infringe upon any Intellectual Property rights of any other person or entity.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, damages, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of a claim of infringement, actual or alleged, direct or contributory, of any Intellectual Property rights in any way related to Consultant’s performance under this Agreement or to the City’s authorized intended or actual use of Consultant’s product or service under this Agreement. This provision shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

If any product or service becomes, or in the Consultant’s opinion is likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement, the Consultant shall, at its sole expense: (i) provide the City the right to continue using the product or service; or (ii) replace or modify the product or service so that it becomes noninfringing; or (iii) if none of the foregoing alternatives are possible even after Consultant’s commercially reasonable efforts, in addition to other available legal remedies, City will have the right to return the product or service and receive a full or partial refund of an amount equal to the value of the returned product or service, less the unpaid portion of the purchase price and any other amounts, which may be due to the Consultant. City shall have the right to retrieve its data and proprietary information at no charge prior to any return of the product or termination of service.

18.8 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 7

10. Confidentiality.
a. Consultant shall not acquire any ownership interest in data and information (“City Data”) received by Consultant from City, which shall remain the property of the City. Certain information may be considered confidential (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information shall mean all nonpublic information or proprietary materials (in every form and media) disclosed or made available directly or indirectly through any means of communication, either verbally or in writing, to Consultant in connection with this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law, Consultant shall not, without City’s written permission, use or disclose City Data and/or Confidential Information other than in the performance of the obligations under this Agreement. As between Consultant and City, all City Confidential Information shall remain the property of the City. Consultant shall not acquire ownership interest in the City’s Confidential Information. b. Consultant shall be responsible for ensuring and maintaining the security and confidentiality of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against unauthorized access to or use of City Data and Confidential Information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to City or any end users; and ensure the proper return and/or disposal of City Data and Confidential Information upon termination of this Agreement with notice to the City. c. Consultant shall take appropriate action to address any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, including addressing and/or remedying the issue that resulted in such unauthorized access, notifying City as soon as possible of any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, or any other breach in Consultant’s security that materially affects City or end users; and be responsible for ensuring compliance by its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors with the confidentiality provisions hereof. Should confidential and/or legally protected City Data be divulged to unauthorized third parties, Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1798.29 and 1798.82 at Consultant’s sole expense. Consultant shall not charge City for any expenses associated with Consultant’s compliance with these obligations.

d. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees and agents against any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage (including attorneys’ fee and costs) arising out of, or in connection with, the unauthorized use, access, and/or disclosure of City Data and/or Confidential Information by Consultant and/or its agents, employees or sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

11. Consultant's Records. Consultant shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to the costs incurred relating to this Agreement for examination and audit by the City, State, or federal government, as applicable, during the period of this Agreement, and for a period of at least five years from the date of the final City payment for Consultant's services, unless otherwise stated herein. If Consultant engages a subcontractor to perform work related to this Agreement with a cost of $10,000 or more over a 12 month period, such subcontract shall contain these same requirements. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

12. California Public Records Act. City is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If Consultant’s proprietary information is contained in

18.9 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 8
documents or information submitted to City, and Consultant claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, Consultant must clearly mark such information “Confidential and Proprietary,” and identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such information, City will make best efforts to provide notice to Consultant prior to such disclosure.

If Consultant contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Cruz County before the City is required to respond to the CPRA request. If Consultant fails to obtain such remedy within the time the City is required to respond to the CPRA request, City may disclose the requested information without any liability to Consultant. Consultant further agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold City harmless against any claim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments, costs, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by City of a CPRA request for information arising from any representation, or any action (or inaction), by the Consultant.

13. Compliance with Laws. All activities of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and/or agents will be carried out in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

14. Licensure. Consultant warrants that Consultant, its subcontractors and/or agents (if any) has/have complied with any and all federal, state, and local licensing requirements and agrees to provide proof of a current City of Santa Cruz Business Tax Certificate if:
• Consultant, its subcontractor(s) and agent(s) or its business is/are located in the City of Santa Cruz;
• Will perform actual work in the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually; or • Will use company vehicles to deliver within the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually.

For additional information and licensing requirements, view the City’s Business Licenses and Permits webpage or call the Revenue and Taxation division at 831/420-5070.

15. Living Wage. Every contract for services to the City for $10,000 or more, is subject to City of Santa Cruz Living Wage Ordinance number 2000-25. If applicable, Consultant agrees to comply with the requirements of the Living Wage ordinance as provided in Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 5.10.

16. Prevailing Wages for Public Work. To the extent that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement may be considered a “public work” (construction, alteration, demolition, or repair work) pursuant and subject to Labor Code section 1720 et seq., Consultant (and any subconsultant performing the work or services) shall conform to any and all prevailing wage requirements applicable to such work/and or services under this Agreement. Consultant (and any subconsultant) shall adhere to the prevailing wage determinations made by the Director of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to California Labor Code Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2, applicable to the work, if any. All workers employed in the execution of a public works contract (as such term is defined California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and section 1782(d)(1)) must be paid not less than the specified prevailing wage rates for the type of work performed. (CA Labor Code sections 1720, 1774 and 1782.) To the extent applicable to the scope of work and services under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to be bound by the state prevailing wage requirements, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. If a worker is paid less than the applicable prevailing wage rate owed for a calendar day (or any portion thereof), Consultant shall pay the worker the difference between the prevailing wage rate and the amount actually paid for each calendar day (or portion thereof) for which the worker(s) was paid less than the prevailing wage rate, as specified in Labor Code section 1775;

18.10 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 9
b. Consultant shall maintain and make available payroll and worker records in accordance with Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812;
c. If Consultant employs (and/or is legally required to employ) apprentices in performing the work and/or services under this Agreement, Consultant shall ensure compliance with Labor Code section 1777.5;
d. Consultant is aware of the limitations imposed on overtime work by Labor Code sections 1810 et seq. and shall be responsible for any penalties levied in accordance with Labor Code section 1813 for failing to pay required overtime wages;
e. Consultant shall post a copy of the applicable wage rates at each jobsite at a location readily available to its workers.
f. Any failure of Consultant and/or its subconsultant to comply with the above requirements relating to a public work project shall constitute a breach of this Agreement that excuses the City’s performance of this Agreement at the City’s sole and absolute option and shall be at the sole risk of Consultant. Consultant on behalf of itself and any subconsultant, agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, damages, expenses, fines, financial consequences, interest, and penalties, of any kind or nature, arising from or relating to any failure (or alleged failure) of the Consultant and any subconsultant to pay prevailing wages or to otherwise comply with the requirements of prevailing wage law relating to a public work. g. Consultant acknowledges that it and/or any subconsultant may not engage in the performance of any contract for public work unless currently registered with the DIR and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

17. Storm Water Requirements. To the extent applicable to the Scope of Work under this Agreement, Consultant, Consultant’s employees, subcontractors, and agents are required to abide by the applicable City of Santa Cruz Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the duration of the work. The City’s mandatory Storm Water BMPs, which are listed according to the type of work, operations, or business, are located on the City website at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/public-works/stormwater/best-management-practices

18. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Either party may initiate negotiations by providing written notice in letter form to the other party, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. Promptly upon such notification, the Parties shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place in order to exchange relevant information and perspective, and to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event that no resolution is achieved, and if, but only if, the parties mutually agree, then prior to pursuing formal legal action, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by non-binding mediation or negotiations between representatives with decision-making power, who, to the extent possible, shall not have had substantive involvement in the matters of the dispute. To the extent that the dispute involves or relates to a public works project, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by complying with the claims process as set forth in Public Contract Code

18.11 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 10
sections 9204(e), 20104-20104.6, but without waiving the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, Gov’t Code section 800 et seq. unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.

19. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, acts of terrorism, war, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and without the negligence of the respective Parties. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any Force Majeure claimed to delay, hinder or prevent performance of the services under this Agreement. Each Party will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement. In the event either party is prevented or delayed in the performance of its respective obligation by reason of such Force Majeure, there may be an equitable adjustment of the schedule and Consultant compensation based on City’s sole discretion.

20. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, along with any attachments, is the full and complete integration of the Parties’ agreement with respect to the matters addressed herein, and that this Agreement supersedes any previous written or oral agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein.

Unless otherwise stated, to the extent there is any conflict between this Agreement and any other agreement (written or oral), the terms of this Agreement shall control.

21. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

22. Waiver. Waiver by any party of any portion of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the same or any other portion hereof.

23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law.

24. Contract Interpretation. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement.

25. MacBride Principles/Peace Charter. City of Santa Cruz Resolution NS-19,378 (7/24/90) encourages all companies doing business in Northern Ireland to abide by the MacBride Principles and Peace Charter.

26. Notices. If either party shall desire or is required to give notice to the other such notice shall be given in writing, via email and concurrently delivered by overnight Federal Express [or priority U.S. Mail], addressed to recipient as follows:

To CITY:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
212 Locust Street, Suite A
Santa Cruz, CA 95006
[email protected]
(831) 420-5200
To CONSULTANT:

Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Anne Prudhel
Vice President
2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
[email protected]
(925) 977-3039

18.12 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 11
Changes to the above information shall be given to the other party in writing ten (10) business days before the change is effective.

27. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

28. Warranty of Authority. The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

18.13 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION

ACT (WIFIA) AND STATE REVOLVING LOAN (SRF)

ASSISTANCE
May 2022 (Water Rev. Sept2021) Page 12
Approved As To Form:

By: _____________________________ Date: _________________ Office of the City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________ Date: _________________ Matt Huffaker,
City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: _________________ Printed: ___________________________ Title: __________________

WATER DEPARTMENT
By: _____________________________ Date: _________________ Rosemary Menard,
Water Director

18.14 2795 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, California 94598-1601 P. 925.932.1710
..SCZ | SCWD General Funding Support Proposal_
.
._Final.docx
March
, 
Mr. David Baum
CFO, Santa Cruz Water Department
 Locust Street, Suite A
Santa Cruz, CA ,-.
Subject: Proposal for General Funding Support
Dear Mr. Baum:

The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) has asked Carollo to provide a scope and fee for general funding support for the SCWD’s upcoming projects. Funding support tasks currently identified include development and submittal of the WIFIA Application and SRF Application and support services for the Newell Creek Inlet/Outlet, Concrete Tanks, FIP, and Newell Creek Pipeline projects as defined in the detailed scope below.

As additional funding support needs are identified, SCWD will request a scope and fee from Carollo for review, approval, and authorization by SCWD.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 – WIFIA Application Support
The SCWD submitted a WIFIA Letter of Interest (LOI) in  that included four of the SCWD’s critical water infrastructure projects including the GHTWTP Facility Improvements Project (FIP), Newell Creek Pipeline Replacement Project (NCP), University Tank  Project (U Tanks), and the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project. The SCWD was notified by the EPA on October .,  that it was invited to submit an application for a loan of up to B.
,C,- (or ,% of the total eligible project costs).

Carollo will support the SCWD with the completing Phase  of the WIFIA Process –the preparation and submittal of the WIFIA Application, Application review and agreement. In Phase , the SCWD will be asked to supplement information submitted in the LOI and provide the WIFIA Program with the materials necessary to evaluate the creditworthiness of the SCWD for the proposed loan and demonstrate engineering due diligence, including federal compliance.

Below are the tasks to be performed by Carollo to support the SCWD in preparation and submission of the WIFIA Application for the Program.

Task 1.1 - Information Collection
Work closely with the SCWD’s staff, program manager, engineering consultants, environmental staff, finance department, financial advisor/bond counsel, and rate consultant to obtain necessary project information required for the WIFIA application for the four identified projects. Information is needed to update understanding and current status, project costs, and anticipated schedule to confirm the proposed project packaging. Information already gathered as part of the WIFIA LOI Application will not be resubmitted.

Carollo, will develop a list of required information, documentation, and financials, per the WIFIA application

18.15 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page
carollo.com
requirements, that need to be provided by the SCWD to complete the application package. Carollo will work with the SCWD and its consultants to collect the required material and assemble it for submittal. It is assumed that the SCWD and/or its program manager or consultants will provide required available technical/environmental and financial information for each project (including project descriptions, design alternatives, site layouts, costs, relationships to other facilities and projects, etc.). At a minimum, the SCWD or its program manager need to provide a detailed scope, budget, and project schedule for each project.

Task 1.2 – Prepare WIFIA Application
The WIFIA Application consists of an application form split into six sections with supporting detailed responses for each of the sections. For each section, the SCWD will be required to provide requested attachments (see Attachment A) for each project or for the Program as a whole in regard to the SCWD financials. As there are four projects under the SCWD’s application, project budget, environmental and technical information will need to be summarized for each project as part of the application. Information already provided under the LOI will not need to be resubmitted.

Carollo will work with the SCWD to develop the WIFIA Application, using the EPA WIFIA Application Template (//
) template. The following list outlines the elements of the application; however, additional items may be requested by the EPA during its review.

Section A ‐ Key Applicant and Loan Information: Carollo will summarize basic information such as the applicant’s legal name, project name, estimated total projects costs, requested WIFIA loan amount, anticipated closing date, and contact information. Additional information required include information about jobs, savings, Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number, and employer/taxpayer identification number. Carollo will work with the SCWD and its Program Manager to develop an updated total Program cost as part of this Section. · Section B ‐ Applicant Background: It is assumed that SCWD finance department will take lead in the development of the narrative and materials for this section. The SCWD will coordinate directly with its financial advisor, bond counsel, rate consultant, legal, and others to develop the required narrative and required attachments. Carollo will support the SCWD and its finance team in the development of the section. Materials to be submitted under this section detail the SCWD’s legal authority to apply for a WIFIA loan and to undertake the project and disclose any current, threatened, or pending litigation. The SCWD will need to provide a customer concentration analysis, water rate information, capital improvement planning process information, any outstanding accounts receivable information, and the latest condition assessment report or a master plan. · Section C ‐ Financing Plan: It is assumed that SCWD Finance will take lead in the development of this narrative and materials for this section. SCWD will coordinate directly with its Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, Rate Consultant and others to develop the required narrative as well as attachments and financial model. Carollo will support the SCWD and its Financial Advisor, Rate Consultant and others as appropriate in the development of this section. As part of this section, the SCWD will submit a comprehensive plan describing how the project will be financed and how financing will be repaid over the tenor of the requested WIFIA credit assistance. This includes a detailed financial model covering all periods through final maturity of the WIFIA credit assistance, the sources and seniority of other financing, a description of the dedicated sources of repayment, rate covenants,

18.16 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page

carollo.com
and security for the requested WIFIA credit assistance. The SCWD will also submit a preliminary rating letter from a NRSRO indicating the potential of the project’s senior obligations obtaining an investment‐grade rating. This rating on the senior debt should include an analysis of the proposed WIFIA loan and the rating letter should specify the default risk of the WIFIA instrument as well. The SCWD will also provide its proposed terms and conditions for the WIFIA credit assistance. · Section D ‐ Federal Requirements Compliance: Carollo will work with the SCWD’s Environmental Planners and the project specific environmental consultants in the development of this section. For each project, the SCWD environmental planner will provide the status of the environmental review and the status of the State Revolving Funds (SRF) environmental review, if applicable. The SCWD will also identify any crosscutter consultations that have been undertaken and any major permits or approvals required.
· Section E ‐ Contract Information: Carollo will work with the SCWD Engineering, Program Manager and Engineering Consultants for each project to develop this section. The SCWD’s Engineering Consultant and/or Program Manager will help complete a separate Excel spreadsheet with specific Project contract information including contract components, project information within each contract, the project delivery method, and filenames of technical reports. Information required also includes information about costs, schedules, operations and maintenance plans, and final or draft bid specifications for the project(s). Carollo will pull project information, provided by others, into a single submittal.

Section F ‐ Certifications: The SCWD will lead the development of this section including coordination of legal review of certifications (similar to that of the WIFIA LOI), Authorizing Resolution, coordination of required SCWD motions as well as completion of required forms. SCWD to coordinate the Authorized Representatives signature certifying that the SCWD it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including NEPA and the Davis‐Bacon wage rules, etc. SCWD will complete required forms (Forms.., SFLLL, and EPA Form C) as well as Certify Uniform Act Compliance if land acquisition activities are part of a project. · Application Fee: An initial Application Fee of B, will be required at the time of Application submittal. SCWD to coordinate approval and payment of the application fee to the EPA per the instructions provided.

Carollo will coordinate the overall package progress including the assembly of the draft WIFIA application package for SCWD review and comment. Management review of the application will be scheduled early in the draft process to develop consistent messaging throughout the application that reflects the desired SCWD messaging. Applicable SCWD staff and legal review comments will be incorporated in the final WIFIA application package (inclusive of the application and attachments). Carollo will support or, at the request of the SCWD, lead the submittal of the final WIFIA application to the EPA’s Sharepoint site.

Carollo will provide support to the SCWD for coordination/communications with the EPA including participation on calls with the EPA, response to questions and comments, and overall WIFIA Application status tracking.

18.17 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page 
carollo.com
Task 1.3: WIFIA Agreement Development Support
Carollo will assist the SCWD with the review of the draft WIFIA loan agreement, assembly of loan agreement package, and final execution of the WIFIA loan agreement. Carollo will prepare SCWD staff with the details and requirements of the final agreement and will support the SCWD’s finance department through the agreement process.

Task 1.4: WIFIA Follow-up Reporting (Not included in this scope and fee) At the SCWD’s request, Carollo will provide compliance services, including quarterly reporting and monthly disbursement requests during construction as well as follow‐up reporting services. A separate scope and fee for this work will be provided upon the SCWD’s request after the WIFIA loan is secured and the extent of requirements is better known.

Task 1 Assumptions
· SCWD will be submitting  projects as the Santa Cruz Program for the WIFIA Application. · Upon receipt of Notice to Proceed, Carollo will work with the SCWD and its consultants to begin work on the WIFIA Application.
· SCWD to confirm project packaging and project costs before the start of application development. · SCWD will provide all required documentation, for submittal to the EPA, in electronic format. · SCWD to confirm SAMs Registration and provide proof of registration for inclusion in the application. SCWD's Finance Department will take primary lead on all financial related questions and attachments. Carollo will work with the SCWD finance staff and financial consultants to identify and collate the financial information required for the application package. The required narrative and attachments will be provided by the SCWD and/or its financial consultants. · SCWD to directly contract with required Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, Rate Consultant and others as required to complete the financial analyses.
· Carollo will work with the SCWD, its program manager and engineering consultants to identify and collate technical information required for the application package including detailed scope and budget and project schedule for each project. This information will be provided by the SCWD and/or its engineering consultants for each of the projects in the Application packaging. Carollo to compile individual responses into a single response file.
· SCWD’s Environmental staff and environmental consultants will provide required environmental narratives and documents as required. SCWD Environmental to complete PEA Questionnaire.

Carollo to compile individual responses into a single response file. · Scope does not include the development of technical, environmental, or financial documentation that may be required and/or requested as a follow‐up by the EPA. · SCWD will coordinate legal review of the certifications, EPA Forms, and the required process to obtain the required signatures for the certification. SCWD to coordinate signatory resolution.

Up to twelve () calls with the EPA are budgeted.
· SCWD will coordinate the SCWD’s review of the Draft Application package by various SCWD Departments and provide one consolidated set of comments. · SCWD will be responsible for the initial (B,) and final Application Fee. · Carollo will submit the final WIFIA Application and Attachments to the EPA’s SharePoint site (per WIFIA requirements).

18.18 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page -
carollo.com
· Scope and budget assume a single WIFIA Agreement will be negotiated for the SCWD’s program. If a Master Agreement with project specific sub‐agreements is required, Carollo to discuss with SCWD how best to assist the SCWD and revise scope and budget to reflect these discussions.

Task 1 Deliverables
· Preliminary list of required documents (technical, environmental, and financial) needed to complete the WIFIA application based on the application template. · WIFIA Application Package (Draft and Final)
· Communication with EPA staff and teleconference notes (as appropriate) · Communication with SCWD Finance, Technical and Environmental staff Task 2 – SRF Support
This task supports the application development, final budget approval package, disbursement requests, and quarterly reporting for various SCWD projects as defined in the following subtasks.

Task 2.1: NCI/O Reporting and Disbursement Services
Develop Monthly Disbursement Requests (July 1, 2022 thru March 31, 2023). Carollo will develop monthly disbursement requests for NCI/O, including Form . (Request for Reimbursement), Form . (Invoice), and Form -, (Construction Contractor Spreadsheet to be filled out by the contractor). The SCWD will provide all invoices and backup documentation required to assemble the Disbursement Request. It is assumed that the SCWD or its Consultant will have processed, reconciled and overseen all invoices. If in Carollo’s assembly of the disbursement package, discrepancies are found or backup documentation required, SCWD will promptly respond to requests for clarification or track down missing backup documentation. Documentation required may include construction contractor pay estimates, copies of approved change orders, supporting documentation for travel/meals, etc. Carollo will provide SCWD a draft of the disbursement request package to review, comment on, and approve. Carollo will address SCWD comments and provide a final disbursement request package (PDF format) for the SCWD to print, sign and mail to the SWRCB DFA (packages < pages will be submitted electronically by Carollo upon receipt of the signed signature pages). Carollo will coordinate with the SWRCB DFA during the processing of the disbursement request including supporting SCWD in responding to additional information requests, as needed.

Assembly of Newell Creek Inlet/Outlet Quarterly Reports (July 1, 2022 thru March 31, 2022) Quarterly Reports for Newell Creek Inlet/Outlet content will be developed by others and assembled by Carollo for SCWD review. The final report will address comments received from the SCWD prior to being submitted to the SWRCB DFA. This task also includes assembly of the project closeout report.

Task 2.2: Concrete Tanks Reporting and Disbursement Services Develop Monthly Disbursement Requests (July 1, 2022 thru June 30, 2023). Carollo will develop monthly disbursement requests for the project, including Form . (Request for Reimbursement), Form . (Invoice), and Form -, (Construction Contractor Spreadsheet to be filled out by the contractor). The SCWD will provide all invoices and backup documentation required to assemble the Disbursement Request. It is assumed that the SCWD will have processed, reconciled and overseen all invoices. If in Carollo’s assembly of the disbursement package, discrepancies are found or backup documentation required, the SCWD will promptly respond to requests for clarification or track down missing backup documentation. Documentation

18.19 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page .
carollo.com
required may include construction contractor pay estimates, copies of approved change orders, supporting documentation for travel/meals, etc. Carollo will provide the SCWD a draft of the disbursement request package to review, comment on, and approve. Carollo will address SCWD comments and provide a final disbursement request package (PDF format) for the SCWD to print, sign and mail to the SWRCB DFA (packages < pages will be submitted electronically by Carollo upon receipt of the signed signature pages). Carollo will coordinate with the SWRCB DFA during the processing of the disbursement request including supporting SCWD in responding to additional information requests, as needed.

Develop Quarterly Reports for the Graham Hill Concrete Tanks Project (July 1, 2022 thru June 30, 2023). For the Concrete Tanks project, Carollo will develop the quarterly reports. Carollo will summarize activities conducted during the period for which the disbursement is being requested. The report summarizes the SRF loan status, design/construction progress, summary of activities for the previous period, environmental compliance, status of compliance with environmental requirements, construction change orders, construction problems and resolutions and work anticipated for the next period. Carollo, working with the SCWD, its program manager (PM), and contractor (as appropriate), will develop the report in sufficient detail to support the corresponding disbursement request. SCWD will provide all required attachments, including contractor and engineer monthly progress reports, photos, meeting agendas/sign‐in logs/minutes, reports, and project addenda. Carollo will provide a draft of the report to the SCWD for review. The final report will address comments received from the SCWD prior to being submitted to the SWRCB DFA. Scope and fee for FY  services will provided in the future if requested by the SCWD Task 2.3: FIP Final Budget Approval Package and Agreement Execution The FIP Application will be developed under an existing contract. The following FIP services will be provided under this scope.

Final Budget Approval (FBA) Package: Carollo will develop and submit the FBA for the FIP project as required to execute the final SRF Agreement with the SWRCB. The FBA consists of the final budget approval form and required attachments. Attachments, to be provided by the SCWD or its consultations/contractor, include:

A. Copies of any bid protests and resolution documentation.

B. As advertised Plans & Specification (P&S) stamped by a Professional Engineer C. All Addenda
D. Request for Proposals (RFP) and Request for Qualifications E. Proof that Davis‐Bacon Wage rate determinations were inserted in the Project P&S or RFP used in bidding the Project.

F. Final appropriate Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or updated WDR (Not Applicable) G. Tabulation of all bids or proposals received.

H. Copy of the bid(s) or proposal(s) selected and purchase orders issued. If the apparent low bid or proposal was rejected, a complete explanation for the rejection must be provided.

I. Evidence of advertising (submit copies of all advertisement(s) for the project).

J. All Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) documentation, K. A copy of any Notice(s) to Proceed issued, if available.

L. Copy of signed Construction Contract that includes final Davis‐Bacon Wage rate determinations, if available.

18.20 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page C
carollo.com
M. Value Engineering (VE) Study with recommendations and responses (Not Applicable) N. Items required by conditions in the Financing Agreement, (if not previously submitted) Carollo will complete the FBA form and assemble the draft FBA package after contractor selection/award and required information being provided by the SCWD or its consultant. Carollo will develop a draft FBA package for SCWD staff to review and comment on. Applicable SCWD review comments will be incorporated into the final FBA package. Carollo will submit the FBA package to the FAAST system and notify the SWRCB project manager of its submittal. Carollo will work with the SWRCB project manager to expeditiously respond to questions/requests for information. Carollo will work with SCWD staff to procure the requested information. The final FBA package (electronic) will be provided to the SCWD for record keeping.

Agreement Execution: Carollo will assist the SCWD with final execution of the FIP Project SRF loan agreement, including SCWD legal review, Bond Counsel Review and Closing Resolution. Carollo will prepare SCWD staff with the details and requirements of the final agreement, provide input to the staff report, and will support the SCWD's legal and financial departments throughout the negotiation process.

Task 2.4: FIP SRF Reporting and Disbursement Services (Not included in this scope and fee) Once the FIP project has been approved by the SWRCB, Carollo will, at the request of SCWD, provide a detailed scope and fee to support the SRF reporting and disbursement services for the FIP project.

Task 2.5: Newell Creek Pipeline SRF Application
Research and Data Collection. Carollo will work closely with the SCWD’s design team, environmental staff, Program manager, and finance staff to identify and obtain necessary project information required for the SRF application package. Technical information includes, but is not limited to: Project Report, RFQ, RFP, design documents, CIP, Project Schedule, Project Budget, etc. Financial information includes: CAFRs, cash flow information, tax data, water rate study/ process documentation (if applicable) and certifications/ resolutions. Environmental information includes environmental documentation, summary of permits/agreements, air quality analyses, Alternatives Analysis, etc. To the extent feasible, Carollo will leverage information previously submitted as part of the NCIO and Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Concrete Tanks Project applications.

General Application Package. Carollo will prepare the draft and final general application package leveraging information from previously submitted packages and as provided by the Newell Creek Pipeline design consultant or program manager. Tasks include coordinating with the SCWD to obtain required information, development of signatory resolution, verification with the SWRCB that there are no new requirements, incorporation of SCWD review comments and preparation of the final General Package for submittal. Upon submittal of the General Package, Carollo will coordinate with SWRCB staff on the application review as well as facilitate on‐going SWRCB communications regarding project status, deliverables submittal status, etc.

Financial Application Package. Carollo will support SCWD staff in the preparation of the draft and final financial application package and attachments. It is assumed the SCWD will provide the required financial information to complete the package, complete the tax questionnaire, prepare the required attachments for the financial application, and obtain the required signed resolutions.

Environmental Application Package. Carollo will work with the SCWD’s environmental planner and/or its environmental consultant to prepare the Environmental Application package. It is assumed environmental

18.21 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page 
carollo.com
review of the project and development and adoption of the environmental documentation/certification will be prepared by either SCWD staff or the SCWD's environmental consultant. Environmental efforts performed by others will include:
· CEQA documentation (e.g., Notice of Availability, Environmental Impact Report, Declaration, Notice of Determination, Notice of Completion and MMRPs).
· Analysis required to complete the federal environmental coordination portion (CEQA‐PLUS) of the environmental package, including but not limited to:
o ˉ Section C of the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act o ˉ Section . of the National Historic Preservation Act o ˉ Clean Air Act.
· Complete the Environmental Application Package including the Alternatives Analysis. · Provide support in responding to requests for information from the SWRCB.

For this task, Carollo will review the SRF Environmental Package prepared by the SCWD’s environmental planner for completeness and provide the SCWD and its environmental sub‐consultant with review comments. As part of its review, Carollo will confirm consistency with the SRF package requirements and flag any omissions or conflicts with the environmental documentation. Carollo will work closely with SCWD staff and/or the SCWD's environmental consultant to identify critical milestones and, if required, develop a work plan that will minimize the time required to complete the environmental application package.

Technical Application Package. Carollo, working with SCWD staff and its Program Manager, will prepare the draft and final technical application package leveraging information from existing Project documentation (e.g.

TMF Package) and utilizing information provided by the SCWD’s design engineer. Carollo will identify required information and document key project information in order to meet the application requirements, streamline the technical package effort, and maximize flexibility for design changes. A DWSRF specific project report is required by the SWRCB as part of the Technical Package submittal. It is assumed that all information is available in existing documentation. Carollo will assemble a crosswalk table and attachments to meet the project report requirement.

SRF Package Submittal and Review. As each SRF Application package is completed, or close to complete, Carollo will submit the packages and required attachments to the SWRCB FAAST system and coordinate with the SWRCB to verify successful submission of the project's SRF application package and identify other required documentation for the SWRCB to accept the SCWD's application as complete.

Once all application packages have been submitted to the SWRCB, Carollo will serve as the main point of contact for the SWRCB and/or provide support to SCWD staff throughout the application review process.

Carollo will work with the SCWD and its consultants to promptly address review questions from the State to keep the SRF Package review on track and coordinate/communicate with the SWRCB during the package review process.

Task 2.6: Newell Creek Pipeline Final Budget Approval Package and Agreement Execution Final Budget Approval Package: Carollo will develop and submit the FBA for the Newell Creek Pipeline project as required to execute the final SRF Agreement with the SWRCB. The FBA consists of the final budget approval form and required attachments. Attachments, to be provided by the SCWD or its consultations/contractor, include:

18.22 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page ,
carollo.com
A. Copies of any bid protests and resolution documentation.

B. As advertised Plans & Specification (P&S) stamped by a Professional Engineer C. All Addenda
D. Request for Proposals (RFP) and Request for Qualifications E. Proof that Davis‐Bacon Wage rate determinations were inserted in the Project P&S or RFP used in bidding the Project.

F. Final appropriate Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or updated WDR (Not Applicable) G. Tabulation of all bids or proposals received.

H. Copy of the bid(s) or proposal(s) selected and purchase orders issued. If the apparent low bid or proposal was rejected, a complete explanation for the rejection must be provided.

I. Evidence of advertising (submit copies of all advertisement(s) for the project).

J. All Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) documentation, K. A copy of any Notice(s) to Proceed issued, if available.

L. Copy of signed Construction Contract that includes final Davis‐Bacon Wage rate determinations, if available.

M. Value Engineering (VE) Study with recommendations and responses (Not Applicable) N. Items required by conditions in the Financing Agreement, (if not previously submitted) Carollo will complete the FBA form and assemble the draft FBA package after contractor selection/award and required information being provided by the SCWD or its consultant. Carollo will develop a draft FBA package for SCWD staff to review and comment on. Applicable SCWD review comments will be incorporated into the final FBA package. Carollo will submit the FBA package to the FAAST system and notify the SWRCB project manager of its submittal. Carollo will work with the SWRCB project manager to expeditiously respond to questions/requests for information. Carollo will work with SCWD staff to procure the requested information. The final FBA package (electronic) will be provided to the SCWD for record keeping.

Agreement Execution: Carollo will assist the SCWD with final execution of the SRF loan agreement, including SCWD legal review, Bond Counsel Review and Closing Resolution. Carollo will prepare SCWD staff with the details and requirements of the final agreement, provide input to the staff report, and will support the SCWD's legal and financial departments throughout the negotiation process.

Task 2.7: Newell Creek Pipeline SRF Reporting and Disbursement Services (Not included in this scope and fee)
Once the Newell Creek Pipeline project has been approved by the SWRCB, Carollo will, at the request of SCWD, provide a detailed scope and fee to support the SRF reporting and disbursement services for the Newell Creek Pipeline project.

Task 2 Assumptions:
· SCWD, PM, or CM to provide all required attachments, including Monthly Progress Reports, Invoices and backup documentation, photos, meeting agendas/sign‐in logs/minutes, training, environmental monitoring, reports (e.g. geotechnical, survey, environmental surveys, etc.) and project addenda/change orders. Carollo will not develop any documentation. · SCWD will print, sign and submit the final disbursement requests. · NCI/O will include four quarterly reports and one closeout report · NCI/O will be complete March 

18.23 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page 
carollo.com
Task 2 Deliverables:
· Monthly disbursement requests for NCI/O and Concrete Tanks projects · Quarterly Reports for Newell Creek Inlet/Outlet and GHWTP Concrete Tanks Project · FBA package for the FIP project
· Application Packages (General, Financial, Environmental, and Technical) for the Newell Creek Pipeline project
· FBA package for the Newell Creek Pipeline project
Task 3 – Contract Document Compliance with Funding Agency Requirements Assist the SCWD with review of front‐end documents (prepared by others) for projects receiving WIFIA and SRF funding for compliance with funding program requirements. The budget assumes review of front‐end documents for the four WIFIA projects listed in Task  and the two SRF projects listed in Task .

Task 3 Assumptions
· Budget includes review of front‐end documents for FIP, University Tank , and ASR · Because Carollo is the design consultant for the Newell Creek Pipeline job, both WIFIA and SRF compliance will be coordinated through the design project and not under this contract.

Task 3 Deliverables
· Review and comment on up to two sets of front‐end documents.

Task 4 – Ongoing Identification of Funding Opportunities Monitor State and Federal funding opportunities for grants and low interest loans to determine applicability to upcoming SCWD projects and notify SCWD staff. Provide staff Task 4 Assumptions
· The budget is based on spending two hours per month through June  (- months).
· This task does not include the development of application packages for any funding opportunities the SCWD decides to move forward with from this effort.

Task 4 Deliverables
· None.

Task 5 – Meetings
Weekly Funding Coordination Calls: Carollo will prepare for and attend weekly progress meetings to review project status, intermediate deliverables, and discuss various project‐related issues with the project team.

Preparation for the meetings includes developing meeting agenda, presentation materials and handouts, and notes summarizing the discussion items, decisions, and action items from the meeting. Meetings will be

 minutes in duration.

WIFIA Meetings: Carollo will coordinate a WIFIA Package kickoff meeting/conference call with key SCWD staff to: ) Confirm projects to be included in the WIFIA LOI, ) Confirm project understanding, ) Discuss

18.24 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page 
carollo.com
how projects address program priorities, and ) Identify key milestone dates. Key WIFIA meetings will include:
· WIFIA Project Kickoff Meeting with SCWD Staff
· WIFIA Project Kickoff Meeting (internal with Finance) · WIFIA Project Kickoff Meeting (internal with Environmental/Technical) SRF Meetings: Carollo will coordinate a Newell Creek Pipeline SRF kickoff meeting/conference call with key SCWD staff to establish documentation needs and a kickoff meeting with the SWRCB. Key SRF meetings will include:
· SRF Newell Creek Pipeline Project Kickoff Meeting with SCWD · SRF Newell Creek Pipeline Project Kickoff Meeting with SWRCB Staff Task 5 Assumptions:
· Progress meetings will be conference calls
· Weekly Funding Coordination calls will be
 min in duration
· Weekly Funding Coordination calls will occur from April ,  thru June , 

Task 5 Deliverables:
· Meeting agenda, presentation materials (as needed), and minutes. · Action item and decision logs
Task 6 - Project Management
Carollo’s project manager shall manage the efforts of the Carollo team throughout the duration of the project. Project management will include schedule and budget tracking and preparation of progress reports submitted with the monthly invoice.

Task 6 Assumptions:
· Duration will be - months (through June 
)
Task 6 Deliverables:
· Monthly progress reports

PROPOSED FEE
Our proposed fee for this project is B

-,,. Below is a breakdown by task.

Task  – WIFIA Application Support: BC,

Task  – SRF Support: BC,,.
Task
– Contract Document Compliance: B-,
Task  – Ongoing Identification of Funding Opportunities: B, 
Task - – Meetings: B,C
Task . – Project Management: B,.
An hour and subtask breakdown are shown in the Exhibit A attached.

18.25 Mr. David Baum
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Page 
carollo.com

SCHEDULE
WIFIA ‐ Carollo will work with the SCWD to develop a schedule to complete the WIFIA Application within ‐
months of notice to proceed pending availability and readiness of the financial, environmental, and technical documentation. The EPA review and agreement negotiation/closing period is anticipated to last between C to  months.

SRF – Carollo will work with the SCWD and its consultants to develop a schedule to complete the SRF application for Newell Creek Pipeline within
months of notice to proceed pending availability and readiness of the financial, environmental, and technical documentation. The SRF review and agreement negotiation/closing period is anticipated to last  months.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information on this proposal.

PROPOSED TEAM
Anne Prudhel will serve as the principle in charge for the project. Seema Chavan will be the project manager and funding specialist. Together they will work with the SCWD to develop and submit the WIFIA and SRF applications and continue to support ongoing disbursement and quarterly reporting activities.

Sincerely,
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

Anne E. Prudhel, P.E. Seema Chavan, P.E.

Vice President Associate Vice President
AP:wu
Enclosures: Proposed Fee
cc: File

18.26 Total Cost
Task Task Description Trips Amount Flights

1.0 WIFIA APPLICAION SUPPORT 38 158 100 8 304 $74,880 $3,952 $0 0 $0 $0 $3,952 $78,832

1.1 Information Collection 2 12 8 0 22 $5,434 $286 $0 0 $0 $0 $286 $5,7201.2 Prepare WIFIA Application 28 122 76 8 234 $57,398 $3,042 $0 0 $0 $0 $3,042 $60,4401.3 Agreement Review/Coordination 8 24 16 0 48 $12,048 $624 $0 0 $0 $0 $624 $12,6721.4 WIFIA Follow-up Report (TBD - Not Included in Fee) TBD

2.0 SRF SUPPORT 56 272 72 420 1146 $156,076 $14,892 $0 0 $0 $0 $14,892 $170,968

2.1 NCI/O Reporting and Disbursement Services 4 44 0 184 232 $35,840 $3,016 $0 0 $0 $0 $3,016 $38,8562.2 Concrete Tanks Reporting and Disbursement Services 8 60 0 236 476 $47,760 $6,182 $0 0 $0 $0 $6,182 $53,9422.3 FIP FBA Package and Agreement Execution 10 32 8 0 50 $13,094 $650 $0 0 $0 $0 $650 $13,7442.4 FIP SRF Reporting and Disbursement Services (TBD - Not Included in Fee) TBD

2.5 Newell Creek Pipeline SRF Application 24 104 64 0 200 $47,952 $2,600 $0 0 $0 $0 $2,600 $50,5522.6 Newell Creek Pipeline FBA Package and Agreement Execution 10 32 0 0 188 $11,430 $2,444 $0 0 $0 $0 $2,444 $13,874

2.7 Newell Creek Pipeline SRF Reporting and Disbursement Services (TBD - Not Included in Fee) TBD

3.0 Contract Document Compliance 6 12 0 0 18 $4,950 $234 $0 0 $0 $0 $234 $5,1844.0 Ongoing Identification of Funding Opportunities 0 30 0 0 30 $7,950 $390 $0 0 $0 $0 $390 $8,3405.0 Meetings 45 101 28 0 174 $45,769 $2,259 $0 0 $0 $0 $2,259 $48,027

5.1 Weekly Meetings 33 65 16 0 114 $30,193 $1,479 $0 0 $0 $0 $1,479 $31,6715.1 WIFIA Meetings 6 18 6 0 30 $7,788 $390 $0 0 $0 $0 $390 $8,1785.1 SRF Meetings 6 18 6 0 30 $7,788 $390 $0 0 $0 $0 $390 $8,178

6.0 Project Management 16 45 30 0 91 $22,885 $1,183 $0 0 $0 $0 $1,183 $24,068 Project Total = 161 618 230 428 1762 $312,510 $22,909 $0 0 $0 $0 $22,909 $335,419 PIC Principal-in-Charge PECE ($/hr): $13.00PM Project Manager Mileage ($/mi): $0.545WP Word ProcessorPECE Project Equipment Communication Expense Carollo Labor Other Direct Costs (ODC)

EXHIBIT A
City of Santa Cruz
WIFIA Application Development
March 31, 2022
Total ODC
Cost
Anne
Prudhel
$295
Seema
Chavan
$265
Analyst/Ad
min /DP
$125
Total
Hours Labor Cost PECE Printing
Mileage
Professional
Engineer
$208
Legend: ODC Unit Costs:

18.27 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Approval of Exemption from Local and Apprentice Employment (SCMC Ch. 3.10.080(2)) for Coast Pump Station Powerpack Construction Agreement, Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Commission’s SelfGeneration Incentive Program (SGIP) (WT) RECOMMENDATION: Motion exempting Tesla, Inc. from the City’s local hiring and local apprentice employment requirements as part of the Coast Pump Station Powerpack Construction Agreement, pursuant to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).

BACKGROUND: The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC's) Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides financial incentives to qualifying customers, including electric and/or gas customers of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), to support existing, new, and emerging distributed energy resources. Initially designed to contribute to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, demand reductions, and reduced customer electricity purchases, the CPUC expanded SGIP to ensure ongoing operations of critical facilities during power outages.

The CPUC has authorized SGIP funding of more than $1 billion through 2024 to provide rebates for qualifying distributed energy systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter.

The CPUC’s “Equity Resiliency” funding category prioritizes communities living in high firethreat areas, communities that have experienced two or more utility Public Safety Power Shut-off (PSPS) events, low income and medically vulnerable customers, and “critical facilities” that support community resilience in the event of a PSPS or wildfire. 100% of an Equity Resiliency project’s costs are covered by CPUC funding.

The Water Department’s Coast Pump Station (CPS), located on the San Lorenzo River in the Harvey West area, is a critical facility to the Water Department and the City as it is often used to meet the City’s entire daily water demand from the San Lorenzo River and the North Coast Sources. The CPS meets Equity Resiliency category requirements by having experienced two or more PSPS events and being a critical water facility.

Tesla is an authorized installer of battery storage and offers a Powerpack solution suitable for the CPS.

On September 16, 2020, City Staff executed a product purchase and operations and maintenance agreement with Tesla, wherein Tesla agreed to submit an application for SGIP funding on the City’s behalf (see attached agreements). On October 20, 2020, the project received SGIP Equity

19.1 Resiliency approval. On October 27, 2020, Council ratified the City’s contract with Tesla. (See attached Staff Report regarding prior council action).

With SGIP funding, Tesla will install, maintain, and operate a battery energy storage system, Tesla Powerpack, at no cost to the City at CPS. Benefits to the City include:
• City would own the system and pay $0 for equipment, installation, maintenance, and operation.
• CPS electricity bills would be reduced by ~20%-40%, reducing high time-of-use energy and demand charges.
• Powerpack would provide additional backup energy during electrical outages, and would be the first line of defense for up to 11 hours of CPS operations at full capacity. (Existing generators are the second line of defense.)
Tesla has assigned a Project Manager to survey the CPS for a project footprint of approximately 30’ x 30’ and reviewed project integration within the existing electrical system to meet the broader needs and objectives of the City and the Department. Tesla has provided design, purchase, installation, and maintenance of the Powerpack equipment, including permit and environmental document preparation. Tesla is now prepared to begin construction of all necessary appurtenant structures, pursuant to the City’s standard construction terms, and install the Powerpack at CPS in hopes to have an operational system before Fire Season 2022.

Please note that the project does not involve any City funds, but instead includes SGIP rebates paid directly from PG&E, as the program administrator, to Tesla, as payee, with consent from City as the owner/host. The project is therefore exempt from prevailing wage rates as, pursuant to direction from the California Department of Industrial Relations, there is no “payment of money or the equivalent of money by the state or political subdivision directly to or on behalf of the public works contractor, subcontractor, or developer.” (See DIR Public Works Case No. 2008-038; DIR Public Works Case No. 2009-005). There is no payment from the City to Tesla.

DISCUSSION: Tesla requests an exemption from the City’s local hiring and apprentice employment requirements, pursuant to SCMC Chapter 3.10, as part of the City’s construction contract. Generally, the SCMC requires “all city contracts for public works or improvements … shall contain provisions pursuant to which the contractor promises to make a good-faith effort… to employ qualified individuals who are . . . residents of the county of Santa Cruz” so that fifty percent of the contractor’s project work force are local residents. (SCMC Ch. 3.10.010). The same applies for apprentices, where “all contracts for a public works project” must include “provisions [for] each contractor or subcontractor [to] make good faith efforts to employ apprentices” enrolled in an apprenticeship program serving the Monterey Bay Area. (Id.) Chapter

3.10.080(2) permits Council to exempt a project from the City’s local hiring and apprentice employment requirements when “the work is of a highly specialized nature as determined by the City Council when the contract specifications are approved.” Because no City funds are used here, it is debatable that this is a “public works” project subject to these two City requirements. “Public works” means “construction, … installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. (Labor Code § 1720(a)(1)). No City funds will be used to fund this project. Further, the existing agreements with Tesla clearly state that the City “assigns the SGIP Incentive to Tesla, and releases any claim to the SGIP Incentive.” The City authorized Tesla to act on its behalf, and thus Tesla will be

19.2 named as the payee on the Incentive Claim Form, not the City. The City is not entitled to nor will it ever receive any SGIP funds; the SGIP incentive will be paid directly from PG&E to Tesla.

Even if it is a “public works” project, however, Tesla’s position is that its work is highly specialized and thus subject to the SCMC exception. According to Tesla, it will subcontract with Geveden Industrial, Inc. (CSLB No. 937203) to construct the civil portion of the project, including building the appurtenant structures for the Powerpack. Geveden is headquartered in Red Bluff, California and has worked with Tesla since the original commercial Powerpack installations, routinely performing this type of work as Tesla’s preferred contractor for Powerpack installations in Northern California. Tesla employees will install the Powerpack itself at the CPS, including performing all electrical work to integrate the Powerpack into the City’s existing electrical system. The Powerpack work is highly technical, requiring great specificity in installation, and must be performed by Tesla employees, who may or may not be local to Santa Cruz.

Here, Council may exempt this project from the City’s local hiring and apprentice requirements as (a) it is not a “public work” under State law and (b) even if it were, the project involves highly technical work. Staff recommends Council approve Tesla’s request for an exemption to City local hiring and apprentice requirements.

Please note that the State requires contractors to employ apprentices on public works projects. (Labor Code § 1777.5) (when a public works contractor “employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade, the contractor shall employ apprentices in at least the ratio set forth in this section…”) Here, the City’s agreement with Tesla provides that the City “assigns the SGIP Incentive to Tesla, and releases any claim to the SGIP Incentive.” Again, the City will not receive any SGIP Incentive funds, nor will the City pay anything to Tesla for the project. As such, this project is arguably not a “public work” and thus exempt from the State apprenticeship requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Staff time will be required in a review and approval role.

Prepared By:

Heidi Luckenbach
Deputy Director/Engineering
Manager
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SIGNED AGREEMENTS

2. OCTOBER 27, 2020 AGENDA REPORT TO COUNCIL.PDF

19.3 19.4

19.5 19.6

19.7 19.8

19.9 19.10

19.11 19.12

19.13 19.14

19.15 19.16

19.17 19.18

19.19 19.20

19.21 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/14/2020
AGENDA OF: 10/27/2020
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: California Public Utilities Commission Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) – Application For and Receipt of Commercial Scale Energy Storage System at the Coast Pump Station (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion ratifying the application and other supporting documents initiating the application process signed by staff on September 16, 2020 with Tesla, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to enter into ongoing agreements with Tesla, Inc. on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz for their purchase, installation and 10-year operation and maintenance of an energy storage system at the Coast Pump Station.

BACKGROUND: Available to electric and/or gas customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC's) Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides financial incentives to qualifying customers to support existing, new, and emerging distributed energy resources. Initially designed to contribute to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, demand reductions and reduced customer electricity purchases, the program was expanded to, in part, ensure ongoing operations of critical facilities during power outages.

In preparation for wildfire season, the CPUC authorized funding of more than $1 billion through 2024 for SGIP, providing rebates for qualifying distributed energy systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter. This specific funding opportunity, the Equity Resiliency category of the program, prioritizes communities living in high fire-threat areas, communities that have experienced two or more utility Public Safety Power Shut-off (PSPS) events, low income and medically vulnerable customers, and “critical facilities” that support community resilience in the event of a PSPS or wildfire. (Attachment 1) The Water Department’s Coast Pump Station (CPS), located on the San Lorenzo River in the Harvey West area, is a critical facility to the Water Department and the City as it is often used to meet the City’s entire daily water demand from the San Lorenzo River and the North Coast Sources. The CPS meets the eligibility requirements of the Equity Resiliency category of the program by having experienced two or more PSPS events and being a critical water facility.

Under the Equity Resiliency category, 100% of the project costs are covered.

Tesla is an authorized installer of battery storage and offers a Powerpack solution suitable for operating the Coast Pump Station. Through the SGIP funding, Tesla will be able to install, Attachment 2

19.22 maintain, and operate a battery energy storage system, Tesla Powerpack, at no cost to the City of Santa Cruz. (Attachment 2)
DISCUSSION: Given the real and potential impacts of PSPS events, SGIP is a very popular program and available funds were being allocated very quickly. To improve the chances of receiving funding to the City, staff signed the initial set of agreements in September 2020 following review by the City Attorney. (Attachment 3) Despite early signing, the Coast Pump Station project is currently on the waitlist for SGIP Equity Resiliency funding. However, as “next in line,” there is a high likelihood that the City’s project will get to the evaluation phase.

If SGIP funding is allocated for the project a Project Manager from Tesla will be assigned and the City will confirm its project team that currently includes staff from several departments skilled in this area and whose jobs focus on energy management, climate adaptation and engineering. Initial tasks will include surveying of the site for a preferred location for the project that will have a final footprint of approximately 30’x30’. Sites need to be on or adjacent to the CPS and offset from flood hazards. Feasible sites currently include the CPS and the parcel north of the CPS which is currently the site of a large Water Department infrastructure project. In addition to finding a suitable site, initial review and approvals will include how the Powerpack system will integrate with the existing electrical system and meet broader needs and objectives of the City and the Department. The process includes “off-ramp” opportunities where the City can make decisions about whether to proceed with the project or not.

Services provided by Tesla would include the design, purchase, installation and maintenance of the equipment including the preparation of any permits or environmental documents.

Benefits to the City:
• The City of Santa Cruz would own the system and pay $0 for the equipment, installation, maintenance, and operation.
• Electricity bills associated with the operation of CPS would be reduced ~20%-40%, reducing high time-of-use energy charges and demand charges. • Powerpack would provide additional backup energy during electrical outages, and would be the first line of defense for up to 11 hours of CPS operations at full capacity. (Existing generators would be the second line of defense.)
The goal is to have the system operational before Fire Season 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. If the project is approved, staff time will be required in a review and approval role.

Prepared By:

Heidi R. Luckenbach
Deputy Director/Engineering
Manager
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Martín Bernal
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (SGIP) BROCHURE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.PDF

2. TESLA SGIP EQUITY RESILIENCY OFFER FACT SHEET.PDF

3. SIGNED AGREEMENTS.PDF

19.23 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Hydrologic Modeling Support from Shawn Chartrand, Simon Fraser University (SFU), for the Water Supply Augmentation Strategy, Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Conservation Plan, and Water Rights Project (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion authorizing the Water Department to issue annual direct contracting purchase orders, for a period not to exceed five years, exceeding the formal bid limit to Simon Fraser University for ongoing water supply modeling to support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy, Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Conservation Plan, and Water Rights Project.

BACKGROUND: The Water Department has been working for many years on the following water resource management efforts: the Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Conservation Plan (ASHCP or HCP), water supply planning, and the Santa Cruz Water Rights (water rights project). These three efforts, and corresponding models, were created and maintained separately but work together to assist the Water Department in managing the water system.

These efforts require the use of subject matter experts (SME) in the areas of fisheries biology, hydrology, hydrogeology, groundwater modeling and water supply modeling to name a few.

Similar to the other SMEs, Shawn Chartrand has been working with the Water Department on the hydrology aspect of this work since the late 1990s, initially while employed with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., and now with Simon Fraser University (SFU). Specifically, Mr. Chartrand developed a hydrologic model that generates the available daily flows in the City’s flowing sources (the North Coast streams [specifically Laguna, Liddell and Majors Creeks], the San Lorenzo River, and Newell Creek) available for supply while taking into consideration water that must remain in these flowing sources for fisheries.

DISCUSSION: The HCP, water supply planning, and water rights project have required a significant investment in scientific expertise over the last 20+ years. As mentioned above, the Water Department has issued purchase orders on an as-needed basis to several consultants for technical support for these efforts including Mr. Chartrand. This recurring work includes, but is not limited to, participation in staff and stakeholder meetings, presentations to staff and stakeholders, collaboration with other subject matter experts, data collection, updating and maintaining a hydrologic model, and integration of hydrology into other models noted above.

The existing modeling, developed by Mr. Chartrand, is not owned by the City. As such, if the Water Department were to send the currently-needed additional work out for competitive

20.1 procurement, there would be a significant amount of duplication of effort and expense to develop and maintain a parallel model.

Staff is requesting authorization to enter into a direct contract with Mr. Chartrand to continue utilizing his modeling services through SFU as needed in an amount that may exceed the formal bid limit, currently $100,000, per fiscal year. Over the past five years, the annual average has been $46,000; however, the level of effort is increasing as the Department begins to develop a new supply model and climate change vulnerability model. Work on these efforts is expected to be completed within the next 2-5 years. (Together with the development of new supply and climate change vulnerability models, staff is working with our SME’s to assume some of the tasks associated with these models including those currently performed by Mr. Chartrand.) Due to the need to maintain continuity of the technical and analytical work , the Water Department recommends, and the Finance Department concurs, that continuing work with Mr.

Chartrand through a direct contract prevents the duplication of effort and additional costs associated with re-solicitating for this work.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Water Engineering’s FY 2022 capital budget c701705, Water Supply Augmentation.

Prepared By:

Heidi Luckenbach
Deputy Director/Engineering
Manager
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

20.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/14/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: University Tank 4 Replacement Project – Award of Professional Services Agreement (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept the proposal of Mesiti-Miller Engineers, Inc. (Santa Cruz CA) for Engineering Consulting Design Services for the University Tank 4 Replacement project in the amount of $427,660 and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, and reject all other proposals.
2) Authorize the Water Director to approve change orders with Mesiti-Miller Engineers, Inc. in a form to be approved by the City Attorney for amounts that are within the approved adjusted budget.

BACKGROUND: The U4 tank is a 0.4 million gallon (MG) welded steel tank owned and operated by the City and located on University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) property. The City has an easement agreement with UCSC for use of the site for the water storage facility. The U4 tank provides drinking water storage to supply several nearby residential neighborhoods and a portion of the total UCSC demand. The U4 Tank is part of what is referred to as the “University system”, comprised of the U2, U4, and U5 tanks, the U2, U4 and U6 pump stations, and a 14-inch transmission main paralleling Empire Grade. Water is supplied to the system initially from the 1 MG U2 tank, where it is then pumped up to the 0.4 MG U4 tank from the U4 pump station, then to the 2.0 MG U5 tank from the U6 pump station.

The University system, including the U4 tank, was constructed in 1965. Steel tanks have estimated useful service lives of 60 years depending on tank maintenance and environmental conditions. Following inspections in 2019 of both the U4 and U5 tanks, it was found that both tanks had corrosion necessitating either full rehabilitation or replacement. Due to its location and size, the U5 tank was prioritized over the U4 tank and was replaced in 2018-2019.

The Water Department completed an alternatives analysis and business case evaluation for replacement or rehab of the U4 tank in 2020 and 2021. The alternatives analysis included a comparison of six different alternatives for tank replacement. Following the alternatives analysis and scoring based on operational, social, economic, and environmental factors, it was determined that the replace-in-kind alternative was preferred.

21.1 DISCUSSION: On February 15, 2022, the Water Department formally advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting design engineering services including field investigations (topographic survey, geotechnical investigation), preliminary and final designs, preparation of bid documents, and project management during design. On March 17, 2022, the Water Department received proposals from Sandis Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners, Carollo Engineers Inc., and Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc.

Proposals were reviewed, evaluated, and scored according to the criteria listed in the RFP.

MME’s proposal was scored the highest and negotiations were completed for this Professional Services Agreement. A Notice of Intent to Award letter was sent to all three respondents on March 29, 2022 and no protests were received within the five-day protest period.

Design is anticipated to be complete by the end of calendar year 2023 and construction by early calendar year 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT: The estimate for design services with Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc. is $427,660. Funds for work to be performed during FY 2022 are available in the Water Department’s current Capital Investment Program (CIP) budget, project c701505, University Tank 4 Rehab/Replacement. The Water Department will include each year’s planned expenditures as part of the CIP budget process moving forward until the project is completed.

Construction of the project would be subject to additional authorization following completion of design and the bidding process.

Prepared By:

Danny DeBrito
Associate Planner II
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. AGREEMENT.PDF

21.2 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
UNIVERSITY TANK 4 REPLACEMENT PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT for professional services is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”) (each is referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”) as of ____________, 2022 (the “Effective Date”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of each other’s mutual promises, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant will furnish services as defined and described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSULTANT
All work performed by Consultant, or under Consultant’s direction, shall be rendered in accordance with the generally accepted practices, and to the standards of, Consultant's profession. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant: (i) is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the work and services provided for herein, (ii) has the financial capability required for the performance of the work and services, and (iii) is properly equipped and organized to perform the work and services in a competent, timely, and proper manner, in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.

Consultant shall not undertake any work beyond the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A unless such additional work is approved in advance and in writing by City. The cost of such additional work shall be reimbursed to Consultant by City on the same basis as provided for in Section 4.

If, in performing the work, it is necessary to conduct field operations, security and safety of the job site will be the Consultant's responsibility excluding, the security and safety of any facility of City within the job site which is not under the Consultant's control.

Consultant shall meet with Rosemary Menard, Director of the Water Department, hereinafter called "Director", or other designated and authorized City personnel, or third parties as necessary, on all matters connected with carrying out of Consultant’s services described in Exhibit A. Such meetings shall be held at the request of either Party. Review and City approval of completed work shall be obtained monthly, or at other intervals as may be mutually agreed upon during the course of this Agreement. Review, approval, or acceptance of Consultant’s work by City or others shall not relieve Consultant from responsibility for errors and omissions in Consultant’s work.

SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
City shall make available to Consultant all necessary data and information in the City's possession and shall actively assist Consultant in obtaining such information from other agencies and individuals as needed. Consultant is entitled to reasonably rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such data and information, provided that Consultant shall provide City prompt written notice of any known defects in such data and information.

The Director may authorize a staff person to serve as his or her representative. The work in progress shall be reviewed at such intervals as may be mutually agreed upon between the Parties. The City will be the sole judge of acceptable work, provided that such approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the work is not acceptable, City will inform Consultant of the changes or revisions necessary to secure approval.

21.3 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 2
SECTION 4: FEES AND PAYMENT
For services actually performed, the City will compensate Consultant at the rates set forth in the Fee Schedule detailed in Exhibit B and in accordance with the terms set forth therein. Payment for Consultant's services in carrying out the entire the Scope of Work shall be made within the budget limit, or limits shown, upon Exhibit B. Such payment shall be considered the full compensation for all personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment used by Consultant in the Scope of Work.

Consultant agrees that the payments to Consultant specified in this Section 4 will constitute full and complete compensation for all obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. Where conflicts regarding compensation may occur, the provisions of this section apply.

Variations from the budget for each task which are justified by statements indicating personnel time expended and submittal of a revised budget are only allowed with prior City approval; however, in no event shall the total fee charged for the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A exceed the budget of $427,660 without advance written City authorization in the form of an amendment or change order.

Invoices shall detail the time worked by each class of employee on each task and the expenses incurred for which billing is made. Invoices shall indicate the percentage completion of each work task as identified in the Scope of Work in Exhibit A and the overall percentage of completion of the total required services. Unless otherwise specified in the fee schedule, payments shall be made monthly by the City within 30 days based on itemized invoices from the Consultant which list the actual costs and expenses.

All invoices shall contain the following affidavit signed by Consultant (if individual) or by a principal of Consultant’s firm (if Consultant is an entity):
"I hereby certify [or as principal of Consultant] that the charge of (Insert invoice amount) as summarized above and shown in detail on the attachments is a fair and reasonable use of public funds, is in accordance with the terms of Agreement dated (Insert Agreement Date), and has not been previously paid."
SECTION 5: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
The City agrees to reimburse Consultant and Consultant’s employee(s) for only authorized travel expenses, as indicated by a mark below, and according to the City’s Travel Reimbursement Policy. It is expected that all travel expenses incurred by Consultant while conducting activities on behalf of the City will be at reasonable rates and that Consultant and Consultant’s employee(s) will exercise prudence in incurring these expenses. The total fees and costs of Consultant’s expenses shall not exceed the amount described in the Fee Schedule.  Meals: Meals are reimbursed at the current GSA Meals & Incidental per diem rate by county (www.gsa.gov/travel). The City does not reimburse for actual costs for meals. Reimbursement is based solely on per diem rates. Do not submit meal receipts.
 Travel before 8:00am qualifies for breakfast reimbursement.  Travel between 8:00am – 1:30pm qualifies for lunch reimbursement.  Travel between 1:30pm – 7:00pm (or later) qualifies for dinner reimbursement.  Days between hotel stays and days starting before 8am and ending after 7pm, qualify for the full GSA Meals & Incidental per diem rate.
 Ground Transportation: Ground transportation is reimbursable when it is for travel between the Consultant’s place of business, an airport, or Santa Cruz hotel, as applicable, to the City work location.

21.4 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 3

1. Reasonable fees for taxis, shuttles, buses, trains, light rail, ride hailing services (Uber, Lyft or other), and similar modes of transportation will be reimbursed. Receipts are required for reimbursement.

2. When using vehicles owned by Consultant or Consultant’s employer:
 Mileage will be reimbursed at the current IRS mileage rate.  Evidence of automobile liability insurance meeting the City’s requirements must be provided.  Maps showing starting point, City work location, and total miles are required for reimbursement.

3. Use of car rentals are reimbursable when:
 Travel is necessary from an airport to the City work location.  The rental reservation is made as far in advance as is practical and the lowest possible price is obtained.
 Insurance coverage is included, and the car is returned with a full tank of gas.  The smallest vehicle necessary is rented.
 Receipts are required for reimbursement.
 Airfare: Airfare is reimbursable when the Consultant’s place of business, or Consultant’s employee’s home, is more than 250 miles away from Santa Cruz.
 Airfare must be lowest available coach class fare. Flights may be non-stop.  Airfare must be booked as far in advance as is practical.  Fees for one piece of checked luggage (and any equipment necessary for the work being done) will be reimbursed.
 Extra charges for seat assignments, refundable tickets, travel insurance/protection, and similar fees are not reimbursable.
 If the City cancels the need for travel and the ticket cannot be changed or refunded, the ticket cost will be reimbursable.
 Receipts are required for reimbursement.
 Lodging: Lodging is reimbursable when the Consultant must work on site for two or more consecutive days and the Consultant’s place of business or personal residence, is more than 60 miles away from Santa Cruz.  Lodging is reimbursed up to the current GSA rate by county (www.gsa.gov/travel).  Costs for hotel rooms above this rate are the responsibility of the traveler.  Receipts are required for reimbursement.

General Rule

1. Travel expenses not listed or checked above will not be reimbursed.

2. Travel reimbursements are paid after the completion of travel. There are no travel advances.

3. Exceptions to any of the above requirements require advance written permission from the Director or City’s designated agent contracting with the Consultant.

4. Tips and gratuities will not be reimbursed.

5. Alcoholic beverage purchases will not be reimbursed.

6. Vendors will exercise prudence in incurring reimbursable expenses.

7. The City of Santa Cruz has the sole discretion to deny any vendor/contractor proposed reimbursable expense the City has determined to be excessive or an inappropriate use of public funds.

SECTION 6: CHANGES IN WORK
City may negotiate changes in the Scope of Work. No changes in the Scope of Work shall be made without the written approval of City and Consultant. Any change requiring compensation in excess of the sum specified in Exhibit B shall be approved in advance in writing by the City. Only City’s authorized representative(s) is authorized to approve changes to this Agreement on behalf of City.

21.5 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 4
SECTION 7: TIME OF BEGINNING AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION Consultant shall begin work as specified in a written authorization (e.g. Notice to Proceed) to perform services. The written authorization to perform work shall not be issued until after this Agreement has been approved and authorized by the City.

The Work Schedule for completion of the work shall be as shown upon Exhibit C. In the event that major changes are ordered, the schedule for completion as stated in Exhibit C may be adjusted by City so as to allow Consultant a reasonable period of time within which to complete any additional work which may be required as a result of the ordered changes.

Neither party will be held responsible for delay or default caused by declared emergencies, natural disasters, or any Force Majeure event which is beyond the party's reasonable control. Consultant will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement.

The City reserves the right to obtain the item(s) and/or services covered by this Agreement from another source during any on-going suspension of service due to the circumstances outlined above.

Consultant acknowledges that it is necessary for Consultant to complete its work on or before the completion date set forth in Exhibit C in order to allow the City to achieve its objectives for entering into this Agreement. The Parties therefore agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

SECTION 8: TERMINATION
The City may terminate the Agreement for convenience by providing written notice to Consultant not less than 10 calendar days prior to an effective termination date.

The City or Consultant may terminate the Agreement for cause by providing written notice to the other party not less than 30 calendar days prior to an effective termination date.

The City may, at its option, allow Consultant to cure its failure to perform within 15 business days (or longer period authorized in writing by the City) from the date of the City’s termination notice. The termination shall be become effective if Consultant has not cured within such time period to the City’s satisfaction.

Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause if the City fails to cure a material default in performance within a period of 30 calendar days (or such longer period agreed to by the Consultant), from date of the Consultant’s written termination notice specifying the default in performance.

Upon notice of termination by either the City or Consultant, the Consultant will immediately act to not incur any additional obligations, costs or expenses, except as may be reasonably necessary to terminate its activities. The City’s only obligation to the Consultant will be just and equitable payment for services authorized by, and received to the satisfaction of, the City up to and including the effective date of termination less any amounts withheld. All finished or unfinished work or documents procured or produced under the Agreement will become property of the City upon the termination date. In the event of Consultant’s failure to perform pursuant to the Agreement, the City reserves the right to obtain services elsewhere and Consultant will be liable for the difference between the prices set forth in the terminated Agreement and the actual cost to the City. Termination of the Agreement pursuant to this paragraph shall not relieve the Consultant of any liability to City for additional costs, expenses, or damages sustained by City due to failure of the Consultant to perform pursuant to the Agreement. City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due City from Consultant is determined. After the effective date of termination, Consultant will have no further

21.6 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 5
claims against the City under the Agreement. No other compensation will be payable for anticipated profit on unperformed services.

SECTION 9: INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Agreement, Consultant will maintain and comply with the Insurance Requirements as set forth in Exhibit D. Consultant will insure the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder. The insurance coverages required shall not in any way limit the liability of the Consultant.

SECTION 10: INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, claim, action, loss, injury, damage, judgment, or expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs (“Losses”) caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors in any way related to this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees shall not apply to the extent such Losses are caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees, as determined by an adjudicatory body or court of competent jurisdiction. The obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that Indemnitees caused or contributed to the Losses.

In the event this Agreement involves the performance of design professional services by Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, Consultant’s costs to defend Indemnitees shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault per Civil Code §2782.8. This section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

SECTION 11: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES City’s policies promote a working environment free from abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and require equal opportunity in employment for all regardless of race, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), color, national origin (including language use restrictions), ancestry, religion, disability (mental and physical), medical condition, sex, gender (including gender identity and gender expression), physical characteristics, marital status, age, sexual orientation, genetic information (including family health history and genetic test results), organizational affiliation, and military or veteran status, or any other consideration made unlawful by local, State or Federal law. City requires Consultant to comply with all applicable Federal and State and local equal employment opportunity laws and regulations, and Consultant is responsible for ensuring that effective policies and procedures concerning the prevention of abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation exist in Consultant’s business organization. The City’s current Equal Employment Opportunity and Non-Discrimination policies to which this Section applies may be viewed at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/?SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0983.html and http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=59192.

SECTION 12: LEGAL ACTION/ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief. The laws of the State of California, with jurisdiction in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, shall govern all matters relating to the validity, interpretation, and effect of this Agreement and any authorized or alleged changes, the performance of any of its terms, as well as the rights and obligations of Consultant and the City.

SECTION 13: AMENDMENTS

21.7 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 6
This Agreement may not be amended in any respect except by way of a written instrument which expressly references and identifies this particular Agreement, which expressly states that its purpose is to amend this particular Agreement, and which is duly executed by the City and Consultant. Consultant acknowledges that no such amendment shall be effective until approved and authorized by the City’s authorized representative. No representative of the City is authorized to obligate the City to pay the cost or value of services beyond the scope of services set forth in Exhibit A.

Such authority is retained solely by the City Manager, Director, or their designee. Unless expressly authorized by the City Manager or Director, Consultant’s compensation shall be limited to that set forth in Exhibit B, Fee Schedule.

SECTION 14: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. Project Manager. Director reserves the right to approve the project manager assigned by Consultant to said work.

No change in assignment may occur without prior written approval of the City.

2. Consultant Services Only. Consultant is employed to render professional services only and any payments made to Consultant are compensation solely for such professional services.

3. Independent Contractor. In the performance of this Agreement, it is expressly understood that Consultant, including each of Consultant’s employees, agents, subcontractors or others under Consultant’s supervision or control, is an independent contractor solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Consultant agrees to comply with AB5, codified at Labor Code section 2750.3, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents against any claim or liability, including attorneys’ fees and costs, arising in any manner related to this Agreement that an employee, agent or others under Consultant’s supervision or control was misclassified.

4. Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

5. Subcontractors. Consultant shall obtain prior approval of the City prior to subcontracting of any work pursuant to this Agreement. If at any time, the City determines any subcontractor is incompetent or unqualified, Consultant will be notified and will be expected to immediately cancel the subcontract. Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all of the requirements stated herein, including naming the City of Santa Cruz, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds. Any modification to the insurance requirements for subcontractors must be agreed to by the City in writing.

6. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned without first obtaining the express written consent of the Director or after approval of the City Council. Neither party may assign this Agreement unless this Agreement is amended in accordance with its terms.

7. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant owes City a duty of undivided loyalty in performing the work and services under this Agreement. Consultant covenants (on behalf of Consultant and Consultant’s employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors) that there is no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions of conflict of interest law and regulations, including the Political Reform Act, Section 1090 of the Government Code, and the City’s conflict of interest code. Consultant will immediately advise City if Consultant learns of a conflicting financial interest of Consultant during the term of this Agreement.

8. City Property. The work, or any portion, of Consultant in performing this Agreement shall become the property of City. The Consultant may be permitted to retain copies of such work for information and reference in connection only with the provision of services for the City. All materials and work product, whether finished or

21.8 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 7
unfinished, shall be delivered to City upon completion of contract services or termination of this Agreement for any reason. Unless otherwise provided herein, Consultant agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of project-related documents and materials pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in the City and Consultant waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of City. Any work product related to this Agreement shall be confidential, not to be used by the Consultant on other projects or disclosed to any third party, except by agreement in writing by the City, or except as otherwise provided herein.

9. Intellectual Property and Indemnity. Consultant represents to City that, to the best of Consultant’s knowledge, any Intellectual Property (including but not limited to: patent, patent application, trade secret, copyright and any applications or right to apply for registration, computer software programs or applications, tangible or intangible proprietary information, or any other intellectual property right) in connection with any services and/or products related to this Agreement does not violate or infringe upon any Intellectual Property rights of any other person or entity.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, damages, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of a claim of infringement, actual or alleged, direct or contributory, of any Intellectual Property rights in any way related to Consultant’s performance under this Agreement or to the City’s authorized intended or actual use of Consultant’s product or service under this Agreement. This provision shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

If any product or service becomes, or in the Consultant’s opinion is likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement, the Consultant shall, at its sole expense: (i) provide the City the right to continue using the product or service; or (ii) replace or modify the product or service so that it becomes non-infringing; or (iii) if none of the foregoing alternatives are possible even after Consultant’s commercially reasonable efforts, in addition to other available legal remedies, City will have the right to return the product or service and receive a full or partial refund of an amount equal to the value of the returned product or service, less the unpaid portion of the purchase price and any other amounts, which may be due to the Consultant. City shall have the right to retrieve its data and proprietary information at no charge prior to any return of the product or termination of service.

10. Confidentiality.
a. Consultant shall not acquire any ownership interest in data and information (“City Data”) received by Consultant from City, which shall remain the property of the City. Certain information may be considered confidential (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information shall mean all non-public information or proprietary materials (in every form and media) disclosed or made available directly or indirectly through any means of communication, either verbally or in writing, to Consultant in connection with this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law, Consultant shall not, without City’s written permission, use or disclose City Data and/or Confidential Information other than in the performance of the obligations under this Agreement. As between Consultant and City, all City Confidential Information shall remain the property of the City. Consultant shall not acquire ownership interest in the City’s Confidential Information.
b. Consultant shall be responsible for ensuring and maintaining the security and confidentiality of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against unauthorized access to or use of City Data and Confidential Information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to City or any end users; and ensure the proper return and/or disposal of City Data and Confidential Information upon termination of this Agreement with notice to the City.

21.9 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 8
c. Consultant shall take appropriate action to address any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, including addressing and/or remedying the issue that resulted in such unauthorized access, notifying City as soon as possible of any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, or any other breach in Consultant’s security that materially affects City or end users; and be responsible for ensuring compliance by its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors with the confidentiality provisions hereof. Should confidential and/or legally protected City Data be divulged to unauthorized third parties, Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1798.29 and 1798.82 at Consultant’s sole expense. Consultant shall not charge City for any expenses associated with Consultant’s compliance with these obligations.
d. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees and agents against any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage (including attorneys’ fee and costs) arising out of, or in connection with, the unauthorized use, access, and/or disclosure of City Data and/or Confidential Information by Consultant and/or its agents, employees or sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

11. Consultant's Records. Consultant shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to the costs incurred relating to this Agreement for examination and audit by the City, State, or federal government, as applicable, during the period of this Agreement, and for a period of at least five years from the date of the final City payment for Consultant's services, unless otherwise stated herein. If Consultant engages a subcontractor to perform work related to this Agreement with a cost of $10,000 or more over a 12 month period, such subcontract shall contain these same requirements. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

12. California Public Records Act. City is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If Consultant’s proprietary information is contained in documents or information submitted to City, and Consultant claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, Consultant must clearly mark such information “Confidential and Proprietary,” and identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such information, City will make best efforts to provide notice to Consultant prior to such disclosure. If Consultant contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Cruz County before the City is required to respond to the CPRA request. If Consultant fails to obtain such remedy within the time the City is required to respond to the CPRA request, City may disclose the requested information without any liability to Consultant.

Consultant further agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold City harmless against any claim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments, costs, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by City of a CPRA request for information arising from any representation, or any action (or inaction), by the Consultant.

13. Compliance with Laws. All activities of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and/or agents will be carried out in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

14. Licensure. Consultant warrants that Consultant, its subcontractors and/or agents (if any) has/have complied with any and all federal, state, and local licensing requirements and agrees to provide proof of a current City of Santa Cruz Business Tax Certificate if:
 Consultant, its subcontractor(s) and agent(s) or its business is/are located in the City of Santa Cruz;  Will perform actual work in the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually; or

21.10 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 9
 Will use company vehicles to deliver within the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually.

For additional information and licensing requirements, view the City’s Business Licenses and Permits webpage or call the Revenue and Taxation division at 831/420-5070.

15. Living Wage. Every contract for services to the City for $10,000 or more, is subject to City of Santa Cruz Living Wage Ordinance number 2000-25. If applicable, Consultant agrees to comply with the requirements of the Living Wage ordinance as provided in Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 5.10.

16. Prevailing Wages for Public Work. To the extent that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement may be considered a “public work” (construction, alteration, demolition, or repair work) pursuant and subject to Labor Code section 1720 et seq., Consultant (and any subconsultant performing the work or services) shall conform to any and all prevailing wage requirements applicable to such work/and or services under this Agreement. Consultant (and any subconsultant) shall adhere to the prevailing wage determinations made by the Director of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to California Labor Code Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2, applicable to the work, if any. All workers employed in the execution of a public works contract (as such term is defined California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and section 1782(d)(1)) must be paid not less than the specified prevailing wage rates for the type of work performed. (CA Labor Code sections 1720, 1774 and 1782.)
To the extent applicable to the scope of work and services under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to be bound by the state prevailing wage requirements, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. If a worker is paid less than the applicable prevailing wage rate owed for a calendar day (or any portion thereof), Consultant shall pay the worker the difference between the prevailing wage rate and the amount actually paid for each calendar day (or portion thereof) for which the worker(s) was paid less than the prevailing wage rate, as specified in Labor Code section 1775; b. Consultant shall maintain and make available payroll and worker records in accordance with Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812;
c. If Consultant employs (and/or is legally required to employ) apprentices in performing the work and/or services under this Agreement, Consultant shall ensure compliance with Labor Code section 1777.5; d. Consultant is aware of the limitations imposed on overtime work by Labor Code sections 1810 et seq. and shall be responsible for any penalties levied in accordance with Labor Code section 1813 for failing to pay required overtime wages;
e. Consultant shall post a copy of the applicable wage rates at each jobsite at a location readily available to its workers.
f. Any failure of Consultant and/or its subconsultant to comply with the above requirements relating to a public work project shall constitute a breach of this Agreement that excuses the City’s performance of this Agreement at the City’s sole and absolute option and shall be at the sole risk of Consultant. Consultant on behalf of itself and any subconsultant, agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, damages, expenses, fines, financial consequences, interest, and penalties, of any kind or nature, arising from or relating to any failure (or alleged failure) of the Consultant and any subconsultant to pay prevailing wages or to otherwise comply with the requirements of prevailing wage law relating to a public work.
g. Consultant acknowledges that it and/or any subconsultant may not engage in the performance of any contract for public work unless currently registered with the DIR and qualified to perform public work

21.11 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 10
pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

17. Federal Funding Requirements. The project is proposed for funding via the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Applicable provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are described below:

Clean Air Act
A. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 CFR § 7401 et seq.

B. The Contractor agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act
A. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

B. The Contractor agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

Debarment and Suspension
A. The contract is a covered transaction for purposes of 2 CFR Part 180 and 2 CFR Part 3000. As such, the Contractor is required to verify that none of the Contractors, its principals (defined at 2 CFR § 180.995), or its affiliates (defined at 2 CFR § 180.905) are excluded (defined at 2 CFR § 180.940) or disqualified (defined at 2 CFR § 180.935).

B. The Contractor must comply with 2 CFR Part 180, Subpart C and 2 CFR Part 3000, Subpart C and must include a requirement to comply with these regulations in any subcontract.

C. If it is later determined that the Contractor did not comply with 2 CFR Part 180, Subpart C and 2 CFR Part 3000, Subpart C, in addition to remedies available to the City, the Federal Government may pursue available remedies, including, but not limited to, suspension and/or debarment.

D. The bidder or proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 180, Subpart C and 2 CFR Part 3000, Subpart C while this offer is valid and throughout the period of any contract that may arise from this offer. The bidder or proposer further agrees to include a provision requiring such compliance in its subcontracts.

Byrd Anti-lobbying Amendment and Certification
A. Contractors that apply or bid for an award exceeding $100,000 must file the required certification. The Contractor certifies to the City and every Subcontractor certifies to the Contractor that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining the Contract if it is covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. The Contractor and every Subcontractor must also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal

21.12 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 11
funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the City. Necessary certification and disclosure forms shall be provided by City.

Procurement of Recovered Materials
A. In the performance of the contract, the Contractor shall make maximum use of products containing recovered materials that are EPA-designated items unless the product cannot be acquired competitively within a timeframe providing for compliance with the contract performance schedule;

1. Meeting contract performance requirements; or

2. At a reasonable price.

B. Information about this requirement, along with the list of EPA-designated items, is available at EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines website, https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive- procurementguideline-cpg-program.

18. Storm Water Requirements. To the extent applicable to the Scope of Work under this Agreement, Consultant, Consultant’s employees, subcontractors, and agents are required to abide by the applicable City of Santa Cruz Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the duration of the work. The City’s mandatory Storm Water BMPs, which are listed according to the type of work, operations, or business, are located on the City website at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/stormwater/bestmanagement-practices

19. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Either party may initiate negotiations by providing written notice in letter form to the other party, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. Promptly upon such notification, the Parties shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place in order to exchange relevant information and perspective, and to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event that no resolution is achieved, and if, but only if, the parties mutually agree, then prior to pursuing formal legal action, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by non-binding mediation or negotiations between representatives with decision-making power, who, to the extent possible, shall not have had substantive involvement in the matters of the dispute. To the extent that the dispute involves or relates to a public works project, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by complying with the claims process as set forth in Public Contract Code sections 9204(e), 20104-20104.6, but without waiving the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, Gov’t Code section 800 et seq. unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.

20. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, acts of terrorism, war, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and without the negligence of the respective Parties. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any Force Majeure claimed to delay, hinder or prevent performance of the services under this Agreement. Each Party will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement. In the event either party is prevented or delayed in the performance of its respective obligation by reason of such Force Majeure, there may be an equitable adjustment of the schedule and Consultant compensation based on City’s sole discretion.

21. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, along with any attachments, is the full and complete integration of the Parties’ agreement with respect to the matters addressed herein, and that this Agreement supersedes any previous

21.13 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 12
written or oral agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent there is any conflict between this Agreement and any other agreement (written or oral), the terms of this Agreement shall control.

22. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

23. Waiver. Waiver by any party of any portion of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the same or any other portion hereof.

24. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law.

25. Contract Interpretation. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement.

26. MacBride Principles/Peace Charter. City of Santa Cruz Resolution NS-19,378 (7/24/90) encourages all companies doing business in Northern Ireland to abide by the MacBride Principles and Peace Charter.

27. Notices. If either party shall desire or is required to give notice to the other such notice shall be given in writing, via email and concurrently delivered by overnight Federal Express (or priority U.S. Mail), addressed to recipient as follows:

To CITY:

City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Rosemary Menard, Director
212 Locust St Ste A
Santa Cruz CA 95060
[email protected]
To CONSULTANT:

Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc.

Rodney Cahill, Principal
224 Walnut Avenue, Suite B
Santa Cruz CA 95060
[email protected]
Changes to the above information shall be given to the other party in writing ten (10) business days before the change is effective.

28. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

29. Warranty of Authority. The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

21.14 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 13
Approved As To Form:

By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Office of the City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: ___________________________ Title: __________________ Technical Review By:

By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Heidi Luckenbach, Deputy Water Director/ Engineering Manager

WATER DEPARTMENT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Rosemary Menard
Water Director

21.15 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 14
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK

21.16 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
Scope of Proposed Services
The scope of our services is based on a review of as-built drawings, observations made during a visit to the site, and discussions with you. Based on this information, we intend to provide the following services:

Task 1 – Kick-off, Meetings, Field Investigation, Document Review and Stakeholder Outreach

1. Participate in kick-off meeting to review project success criteria, scope, fee, budget, schedule, and key people.

2. Provide monthly updates to discuss progress and design specifics and facilitate early review and approval of decisions. Provide a design schedule Gannt chart and confirm design and decision interactions with City.

3. Visit the project site with you and members of the project team to further our knowledge of the project site and its opportunities and constraints.

4. Research, collect, review and study the information on the system including plans and reports, basemaps, 1965 plans, and site agreements made available to us by the City.

5. Provide Design and Construction Schedule estimate in Technical Memo, TM 13

6. Prepare a Project Quality Plan in Technical Memo 14.

7. Milestone meetings at design submittals to review and discuss plan specifics and resolve decisions. Provide agendas, minutes and action items and maintain an action item log for monthly review.

8. Attend a Council Meeting to respond to questions on the project and support approval by Council.

9. Manage the pre-bid meeting and respond to questions from interested bidders.

10. Coordinate and contract with the sub-consultant team for specialized services as described in more detail herein.

11. Assist City with information for PG&E, UCSC, and County of Santa Cruz to assist in communications. We are planning to utilize the existing site power service, existing driveway, and existing fenced area for the new project.

12. Provide the administrative support necessary for us to perform these services including detailed monthly invoicing in City-approved format including percent effort complete for each task, and budget status at the end of the past month.

13. Subconsult with RWM to analyze the operations of the new reservoir, including water quality needs, pumping station operations, shutdowns, and emergency operations as well as yard piping and configuration:
i. Review water quality issues with the engineering and operations staff.

21.17 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
ii. Determine and summarize the service requirements for the new reservoir and pumping station during and following earthquakes, service shutdowns, and other abnormal operations.
iii. Review the yard and pumping station piping configurations for effects on water quality.
iv. Review with City and UCSC water operations staffs the operation of the UCSC system and delivery of water to the university facilities. v. Summarize this evaluation into TM 2

14. Subconsult with our labor compliance monitoring service to monitor compliance of the design team with labor standards including:
vi. Review contract provisions and labor compliance requirements with the project team.
vii. Determine the specific labor standards and dates of effect for wages for the construction project
viii. Set up and maintain all compliance files and documents relating to prevailing wage activities;
ix. Set up and maintain labor compliance files tracking the prime contractor and subcontractors.
x. Attend a meeting to discuss prevailing wage requirements with contractor and subcontractors.
xi. Review compliance with all State required postings such as the prevailing wage rates and EEO policies
Task 2 – Site Survey

1. Coordinate with our team surveyor to provide the survey area and data needs and review the survey for compatibility with the design project goals.

2. Subconsult with our team Licensed Land Surveyor to provide the topographic survey of the fenced limits of the tank site including establishing control, underground utility location, and ground topography mapping including:
i. Establish project control points and benchmark for future work.

Elevations will be established on NAVD 88 datum from GPS or other benchmark ties. Horizontal coordinates shall be on assumed datum. ii. Prior to the survey, we will coordinate and subcontract for underground utility location marking services within the subject area. The locating effort shall be limited to 8 man-hours and subject to potential site constraints. Scope does not include GPR work.
iii. We will perform a ground topographic survey of the subject area. Survey to include fence corners, walls, roads and paving, existing structures & equipment (facilities), surface evidence of existing utilities (as pre21.18 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
marked per item 1.2) and other pertinent information relevant to the project as may be identified by the engineer prior to survey. iv. We will prepare detailed topographic map at 1” = 10’ including site features listed and located per item 1.4, spot elevations and 1’ contours. v. Provide Client with AutoCAD file and PDF of topographic map.

3. Subconsult with our team Architect for Pre-Design surveys including digital drawings of the pumphouse roof, code survey, and Fire Marshall coordination for wildland fire requirements including:
i. As Built drawings (CAD reproductions of record docs from the 60's) ii. Coordination with Consultants
iii. Code Survey and FM coordination of requirements
Task 3 – Geotechnical and Structural Evaluation

1. Coordinate the Geotechnical Engineer regarding locations of new tanks, excavations, and underground piping locations.

2. Subconsult with Pacific Crest Engineering to provide subsurface test borings, laboratory testing and Geotechnical Investigation Report as follows:
i. Review the prior Geology/Geotechnical reports provided by the City ii. We will mark the proposed test boring locations in white paint, and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 72 hours prior to drilling. We will also subcontract with a private utility location firm to clear our boring locations. City on-site personnel are required to assist in locating City facilities.
iii. Site reconnaissance and review of available geologic and geotechnical information pertaining to the site, available in our files or provided by you. iv. Subsurface exploration in order to characterize the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the planned improvements. We have estimated 1 day of drilling and assume that 2 borings at the tank site, and 3 to 4 boring on the unnamed access road, can be completed.

The borings will be drilled to depths between 15 to 50 feet for the tank site and 5 to 10 feet for the access road, or until competent bedrock is encountered, whichever is less. Soil samples will be obtained at selected depths within the test borings. The test borings will be backfilled with the soil cuttings upon completion of drilling. v. A log of soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions will be maintained.

Disturbed and/or undisturbed soil and bedrock samples will be taken at maximum 5-foot vertical intervals. The test borings will be backfilled with the soil cuttings at the completion of drilling and capped with a cold patch asphalt mix in pavement areas.

21.19 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
vi. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine their relevant engineering properties. Laboratory testing may include, as applicable, moisture content, unit weight, grain size distribution, R-Value for pavement design and applicable shear strength testing.
vii. Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. will perform a geotechnical engineering analysis of the data gathered in Task Nos. 1 through 4 and based on this analysis will provide our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project. Topics covered in our report will include:
viii. A qualitative discussion of the seismic hazards associated with the site, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, dynamic compaction, landsliding, seismic shaking, and the proximity to mapped active and potentially active faults.
ix. Site and subgrade preparation recommendations, including compaction recommendations, recommendations as to the suitability of the on-site earth materials for use as engineered fill, recommendations for imported fill material, recommendations for stable cut and fill slope gradients, and backfill requirements for utility trenches.
x. Foundation design and construction recommendations, including recommended foundation type(s), foundation embedment depths, and the allowable bearing pressures to use in foundation design. xi. Retaining wall recommendations, if required, including the active, at-rest and passive lateral earth pressures to use in retaining wall design, and anticipated lateral seismic forces.
xii. Recommendations for site drainage, including provisions to control both surface and subsurface drainage, as needed.
xiii. Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. will prepare and submit a geotechnical investigation report including a scaled drawing with boring locations, geotechnical data (boring logs, lab tests) and geotechnical design summary (conclusions and recommendations as summarized above).

The report will be prepared and signed by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer practicing in the local area.

3. Evaluate the structural condition of the existing tank foundation, review the field conditions for cracks, spalling, rusting and concrete conditions and review the as-built design drawings for reinforcement size and quantity. Calculate and evaluate the suitability to re-use the old foundation for the new tank.

Task 4 – Geologic Hazard Assessment

1. Based on our field meeting and site observations with our Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, Pacific Crest Engineering have advised that a GHA is not required for this project and that they will qualitative address geologic hazards in their Geotechnical Investigation report.

21.20 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
Task 5 – Engineering Design Cost Estimation and Environmental Review

1. Prepare 10% Conceptual Design plans for the new water storage facility. An outline of our plan set includes:
i. Cover – with vicinity map and general notes
ii. Site Plan – with layout dimensions of new tanks and improvements, consideration of maintenance vehicle and fire truck turnaround and driveway pullouts, tree trimming, and driveway repairs
iii. Grading Plan – with slopes and elevations for pavement around new tanks and reservoir foundation preparation
iv. Drainage Plan – with underground piping, inlets, and outlet dissipaters including a de-chlorination basin for tank drainage
v. Piping Plan – with yard piping layout including tank connections, site valves, seismic joints, contractor potholing, and temporary connections based on RWM initial design.
vi. Piping Profile – With piping elevations and conflict avoidance vii. Site Details – Driveway Pavement Repair Details, Bollards, Fencing, viii. Erosion Control – Temporary erosion control BMPs for construction ix. Demolition Plans – With tank demolition and facility protection limits x. Phasing Plan – Identifying sequencing, shut downs, temporary connections and operations to maintain service during construction

2. Technical Memo 4 – Yard Piping summarizing modifications

3. Prepare 30% Plans as outlined above with additional detail.

4. Prepare 60% Plans as outlined above with additional detail.

5. Prepare a 60% Estimate of Probable Construction Cost.

6. Prepare 90% Plans.

7. Review the 90% Technical Specifications.

8. Prepare 100% Plans.

9. Review the 100% Technical Specifications.

10. Quality Assurance / Quality Control check of final plans and specifications.

11. Subconsult with Robert W Miles Civil Engineer for design of the reservoir, maintenance tank, pump station modifications, and baseline cost estimate:
i. Prepare reservoir assessment plan - Prepare and submit for City review a Reservoir Survey Inspection Plan no less than two weeks prior to the scheduled inspection date. The plan will include the locations of access, the sequence of inspection activities, the estimated reservoir outage time, coating sampling locations for laboratory chemical tests,

21.21 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
procedures for collection of coating thickness values, procedures for collection of plate thickness data, and procedures for collection of structural member dimensions and thicknesses. Compile a list of the equipment and personnel required for conduct of the survey, including, lighting, and safety equipment.
ii. Conduct Physical Assessment - Conduct the survey using the Survey Inspection Plan. Use disinfection procedures as approved in the Survey Inspection Plan. Tabulate the internal coatings test data. Tabulate the data for each reservoir appurtenance and fitting. Record roof rafter condition issues. Conduct laboratory testing to evaluate samples of the existing coating materials to determine the content of regulated materials such as lead, chromium, and cadmium. Review the bottom drain discharge piping, inlet and outlet piping, and overflow details. Obtain the tank dimensions using field measurements. Prepare a memorandum that contains the results of the physical assessment. The memorandum shall include the Survey Inspection Plan, test data, photographs, condition of reservoir structural components, results of laboratory chemical composition tests, and a narrative summary of the results of the assessment.
iii. Evaluate the Reservoir and Define the New Replacement Reservoir – For the proposed bolted tank, evaluate upgrades to the structural design and corrosion performance. Evaluate the alternative types of roofs available for a bolted tank. Evaluate the need for management of overflow and drain discharges for the maintenance and service reservoir.

Work with potential bolted tank suppliers to develop a preliminary structural design for the proposed reservoir. Develop design criteria for the proposed reservoir. Due to the low test values resulting from a City hazardous materials investigation, the services of an industrial hygienist are not anticipated to be necessary for this project. Testing during removal of the existing reservoir will be performed to ensure that hazardous materials are not released to the site. Evaluate potential bidding strategies for the bolted tank, and methods to obtain accurate and responsive bids, and qualification criteria for potential bidders.

Summarize this evaluation into TM 1.
iv. Develop the yard piping initial design that shows the modified piping. v. Pumping Station Modifications - Evaluate modifications to the pumping station piping and valves. Itemize the replacement chlorination system piping and equipment. Summarize the proposed modifications to the pumping station into TM 5.
vi. Baseline Cost Estimate - Develop the first detailed cost estimate to be used for a baseline estimate. Summarize the estimate assumptions, resources, and a line item listing each element of the proposed project into TM 11

21.22 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
vii. Reservoir operations during construction - Review the operation of the maintenance tank, service reservoir, and pumping station during construction. Identify the permanent and temporary piping that must be in-place to provide uninterrupted service during construction. Summarize the results of the analysis into TM 3 Reservoir Operations During Construction.
viii. Tank Removal Plan – Identify and summarize the probable removal procedures that will be used during construction. Evaluate space and access requirements for the removal procedures. Summarize the removal plan into TM 7.
ix. 10% Draft Drawings for the Reservoir, Maintenance Tank, and Pump Station Upgrades
x. 60% Intermediate Specifications and Drawings for the Reservoir, Maintenance Tank, and Pump Station Upgrades
xi. Review meeting with the City. During the meeting, the design development submittal will be reviewed and critical issues examined. If necessary, refinements will be made prior to commencement of final design. This will be a critical meeting since changes to the design become relatively costly and time consuming after the final design production is started.
xii. Update the project schedule.
xiii. 90% Final Specifications and Drawings and Cost Estimate for the Reservoir, Maintenance Tank, and Pump Station Upgrades
xiv. 100% Final CSI Format Specifications and Drawings for the Reservoir, Maintenance Tank, and Pump Station Upgrades

12. Subconsult with Nielsen Studios to prepare Schematic Design (30% Design) / Research of roofing options for non-combustible flat roofs:
xv. Research\Roofing Options for Class A (noncombustible) flat roofing stand alone (non UL rated assembly) materials.

13. Subconsult with Nielsen Studios to prepare Construction Documents (100% Design) of a non-combustible flat roof:
i. Roofing specification of re-roof system
ii. Roofing Plan/ Details.

14. Subconsult with Fehr Engineering to prepare 60%/90%/100% electrical engineering drawings for site power distribution and connection, site lighting, and communications to connect the two new tanks to the existing electrical, phone and radio services.

21.23 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
Task 6 – Tank Removal Plan

1. Tank Removal plans and specifications will be included in the Task 5 Design documents detailed above.

Task 7 – Constructability Review

1. Coordinate the review by providing background, coordination, documentation, points of focus and follow up modifications.

2. Subconsult with Schaaf & Wheeler to provide a 3rd Party Review at 30% and 90% to check the design:
i. Meets the City’s intent for the project in terms of system capacity and reliability
ii. Complies with current applicable codes and standards iii. Is relying upon assumptions and/or incomplete data which should be field verified
iv. Addresses risks or hazards identified during the preliminary design v. Considers reasonable alternative layouts and equipment vi. May be phased to minimize impacts to customer water service vii. May be constructed within the given site limits
The review will be summarized in a technical memorandum, with supporting tables, figures and redlined drawings. If the supporting data seems incomplete, we will provide a list of items to be field verified in the next phase of the design.

Schaaf & Wheeler will review the 90% construction plans, specifications, cost estimate and phasing plan to determine if the design:
viii. Meets the City’s intent for the project in terms of system capacity and reliability
ix. Complies with current applicable codes and standards x. Provides a complete design for bidders to propose on xi. The phasing plan identifies and mitigates risks of customer service outages
xii. Allows sufficient room for staging, laydown, and construction xiii. Costs are reflective of the current construction market The review will be summarized in a technical memorandum, with supporting tables, figures and redlined drawings.

21.24 MME | Scope of Proposed Services
Post Design Phase Services
As the project progresses from the design phases into the construction phases, we are often retained for further services in support of the project. As the Engineer of Record we are intimately familiar with the technical design aspects and are the most qualified to observe and review submittals and the work of construction for conformance with our drawings and specifications, the engineering calculations and design intent. As each project is unique we are available to provide the level of service the City determines is best suited to complement their Construction Management team.

Additional Services
The following is a partial list of work currently excluded from this scope of services; Easement Acquisitions and Boundary Surveying, New PG&E Service, SCADA Engineering, Geologic Hazard Assessment, Hazardous Materials Assessment, Infiltration Testing, Environmental Assessments or Permits, Traffic Engineering, Arborists Reports, SWPPP, Drainage Volume or Flow or Trash or Chemical Control, Bid Alternates, Value Engineering, Construction Inspection, Expedited Schedule, and Construction Contracts. Also pre-order procurement documents, prequalification documents, contractor change order and substitution review, suspensions of schedule, self-supported roof stairways and roof ramps for bolted tanks, new pump station roof structure beyond the roofing material, sodium hypochlorite storage and feed systems, and new concrete ringwall for reservoir.

Optional Additional Service Allowances
These optional service allowances are provided for more detailed project planning.

1. Technical Memo 9 – Evaluate the long term present worth of Bolted versus Welded tank for the primary Reservoir. This work would be an extension of the existing cost-benefit study and will include evaluation of long term maintenance and repair intervals, painting, coatings, stair tower maintenance and costs and would be completed by sub consultant Robert W Miles Civil Engineer.

2. Technical Memo 10 - Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) - An Instrumentation and Controls engineer will work together with our Electrical Engineer (FE) and RWM and develop a P&ID in discussion with the City operations staff and project manager. The P&ID will show the interaction with the various instruments and controllers at the site, and the SCADA system at the treatment plant. The City’s SCADA system operator or supplier may be able to provide the P&ID, however it should be done at the same time RWM is preparing the PFD for smooth coordination.

3. Technical Memo 6 – A technical memo evaluating the wildfire damage resistance options. This is in addition to the design plans that Nielsen Studios have included the scope to replace the roofing with non-combustible roofing.

21.25 MME | Scope of Proposed Services

4. New concrete ringwall design should the existing foundation be insufficient for the new reservoir based on our structural evaluation.

5. Free standing ramp stair tower - Bolted tanks are typically not designed for ladder-type stairs, due to complexities in bolted connections, joints, and performance. If a ramped stair is requested, and the tank is not welded steel, additional design of a free standing tower would be required.

6. Driveway Pipeline and Road Survey, Right of Way Determination and Legal Description – The base bid survey includes the fenced area of the project tank and pumphouse site location. For further development of legal exhibits for documenting a future easement, additional surveying would be required to locate the access driveway and County road right of way.

7. Hillside Twin Pipeline Survey, Right of Way Determination and Legal Description – If a separate or combined legal description is needed for the hillside twin pipelines below the tank site then a similar additional survey, office mapping, right of way determinations, and description exhibit fee would be needed.
i:\22109 city of santa cruz - ce se university tank 4 replacement\proposal\proposal work docs\formal scope of work\1 mme scope.docx

21.26 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 15
EXHIBIT B: FEE SCHEDULE

21.27 Engineering Fee Estimate
prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Design Services for University Tank 4 Replacement Project MME Project Number: 22109
4/14/2022
ItemTask Description
Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Admin In-house Sub Total Engineer V IV III II I Assist Sub-Total Consult Fee
$ 218 $ 208 $ 187 $ 161 $ 140 $ 120 $ 90 (x1.1)
Task 1 - Kick-off Meetings, Field Investigation, Document Review and Stakeholder Outreach 1 Kick Off 6 6 $ 2,274 $ 2,274
2 Coord&Sched(20m) 40 8 $ 10,008 $ 10,008
3 Site Visits 8 $ 1,744 $ 1,744
4 Document Review 24 $ 5,232 $ 5,232
5 TM13 - E/CON Sched 14 $ 3,052 $ 3,052
6 TM14 - Proj Quality 14 $ 3,052 $ 3,052
7 Milestone Mtgs (6) 24 $ 5,232 $ 5,232
8 City Council Meeting 6 $ 1,308 $ 1,308
9 Pre-bid meeting 6 6 $ 2,274 $ 2,274
10 Coordinate subs 12 8 $ 3,336 $ 3,336
11 PG&E/UCSC/County 12 $ 2,616 $ 2,616
12 Administration 12 8 $ 3,336 $ 3,336
13 Reservoir and Pumphouse Design Subconsultant (RWM/BACC) $ 15,520 $ 17,072 14 Prevailing Wage Review Subconsultant (360 PSM) $ 3,000 $ 3,300 Subtotals: 178 0 0 20 0 0 16 $ 43,464 $ 18,520 $ 63,836 Task 2 - Site Survey
1 Coordinate Survey 6 4 4 $ 2,512 $ 2,512
2 Surveyor Subconsultant (Ifland Survey) $ 11,170 $ 12,287 3 Architectural Pre-Design for Roof Subconsultant (Nielsen) $ 7,700 $ 8,470 Subtotals: 6 0 0 4 4 0 0 $ 2,512 $ 18,870 $ 23,269
Task 3 - Geotechnical and Structural Evaluation
1 Coord Geotechnical In 2 8 $ 1,724 $ 1,724
2 Geotechnical Subconsultant (Pacfic Crest Engineering) $ 13,880 $ 15,268 3 Structural Evaluation 8 16 24 6 $ 10,100 $ 10,100
Subtotals: 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 $ 11,824 $ 13,880 $ 27,092
Task 4 - Geologic Hazard Assessment (GHA)
1 No formal GHA required, rock underying site, qualitative discussion will be included in Task 3 $ - Subtotals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ -
Personnel and Hourly Billing Rates

21.28 Task 5.1 - 5.9 Engineering, Design, Cost Estimation and Environmental Review 1 10% Plans $ - $ 21,788
i. Cover 2 8 $ 1,724
ii. Site Plan 4 16 $ 3,448
iii. Grading 2 8 $ 1,724
iv. Drainage 2 12 $ 2,368
v Piping 8 16 $ 4,320
vi Pipe profiles 2 4 $ 1,080
vii. Site Details 2 8 $ 1,724
viii. Erosion Control 2 4 $ 1,080
ix. Demo Plan 4 8 $ 2,160
x. Phasing Plan 4 8 $ 2,160
2 TM4 - Yard Piping 14 $ 3,052 $ 3,052
3 30% Plans 24 8 40 $ 13,336 $ 13,336
4 60% Plans 24 8 40 $ 13,336 $ 13,336
5 60% Estimate 8 16 $ 4,320 $ 4,320
6 90% Plans 24 8 40 $ 13,336 $ 13,336
7 90% Specs 16 16 $ 6,064 $ 6,064
8 100% Plans 24 8 40 $ 13,336 $ 13,336
9 100% Specs 16 16 $ 6,064 $ 6,064
10 QA/QC Final Review 8 24 $ 6,232 $ 6,232
11 Reservoir and Pumphouse Design Subconsultant (RWM/BACC) $ 64,640 $ 71,104 12 Architectural Schematic Design for Roof Subconsultant (Nielsen) $ 6,700 $ 7,370 13 Architectural Construction Documents for Roof Subconsultant (Nielsen) $ 6,700 $ 7,370 14 Electrical Subconsutant for Tanks Sensors, Controls, Power (Fehr Engineering) $ 10,000 $ 11,000 Subtotals: 190 32 24 300 0 0 0 $ 100,864 $ 88,040 $ 197,708 Task 6 - Tank Removal Plan
1 (included in Task 5) $ -
Subtotals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ -
Task 7 - Constructability Review
1 Coordinate Review 4 8 $ 2,160 $ 2,160
2 Constructabiility Review Subconsulant (Schaaf & Wheeler) $ 14,800 $ 16,280 Subtotals: 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 $ 2,160 $ 14,800 $ 18,440
Services Subtotal: $ 160,824 $ 154,110 $ 330,345
Reimbursable Expenses
1 Plotting and Delivery $ 100
2 Mileage 0.56 50 $ 28
Subtotals: $ 128
Services and Expenses Subtotal: $ 330,473
Design Contingency for Unknown Additional Services: 10% $ 33,047 Total:

Optional Additional Service Allowances
1 TM9 - Evaluate long term present worth costs of Bolted versus Welded Reservoir (RWM/BACC $ 4,400 $ 4,840 2 TM10 - Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) showing interaction with SCADA/pumps/tanks $ 20,000 3 TM6 - Wildfire damage resistance options narrative (NS) $ 3,000 $ 3,300 4 Design of a new concrete ringwall foundation for the reservoir if the existing foundation is insuff $ 5,000 5 Design of a free-standing ramp stair tower for a bolted tank $ 20,000 6 Driveway Survey, Right of Way Determination and Legal Description (IS) $ 6,000 $ 6,600 7 Hillside Twin Pipelines Survey, Right of Way Determination and Legal Description (IS) $ 4,000 $ 4,400 Subtotals: $ 64,140
Total for Budget Approval: $ 427,660
This is our estimate based on currently available information. We may redistribute compensation between phases to be consistent with the hours of services provided, but shall not exceed the total unless approved by the Client. This estimate is based on hourly rates effective through December 2022. $ 363,520

21.29 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 16
EXHIBIT C: WORK SCHEDULE

21.30 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecess
1 Council Approval 2 days 4/26/22 4/27/22
2 Contract Auth and Sub contracts 2 wks 4/28/22 5/11/22 13 1. Kick-off Meeting 1 day 5/12/22 5/12/22 24 2. Site Survey 6 wks 5/13/22 6/23/22 35 3. Geotechnical 10 wks 6/24/22 9/1/22 46 Structural Evaluation 4 wks 9/2/22 9/29/22 57 Architectural Pre-Design 4 wks 6/24/22 7/21/22 48 4. TM2, TM13, TM14 4 wks 5/13/22 6/9/22 39 5.1. Conceptual Design (10%) 4 wks 6/24/22 7/21/22 4,8 10 5.2. City Review 4 wks 7/22/22 8/18/22 911 TM1, TM4, TM5, TM6 4 wks 8/19/22 9/15/22 1012 5.3. Preliminary Design (30%) 2 mons 9/30/22 11/24/22 11,5,6,713 TM8 30% Constructability Review 4 wks 11/25/22 12/22/22 1214 5.4. City Review 4 wks 12/23/22 1/19/23 1315 TM 3, TM 7, TM 8 4 wks 1/20/23 2/16/23 1416 5.5. Intermediate Design (60%) 2 mons 2/17/23 4/13/23 1517 5.6. City Review 4 wks 4/14/23 5/11/23 1618 5.7. Final Design (90-100%) 2 mons 5/12/23 7/6/23 1719 TM 12 Final Cost Estimate 2 wks 7/7/23 7/20/23 1820 TM8 100% Constructability Review 4 wks 7/21/23 8/17/23 1921 5.8. City Review 4 wks 8/18/23 9/14/23 2022 5.9. Bid Set Specifications 4 wks 9/15/23 10/12/23 2123 Approvals and Bidding 3 mons 10/13/23 1/4/24 2224 Construction 9 mons 1/5/24 9/12/24 23 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 2023 2024
TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress