CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting – January 10, 2023
12:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM/COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM 2:15 P.M. CONSENT, CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING, AND GENERAL BUSINESS,
ZOOM/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:00 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND GENERAL BUSINESS, ZOOM/COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
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.
Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 5:00 pm on Monday, January 9th
January 10, 2023 City Council 2
PLEASE NOTE:
Requests for extra speaking time on items other than Oral Communications must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 8th 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
12:30 PM
Closed Session
1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) Police Officers Association
Police Management Association
SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
City Negotiator – Lisa Murphy
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) City of Santa Cruz v Service Employees International Union, Local 521, PERB Unfair Practice Charge No: SF-CO-511-M
2) Grant Park Neighborhood Association Advocates, et al., v. California Department of Public Health, et al.
3rd Appellate District No. C095659 (potential amicus support) January 10, 2023 City Council 3
Closed Session (continued)
3. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95)
1) Claimant: Koen Hian Liem
2) Claimant: Liberty Mutual Insurance
3) Claimant: Robert Fleck
4) Claimant: Leanne N. Hunter
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz
4. Public Employee Performance Evaluation/Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957, §54957.6)
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
Agency designated representative: City Attorney
January 10, 2023 City Council 4
City Council
2:15 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification
Additions and Deletions
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Council Meeting Calendar
5. The City Council will review the meeting calendar attached to the agenda and revise it as necessary.
Consent Agenda
6. Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
Resolution authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
7. Resolution Declaring the Existence of a State of Emergency Arising from December 2022 and January 2023 Winter Storms (CA/CM) Resolution declaring the existence of a state of emergency arising from December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms.
January 10, 2023 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)
8. Resolution Extending Emergency Declaration in Connection with COVID19 Pandemic by Sixty (60) Days (CA) Resolution extending by sixty days the Declaration of Emergency in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic and proclaiming the Declaration of Emergency terminated thereafter.
9. Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Appointment (CC)
Motion to approve Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson’s nomination of Gabriela Trigueiro to the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women.
10. Minutes of the December 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.
11. California Department of Water Resources - Authorization of the Submittal of a Grant Application to Study and Develop a Decision Support Tool for Understanding Climate Influenced River Flooding and Flood Control (CM)
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for funds from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant (IRWM)
Implementation grant to study and develop a decision support tool for understanding climate influenced river flooding and flood control.
12. Appointment of Representatives to External Agencies, Groups, Council Committees and Task Forces (CN)
Motion to appoint representatives to external agencies, groups, City Council committees and task forces for the 2023 calendar year.
13. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion to reject the liability claims of a) Koen Hian Liem, b) Liberty Mutual Insurance, c) Robert Fleck, and d) Leanne N. Hunter, based on staff recommendation.
January 10, 2023 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)
14. Energy Efficiency Projects Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp (FN) Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp relating to the financing of energy efficiency projects to be undertaken pursuant to an agreement with SitelogiQ, and approving related documents and actions.
15. Finalizing Sister City Relationship Between Biarritz, France and the City of Santa Cruz (PR)
Resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into agreement with Biarritz, France as part of the finalization process to establish Biarritz as a Sister City with the City of Santa Cruz.
16. Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) – Adopting the 2019 Addendum to the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (Santa Cruz IRWM Plan) (PW)
Resolution adopting the 2019 addendum to the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Santa Cruz IRWM Plan).
17. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Grant – Authorization for Application, Acceptance and Appropriation of Grant Funds for Construction of a Recreational Vehicle Dump Station (PW) Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program to pursue a grant for construction of a Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station project proposed by the City of Santa Cruz Public Works.
18. West Cliff Drive Walking Path Storm Damage Repair Project (e401707) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion to accept the work of Reber Construction Co, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for West Cliff Storm Damage Repair Project (e401707).
January 10, 2023 City Council 7
Consent Agenda (continued)
19. Newell Creek Pipeline Project: Master Service Agreement NPZ-First Amendment with Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Restoration and Revegetation Services (WT)
Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute NPZ-First Amendment to the Master Service Agreement for professional services related to planning for restoration and revegetation for the Newell Creek Pipeline Project with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (Santa Cruz, CA) 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.
20. Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project: Ratify Master Service Agreement Laguna-Sixth Amendment with Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Restoration and Revegetation Services - Budget Adjustment (WT)
Motion to:
1) Ratify the Laguna-Sixth Amendment to the Master Service Agreement for professional services related to restoration and revegetation for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (Santa Cruz, CA) and to authorize the Water Director to execute future contract amendments within the approved budget; and
2) Adopt a resolution transferring $41,000 from Water’s Capital Investment Program, project c701801, for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project to Water Engineering’s operating budget, activity 7102.
End Consent Agenda
January 10, 2023 City Council 8
Consent Public Hearing
21. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-23 to Amend the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 19.05.170 Adopting Additional Provision of the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code (FD) Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2022-23 to amend Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) Section 19.05.170 to incorporate California Fire Code Section 311.5 which provides standards for marking unsafe vacant or abandoned buildings or structures.
General Business
22. Health in All Policies: 2022 Progress Report and 2023 Workplan (CM) Motion to accept the Health in All Policies (HiAP) 2022 progress report and approve the proposed 2023 work plan.
23. Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project Permit Applications (CN)
Motion to:
1) Approve the two attached requests from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome related to the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (located at 113 and 119 Lincoln St.), and 2) Pursuant to these requests, direct that the Council, at a later Council meeting, consider and take final action on: (a) the Parks & Recreation Commission’s denial of an appeal, which affirmed the Parks and Recreation Department’s issuance of a heritage tree removal permit, and (b) all other permits and approvals for the project (the Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Sign Permit).
Recess - The City Council will recess to the 5:00 p.m. session.
January 10, 2023 City Council 9
City Council
5:00 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Oral Communications Announcement – Community members may address the Council for two 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
Please note: the public comment period for the below item will be for items 24.1 and 24.2.
24. Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision
24.1. Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome (CN)
Motion to:
1) Revise the building height provisions in the draft Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment to provide for a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units, with a 20% affordability requirement on the total number of units and with no single building be more than 12 stories, inclusive of any density bonus incentive.
2) Continue to study the 1,800 units that have been evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) technical analyses since June of 2022, and direct Planning Department staff to study an alternative in the EIR that includes the parameters noted above in Item #1.
24.2. Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Planning and Community Development (PL)
Accept the report and consider the information as part of the evaluation of any modifications to the Downtown Plan Expansion, including consideration of staff’s recommendation to continue studying 1,800 units in the plan’s draft Environmental Impact Report.
Adjournment
January 10, 2023 City Council 10
INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS None Issued.
MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JANUARY 10, 2023
Mayor Sonja Brunner
25. In recognition of December being National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, proclaiming December 6, 2022 as “Nicole Brown Day” because of her commitment to prevention and awareness and encouraging all citizens to join in this observance.
26. Proclaiming December 13, 2022 as “Ryan Coonerty Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in acknowledging his years of dedicated public service and expressing gratitude for his numerous contributions to improving the lives of Santa Cruz citizens and wishing him well in his life after elected office.
Mayor Fred Keeley
27. Proclaiming Thursday, December 22, 2022 as “Patrick Bayani Retirement Day” and encouraging all his coworkers and citizens to join in expressing heartfelt appreciation for his twenty-seven years of dedicated and exemplary service and numerous contributions to the Santa Cruz Police Department and the City of Santa Cruz and wishing him well in his retirement.
January 10, 2023 City Council 11
Advisory Body Appointments
The following positions are vacant. Appointments are scheduled for the January 24, 2023 meeting.
Arts Commission Four openings
Board of Building and Fire Appeals Six openings
Commission for the Prevention of Violence
Against Women
Three openings
Downtown Commission One opening
Historic Preservation Commission One opening
Parks and Recreation Commission Two openings
Planning Commission Two openings
Sister Cities Committee Three openings
Transportation and Public Works Commission One opening
Water Commission Two openings
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.
January 10, 2023 City Council 12
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.
From: Big Joe 77
To: City Council
Subject: re SCPD Labor Negotiations
Date: Sunday, January 08, 2023 5:13:10 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members,
Something for you to consider when in closed session on Tuesday, and hear from the City’s labor negotiators re Police Officers Association and the SCPD’s Management Association Man size hole in a plate glass window
Sunday morning (01/08) at about7:18am, a passerby noticed that the plate glass window of a business on the 1400 Block of Pacific Ave was smashed in. The hole was large enough for a person to either pass through, or reach inside to open the door. The caller said they’d wait for an Officer, adding that they were unsure if anyone was inside the business.
Although 2 Officers were dispatched, this call’s response would be delayed as one Officer waived off his cover, and decided that he’d take a missing persons report prior to responding.
-From “jump street,” this call was being treated as a felony vandalism rather than an active burglary. I don’t know why.
“Give me your money, or I’ll kill you.”
Coffee seekers on the 700 Block of Ocean Street Sunday morning (01.08) were greeted by a transient in the parking lot threatening to kill them if they didn’t fork over their dough.
Dispatching Officers to this report was delayed a bit due to shift change (and by the Day Shift Patrol Sergeant who didn’t seem alarmed).
12 minutes later, 2 Patrol Officers reported being on scene. At 8:32am, Officers reported that the subject had gone before they got there, and cleared the call “George 67,” without even looking for him. The suspect’s description was never even broadcast.
Funny. This was a crime that was treated as a hoax from beginning to end.
Felon with an ax: “You’re free to go”
A disturbance was reported at a business on the 12200 Block of Ocean Street Sunday morning (01/08) when a transient refused to leave, began cursing at the employee, and then pulled out a hatchet and started chopping into a tree on the property. 2 Patrol Officers were dispatched at 8:57am.
At 9:05am, the officers were out with 39 year old Christopher Hunter and his hatchet.
They ran him for active wants/ warrants, and were told that he was on “Closed Probation.” They let him (and his hatchet) go.
I checked, and found Hunter to be a convicted felon (18CR04541). As such, he is not to
1.1 possess weapons of any kind. Shoulda booked him, but at the very least, he should have been relieved of that hatchet. Don’t know why that wasn’t done.
A Lawless Shit Hole
At about 2:07pmSunday (01/08), a passerby witnessed a woman with a small white dog Downtown on Walnut and Chestnut Streets. The woman had the dog on a leash, and had lifted the dog up by the leash and began kicking it hard enough to make it yelp. 2 Patrol Officers were dispatched, but a 3rd Officer told them to stand down, that he would take the call. He never did. He never reported being in the area. Never reported trying to contact the caller. Never reported anything. At 2:21pm, he volunteered for a detail on the Westside. No response at all from the AWOL Dat Shift Patrol Sergeant. It is the Patrol Sergeants responsibility to SUPERVISE the patrol staff. This is done largely through monitoring radio traffic, and stepping in when there’s a problem. She spent the day allowing her Officers to respond in a half-ass manner all day. Both her and “Officer No-show” have their hands out for pay raises.
Source: SCPD Blue Channel
https://scanrad.io/c/82/decode
For you information and disposition
--
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real
1.2 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
January 16
January 17 Council Chambers Special Meeting ‐ Advisory Body Interviews Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public February 20
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public April 5/6
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public TBD Council Chambers Budget Hearings
May 29
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public June 19
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public July 4
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public September 4
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public September 15/16
September 24/25
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Yom Kippur (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2023
June 27
September 12
September 26
February 14
City Hall Closure ‐ Presidents' Day
February 28
City Hall Closure ‐ Juneteenth
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change City Hall Closure ‐ Martin Luther King Jr. Day
January 24
Passover (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
April 11
April 25
June 13
March 14
March 28
May 9
May 23
City Hall Closure ‐ Memorial Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Labor Day
August 22
July 11 and 25 Meetings Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
August 8
City Hall Closure ‐ Independence Day
Rosh Hashanah (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
October 10
5.1 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2023
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public November 10
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public November 23
November 24
December 7/8
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public December 25
November 28
December 12
City Hall Closure ‐ Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Day After Thanksgiving Day
December 26 Meeting Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
November 14
October 24
City Hall Closure ‐ Veteran's Day (observed)
5.2 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/19/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
BACKGROUND: On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a proclamation of State of Emergency in response to the developing COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the continued spread of the virus, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 on March 17, 2020, which included a provision authorizing suspensions to the Ralph M. Brown Act’s (“Brown Act”) teleconferencing rules in order to facilitate virtual meetings while public health orders were in place.
On June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, which provided that the Brown Act teleconferencing suspensions would expire after September 30, 2021. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), an urgency measure taking effect immediately, which amended the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology provided certain conditions are met.
DISCUSSION: AB 361 allows for teleconferenced meetings during a declared State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, if one of the following circumstances apply: (1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (2) The legislative body is meeting to determine whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (3) The legislative body has determined that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.1 The Governor’s March 4, 2020 proclamation of State of Emergency is still in effect. Measures continue to exist that impose and recommend measures to promote social distancing. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) requires that all individuals wear masks indoors in specific, high-risk settings.2 The CDPH and the Santa Cruz County Health Officer 1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(1)(A)-(C)
2 See CDPH, Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (Updated September 20, 2022), https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx.
6.1 strongly recommend that all individuals continue to wear masks in indoor public settings.3 The
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency also recently issued a press release noting an uptick in local COVID-19 cases and urging the public to “continue basic prevention methods like vaccination, frequent hand washing, and wearing a mask.”4 The highly transmissible omicron variant continues to contribute to positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State, and it is unknown at this time whether other variants may result in a new surge in COVID-19 cases. As such, holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees due to the continued spread of COVID-19.
To continue teleconferenced meetings under AB 361, the City Council will need to declare every thirty (30) days that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency and either (1) the State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or (2) State or local health officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.5
This declaration is needed for any use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361, including for two City meeting models: (1) A City Council hybrid model that uses the City Council Chambers as an in person venue along with teleconference attendance; and (2) Continued use of teleconferencing for City Council and Brown Act City boards, commissions and committees.
At its regular meeting of October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,877, authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. At its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, November 23, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, June 28, 2022, August 9, 2022, August 23, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 11, 2022, October 25, 2022, November 15, 2022, and December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, NS-29,894, NS29,900, NS-29,915, NS-29,923, NS-29,933, NS-29,942, NS-29,954, NS-29,975, NS-29,987, NS 29,994, NS-30,005, NS-30,017, NS-30,028, NS-30,035, NS-30,049, NS-30,053, NS-30,059, and NS-30,076, further authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361.
This Resolution would re-authorize the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue to use teleconferenced meetings for an additional thirty (30) from the date of its adoption. 3 See Press Release, Twelve Bay Area Health Officers to Life Most Indoor Mask Mandates on February 16 (Feb. 9, 2022), https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/02.09.22%20ABAHO%20Masking_FINAL.pdf.
See also, BAY AREA HEALTH OFFICERS URGE PUBLIC TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AS COVID LEVELS RISE (May 13, 2022),
https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/ABAHOMaskRecommendationENG.05132022.pdf. 4 Press Release, Santa Cruz County Public Health Urges Residents to Take Preventative Measures Against Circulating Viruses this Holiday Season (Nov. 23, 2022), https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/Press%20ReleaseRSV,%20Flu,%20COVID%20Prevention%20112322.pdf. See also Press Release, With Respiratory Viruses Circulating, 12 Bay Area Health Officials Recommend Actions To Stay Healthy for the Holidays (Dec. 15, 2022), https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/ABAHO_Healthy_For_The_Holidays_12-15-22.pdf. 5 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(3).
6.2 FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:
Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
6.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AUTHORIZING
THE CONTINUED USE OF TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, due to the threat of COVID-19, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain requirements of Government Code section 54950 et seq., the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or electronically without a physical meeting place; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which stated that the provision suspending requirements of the Brown Act in Executive Order N-29-20 would remain in effect through September 30, 2021, at which point the suspensions would expire; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 into law, an urgency measure effective upon adoption, amending the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely during a proclaimed State of Emergency, and either state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees;
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29, 877, making its initial finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, June 28, 2022, August 9, 2022, August 23, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 11, 2022, October 25, 2022, November 15, 2022, December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, NS-29,894, NS-29,900, NS-29,915, NS29,923, NS-29,933, NS-29,942, NS-29,954, NS-29,975, NS-29,987, NS-29,994, NS-30,005, NS-30,017, NS-30,035, NS-30,049, NS-30,053, NS-30,059, and NS-30,076, each making a subsequent finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and WHEREAS, as a condition of authorizing the continued use of teleconferenced meetings, the City Council must, every 30 days, reconsider the circumstances of the State of Emergency that exists in the City and the City Council has done so; and
6.4 2
WHEREAS, the State of Emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health and the Santa Cruz County Health Officer require that all individuals wear face coverings indoors in specified high-risk settings, and continue to strongly recommend that all individuals wear face coverings in indoor public settings; and
WHEREAS, the highly contagious omicron variant continues to contribute to the increase in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State of California, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of the pandemic, and that transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly; and
WHEREAS, other variants of COVID-19 exist, including an Omicron subvariant, BA.5, and it is unknown at this time whether this or other variants may result in a new surge in COVID-19 cases; and
WHEREAS, due to the continued impact of COVID-19, the City continues to be concerned about the health and safety of attendees at public meetings should they be held in person and in a shared indoor public meeting space, as such, the City Council desires to take the actions necessary to comply with AB 361 and to continue to hold its meetings in a hybrid format, providing both in-person and virtual participation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:
A. The City Council hereby acknowledges that the Governor’s State of Emergency proclamation issued on March 4, 2020 remains in effect; and B. The City Council finds that due to the emergence of the omicron variant and the continued threat of COVID-19, holding in person meetings for the City Council, City Commissions, and City Committees continues to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
C. The legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including continuing to conduct open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and D. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) thirty days from the adoption of this Resolution, or (ii) such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz may continue teleconferencing without compliance with the Brown Act’s prior rules regarding teleconferencing.
6.5 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
6.6 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 01/04/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring the Existence of a State of Emergency Arising from December 2022 and January 2023 Winter Storms (CA/CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution declaring the existence of a state of emergency arising from December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms.
BACKGROUND: Storms in December 2022 and January 2023 have caused significant flooding and other storm impacts, including downed trees and impacts to persons experiencing homelessness. On January 4, 2023, the City Manager issued a “Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency.”
DISCUSSION: Chapter 2.20 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code, at Section 2.20.030, empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity or disaster, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the “earliest practicable time.” During the existence of such emergency, the Director of Emergency Services is also authorized, pursuant to Section 2.20.040(1), “[m]ake and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency,” also subject to confirmation by the City Council “at the earliest practicable time.” The attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council, would again formally declare the existence of an emergency, facilitating the City Manager’s exercise of emergency powers to respond to the December 2022 and January 2023 Winter Storm Emergency.
During a declared emergency, the City is empowered to:
• More effectively respond to the emergency;
• Seek and utilize mutual aid;
• Potentially obtain reimbursement from Cal OES and FEMA; and • Ensure that the City of Santa Cruz staff have all the necessary tools and powers at their disposal to respond to the emergency.
FISCAL IMPACT: Actions taken by the City during a declared are potentially recoverable from California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
7.1 Prepared By:
Cassie Bronson
Deputy City Attorney
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
2. CITY MANAGER'S PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY.PDF
7.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
ARISING FROM DECEMBER 2022 AND JANUARY 2023 WINTER STORMS WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 2.20.030 empowers the City Manager, as the director of emergency services, to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and WHEREAS, on December 30 and 31st, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz experienced a major rain event (the “December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm”); and WHEREAS, as a result of the December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm, flooding, debris from trees, and mud have impacted the San Lorenzo River and adjacent areas, including the Tannery area, San Lorenzo Park, and the beach. The San Lorenzo River reached 22.1 feet.
Rainfall amounts exceeded 7 inches in the mountains over a 24-hour period; and WHEREAS, soil conditions in the City of Santa Cruz remain saturated as a result of the December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm, and another powerful storm event occurred on January 4 and 5, 2023, increasing flooding and other storm impacts, including downed trees and impacts to persons experiencing homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Cruz proclaimed the existence of a local emergency in the County on January 3, 2023; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing and pursuant to his authority as Emergency Services Director, on January 4, 2023, the City Manager declared the existence of a local emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:
A. The City Council hereby declares that a local emergency, as defined in Government Section 8558(c), Public Contract Code Section 1102 and City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 2.20.020, now exists in the City of Santa Cruz and has existed since on or around December 31, 2022 at 12:00 AM.
B. This Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and shall thereafter terminate on the thirtieth (30th) day after its adoption, unless earlier terminated or further extended by subsequent City Council action.
7.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
7.4 PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 2.20.030 empowers the City Manager, as the director of emergency services, to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and WHEREAS, on December 30 and 31st, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz experienced a major rain event (the “December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm”); and WHEREAS, as a result of the December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm, flooding, debris from trees, and mud have impacted the San Lorenzo River and adjacent areas, including the Tannery area, San Lorenzo Park, and the beach. The San Lorenzo River reached 22.1 feet. Rainfall amounts exceeded 7 inches in the mountains over a 24-hour period; WHEREAS, soil conditions in the City of Santa Cruz remain saturated as a result of the December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm, and another powerful storm event is expected on January 4 and 5, 2023, increasing the potential for flooding and other storm impacts, including downed trees, power outages, mudslides, and impacts to persons experiencing homelessness; and WHEREAS, this secondary January 2023 storm event is expected to be more powerful than the December 2022 Atmospheric River Winter Storm. Rainfall is predicted to exceed 8 inches, and wind in excess of 60 MPH is expected to impact the City; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Cruz proclaimed the existence of a local emergency in the County on January 3, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS PROCLAIMED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Santa Cruz is currently in a state of local emergency, and such conditions have existed since on or around December 31, 2022 at 12:00 AM. A local emergency, as defined in Government Code Section 8558(c), Public Contract Code Section 1102, and Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 2.20.020, now exists in the City of Santa Cruz.
2. During the existence of said local emergency the City Manager, as the director of emergency services, will use those powers, functions, and duties as permitted by Federal, State, and local law, including Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 2.20, in order to mitigate the effects of the local emergency.
7.5 Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20134, 20395, 22035(b), and 22050, the City Purchasing Agent or designee is hereby authorized to engage independent contractors to complete all necessary work to mitigate the effects of said local emergency. Contracts for this work may be executed without prior Council approval of the plans, specifications, and working details, and without giving notice for bids to let contracts.
Pursuant to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 2.20.010, all expenditures made in connection with this local emergency, including mutual aid activities, shall be deemed conclusively to be for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property of the City of Santa Cruz.
Matthew Huffaker, City Manager, or his designee, is hereby designated as the authorized Agent for public and individual assistance to the City of Santa Cruz for the purpose of receipt, processing, and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and federal assistance.
3. 4.
5. The local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist for aperiod of up to seven (7) days, and thereafter by ratification by the City Council, until it is terminated by the City Council.
6. Mattk2.w ffuffakef^ 1/4/2023 DATE;
M A T T H E W H U F F A K E R
C I T Y M A N A G E R / D I R E C T O R O F E M E R G E N C Y
SERVICES
ATTEST:
B O N N I E B U S H
C I T Y C L E R K A D M I N I S T R A T O R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T O R N E Y
C
Distribution:
City Council
Board of Supervisors
G o v e r n o r N e w s o m
Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner
Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services
Bonnie Bush
7.6 Emergency Consolidated Communications Center
Congressmember Jimmy Panetta
Congressmember Anna Eshoo
Senator Bill Monning
Assemblymember Mark Stone
California Office of Emergency Services
County of Santa Cruz Emergency Services Coordinator
City of Santa Cruz Emergency Services Coordinator
City of Capitola Emergency Services Coordinator
City of Scotts Valley Emergency Services Coordinator
City of Watsonville Emergency Services Coordinator
7.7 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/21/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Extending Emergency Declaration in Connection with COVID19 Pandemic by Sixty (60) Days (CA) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution extending by sixty days the Declaration of Emergency in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic and proclaiming the Declaration of Emergency terminated thereafter.
BACKGROUND: At its regular meeting of March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,640 declaring a local health emergency in connection with the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Council’s action followed similar actions by California Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020, and by County of Santa Cruz Health Officer (CHO) Gail Newel on March 6, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the CHO issued a Public Health Order, requiring all Santa Cruz County residents to shelter in place to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the community, and requiring all businesses to cease operations, except for those deemed essential businesses.
On June 15, 2021, as a result of declining positive case counts and hospitalizations, the Governor rescinded a number of restrictions he had instituted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The Governor did not, however, rescind the proclamation of the State of Emergency he issued on March 4, 2020. Shortly after the Governor rescinded the restrictions, positive cases and hospitalizations began to rise locally and across the state due to the emergence of the highly contagious delta variant. Another COVID-19 variant, known as the omicron variant, emerged in late 2021. The omicron BA.5 remains the dominant variant in California and throughout the United States.
On February 25, 2022 and June 17, 2022, as a result of vaccinations rates among Californians and the release of the Governor’s SMARTER Plan, the Governor again rescinded a number of restrictions he had instituted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. While the Governor’s Office has announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023, the State of Emergency currently remains in effect.
Positive cases and hospitalizations continue to fluctuate, with variants of the virus demonstrating the nature of the pandemic is unpredictable and transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly. Further, variants of the virus continue to emerge, and it is unknown at this time whether such variants may result in a new surge in COVID-19 cases.
8.1 The Council has received updates at its regular meetings related to COVID-19 and has extended the March 10, 2020 declaration of local health emergency at its regular meetings of April 28, 2020, June 23, 2020, August 11, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 10, 2020, December 8, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 9, 2021, April 27, 2021, and June 22, 2021, by adopting Resolution Nos. NS-29,653, NS-29,677, NS-29,695, NS-29,714, NS-29,739, NS-29,749, NS29,766, NS-29,782, NS-29,802, and NS-29,839, at its special meeting of September 21, 2021 by adopting Resolution No. NS-29,873, at its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, June 28, 2022, August 23, 2022, October 11, 2022, and November 15, 2022, by adopting Resolution Nos. NS-29,884, NS-29,898, NS-29,924, NS-29,941, NS-29,973, NS-30,006, NS-30,027, NS-30,047, and NS-30,057.
DISCUSSION: During a declared emergency the City Manager, acting as the City’s Emergency Services Director is empowered to take various actions in response to the emergency, including making and issuing “rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency” subject to ratification by the City Council “at the earliest practicable time.”
The Governor has announced his intent to end the COVID-19 State of Emergency on February 28, 2023. As such, it is recommended that the Council extend the declaration of emergency as provided for herein, until February 28, 2023, after which it is recommended that the Council terminate the Declaration of Emergency in connection with COVID-19 pandemic.
FISCAL IMPACT: Actions taken by the City during a declared emergency relating to the response and measures taken to slow the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic and mitigate the effects thereof on our community are potentially recoverable from Cal OES (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council extend the declaration of emergency as provided for herein until it has determined that conditions giving rise to the emergency have been abated.
Prepared By:
Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:
Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
8.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ EXTENDING BY 60 DAYS THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency to exist within the State of California due to the threat posed by COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2020, the County of Santa Cruz Health Officer ("Health Officer"), under her civil authority, declared a Local Health Emergency, finding an imminent and proximate threat to public health and welfare from the introduction of COVID-19 in the County of Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, February 25, 2022 and June 17, 2022, in response to declining COVID-19 case counts and hospitalizations, and percentage of vaccinated Californians, the Governor lifted a number of restrictions put in place to decrease the spread of COVID-19 during the initial progression of the pandemic; and
WHEREAS, while the Governor’s Office has announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023, the State of Emergency currently remains in effect; and WHEREAS, despite initial progress made locally and within the state in addressing the pandemic, the emergence of the highly contagious omicron variant continues to contribute to positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS, positive cases and hospitalizations continue to fluctuate with variants of the virus demonstrating the nature of the pandemic is unpredictable and transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly as the virus evolves; and
WHEREAS, in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Santa Cruz City Council declared a local health emergency re COVID-19 by Resolution No. NS-29,640 on March 10, 2020, extended the emergency declaration by Resolution No. NS-29,653 adopted at its regular meeting of April 28, 2020, and further extended the emergency declaration by Resolution Nos. NS-29,677 on June 23, 2020, NS-29,695 on August 11, 2020, NS 29,714 on September 22, 2020, NS-29,739 on November 10, 2020, NS-29,749 on December 8, 2020, NS-29,766, on January 26, 2021, NS29,782, on March 9, 2021, NS-29,802 on April 27, 2021, and NS-29,839 on June 22, 2021, at its special meeting of September 21, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,873, and further extended the emergency Resolution Nos. NS-29,884 adopted at its regular meeting of November 9, 2021, Resolution No. NS-29-898 on December 14, 2021, Resolution No. NS-29,924, on February 8, 2022, Resolution No. NS-29,941 on March 22, 2022, Resolution No. NS-29,973 on May 10, 2022, Resolution No. NS-30,006 on June 28, 2022, Resolution No. NS-30,027 on August 23, 2022, Resolution No. NS-30,047 on October 11, 2022, and Resolution No. NS-30,057 at its regulation meeting of November 15, 2022, extending the Declaration of Emergency for another sixty days.
8.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 WHEREAS, under the California Emergency Services Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 8630, et seq.), upon declaration of a local emergency, the City Council must review the need for continuing the emergency declaration at least once every sixty (60) days until it terminates the local emergency; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:
A. That the City Council hereby declares that the local health emergency declaration adopted at its March 10, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,640, extended at its April 28, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,653, at its June 23, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,677, at its August 11, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,695, at its September 22, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-19,714, at its November 10, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,739, at its December 8, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,749, at its January 26, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,766, at its March 9, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,782, at its April 27, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,802, at its June 22, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,839, at its September 21, 2021 special meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,873, at its November 9, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29, 884, at its December 14, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No.
NS-29,898, at its February 8, 2022 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,924, at its regular meeting of March 22, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,941, at its regular meeting of May 10, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,973, at its regular meeting of June 28, 2022 by Resolution No. 30,006, at its regular meeting of August 23, 2022 by Resolution No. 30,027, at its regular meeting of October 11, 2022 by Resolution No. 30,047, and at its regular meeting of November 15, 2023 by Resolution No. 30,057, shall be adopted and extended until February 28, 2023; and B. That said local health emergency is hereby proclaimed terminated on February 28, 2023 unless further extended by subsequent City Council action; and C. That, all previously ratified Executive Orders shall remain in force and effect for the duration the emergency, unless sooner rescinded by subsequent City Council action.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
8.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
3 APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
8.5 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/12/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Appointment (CC)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson’s nomination of Gabriela Trigueiro to the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women.
BACKGROUND: The Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women is comprised of members who have been nominated by each Councilmember. When a new Councilmember is elected, or if there is a vacancy for any reason, new commissioners must be nominated.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kalantari Johnson has a nomination to the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, which Council must vote to approve. Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson would like to nominate Gabriela Trigueiro.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. TRIGUEIRO APPLICATION.PDF
9.1 9.2
9.3 MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 13, 2022
9:30 AM
Mayor Brunner opened the City Council Closed Session at 9:31 a.m. in a public meeting via Zoom and in Council Chambers, for the purpose of announcing the agenda, and receiving public testimony.
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
Absent: None.
Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Information Technology K. Morgan, Human Resources Director L. Murphy (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.
10.1 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6303
Referral to Closed Session
1. Purchase of Easements for the Newell Creek Pipeline from Felton to Graham Hill Road and Brackney Landslide Risk Reduction Projects (WT) 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 refer to Closed Session items 5.1—5.28 regarding the purchase of easements needed for the Newell Creek Pipeline Project for purposes of authorizing the Water Director to negotiate easement agreements and to provide direction to the Water Director regarding price, terms of payment, or both.
ACTION: The motion 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.
Public Comment
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period at 9:39 a.m. The following people spoke:
Unidentified person spoke regarding item 3.
Sean Barrow spoke regarding item 3.1.
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period at 9:42 a.m., at which time the meeting was closed to the public and Council adjourned to the Courtyard Conference Room.
10.2 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6304
Closed Session
2. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) Police Officers Association
Police Management Association
SEIU Temporary Employees
City Negotiator – Lisa Murphy
Council received a status report from the City Negotiator, and no reportable action was taken.
3. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) 1) Claimant: Sean O. Barrow
2) Claimant: John Henry McGuire
3) Claimant: Todd Pinsky
4) Claimant: Anthony Pacheco Lopez
5) Claimant: Sandra Loskutoff
6) Claimant: Michael T-Alexander
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz
Council received a status report, took up under agenda item 18, and no reportable action was taken.
4. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) Herman, Martin & Kary v. City of Santa Cruz
(Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 19CV02406)
2) City of Santa Cruz v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00373)
Council received a status report, gave direction, and no reportable action was taken.
10.3 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6305
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) 1) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 065-152-10
Owner: County of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
2) Property: 5999 Graham Hill Rd, Felton
APN: 065-152-17
Owner: Evangelical Free Church of Felton
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Evangelical Free Church of Felton Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
3) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 066-211-03
Owner: Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway Company
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway Company
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
4) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 066-211-09
Owner: Wood VMS Family Limited Partnership
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Wood VMS Family Limited Partnership
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
5) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 066-211-10
Owner: Wood VMS Family Limited Partnership
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Wood VMS Family Limited Partnership
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10.4 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6306
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) (continued) 6) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 066-212-04
Owner: DK Felton Management LLC
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and DK Felton Management LLC Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
7) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 066-212-05
Owner: Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway Company
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway Company
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
8) Property: 7000 Rose Acres Ln, Felton
APN: 071-081-03
Owner: Ronald J Ballauf c/o Elaine Rebecchi
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Ronald J Ballauf c/o Elaine Rebecchi
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
9) Property: No Site Address, Felton
APN: 071-081-14
Owner: Ronald J Ballauf c/o Elaine Rebecchi
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Ronald J Ballauf c/o Elaine Rebecchi
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10) Property: 7240 Rose Acres Ln, Felton
APN: 071-081-24
Owner: Lynn E Weissbart
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Lynn E Weissbart Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10.5 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6307
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) (continued) 11) Property: 8045 Schaaf Rd, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-144-30
Owner: Karl Heinz Schaaf
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Karl Heinz Schaaf Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
12) Property: 234 Caledonium Ave, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-145-28
Owner: Katrin Craig
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Katrin Craig Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
13) Property: 200 Caledonium Ave, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-145-33
Owner: Brian K & Leslee A Warwick
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Brian K & Leslee A Warwick Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
14) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-152-07
Owner: Hai & Nga Nau
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Hai & Nga Nau Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
15) Property: 8260 Oak Ave, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-172-10
Owner: Jason Sage
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Jason Sage
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10.6 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6308
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) (continued) 16) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-172-11
Owner: County of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
17) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-173-01
Owner: John J O’Brien
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and John J O’Brien Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
18) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-174-02
Owner: Helena H Chen
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Helena H Chen Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
19) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-174-04
Owner: Milburn D & Cheryl Lynne Schaaf
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Milburn D & Cheryl Lynne Schaaf Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
20) Property: 7900 Fremont Ave, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-174-06
Owner: Susan C Rines
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Susan C Rines Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
21) Property: 7940 Fremont Ave, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-174-07
Owner: John A & Regina H Urwin
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and John A & Regina H Urwin Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10.7 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6309
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) (continued) 22) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-181-17
Owner: Jamie Keith McDonald
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Jamie Keith McDonald Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
23) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-181-25
Owner: Jamie Keith McDonald
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Jamie Keith McDonald Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
24) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-181-26
Owner: Jamie Keith McDonald
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Jamie Keith McDonald Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
25) Property: No Site Address, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-182-03
Owner: Cheryl Mercurio
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Cheryl Mercurio Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
26) Property: 345 Brackney Rd, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-212-36
Owner: Robert C & Judith A Gremminger
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Robert C & Judith A Gremminger Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
27) Property: 370 Brackney Rd, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-221-18
Owner: Patrick J Randolph
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Patrick J Randolph Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
10.8 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6310
Closed Session (continued)
5. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) (continued) 28) Property: 321 Brackney Rd, Ben Lomond
APN: 072-231-12
Owner: Julie K Daniels
City Negotiator: Rosemary Menard
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Julie K Daniels Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
Council received a status report from the City Negotiator, and no reportable action was taken.
10.9 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6311
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 13, 2022
11:30 AM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 11:32 a.m. in Council Chambers.
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings (arrived at 1:30 p.m.), Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
Absent: None.
Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Public Works M. Dettle, Chief of Police B. Escalante, Director of Planning and Community Development L.
Butler, Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb, Director of Information Technology K. Morgan, Human Resources Director L.
Murphy, Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot, Fire Chief R. Oatey, Assistant Finance Director M. Gomez (via Zoom), Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen (via Zoom), Transportation Planner II C. Gallogly (via Zoom), Senior Planner S. Neuse (via Zoom), Homelessness Response Manager L. Imwalle, Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II M. Hernandez, Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist J. Leonard, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.
Presentations
6. Light Pollution Presentation
Jeff Parry with International Dark Sky Association gave a presentation.
7. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring December 6, 2022 as Nicole Brown Day Mayor Brunner presented a proclamation to Nicole Brown declaring December 6, 2022 as Nicole Brown Day.
10.10 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6312
Presentations (continued)
8. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring December 30, 2022 as Mark Dettle Day Mayor Brunner presented a proclamation to Director of Public Works, Mark Dettle, declaring December 30, 2022 as Mark Dettle Day.
The below item was heard at 3:30 p.m.
9. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring December 13, 2022 as Ryan Coonerty Day Mayor Brunner presented a proclamation to County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty declaring December 13, 2022 as Ryan Coonerty Day.
Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification – None.
Additions and Deletions – None.
City Attorney Report on Closed Session – See pages 6304—6310 for the report.
Council Memberships in City Groups and Outside Agencies
10. The Presiding Officer provided Councilmembers with the opportunity to update Council on any external committee meetings that occurred since the last Council meeting.
Councilmember Brown: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), and Area Agency on Aging (AAA).
Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson: Health In All Policies Committee.
Councilmember Golder: Public Safety Committee.
Vice Mayor Watkins: Public Safety Committee, Santa Cruz Community Farmers’ Market.
Councilmember Cummings (report provided by Mayor Brunner): Criminal Justice Council.
10.11 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6313
Consent Agenda
Vice Mayor Watkins made a comment on item 21.
Councilmember Meyers made a comment on item 26.
Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen responded to Councilmember Brown’s questions regarding item 26.
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke:
Laurie Egan spoke regarding item 26.
Kaiya spoke regarding item 26.
Barbara Riverwoman spoke regarding item 26.
Jane Mio spoke regarding item 26.
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to approve the Consent Agenda.
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Cummings.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
11. Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
Resolution No. NS-30,076 was adopted authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.
10.12 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6314
Consent Agenda (continued)
12. Certification of the November 8, 2022 General Election (CC) Resolution No. NS-30,077 was adopted confirming and approving the canvass of ballots and returns for the City of Santa Cruz General Election held on November 8, 2022, and declaring the following result:
• The following candidates received the highest number of votes for the offices of District 4 Councilmember, District 6 Councilmember, and Mayor:
o Scott Newsome, District 4
o Renee Golder, District 6
o Fred Keeley, Mayor
• Measure N (Empty Homes Tax) failed by a majority vote of the electorate of the City.
• Measure O (Our Downtown, Our Future) failed by a majority vote of the electorate of the City.
• Measure P (Transient Occupancy Tax) passed by a majority vote of the electorate of the City.
13. Minutes of the November 15, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.
14. Minutes of the November 29, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.
15. Minutes of the December 6, 2022 City Council Special Closed Session (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.
10.13 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6315
Consent Agenda (continued)
16. California State Parks Department, Division of Boating and Waterways Shoreline Erosion Control Grant Program – Authorization to Apply For, Accept, and Appropriate Funds for Construction of the West Cliff Drive Revetment Stabilization Project (CM)
Resolution No. NS-30,078 was adopted authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds from the California State Parks Department, Division of Boating and Waterways Shoreline Erosion Control Grant Program for the construction of the West Cliff Drive Revetment Stabilization Project.
17. Santa Cruz Hostel Society and State Coastal Conservancy Agreement (ED) Motion carried authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Santa Cruz Hostel Society and the State Coastal Conservancy, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to protect the public interest in certain improvements and development funded by the Conservancy and authorizing the City Manager to amend the lease with Santa Cruz Hostel Society to run concurrent with the new agreement.
18. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion carried to reject the liability claims of a) Sean O. Barrow, b) John Henry McGuire, c) Todd Pinsky, d) Anthony Pacheco Lopez, e) Sandra Loskutoff, and f) Michael T-Alexander, based on staff recommendation
19. FY 2022 Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report (FN/PW)
Motion carried to accept and approve the attached FY 2022 Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report.
10.14 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6316
Consent Agenda (continued)
20. Resolution Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans and the FY 2023 Budget:
Implementation of California State Minimum Wage Law for 2023 – All Departments (HR)
Resolution No. NS-30,079 was adopted amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans and the FY 2023 budget by implementing the California State Minimum Wage Law for 2023, including adjusting the salary ranges of affected temporary unclassified positions and other salary adjustments to maintain internal pay parity.
21. FY 2022 Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Childcare and Public Safety Impact (Police and Fire) Fees (PL)
Motion carried to accept and approve the attached FY 2022 Impact Fee Report for the Childcare and Public Safety Impact Fees and to direct staff to use the Childcare Impact Fee revenues to help fund the pre-development and development costs associated with the childcare facility in the Library and Affordable Housing Project being contemplated for Lot 4 at the northeast corner of Cedar and Cathcart Streets, should that project ultimately be approved.
22. Award Contract for Centrifuge Control Panel Improvement Project (m409659) (PW)
Motion carried to award a sole source contract with Separator Technology Solutions in the total amount of $364,205.61 to provide services for Centrifuge Control Panel Improvement Project. 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.
10.15 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6317
Consent Agenda (continued)
23. Recycling Building Membrane Structure Replacement Project (c401811) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW)
Motion carried to approve the plans and specifications for the Recycling Building Membrane Structure Replacement Project (c401811) and 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 Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.
24. Recycling Center Concrete Floor Upgrade 2022 (c401811) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion carried to accept the work of Kraemer Engineering Inc (Salinas, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for Recycling Center Concrete Floor Upgrade 2022 (c401811).
25. Ocean Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project (c400809) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW)
Motion carried to approve plans and specifications for the Ocean Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project (c400809), 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 acceptable to the City Attorney.
The Director of Public Works is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.
26. San Lorenzo River Flood Control Project Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Accreditation Vegetation Management and Burrowing Rodent Mitigation Projects (c402112) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW) Motion carried to approve the project scopes and specifications for San Lorenzo Flood Control Project Federal Emergency Management Agency Accreditation Vegetation Management and Burrowing Rodent Mitigation Projects (c402112), 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 changes orders within the approved project budget.
10.16 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6318
Consent Agenda (continued)
27. Beltz Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project – Award of Professional Services Agreement and Budget Adjustment (WT)
Motion carried to:
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney with CDM Smith (Concord, CA) for engineering design services for the Beltz Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project (c702108) and to authorize the Water Director to execute future contract amendments within the approved project budget; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30-080 amending the FY 2023 budget to transfer $500,000 within the Water Department's Capital Investment Program from project c701609 for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Planning to a new project for Beltz Water Treatment Plant Upgrades, c702305.
28. Resolution Supporting an Application by the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency to the California Department of Water Resources for Grant Funding to Support Implementation of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Sustainability Plan (WT)
Resolution No. NS-30,081 was adopted supporting an application to the California Department of Water Resources for grant funding to support implementation of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
29. 2022 Pavement Restoration Project – Notice of Completion (WT) Motion carried to accept the work of JV Lucas Paving, Inc. as complete per the plans and specifications, authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the 2022 Pavement Restoration Project, and authorize the Water Director to sign the Notice of Completion as the Owner’s Authorized Agent.
End Consent Agenda
10.17 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6319
Consent Public Hearings
Transportation Planner II C. Gallogly responded to Councilmember Brown’s questions regarding item 31.
City Attorney T. Condotti responded to Councilmember Golder’s question regarding item 33.
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke:
Candace Brown spoke regarding item 31.
Unidentified person spoke regarding item 31.
Unidentified person spoke regarding item 31.
Unidentified person spoke regarding item 31.
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.
Senior Planner S. Neuse responded to Mayor Brunner’s questions regarding item 31.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember KalantariJohnson, to approve the Consent Public Hearing Agenda.
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brown (with the exception of item 31), Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
NOES: Councilmember Brown (item 31).
ABSENT: Councilmember Cummings.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
30. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-17 - A22-0004:
Amending Section 24.12.1310 of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Title 24 - Zoning Ordinance to Allow Cannabis Retail Deliveries to the City from Legal Retail Delivery Businesses Located within any Jurisdiction within Santa Cruz County (PL)
Motion carried to adopt Ordinance No. 2022-17 amending Section 24.12.1310 of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Title 24 to allow cannabis retail deliveries to the City from legal retail delivery businesses located within any jurisdiction within Santa Cruz County.
10.18 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6320
Consent Public Hearings (continued)
31. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-18 Amending the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for Code Sections Not Included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22-0003); 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-19 Amending the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for Code Sections Included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; that Require Subsequent Coastal Commission Approval; 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-20 Amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code Associated Updates to the Zoning Map inside the Coastal Zone; 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance. No. 2022-21 Amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code Associated Updates to the Zoning Map Outside the Coastal Zone (PL)
Motion carried to:
1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-18 amending Chapters 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for sections not included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan related to objective development standards for multi-family housing, new mixed-use zoning districts, development review process changes, street trees, right-of-way improvements, and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; remove obsolete Sections and references; streamline application processes; and bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformity with state law, also rezoning parcels of property throughout the City to reflect existing General Plan Land Use Allowances; and establish in-lieu fees for street tree removals (File No. FP20-0002) and additional modifications to Municipal Code Title 24 to clarify and update various code sections related to wireless communication facilities, accessory structures, fences, and other minor updates; (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22-0003); and
2) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-19 Amending the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for sections included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan, and in doing so, selecting Option 3 (hybrid) as the policy governing a requirement for public hearings for conforming residential and mixed-use projects; and 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-20 making the proposed amendments to the zoning map, as stated in the ordinance and as shown in the associated map exhibit and parcels list for parcels inside the Coastal Zone, which represent changes to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan; and 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-21 making the proposed amendments to the zoning map, as stated in the ordinance and as shown in the associated map exhibit and parcels list for parcels outside the Coastal Zone; and
10.19 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6321
Consent Public Hearings (continued)
31. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-18 Amending the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for Code Sections Not Included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22-0003); 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-19 Amending the Santa Cruz Municipal Code for Code Sections Included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; that Require Subsequent Coastal Commission Approval; 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-20 Amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code Associated Updates to the Zoning Map inside the Coastal Zone; 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance. No. 2022-21 Amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code Associated Updates to the Zoning Map Outside the Coastal Zone (PL) (continued)
5) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,082 authorizing and directing the City Manager to submit the proposed amendments to Title 24 and proposed amendments to the zoning map as Local Coastal Implementation Plan amendments to the California Coastal Commission for final certification.
32. Municipal Code Amendments Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Junior ADUs, and Associated Changes to Permitting Required by State Law (PL) Motion carried to:
1) Adopt urgency Ordinance No. 2022-22 making specified changes in Chapter
24.16 of the Municipal Code related to ADUs and Junior ADUs in response to recent state code changes; and
2) Direct staff to proceed with developing a regular ordinance that addresses the same state code changes.
33. 404 Centennial Street: CP22-0046 - Right-of-Way Abandonment at the Frontage of the Property at 404 Centennial Street, Located within the R-1-5 (Single Family Residence) Zone District. (Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption) (Owner: Lily Tian & Victor Ge) (PL)
Resolution No. NS-30,083 was adopted acknowledging the environmental determination and approving Right-of-Way Abandonment based on the findings included in the attached resolution.
10.20 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6322
Consent Public Hearings (continued)
34. Amendment to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 19.05.170 Adopting Additional Provision of the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code (FD) Motion carried to introduce for publication Ordinance No. 2022-23 to amend Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) Section 19.05.170 to incorporate California Fire Code Section 311.5 which provides standards for marking unsafe vacant or abandoned buildings or structures.
General Business
35. City of Santa Cruz Children’s Fund Committee Appointments (CC/PR) Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot gave a presentation.
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.
At this time Mayor Brunner split the motion.
MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to appoint Rachel Dann and Donna Geffken to the Children’s Fund Committee (Committee), with terms ending January 31, 2026.
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Cummings.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
Councilmember Golder nominated Vice Mayor Watkins to serve on the committee as the Council representative. By consensus, Vice Mayor Watkins was appointed.
Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson nominated Keisha Browder with United Way as a youth organization representative. By consensus, Keisha Browder was appointed to serve as a committee member.
10.21 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6323
General Business (continued)
35. City of Santa Cruz Children’s Fund Committee Appointments (CC/PR) (continued)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to ratify the members brought forward by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Santa Cruz City School District, and First Five Santa Cruz:
Parks and Recreation Commission: Hollie Locatelli
Santa Cruz City Schools: Kris Munro
First Five Santa Cruz: David Brody
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Cummings.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
36. Homelessness Response Quarterly Update (CM)
Homelessness Response Manager L. Imwalle, Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II M. Hernandez, and Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist J. Leonard gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.
Unidentified person
Meta Self
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.
Council took a break at 3:08 p.m. and returned at 3:33 p.m.
Council took a break at 3:52 p.m. and returned at 4:15 p.m.
Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.
10.22 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6324
Oral Communications
At 4:18 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.
Eric Grodberg spoke regarding a coyote hit by a car in front of his house.
Unidentified person spoke regarding New York City.
Unidentified person spoke regarding homelessness and parking.
Unidentified person spoke regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Unidentified person spoke regarding communication between citizens and Council.
At 4:31 p.m. Mayor Brunner closed Oral Communications.
Recess - The City Council recessed at 4:33 p.m. to the 7:00 p.m. session.
10.23 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6325
City Council
7:00 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
Absent: None.
Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler, Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Human Resources Director L. Murphy (via Zoom), Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Water Director R. Menard (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.
Presentations
37. Remarks by Outgoing Councilmembers Justin Cummings and Donna Meyers Councilmembers Cummings and Meyers made their final remarks as Councilmembers.
38. Remarks by Outgoing Mayor Sonja Brunner
Mayor Brunner made remarks as the outgoing Mayor.
39. Swearing-in and Seating of Newly Elected Mayor Fred Keeley, District 4 Councilmember Scott Newsome, and District 6 Councilmember Renee Golder; Remarks from Councilmembers Newsome and Golder.
City Clerk Administrator B. Bush swore in newly elected Mayor Keeley, District 4 Councilmember Scott Newsome, and District 6 Councilmember Renee Golder.
Councilmembers Newsome and Golder took their seats on the dais and made remarks.
10.24 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6326
Presentations (continued)
At this time, Mayor Keeley moved to item 41 to make his remarks as incoming Mayor and then returned to item 40.
40. Election, Swearing-in, and Remarks of New Vice Mayor MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Watkins, to elect Councilmember Golder as Vice Mayor.
ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brunner, Brown, Watkins, Newsome; Mayor Keeley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
41. Remarks from Mayor Fred Keeley
Adjournment
MOTION: Vice Mayor Golder moved, seconded by Mayor Keeley, to adjourn.
ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner, Brown, Watkins, Newsome; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
The City Council adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
10.25 December 13, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6327
Respectfully Submitted:
Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
10.26 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/28/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: California Department of Water Resources - Authorization of the Submittal of a Grant Application to Study and Develop a Decision Support Tool for Understanding Climate Influenced River Flooding and Flood Control (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for funds from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 1 Round 2 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant (IRWM) Implementation grant to study and develop a decision support tool for understanding climate influenced river flooding and flood control.
BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz is a leader in climate adaptation work in California having adopted two Climate Adaptation Plans in 2012 and 2018.A sea level rise vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability to climate change analysis, along with prioritized adaptation strategy measures were included in the 2018 Climate Adaptation Plan Update (CAPU) an appendix to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Those plans prioritize mitigating the impacts of climate change on flood control capacity. However, no work to date, including FEMA mapping revised in the last decade, addresses the potential for flooding due to sea level rise and increasingly intense winter storms on the urban area and lower watershed currently protected by the San Lorenzo River (SLR) levee system. Together, these impacts will increase flood risk directly via river levels and indirectly by seepage and higher groundwater.
Susceptible to storm fluctuation, the City’s flood control system is comprised of a levee system surrounding the San Lorenzo River (SLR), which divides the City. Prone to seepage and potential unknown risk of overtopping due to increased intensity in precipitation anticipated due to climate change, it is critical that system’s vulnerabilities are understood and mitigated as impacts from flooding to residents and the downtown business district could be catastrophic.
DISCUSSION: Staff have scoped out a project with the City’s existing flood control and water supply hydrologists that will maintain momentum on characterizing climate risks and implementing strategies to bolster the community’s resiliency to climate change. Specifically, the project will enable staff and community members to better understand the potential for climate-influenced riverine flooding in the lower SLR. The City and its consultant team will conduct technical analyses of climate change vulnerabilities on watershed hydrology and river hydraulics to develop a decision support tool that utilizes an adaptation pathways approach.
Adaptation pathways utilizes triggers and thresholds to proactively signal when infrastructure and programming should be implemented to mitigate impacts.
11.1 The City will mobilize key departments, consultants, agencies and outreach to frontline groups in disadvantaged community census tracts that lie in the floodplain to undertake the project by (1) developing hydroclimate scenarios, characterizing extreme streamflows, conducting 2- dimensional hydrodynamic modeling, and developing floodplain mapping, integrated with projected coastal flood mapping produced for the 2018 CAPU and (2) developing a triggersbased decision support tool to identify, sequence and plan policies, programs, infrastructure, and targeted public outreach to guide flood control management and bolster resilience of the flood and water supply systems. The tool will be integrated into the 2023 CAPU & LHMP. Partners will participate in evaluation to understand the efficacy of the adaptation pathways approach.
California’s electorate approved Proposition 1 on November 4, 2014, which contains a total of $7.5 billion for water and natural resource projects and programs, including $510 million for Integrated Regional Water Management Program, with $43 million of that amount allocated to the Central Coast Funding Area. The Proposition 1 – Round 2 IRWM Implementation Grant Program will provide $193 million in funding to support IRWM projects across the state. To apply for grants through this program, project proponents must coordinate through their established IRWM Regional Water Management Group, and the Regional Group must in turn coordinate with other groups within the Proposition 1 IRWM Funding Area. The Central Coast Funding Area has been allocated nearly $20M in funding in this round. Proposals are due February 1, 2023. The Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) is assisting in the preparation of the grant application.
The proposed project meets 2 of the five statewide priorities identified in Governor Newsom’s Water Resilience Portfolio and DWR’s Proposition 1 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines: climate resilience and strenthening of partnerships with local, federal, and tribal governments, water agencies and irrgation districts, and other stakeholders. Furthermore, the project aligns with three of the five Santa Cruz IRWM Plan goals and two of the firve Santa Cruz IRWM Plan objectives, making it highly competitive to be successful in being awarded funds.
In terms of assessing this item with respect to the three pillars of Health in All Policies, the project has a direct nexus with sustainability and public health in that its focus is understanding climate change impacts such that city can ensure public safety from floods. With respect to equity, many historically disadvantaged community members (e.g., lower income, people who do not speak english, and those living without homes) reside in the flood plain and thus there may be greater risk to their safety and living situations due to potential flooding. Ths project will enable the City to understand future climate conditions that could cause future flooding and mitigate those risks to historically disadvantaged community members residing in the flood plain.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this recommendation will not result in an immediate fiscal impact to the General Fund. The current scope of work fees are $240,000, and the City will request $179,375 from the DWR grant, with the remaining amount to complete the project and meet the match requirements coming from the Flood Control Project c409512.
Prepared By:
Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability and Climate
Action Manager
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
11.2 ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
11.3 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES FOR GRANT FUNDING TO STUDY AND DEVELOP A DECISION
SUPPORT TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE INFLUENCED RIVER FLOODING
AND FLOOD CONTROL
WHEREAS, since 2005, the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Regional Water Management Group has collaborated to develop principles, goals, and objectives to support the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan and has successfully obtained competitive grant awards to fund IRWM planning and project implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is a member of the Santa Cruz IRWM Regional Water Management Group and signatory to the 2016 Santa Cruz IRWM Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, California’s electorate approved Proposition 1 on November 4, 2014, which contains a total of $7.5 billion for water and natural resource projects and programs, including $510 million for Integrated Regional Water Management Program, with $43 million of that amount allocated to the Central Coast Funding Area; and WHEREAS, in response to a regional competitive solicitation for projects, two projects proposed by the City of Santa Cruz Public Works (1. A Decision-Support Tool for Understanding Climate Influenced River Flooding and 2. Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station) are recommended for inclusion in a regional application for IRWM Round 2 Implementation funding; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) is serving as the lead applicant on behalf of the Santa Cruz IRWM region and collaborating with the City of Santa Cruz and other public agency project proponents on a proposal to be made to the California Department of Water Resources to obtain a Round 2 IRWM Grant pursuant to the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Water Code § 79700 et seq.) in January 2023 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 proposal package to the Round 2 Implementation Grant in the amount of $1779,375 and the inclusion of the aforementioned project to be implemented by the City of Santa Cruz as part of the IRWM grant funded efforts.; and
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, all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and amendments thereto and appropriate funds from the California Department of Water Resources
11.4 to obtain a Round 2 IRWM Grant to implement and carry out the project entitled, “A DecisionSupport Tool for Understanding Climate-Influenced River Flooding.” PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
11.5 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/12/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Appointment of Representatives to External Agencies, Groups, Council Committees and Task Forces (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to appoint representatives to external agencies, groups, City Council committees and task forces for the 2023 calendar year.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the Mayor presents a list of proposed appointments to represent the City of Santa Cruz (City) on a variety of boards, committees and groups both internally and externally. The nominations are presented for City Council review and official appointment.
DISCUSSION: Council must approve Mayor Keeley’s nominations as presented in the 2023 Council Membership List attachment.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:
Fred Keeley
Mayor
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DRAFT 2023 COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP IN CITY GROUPS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES.DOCX
12.1 Council Membership in City Groups and Outside Agencies (2023) DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL 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
Assigned Staff
Community Programs Brown, Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner Tiffany Wise-West Public Safety Watkins, Golder, Brunner Emeline Nguyen
City Council Ad Hoc Committees Assigned Staff
Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee Brown, Newsome, Golder Elizabeth Cabell Health in All Policies Committee Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson, Watkins Tiffany Wise-West Outdoor Dining Subcommittee Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner, Newsome Rebecca Unitt External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Assigned Staff
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG)
Brown, Newsome (alternate) Lee Butler
City–Santa Cruz City Schools Committee Watkins, Golder, Kalantari-Johnson Tony Elliot City Select Committee Mayor Keeley Matt Huffaker
Library Financing Authority Brunner, Watkins (alternate) Matt Huffaker Homelessness 2x2 Committee Golder, Mayor Keeley 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
Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Policy Committee (Monterey Bay
Division)
Mayor Keeley, Brunner (alternate)
Matt Huffaker, Tiffany Wise-West (alternate)
Matt Huffaker
Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local
Task Force
Newsome, Golder, (alternate)
Bob Nelson, Leslie
O’Malley (staff
alternate)
Santa Cruz County Consolidated Redevelopment
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Mayor Keeley Bonnie Lipscomb
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board (METRO) Kalantari-Johnson, Newsome Claire Gallogly Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC)
Mayor Keeley, Brown(alternate) Nathan Nguyen
Claire Gallogly
(alternate)
Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Mayor Keeley, Former Water Commissioner David Baskin, Water Commissioner Doug Engfer (alternate)
Rosemary Menard
12.2 External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Assigned Staff
Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency Water Commissioner Doug Engfer, Former Water Commissioner David Baskin (citizen alternate)
Rosemary Menard
Joint Powers Authorities/City Groups Staff Appointments Agency Contact Information Santa Cruz County Animal Services
Authority
Laura Schmidt, Jon Bush 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 Matt Huffaker 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, Watkins (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 Mayor Keeley, Tiffany Wise-West (staff) Tiffany Wise-West [email protected]
Cowell Working Group Golder, Tony Elliot (staff) CWG Facilitated by Save the Waves Criminal Justice Council Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson (alternate), Bernie Escalante
Criminal Justice Council of Santa Cruz County
[email protected]
Downtown Management Corporation Brown, Newsome, 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 Brunner, Newsome (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
12.3 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/27/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to reject the liability claims of a) Koen Hian Liem, b) Liberty Mutual Insurance, c) Robert Fleck, and d) Leanne N. Hunter, based on staff recommendation.
BACKGROUND: N/A
DISCUSSION: I. Claims to be rejected:
a. Claimant: Koen Hian Liem
Date of occurrence: 10/20/2022
Date of claim: 11/17/2022
Amount of claim: $4,471.91
Claimant seeks compensation for damages to their vehicle allegedly caused by a City of Santa Cruz garbage truck.
Self-Represented
b. Claimant: Liberty Mutual Insurance
Date of occurrence: 11/02/2022
Date of claim: 11/29/2022
Amount of claim: $2,403.44
Claimant seeks reimbursement for services to clean their insured’s property after damage was allegedly caused by a clog in the City’s sewer line.
Self-Represented
c. Claimant: Robert Fleck
Date of occurrence: 6/14/2022
Date of claim: 11/30/2022
Amount of claim: Unspecified
Claimant seeks reimbursement for injuries and damages allegedly resulting from tripping on uneven sidewalk.
13.1 Represented by legal counsel
d. Claimant: Leanne N. Hunter
Date of occurrence: 6/18/2022
Date of claim: 12/08/2022
Amount of claim: Unspecified
Claimant seeks reimbursement for injuries and damages allegedly caused by dangerous road conditions.
Represented by legal counsel
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Ross Brandon
Risk & Safety Manager
Submitted By:
Elizabeth Cabell
Finance Director
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
13.2 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/29/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: Energy Efficiency Projects Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp (FN) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement and Escrow Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp relating to the financing of energy efficiency projects to be undertaken pursuant to an agreement with SitelogiQ, and approving related documents and actions.
BACKGROUND: On June 28, 2022, SitelogiQ presented energy efficiency improvement projects to the City Council, relating to the following three City sites: Civic Auditorium, Soquel/Front Parking Garage, and Harvey West Park. The Civic Auditorium project includes a new roof, solar array, and new Automatic Logic Corporation (“ALC”) boiler controls. The Soquel/Front Parking Garage project includes a solar array that will provide sunshade to vehicles parked on the top floor of the garage. The Harvey West Park project includes solar arrays that will provide sunshade over the ballfield bleacher seats, and LED lighting at all field locations.
The total cost of these projects is $6,115,440.
As part of SitelogiQ’s package to City Council on June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution to apply and accept funding for a California Energy Commission (“CEC”) Energy Conservation Assistance Act (“ECAA”) Loan. The City’s ECAA Loan is in the amount of $2,424,224, the maximum amount offered for this loan, and has an interest rate of 1.00%.
Principal and interest payments are due semi-annually, beginning December 22, 2024, and ending December 22, 2042. The ECAA Loan will support the necessary work related to all solar improvements at the Civic Auditorium, Soquel/Front Parking Garage, and Harvey West Park, as well as the LED lighting at the Harvey West Park ballfields.
The remaining costs not funded by the ECAA Loan will be funded with a tax-exempt municipal equipment lease and $400,000 from Parks and Recreation’s project c302218 Harvey West Ballfield Lighting. The tax-exempt municipal equipment lease will fund construction upgrades to the three facilities, such as the Civic Auditorium’s roof, steel supporting structures for Soquel/Front Street Garage and Harvey West Park, and new light poles for Harvey West Park.
DISCUSSION: To assist with the process of executing a tax-exempt municipal equipment lease, City staff engaged NHA Advisors (“NHA”), a municipal advisor, in the fall of 2022. NHA
14.1 is the most active municipal advisor to Northern California cities since 20181 and has worked on
similar energy efficiency projects for other cities. NHA worked with City staff to review the feasibility of the proposed projects and projected energy savings, as well as structure the taxexempt municipal equipment lease payments to minimize the annual debt burden on the General Fund and optimize savings from the energy efficiency projects.
Due to the relatively small size of the tax-exempt municipal equipment lease, as well as the volatile market conditions (rising interest rates) in the public offering/bond market, NHA and City staff decided to utilize a private placement process (direct loan with a bank), rather than a public offering (bond issued to investors). The City therefore engaged Oppenheimer & Co. (“Oppenheimer”) as the placement agent for the transaction. Oppenheimer has served as placement agent on the most private placements in California over the last 5 years.2 Oppenheimer contacted 15 banks in a formalized lender request for proposal (RFP) process, requesting interest rates for a 20-year tax-exempt lease. Six banks responded to the lender RFP, with interest rates ranging from 3.71% to 5.34% (four of the six bids were above 4.50%). Three of those six banks could only offer a lease up to 15 years, with the other three banks able to offer the desired 20-year term. The banks that declined to respond did so for a variety of reasons, including having reached capacity for lending this year, not participating in energy efficiency equipment lease structures, and at least one declining due to the City’s declaration of a fiscal emergency this past year.
The 3.71% interest rate, proposed by Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“BAPCC”), was significantly lower than all other bids. The other two banks that could offer a 20-year term proposed interest rates at or above 5.00%. City staff signed BAPCC’s term sheet on December 9, 2022, to lock in the terms of BAPCC’s proposal. Accordingly, City staff are now recommending that the City enter into a 2023 Energy Equipment Lease (“2023 Lease”) with BAPCC.
The 2023 Lease will have a 20-year term, maturing December 1, 2042, with annual debt service payments escalating at approximately 2.00%. BAPCC has provided a fixed 3.71% interest rate for the 2023 Lease. This interest rate is locked through January 31, 2023, which removes the risk that interest rates rise before the 2023 Lease closes and funds on January 17, 2023. The 2023 Lease also includes the optionality for the City to prepay the 2023 Lease early, on any payment date, at 102% of the outstanding principal balance. The 2023 Lease is projected to have a final par of $3,807,000, which will cover the projected energy efficiency project costs ($3,691,216) and the financing costs relating to the 2023 Lease ($115,000).
Based upon the energy savings pro-forma prepared by SitelogiQ (see Attachment #4), implementing the energy efficiency projects is estimated to generate total utility cost savings of approximately $22,600,000 for the City through fiscal year 2052-53. Once the debt service costs of the ECAA Loan and 2023 Lease are factored in, as well as the costs associated with operation, maintenance, and management of the energy efficiency improvements, the net savings through fiscal year 2052-53 are estimated to be approximately $13,800,000 on a cumulative basis and approximately $7,200,000 on a present value basis.
1 Source: California State Treasurer as of November 2022 (counties north of Kern County; excludes conduit financings); Ranked by number of sold transactions.
2 Source: California State Treasurer as of November 2022
14.2 Next Steps & Timeline:
In order for the City to enter into the 2023 Lease, City Council will need to approve the 2023 Lease documents and a related Escrow and Account Control Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”), and authorize City staff to sign the documents and take other necessary actions.
Once City staff have City Council approval and authorization, they expect to finalize and sign the 2023 Lease documents and close the financing on January 17, 2023.
Discussion of Lease Documents:
• Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement: The Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (“ELPA”) outlines the terms governing the 2023 Lease. The ELPA also identifies the location of the energy improvements and that the security for the 2023 Lease is a lien on the equipment. This lien will be in place until the 2023 Lease matures in December 2042 or is otherwise prepaid in accordance with the 2023 Lease terms. The ELPA also contains the payment details, prepayment provisions, and other covenants of the City. • Escrow and Account Control Agreement: The Escrow Agreement is among BAPCC, the City, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as escrow agent (the “Escrow Agent”). Under the Escrow Agreement, the proceeds of the 2023 Lease will be held by the Escrow Agent and disbursed to pay costs of the energy efficiency projects based on requisitions filed by the City with the Escrow Agent.
2023 Lease Financing Team:
As part of this resolution, the Bond Counsel (Jones Hall), the Municipal Advisor (NHA Advisors), and the Placement Agent (Oppenheimer & Co.) will be formally engaged. All participants of the 2023 Lease financing team are listed below. • Bond Counsel: Jones Hall
• Energy Savings Company: SiteloqiQ
• Escrow Agent: Wilmington Trust
• Lessee: City of Santa Cruz
• Lessor: Banc of America Public Capital Corp
• Lessor’s Counsel: Chapman and Cutler LLP
• Municipal Advisor: NHA Advisors
• Placement Agent: Oppenheimer & Co.
FISCAL IMPACT: The 2023 Lease has ascending debt service payments, with approximately $194,000 due in fiscal year 2023-24, ascending to $339,000 due in fiscal year 2042-43. The costs associated with issuing the 2023 Lease will be paid out of the proceeds of the 2023 Lease (no direct budgetary impact). Annual net savings from implementing the energy efficiency projects averages $135,000 for the initial 20-year term from fiscal year 2023-24 to fiscal year 2042-43 (see SitelogiQ’s energy savings pro-forma as Attachment #4 for more detail).
Prepared/Submitted By:
Elizabeth Cabell
Finance Director
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
14.3 ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
2. EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT VF.DOCX
3. ESCROW AND ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT VF.DOCX
4. SITELOGIQ ENERGY SAVINGS PRO-FORMA 221216.PDF
14.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-_______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN EQUIPMENT
LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT WITH
BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP RELATING TO THE
FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH SITELOGIQ, AND APPROVING
RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City is undertaking energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy generation projects for use at existing City sites, including solar power generation and shade structures, ballfield lighting, new boiler controls and roof restoration at the Civic Auditorium, and facilities to provide energy management services (the “Energy Efficiency Projects”)’ and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted its Resolution No. NS-30,014 on June 28, 2022, approving an energy services proposal from SitelogIQ for the design and construction of the Energy Efficiency Projects following a public hearing the notice of which was published at least two weeks prior thereto, pursuant to Sections 4217.10 and following of the California Government Code (the “Energy Conservation Law”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously been presented with information relating to the energy costs savings which are expected to be achieved from the Energy Efficiency Projects, and the City Council has previously found and determined pursuant to Resolution No. NS-30,014 that the costs of the Energy Efficiency Projects are projected to be paid with revenues resulting from cost savings from the Energy Efficiency Projects, funds that would have otherwise been used for energy purchases in the absence of the Energy Efficiency Projects, or both, in accordance with the Energy Conservation Law; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide financing for the Energy Efficiency Projects, the City has received a written proposal from Banc of America Public Capital Corp (the "Lessor") to enter into an Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement with the City (the “Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement”), the form of which is on file with the City Clerk Administrator; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the administration of funds realized as a result of the delivery of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, the City Council has been presented with an Escrow and Account Control Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") among the City, the Lessor and Wilmington Trust, National Association as escrow agent, the form of which is on file with the City Clerk Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the execution and delivery of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement will be in compliance with the Debt Issuance and Management Policy which has been adopted by the City Council; and
14.5 WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 5852.1, the financial disclosures required to be presented to the City Council and disclosed with respect to the financing of the Energy Efficiency Projects pursuant to the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement are set forth in Exhibit A and are hereby made public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes at this time to approve and authorize the execution and delivery of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and all related documents and actions, for the purpose of providing funds to finance the Energy Efficiency Projects in furtherance of the public purposes of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of Trustees of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council hereby confirms that it has previously made the findings and determinations required by Section 4217.13 of the Energy Conservation Law, being that based on information provided to the City Council, funds for the repayment of the Lease/Purchase Agreement or the cost of design, construction, and operation of the Energy Efficiency Projects, or both, are projected to be available from either revenues resulting from sales of electricity or thermal energy from the Energy Efficiency Projects, or from funding that otherwise would have been used for purchase of electrical, thermal, or other energy required by the City in the absence of the Energy Efficiency Projects, or both.
Section 2. Approval of Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement in the form on file with the City Clerk Administrator, together with any changes thereto as shall be approved by the City Manager, whose execution thereof shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the terms of the Lease/Purchase Agreement are in the best interests of the City for the purpose of providing financing for the Energy Efficiency Projects; provided that the principal amount of the financing for the Energy Efficiency Projects shall not exceed $3,825,000 and the rate of interest on the financing shall be determined as set forth in the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the final form of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement in the name and on behalf of the City.
Section 3. Approval of Escrow Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Escrow Agreement in the form on file with the City Clerk Administrator, together with any changes thereto as shall be approved by the City Manager, whose execution thereof shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the final form of the Escrow Agreement in the name and on behalf of the City.
Section 4. Engagement of Professional Services. The City Council hereby approves the engagement of NHA Advisors LLC to serve as municipal advisor to the City, the firm of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, to serve as bond counsel to the City, and the firm of Brandis Tallman, a Division of Oppenheimer and Co. Inc. to act as placement agent to the City, in connection with the financing of the Energy Efficiency Projects as described in this Resolution.
Said firms shall be engaged pursuant to the agreements in the respective forms on file with the
14.6 City Clerk Administrator. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute each of said agreements on behalf of the City.
Section 5. Official Actions to Close the Financing. The Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the City Clerk Administrator and all other officers and representatives of the City are each authorized and directed in the name and on behalf of the City to execute and deliver any and all certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, warrants and other documents, which they or any of them might deem necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the lawful execution and delivery of the Lease/Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and any other document required to accomplish the financing described herein. Whenever in this Resolution any officer of the City is authorized to execute or countersign any document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or action may be taken on behalf of such officer by any person designated by such officer to act on his or her behalf if such officer is absent or unavailable.
Section 6. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz at a regular meeting held on January 10, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
14.7 EXHIBIT A
REQUIRED GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5852.1
1. True Interest Cost of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement: 3.7048%.
2. Finance charge of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, being the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties in the amount of $115,000.
3. Amount of proceeds of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement expected to be received by the City, net of proceeds for Costs of Issuance in (2) above and net of capitalized interest (if any) and reserves (if any) paid or funded with the proceeds of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement: $3,692,000.
4. Total payment amount for the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, being the sum of (a) debt service to be paid to final maturity, plus (b) any financing costs not paid from proceeds of the Lease Agreement: $5,614,145. *All amounts and percentages are estimates, and are made in good faith by the City based on information available as of the date of adoption of this Resolution.
14.8 Santa Cruz ELPA (CA Annual Appropriation) [Fun.Accp.] 4895-2264-3011 v7.docx 2308435
EQUIPMENT LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(ESCROW ACCOUNT)
This Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (this “Agreement”) dated as of ___________, 2023, and entered into by and between Banc of America Public Capital Corp, a Kansas corporation (together with its successors, assigns and transferees, and as more particularly defined herein, “Lessor”), and City of Santa Cruz, a general law city existing under the laws of the State of California (“Lessee”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease and acquire from Lessor certain Equipment (as such term is defined herein), subject to the terms and conditions hereof; and, WHEREAS, Lessee is authorized under the constitution and laws of the State (as such term is defined herein) to enter into this Agreement for the purposes set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the premises hereinafter contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
Section 1.01. Definitions. The following terms will have the meanings indicated below unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
“Acquisition Amount” means $[________________]. The Acquisition Amount is the amount represented by Lessee to be sufficient, together with [the Lessee’s Contribution and] other funds of Lessee (if any) that are legally available for the purpose of acquiring and installing the Equipment.
“Acquisition Period” means the period ending five (5) business days prior to ______________________.
“Agreement” means this Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, including the exhibits hereto, together with any amendments and modifications to this Agreement pursuant to Section 13.04.
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each reference to a Section of the Code herein shall be deemed to include the relevant United States Treasury Regulations proposed or in effect thereunder.
“Collateral” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.02.
14.9 -2-
“Commencement Date” means the date when Lessee’s obligation to pay rent commences hereunder, which shall be the date on which the Acquisition Amount is deposited with the Escrow Agent.
“Contract Rate” means the rate identified as such in the Payment Schedule. “Disbursement Request” means the disbursement request attached to the Escrow Agreement as Schedule 1 and made a part thereof.
“Equipment” means the equipment, fixtures and other goods and property listed in the Equipment Schedule and all replacements, repairs, restorations, modifications and improvements thereof or thereto made pursuant to Article V or Section 8.01. Whenever reference is made in this Agreement to Equipment, such reference shall be deemed to include all such replacements, repairs, restorations, modifications and improvements of or to such Equipment. “Equipment Costs” means the total cost of the Equipment, including related soft costs such as freight, installation and taxes and other capitalizable costs, and other costs incurred in connection with the acquisition, installation and/or financing of the Equipment. “Equipment Schedule” means the Equipment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof (including any duly authorized and executed amendments thereto). “Escrow Account” means the account established and held by the Escrow Agent pursuant to the Escrow Agreement.
“Escrow Agent” means the Escrow Agent identified in the Escrow Agreement, and its successors and assigns.
“Escrow Agreement” means the Escrow and Account Control Agreement in form and substance acceptable to and executed by Lessee, Lessor and the Escrow Agent, pursuant to which the Escrow Account is established and administered.
[“ESSER Funds” means funds received by the Lessee pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund) established as part of the Education Stabilization Fund in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (Mar. 27, 2020) and paid by Lessee for the ESSER Fund Equipment as described in Section 4.09 hereof.]
“Event of Default” means an Event of Default described in Section 12.01. “Event of Non-appropriation” means the failure of Lessee’s governing body to appropriate or otherwise make available funds to pay Rental Payments under this Agreement following the Original Term or then current Renewal Term sufficient for the continued performance of this Agreement by Lessee.
“Lease Term” means the Original Term and all Renewal Terms.
14.10 -3-
“Lessee” means the entity referred to as Lessee in the first paragraph of this Agreement. “[Lessee’s Contribution]” [means the amount paid by Lessee in excess of the Acquisition Amount from legally available funds for the purposes provided in Section 4.08 hereof.] “Lessor” means (a) the entity referred to as Lessor in the first paragraph of this Agreement and its successors or (b) any assignee or transferee of any right, title or interest of Lessor in and to this Agreement pursuant to Section 11.01 hereof, including the right, title and interest of Lessor in and to the Equipment, the Rental Payments and other amounts due hereunder, the Escrow Agreement and Escrow Account and other Collateral, but does not include any entity solely by reason of that entity retaining or assuming any obligation of Lessor to perform hereunder. “Lien” means any lien (statutory or otherwise), security interest, mortgage, deed of trust, pledge, hypothecation, assignment, deposit arrangement, encumbrance, preference, priority or other security or preferential arrangement of any kind or nature whatsoever (including, without limitation, any conditional sale or other title retention agreement, any financing lease having substantially the same economic effect as any of the foregoing and the filing of any financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code or comparable law of any jurisdiction). “Material Adverse Change” means any change in Lessee’s creditworthiness that could have a material adverse effect on (i) the financial condition or operations of Lessee, or (ii) Lessee’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. “Original Term” means the period from the Commencement Date until the end of the fiscal year of Lessee in effect at such Commencement Date.
“Outstanding Balance” means the amount that is shown for each Rental Payment Date under the column titled “Outstanding Balance” on the Payment Schedule. “Payment Schedule” means the Payment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
“Prepayment Price” means the amount that is shown for each Rental Payment Date under the column titled “Prepayment Price” on the Payment Schedule. “Principal Portion” means the amount that is shown for each Rental Payment Date under the column titled “Principal Portion” on the Payment Schedule. “Related Documents” means this Agreement and the Escrow Agreement, each as may be amended and supplemented.
“Renewal Terms” means the consecutive renewal terms of this Agreement, the first of which commences immediately after the end of the Original Term and each having a duration and a term coextensive with each successive fiscal year of Lessee; provided that the final such Renewal Term shall commence on the first day of the last such fiscal year and end on the first business day after the last scheduled Rental Payment Date.
14.11 -4-
“Rental Payment Date” means each date on which Lessee is required to make a Rental Payment under this Agreement as specified in the Payment Schedule. “Rental Payments” means the basic rental payments payable by Lessee on the Rental Payment Dates and in the amounts as specified in the Payment Schedule, consisting of a principal component and an interest component, and in all cases sufficient to repay such principal component and interest thereon at the applicable Contract Rate (or Taxable Rate if then in effect). “Scheduled Term” means the Original Term and all scheduled Renewal Terms, with a final Renewal Term ending on ____________, 20__, as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. “SEC” means the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “[SitelogIQ] Contract” means [certain ______________ dated as of _______, 20__, between Lessee and [SitelogIQ], as modified by that certain Memorandum of Understanding dated as of _______________, 2023, among Lessee, Lessor and [SitelogIQ]]. “Special Counsel” means Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation. “State” means the State of California.
“Taxable Rate” means, for each day that the interest component of Rental Payments is taxable for Federal income tax purposes, an interest rate equal to the Contract Rate plus a rate sufficient such that the total interest to be paid on any Rental Payment Date would, after such interest was reduced by the amount of any Federal, state or local income tax (including any interest, penalties or additions to tax) actually imposed thereon, equal the amount of interest otherwise due to Lessor.
“Vendor” means the manufacturer, installer or supplier of the Equipment or any other person as well as the agents or dealers of the manufacturer, installer or supplier with whom Lessee arranged Lessee’s acquisition, installation, maintenance and/or servicing of the Equipment, and includes, without limitation, [SitelogIQ] (“[SitelogIQ]”). “Vendor Agreement” means any contract entered into by Lessee and any Vendor for the acquisition, installation, maintenance and/or servicing of the Equipment, and includes, without limitation, the [SitelogIQ] Contract.
ARTICLE II
Section 2.01. Representations and Covenants of Lessee. Lessee represents, covenants and warrants for the benefit of Lessor on the date hereof as follows:
(a) Lessee is a political subdivision of the State within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the Code, duly organized and existing under the constitution and laws of the State, with full power and authority to enter into the Related Documents and the transactions contemplated thereby and to perform all of its obligations thereunder.
14.12 -5-
(b) Lessee has duly authorized the execution and delivery of the Related Documents by proper action of its governing body at a meeting duly called, regularly convened and attended throughout by the requisite quorum of the members thereof, or by other appropriate official approval, and all requirements have been met and procedures have occurred in order to ensure the validity and enforceability of the Related Documents. (c) No event or condition that constitutes, or with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both would constitute, an Event of Default exists at the date hereof. No Event of Non-appropriation has occurred or is threatened with respect to this Agreement. (d) Lessee will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep in full force and effect its existence as a city of the State. (e) Lessee has complied with such procurement and public bidding requirements as may be applicable to the Related Documents and the acquisition and installation by Lessee of the Equipment.
(f) During the Lease Term, the Equipment will be used by Lessee only for the purpose of performing essential governmental or proprietary functions of Lessee consistent with the permissible scope of Lessee’s authority. Lessee does not intend to sell or otherwise dispose of the Equipment or any interest therein prior to the last Rental Payment (including all Renewal Terms) scheduled to be paid hereunder. (g) Lessee has kept, and throughout the Lease Term shall keep, its books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied, and shall deliver to Lessor (i) annual audited financial statements (including (1) a balance sheet, (2) statement of revenues, expenses and changes in fund balances for budget and actual, (3) statement of cash flows, and (4) footnotes, schedules and attachments to the financial statements) within two hundred seventy (270) days after the end of its fiscal year, (ii) such other financial statements and information as Lessor may reasonably request, and (iii) upon Lessor’s request, its annual budget for any prior or current fiscal year or for the following fiscal year when approved but not later than thirty (30) days prior to the end of its current fiscal year. The financial statements described in this subsection (g)(i) shall be accompanied by an unqualified opinion of Lessee’s independent auditor. Credit information relating to Lessee may be disseminated among Lessor and any of its affiliates and any of their respective successors and assigns. (h) Lessee has an immediate need for the Equipment and expects to make immediate use of the Equipment. Lessee’s need for the Equipment is not temporary and Lessee does not expect the need for any item of the Equipment to diminish during the Scheduled Term.
(i) The payment of the Rental Payments or any portion thereof is not (under the terms of this Agreement or any underlying arrangement) directly or indirectly (x) secured by any interest in property used or to be used in any activity carried on by any person other than a state or local governmental unit or payments in respect of such property;
14.13 -6-
or (y) on a present value basis, derived from payments (whether or not to Lessee) in respect of property, or borrowed money, used or to be used in any activity carried on by any person other than a state or local governmental unit. The Equipment will not be used, directly or indirectly, in any activity carried on by any person other than a state or local governmental unit. No portion of the Acquisition Amount will be used, directly or indirectly, to make or finance loans to any person other than Lessee. Lessee has not entered into any management or other service contract with respect to the use and operation of the Equipment. (j) There is no pending litigation, tax claim, proceeding or dispute that may adversely affect Lessee’s financial condition or impairs its ability to perform its obligations under the Related Documents. Lessee will, at its expense, maintain its legal existence and do any further act and execute, acknowledge, deliver, file, register and record any further documents Lessor may reasonably request in order to protect Lessor’s first priority security interest in the Equipment and the Escrow Account and Lessor’s rights and benefits under the Related Documents.
(k) Lessee is the fee owner of the real estate where the Equipment is and will be located (the “Real Property”) and has good and marketable title thereto, and there exists no mortgage, pledge, Lien, security interest, charge or other encumbrance of any nature whatsoever on or with respect to such Real Property. In the event any lien, encumbrance, restriction, asserted encumbrance, claim, dispute or other issue exists or arises with respect to the Lessee’s legal title to or valid and marketable, beneficial use and enjoyment of the Real Property or impairs or adversely impacts Lessor’s right, title or interest in the Equipment or any of Lessor’s rights or remedies under this Agreement with respect to the Equipment (each of the foregoing referred to as a “Real Property Issue”), Lessee will take all steps necessary to promptly quiet, resolve and/or eliminate such Real Property Issue to the satisfaction of Lessor and ensure that Lessee and Lessor have adequate access to and use of (including beneficial use and enjoyment of) the Real Property for all purposes of the Equipment contemplated herein and Lessee shall ensure that its fee interest in the Real Property and Lessor’s right, title or interest in the Equipment and rights or remedies under this Agreement with respect to the Equipment remain free and clear of Real Property Issues.
(l) No lease, rental agreement, lease-purchase agreement, payment agreement or contract for purchase to which Lessee has been a party at any time has been terminated by Lessee as a result of insufficient funds being appropriated in any fiscal year. No event has occurred which would constitute an event of default under any debt, revenue bond or obligation which Lessee has issued during the past ten (10) years. (m) Lessee represents to Lessor that that it has adopted a debt policy in compliance with SB 1029 and Section 8855 of the Government Code of California et seq. and covenants that it shall comply with Section 8855 of the Government Code of California et seq. as amended (the “CDIAC Act”) throughout the Lease Term, including (i) preparing, submitting and filing the report of the proposed debt issuance relating to this Agreement by the method required by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”), (ii) preparing, submitting and filing the report of final sale (and accompanying
14.14 -7-
documents) relating to this Agreement by the method required by CDIAC, (iii) submitting an annual report relating to the report of final sale for this Agreement by the method required by CDIAC, and (iv) paying all fees charged by CDIAC or the CDIAC Act relating to this Agreement, including, but not limited to the fee in an amount equal to one-fortieth of one percent of the Acquisition Amount or as otherwise prescribed by the CDIAC Act. (n) As of the date of execution and delivery of this Agreement, Lessee has not granted any Lien on the Collateral that would be senior in priority to, or pari passu with, the first priority Lien on the Collateral granted to Lessor under Section 6.02 of this Agreement.
(o) The street addresses and legal descriptions affixed to the UCC-1 financing statements and fixture filings filed and recorded pursuant to Section 3.04(vi), Section 6.01 and/or Section 6.02 hereof are true, accurate and complete street addresses and legal descriptions of all the properties on which the Equipment is located or to be installed. In the event any street address, legal description, other information, UCC-1 financing statement or fixture filing (or continuations or amendments thereof) filed or recorded with respect to the Lessor’s interests in the Equipment or any of the real property on which the Equipment is located or to be installed reflects any incorrect or incomplete real property legal description, equipment description or other information, Lessee shall take all steps necessary (with the Lessor’s prior written approval) to promptly correct any errors or deficiencies with respect to such legal descriptions, street address, other information, UCC-1 financing statements and/or fixture filings and to protect Lessor’s interests in the Equipment.
(p) Lessee will pay all Equipment Costs and costs of issuance in excess of the Acquisition Amount available therefor out of its own funds. Lessor shall not have any responsibility to pay amounts for any Equipment Costs or costs of issuance with respect to the Related Documents or the Equipment that individually or collectively exceed the Acquisition Amount.
(q) Lessee has complied with California Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq. and other applicable State law, as and to the extent applicable, with respect to the authorization of this Agreement and the financing and acquisition by the Lessee of the Equipment.
(r) To the extent applicable, as determined by Lessee in its sole discretion, Lessee has complied with the requirements of California Government Code Section 5852.1 et seq. in connection with this Agreement and the Equipment. (s) In connection with the Lessee’s compliance with any continuing disclosure undertakings (each, a “Continuing Disclosure Agreement”) entered into by the Lessee pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-12 promulgated pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Rule”), the Lessee may be required to file with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access system, or its successor (“EMMA”), notice of its incurrence of its obligations under the Related
14.15 -8-
Documents and notice of any accommodation, waiver, amendment, modification of terms or other similar events reflecting financial difficulties in connection with the Related Documents, in each case including posting a full copy thereof or a description of the material terms thereof (each such posting, an “EMMA Posting”). Except to the extent required by applicable law, including the Rule, the Lessee shall not file or submit or permit the filing or submission of any EMMA Posting that includes the following unredacted confidential information about the Lessor or its affiliates and the Escrow Agent in any portion of such EMMA Posting: address, account information and logos of the Lessor or its affiliates and the Escrow Agent; e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, names and signatures of officers, employees and signatories of the Lessor or its affiliates and the Escrow Agent; and the form of Disbursement Request that is attached to the Escrow Agreement.
The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lessor and its affiliates are not responsible for the Lessee’s or any other entity’s (including, but not limited to, any broker-dealer’s) compliance or noncompliance (or any claims, losses or liabilities arising therefrom) with the Rule, any Continuing Disclosure Agreement or any applicable securities or other laws, including but not limited to those relating to the Rule.
ARTICLE III
Section 3.01. Lease of Equipment. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Lessor agrees to provide the Acquisition Amount to acquire the Equipment. Lessor hereby demises, leases and transfers to Lessee, and Lessee hereby acquires, rents and leases from Lessor, the Equipment. The Lease Term may be continued, solely at the option of Lessee, at the end of the Original Term or any Renewal Term for the next succeeding Renewal Term up to the maximum Scheduled Term as set forth in the Payment Schedule. At the end of the Original Term and at the end of each Renewal Term until the maximum Scheduled Term has been completed, Lessee shall be deemed to have exercised its option to continue this Agreement for the next Renewal Term unless Lessee shall have terminated this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.03 or Section 10.01 of this Agreement. The terms and conditions during any Renewal Term shall be the same as the terms and conditions during the Original Term, except that the Rental Payments shall be as provided in the Payment Schedule.
Section 3.02. Continuation of Lease Term. Lessee intends, subject to Section 3.03 hereof, to continue the Lease Term through the Original Term and all Renewal Terms and to pay the Rental Payments due hereunder. Lessee affirms that sufficient funds are legally available to pay all Rental Payments when due during the current fiscal year, and Lessee reasonably believes that an amount sufficient to make all Rental Payments during the entire Scheduled Term can be obtained from legally available funds of Lessee. Lessee further intends to do all things lawfully within its power to obtain and maintain funds sufficient and available to discharge its obligation to make Rental Payments due hereunder, including making provision for such payments to the extent necessary in each budget or appropriation request submitted and adopted in accordance with applicable provisions of law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision whether or not to budget and appropriate funds or to extend the Lease Term for any Renewal Term is within the sole discretion of the governing body of Lessee.
14.16 -9-
Section 3.03. Non-appropriation. Lessee is obligated only to pay such Rental Payments as may lawfully be made during Lessee’s then current fiscal year from funds budgeted and appropriated for that purpose. Should Lessee fail to budget, appropriate or otherwise make available funds to pay Rental Payments following the then current Original Term or Renewal Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated at the end of the then current Original Term or Renewal Term. Lessee agrees to deliver notice to Lessor of such termination promptly after any decision to non-appropriate is made, but failure to give such notice shall not extend the term beyond such Original Term or Renewal Term. If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with this Section 3.03, Lessee agrees to cease use of the Equipment and peaceably remove and deliver to Lessor, at Lessee’s sole expense (from legally available funds), the Equipment to Lessor at the location(s) to be specified by Lessor.
Section 3.04. Conditions to Lessor’s Performance. (a) As a prerequisite to the performance by Lessor of any of its obligations under this Agreement, Lessee shall deliver to Lessor, in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor, the following:
(i) An Escrow Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit I, satisfactory to Lessor and executed by Lessee and the Escrow Agent and a Vendor Agreement satisfactory to Lessor and executed by Lessee and the Vendor; (ii) A certified copy of a resolution, ordinance or other official action of Lessee’s governing body, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C-1, authorizing the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and performance by Lessee of its obligations under this Agreement and the Escrow Agreement; (iii) A Certificate completed and executed by the Clerk or Secretary or other comparable officer of Lessee, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C-2, completed to the satisfaction of Lessor;
(iv) Opinions of general counsel to Lessee and Special Counsel, which in the aggregate opine on the matters set forth in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2, respectively, and which are otherwise satisfactory to Lessor; (v) Evidence of insurance as required by Section 7.02 hereof; (vi) All documents, including financing statements, affidavits, notices and similar instruments which Lessor deems necessary or appropriate at that time pursuant to Section 6.02 hereof;
(vii) A waiver or waivers of interest in the Equipment from any mortgagee or any other party having an interest in the real estate on which the Equipment will be located and/or landlord of the real estate on which the Equipment will be located and amendments and agreements releasing liens and encumbrances, if any, on the real property where the Equipment is and will be located;
(viii) Reserved;
14.17 -10-
(ix) A copy of the Form 8038-G, fully completed by Special Counsel as paid preparer and executed by Lessee;
(x) In the event that Lessee is to be reimbursed for expenditures that it has paid more than sixty (60) days prior to the Commencement Date, evidence of the adoption of a reimbursement resolution or other official action covering the reimbursement from tax-exempt proceeds of expenditures incurred not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of such resolution;
(xi) Copies of invoices (and proofs of payment of such invoices, if Lessee seeks reimbursement) and bills of sale (if title to Equipment has passed to Lessee), to the extent required by Section 5.01(b) hereof;
(xii) Wire instructions for payments to be made to Vendors and Form W-9 from each such Vendor;
(xiii) A certified copy of any Surety Bond satisfying the conditions set forth in Section 7.04 hereof, or, at Lessor’s sole discretion, such Surety Bonds may be provided after the Commencement Date, provided however, that no “Disbursement Request” pursuant to the Escrow Agreement shall be authorized by Lessor until such Surety Bonds satisfying the conditions set forth in Section 7.04 have been delivered to Lessor; and (xiv) Such other items reasonably required by Lessor.
(b) In addition to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in subsection (a) of this Section 3.04, the performance by Lessor of any of its obligations under the Related Documents shall be subject to: (i) no Material Adverse Change having occurred since the date of this Agreement, (ii) no Event of Default having occurred and then be continuing and (iii) no Event of Non-appropriation having occurred or being threatened with respect to this Agreement. (c) Subject to satisfaction of the foregoing, Lessor will deposit the Acquisition Amount with the Escrow Agent to be held and disbursed pursuant to the Escrow Agreement.
Section 3.05. Evidence of Filing Form 8038-G. As soon as it is available, Lessee shall provide to Lessor evidence that it, or its paid preparer, has filed the Form 8038-G for this Agreement with the Internal Revenue Service by delivering to Lessor proof of mailing such Form 8038-G. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, it shall not be an Event of Default hereunder if Lessee does not provide to Lessor evidence that it (or its paid preparer) filed the Form 8038-G for this Agreement with the Internal Revenue Service.
ARTICLE IV
Section 4.01. Rental Payments. Subject to Section 3.03 of this Agreement, Lessee shall promptly pay Rental Payments, in lawful money of the United States of America, to Lessor on the Rental Payment Dates and in such amounts as provided in the Payment Schedule. If any Rental Payment or other amount payable hereunder is not paid within ten (10) days of its due date, Lessee
14.18 -11-
shall pay an administrative late charge of five percent (5%) of the amount not timely paid or the maximum amount permitted by law, whichever is less. Lessee shall not permit the Federal Government to guarantee any Rental Payments under this Agreement. Rental Payments consist of principal and interest components as more fully detailed on the Payment Schedule, the interest on which begins to accrue as of the Commencement Date.
Section 4.02. Interest and Principal Components. A portion of each Rental Payment is paid as, and represents payment of, interest, and the balance of each Rental Payment is paid as, and represents payment of, principal as more fully detailed on the Payment Schedule.
Section 4.03. Rental Payments to Constitute a Current Expense of Lessee. Lessor and Lessee understand and intend that the obligation of Lessee to pay Rental Payments shall constitute a current expense of Lessee payable solely from its general fund or other funds that are legally available for that purpose and shall not in any way be construed to be a debt of Lessee in contravention of any applicable constitutional or statutory limitation or requirement concerning the creation of indebtedness by Lessee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a pledge of the general tax revenues, funds or moneys of Lessee.
Section 4.04. Rental Payments to be Unconditional. Except as provided in Section 3.03 of this Agreement, the obligations of Lessee to make Rental Payments and to perform and observe the other covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement shall be absolute and unconditional in all events without abatement, diminution, deduction, set-off or defense, for any reason, including without limitation any failure of the Equipment, disputes with the Lessor or the Vendor of any Equipment, any defects, malfunctions, breakdowns or infirmities in the Equipment or any accident, condemnation or unforeseen circumstances, or failure of any Vendor to deliver any Equipment or otherwise perform any of its obligations for whatever reason, including bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or any similar event with respect to any Vendor or under any Vendor Agreement, or the failure or inability (for whatever reason) of Lessee to receive (or delay in receipt of) all or any portion of [any ESSER Funds or] any refundable tax credit under Section 6417 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. No. 117-169), or any substantially similar provision of federal, state, local or foreign tax [or other] law (including regulations or other guidance from any taxing [or other] authority).
Section 4.05. Tax Covenants. Lessee agrees that it will not take any action that would cause the interest component of Rental Payments to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owner or owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes, nor will it omit to take or cause to be taken, in a timely manner, any action, which omission would cause the interest component of Rental Payments to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owner or owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes. In connection with the foregoing, Lessee hereby agrees that (a) so long as any Rental Payments remain unpaid, moneys on deposit in the Escrow Account shall not be used in a manner that will cause this Agreement to be classified as an “arbitrage bond” within the meaning of Section 148(a) of the Code; and (b) Lessee shall rebate, from funds legally available for the purpose, an amount equal to excess earnings on the Escrow Account to the Federal Government if required by, and in accordance with, Section 148(f) of the Code, and make the determinations and maintain the records required by the Code.
14.19 -12-
Section 4.06. Event of Taxability. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Taxability, the interest component of Rental Payments and any charge on Rental Payments or other amounts payable based on the Contract Rate shall have accrued and be payable at the Taxable Rate retroactive to the date as of which the interest component is determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be includible in the gross income of the owner or owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes (which retroactive date shall be the earliest date as of which the interest component of any Rental Payment is deemed includible in the gross income of the owner or owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes, which may be earlier than the date of delivery of such determination by the Internal Revenue Service), and Lessee will pay such additional amount as will result in the owner receiving the interest component at the Taxable Rate.
For purposes of this Section, “Event of Taxability” means the circumstance of the interest component of any Rental Payment paid or payable pursuant to this Agreement becoming includible for Federal income tax purposes in an owner’s gross income as a consequence of any act, omission or event whatsoever, including but not limited to the matters described in the immediately succeeding sentence, and regardless of whether the same was within or beyond the control of Lessee. An Event of Taxability shall be presumed to have occurred upon (a) the receipt by Lessor or Lessee of an original or a copy of an Internal Revenue Service Technical Advice Memorandum or Statutory Notice of Deficiency or other written correspondence which legally holds that the interest component of any Rental Payment is includable in the gross income of the owner thereof; (b) the issuance of any public or private ruling of the Internal Revenue Service that the interest component of any Rental Payment is includable in the gross income of the owner thereof; or (c) receipt by Lessor or Lessee of a written opinion of a nationally recognized firm of attorneys experienced in matters pertaining to the tax-exempt status of interest on obligations issued by states and their political subdivisions, selected by Lessor and acceptable to Lessee, to the effect that the interest component of any Rental Payment has become includable in the gross income of the owner thereof for Federal income tax purposes. For all purposes of this definition, an Event of Taxability shall be deemed to occur on the date as of which the interest component of any Rental Payment is deemed includable in the gross income of the owner thereof for Federal income tax purposes.
Section 4.07. Mandatory Prepayment. (a) Any funds not applied to Equipment Costs and remaining in the Escrow Account on the earliest of (i) the expiration of the Acquisition Period, (ii) the date on which Lessee delivers to the Lessor the executed Disbursement Request to effect the final disbursement to pay (or reimburse) Equipment Costs from the Escrow Account or (iii) a termination of the Escrow Account as provided in the Escrow Agreement shall be applied by Lessor on each successive Rental Payment Date thereafter to pay all or a portion of the Rental Payment due and owing in the succeeding twelve (12) months and any remaining amounts shall be applied by Lessor as prepayment to the applicable unpaid Principal Portion of Rental Payments owing hereunder in the inverse order of the Rental Payment Dates at a price of 100% of such prepaid Principal Portion plus accrued interest thereon to the prepayment date. (b) In connection with any partial prepayment of Rental Payments, Lessor shall prepare a new Payment Schedule and deliver the same to the Lessee, which shall be binding, absent manifest error.
14.20 -13-
[Section 4.08. Covenant Regarding Lessee’s Contribution. Lessee hereby covenants to pay, from legally available funds $________ (or such other amount approved by Lessor) of costs to acquire and install the Equipment, which Lessee’s Contribution amount is separate and apart from, and in addition to, the Acquisition Amount hereunder. Lessee hereby further acknowledges and agrees that the Escrow Agent is not authorized to disburse, and Lessor will not approve any disbursement for, the final ten percent (10%) of the Acquisition Amount (which 10% is $____________) from the Escrow Account unless and until (a) Lessee has provided written evidence satisfactory to Lessor that Lessee has paid and distributed at least $________ (or such other amount approved by the Lessor) towards the cost of the Equipment from the Lessee’s Contribution and (b) payment and distribution of the Lessee’s Contribution in full. Lessee shall not be obligated to deposit the [Lessee’s Contribution] in the Escrow Account or in any other account or fund under this Agreement or the Escrow Agreement, but shall pay Equipment Costs for the Equipment directly to the related Vendors from and after the Commencement Date and provide such evidence of the dates, amounts and payees of such expenditures of the Lessee’s Contribution as Lessor may reasonably request.]
[Section 4.09. Covenant Regarding ESSER Funds. Lessee represents, warrants and covenants to Lessor that Lessee is and shall be in compliance with the terms of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund) established as part of the Education Stabilization Fund in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (Mar. 27, 2020) (the “ESSER Fund Act”) as relates to the use and application of the ESSER Funds to acquire Equipment. Lessor disclaims any responsibility for compliance with the terms of the ESSER Fund Act with respect to ESSER Funds and Lessee, not Lessor, is and shall be solely responsible, at Lessee’s expense, for ensuring compliance with the terms of the ESSER Fund Act and the use and application of the ESSER Funds.]
ARTICLE V
Section 5.01. Acquisition, Delivery, Installation and Acceptance of Equipment. (a) Lessee shall order the Equipment to be acquired and financed hereunder, cause the Equipment to be delivered and installed at the location specified in the Equipment Schedule and pay any and all delivery and installation costs and other Equipment Costs in connection therewith. Lessee shall conduct such inspection and testing of the Equipment as it deems necessary and appropriate in order to determine the Equipment’s capability and functionality in order to accept such Equipment.
When the Equipment has been delivered and installed, Lessee shall promptly accept such Equipment and evidence said acceptance by executing and delivering Disbursement Requests to the Lessor pursuant to the Escrow Agreement for the purpose of effecting disbursements from the Escrow Account to pay (or reimburse) Equipment Costs for the Equipment so acquired and installed. In connection with the execution and delivery by Lessee to Lessor of the final Disbursement Request, Lessee shall deliver to Lessor a “Final Acceptance Certificate” in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E.
(b) Lessee shall deliver to Lessor together with each Disbursement Request copies of invoices (and proof of payment of such invoices if Lessee seeks reimbursement for prior expenditures) and bills of sale or other evidence of title transfer to Lessee relating to each item of Equipment accepted by Lessee as evidenced by such Disbursement Request. Once approved,
14.21 -14-
Lessor shall deliver such Disbursement Request to the Escrow Agent for disbursement from the Escrow Account in accordance with the Escrow Agreement.
Section 5.02. Quiet Enjoyment of Equipment. So long as no Event of Default and no Event of Non-appropriation exists hereunder, neither Lessor nor any entity claiming by, through or under Lessor, shall interfere with Lessee’s quiet use and enjoyment of the Equipment during the Lease Term.
Section 5.03. Location; Inspection. Once installed, no item of the Equipment will be moved or relocated from the location specified for it in the Equipment Schedule without Lessor’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lessor shall have the right at all reasonable times during regular business hours to enter into and upon the property where the Equipment is located for the purpose of inspecting the Equipment.
Section 5.04. Use and Maintenance of the Equipment. Lessee shall not install, use, operate or maintain the Equipment (or cause the Equipment to be installed, used, operated or maintained) improperly, carelessly, in violation of any applicable law or in a manner contrary to that contemplated hereby. Lessee shall provide all permits and licenses, if any, necessary for the installation and operation of the Equipment. In addition, Lessee agrees to comply in all respects with all applicable laws, regulations and rulings of any legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial body, including, without limitation, all anti-money laundering laws and regulations; provided that Lessee may contest in good faith the validity or application of any such law, regulation or ruling in any reasonable manner that does not, in the opinion of Lessor, adversely affect the interest of Lessor in and to the Equipment or its interest or rights hereunder.
Lessee agrees that it shall (a) maintain, preserve, and keep the Equipment in good repair and working order, in a condition comparable to that recommended by the manufacturer; (b) proceed promptly, at its expense, to protect its rights and exercise its remedies under any warranty then in effect with respect to the Equipment; and (c) replace or rebuild any component of the Equipment that becomes permanently unfit for normal use or inoperable during the Lease Term (herein, the “Inoperable Component”) in order to keep the Equipment as a whole in good repair and working order during the Lease Term. Lessee shall promptly notify Lessor in writing when any component of the Equipment is reasonably expected within forty-five (45) days to become an Inoperable Component. Lessee shall promptly replace or rebuild the Inoperable Component with a similar component of comparable or improved make and model that has at least the equivalent value and utility of the Inoperable Component, a remaining useful life of no less than the remaining Scheduled Term and such replacement or rebuilt component shall be in good operating condition. Lessor shall have no responsibility to maintain, repair or make improvements or additions to the Equipment. In all cases, Lessee agrees to pay any costs necessary for the manufacturer to re-certify the Equipment as eligible for manufacturer’s maintenance upon the return of the Equipment to Lessor as provided for in Sections 3.03 and 12.02(b) of this Agreement.
Lessee shall not alter any item of Equipment or install any accessory, equipment or device on an item of Equipment if that would impair any applicable warranty, the originally intended function or the value of that Equipment. All repairs, parts, accessories, equipment and devices
14.22 -15-
furnished, affixed to or installed on any Equipment, excluding temporary replacements, shall thereupon become subject to the security interest of Lessor.
ARTICLE VI
Section 6.01. Title to the Equipment. During the Lease Term, so long as Lessee is not in default under Article XII hereof and an Event of Non-appropriation has not occurred, all right, title and interest in and to each item of the Equipment shall be vested in Lessee immediately upon its acceptance of each item of Equipment, subject to the terms and conditions hereof. Lessee shall at all times protect and defend, at its own cost and expense, its title, and Lessor’s first priority security interest, in and to the Equipment (and Lessor’s other Collateral as defined in Section 6.02 hereof) from and against all claims, Liens and legal processes of its creditors, and keep all Equipment (and such other Collateral) free and clear of all such claims, Liens and processes. Lessee will, at its expense, do any further act and execute, acknowledge, deliver, file, register and record any further documents the Lessor may reasonably request in order to protect Lessor’s first priority security interest in the Collateral. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default or upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.03 hereof, full and unencumbered legal title to the Equipment shall, at Lessor’s option, pass to Lessor, and Lessee shall have no further interest therein. In addition, upon the occurrence of such an Event of Default or such termination, Lessee shall execute and deliver to Lessor such documents as Lessor may request to evidence the passage of such legal title to Lessor and the termination of Lessee’s interest therein, and upon request by Lessor shall deliver possession of the Equipment to Lessor in accordance with Section 3.03 or 12.02 of this Agreement, as applicable. Upon payment of all amounts due and owing hereunder by Lessee in accordance with Section 10.01 hereof, Lessor’s security interest or other interest in the Equipment shall terminate, and Lessor shall execute and deliver to Lessee such documents as Lessee may reasonably request to evidence the termination of Lessor’s security interest in the Equipment.
Section 6.02. Security Interest. As additional security for the payment and performance of all of Lessee’s obligations hereunder, Lessee hereby grants to Lessor a first priority security interest constituting a first Lien on (a) the Equipment, together with all replacements, repairs, restorations, modifications and improvements thereof or thereto and all accessories, equipment, parts and appurtenances appertaining or attached to any of the Equipment, and all substitutions, renewals, or replacements of and additions, improvements, accessions and accumulations to any and all of such Equipment, together with all the rents, issues, income, profits, proceeds and avails therefrom, (b) moneys and investments held from time to time in the Escrow Account, (c) all accounts, chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, instruments, general intangibles and investment property (including any securities accounts and security entitlements relating thereto) evidenced by or arising out of or otherwise relating to the foregoing collateral described in clauses (a) and (b) above, as such terms are defined in Article 9 of the California Commercial Code, and (d) any and all proceeds of any and all of the foregoing, including, without limitation, insurance proceeds (collectively, the “Collateral”). Lessee authorizes Lessor to file (and Lessee agrees to execute, if applicable) such notices of assignment, chattel mortgages, financing statements and other documents, in form satisfactory to Lessor, which Lessor deems necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain Lessor’s security interest in the Collateral, including, without limitation, such financing statements with respect to personal property and fixtures under Article 9 of the California Commercial Code and treating such Article 9 as applicable to entities such as Lessee.
14.23 -16-
Section 6.03. Personal Property, No Encumbrances. Lessee agrees that the Equipment is deemed to be and will remain personal property, and will not be deemed to be affixed to or a part of the real estate on which it may be situated, notwithstanding that the Equipment or any part thereof may be or hereafter become in any manner physically affixed or attached to real estate or any building thereon. Lessee shall not create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, pledge, Lien, security interest, charge or other encumbrance of any nature whatsoever on any of the real estate where the Equipment is or will be located or enter into any agreement to sell or assign or enter into any sale/leaseback arrangement of such real estate without the prior written consent of Lessor; provided, that if Lessor or its assigns is furnished with a waiver of interest in the Equipment acceptable to Lessor or its assigns in their respective discretion from any party taking an interest in any such real estate prior to such interest taking effect, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
ARTICLE VII
Section 7.01. Liens, Taxes, Other Governmental Charges and Utility Charges. Lessee shall keep the Equipment free of all levies, Liens, and encumbrances except those created by this Agreement. The parties to this Agreement contemplate that the Equipment will be used for a governmental or proprietary purpose of Lessee and that the Equipment will therefore be exempt from all property taxes. If the lease, sale, purchase, operation, use, possession or acquisition of any Equipment is nevertheless determined to be subject to taxation, Lessee shall pay when due all sales and other taxes, special assessments, governmental and other charges of any kind that are at any time lawfully assessed or levied against or with respect to the Equipment, the Rental Payments or any part of either thereof, or which become due during the Lease Term, whether assessed against Lessee or Lessor. Lessee shall pay all utility and other charges incurred in the operation, use and maintenance of the Equipment. Lessee shall pay such taxes, assessments or charges as the same may become due; provided that, with respect to any such taxes, assessments or charges that may lawfully be paid in installments over a period of years, Lessee shall be obligated to pay only such installments as accrue during the Lease Term. Lessor will not claim ownership of the Equipment under this Agreement for the purposes of any tax credits, benefits or deductions with respect to such Equipment. Lessee shall pay the fee charged by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission with respect to this Agreement pursuant to Section 8856 (or any successor provision) of the California Government Code.
Section 7.02. Insurance. Lessee shall during the Lease Term maintain or cause to be maintained (a) casualty insurance naming Lessor and its assigns as loss payee and insuring the Equipment against loss or damage by fire and all other risks covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement then in use in the State, and any other risks reasonably required by Lessor, in an amount at least equal to the greater of (i) the then applicable Prepayment Price of the Equipment or (ii) the replacement cost of the Equipment; (b) liability insurance naming Lessor and its assigns as additional insured that protects Lessor from liability with limits of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage coverage (such liability insurance coverage may be in a combination of primary general liability and/or excess liability umbrella coverage), and in all events under clauses (a) and (b) above issued in form and amount satisfactory to Lessor and by an insurance company that is authorized to do business in the State and having a financial strength rating by A.M. Best Company of “A-” or better; and (c) worker’s
14.24 -17-
compensation coverage as required by the laws of the State. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee may self-insure against the risks described in clauses (a) and/or (b) through a government pooling arrangement, self-funded loss reserves, risk retention program or other self-insurance program, in each case with Lessor’s prior written consent (which Lessor may grant, withhold or deny in its sole discretion) and provided that Lessee has delivered to Lessor such information as Lessor may request with respect to the adequacy of such self-insurance to cover the risks proposed to be self-insured and otherwise in form and substance acceptable to Lessor. In the event Lessee is permitted, at Lessor’s sole discretion, to self-insure as provided in this Section 7.02, Lessee shall provide to Lessor a self-insurance letter in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Lessee shall furnish to Lessor evidence of such insurance or self-insurance coverage throughout the Lease Term. Lessee shall not cancel or modify such insurance or self-insurance coverage in any way that would affect the interests of Lessor without first giving written notice thereof to Lessor at least thirty (30) days in advance of such cancellation or modification.
Section 7.03. Risk of Loss. Whether or not covered by insurance or self-insurance, Lessee hereby assumes all risk of loss of, or damage to and liability related to injury or damage to any persons or property arising from the Equipment from any cause whatsoever, and no such loss of or damage to or liability arising from the Equipment shall relieve Lessee of the obligation to make the Rental Payments or to perform any other obligation under this Agreement. Whether or not covered by insurance or self-insurance, Lessee hereby agrees to reimburse Lessor (to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, but only from legally available funds) for any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, costs, claims, taxes or damages suffered or incurred by Lessor, regardless of the cause thereof and all expenses incurred in connection therewith (including, without limitation, counsel fees and expenses, and penalties connected therewith imposed on interest received) arising out of or as a result of (a) entering into this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated hereby, (b) the ordering, acquisition, ownership use, operation, condition, purchase, delivery, acceptance, rejection, storage or return of any item of the Equipment, (c) any accident in connection with the operation, use, condition, possession, storage or return of any item of the Equipment resulting in damage to property or injury to or death to any person, and/or (d) the breach of any covenant of Lessee under or in connection with this Agreement or any material misrepresentation provided by Lessee under or in connection with this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 7.03 shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the full payment of all obligations under this Agreement or the termination of the Lease Term for any reason.
Section 7.04. Surety Bonds; Lessee to Pursue Remedies Against Contractors and Sub-Contractors and Their Sureties. Lessee shall secure from each Vendor directly employed by Lessee in connection with the acquisition, construction, installation, improvement or equipping of the Equipment, a payment and performance bond (“Surety Bond”) executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State, having a financial strength rating by A.M. Best Company of “A-” or better, and otherwise satisfactory to Lessor and naming Lessor as a co-obligee in a sum equal to the entire amount to become payable under each Vendor Agreement. Each bond shall be conditioned on the completion of the work in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Equipment and upon payment of all claims of subcontractors and suppliers. Lessee shall cause the surety company to add Lessor as a co-obligee on each Surety Bond, and shall deliver a certified copy of each Surety Bond to Lessor promptly upon receipt thereof by Lessee. Any proceeds from a Surety Bond shall be applied in accordance with such Surety Bond to the payment and
14.25 -18-
performance of the Vendor’s obligations in accordance with the related Vendor Agreement and, if for whatever reason such proceeds are not so applied, first to amounts due Lessor under this Agreement, and any remaining amounts shall be payable to Lessee.
In the event of a material default by any Vendor under any Vendor Agreement in connection with the acquisition, construction, maintenance and/or servicing of the Equipment or in the event of a material breach of warranty with respect to any material workmanship or performance guaranty with respect to the Equipment, Lessee will promptly proceed to exhaust its remedies against the Vendor in default. Lessee shall advise Lessor of the steps it intends to take in connection with any such default. Any amounts received by Lessee in respect of damages, refunds, adjustments or otherwise in connection with the foregoing shall be paid to Lessor and applied against Lessee’s obligations hereunder.
Section 7.05. Advances. In the event Lessee shall fail to keep the Equipment in good repair and working order or shall fail to maintain any insurance required by Section 7.02 hereof, Lessor may, but shall be under no obligation to, maintain and repair the Equipment or obtain and maintain any such insurance coverages, as the case may be, and pay the cost thereof. All amounts so advanced by Lessor shall constitute additional rent for the then current Original Term or Renewal Term and Lessee covenants and agrees to pay such amounts so advanced by Lessor with interest thereon from the due date until paid at a rate equal to the Contract Rate (or the Taxable Rate if then in effect) plus five percent (5%) per annum or the maximum amount permitted by law, whichever is less.
ARTICLE VIII
Section 8.01. Damage, Destruction and Condemnation. If, prior to the termination of the Lease Term, (a) the Equipment or any portion thereof is destroyed, in whole or in part, or is damaged by fire or other casualty or (b) title to, or the temporary use of, the Equipment or any part thereof shall be taken under the exercise or threat of the power of eminent domain by any governmental body or by any person, firm or corporation acting pursuant to governmental authority, (i) Lessee and Lessor will cause the Net Proceeds of any insurance claim or condemnation award or sale under threat of condemnation to be applied to the prompt replacement, repair, restoration, modification or improvement of the Equipment or such part thereof and any balance of the Net Proceeds remaining after such work has been completed shall be paid to Lessee or (ii) Lessee shall exercise its option to prepay the obligations hereunder in accordance with Section 10.01(a)(ii) hereof.
If Lessee elects to replace any item of the Equipment (the “Replaced Equipment”) pursuant to this Section 8.01, the replacement equipment (the “Replacement Equipment”) shall be new or of a quality, type, utility and condition at least as good as the Replaced Equipment, shall be of equal or greater value than the Replaced Equipment and shall provide at least the same level of energy and/or operational savings expected in the aggregate from the Replaced Equipment prior to such casualty, destruction or condemnation and shall have an expected remaining useful life at least through the Scheduled Term. Lessee shall grant to Lessor a first priority security interest in any such Replacement Equipment. Lessee shall represent, warrant and covenant to Lessor that each item of Replacement Equipment is free and clear of all claims, Liens, security interests and
14.26 -19-
encumbrances, excepting only those Liens created by or through Lessor, and shall provide to Lessor any and all documents as Lessor may reasonably request in connection with the replacement, including, but not limited to, documentation in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor evidencing Lessor’s security interest in the Replacement Equipment. Lessor and Lessee hereby acknowledge and agree that any Replacement Equipment acquired pursuant to this paragraph shall constitute “Equipment” for purposes of this Agreement. Lessee shall complete the documentation of Replacement Equipment on or before the next Rental Payment Date after the occurrence of a casualty event, or be required to exercise its option to prepay the obligations hereunder with respect to the damaged Equipment in accordance with Section 10.01(a)(ii) hereof.
For purposes of this Article VIII, the term “Net Proceeds” shall mean the amount remaining from the gross proceeds of any insurance claim or condemnation award or sale under threat of condemnation after deducting all expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in the collection thereof.
Section 8.02. Insufficiency of Net Proceeds. If the Net Proceeds are insufficient to pay in full the cost of any repair, restoration, modification or improvement referred to in Section 8.01, Lessee shall either (a) complete such replacement, repair, restoration, modification or improvement and pay any costs thereof in excess of the amount of the Net Proceeds, or (b) pay or cause to be paid to Lessor the amount of the then applicable Prepayment Price plus all other amounts then owing hereunder, and, upon such payment, the Lease Term shall terminate and Lessor’s security interest in the Equipment shall terminate as provided in Section 6.01 hereof. The amount of the Net Proceeds remaining, if any, after completing such repair, restoration, modification or improvement or after paying such Prepayment Price plus all other amounts then owing hereunder shall be retained by Lessee. If Lessee shall make any payments pursuant to this Section 8.02, Lessee shall not be entitled to any reimbursement therefor from Lessor nor shall Lessee be entitled to any diminution of the amounts payable under Article IV.
ARTICLE IX
Section 9.01. Disclaimer of Warranties. Lessor makes no warranty or representation, either express or implied, as to the value, design, condition, merchantability or fitness for particular purpose or fitness for use of any of the Equipment, or any other warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect thereto and, as to Lessor, Lessee’s acquisition of the Equipment shall be on an “as is” basis. In no event shall Lessor be liable for any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damage in connection with or arising out of this Agreement, the Equipment or the existence, furnishing, functioning or Lessee’s use of any item, product or service provided for in this Agreement.
Section 9.02. Vendor Agreements; Warranties. Lessee covenants that it shall not in any material respect amend, modify, rescind or alter any Vendor Agreement without the prior written consent of Lessor. Lessor hereby irrevocably appoints Lessee its agent and attorney-in-fact during the Lease Term, so long as Lessee shall not be in default under this Agreement and so long as no Event of Non-appropriation has occurred, to assert from time to time whatever claims and rights (including without limitation warranties) relating to the Equipment that Lessor may have against a Vendor. Lessee’s sole remedy for the breach of such warranty, indemnification or representation
14.27 -20-
shall be against the applicable Vendor of the Equipment, and not against Lessor. Any such matter shall not have any effect whatsoever on the rights and obligations of Lessor under this Agreement, including the right to receive full and timely Rental Payments and other payments hereunder.
Lessee expressly acknowledges that Lessor makes, and has made, no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the existence or the availability of such warranties relating to any of the Equipment.
ARTICLE X
Section 10.01. Prepayment; Payment in Full.
(a) Prepayment. Lessee shall have the option to prepay or satisfy all, but not less than all, of its obligations hereunder, at the following times and upon the following terms:
(i) Optional Prepayment. From and after the date specified (if any) in the Payment Schedule (the “Prepayment Option Commencement Date”), on the Rental Payment Dates specified in the Payment Schedule, upon not less than forty-five (45) days prior written notice, and upon payment in full of the sum of all Rental Payments then due plus the then applicable Prepayment Price, which shall include a prepayment premium on the unpaid Outstanding Balance as set forth in the Payment Schedule plus all other amounts then owing hereunder; or
(ii) Casualty or Condemnation Prepayment. In the event of substantial damage to or destruction or condemnation of substantially all of the Equipment, on the day specified in Lessee’s notice to Lessor of its exercise of the prepayment option (which shall be the earlier of the next Rental Payment Date or sixty (60) days after the casualty event) upon payment in full to Lessor of (A) in the event such prepayment occurs on a Rental Payment Date, the sum of (i) all Rental Payments then due plus (ii) the then applicable Prepayment Price plus (iii) all other amounts then owing hereunder OR, (B) in the event such prepayment occurs on a date other than a Rental Payment Date, the sum of (i) the applicable Prepayment Price shown on the Payment Schedule for the Rental Payment Date immediately preceding the applicable date of such prepayment (or if the date of such prepayment occurs prior to the first Rental Payment Date, the earliest Prepayment Price shown on the Payment Schedule) plus (ii) accrued interest at the Contract Rate (or the Taxable Rate if then in effect) on the Outstanding Balance as of the Rental Payment Date immediately preceding the applicable date of such prepayment from such Rental Payment Date (or if the date of such prepayment occurs prior to the first Rental Payment Date, the Commencement Date) to the date of such prepayment plus (iii) all other amounts then owing hereunder.
(b) Payment in Full. Upon the expiration of the Scheduled Term, upon payment in full of all Rental Payments then due and all other amounts then owing hereunder to Lessor. (c) Lessor’s security interests in and to the Equipment will be terminated and Lessee will own such Equipment free and clear of Lessor’s security interest in such Equipment after either (i) payment of the applicable Prepayment Price and all other amounts then owing hereunder in
14.28 -21-
accordance with either Section 10.01(a)(i) or Section 10.01(a)(ii) of this Agreement or (ii) upon the expiration of the Scheduled Term and payment in full of all Rental Payments then due and all other amounts then owing hereunder in accordance with Section 10.01(b) of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XI
Section 11.01. Assignment by Lessor. (a) Lessor’s right, title and interest in and to this Agreement, the Rental Payments and any other amounts payable by Lessee hereunder, the Escrow Agreement, its security interest in the Collateral (collectively, the “Assigned Rights”), may be assigned and reassigned by Lessor at any time, in whole or in part, to one or more assignees or sub-assignees without the necessity of obtaining the consent of Lessee; provided, that any such assignment, transfer or conveyance (i) shall be made only to investors each of whom Lessor reasonably believes is a “qualified institutional buyer” as defined in Rule 144A(a)(1) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or an “accredited investor” as defined in Section 501(a)(1), (2), (3) or (7) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and in either case is purchasing the Assigned Rights (or any interest therein) for its own account with no present intention to resell or distribute such Assigned Rights (or interest therein), subject to each investor’s right at any time to dispose of the Assigned Rights (or any interest therein) as it determines to be in its best interests, (ii) shall not result in more than 35 owners of the Assigned Rights or the creation of any interest in the Assigned Rights in an aggregate principal component that is less than $100,000 and (iii) shall not require Lessee to make Rental Payments, to send notices or otherwise to deal with respect to matters arising hereunder or under the Escrow Agreement with or to more than one Lease Servicer (as such term is defined below), and any trust agreement, participation agreement or custodial agreement under which multiple ownership interests in the Assigned Rights are created shall provide the method by which the owners of such interests shall establish the rights and duties of a single entity, trustee, owner, servicer or other fiduciary or agent acting on behalf of all of the assignees (herein referred to as the “Lease Servicer”) to act on their behalf with respect to the Assigned Rights, including with respect to the exercise of rights and remedies of Lessor on behalf of such owners upon the occurrence of an Event of Default or an Event of Non-appropriation under this Agreement. Lessor and Lessee hereby acknowledge and agree that the restrictions and limitations on transfer as provided in this Section 11.01 shall apply to the first and subsequent assignees and sub-assignees of any of the Assigned Rights (or any interest therein). (b) Unless to an affiliate controlling, controlled by or under common control with Lessor, no assignment, transfer or conveyance permitted by this Section 11.01 shall be effective as against Lessee until Lessee shall have received a written notice of assignment that discloses the name and address of each such assignee; provided, that if such assignment is made to a bank or trust company as trustee or paying agent for owners of certificates of participation, participation interests, trust certificates or partnership interests with respect to the Rental Payments payable under this Agreement, it shall thereafter be sufficient that Lessee receives notice of the name and address of the bank, trust company or other entity that acts as the Lease Servicer. Notices of assignment provided pursuant to this Section 11.01(b) shall contain a confirmation of compliance with the transfer requirements imposed by Section 11.01(a) hereof. During the Lease Term, Lessee shall keep, or cause to be kept, a complete and accurate record of all such assignments in form necessary to comply with Section 149 of the Code. Lessee shall retain all such notices as a register of all
14.29 -22-
assignees and shall make all payments to the assignee or assignees or Lease Servicer last designated in such register. Lessee shall not have the right to and shall not assert against any assignee any claim, counterclaim or other right Lessee may have against Lessor or the Vendor.
Assignments in part may include without limitation assignment of all of Lessor’s security interest in and to the Equipment and all rights in, to and under this Agreement related to such Equipment, and all of Lessor’s security interest in and to the Collateral, or all rights in, to and under the Escrow Agreement.
(c) If Lessor notifies Lessee of its intent to assign this Agreement, Lessee agrees that it shall execute and deliver to Lessor a Notice and Acknowledgement of Assignment substantially in the form of Exhibit H attached hereto within five (5) business days after its receipt of such request.
Section 11.02. Assignment and Subleasing by Lessee. None of Lessee’s right, title, and interest in, to and under this Agreement or any portion of the Equipment, the Escrow Agreement, the Escrow Account or any of the other Collateral may be assigned, encumbered or subleased by Lessee for any reason, and any purported assignment, encumbrance or sublease without Lessor’s prior written consent shall be null and void.
ARTICLE XII
Section 12.01. Events of Default Defined. Any of the following events shall constitute an “Event of Default” under this Agreement:
(a) Failure by Lessee to (i) pay any Rental Payment or other payment required to be paid under this Agreement within ten (10) days after the date when due as specified herein, (ii) maintain insurance as required herein, or (iii) observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under Section 6.01 or 6.02 hereof;
(b) Failure by Lessee to observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement contained in this Agreement on its part to be observed or performed, other than as referred to in subsection (a) above, for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied is given to Lessee by Lessor, unless Lessor shall agree in writing to an extension of such time prior to its expiration; provided that, if the failure stated in the notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, Lessor will not unreasonably withhold its consent to an extension of such time if corrective action is instituted by Lessee within the applicable period and diligently pursued until the default is corrected;
(c) Any statement, representation or warranty made by Lessee in or pursuant to this Agreement or its execution, delivery or performance shall prove to have been false, incorrect, misleading, or breached in any material respect on the date when made; (d) Any default occurs under any other agreement for borrowing money, lease financing of property or otherwise receiving credit under which Lessee is an obligor, if
14.30 -23-
such default (i) arises under any other agreement for borrowing money, lease financing of property or provision of credit provided by Lessor or any affiliate of Lessor, or (ii) arises under any obligation under which there is outstanding, owing or committed an aggregated amount in excess of $100,000.00;
(e) Lessee shall (i) apply for or consent to the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian or liquidator of Lessee, or of all or a substantial part of the assets of Lessee, (ii) be unable, fail or admit in writing its inability generally to pay its debts as they become due, (iii) make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, (iv) have an order for relief entered against it under applicable Federal bankruptcy law, or (v) file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or a petition or an answer seeking reorganization or an arrangement with creditors or taking advantage of any insolvency law or any answer admitting the material allegations of a petition filed against Lessee in any bankruptcy, liquidation, readjustment, reorganization, moratorium or insolvency proceeding; or (f) An order, judgment or decree shall be entered by any court of competent jurisdiction, approving a petition or appointing a receiver, trustee, custodian or liquidator for Lessee or of all or a substantial part of the assets of Lessee, in each case without its application, approval or consent, and such order, judgment or decree shall continue unstayed and in effect for any period of thirty (30) consecutive days.
Section 12.02. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default exists, Lessor shall have the right, at its sole option without any further demand or notice, to take one or any combination of the following remedial steps:
(a) By written notice to Lessee, Lessor may declare all Rental Payments payable by Lessee and other amounts payable by Lessee hereunder to the end of the then current Original Term or Renewal Term to be immediately due and payable; (b) With or without terminating the Lease Term, Lessor may enter the premises where the Equipment is located and retake possession of such Equipment or require Lessee at Lessee’s expense to promptly return any or all of such Equipment to the possession of Lessor at such place within the United States as Lessor shall specify, and sell or lease such Equipment or, for the account of Lessee, sublease such Equipment, continuing to hold Lessee liable, but solely from legally available funds, for the difference between (i) the Rental Payments payable by Lessee and other amounts hereunder that are payable by Lessee to the end of the then current Original Term or Renewal Term, as the case may be, and (ii) the net proceeds of any such sale, leasing or subleasing (after deducting all expenses of Lessor in exercising its remedies hereunder, including without limitation all expenses of taking possession, storing, reconditioning and selling or leasing such Equipment and all brokerage, auctioneer’s and attorney’s fees), subject, however, to the provisions of Section 3.03 of this Agreement. The exercise of any such remedies respecting any such Event of Default shall not relieve Lessee of any other liabilities hereunder or with respect to the Equipment;
14.31 -24-
(c) Lessor may terminate the Escrow Agreement and apply any proceeds in the Escrow Account to the Rental Payments scheduled to be paid hereunder; and/or (d) Lessor may take whatever action at law or in equity as may appear necessary or desirable to enforce its rights under this Agreement or the Escrow Agreement or as a secured party in any or all of the Equipment or the Escrow Account.
Section 12.03. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to Lessor is intended to be exclusive and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right or power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle Lessor to exercise any remedy reserved to it in this Article XII it shall not be necessary to give any notice other than such notice as may be required in this Article XII.
ARTICLE XIII
Section 13.01. Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications under this Agreement shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid, or delivered by overnight courier, or sent by facsimile transmission (with electronic confirmation) to the parties hereto at the addresses immediately after the signatures to this Agreement (or at such other address as either party hereto shall designate in writing to the other for notices to such party) and to any assignee at its address as it appears on the registration books maintained by Lessee.
Section 13.02. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon Lessor and Lessee and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 13.03. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
Section 13.04. Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may only be amended by Lessor and Lessee in writing.
Section 13.05. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument; provided, that only Counterpart No. 1 of this Agreement shall constitute chattel paper for purposes of the applicable Uniform Commercial Code.
Section 13.06. Applicable Law; Venue; Waiver of Jury Trial. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State. The parties hereto consent and submit to the jurisdiction of the State and venue in any state or Federal court of such State for the purposes of any suit, action or other proceeding arising in connection with this Agreement, and each party expressly waives any objections that it may have to the venue of such courts. The
14.32 -25-
parties hereto expressly waive any right to trial by jury in any action brought on or with respect to this Agreement. If the waiver of jury trial contained herein is unenforceable for any reason, then the parties hereto agree that the court shall, and is hereby directed to, make a general reference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 638 to a referee to hear and determine all of the issues in such action or proceeding (whether of fact or of law) and to report a statement of decision.
Section 13.07. Captions. The captions or headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Agreement.
Section 13.08. No Advisory or Fiduciary Relationship. In connection with all aspects of each transaction contemplated by this Agreement (including in connection with any amendment, waiver or other modification hereof or of any other related document), the Lessee acknowledges and agrees that: (a) (i) the transactions regarding this Agreement provided by the Lessor and any affiliate thereof are arm’s-length commercial transactions between the Lessee, on the one hand, and the Lessor and its affiliates, on the other hand, (ii) the Lessee has consulted its own legal, accounting, regulatory and tax advisors to the extent it has deemed appropriate, and (iii) the Lessee is capable of evaluating, and understands and accepts, the terms, risks and conditions of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and by the other related documents; (b) (i) the Lessor and its affiliates each is and has been acting solely as a principal and, except as expressly agreed in writing by the relevant parties, has not been, is not, and will not be acting as an advisor, agent or fiduciary, for the Lessee, or any other person and (ii) neither the Lessor nor any of its affiliates has any obligation to the Lessee with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement except those obligations expressly set forth herein and in the other related documents; and (c) the Lessor and its affiliates may be engaged in a broad range of transactions that involve interests that differ from those of the Lessee, and neither the Lessor nor any of its affiliates has any obligation to disclose any of such interests to the Lessee. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Lessee, hereby waives and releases any claims that it may have against the Lessor or any of its affiliates with respect to any breach or alleged breach of agency or fiduciary duty in connection with any aspect of any transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
Section 13.09. Entire Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement constitutes the final and entire agreement between the parties superseding all conflicting terms or provisions of any prior proposals, term sheets, solicitation documents, requests for proposals, award notices, approval letters or any other agreements or understandings between the parties.
Section 13.10. Electronic Signatures. The Related Documents may be executed and delivered by facsimile signature or other electronic or digital means (including, without limitation, Adobe’s Portable Document Format (“PDF”)). Any such signature shall be of the same force and effect as an original signature, it being the express intent of the parties to create a valid and legally enforceable contract between them. The exchange and delivery of the Related Documents and the related signature pages via facsimile or as an attachment to electronic mail (including in PDF) shall constitute effective execution and delivery by the parties and may be used by the parties for all
14.33 -26-
purposes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the request of either party, the parties hereto agree to exchange inked original replacement signature pages as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
[Signature Page Follows]
14.34 [Signature Page of Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have caused this Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement to be executed in their names by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.
LESSOR: LESSEE:
BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
11333 McCormick Road
Hunt Valley II
M/C MD5-031-06-05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attention: Contract Administration
Fax No.: (443) 541-3057
333 Front Street, Suite 200
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attention: Finance Director
Email: [email protected] and
[email protected]
Fax: _________________
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
(Seal)
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
Counterpart No. _____ of _____ manually executed and serially numbered counterparts.
To the extent that this Agreement constitutes chattel paper (as defined in the applicable Uniform Commercial Code), no security interest or ownership herein may be created through the transfer or possession of any Counterpart other than Counterpart No. 1.
14.35 LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A — Form of Equipment Schedule
EXHIBIT B — Form of Payment Schedule
EXHIBIT C-1 — Form of Authorizing Resolution
EXHIBIT C-2 — Form of Incumbency and Authorization Certificate EXHIBIT D-1 — Form of Opinion of General Counsel to Lessee EXHIBIT D-2 — Form of Opinion of Special Counsel to Lessee EXHIBIT E — Form of Final Acceptance Certificate
EXHIBIT F — Form of Self-Insurance Certificate
EXHIBIT G — Reserved
EXHIBIT H — Form of Notice and Acknowledgement of Assignment EXHIBIT I — Form of Escrow and Account Control Agreement
14.36 EXHIBIT A
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Location of Equipment:
Equipment Description (Scope of Work):
14.37 EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
RENTAL
PAYMENT
DATE
RENTAL
PAYMENT
AMOUNT
INTEREST
PORTION
PRINCIPAL
PORTION
OUTSTANDING
BALANCE
PREPAYMENT
PRICE
(including
prepayment
premium, if
applicable)
Contract Rate. The Contract Rate is _________% per annum.
Prepayment Option Commencement Date. For purposes of Section 10.01 of the Agreement, the Prepayment Option Commencement Date is _______________.
14.38 [Signature Page to Payment Schedule]
LESSOR: LESSEE:
BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
14.39 EXHIBIT C-1
FORM OF AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CRUZ AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN
EQUIPMENT LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
ACQUISITION, FINANCING AND LEASING OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WITHIN THE TERMS PROVIDED HEREIN;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND AUTHORIZING THE
TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz (the “Lessee”), a city duly organized and existing as a political subdivision, municipal corporation or similar public entity of the State of California, is authorized by the laws of the State of California to acquire, finance and lease personal property for the benefit of the Lessee and its inhabitants and to enter into contracts with respect thereto; and WHEREAS, the Lessee desires to acquire, finance and lease certain equipment with a cost not to exceed $__________ constituting personal property necessary for the Lessee to perform essential governmental functions (the “Equipment”); and WHEREAS, in order to acquire such Equipment, the Lessee proposes to enter into that certain Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Banc of America Public Capital Corp (or one of its affiliates), as lessor, (the “Lessor”), the form of which has been presented to the governing body of the Lessee at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the Lessee deems it for the benefit of the Lessee and for the efficient and effective administration thereof to enter into the Agreement and the other documentation relating to the acquisition, financing and leasing of the Equipment to be therein described on the terms and conditions therein and herein provided; NOW, THEREFORE, Be It And It Is Hereby Resolved by the governing body of the Lessee as follows:
Section 1. Findings and Determinations. It is hereby found and determined that the terms of the Agreement, in the form presented to the governing body of Lessee at this meeting, are in the best interests of the Lessee for the acquisition, financing and leasing of the Equipment.
Section 2. Approval of Documents. The form, terms and provisions of the Agreement are hereby approved in substantially the forms presented at this meeting, with such insertions, omissions and changes as shall be approved by the __________________ [insert title of officials] of the Lessee or other members of the governing body of the Lessee executing (in writing or electronically) the same, the execution of such documents being conclusive evidence of such approval; and the _________________________ of the Lessee is hereby authorized and directed
14.40 C-1-2
to execute (in writing or electronically), and the ________________ of the Lessee is hereby authorized and directed to attest, the Agreement and any related Exhibits attached thereto and to deliver the Agreement (including such Exhibits) to the respective parties thereto, and the ________________________ of the Lessee is hereby authorized to affix the seal of the Lessee to such documents.
Section 3. Other Actions Authorized. The officers and employees of the Lessee shall take all action necessary or reasonably required by the parties to the Agreement to carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated thereby (including the execution (in writing or electronically) and delivery of a Final Acceptance Certificate, an Escrow Agreement, Disbursement Requests and any tax certificate and agreement, as contemplated in the Agreement) and to take all action necessary in conformity therewith, including, without limitation, the execution (in writing or electronically) and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered in connection with the Agreement.
Section 4. No General Liability. Nothing contained in this Resolution, the Agreement, the Escrow Agreement nor any other instrument shall be construed with respect to the Lessee as incurring a pecuniary liability or charge upon the general credit of the Lessee or against its taxing power, nor shall the breach of any agreement contained in this Resolution, the Agreement, the Escrow Agreement or any other instrument or document executed in connection therewith impose any pecuniary liability upon the Lessee or any charge upon its general credit or against its taxing power, except to the extent that the Rental Payments payable under the Agreement are limited obligations of the Lessee, subject to annual appropriation, as provided in the Agreement.
Section 5. Appointment of Authorized Lessee Representatives. The ___________ _____________________ and __________________________ of the Lessee are each hereby designated to act as authorized representatives of the Lessee for purposes of the Agreement and the Escrow Agreement until such time as the governing body of the Lessee shall designate any other or different authorized representative for purposes of the Agreement or the Escrow Agreement.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution.
Section 7. Repealer. All bylaws, orders and resolutions or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency with respect to this Resolution. This repealer shall not be construed as reviving any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance or part thereof.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption.
14.41 C-1-3
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the governing body of the Lessee this ________ day of _________.
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, as Lessee
[SEAL]
By:____________________________________
Printed Name: ________________________
Title: _______________________________
Attest:
By:_________________________________
Printed Name: _____________________
Title: ____________________________
14.42 C-1-4
The undersigned, a duly elected or appointed and acting City Clerk of the Lessee identified in the above Resolution No. ___ (the “Resolution”), hereby certifies that the Resolution is a full, true and correct copy of such Resolution as adopted by the governing body of the Lessee on ____________, 20__. The Resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof and has not been amended, modified or otherwise changed by the governing body of the Lessee since the date of adoption of the Resolution.
Dated this ____ day of ____________, 20__.
_______________________________________
Name: _________________________________
Title: __________________________________
14.43 EXHIBIT C-2
FORM OF INCUMBENCY AND AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, a duly elected or appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz (“Lessee”) certifies as follows:
A. The following listed persons are duly elected or appointed and acting officials of Lessee (the “Officials”) in the capacity set forth opposite their respective names below and the facsimile signatures below are true and correct as of the date hereof; B. The Officials are duly authorized, on behalf of Lessee, to negotiate, execute, in writing or electronically, and deliver the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and between Lessee and Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“Lessor”), the Escrow and Account Control Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and among Lessor, Lessee and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Escrow Agent, all documents related thereto and delivered in connection therewith, and any future modification(s) or amendments thereof (collectively, the “Operative Agreements”), and the Operative Agreements each are the binding and authorized agreements of Lessee, enforceable in all respects in accordance with their respective terms.
NAME OF OFFICIAL TITLE SIGNATURE
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Dated: ___________, 2023 By:____________________________________ Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
(The signer of this Certificate cannot be listed above as authorized to execute the Operative Agreements.)
14.44 EXHIBIT D-1
FORM OF OPINION OF GENERAL COUNSEL TO LESSEE
(TO BE TYPED ON LETTERHEAD OF COUNSEL)
[Closing Date]
Banc of America Public Capital Corp
11333 McCormick Road
Mail Code: MD5-031-06-05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attn: Contract Administration
Re: Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement,
dated as of ___________, 2023,
by and between
Banc of America Public Capital Corp, as Lessor,
and the City of Santa Cruz, as Lessee
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As legal counsel to the City of Santa Cruz (“Lessee”), I have examined (a) an executed counterpart of that certain Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, dated as of ___________, 2023, and Exhibits thereto by and between Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“Lessor”) and Lessee (the “Agreement”), which, among other things, provides for the lease of certain property (the “Equipment”) and a certain Escrow and Account Control Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and among Lessor, Lessee, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Escrow Agent (the “Escrow Agreement”), (b) an executed counterpart of the ordinances or resolutions of Lessee with respect to authorization of the transaction contemplated by the Agreement, the Escrow Agreement and documents related thereto and (c) such other opinions, documents and matters of law as I have deemed necessary in connection with the following opinions. The Agreement, the Escrow Agreement, and the documents relating thereto are herein collectively referred to as the “Transaction Documents”.
Based on the foregoing, I am of the following opinions:
1. Lessee is a municipal corporation and general law city, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State.
2. Lessee has the requisite power and authority to lease and acquire the Equipment and to execute and deliver the Transaction Documents and to perform its obligations under the Transaction Documents.
14.45 D-1-2
3. The Transaction Documents have been duly authorized, approved, executed and delivered by and on behalf of Lessee and the Transaction Documents are legal, valid and binding obligations of Lessee, enforceable against Lessee in accordance with their respective terms, except to the extent limited by state and federal law affecting creditor’s remedies and by bankruptcy, reorganization, moratorium or other laws of general application relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights.
4. The authorization, approval, execution and delivery of the Transaction Documents and all other proceedings of Lessee relating to the transactions contemplated thereby have been performed in accordance with all open meeting laws, procurement and public bidding laws and all other applicable State or Federal laws.
5. There is no proceeding pending or threatened in any court or before any governmental authority or arbitration board or tribunal that, if adversely determined, would adversely affect the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents or the security interest of Lessor or its assigns, as the case may be, in the Equipment, the Escrow Account or other Collateral thereunder.
All capitalized terms herein shall have the same meanings as in the Transaction Documents unless otherwise provided herein. Lessor and its successors and assigns are entitled to rely on this opinion.
Sincerely,
14.46 EXHIBIT D-2
FORM OF OPINION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LESSEE
(TO BE TYPED ON LETTERHEAD OF COUNSEL)
City Council
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Banc of America Public Capital Corp,
and its successors and assigns
11333 McCormick Road
Mail Code: MD5 032 07 05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attn: Contract Administration
OPINION: $________ aggregate principal amount of Rental Payment obligations of the City of Santa Cruz under that certain Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, dated as of ______________, 2023, by and between City of Santa Cruz and Banc of America Public Capital Corp
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as special counsel to the City of Santa Cruz (the “City”) in connection with the delivery by the City of the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement, dated as of ____________, 2023 (the “Agreement”), by and between the City and Banc of America Public Capital Corp (the “Lessor”). The City is obligated under the Agreement to pay certain rental payments thereunder (the “Rental Payments”) to Lessor. This opinion is being delivered in our capacity as special counsel to the City, and not as counsel to the other addressee.
We have examined the Agreement and such other documents and matters of law as we have deemed necessary in connection with the following opinions.
As to questions of fact material to our opinion, we have relied upon representations of the City contained in the Agreement, and in certified proceedings and other certifications of public officials furnished to us, without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation.
Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion, under existing law, as follows:
1. The portion of the Rental Payments designated as interest is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, the portion of the Rental Payments designated as interest and received
14.47 D-2-2
by Lessor may be subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax. The opinions set forth in the preceding sentences are subject to the condition that the City comply with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Tax Code”) that must be satisfied subsequent to the delivery of the Agreement in order that such interest be, or continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City has covenanted to comply with each of such requirements. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements may cause the inclusion of such interest in gross income for federal income tax purposes to be retroactive to the date of delivery of the Agreement.
2. The portion of the Rental Payments designated as interest is exempt from personal income taxation imposed by the State of California.
We express no opinion regarding other federal tax consequences arising with respect to the Agreement, the ownership, sale or disposition of any interests in the Agreement, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest with respect to the Agreement.
This opinion is given as of the date hereof, and we assume no obligation to revise or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to our attention, or any changes in law that may hereafter occur. Our engagement with respect to this matter has terminated as of the date hereof.
Respectfully submitted,
A Professional Law Corporation
14.48 EXHIBIT E
FORM OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
Banc of America Public Capital Corp
11333 McCormick Road
Mail Code: MD5-031-06-05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attn: Contract Administration
Re: Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement,
dated as of ___________, 2023,
by and between
Banc of America Public Capital Corp, as Lessor, and
the City of Santa Cruz, as Lessee
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with the above-referenced Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”), the undersigned Lessee hereby certifies and represents to, and agrees with Lessor as follows:
1. All of the Equipment has been delivered, installed, is operating in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s intended use and has been inspected and finally accepted for all purposes by Lessee and title thereto has transferred to Lessee and any security interest of Vendor therein has been released.
2. Lessee has conducted such inspection and/or testing of the Equipment as it deems necessary and appropriate in order to determine the Equipment’s capability and functionality in order to accept such Equipment and hereby acknowledges that it accepts the Equipment for all purposes.
3. Lessee is currently maintaining the insurance coverage required by Section 7.02 of the Agreement.
4. Lessee hereby reaffirms that the representations, warranties and covenants contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof.
5. No event or condition that constitutes, or with notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute, an Event of Default exists at the date hereof.
6. No Material Adverse Change has occurred since the date of the execution and delivery of the Agreement.
14.49 E-2
7. No Event of Non-appropriation has occurred or been threatened.
Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Final Acceptance Certificate shall have the same meanings as when such terms are used in the Agreement.
Date: ____________________-
LESSEE:
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
14.50 EXHIBIT F
FORM OF SELF INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Banc of America Public Capital Corp
11333 McCormick Road
Mail Code: MD5-031-06-05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attn: Contract Administration
Re: Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement,
dated as of ___________, 2023, (the “Agreement”)
by and between
Banc of America Public Capital Corp, as Lessor,
and the City of Santa Cruz, as Lessee
In connection with the above-referenced Agreement, the City of Santa Cruz (the “Lessee”) hereby warrants and represents to Banc of America Public Capital Corp the following information.
The terms capitalized herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.
1. The Lessee is self-insured for damage or destruction to the Equipment. The dollar amount limit for property damage to the Equipment under such self-insurance program is $_________________. [The Lessee maintains an umbrella insurance policy for claims in excess of Lessee’s self-insurance limits for property damage to the Equipment which policy has a dollar limit for property damage to the Equipment under such policy of $__________________.]
2. The Lessee is self-insured for liability for injury or death of any person or damage or loss of property arising out of or relating to the condition or operation of the Equipment. The dollar limit for such liability claims under the Lessee’s self-insurance program is $_________________. [The Lessee maintains an umbrella insurance policy for claims in excess of Lessee’s self-insurance limits for liability which policy has a dollar limit for liabilities for injury and death to persons as well as damage or loss of property arising out of or relating to the condition or operation of the Equipment in the amount of $_________________.]
[3]. The Lessee maintains a self-insurance fund. Monies in the self-insurance fund [are/are not] subject to annual appropriation. The total amount maintained in the self-insurance fund to cover Lessee’s self-insurance liabilities is $_________________. [Amounts paid from the Lessee’s self-insurance fund are subject to a dollar per claim of $__________________.] [3]. The Lessee does not maintain a self-insurance fund. The Lessee obtains funds to pay claims for which it has self-insured from the following sources:
14.51 F-2
_____________________________. Amounts payable for claims from such sources are limited as follows: _________________________________________
4. Attached hereto are copies of certificates of insurance with respect to policies maintained by Lessee.
LESSEE:
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
14.52 EXHIBIT G
RESERVED
14.53 EXHIBIT H
FORM OF NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
Dated ____________________
Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“Assignor”) hereby gives notice that it has assigned and sold to _________________________ (“Assignee”) all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 (the “Agreement”), by and between Assignor and the City of Santa Cruz (“Lessee”), together with all exhibits, schedules, addenda and attachments related thereto, and all certifications and other documents delivered in connection therewith, the Rental Payments and other amounts due under the Agreement, all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in the Equipment (as defined in the Agreement), and all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the Escrow and Account Control Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 (the “Escrow Agreement”) by and among Lessee, Assignor and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Escrow Agent, together with the Escrow Account and other Collateral (collectively, the “Assigned Property”). Each capitalized term used but not defined herein has the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
1. Lessee hereby acknowledges the effect of the assignment of the Assigned Property and absolutely and unconditionally agrees to deliver to Assignee all Rental Payments and other amounts coming due under the Agreement in accordance with the terms thereof on and after the date of this Acknowledgment.
2. Lessee hereby agrees that: (i) Assignee shall have all the rights of Lessor under the Agreement and all related documents, including, but not limited to, the rights to issue or receive all notices and reports, to give all consents or agreements to modifications thereto, to receive title to the Equipment in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, to declare a default and to exercise all rights and remedies thereunder in connection with the occurrence of an Event of Non-appropriation or an Event of Default; and (ii) [except as provided in Section 3.03 of the Agreement,] the obligations of Lessee to make Rental Payments and to perform and observe the other covenants and agreements contained in the Agreement shall be absolute and unconditional in all events without abatement, diminution, deduction, set-off or defense.
3. Lessee agrees that, as of the date of this Notice and Acknowledgment of Assignment (this “Acknowledgement”), the following information about the Agreement is true, accurate and complete:
Number of Rental Payments Remaining ________________
Amount of Each Rental Payment $_______________
Total Amount of Rental Payments
Remaining $_______________
Frequency of Rental Payments ________________
Next Rental Payment Due ________________
Funds Remaining in Escrow Account $_______________
14.54 H-2
4. The Agreement remains in full force and effect, has not been amended, no Event of Default (or event which with the passage of time or the giving of notice or both would constitute an Event of Default) has occurred thereunder and no Event of Non-appropriation has occurred or is threatened with respect thereto.
5. Assignor hereby acknowledges the transfer restrictions imposed by Section 11.01 of the Agreement and confirms that the assignment to Assignee has been made in accordance with the provisions of that Section.
6. Any inquiries of Lessee related to the Agreement and any requests for disbursements from the Escrow Account, if applicable, and all Rental Payments and other amounts coming due pursuant to the Agreement on and after the date of this Acknowledgment should be remitted to Assignee at the following address (or such other address as provided to Lessee in writing from time to time by Assignee):
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
LESSEE: CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
ASSIGNOR: BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
14.55 EXHIBIT I
ESCROW AND ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT
See Item #4 in Transcript
14.56 Santa Cruz Escrow Agreement Wilmington (CA Annual Appropriation) [Fun.Accp.] 4883-9398-2275 v5.docx 2308435
EXHIBIT I
[FORM OF] ESCROW AND ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT
This Escrow and Account Control Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated as of ___________, 2023, by and among Banc of America Public Capital Corp, a Kansas corporation (together with its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as “Lessor”), City of Santa Cruz, a city existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”) and Wilmington Trust, National Association, a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as “Escrow Agent”).
Reference is made to that certain Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 between Lessor and Lessee (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”), covering the acquisition and lease of certain Equipment described therein (the “Equipment”). It is a requirement of the Lease that the Acquisition Amount ($__________________) be deposited into a segregated escrow account under terms satisfactory to Lessor, for the purpose of fully funding the Lease, and providing a mechanism for the application of such amounts to the purchase of and payment for the Equipment[ (with the final 10% of the Acquisition Amount disbursed only after payment of the Lessee’s Contribution in accordance with Section 4.08 of the Lease)].
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Creation of Escrow Account. (a) There is hereby created an escrow fund to be known as the “City of Santa Cruz Escrow Account” (the “Escrow Account”) to be held by the Escrow Agent for the purposes stated herein, for the benefit of Lessor and Lessee, to be held, disbursed and returned in accordance with the terms hereof. (b) Lessee may, from time to time, provide written instructions for Escrow Agent to use any available cash in the Escrow Account to purchase any money market fund or liquid deposit investment vehicle that Escrow Agent from time to time makes available to the parties hereto.
Such written instructions shall be provided via delivery to Escrow Agent of a signed and completed Escrow Account Investment Selection Form (such form available from Escrow Agent upon request). All funds invested by Escrow Agent at the direction of Lessee in such short-term investments (as more particularly described in Escrow Agent’s Escrow Account Investment Selection Form) shall be deemed to be part of the Escrow Account and subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Escrow Agent is hereby authorized and directed to sell or redeem any such investments as it deems necessary to make any payments or distributions required under this Agreement. The Lessee acknowledges that neither the Escrow Agent nor the Lessor is providing investment supervision, recommendations, or advice. If any cash is received for the Escrow Account after the cut-off time for the designated short-term investment vehicle, the Escrow Agent shall hold such cash uninvested until the next Business Day. “Business Day” means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, on which banking institutions are not closed in Chicago, Illinois, [_____________], California or New York, New York. In the absence of written instructions from Lessee (on Escrow Agent’s Escrow Account Investment Selection Form)
14.57 -2-
designating a short-term investment of cash in the Escrow Account, cash in the Escrow Account shall remain uninvested and it shall not be collateralized. Escrow Agent shall have no obligation to pay interest on cash in respect of any period during which it remains uninvested. Lessee shall be solely responsible for ascertaining that all proposed investments and reinvestments are Qualified Investments and that they comply with federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances governing investment of such funds and for providing appropriate notice to the Escrow Agent for the reinvestment of any maturing investment. Accordingly, neither the Escrow Agent nor Lessor shall be responsible for any liability, cost, expense, loss or claim of any kind, directly or indirectly arising out of or related to the investment or reinvestment of all or any portion of the moneys on deposit in the Escrow Account, and Lessee agrees to and does hereby release the Escrow Agent and Lessor from any such liability, cost, expenses, loss or claim. Interest on the Escrow Account shall become part of the Escrow Account, and gains and losses on the investment of the moneys on deposit in the Escrow Account shall be borne by the Lessee. The Escrow Agent shall have no discretion whatsoever with respect to the management, disposition or investment of the Escrow Account. The Escrow Agent shall not be responsible for any market decline in the value of the Escrow Account and has no obligation to notify Lessor and Lessee of any such decline or take any action with respect to the Escrow Account, except upon specific written instructions stated herein. For purposes of this Agreement, “Qualified Investments” means any investments which meet the requirements of California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq1. (c) Unless the Escrow Account is earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) below, amounts in the Escrow Account shall be disbursed by the Escrow Agent in payment of amounts described in Section 2 hereof upon receipt of written instruction(s) from Lessor, as is more fully described in Section 2 hereof. If the amounts in the Escrow Account [and the Lessee’s Contribution] are insufficient to pay such amounts, Lessee shall provide any balance of the funds needed to complete the acquisition of the Equipment. Any moneys remaining in the Escrow Account on or after the earlier of (i) the expiration of the Acquisition Period or (ii) the date on which Lessee executes an Acceptance Certificate shall be applied as provided in Section 4 hereof.
(d) The Escrow Account shall be terminated at the earliest of (i) the final distribution of amounts in the Escrow Account, (ii) the date on which Lessee executes a Final Acceptance Certificate or (iii) written notice given by Lessor of the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Lease or termination of the Lease due to an Event of Non-appropriation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall not terminate nor shall the Escrow Account be closed until all funds deposited hereunder have been disbursed.
(e) The Escrow Agent may act in reliance upon any writing or instrument or signature which it, in good faith, believes to be genuine and may assume the validity and accuracy of any statement or assertion contained in such a writing or instrument. The Escrow Agent shall not be liable in any manner for the sufficiency or correctness as to form, manner of execution, or validity of any instrument nor as to the identity, authority, or right of any person executing the same; and its duties hereunder shall be limited to the receipt of such moneys, instruments or other documents 1 Bond counsel to confirm.
14.58 -3-
received by it as the Escrow Agent, and for the disposition of the same in accordance herewith.
Notwithstanding and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, Lessee and Lessor, respectively, shall deliver to the Escrow Agent an authorized signers form in the form of Exhibit A-1 (Lessee) and Exhibit A-2 (Lessor) attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the Escrow Agent is authorized to comply with and rely upon any notices, instructions or other communications believed by it to have been sent or given by the parties or by a person or persons authorized by the parties. The Escrow Agent specifically allows for receiving direction by written or electronic transmission from an authorized representative with the following caveat, to the extent permitted by law, Lessee and Lessor agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Escrow Agent against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) (collectively, “Losses”) incurred or sustained by the Escrow Agent as a result of or in connection with the Escrow Agent’s reliance upon and compliance with instructions or directions given by written or electronic transmission given by each, respectively, provided, however, that such Losses have not arisen from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Escrow Agent, with regards to the execution of the instructions or directions in question, it being understood that forbearance on the part of the Escrow Agent to verify or confirm that the person giving the instructions or directions, is, in fact, an authorized person shall not be deemed to constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct.
In the event conflicting instructions as to the disposition of all or any portion of the Escrow Account are at any time given by Lessor and Lessee, the Escrow Agent shall abide by the instructions or entitlement orders given by Lessor without consent of the Lessee. (f) Unless the Escrow Agent is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct with regard to its duties hereunder, Lessee agrees to and does hereby release and indemnify the Escrow Agent and its directors, officers, employees and agents and hold it harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, losses, actions, suits or proceedings at law or in equity, or any other expense, fees or charges of any character or nature, which it may incur or with which it may be threatened by reason of its acting as Escrow Agent under this Agreement; and in connection therewith, does to the extent permitted by law indemnify the Escrow Agent against any and all expenses; including reasonable attorneys’ fees and the cost of defending any action, suit or proceeding or resisting any claim.
(g) If Lessee and Lessor shall be in disagreement about the interpretation of the Lease, or about the rights and obligations, or the propriety of any action contemplated by the Escrow Agent hereunder, the Escrow Agent may, but shall not be required to, file an appropriate civil action including an interpleader action to resolve the disagreement. The Escrow Agent shall be reimbursed by Lessee for all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection with such civil action, and shall be fully protected in suspending all or part of its activities under this Agreement until a final judgment in such action is received. (h) The Escrow Agent may consult with counsel of its own choice and shall have full and complete authorization and protection with the opinion of such counsel. The Escrow Agent shall otherwise not be liable for any mistakes of fact or errors of judgment, or for any acts or omissions of any kind unless caused by its willful misconduct. The Escrow Agent may act through attorneys
14.59 -4-
or agents and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any such attorney or agent appointed with due care.
(i) The compensation fee for Escrow Agent’s services under this Agreement is $0.00.
Lessee shall reimburse the Escrow Agent for all reasonable costs and expenses, including those of the Escrow Agent’s attorneys, agents and employees incurred for non-routine administration of the Escrow Account, execution of the directions provided by the Lessee and Lessor and the performance of the Escrow Agent’s powers and duties hereunder in connection with any Event of Default under the Lease, any termination of the Lease due to an Event of Non-appropriation or in connection with any dispute between Lessor and Lessee concerning the Escrow Account. The terms of this paragraph shall survive termination of this Agreement and/or the earlier resignation or removal of the Escrow Agent.
(j) The Escrow Agent or any successor may at any time resign by giving mailed notice to Lessee and Lessor of its intention to resign and of the proposed date of resignation (the “Effective Date”), which shall be a date not less than 60 days after such notice is delivered to an express carrier, charges prepaid, unless an earlier resignation date and the appointment of a successor shall have been approved by the Lessee and Lessor. After the Effective Date, the Escrow Agent shall be under no further obligation except to hold the Escrow Account in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, pending receipt of written instructions from Lessor regarding further disposition of the Escrow Account.
(k) The Escrow Agent shall have no responsibilities, obligations or duties other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement and no implied duties responsibilities or obligations shall be read into this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall neither be responsible for, nor chargeable with, knowledge of the terms and conditions of any other agreement, instrument, or document other than this Agreement, whether or not an original or a copy of such agreement has been provided to the Escrow Agent.
(l) The permissive rights of the Escrow Agent to do things enumerated in this Agreement shall not be construed as a duty and, with respect to such permissive rights, the Escrow Agent shall not be answerable for other than its gross negligence or willful misconduct. (m) Nothing in this Agreement shall require the Escrow Agent to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of any of its duties or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers hereunder.
(n) In no event shall the Escrow Agent be responsible or liable for special, indirect, punitive, incidental or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever (including, but not limited to, loss of profit) irrespective of whether the Escrow Agent has been advised of the likelihood of such loss or damage and regardless of the form of action. (o) In the event that any of the funds in the Escrow Account shall be attached, garnished or levied upon by any court order, or the delivery thereof shall be stayed or enjoined by an order of a court, or any order, judgment or decree shall be made or entered by any court order affecting the funds in the Escrow Account, the Escrow Agent is hereby expressly authorized to respond as
14.60 -5-
it deems appropriate or to comply with all writs, orders or decrees so entered or issued, or which it is advised by legal counsel of its own choosing is binding upon it, whether with or without jurisdiction. To the extent permitted by law, the Escrow Agent shall inform the Lessor and Lessee in writing about any such attachment, garnishment, levy, court order, judgment or decree within ten (10) business days of its receipt of any such attachment, garnishment, levy, court order, judgment or decree. In the event that the Escrow Agent obeys or complies with any such writ, order or decree, it shall not be liable to any of the other parties to this Agreement or to any other person, firm or corporation, should, by reason of such compliance notwithstanding, such writ, order or decree be subsequently reversed, modified, annulled, set aside or vacated.
Section 2. Acquisition and Installation of Equipment.
(a) Acquisition Contracts. Lessee will arrange for, supervise and provide for, or cause to be supervised and provided for, the acquisition of the Equipment[ as provided in Section 4.08 of the Lease] with moneys available in the Escrow Account[, provided that the final ten percent (10%) of the Acquisition Amount (which 10% is $__________) shall not be disbursed from the Escrow Account until Lessee has provided written evidence satisfactory to Lessor that Lessee has paid and distributed at least $________ (or such other amount approved by the Lessor) towards the cost of the Equipment from the Lessee’s Contribution]. Lessee represents the estimated costs of the Equipment are within the funds estimated to be available therefor, and Lessor makes no warranty or representation with respect thereto. Lessor shall have no liability under any of the acquisition or construction contracts. Lessee shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, if any, for the acquisition, equipping and installation of the Equipment, and the operation and maintenance thereof. Escrow Agent shall have no duty to inquire as to the performance or nonperformance of any provision of any other agreement, instrument, or document other than this Agreement or monitor or enforce Lessee’s compliance with the foregoing covenant. (b) Authorized Escrow Account Disbursements. It is agreed as between Lessee and Lessor that disbursements from the Escrow Account shall be made for the purpose of paying (including the reimbursement to Lessee for advances from its own funds to accomplish the purposes hereinafter described[, other than for any amount paid or to be paid by Lessee from the [Lessee’s Contribution]) the cost of acquiring the Equipment[, provided that the final ten percent (10%) of the Acquisition Amount (which 10% is $__________) shall not be disbursed from the Escrow Account until Lessee has provided written evidence satisfactory to Lessor that Lessee has paid and distributed at least $________ (or such other amount approved by the Lessor) towards the cost of the Equipment from the Lessee’s Contribution]. (c) Requisition Procedure. [The final ten percent (10%) of the Acquisition Amount (which 10% is $__________) shall not be disbursed] from the Escrow Account unless and until Lessee has satisfied its covenant set forth in Section 4.08 of the Lease to pay the [Lessee’s Contribution and ]Lessor has approved in writing such requisition. Lessee shall provide written evidence satisfactory to Lessor that Lessee has paid and distributed at least $________ (or such other amount approved by the Lessor) towards the cost of the Equipment from the Lessee’s Contribution before the final ten percent (10%) of the Acquisition Amount (which 10% is $__________) may be disbursed from the Escrow Account]. Prior to disbursement from the Escrow Account there shall be filed with the Escrow Agent a requisition for such payment in the
14.61 -6-
form of Disbursement Request attached hereto as Schedule 1, stating each amount to be paid and the name of the person, firm or corporation to whom payment thereof is due. All disbursements shall be made by wire transfer. The Escrow Agent is authorized to obtain and rely on confirmation of such Disbursement Request and payment instructions by telephone call-back to the person or persons designated for verifying such requests on Exhibit A-2 (such person verifying the request shall be different than the person initiating the request). The Lessor and Lessee hereby confirm that any call-back performed by Escrow Agent to verify a disbursement instruction pursuant to a Disbursement Request submitted pursuant to this Section 2(c) before release, shall be made to Lessor only and Escrow Agent shall have no obligation to call-back Lessee.
Each such Disbursement Request shall be signed by an authorized representative of Lessee (an “Authorized Representative”) and by Lessor, and shall be subject to the following conditions, which Escrow Agent shall conclusively presume have been satisfied at such time as a requisition executed by Lessee and Lessor is delivered to it:
1. Delivery to Lessor of an executed Disbursement Request in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1;
2. Delivery to Lessor of copies of invoices (and proofs of payment of such invoices, if Lessee seeks reimbursement) and bills of sale therefor or other evidence of title transfer, and release by Vendor of any security interest, therefor as required by Section 3.04 of the Lease and any additional documentation reasonably requested by Lessor; and
3. The disbursement shall occur during the Acquisition Period.
Lessee and Lessor agree that their execution of the form attached hereto as Schedule 1 and delivery of the executed form to Escrow Agent confirms that all of the requirements and conditions with respect to disbursements set forth in this Section 2 have been satisfied.
Section 3. Deposit to Escrow Account. Upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in Section 3.04 of the Lease, Lessor will cause the Acquisition Amount to be deposited in the Escrow Account. Lessee agrees to pay any costs with respect to the Equipment in excess of amounts available therefor in the Escrow Account[ and the Lessee’s Contribution]. The Escrow Agent shall not be liable for any amount in excess of the Acquisition Amount.
Section 4. Excess Proceeds in Escrow Account. Upon receipt of written instructions from Lessor including a representation that one of the following conditions has been satisfied (upon which representation Escrow Agent shall conclusively rely), any funds remaining in the Escrow Account on or after the earlier of (a) the expiration of the Acquisition Period or (b) the date on which Lessee executes an Acceptance Certificate, or upon a termination of the Escrow Account as provided in this Agreement, shall be distributed by the Escrow Agent to the Lessor in order for the Lessor to apply such funds to amounts owed by Lessee under the Lease in accordance with Section 4.07 of the Lease.
Section 5. Security Interest. The Escrow Agent and Lessee acknowledge and agree that the Escrow Account and all proceeds thereof are being held by Escrow Agent for disbursement or
14.62 -7-
return as set forth herein. Lessee hereby grants to Lessor a first priority perfected security interest in the Escrow Account, and all proceeds thereof, and all investments made with any amounts in the Escrow Account. If the Escrow Account, or any part thereof, is converted to investments as set forth in this Agreement, such investments shall be made in the name of Escrow Agent and the Escrow Agent hereby agrees to hold such investments as bailee for Lessor so that Lessor is deemed to have possession of such investments for the purpose of perfecting its security interest.
Section 6. Control of Escrow Account. In order to perfect Lessor’s security interest by means of control in (i) the Escrow Account established hereunder, (ii) all securities entitlements, investment property and other financial assets now or hereafter credited to the Escrow Account, (iii) all of Lessee’s rights in respect of the Escrow Account, such securities entitlements, investment property and other financial assets, and (iv) all products, proceeds and revenues of and from any of the foregoing personal property (collectively, the “Collateral”), Lessor, Lessee and Escrow Agent further agree as follows:
(a) All terms used in this Section 6 which are defined in the California Commercial Code (the “Commercial Code”) but are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Commercial Code, as in effect on the date of this Agreement.
(b) Escrow Agent will comply with all entitlement orders originated by Lessor with respect to the Collateral, or any portion of the Collateral, without further consent by Lessee.
(c) Provided that account investments shall be held in the name of the Escrow Agent, Escrow Agent hereby represents and warrants (i) that the records of Escrow Agent show that Lessee is the sole owner of the Collateral, (ii) that Escrow Agent has not been served with any notice of levy or received any notice of any security interest in or other claim to the Collateral, or any portion of the Collateral, other than Lessor’s claim pursuant to this Agreement, and (iii) that Escrow Agent is not presently obligated to accept any entitlement order from any person with respect to the Collateral, except for entitlement orders that Escrow Agent is obligated to accept from Lessor under this Agreement and entitlement orders that Escrow Agent, subject to the provisions of paragraph (e) below, is obligated to accept from Lessee.
(d) Without the prior written consent of Lessor, Escrow Agent will not enter into any agreement by which Escrow Agent agrees to comply with any entitlement order of any person other than Lessor or, subject to the provisions of paragraph (e) below, Lessee, with respect to any portion or all of the Collateral. Escrow Agent shall promptly notify Lessor if any person requests Escrow Agent to enter into any such agreement or otherwise asserts or seeks to assert a Lien, encumbrance or adverse claim against any portion or all of the Collateral.
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e) and subject to Section 1(b) hereof, Lessee may effect sales, trades, transfers and exchanges of Collateral within the Escrow Account, but will not, without the prior written consent of Lessor,
14.63 -8-
withdraw any Collateral from the Escrow Account. Escrow Agent acknowledges that Lessor reserves the right, by delivery of written notice to Escrow Agent, to prohibit Lessee from effecting any withdrawals (including withdrawals of ordinary cash dividends and interest income), sales, trades, transfers or exchanges of any Collateral held in the Escrow Account. Further, Escrow Agent hereby agrees to comply with any and all written instructions delivered by Lessor to Escrow Agent (once it has had a reasonable opportunity to comply therewith) and has no obligation to, and will not, investigate the reason for any action taken by Lessor, the amount of any obligations of Lessee to Lessor, the validity of any of Lessor’s claims against or agreements with Lessee, the existence of any defaults under such agreements, or any other matter.
(f) Lessee hereby irrevocably authorizes Escrow Agent to comply with all instructions and entitlement orders delivered by Lessor to Escrow Agent. (g) Escrow Agent will not attempt to assert control, and does not claim and will not accept any security or other interest in, any part of the Collateral, and Escrow Agent will not exercise, enforce or attempt to enforce any right of setoff against the Collateral, or otherwise charge or deduct from the Collateral any amount whatsoever. (h) Escrow Agent and Lessee hereby agree that any property held in the Escrow Account shall be treated as a financial asset under such section of the Commercial Code as corresponds with Section 8-102 of the Uniform Commercial Code, notwithstanding any contrary provision of any other agreement to which Escrow Agent may be a party. (i) Escrow Agent is hereby authorized and instructed, and hereby agrees, to send to Lessor at its address set forth in Section 8 below, concurrently with the sending thereof to Lessee, duplicate copies of any and all monthly Escrow Account statements or reports issued or sent to Lessee with respect to the Escrow Account.
Section 7. Information Required Under USA Patriot Act. The parties acknowledge that in order to help the United States government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, pursuant to Federal regulations that became effective on October 1, 2003 (Section 326 of the USA Patriot Act) all financial institutions are required to obtain, verify, record and update information that identifies each person establishing a relationship or opening an account. The parties to this Agreement agree that they will provide to the Escrow Agent such information as it may request, from time to time, in order for the Escrow Agent to satisfy the requirements of the USA Patriot Act, including but not limited to the name, address, tax identification number and other information that will allow it to identify the individual or entity who is establishing the relationship or opening the account and may also ask for formation documents such as articles of incorporation or other identifying documents to be provided.
Section 8. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Lease. This Agreement may not be amended except in writing signed by all parties hereto. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original instrument and each shall have the force and effect of an original and all of which together constitute, and shall be deemed to constitute, one and the
14.64 -9-
same instrument. Notices hereunder shall be made in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or when deposited in the mail, first class postage prepaid, or delivered to an express carrier, charges prepaid, or sent by facsimile with electronic confirmation, addressed to each party at its address below.
Notices and other communications hereunder may be delivered or furnished by electronic mail provided that any formal notice be attached to an email message in PDF format and provided further that any notice or other communication sent to an e-mail address shall be deemed received upon and only upon the sender’s receipt of affirmative acknowledgement or receipt from the intended recipient. For purposes hereof no acknowledgement of receipt generated on an automated basis shall be deemed sufficient for any purpose hereunder or admissible as evidence of receipt.
If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision hereof invalid, it will be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity, so that the remainder of the provision and Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
This Agreement and the exhibits hereto set forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties related to this transaction and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, oral or written.
If to Lessor: Banc of America Public Capital Corp
11333 McCormick Road
Mail Code: MD5-031-06-05
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attn: Contract Administration
Fax: (443) 541-3057
If to Lessee: City of Santa Cruz
333 Front Street, Suite 200
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attention: Finance Director
Email: [email protected] and
[email protected]
Fax: _________________
If to Escrow Agent: Wilmington Trust, National Association 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attention: Chris Johnson
Telephone: (714) 384-4152
Fax: (714) 384-4151
Email: [email protected]
Section 9. Lessee and Lessor understand and agree that they are required to provide the Escrow Agent with a properly completed and signed Tax Certification (as defined below) and that the Escrow Agent may not perform its duties hereunder without having been provided with such
14.65 -10-
Tax Certification. As used herein “Tax Certification” shall mean an IRS form W-9 or W-8 as described above. The Escrow Agent will comply with any U.S. tax withholding or backup withholding and reporting requirements that are required by law. With respect to earnings allocable to a foreign person, the Escrow Agent will withhold U.S. tax as required by law and report such earnings and taxes withheld, if any, for the benefit of such foreign person on IRS Form 1042-S (or any other required form), unless such earnings and withheld taxes are exempt from reporting under Treasury Regulation Section 1.1461-1(c)(2)(ii) or under other applicable law.
With respect to earnings allocable to a United States person, the Escrow Agent will report such income, if required, on IRS Form 1099 or any other form required by law. The IRS Forms 1099 and/or 1042-S shall show the Escrow Agent as payor and [Lessee] as payee. Escrow Agent shall recognize [Lessee] as the designated party for regulatory reporting purposes.
Lessee and Lessor agree that they are not relieved of their respective obligations, if any, to prepare and file information reports under Code Section 6041, and the Treasury regulations thereunder, with respect to amounts of imputed interest income, as determined pursuant to Code Sections 483 or 1272. The Escrow Agent shall not be responsible for determining or reporting such imputed interest.
Section 10. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the parties hereto consent to jurisdiction in the State of California and venue in any state or Federal court located in the State of California, and each party expressly waives any objections that it may have to the venue of such courts. THE PARTIES HERETO
EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT ON OR WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT. If the waiver of jury trial contained herein is unenforceable for any reason, then the parties hereto agree that the court shall, and is hereby directed to, make a general reference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 638 to a referee to hear and determine all of the issues in such action or proceeding (whether of fact or of law) and to report a statement of decision.
Section 11. Any bank or corporation into which the Escrow Agent may be merged or with which it may be consolidated, or any bank or corporation to whom the Escrow Agent may transfer a substantial amount of its escrow business, shall be the successor to the Escrow Agent without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act on the part of any of the parties, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding. Any bank or corporation into which the Lessor may be merged or with which it may be consolidated, or any bank or corporation to whom the Lessor may transfer a substantial amount of its business, shall be the successor to the Lessor without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act on the part of any of the parties, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding.
Section 12. This Agreement may be amended, modified, and/or supplemented only by an instrument in writing executed by all parties hereto.
Section 13. No party hereto shall assign its rights hereunder until its assignee has submitted to the Escrow Agent (i) Patriot Act disclosure materials and the Escrow Agent has determined that on the basis of such materials it may accept such assignee as a customer and
14.66 -11-
(ii) assignee has delivered an IRS Form W-8 or W-9, as appropriate, to the Escrow Agent which the Escrow Agent has determined to have been properly signed and completed.
Section 14. Escrow Agent will treat information related to this Agreement as confidential but, unless prohibited by law, Lessee and Lessor authorize the transfer or disclosure of any information relating to the Agreement to and between the subsidiaries, officers, affiliates and other representatives and advisors of Escrow Agent and third parties selected by any of them, wherever situated, for confidential use in the ordinary course of business, and further acknowledge that Escrow Agent and any such subsidiary, officer, affiliate or third party may transfer or disclose any such information as required by any law, court, regulator or legal process.
Lessor will treat information related to this Agreement as confidential but, unless prohibited by law, Escrow Agent and Lessee authorize the transfer or disclosure of any information relating to the Agreement to and between the subsidiaries, officers, affiliates, other representatives and advisors of Lessor and debt and equity sources and third parties selected by any of them, and to their prospective assignees wherever situated, for confidential use in the ordinary course of business, and further acknowledge that Lessor and any such subsidiary, officer, affiliate, debt and equity source or third party or prospective assignee may transfer or disclose any such information as required by any law, court, regulator or legal process.
Lessee will treat the terms of this Agreement as confidential except on a “need to know” basis to persons within or outside Lessee’s organization (including affiliates of such party), such as attorneys, accountants, bankers, financial advisors, auditors and other consultants of such party and its affiliates, except as required by any law, court, regulator or legal process and except pursuant to the express prior written consent of the other parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 15. This Agreement may be executed and delivered by facsimile signature or other electronic or digital means (including, without limitation, Adobe’s Portable Document Format (“PDF”)). Any such signature shall be of the same force and effect as an original signature, it being the express intent of the parties to create a valid and legally enforceable contract between them. The exchange and delivery of this Agreement and the related signature pages via facsimile or as an attachment to electronic mail (including in PDF) shall constitute effective execution and delivery by the parties and may be used by the parties for all purposes.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the request of either party, the parties hereto agree to exchange inked original replacement signature pages as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. [SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW]
14.67 [Signature Page to Escrow and Account Control Agreement] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Escrow and Account Control Agreement as of the date first above written.
BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP,
as Lessor
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, as Lessee
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Escrow Agent
By:_________________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________
14.68 SCHEDULE 1
TO THE ESCROW AND ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT
FORM OF DISBURSEMENT REQUEST
Re: Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and between Banc of America Public Capital Corp, as Lessor, and the City of Santa Cruz, as Lessee (the “Lease”) (Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Lease.)
In accordance with the terms of the Escrow and Account Control Agreement, dated as of ___________, 2023 (the “Escrow and Account Control Agreement”) by and among Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“Lessor”), the City of Santa Cruz (“Lessee”) and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Escrow Agent”), the undersigned hereby requests the Escrow Agent pay the following persons the following amounts from the Escrow Account created under the Escrow and Account Control Agreement for the following purposes:
DISBURSEMENT AMOUNTS:
PAYEE’S NAME AND ADDRESS (IF
DISBURSEMENT VIA WIRE, MUST
INCLUDE WIRE TRANSFER
INSTRUCTIONS) INVOICE NUMBER DOLLAR AMOUNT PURPOSE
<Payee’s Name>
<Payee Address 1>
<Payee Address 2>
<Payee Address 3>
<Payee Bank Name*>
<Payee Bank ABA/Routing*>
<Payee Bank Account No*>
<Payee Account Name*>
<*Payee Address and Payee
Bank information is required.>
<invoice list OR “see
attached” with a
spreadsheet>
< invoice amount> <general description of
equipment; ex “police
cruiser”>
<Payee’s Name>
<Payee Address 1>
<Payee Address 2>
<Payee Address 3>
<Payee Bank Name*>
<Payee Bank ABA/Routing*>
<Payee Bank Account No*>
<Payee Account Name*>
<*Payee Address information is
required. Payee Bank
information only to be included
for wire/EFT.>
<invoice list OR “see
attached” with a
spreadsheet>
<invoice amount> [<mobilization fee that is
payable to the Vendor
under the Vendor
Agreement>]
14.69 Schedule I-2
Lessee hereby represents, covenants and warrants for the benefit of Lessor on the date hereof as follows:
(i) Each obligation specified in the table herein titled as “Disbursement Amounts” (a) has been incurred by Lessee in the stated amount, (b) the same is a proper charge against the Escrow Account for Equipment Costs relating to the Equipment identified above and has not been paid (or has been paid by Lessee and Lessee requests reimbursement thereof), and (c) has not been paid (or has been paid by Lessee and Lessee requests reimbursement thereof[, in which event Lessee further certifies that the requested reimbursement is not with respect to any amount previously paid from the Lessee’s Contribution]), and the Equipment relating to such obligation has been delivered, installed and accepted by Lessee.
(ii) For each item of Equipment relating to an obligation specified in the table herein titled as “Disbursement Amounts” (a) Lessee has conducted such inspection and testing of the Equipment as it deems necessary and appropriate in order to determine the Equipment’s capability and functionality in order to accept such Equipment, (b) such Equipment has been delivered, installed, is operating in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s intended use and has been inspected and finally accepted for all purposes by Lessee and title thereto has transferred to Lessee and any security interest of Vendor therein has been released and (c) the date on which Equipment acceptance occurred is __________, 20__. Attached hereto is a copy of the original invoice, and certification from Vendor as to title transfer and release by Vendor of any security interest with respect to such obligation and the related AIA forms.
(iii) The undersigned, as Authorized Representative, has no notice of any vendor’s, mechanic’s or other Liens or rights to Liens, chattel mortgages, conditional sales contracts or security interest which should be satisfied or discharged before such payment is made.
(iv) This requisition contains no item representing payment on account, or any retained percentages which Lessee is, at the date hereof, entitled to retain (except to the extent such amounts represent a reimbursement to Lessee). (v) The Equipment is insured in accordance with the Lease. (vi) No Event of Default, and no event which with notice or lapse of time, or both, would become an Event of Default, under the Lease has occurred and is continuing at the date hereof. No Event of Non-appropriation has occurred or is threatened with respect to the Lease.
(vii) The disbursement shall occur during the Acquisition Period.
14.70 Schedule I-3
(viii) The representations, warranties and covenants of Lessee set forth in the Lease are true and correct as of the date hereof.
(ix) No Material Adverse Change has occurred since the date of the execution and delivery of the Lease.
(x) The information in this Disbursement Request regarding each Payee, including their respective name, address and wiring instructions (collectively, the “Payee Information”), is true and correct, such Payee Information has been verified and confirmed by Lessee and the Lessor can rely on Lessee’s verification and confirmation of the accuracy of such Payee Information. Lessee hereby acknowledges and agrees th at any call-back performed by Lessor to verify the disbursement instructions pursuant to this Disbursement Request shall be made to Lessee only and Lessor shall have no obligation to call-back any Payee listed above.
(xi) [Following the disbursement of all obligations specified in the table herein titled as “Disbursement Amounts”, at least $__________ (which is equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the original Acquisition Amount) shall still remain in the Escrow Account.]
[Lessee has previously paid and disbursed the full amount of the Lessee’s Contribution equal to $_________ in accordance with Section 4.08 of the Lease and Lessee has provided written evidence satisfactory to Lessor that Lessee has paid and distributed at least $_________ towards the cost of the Equipment from the Lessee’s Contribution.]
14.71 Schedule I-4
Dated: ________________
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Disbursement of funds from the Escrow
Account in accordance with the foregoing
Disbursement Request hereby is authorized
BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP
as Lessor under the Lease
By:
Name:
Title:
14.72 [AN “EXHIBIT A-1” MUST BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED AT TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT]
EXHIBIT A-1
FORM OF INCUMBENCY AND AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, a duly elected or appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz (“Lessee”) certifies as follows:
A. The following listed persons are duly elected or appointed and acting officials of Lessee (the “Officials”) in the capacity set forth opposite their respective names below and the facsimile signatures below are true and correct as of the date hereof; B. The Officials are duly authorized, on behalf of Lessee, to negotiate, execute, in writing or electronically, and deliver the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and between Lessee and Banc of America Public Capital Corp (“Lessor”), the Escrow and Account Control Agreement dated as of ___________, 2023 by and among Lessor, Lessee and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Escrow Agent, all documents related thereto and delivered in connection therewith, and any future modification(s) or amendments thereof (collectively, the “Operative Agreements”), and the Operative Agreements each are the binding and authorized agreements of Lessee, enforceable in all respects in accordance with their respective terms.
NAME OF OFFICIAL TITLE SIGNATURE
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Dated: ___________, 2023
By:____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
(The signer of this Certificate cannot be listed above as authorized to execute the Operative Agreements.)
14.73 [AN “EXHIBIT A-2” MUST BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED AT TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT] EXHIBIT A-2
ESCROW AND ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT DATED AS OF ___________, 2023 BY AND
AMONG BANC OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP, AS LESSOR, THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, AS
LESSEE AND WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS ESCROW AGENT Certificate of Authorized Representatives – [Lessor]
Name: Terri Preston Name: Nancy Nusenko
Title: Authorized Agent Title: Authorized Agent
Phone: 443-541-3642 Phone: 443-541-3646
Facsimile: 443-541-3057 Facsimile: 443-541-3057
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Signature: Signature:
Fund Transfer / Disbursement Authority Level: Fund Transfer / Disbursement Authority Level:
Initiate Initiate
Verify transactions initiated by others Verify transactions initiated by others Name: Nancy K. Hepner Name: Arlene Sobieck
Title: Authorized Agent Title: Authorized Agent
Phone: 443-541-3645 Phone: 443-541-3643
Facsimile: 804-553-2407 Facsimile: 443-541-3057
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Signature: Signature:
Fund Transfer / Disbursement Authority Level: Fund Transfer / Disbursement Authority Level:
Initiate Initiate
Verify transactions initiated by others Verify transactions initiated by others The Escrow Agent is authorized to comply with and rely upon any notices, instructions or other communications believed by it to have been sent or given by the person or persons identified above including without limitation, to initiate and verify funds transfers as indicated.
Banc of America Public Capital Corp
By: ____________________________
Name:
Title:
Date: ___________, 2023
14.74 Fiscal Year Ending Annual ECAA Loan Payment Annual TEML Finance Payment Solar O&M Service & Energy Management Services Contract Maintenance Savings & Avoided Capital Cost3 Parks and Rec Capital Contribution3 Utility Savings Annual Savings Cumulative Savings 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000 $ 133,872 $ 533,872 $ 533,872 2024 $ - $ 193,656 $ 69,250 $ 209,316 $ - $ 283,809 $ 230,220 $ 764,092 2025 $ 144,076 $ 237,309 $ 71,328 $ 215,596 $ - $ 300,837 $ 63,720 $ 827,812 2026 $ 144,076 $ 242,509 $ 73,467 $ 222,064 $ - $ 318,887 $ 80,898 $ 908,710 2027 $ 144,076 $ 247,376 $ 75,671 $ 228,726 $ - $ 338,021 $ 99,622 $ 1,008,332 2028 $ 144,076 $ 251,909 $ 77,941 $ 235,587 $ - $ 358,302 $ 119,962 $ 1,128,294 2029 $ 144,076 $ 257,090 $ 80,280 $ 242,655 $ - $ 379,800 $ 141,009 $ 1,269,303 2030 $ 144,076 $ 261,900 $ 82,688 $ 249,935 $ - $ 402,588 $ 163,858 $ 1,433,161 2031 $ 144,076 $ 267,321 $ 85,169 $ 257,433 $ - $ 426,743 $ 187,610 $ 1,620,771 2032 $ 144,076 $ 272,334 $ 87,724 $ 265,156 $ - $ 452,348 $ 213,369 $ 1,834,140 2033 $ 144,076 $ 277,921 $ 90,356 $ 273,110 $ - $ 479,489 $ 240,246 $ 2,074,386 2034 $ 144,076 $ 284,045 $ 93,066 $ - $ - $ 508,258 $ (12,929) $ 2,061,456 2035 $ 144,076 $ 289,686 $ 95,858 $ - $ - $ 538,754 $ 9,133 $ 2,070,589 2036 $ 144,076 $ 294,846 $ 98,734 $ - $ - $ 571,079 $ 33,422 $ 2,104,011 2037 $ 144,076 $ 300,505 $ 101,696 $ - $ - $ 605,343 $ 59,066 $ 2,163,077 2038 $ 144,076 $ 306,627 $ 104,747 $ - $ - $ 641,664 $ 86,214 $ 2,249,291 2039 $ 144,076 $ 313,174 $ 107,889 $ - $ - $ 680,164 $ 115,024 $ 2,364,315 2040 $ 144,076 $ 319,128 $ 111,126 $ - $ - $ 720,974 $ 146,643 $ 2,510,958 2041 $ 144,076 $ 325,471 $ 114,460 $ - $ - $ 764,232 $ 180,225 $ 2,691,183 2042 $ 144,076 $ 332,164 $ 117,893 $ - $ - $ 810,086 $ 215,952 $ 2,907,135 2043 $ 72,038 $ 339,172 $ 121,430 $ - $ - $ 858,691 $ 326,051 $ 3,233,186 2044 $ - $ - $ 125,073 $ - $ - $ 910,213 $ 785,140 $ 4,018,325 2045 $ - $ - $ 128,825 $ - $ - $ 964,826 $ 836,000 $ 4,854,326 2046 $ - $ - $ 132,690 $ - $ - $ 1,022,715 $ 890,025 $ 5,744,350 2047 $ - $ - $ 136,671 $ - $ - $ 1,084,078 $ 947,407 $ 6,691,758 2048 $ - $ - $ 140,771 $ - $ - $ 1,149,123 $ 1,008,352 $ 7,700,109 2049 $ - $ - $ 144,994 $ - $ - $ 1,218,070 $ 1,073,076 $ 8,773,185 2050 $ - $ - $ 149,344 $ - $ - $ 1,291,154 $ 1,141,810 $ 9,914,995 2051 $ - $ - $ 153,824 $ - $ - $ 1,368,623 $ 1,214,799 $ 11,129,794 2052 $ - $ - $ 158,439 $ - $ - $ 1,450,741 $ 1,292,302 $ 12,422,096 2053 $ - $ - $ 163,192 $ - $ - $ 1,537,785 $ 1,374,593 $ 13,796,689 Totals $ 2,665,413 $ 5,614,146 $ 3,294,598 $ 2,399,578 $ 400,000 $ 22,571,268 $ 13,796,689 $ 13,796,689 NOTES: NPV of Cash Flow $7,207,375.47
1.) SitelogIQ is not a Municipal Financial Advisor and this tool is used to confirm if the proposed project is Budget Neutral or better in compliance with CA Govt. Code 4217.2.) SitelogIQ includes the structural engineering analysis at each site. Structural modifications are not included in estimated program costs if modifications are required.
3.) Assumes that Parks and Rec would contribute $400,000 in capital and would accrue 10% per year for the ball park replacement lighting scope of work as avoided capital / maintenance cost.
FULL PROJECT PROFORMA CASH FLOW 1,2
Scope of Work: Solar at Harvey West Pool, Civic Auditorium and Soquel Parking Garage. Roof Restoration at Civic Auditorium. Musco Ball Park Lighting Replacement at Harvey West Park. Controls system as specified by the City of Santa Cruz at the Civic Auditorium.
14.75 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/28/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Finalizing Sister City Relationship Between Biarritz, France and the City of Santa Cruz (PR)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into agreement with Biarritz, France as part of the finalization process to establish Biarritz as a Sister City with the City of Santa Cruz.
BACKGROUND: On September 9, 2019, the Santa Cruz Sister Cities Committee (Committee) unanimously approved a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Biarritz, France as a friendship city and to establish a formal relationship. At their October 8, 2019 regular meeting, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (Council), per resolution NS-29,578, approved the adoption of the City of Biarritz, France as a friendship city of the City of Santa Cruz. On July 25, 2020 the Mayor of Biarritz formalized the partnership with a letter to then Mayor Justin Cummings, which officially started a friendship city status between the two cities.
Richard Tardits, the delegate to tourism for Biarritz, along with then Committee member and friendship city champion, Vice Chair Douglas Hull, explored strategies and built teams between the two cities with bi-weekly exchanges via email and Zoom. The meetings were focused on identifying common issues faced by both cities and the need to address climate change adaptation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, when international travel restrictions were in place, the teams committed to a series of virtual delegations in 2021. These meetings included workshops between mayors and key members from both cities.
When the travel restrictions were lifted, a mayoral delegation with then Mayor Meyers, Dr.
Wise-West, Committee chair Hull and Committee vice chair Marta Beckwith traveled to Biarritz, France and were welcomed by the Biarritz’s administration in September 2021.
According to the Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy (Policy), Friendship City status approved by both the Committee and City Council, shall be for two (2) years, at which time a committee-wide evaluation shall be made to see whether the sponsoring group met the Policy as a condition prior to the granting of full sister city status.
15.1 On November 8, 2021, the Committee reviewed the report from its friendship subcommittee on Biarritz, France and requested that the full Committee grant full sister city status to Biarritz, France for reasons stated in the report (Biarritz Committee Report).
At their regular meeting on January 25, 2022, Council voted to approve a resolution (NS-29,920) adopting Biarritz, France as a sister city based on the January 10, 2022 recommendation of the Committee and the conclusion of the Biarritz Committee Report.
In September 2022, an in-bound mayoral delegation from Biarritz, France participated in a conference (Sea’ties) on sustainability and climate change hosted by the Committee and several state and local partners. The conference included speakers on climate adaptation and coastal resilience, as well as tourism and economic development. The experience was reflected positively in the community and further cemented the relationship between both cities.
DISCUSSION: At the time of the adoption of resolution NS-29,920, a reciprocal resolution was required to finalize the sister city relationship between Biarritz and Santa Cruz. However, with Council approving the updated Policy, the requirement for a reciprocal resolution was changed to having a mayoral agreement signed between the Mayors of both sister cities. The attached resolution provides for the exception to the now outdated Policy dated on March 22, 2016 and would give authority for the Mayor of Santa Cruz to enter into an agreement to finalize the sister city relationship with Biarritz, France.
The addition of Biarritz, France as a Santa Cruz sister city brings the total active sister city relationships to five (5). The other active sister cities relationships include Shingu, Japan (1974), Sestri-Levante, Italy (1980), Alushta, Ukraine (1984), and Jinetope, Nicaragua (1990). The sister city relationship with Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela (1966) is currently inactive.
Health in all Policies
The action before Council supports the Health in All Policies (HIAP) pillar of sustainability.
Both cities have identified an interest in exchange of ideas and collaborative projects specific to climate change adaptions and its impact on coastal areas.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Tremain Hedden-Jones
Secretary to the Sister Cities
Committee
Submitted By:
Tony Elliot
Director of Parks &
Recreation
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOC
2. CONVENTION DE JUMELAGE ENGLISH VERSION (DRAFT).DOCX
3. SANTA CRUZ FRIENDSHIP AND SISTER CITY ADOPTION POLICY.PDF
15.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
DESIGNATING THE CITY OF BIARRITZ, FRANCE AS A SISTER CITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND AUTHORIZING SANTA CRUZ’S MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SISTER
CITIES AGREEMENT WITH BIARRITZ
WHEREAS, the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz, pursuant to the “Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy” that was effective between March 22, 2016 and April 26, 2022, designated Biarritz, France as a Friendship City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz adopted Biarritz, France as an official Friendship City on October 8, 2019, per Resolution No. NS-29,578; and WHEREAS, through various engagements, delegations, and exchanges as Friendship Cities, a growing connection was established amongst the residents of both cities; and WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Sister Cities Committee to encourage the people of the City of Santa Cruz and the people of its Sister Cities to understand one another as individuals, as members of their community, as citizens of their country, and as part of the family of nations; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the Sister Cities Committee of the City of Santa Cruz reviewed a report from its subcommittee on Biarritz and recommended the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz grant full Sister City status to Biarritz, France; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz adopted Resolution No. NS-29,920, approving the Sister City relationship with Biarritz, France which would become effective when Biarritz adopted a reciprocal resolution; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz adopted an updated “Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy,” that modified the criteria for advancement to Sister City status to the following: “(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.” Reciprocal resolutions are not referenced or contemplated in the City’s updated Sister City Adoption Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
1. The Council again declares its intent for Santa Cruz and Biarritz to be Sister Cities.
2. The Council hereby authorizes the Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz, to enter into a Sister Cities Agreement with Biarritz, France, which will become effective when signed by both Santa Cruz and Biarritz.
3. This resolution nullifies the need for Biarritz to adopt a reciprocal resolution, as contemplated by Resolution No. NS-29,920.
15.3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
15.4 Sister City Agreement Between the Cities of Biarritz (France) and Santa Cruz (United States of America)
We, Maider Arosteguy and Sonja Brunner, Mayors of Biarritz (France) and Santa Cruz (United States of America):
Freely appointed by the vote of our fellow citizens, knowing that our civilizations and our peoples found their cradle in our ancient "communes", Considering that the work of history must continue in an open world, but that this world will only be truly harmonious insofar as men live free in free cities, Affirming our attachment to the respect of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person,
Recognizing that the growing interdependence of our societies requires an international democratic order in the world, the basis of a lasting peace, Recognizing that international action makes it possible to be receptive to developments at work at the global level and which have repercussions in our territories, to acquire information and action tools allowing us to anticipate and support the transitions we are experiencing in environmental, economic, urban, social matters; Recognizing that international action contributes to the openness and attractiveness of territories by promoting the economic, touristic, sport and cultural influence of our respective cities,
Recognizing that international action allows the inhabitants of our two cities to get involved in diversity by bringing together the living forces of civil society (companies, associations, knowledge community) in shared initiatives, Recognizing that international action enhances the expertise of elected officials and territorial agents by promoting exchanges on governance issues and the management of services to citizens, by strengthening the capacities of our two communities, Considering the close characteristics of our two cities, known for their temperate climate, their natural environment, their coastline, their quality of life, their tourist appeal, and the role of surfing culture,
Considering that our two cities are facing the same challenges, in areas as varied as excessive tourist numbers, wave preservation, sustainable urban development, sanitation, biodiversity protection and renewable energies, Considering that the Cities of Biarritz and Santa Cruz maintain a close relationship with the reception in September 2021 in Biarritz of an American delegation, led by the Mayor of Santa Cruz, on the sidelines of the "Waves of Changes" congress, followed in September 2022, by the reception of a Biarritz delegation in Santa Cruz led by the Mayor of Biarritz, on the sidelines of the "Sea'ties" conference,
15.5 Considering the exchanges between the coastal rescue teams of our two cities who challenged each other in September 2022 in Santa Cruz during a competition when they were able to discuss their respective practices.
TAKE THE SOLEMN PLEDGE
In respect of the relations established between our two countries, To become Sister Cities, maintaining durable links between the municipalities of our cities in order to dialogue, to exchange our experiences and to implement any joint action likely to mutually enrich us in all the fields falling within our competence, and more specifically on the actions implemented on a daily basis by each of our community in the fields of eco-tourism, sport, culture and environment.
To encourage and support exchanges between our fellow citizens to develop, through an effective cooperation, a better mutual understanding, To act according to the rules of hospitality, with respect for our diversity, in a climate of trust and in a spirit of solidarity,
To guarantee everyone the possibility of participating in exchanges between our two municipalities without discrimination of any kind whatsoever, To promote, through our exchanges and our cooperation, the universal values of freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,
In ……………………… On the …………………………
_____________________ ____________________
Maider Arosteguy Fred Keeley
Mayor of Biarritz (France) Mayor Santa Cruz (USA)
15.6 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‐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 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.
15.7 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.
15.8 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.
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 15.9 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 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.
Capacity
Ceiling:
There can be a maximum of two Friendship Cities at a time.
Length of Friendship City Status:
Friendship City status runs for a two‐year term.
Possibility of Extending Term:
4. Under unusual and unexpected circumstances, the committee at its option may extend Friendship City status for an additional year.
III. Sister City Selection Criteria & Process 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: 15.10 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy
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 thelocal 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 inSanta Cruz. A profile of likely future constituencies should also be provided ifthe 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 descriptionsof other activities and exchanges in which the two cities have engaged.
15.11 Santa Cruz Friendship and Sister City Adoption Policy 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 .
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 extensioncity of Sister City status to the candidate city.
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.
B. 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.
C. 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 trumpet its active relationships and while also ensuring that inactive cities remain visible to the curiouswho 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.
15.12 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/29/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) – Adopting the 2019 Addendum to the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (Santa Cruz IRWM Plan) (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution adopting the 2019 addendum to the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Santa Cruz IRWM Plan).
BACKGROUND: The Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) was created by the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County in cooperation with local agencies to support high-priority projects in Santa Cruz County. The Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program, managed by the RWMF, was developed in response to California’s IRWM planning initiative to promote an informed, locally driven, and consensus based approach to water resources management. The City of Santa Cruz (City) is a participating agency to the Santa Cruz IRWM, signing previous Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) in 2006, 2011, and 2016.
DISCUSSION: The 2019 addendum to the 2014 Santa Cruz IRWM Plan was completed by the Regional Water Management Group in 2019 to add additional consideration of climate change and other required content; and the 2014 Plan with the 2019 addendum successfully achieved the state’s updated 2016 IRWM Plan standards. California’s electorate approved Proposition 1 on November 4, 2014, which contains a total of $7.5 billion for water and natural resource projects and programs, including $510 million for Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program, with $43 million of that amount allocated to the Central Coast Funding Area. The 2014 plan and 2019 addendum can be found here: https://www.santacruzirwmp.org/plan.
The 2019 IRWM Plan addendum included a list of projects that were anticipated to contribute towards the goals and objectives of the IRWM Plan and this list is updated as needed as projects are completed, as new priorities arise, and in response to future state IRWM funding solicitations. In order to be eligible to receive IRWM grant funding, the City must approve the 2019 IRWM Plan addendum that meets the state’s 2016 IRWM plan.
Adoption of the 2019 addendum to the 2014 Santa Cruz IRWM Plan does not entail a direct commitment of resources, and implementation of each project listed in the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan will be the responsibility of individual project proponents.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
16.1 Prepared By:
Eric Dhakni
Environmental Programs
Analyst
Submitted By:
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION
The 2014 plan and 2019 addendum can be found here: https://www.santacruzirwmp.org/plan.
16.2 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ SUPPORTING ADOPTING THE 2019 ADDENDUM TO THE SANTA CRUZ INTEGRATED REGIONAL
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, since 2005, the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Regional Water Management Group has collaborated extensively to develop a vision, principles, goals, and objectives to support the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan and has successfully obtained competitive grant awards to fund IRWM planning and project implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is a member of the Santa Cruz IRWM Regional Water Management Group and signatory to the 2016 Santa Cruz IRWM Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the benefits of integrated regional planning for water resource management activities are intended to include multiple benefits, increased efficiency and effectiveness, enhanced collaboration across agencies and stakeholders, and improved responsiveness to regional needs and priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz IRWM Region is an approved region as determined by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2009 under DWR’s Region Acceptance Process; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz Regional Water Management Group and the City of Santa Cruz approved the 2014 Santa Cruz Region IRWM Plan on July 22, 2014, and the DWR determined the IRWM Plan successfully achieved the state’s IRWM Plan standards in place at that time; and
WHEREAS, an addendum to 2014 Santa Cruz IRWM Plan was completed by the Regional Water Management Group in 2019 to add additional consideration of climate change and other required content; and the 2014 Plan with the 2019 addendum successfully achieved the state’s updated 2016 IRWM Plan standards; and
WHEREAS, California’s electorate approved Proposition 1 on November 4, 2014, which contains a total of $7.5 billion for water and natural resource projects and programs, including $510 million for Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program, with $43 million of that amount allocated to the Central Coast Funding Area; and WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive IRWM grant funding the City of Santa Cruz must approve the IRWM Plan that meets the state’s 2016 IRWM plan standards to be eligible for IRWM grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the IRWM Plan includes a list of projects that are anticipated to contribute towards the goals and objectives of the IRWM Plan and this list is updated as needed as projects are completed, as new priorities arise, and in response to future state IRWM funding solicitations; and
16.3 WHEREAS, the 2014 IRWM Plan and 2019 addendum, developed under the direction of the Regional Water Management Group Steering Committee and vetted through public workshops and meetings, is herewith presented for adoption by the City of Santa Cruz; and WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan is not a legally binding document on the agencies adopting the Plan, but rather serves as a framework for coordinated planning in the region; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan does not entail a direct commitment of resources, and implementation of each project listed in the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan will be the responsibility of individual project proponents; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the updated Santa Cruz IRWM Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262 and §15306; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan is meant to be complimentary to participating agencies’ individual plans and programs and does not supersede such plans and programs, and adoption of the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan does not proscribe the participating agencies’ planning efforts separate from the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Santa Cruz does hereby adopt the 2019 Addendum to the 2014 Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 10, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
16.4 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/29/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Grant – Authorization for Application, Acceptance and Appropriation of Grant Funds for Construction of a Recreational Vehicle Dump Station (PW) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program to pursue a grant for construction of a Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station project proposed by the City of Santa Cruz Public Works.
BACKGROUND: The Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) was created by the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County in cooperation with local agencies to support high-priority projects in Santa Cruz County. The Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program, managed by the RWMF, was developed in response to California’s IRWM planning initiative to promote an informed, locally driven, and consensus based approach to water resources management.
The City of Santa Cruz (City) is a participating agency to the Santa Cruz IRWM, signing previous Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) in 2006, 2011, and 2016. The Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) is serving as the lead applicant on behalf of the Santa Cruz IRWM region and collaborating with the City and other public agency project proponents on a proposal to be made to the California Department of Water Resources to obtain a Round 2 IRWM Grant pursuant to the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Water Code § 79700 et seq.) in January 2023. The project proposed by the City Public Works (Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station) is recommended for inclusion in a regional application for IRWM Round 2 Implementation funding.
DISCUSSION: For the DWR grant funding, the City plans to apply funding to construct a Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station. The project entails the following:
• Construction of a Recreational Vehicle (RV) dump station so wastewater from recreational vehicles can be safely emptied into the City of Santa Cruz sewer system. • The single dump station will be constructed around a concrete pad and will be located in within the City limits.
The main goal of the dump station is to provide a location where people experiencing homelessness can safely dispose of recreational vehicle wastewater. The dump station would
17.1 help reduce the number of illegal RV dumping incidents which discharge wastewater into the City's storm drain system, creeks and the ocean. The dump station also reduces bacteria contamination to the City’s main water source, the San Lorenzo River, a TMDL listed water body for bacteria/pathogens.
The dump station will be offered as a free public service provided by the City. The project will also benefit disadvantaged communities and those experiencing homelessness.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project estimate of $170,000 is 50% state funded and requires a 50% local match. The local match for the Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station will come from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Prepared By:
Eric Dhakni
Environmental Programs
Analyst
Submitted By:
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
17.2 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ SUPPORTING
AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR
GRANT FUNDING TO BE USED TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF AN
INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, since 2005, the Santa Cruz Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Regional Water Management Group has collaborated to develop principles, goals, and objectives to support the Santa Cruz IRWM Plan and has successfully obtained competitive grant awards to fund IRWM planning and project implementation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is a member of the Santa Cruz IRWM Regional Water Management Group and signatory to the 2016 Santa Cruz IRWM Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, California’s electorate approved Proposition 1 on November 4, 2014, which contains a total of $7.5 billion for water and natural resource projects and programs, including $510 million for Integrated Regional Water Management Program, with $43 million of that amount allocated to the Central Coast Funding Area; and WHEREAS, in response to a regional competitive solicitation for the project proposed by the City of Santa Cruz Public Works (Recreational Vehicle Wastewater Dump Station) is recommended for inclusion in a regional application for IRWM Round 2 Implementation funding; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF) is serving as the lead applicant on behalf of the Santa Cruz IRWM region and collaborating with the City of Santa Cruz and other public agency project proponents on a proposal to be made to the California Department of Water Resources to obtain a Round 2 IRWM Grant pursuant to the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Water Code § 79700 et seq.) in January 2023; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz supports the RWMF's grant application for the Round 2 Implementation Grant and the inclusion of the forementioned project to be implemented by the City of Santa Cruz as part of the IRWM grant funded efforts.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
17.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
17.4 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/29/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: West Cliff Drive Walking Path Storm Damage Repair Project (e401707) – Notice of Completion (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the work of Reber Construction Co, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for West Cliff Storm Damage Repair Project (e401707).
BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, and exacerbated particularly by the storms of February 2017, a portion of the bluff face along the outboard edge of the West Cliff Drive Walking Path has experienced significant erosion and has compromised the fence and narrowed the path itself. This erosion has been primarily caused by surface runoff, not wave action, and will continue to present an ongoing hazard.
On August 10, 2021, the City Council approved the West Cliff Drive Storm Damage Repair Project and authorized staff to advertise for bids and award the contract.
On October 14, 2021, the project was awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder Reber Construction Co, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA), in the amount of $494,297.01.
This project involved constructing an approximately 120’ path supported on drilled piers closer to the roadway. The location in proximity to the roadway also necessitated the construction of a retaining wall along the inboard side of the path. The path structural section incorporates the retailing wall as one contiguous structure supported on piers.
DISCUSSION: The project has been inspected by Public Works staff and found to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications.
FISCAL IMPACT: The project was completed with a total cost of $477,757.10 and is funded almost entirely through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) funds dedicated to the project, with minor additional funding coming from Capital Investment Program (CIP) project c400809, City Arterial and Collector Street Reconstruction and Overlay.
Prepared By:
Miguel Lizarraga
Associate Engineer
Submitted By:
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
18.1 ATTACHMENTS:
1. NOTICE OF COMPLETION.DOCX
18.2 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 below: 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: West Cliff Drive Storm Damage Repair Project (e401707)
3. Nature of Work Performed on the Property or Materials Furnished for the City. The Project consisted of work described as: Constructing an approximately 120’ path supported on drilled piers located slightly closer to the roadway. The location in proximity to the roadway also necessitated the construction of a retaining wall along the inboard side of the path. The path structural section incorporates the retailing wall so that it will be one contiguous structure supported on piers.
4. The general site location description or address (the “Property”) of the public improvement is located at: West Cliff Drive walking path between Swanton Blvd. and Chico Ave.
5. Name and Address of Contractor. The Contractor on the Project is: Reber Construction Co, Inc. PO Box 273, Santa Cruz, CA 95061.
6. Date of Completion. The Project on the Property was completed on: October 31, 2022
7. The filing of this Notice of Completion was authorized by the Santa Cruz City Council Minute Order on Tuesday, January 10, 2023
DATE: ___________________
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works, City of Santa Cruz
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF:
City of Santa Cruz, Public Works
Attn: Miguel Lizarraga
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk’s Department
809 Center Street, Room 9
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
18.3 Notice of Completion (Revised Oct 2021)
VERIFICATION FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
I have read the foregoing Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof, and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 10, 2023, at Santa Cruz, CA
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works, City of Santa Cruz
18.4 Notice of Completion (Revised Oct 2021)
PROOF OF SERVICE DECLARATION
(California Civil Code § 8118)
I, Miguel Lizarraga, declare that I served copies of the above NOTICE OF COMPLETION on the interested parties, in the manner and at the date and place set forth below (Check One):
Direct Contractor: Reber Construction Co, Inc.
PO Box 273
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
☒ REGISTERED, CERTIFIED, OR EXPRESS MAIL: by placing the Notice in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and depositing the envelope in the United States mail by registered, certified, or express mail. Documentation of such service is attached herein. ☐ OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: by causing the Notice to be picked up for overnight delivery by an express service carrier. Documentation of such service is attached herein. ☐ PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing the Notice to be personally delivered to each of the addresses above stated on the date below.
☐ CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 415.20: by leaving the Notice and mailing a copy of the Notice in the manner provided under California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 for service of a summons and complaint in a civil action.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 10, 2023, at Santa Cruz, California.
Miguel Lizarraga
18.5 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/21/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Newell Creek Pipeline Project: Master Service Agreement NPZ-First Amendment with Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Restoration and Revegetation Services (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute NPZ-First Amendment to the Master Service Agreement for professional services related to planning for restoration and revegetation for the Newell Creek Pipeline Project with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (Santa Cruz, CA) 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: Implementation of the Newell Creek Pipeline Felton to Graham Hill Replacement Project (Project) requires federal and state permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. These permit applications are currently in progress and will include obligations for installation of compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to aquatic resources, such as riparian tree removals, and restoration of temporary impacts at the project site.
A compensatory mitigation and restoration plan for the work is required for regulatory agency review and acceptance prior to issuance of final permits.
In November 2019, the City entered into a three-year Master Service Agreement (MSA) with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (ECI) of Santa Cruz, CA for restoration and revegetation services, and the City subsequently renewed the MSA for an additional year on November 1, 2022. The MSA provides for revegetation and site restoration services for a variety of Water Department capital projects, including the Project, but also retains the right for the City to contract with another entity or entities if needed. Each Water Department capital project warranting ECI’s support is executed under a series of unique amendments to the MSA. For example, the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit, Newell Creek Dam Inlet/Outlet, and University 5 Reservoir Replacement projects have independent amendments to the MSA with ECI for design, installation and monitoring.
DISCUSSION: ECI has submitted a proposal for the preparation of a Conceptual Mitigation and Restoration Plan for the Zayante Creek crossing portion of the Project. Services would include:
• Initial planning and site visits,
• Preparation of a conceptual mitigation and restoration plan, and
19.1 • Plan revisions based on agency coordination.
Total cost for services is $22,679.48. Implementation of the final agency-approved conceptual mitigation and restoration plan will be covered by separate and subsequent amendments for installation of the mitigation and restoration work followed by monitoring and maintenance for the performance period required by Project permits. The scope and timing of implementation are yet to be determined and will be based on negotiation with the regulatory agencies. It is expected that the mitigation and restoration work would be implemented within one year of the Project’s completion and will also include maintenance and monitoring for a performance period of three to five years after implementation. The costs for implementation will be developed concurrent with the conceptual mitigation and restoration plan and will be commensurate with project impacts, based on previous work performed by ECI on the projects mentioned above it is expected mitigation and restoration installation will cost approximately $40,000, and $25,000 to $45,000 in costs for monthly maintenance and monitoring per year for an anticipated three to five years, depending on site selection, availability of water for irrigation, and regulatory requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds to cover the cost of this amendment are available in the Water Department’s FY 2023 budget in the Newell Creek Pipeline Felton to Graham Hill Project (c702105). Project design, installation, maintenance, and monitoring will span several years; therefore, funds will be budgeted each fiscal year to cover the cost of anticipated future activities.
Prepared By:
Jessica Martinez-McKinney
Associate Planner II
Submitted By:
Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. NPZ- FIRST AMENDMENT.PDF
19.2 City of Santa Cruz NPZ – First Amendment to Master Services Agreement for
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
December 2022 Page 1
NPZ-FIRST AMENDMENT TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, dated _______________, (“NPZ-First Amendment”) TO THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT dated November 13. 2019, is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Ecological Concerns, Incorporated (ECI), a CORPORATION, (“Consultant”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City and Consultant have previously entered into that certain Master Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated November 13, 2019, in the amount of $0, which is incorporated by this reference, and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2022, the City Council authorized the Water Director to execute Agreement Amendments within the approved project budget, and WHEREAS, Master Services Agreement was renewed on November 7, 2022 for an additional year.
WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement for compensatory mitigation planning for the Zayante Creek Crossing portion of the Newell Creek Pipeline Project as specified herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the Parties to incorporate the above Recitals hereto, and that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
A. Exhibit A: Scope of Work of the Agreement is hereby amended to add project specific tasks per pages 1-3 of ECI’s 5-page letter dated September 23, 2022 which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit A-NPZ-1.
B. Exhibit B: Fee Schedule of the Agreement is hereby amended to add $22,679.48 per page 4 of ECI’s 5-page letter dated September 23, 2022 which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit B-NPZ-1.
C. Exhibit C: Work Schedule of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the work schedule for completion per page 5 of ECI’s 5-page letter dated September 23, 2022 which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit C-NPZ-1.
Notwithstanding these amended terms of the original Agreement by this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the original Professional Services Agreement and attachments, shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this First Amendment shall control if any conflict exists.
19.3 City of Santa Cruz NPZ – First Amendment to Master Services Agreement for
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
December 2022 Page 2
Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this First 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 First Amendment.
The parties may execute this First 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.
The signatories to this First Amendment warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this First Amendment and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this First Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this First Amendment effective as of the date shown above.
Approved As To Form:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ City Attorney
CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: _________________________ CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Rosemary Menard, Water Director
Technical Review By:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Heidi Luckenbach, Deputy Water Director / Engineering Manager
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager
19.4 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/21/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project: Ratify Master Service Agreement Laguna-Sixth Amendment with Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Restoration and Revegetation Services - Budget Adjustment (WT) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Ratify the Laguna-Sixth Amendment to the Master Service Agreement for professional services related to restoration and revegetation for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (Santa Cruz, CA) and to authorize the Water Director to execute future contract amendments within the approved budget; and 2) Adopt a resolution transferring $41,000 from Water’s Capital Investment Program, project c701801, for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project to Water Engineering’s operating budget, activity 7102.
BACKGROUND: The Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project (Project), substantially completed in 2021, required federal, state, and local permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the County of Santa Cruz. These permits included obligations for the installation of compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to aquatic resources and restoration of temporary impacts at the project site.
In November 2019, the City entered into a three-year Master Service Agreement (MSA) with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (ECI) of Santa Cruz, CA for restoration and revegetation services, and the City subsequently renewed the MSA for an additional year on November 1, 2022. The MSA provides for revegetation and site restoration services for a variety of Water Department capital projects, including the Project, but also retains the right for the City to contract with another entity or entities if needed. Each Water Department capital project warranting ECI’s support is executed under a series of unique amendments to the MSA. For example, the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit, Newell Creek Dam Inlet/Outlet, and University 5 Reservoir Replacement projects have independent amendments to the MSA with ECI for design, installation, and monitoring.
In June 2020, City Council authorized execution of the Laguna-First Amendment to the Master Service Agreement (MSA) with Ecological Concerns Incorporated (ECI) of Santa Cruz, CA for professional services related to restoration and revegetation for the Project.
20.1 Under Laguna-First, ECI prepared a compensatory mitigation and restoration plan for the Project which was accepted by the regulatory agencies. The compensatory mitigation and restoration plan requires maintenance and monitoring for a performance period of five years after implementation.
In October 2021, ECI implemented the compensatory mitigation and restoration work and initiated monthly maintenance and monitoring of the Project in November 2021 for one year.
This work was authorized by contract amendments Laguna-Second through Laguna-Fifth. These contract amendments also included an updated rate sheet, as allowed by the MSA.
DISCUSSION: ECI submitted a proposal for a second year of maintenance and monitoring of habitat restoration at the Project site. Services include monthly site maintenance, monitoring, and reporting; such work is considered an operating expense but was budgeted in CIP project c701801, Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project.
Total cost for the services is $40,693.87. The total Not to Exceed amount for the Laguna ECI contracts under the MSA is increased to an amount of $139,220.27. To continue uninterrupted maintenance and monitoring of the Project site as required by the permits, staff circulated the Laguna-sixth amendment for execution in advance of this Council meeting and is seeking ratification of the contract amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds to cover the cost of this amendment were budgeted in Water’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) project c701801 for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project and the attached budget adjustment will transfer $41,000 to the Water Department’s FY 2023 budget in the engineering (activity 7102) operating budget (object 52137). Project maintenance and monitoring will span several years; therefore, funds will be budgeted in Water Engineering’s operating budget each fiscal year to cover the cost of anticipated future activities.
Prepared By:
Jessica Martinez-McKinney
Associate Planner II
Submitted By:
Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. LAGUNA SIXTH AMENDMENT.PDF
2. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF
20.2 City of Santa Cruz LAGUNA-SIXTH Amendment to Master Service Agreement for
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
November 2022 Page 1
LAGUNA-SIXTH AMENDMENT TO MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT, dated _______________ (“Laguna-Sixth Amendment”) TO THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT dated November 13. 2019, is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Ecological Concerns, Incorporated (ECI), a CORPORATION, (“Consultant”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City and Consultant have previously entered into that certain Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) dated November 13, 2019, which is incorporated by this reference, and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Laguna-First Amendment to the Master Service Agreement for professional services related to restoration and revegetation for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project, and WHEREAS, Contract Amendment Laguna-First was executed on June 10, 2020, for the initial preparation of a compensatory mitigation and restoration plan for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit project in the amount of $13,726.40, and
WHEREAS, Contract Amendment Laguna-Second was executed on September 22, 2020, for plant propagation to support habitat restoration and revegetation for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit projects in the amount of $12,212.80, and
WHEREAS, Contract Amendment Laguna-Third was executed on October 8, 2021 for implementation of the mitigation plan for habitat restoration and the first year of maintenance and monitoring for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit project, in the amount of $69,464.20, and WHEREAS, Contract Amendment Laguna-Fourth was executed on July 5, 2022, to incorporate the May 2022 Rate sheet and to adjust the contract in the amount of $3,123.00.
WHEREAS, Contract Amendment Laguna-Fifth was executed on July 20, 2022, to supersede Contract Amendment Laguna-Fourth and incorporate a corrected Not to Exceed amount of $98,526.40.
WHEREAS, Master Services Agreement was renewed on November 7, 2022 for an additional year.
WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to amend the MSA to for a second year of maintenance and monitoring of habitat restoration conducted for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project as specified herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the Parties to incorporate the above Recitals hereto, and that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
20.3 City of Santa Cruz LAGUNA-SIXTH Amendment to Master Service Agreement for
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
November 2022 Page 2
Exhibit A: Scope of Work of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Add project specific tasks per Page 2 of ECI's 4-page letter dated August 12, 2022, which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit A-Laguna-6.
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Add $40,693.87 per Page 3 of ECI's 4-page letter dated August 12, 2022, which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit B-Laguna-6. The total Not to Exceed amount is increased to an amount of $139,220.27.
Exhibit C: Schedule of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Add the work schedule for completion per Page 4 of ECI's 4-page letter dated August 12, 2022, which is attached to this Amendment and is inserted in the MSA as Exhibit C-Laguna-6.
Notwithstanding these amended terms of the original Agreement by this Sixth Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the original Professional Services Agreement and attachments, and other prior amendments, shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this Sixth Amendment shall control if any conflict exists.
Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Sixth 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 Sixth Amendment.
The parties may execute this Sixth 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.
The signatories to this Sixth Amendment warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Sixth Amendment and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Sixth Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this Sixth Amendment effective as of the date shown above.
20.4 City of Santa Cruz LAGUNA-SIXTH Amendment to Master Service Agreement for
REVEGETATION AND SITE RESTORATION SERVICES
November 2022 Page 3
Approved As To Form:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ City Attorney
CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: _________________________ CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Rosemary Menard, Water Director
Technical Review By:
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Heidi Luckenbach, Deputy Water Director / Engineering Manager
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager
20.5 City of Santa Cruz
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
)LVFDO<HDU
ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
255(9(18($&&28177,7/(
ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
25EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TITLE
NET: $
REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD
APPROVAL
BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('
FINANCE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL
CITYMANAGER
APPROVAL
5HVR
352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
TOTALREVENUE
'DWH
1VSQPTF
3FWJTFE/PWFNCFS
Clear Form
2023
12/13/2022
Transfer $41,000 from Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project (CIP project c701801) to Water Engineering's operating budget (activity 7102) for on-going maintenance work budgeted in the CIP in error. 0 711-70-91-7153-57302 c701801-100-2020-0 Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project -41,000 711-70-91-7102-52137 Engineering fees - outside 41,000
0 0
Digitally signed by Malissa Kaping
DN: cn=Malissa Kaping, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Water
Department,
[email protected]
om, c=US
Date: 2022.12.13 11:38:41 -08'00'
Rosemar
y Menard
Digitally signed by Rosemary Menard
DN: cn=Rosemary Menard, o=Santa Cruz Water
Department, ou=Water Director,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.12.13 12:23:05 -08'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by Elizabeth Cabell
DN: cn=Elizabeth Cabell, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance
Department,
[email protected],
c=US
Date: 2022.12.22 07:14:14 -08'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by Elizabeth Cabell
DN: cn=Elizabeth Cabell, o=City of Santa Cruz,
ou=Finance Department,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.12.22 07:14:27 -08'00'
20.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ TO AMEND SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.05.170 TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL PROVISION OF THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) City Council adopted and incorporated by reference the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code and Fire Code Standards in Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 19.05 on November 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City proposes further amendments to SCMC Chapter 19.05 to incorporate California Fire Code Section 311.5 which provides standards for marking unsafe vacant or abandoned buildings or structures; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the Santa Cruz City Council make express findings that changes or modifications to the requirements contained in the provisions published in the California Building Standards Code, including the California Fire Code, and the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922 (including, but not limited to, green building standards) are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 further requires that a copy of the above referenced findings “together with the modification or change expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, shall be filed with the California Building Standards Commission”; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz City Council finds that the proposed amendment to SCMC section 19.05.170, adding placard requirements in Section 311.5 of the California Fire Code, does not conflict with the California Fire Code; and
WHEREAS, Santa Cruz City Council hereby approves the below-noted amendment to Chapter 3 of the 2022 California Fire Code. The below-noted modification has been proposed by the Santa Cruz Fire Department, in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office; and WHEREAS, Staff is directed to file a copy of the findings included in this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 19.05.170 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language):
21.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-23
2 “19.05.170 SECTION 311.1 IS AMENDED – VACANT PREMISES Section 311.1 of Chapter 3 of the Fire Code of the city of Santa Cruz is amended to read as follows:
311.1 General. Temporarily unoccupied buildings, structures, premises or portions thereof, including tenant spaces, shall be safeguarded and maintained in accordance with Sections 311.1.1 through 311.4. 311.5”
SECTION 2: Interpretation
A. If any section or portion of this chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter, which shall continue in full force and effect.
B. Nothing in this ordinance or in the Fire Code hereby adopted shall be construed to affect any suit or proceeding pending in any court or liability incurred under any prior version of this ordinance.
SECTION 3: Environmental Review
This ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.)
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 13th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Cummings.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
21.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-23
3 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this ___ day of January, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2022-23 and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
21.3 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:
That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:
January 3, 2022
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This 3rd day of January, 2022, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood
21.4 DECLARATION OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 23rd day of December, 2022, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2022-23, to wit:
1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10
2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers
3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—3.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of December, 2022, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood
21.5 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/28/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Health in All Policies: 2022 Progress Report and 2023 Work Plan (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the Health in All Policies (HiAP) 2022 progress report and approve the proposed 2023 work plan.
BACKGROUND: Recognizing that local governments play a role in community well-being through policy and decision making by prioritizing the three pillars of equity, public health and sustainability, the City Council adopted a Health in All Policies (HiAP) ordinance, https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council/publication-of-ordinances/2019- ordinances, and City Council Policy 14.9 (https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citycouncil/council-policy-manual) in December 2019. Subsequently, the City Council adopted a Year 1 Implementation Work Plan in January 2020 and upon completion of that work plan, in November 2021, adopted a multi-year work plan that extends to June 30, 2024. The City Council also adopted a set of community well-being outcome indicator metrics. The data for the metrics were updated in February 2022 and the metrics are intended to be referenced to better understand the impact of the City and its partners’ collective efforts over a decadal timeframe.
Also on November 9, 2021, City Council adopted a complementary resolution recognizing the history and current existence of racism and white supremacy in the community, reviving the HiAP Committee (Committee) and directing the Committee to return to the Council with concrete, actionable steps to work toward building a more just, inclusive and safe community.
The purpose of this agenda report is to provide an annual progress update on the implementation of the HiAP multi-year work plan, describe the efforts to implement the racial discrimination resolution, and provide a specific work plan for calendar year 2023.
DISCUSSION: The HiAP ordinance and City Council policy set forth the expectation that all commission and City Council agenda reports will include language in the discussion section as to how the three pillars of HiAP were considered in the item’s development. Staff analysis of the agenda reports presented to City Council in 2020, 2021 and 2022 revealed that 10.0%, 13.5% and 7.7% of all agenda reports, respectively, addressed the three pillars of HiAP in the discussion section. This low rate of compliance indicates the need for more staff training on the ordinance requirement and the tools available to assist staff to thoroughly yet efficiently prepare the HiAP language for agenda reports.
22.1 The following activities were included in the multi-year work plan adopted in November 2021, to be completed by June 30, 2024. The current status of each is indicated. City staff will report back on the progress of these activities again at the end of calendar year 2023. • All Depts: Workforce Development Initiative – ongoing initiative included partnering with Your Future is our Business on a Trades Day at the Civic Auditorium in November, 2022 and receipt of a Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program grant to fund low income green and healthy home retrofits that includes a workforce development initiative in partnership with Central Coast Energy Services as well as ongoing support and coordination with other regional partners on various initiatives. • All Depts: Engagement for the purpose of relationship and capacity building – staff conducted a wide variety of community engagement, notably the equity focused outreach conducted with homeless people and Beach Flats and Lower Ocean residents by the Climate Action Program to support the development of a coastal change monitoring program.
• City Manager’s Office (CMO) + Depts: Design standard operating procedure/best practices for equity focused community engagement – the communications team’s community engagement subcommittee developed an internal translation and interpretation guide as well as an equity best practices in engagement guide and conducted employee training on both.
• CMO: Community Programs Committee ongoing evaluation and recommendations for new CORE/Community Development Block Grant funding allocations based on equity – completed and new, three-year term contracts awarded in June 2022. • CMO: Join the Local and State Government Alliance for Racial Equity (GARE)* - completed
• CMO: Equity based Community Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030) and Climate Adaptation Plan 2028 development – CAP 2030 was completed and adopted in September 2022 with development and use of an equity screening tool and advisement from a dozen local equity advisors comprised of members of under-represented and under-served groups. Each department has developed a 2023 work plan for CAP 2030 implementation and the city will conduct an implementation partners roundtable at the start of 2023. The Climate Adaptation Plan 2028 development has not commenced due to the pending decision of a grant award to fund consultant services to develop that plan with the City and community.
• Economic Development (ED): Active development of green mixed use affordable housing projects – ongoing with recent Congressional allocations and grant funding bringing the projects closer to construction.
• Human Resources (HR): Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiative* – development delayed due to staff turnover on the Employee Equal Opportunity Committee (EEOC) tasked with this initiative
22.2 • HR + All Depts: More training for City Council and employees – ongoing: over two dozen staff participated in trainings on Health in All Policies, equity best practices in engagement and Climate Action Plan 2030 Implementation in 2022. A HiAP training was also conducted for the Arts Commission at a regular meeting and the Parks and Recreation Commission at its annual retreat.
• HR EEOC*: The EEOC will help the City explore avenues to apply the Health in All Policies framework to its Human Resources policies. The EEOC will help the City explore avenues to apply the Health in All Policies framework to its Human Resources policies – development delayed due to staff turnover on the Employee Equal Opportunity Committee
• Police Department (PD): Develop oversized vehicle ordinance to reduce the environmental damage associated with dumping sewage, reduce litter and bring safe sleeping that would improve equity – adopted by City Council in 2022. • PD: Implementation of 26 policies, approved by Council, that improve social equity for people of color and indigenous community – ongoing
• PR: Equity work in strategic planning – PR staff initiated strategic planning process with a HiAP framework to guide its development.
• Planning and Community Development (PL): Focus on sustainability, equity and inclusion in City’s existing building electrification, objective standard project and Downtown Expansion project – ongoing with explicit outreach conducted with individuals from and organizations that serve historically under-represented or underserved people. • Finance (FN), PL: Develop list of prequalified local vet, BIPOC, small and women contractors for residents to reference – not yet completed. • FN: Exploration and integration of Carbon and Equity Budgeting* – integrated 3 HiAP pillars into FY 2023 budget for informational purposes. Currently work between CMO and FN departments aims to further integrate these pillars into the FY 2024 budget for prioritization purposes.
Workplan activities denoted with an asterisk (*) also represent activities to be completed pursuant to the racial discrimination resolution. To implement one of the activities contained in the racial discrimination resolution, staff and the Committee commissioned a demographics survey and study of commission and committee members conducted by Santa Cruz Ventures.
This study supports an effort to diversify recruitment to and representation on commissions and committees. Santa Cruz Ventures produced the attached report entitled, “Santa Cruz Like Me,” containing recommendations that the City has adapted for implementation over 2023 and 2024.
Other activities from the racial discrimination resolution that remain to be implemented or are partially complete or ongoing include:
22.3 • Conduct authentic community engagement with communities of color that includes, but is not limited to, increasing access to government decision-makers, and engaging with the communities prior to making decisions.
• Serve as a resource to People of Color towards existing resources for People of Color agencies and community members.
• Support resources for racial equity processes and outcomes including to leaders of color serving communities of color, building capacity in the understanding of racism and equity and their impacts on community well-being, and engagement with trusted messengers who reflect the communities they serve.
• Pursue cross-sector and cross-jurisdiction partnerships within Santa Cruz County and alignment in dismantling white supremacy, fortifying our commitment to fostering antiracist and anti-discrimination community culture, and celebrating and highlighting past and existing culture and leadership of People of Color community members.
In addition to individual departments carrying out the activities noted as ongoing or incomplete above, the following HiAP 2023 work plan will guide the remaining and ongoing activities from the multi-year workplan as well as other Council directed work:
January
• Implementation of recommendations for diversity in committee/commission recruitment + representation
• Review the lessons learned evaluation process full report for Collective of Result and Evidence-based Investments
• Review next steps for tobacco product waste options and associated engagement plan March
• Review tobacco product waste charter and resource and cost estimate analysis for possible next steps
• Report out on Phase 2 HiAP in budget
May
• Review engagement to date / conduct engagement at meeting on single use tobacco ban • Review revised history of City for website
July
• Review progress on Council direction on tobacco waste products • Review progress on EEOC DEI initiative, receive annual report on Harassment/Discrimination and Respectful Workplan Conduct, City Workforce and Census Demographics Data and creation of an internal city-wide DEI statement September
• Review progress on recommendations for diversity in committee/commission recruitment + representation in preparation for calendar year 2024 recruitments November
• Review progress on Council direction on tobacco waste products
22.4 • Review draft committee work plan for calendar year 2024 FISCAL IMPACT: HiAP receives an annual budget allocation of $20,000 and this supports limited consultant services and membership in GARE. Centralized staffing and coordination of HiAP continues to be very challenging from a capacity standpoint.
Prepared By:
Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability & Climate
Action Manager
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CITY LIKE ME REPORT.PDF
22.5 The Value of Representational Government
A City Like Me: Santa Cruz
www.sccvonline.org
PO Box 2375
Watsonville, CA 95077
powered by
22.6 This report is made possible through a partnership between Ventures and the City of Santa Cruz. It expands and complements a similar effort, “A Santa Cruz Like Me,” undertaken in 2021 with the County of Santa Cruz. Both efforts aim to ensure that the diversity of our government reflects the diversity of our region.
Different lived experiences can help inform and shape policy and governance. “A City Like Me: Santa Cruz” paints a picture of the City of Santa Cruz’s elected and appointed representative bodies including City Council and twelve (12) Commissions and Committees. It is a start to explore and identify how we are doing as a city, with a goal of ensuring a resilient, prosperous and equitable future for all.
Key Findings
1. Critical Over Representation of Zip Code 95060 Survey results show a 22% over representation as compared to census data (69% vs 47%). This zip code represents 50% of high-income households ($100K+) and college graduates in the City of Santa Cruz. Thus, making this specific zip code over representation impact all other aspects of lived experience and demographic representation at commission and board levels.
2. Critical Over Representation Based on Age, Education Level, and Income Survey results show critical over representation as compared to census data. This includes zero representation of young adults (ages 18-24) or a 20% variance, a 38% variance in those who indicated having a 4-year college degree or higher (91% vs 53%), and a variance of 26% for households earning $100K or higher (67% vs 41%). It is important to note that not all residents of zip code 95060 reported their household income, to which may indicate an under reporting of those living in households earning $100K or higher.
3. Critical Under Representation of People of Color Data shows a 34% under count of people of color, based on race and ethnicity indicators, in the make-up of boards and commissions. With the greatest variance (17%) showing up for Latino identified population based on the survey responses (5%) as compared to city population totals (23%). It is important to note that 43% of Latino identified city residents live in zip code 95060 and that the county also showed a 19% variance for Latinos on their boards and commissions. These findings point to the need for further analysis on Latino engagement and recruitment.
4. Critical Under Representation of Renters Renters make up only 28% of board and commission membership, as compared to 54% of the general population. This was also seen at the County level where a similar 28% variance was found. Given the housing crisis, representation by tenants would provide needed perspectives to housing solutions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methodology & Participants . . 4
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 • powered by Ventures 22.7
BACKGROUND
“A City Like Me: Santa Cruz” was inspired by efforts within the City of Santa Cruz’ Health in All Policies work and Santa Cruz County’s “A Santa Cruz Like Me” report. The policies and decisions our local leaders form and vote on directly affect our communities. Underscoring the importance that our leaders reflect and understand the diversity of the region.
As an organization interested in building an equitable economy, Ventures recognizes the value of a representative government and how this can affect economic decisions. This data-driven effort also aligns with the City of Santa Cruz’s Strategic Plan goals to create a vibrant city that preserves the diversity and quality of its natural and built environment and creates a satisfying quality of life for its diverse population and workers.
A City Like Me: Santa Cruz • 3 22.8
METHODOLOGY
The survey was delivered in the Summer of 2022
to City of Santa Cruz’s commissions, committees,
and City Council members to voluntarily disclose
demographic and population descriptive indicators.
The data collected was compared to American
Community Survey (ACS) and U.S. Census populationlevel data using DataShare Santa Cruz, the central hub of information for Santa Cruz County. In addition,
the team reviewed and compared overall population
data from the County’s “A Santa Cruz Like Me” report.
The report highlights indicators with variances of 5%
or higher from the population, with special review of
variances of 10% or higher.
PARTICIPATION
All commissions and boards
participated in the survey, with
63% of all possible respondents
completing the survey. It is
important to note that some
participants opted out of
certain questions. City survey
percentages reflect calculations
based solely on data attained
from respondents that
completed the respective survey
question.
City Survey Data City Data City Variance
County Survey
Data County Variance
Zipcode
95060 69% 47% 22% 22% 4%
95062 26% 36% -10% 14% 0%
95063 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
95064 3% 9% -6% n/a n/a
95065 2% 8% -6% 7% 4%
Age
Under 18 0% 15% -15% n/a n/a
18-24 0% 20% -20% 0% -14%
25-64 65% 47% 18% 67% 18%
65-84 35% 16% 19% 35% 19%
85-up 0% 2% -2% 0% -2%
Gender
Female 52% 49% 3% 61% 10%
Male 45% 51% -6% 38% -11%
Nonbinary 2% n/a n/a 1% n/a
Transgender 2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Disability Identity
Yes 9% 9% -0% 17% -17%
No 91% 91% -0% 77% n/a
4 • powered by Ventures 22.9
City
Survey Data City Data City Variance
County
Survey Data County Variance
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian and Alaska Native 0% 1% -1% 2% 2%
Asian (Non Hispanic or Latino) 2% 8% -6% 2% -6%
Black or African American 3% 2% 1% 2% 1%
Hispanic or Latino 5% 23% -17% 16% -19%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 0% 0.2% -0.2% n/a n/a
White 85% 72% 13% 72% -13%
Other (Non Hispanic or Latino) 0% 11% -11% n/a n/a
Education
High school diploma or equivalent 2% 18% -16% 2% -14%
Some college, no degree 5% 22% -17% 7% -15%
Associate degree 2% 7% -5% 4% -4%
Bachelor's degree 49% 30% 19% 33% 10%
Master's degree 33% 15% 18% 28% 17%
Doctorate 9% 4% 5% 11% 9%
Professional degree 0% 4% -4% 6% 3%
Veteran Status
Yes 7% 9% -2% 92% n/a
No 93% 91% 2% 8% n/a
Housing Status
Homeowner 71% 46% 24% 77% 26%
Renter 28% 54% -26% 22% 28%
Other 2% n/a 2% 1% 2%
Income
Less than $15,000 0% 10% -10% n/a n/a
$15,000 to $24,999 2% 8% -6% n/a n/a
$25,000 to $34,999 0% 6% -6% n/a n/a
$35,000 to $49,999 2% 9% -6% n/a n/a
$50,000 to $74,999 12% 14% -2% n/a n/a
$75,000 to $99,999 16% 12% 4% n/a n/a
$100,000 to $124,999 21% 9% 12% n/a n/a
$125,000 to $149,999 7% 8% -1% n/a n/a
$150,000 to $199,999 23% 9% 15% n/a n/a
$200,000 and Over 16% 15% 1% n/a n/a
A City Like Me: Santa Cruz • 5 22.10
KEY FINDINGS
3 Critical Under Representation of People
of Color. Data shows a 34% under count of
people of color, based on race and ethnicity
indicators, in the make-up of boards and
commissions. With the greatest variance (17%)
showing up for Latino identified population
based on the survey responses (5%) as
compared to city population totals (23%). It is
important to note that 43% of Latino identified
city residents live in zip code 95060 and that
the county also showed a 19% variance for
Latinos on their boards and commissions. These
findings point to the need for further analysis
on Latino engagement and recruitment. It
is also important to note a variance (11%) in
respondents that identified as “other.”
4 Critical Under Representation of
Renters. Renters make up only 28% of board
and commission membership, as compared
to 54% of the general population. This was
also seen at the County level where a similar
28% variance was found. Given the housing
crisis, representation by tenants would provide
needed perspectives to housing solutions.
While these findings are grouped by individual
indicators, we recognize that they all can and
do impact each other. For example, higher
education tends to correlate with a higher
income, which may impact residents’ ability to
afford home ownership.
1 Critical Over Representation of Zip Code 95060.
Survey results show a 22% over representation as compared to census data (69% vs 47%). This zip code represents
the area known as the Westside of Santa Cruz, which
includes downtown and areas surrounding the University
of California, Santa Cruz. It is important to note that based on the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 50% of
high-income households ($100K+) and college graduates in the city reside in this zip code. Thus, making this specific zip code over representation impact all other aspects of lived experience and demographic representation at commission and board levels.
2 Critical Over Representation Based on Age, Education
Level, and Income. Survey results show critical over
representation as compared to census data based on age, education level, and income. This includes:
• 0% representation of young adults (ages 18-24), or a
variance of 20%. This is reflected in part by an over
representation in both working adults (ages 25-64) and
retirees (ages 65+).
• 38% variance in those who indicated having a 4-year college degree or higher (91% vs 53%). This includes an 18% over representation of those with Master’s degrees; and
• 26% variance for households earning $100K or higher (67% vs 41%). It is important to note that not all residents of zip code 95060 reported their household income, to which may indicate an under reporting of those living in households earning $100K or higher.
Given that higher education tends to correlate with higher income, this may impact the ability for inclusive workforce development and economic development policies adopted
by the city.
6 • powered by Ventures 22.11
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create a Committee to Review Variances
and Propose Solutions. In alignment with City
of Santa Cruz’s vision to create a satisfying
quality of life for its diverse population and
workers, it is recommended that a committee be
formed that includes community members from
groups that are under represented to provide
recommendations to address variances in the
next 6 months. Committee members would be
charged with exploring solutions to decrease
existing variances and monitoring progress.
The committee should report on their progress
within one year of its creation.
2. Embed Collection of Demographic
Information During Application and
Onboarding. To capture a complete picture of
who is applying and ultimately appointed, it is
recommended that demographic information
be collected during the application process for
all board and commission positions. Elected
officials should also receive a City demographic
report during onboarding. This information
should be reviewed on a timely basis to ensure
outreach is reaching all members of the
community.
3. Educate Applicants on the Demographic
Information Collection as a Key Strategic. To support
the engagement and data collection process, it is
important that candidates for appointment understand
the purpose and role of the data collection process. This includes the need for participants to answer all questions in the survey. Elected officials with appointment power should help inform candidates and staff of the value
of the process in alignment with the city’s goals and
strategy.
4. Include City Data Review as Part of the
Onboarding Process. It is recommended that the
onboarding process for appointees, including those with appointment power, include a review of the demographic
makeup of the city and the data dashboards that are
available. Furthermore, appointees and elected members
should receive guidance and training on ensuring they
consider experience of population or groups not currently represented, including providing language accessibility for non-English speakers.
5. Work with the County of Santa Cruz to Review
Variances Within Both City and County. Given some
populations were found to be under represented both at
the city and county level, it is recommended these two
jurisdictions work together to identify common causes,
leverage approaches, and propose solutions.
A City Like Me: Santa Cruz • 7 22.12
About Ventures
Ventures partners with rural Latino working-class families in California’s Central Coast to implement transformational programs that activate and strengthen their economic and political power.
Together, we are working towards a shared and prosperous economic future where zip code, race, gender, or immigration status do not dictate income or wealth. sccvonline.org
About Health In All Policies Committee
Nestled between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the
Monterey Bay, the City of Santa Cruz’ unrivalled environment creates a thriving and open culture that invites innovation, entrepreneurship, and an ethos of keeping it real. Known for its vibrant community and pristine natural environments, the City is home to 65,000 residents and welcomes tourists from across California and the world. The economy is anchored in tourism and technology and is home to world class arts, cultural and education institutions. Distinguished by residents with diverse ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds and life experiences, Santa Cruz offers an incredible quality of life. In 2017 Time Magazine was named the third Healthiest and Happiest City in the US. In 2018, the city was named one of the “Top 100 Best Places to Live” by livability.com and one of the “30 Best Small Cities in the U.S.” by National Geographic’s Traveler magazine.
Through its Health in All Policies initiative initiated in 2019, the City has prioritized community well-being through a focus on equity, public health and sustainability in its policy making; Santa Cruz Like me is an outcome of the Health in All Policies initiative.
APPRECIATION
8 • powered by Ventures 22.13
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
Health in All Policies: 2022 Progress + 2023 Work Plan
City Council | January 10, 2023 22.14
● Local Government
Decisions impact
Community Well-being
● Prioritizing Equity, Public
Health, Sustainability in
Decision-making improves
Community Well-being
^CORE CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY WELL-BEING
WHAT IS HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES?
22.15 HIAP TIMELINE HIGHLIGHTS
2018:
CC directs
subcommittee
To prepare HiAP
Evaluation
Workplan
2020:
HiAP key principle of
Covid Recovery Plan
+ Lots of Training*
2021:
Racial Discrimination
Resolution +
Community WellBeing Metrics
Adopted
2019:
Eval Report,
Ordinance +
Implementation
Recommendations
adopted by CC
2022:
Joined GARE,
HiAP in Budget and
Commission +
Committee Diversity
2023:
Tobacco Waste
Product Options,
EEOC + DEI effort,
Diversity in Comm.
22.16 October, 2022 bit.ly/SCLikeMe2022
22.17 01
CONVENE ADVISORIES TO HIAP
TO GUIDE RECOMMENDATION
IMPLEMENTATION
02 WORK WITH
COMMISSION +
COMMITTEE STAFF
TO TRAIN, INFORM +
GET INPUT
03 WORK WITH CITY CLERK ON
RECRUITMENT, TRAINING,
TRANSLATION/
INTERPRETATION
05 INVITE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ TO
COLLABORATE
04 SET STANDARDS IN DIVERSITY,
INTERPRETATION + TRANSLATION
DIVERSITY IN COMMISSIONS + COMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS + NEXT STEPS
22.18 equity | public health | sustainability
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the
2022 HiAP progress report and approve
the proposed 2023 HiAP Workplan.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/city-manager/health-in-all-policies 22.19 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/28/2022
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project Permit Applications (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Approve the two attached requests from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome related to the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (located at 113 and 119 Lincoln St.), and
2) Pursuant to these requests, direct that the Council, at a later Council meeting, consider and take final action on: (a) the Parks & Recreation Commission’s denial of an appeal, which affirmed the Parks and Recreation Department’s issuance of a heritage tree removal permit, and (b) all other permits and approvals for the project (the Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Sign Permit).
BACKGROUND: The currently pending Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project requires the following permits: 1) Special Use Permit; 2) Design Permit; 3) Nonresidential Demolition Permit; 4) Lot Line Adjustment; 5) Sign permit; and 6) Heritage Tree Removal Permit. On December 12, 2022 the Parks and Recreation Commission, by a 4-3 vote, denied an appeal seeking to overturn the Parks and Recreation Director’s issuance of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the Project. On February 16, 2023, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the remaining permit applications.
With regard to the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 1.16.040 authorizes the City Council to refer commission decisions, including Parks and Recreation Commission heritage tree removal decisions, to the Council for further consideration.
With regard to the remaining five land use applications, Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section
24.04.175 authorizes the City Council, on its own motion, to direct that any permit application processed pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance be referred to the City Council for consideration and final action. When referred to the City Council, the Planning Commission still considers the applications but, rather than taking final action, it provides a recommendation for final action to the Council.
DISCUSSION: The proposed Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project is of substantial interest to the City Council’s constituents. Like other major development projects in
23.1 the City, the public should expect the City Council to take final action resulting in the project’s approval or disapproval. To this end, the Municipal Code provides two avenues to assure that the Council is the final arbiter for such projects. Commission decisions granting or denying requisite project permits can be administratively appealed to the City Council. Alternatively, the Council can direct that requisite project permit applications be referred to the Council for final action.
In this instance the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project requires a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for which the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible and a series of land use permits, listed above, for which the Planning Department is responsible. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the land use permit applications on February 16, 2023 while the Parks and Recreation Commission, on administrative appeal, considered the Heritage Tree Removal Permit on December 12, 2022. If the Parks and Recreation Commission decision is administratively appealed to the City Council, per Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section
1.16.030(d) that appeal would need to be scheduled for a City Council meeting within sixty days of December 12th i.e. on or before February 11, 2023. Accordingly, unless this decision is “called up” as requested in our December 16, 2022 letter, the Council will be placed in the anomalous position of considering the project’s heritage tree issues outside the context of its entire project consideration.
By adopting a motion accepting the two “call up” requests set forth in the December 16 and December 20 letters, the Council can assure that it will consider the entire project at once, and will do so with the benefit of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s December 12, 2022 input and the Planning Commission’s February 16, 2023 input.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Submitted By:
Fred Keeley
Mayor
Scott Newsome
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DECEMBER 16, 2022 LETTER.PDF
2. DECEMBER 20, 2022 LETTER.PDF
23.2 23.3
23.4 From: Nancy Shanfeld
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Date: Thursday, January 05, 2023 6:00:28 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. The Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them should specifically apply to this project. Especially the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision and have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Nancy Shanfeld
23.5 From: Andy Carman
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23, Jan 10, 2023
Date: Thursday, January 05, 2023 7:10:00 PM
Re: Agenda item #23, Jan 10, 2023
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you,
Andy Carman
Santa Cruz
23.6 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2023 8:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item # 23
[email protected],
Re: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them it possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Appreciating you,
Cappy Israel, Santa Cruz, 95060
23.7 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: David Bornstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2023 8:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them it possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
David Bornstein
221 Hubbard St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
23.8 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Taiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2023 10:42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage Trees
Dear City Council,
At least two of the Heritage Trees on lot 4 can be saved by alterations to the design of the building planned for Lot 4. It’s very important that alterations be made to save them. If Santa Cruz residents are actually concerned with the threat of climate change, saving our mature trees needs to be a priority.
Lee Taiz
328n Oxford Way
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
23.9 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Phyllis Greenleaf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 7:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please DON'T CUT DOWN OUR HERITAGE TREES!
DEAR SC City council,
Old Trees are So important to the quality of life
in downtown Santa Cruz.
Let the project planners and architects incorporate these old trees into their design.......The library and the children's program will benefit from having these old Grandparent Trees be part of their lives.
Thank you.
Phyllis Taub Greenleaf
Grandmother Activist for our healthy environment
Live Oak
23.10 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: fred geiger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 8:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage tree removal.
Allowing cutting heritage trees at the lot 4 site is a total act of hypocrisy .
U are , no doubt, aware that the project design is required to avoid this if possible , but no effort to do this has been attempted .
U are derelict in your duty to act lawfully if this is allowed! Fred J. Geiger
Santa Cruz
23.11 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Patricia Bowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 8:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Trees
Dear City Council Members and new Mayor, Please save the heritage trees on Lot 4. We need all the trees we can get. They make the eyes happy, and the birds, and the air is cleaner. A winning situation.
Thank you,
Patricia Bowers
Santa Cruz
23.12 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Riley Hartmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 12:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
While I am in full support of building a new downtown library and creating affordable housing units, I am concerned about the lack of a structure in place to preserve the heritage trees currently present on Lot 4.
Particularly, the two large liquidambar trees at the outer edge of the project should remain, but ideally, all of the heritage trees present on the lot would be given consideration and protected in the final design.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them it possible. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the December 12th Parks and Recreation decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal, and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Sincerely,
Riley Hartmann
23.13 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Mary Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 4:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please save the trees
Dear Mayor Kelley and City Council Members, I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design in the design of the library/housing/garage project planned for that location. Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically, the two large liquid amber trees at the outer edge of the project should be able to be saved. But all the trees are worthy of consideration. I hope you will approve Mayor Kelley and Councilmember Newsome’s recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Recreation decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your Feb 28 Meeting.
Thank you for your service,
Mary Nelson
1036 Cayuga St, 831‐295‐2340
Sent from my iPad
23.14 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Cavalieri <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 4:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: City Council meeting 1/10/23, Item #23,
Dear City Councilmembers
As we face ongoing climate chaos with heat and drought alternating with atmospheric rivers, causing flooding and destruction, the preservation of some heritage trees at the site of the new Downtown Library/Affordable Housing/Garage Project is of importance for our health and climate resilience. Big trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, they absorb more water in the flood zone and their large canopies provide shade, cool the air and remove pollutants.
I support the proposed request by Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome to have the City Council review the Parks and Recreation Commission ruling regarding the removal permit for the heritage trees at a later Council meeting. My hope is that some of these heritage trees will be saved for our community health and our future.
Thank you,
Susan Cavalieri
City of Santa Cruz
23.15 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Iwalani Faulkner <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 7:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: SC City Council Lot4 Heritage Tree consideration - Tues Jan 10, 2023 Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
Maintaining and growing our urban forests is important but will become increasingly critical as climate change worsens. While there are a number of environmental issues generated with the currently proposed Lot4 Garage-LibraryHousing plans (e.g. encouraging a car centric downtown versus a Walkable Cities downtown), I hope additional considerations might be taken to ameliorate the environmental impact of the heat island that will accompany the large structure.
In terms of carbon sequestering, one cannot compare decades of growth of a tree in the earth with newly planted trees or trees grown in space-limiting planters.
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them when possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Lani Faulkner
23.16 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lynda Marín CCL-SC <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #23
Re: Santa Cruz City Council Agenda, Jan 10, 2023
Item 23
Dear city council members,
I am writing to ask that you approve the requests from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome related to the Downtown Library, Garage, and Affordable Housing Project, and insomuch as those requests pertain to the recent appeal to Parks and Recreation to rescind the approval of heritage tree removals long before the project is even financed, that you instead reverse that approval, adhere to following your own Heritage Tree Removal Ordinance, and direct Jayson Architecture to consider preserving some of the heritage trees in its design. The time to do that is now, so that the architect can offer drawings that include whichever trees possible before you consider and take final action on not only the Parks and Recreation commission’s denial of the appeal that was made on Dec 12, but also all other permits and approvals for the project proposed for the council’s February 28th meeting agenda.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Lynda Marin
--
Lynda Marín
Santa Cruz Chapter ‐ lead
(831) 840.4176
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
23.17 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Pauline Seales <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 11:29 AM
To: City Council
Cc: John Hall; Magi Amma; Lynda Marin; Susan Cavalieri; Kristen Subject: Heritage tree appeal
Attachments: Heritage Tree Appeal 1221.pdf
Today we submitted an appeal letter with a $100 fee at the city clerk office.
Here is a pdf of our letter - attached.
Since it is close to the deadline for this appeal, please take a quick look and contact me if the appeal is not in order.
My phone is 831-428-2080.
Thanks and happy Holidays
Pauline Seales
23.18
! $
%"
#
23.19
%% ""
!&%! ! ;&!:(!&+&&+! &$', $
% $&! 354! %%! ! $89-9799-&! $'"!
""
!&$&!$!50%"$!$%! $ & &$$ !( "$ &-
9927978-!$
$&&$%! &&+2!)
!&;&88:-88?
!
&/-
&$',/
%""
%%! &+
)! $ $&&$%-&""
$
"$!%%!$&$
% $&! ! %%! - %$"$% &&! %
&!&! %%! &&$ /
*
##
$ '# %$ #)% "
"$$
& "$!!
$*
• ""
&%)$ !$ +! %%! %$&$+&&& & )!'
!
!) !'
!
+8/8-3""
%4/(
$
%&$'&! %! &
&%38< '&%4!$!&"$&%"
'%<2
'&$'&&
!$&""
&/"
!$
+/
&&%&$&!&$ &$ &%"!
+2%&&
&%$! 8< '&%"$%&!9<2:7 '&%"$%/)
!) !&% ))!'
("$"$ !$&
"$% &&! /$$ &&""
&-&%$#'%&-*&$
& ( +! &%*& & 2"$!/
• !'
""
"!
+$ &%<2 '&$'&&
&!!
+&""
&
% &'$ !"$!!%! &""
&/%)%! $ +
&+&&!$ + ! $%! -)!)%"$% &&$!'!'&& $ /%"&%
$&! -%"&!'
!
+8/8-
!($!
&! %$! ! %%! $-&$$ &$'&&
&
&!&""
&/
&!'&%%! +&"$$!&(!
$-&%' "$ & $&%$ (!$ & ""
&/
23.20 *
#
$$
$# ! "$"
"
# "$
!"$
$
%
## & $#*
• %!
'&!
!/
2:7-7=9!%&!
+$&$&&
!)
$&&$$ !(
% &&+! &$',/$&$! '%+
&"$& &&!
'%&+&$ !(
!& $&&$%%
8/343:4.1
%$&$! )%&!
+
! &+&$&!$!$&$ & !&&$$ !( "$ &/
%&%!' & &&+
!' & &
$! &&+'$ !$%&$
$+ &$&$! '%&!
'%&+&
&$$ !(
%/
• %"&&%&-&%& "!$&&!&! %%! ! " ;/=
'% %
- !$$&%&& &&&
#!
!$"
!&$$&$! $$ !($%%%-
&$
'$-&/ "$" $$'#
%##$## "$
!"
$# %
$"" #$ %$" $
##%* &! -&%$&$! % !&%'""!$&+&! %' &
$!$%&$! $+
)!)$!&&&
%
&$+ &
"!$&
' &
%&! ! %%! $0%(!&/
! %%! $&&$$ &!
&
"!$&%'$&$$%! !$ !&'"!
&""
/
*
$$
!$$
"! "$ ("# $ # *
""
&%"$% &&! %%! )&&
( $! &
'
!$&&%!)&$)% !&& "&&!&$+&! !$"!$&&
%&%! !&$&&$% &!"$!
&% /%%$$!$&
$&$%!
'&! "$%%&%"&$
+
&&$%$! ($! &
$!'"%%'%&$$
'-$ &! ! (
!" &
$&!$!&%!
'&!
' $#'%&
'%! !%! !&
$&&$% &!&% &
%$!'%
+/
!$!($-
' 9799$! &&+'$ !$%&$%
)&)% ! &!&$+&!
!$"!$&%! !&$&&$% &!&% -%$#'$+& %!
'&! /$ #'$+) &' %)$/
23.21 *
"! "$ "$")$ "$#
!&$&$
$ %!
'&! 8/343:4%&!&$+&!
!$"!$&$&&$!" "&!
% /!"$!'
%
&&!($%& &$%& &
!&%
$&&$
! !&% !& &%"$&!$&&$"$!&&! !$ &
&&$!&
)/
* "## $
##%$"$$*
!
+%&& &%$! &"$!
&$&&% &+"
$%$$
&%%'!$&&$
'%! )$&
!( $8=&
$89799-
! &$&&$$ !(
"$ &)%$ &
""
/ !&$)!$%-&$&&/%&& &%$)! % '!'%% $!%&!&$+&! ! %&$&-&$&&-)+
&
$&&$%!'
!& !$"!$& &!&"$!
&% -)&!'&
! %$ )&$#
!& !'
! !&/
* ( "$ $$
$
$' "#
'
%&%<>-777%#'$&/
#' $%$ *&&!&
%)
! &)%&$ %/& !%&&+ & 9-777%#'$&! &"$!
&!!&"$ &&!&$(/+(
! '&'$ )!'
&& %+ !
!! ' &+(
'% $&&$"$%$(&! / $
'%! )!'
%!! "
+)&&+
)%"$&$&$! &!
&$
% &!! !&3 &%%4&)!$&&$%/%! "
%!'
( $%%$! & /&% !&&!! &&!!&
$&& /
*
#!
$#!!
'$&&+!'
&!'"!
&%""
+&$&$
!(
$ &9927978/$! &&%&$&&"$! &
(
!"$&!
&$&% &!! !&&
%&&&)!
#' $%-))$&+&! %'
& $!$%&%
' ! !&! )!'
%&
!)!$ '"!
"$!
&!
%/
.'
%
! &$',
&&!
&)!$
88!&$$!'"%
23.22 0
!%
"!
'!%
!
"!
492!
/#! #('
#%
!'
(&'
,"
%
" !%
"2%(-
#/#!
'
-"&1
!'
#,"'%(-
$'%
(
" & $(
"& &4532!
/#! "'%(-
!''
#"
'*#%
%
$$
"
%
$$
"
2!
/#! (%#*"'#*".(%('(%
!! !
2 $$#!$(&/#! "'%(-#%%"
#%'% $#%'%972!
/#! #$ &!#%'
(#"'%(-
#("',
"%!% 48*#% 2!
/#! #&,&'!&'#%'
#"#!!("
'
&
)% ,
&
(+
(+2!
/#! '%
&&""'% #&'
$'%
'
#) '
2*
# "&&*#% &/#! '#%'
%'
#"
"#''
#"
"#''
2,!##"/#! !$
"#%(&'
" %"&$#%''
#"
#
"
%
4362!/#! #*"'#*"#!!#"&)#'&
!! !
!!842!
/#!
%% (
23.23 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bob Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 8:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23; January 10th.
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I have followed and been engaged with the Lot 4 project for well over a year. Development of that city parcel is close to my heart. But more than that, the heritage trees on that lot give it a distinct character and charm, a landmark for anyone visiting downtown and especially to those who shop at the Farmers Market, or attend the Antique's Faire.
The Heritage Tree Ordinance was written to account for the value of heritage trees in our city, to preserve them, nurture them and let the trees help define our city's beauty. I urge you to uphold the ordinance and alter the proposed building design to preserve as many of the trees as is possible. I've seen the design and understand that all these these trees will be removed if the building maintains its present design, but it is not inevitable‐‐the design can be altered, if only partially, to accomodate the liguidambars. These two healthy, iconic, gorgeous trees could frame the entrance to the new library.
I hope the council can at least save these two trees. If the magnolias can be incorporated into a dynamic new design, even better for the community who deeply care about the value of these trees to Santa Cruz.
So many people would welcome a new design to preserve the liguidambars and magnolias. A council decision to alter the design would go far in ameliorating a contentious issue that has been divisive Santa Cruz residents for over five years.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Best regards,
Robert Morgan
23.24 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Laura Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 8:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I strongly encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. These trees deserve consideration on their own merits as ancient and venerable living beings, but they also provide invaluable benefit to our community through providing shade, carbon absorption, and great beauty to our downtown.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you,
Laura Wilson
23.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Knitsnpaints <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23: Heritage Trees on Lot 4
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I urge you to reconsider the proposed design of the parking garage/library to include the preservation of our important heritage trees. I quote the following letter of those who met with our Mayor and Counculmember:
We “encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by our own City Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.” Thank you.
Susan Martinez
Santa Cruz voter
23.26 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Regarding Heritage Trees
City Council MembersAs a citizen of 22 years, I previously felt that Santa Cruz respected nature and advocated for pro-environment choices.
Why then are we in such a hurry to cut down trees on a lot which may, in time, be developed? I say "may, in time, be developed" because the city has not nailed down the funding for their library scheme.
Please consider the "rush to cut" for what it is: an aggressive gesture by the developers. There is no need to remove trees YEARS before they would impact this project.
Or you can succumb to the politics.
Glenys Davidson
125 Sutphen
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
23.27 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Michelle Y. Merrill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage much deeper consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location.
Concerned members of the community rely on you to abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance, which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them whenever possible.
Specifically the two large Liquidambar trees at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain.
Of course, all heritage trees deserve consideration before a design is finalized, and some plan should be made to build around and improve the conditions for all such trees on the lot. A mature tree is so much more valuable to the community than a replacement sapling, providing many more ecosystem services (including local cooling through both shade and transpiration, removal of air pollutants, and carbon capture) than new plantings would be able to provide for decades.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
23.28 2
Michelle Merrill
Michelle Y. MERRILL, Ph.D.
P
erplexed
P
rimate.org
, founder Novasutras.org
“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.” ~Gregory Bateson
23.29 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Martha Lightfoot <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re tree removal
Please add my name to the list of names that want the trees kept. They are heritage and should be worked around and kept We can not continue to “pave paradise” Thank you
Martha Lightfoot
227 Spring St Santa Cruz. Resident and taxpayer for 30 years.
23.30 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Erin Johson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible.
Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Erin Johnson
23.31 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: (null) (null) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agent Item 23
Dear To Whom is concerned,
My name is Werner Leung. I am a citizen of Santa Cruz. I am writing to ask your consideration of preserving the heritage trees at Lot 4 at downtown.
I hav been raising my kid here in Santa Cruz. My kid has always been enjoying the big trees at Lot 4 when we went to the farmer’s market. We would love to save the trees at Lot 4, which took many many years to grow big like that. We have a beautiful downtown. We need to preserve the beauty of it. Without the big trees, it would be different.
What is heritage? It means it is supposed to leave something for our future generations. Please save our big trees at Lot 4!
Sincerely
Werner
Sent from my iPad
23.32 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Randa Solick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
The City Council passed a Heritage Tree Ordinance which protects our older trees. I am dismayed and disappointed that this was not taken into consideration when you decided to move the library onto Lot 4.
Please approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Sincerely, Randa Solick
23.33 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ren Curry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: agenda item 23 :preserve our heritage trees
Please support our heritage trees by altering the development plans. That is a small price to pay. —Renwick Curry
Santa Cruz
23.34 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Margo Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Save our Heritage Trees
Dear City Council Members,
Please, please, please save our beautiful downtown heritage trees. Once they are gone, it is forever, and it will be a devastating loss for the city, county and planet. We need them more than any possible plan or project. Thank you.
Margo Ross
California Naturalist
Watsonville
23.35 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Etta Tyler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by our own City Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Etta Tyler
West Side Resident
23.36 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sue Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:18 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members:
Please include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees in mind and strive to plan projects that protect them. All trees are worthy of consideration but particularly the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project.
I hope you will approve Mayor Keeley and Council member Scott Newsome’s recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec. 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you,
Sue Myers
225 Alhambra Ave. #11
Santa Cruz 95062
Sent from my iPad
23.37 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Terry Tiedeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:18 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by our own City Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
23.38 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Mitchell Goldstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage trees Agenda item 23
I strongly urge our Council to do everything possible to protect our precious heritage trees on lot 4. In the midst of all of this urban building craze going on we desperately need this vital connection to our living natural environment. There is a reason that they are called our 'Heritage ' trees.
Thank you for your commitment to our beloved community.
Mitchell Goldstein
23.39 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryland Pos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I strongly encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. These trees deserve consideration on their own merits as ancient and venerable living beings, but they also provide invaluable benefit to our community through providing shade, carbon absorption, and great beauty to our downtown.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you,
Ryland Pos
23.40 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gail Jack <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 23
There is no need to cut heritage trees in our city. You will hear from anyone who has ever walked by these special, grand old trees in the summer months that these are vitally needed and should be preserved as long as possible. They bring softness, beauty, shade, and bird habitats to our community. With all the building of bigger, hard and unfriendly surfaces being added to Downtown, we need these beautiful trees more than ever.
Gail Jack
Santa Cruz
23.41 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy Maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage trees keep them
We need more shade trees... not less. Planting trees that take 20 years to grow will not satisfy this. Trees have been proven to improve mental health of citizens... We do not want a concrete jungle with lots of cement.
Nancy Maynard
23.42 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Brigitte Desouches <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location.
Please abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them it possible.
Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Brigitte Desouches
800 Brommer Street, Space 58
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
23.43 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Roland Saher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: tree removal
Dear council members, it is unacceptable to have the city act in contradiction to its own rules, in this case in the matter of saving heritage trees. We are already losing way too many trees, particularly now in the times of climate change. There IS a connection between what we do with our trees and the emergency that is befalling us now! So, get with it, people!
23.44 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Mary Graydon-Fontana <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I am asking you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Our Santa Cruz City Heritage Tree Ordinance directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. A review of relevant city files and communications produced zero evidence of any effort to include any of the existing trees in the design.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Mary Graydon-Fontana
23.45 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jack Bowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Council MembersPlease make the environmentally and esthetically correct choice and integrate existing heritage trees into the design for the new library & parking garage.
Thank you,
Jack Bowers
422 Windsor St.
23.46 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage Trees lot 4
Hello and thank you for the opportunity to throw my Native Santa Cruz resident opinion. 5 generations ago my great grandfather came to Wilder’s to make butter. That being said my family has seen a lot of changes in our city.
Firstly, I am not of the mind that all change is bad.
Secondly, I cannot recommend strongly enough the importance of saving some of our heritage trees in lot 4.
Why not have the building design incorporate some of these beautiful trees into the new library site? Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be anyway?
Thirdly, where is the reasoning that can help me explain why big building jobs can remove heritage trees but I am not allowed to remove small trees in front of my own property? Trees that are breaking up my plumbing pipes & destroying my fence.
Guess I don’t have enough money for my County to see my problem as an individual one that needs addressing.
Thank You
Robin Lerios
A resident who has been here longer that most of you I wager! Sent from my iPhone
23.47 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please re‐examine the appeal to save several of the Heritage Trees on Lot 4. Despite repeated assaults on their roots and branches by city staff over the years, done to accommodate cars in the parking lot, these trees are SURVIVORS, and deserve the protections legally given under the city's Heritage Tree Ordinance.
There was no effort to design this project to accommodate even some of the trees along Cedar St. That violates the city's laws.
Please direct the Master Architect of the Library/Mixed Use Project to provide an alternate design. There is still plenty of time, as funding for the garage, housing and library are still not fully secured.
Some ideas of what could be changed:
1. Eliminate the 10,000 sq ft commercial space. A gym or other commercial space can be located anywhere.
2. Reduce square footage of the library by reducing spaces that do not support essential services and programs, but are merely nice "selling points." These include a large lobby "marketplace," "mezzanine," and yes, the "living roof," which surely adds significant construction and maintenance costs. Even the childrens' area could be reduced and still provide plenty of room for childrens services, program and collection.
There is a considerable gap between Measure S money ($25.5 million) and the $42 million price tag. We must live within our means.
And as far as Health in All Policies, those heritage trees (fast disappearing from our city), contribute to our environmental health and psychological health ‐ so much more than more concrete.
Thank you.
Judi Grunstra, Librarian
PS Eliminating the unnecessary garage is also something to consider. Bringing more congestion to the center of town surely does not align with community "health."
23.48 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: marymcgranahan48 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage trees
Dear Council members
Certainly you can support one more change order to save those stately trees on Lot 4. Just the benefit to our air quality in downtown is worth the effort!
Thank you.
Mary McGranahan
Sent from my Galaxy
23.49 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Don Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 23 on Jan 10 agenda
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to encourage your support for the proposed action in item 23— to consolidate consideration of Lot 10 heritage trees with the overall Libary/Housing project.
The voters have spoken and clearly are prepared for the project to move forward. It makes sense to simplify the permitting processes ‐without limiting community participation in the tree discussion‐ but prevent unnecessary delays that could limit funding opportunities.
Thank you very much.
Don Lane
Santa Cruz
23.50 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Barbara Weigel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: downtown trees and proposed new buildings
Dear Mayor and Council members…
As we can all agree our heritage trees, private and public, are a vital asset to our urban community.
The choices you make everyday have long term repercussions for the environment and livability of the City of Santa Cruz.
Please keep the heritage trees and the environmentally focused reputation of Santa Cruz alive and truthful.
That is why people come to visit and why they want to live here.
Thank you, Barbara
23.51 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Zachary Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for staff recomendation, Item 23, 1/10/2023 Dear City Council,
I am writing in support of the staff recommendation on Item 23 of the council agenda for 1/10/2023.
The heritage tree removal permit associated with the mixed use library project on parking lot 4 is best considered in the context of the other permits required for the project to proceed and will benefit from the additional context of Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commision deliberations. I urge you to vote to consider all of the required permits at once after the relevant commissions have met.
Thank you,
Zach
--
Zachary E Davis
(831) 206-1235 - [email protected]
This is the email address I use for personal communication and community involvement (Santa Cruz Downtown Association, Visit Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz County Chamber, etc.). Please direct business communications for The Glass Jar Inc. to [email protected]. Thanks!
23.52 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Eng <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by our own City Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Janie Eng
23.53 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nadene Thorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Lot 4 Trees Appeal
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I hope you will reconsider the appeal to protect the trees on Lot 4 and override the opposition of the Parks and Recreation Board. While these trees may not be in the best of health, they are doing their job of providing shelter, shade, and carbon capture for our downtown.
Regardless of the future plans for Lot 4, at this time there are no approved building plans, and, more to the point, no funding for any construction on this property. Removing these trees so many years before there may be any reason to is unreasonable. At the very least, doing so is counter to the city's Climate Action Plan and moves us backwards in our environmental goals.
I would also encourage the planners for any future construction on that property to create a construction plan that would keep at least some of these trees. Replacing large leafy heritage trees with spindly young trees that will be 50 or more years to maturity contradicts the city mandate to plant more trees by any evaluative measure.
Nadene Thorne
140 Averitt Street
Santa Cruz 95060
23.54 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lala Ribera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: HERITAGE TREES ON LOT 4
To Santa Cruz City Council Members,
Staff and Others concerned with the proposed development of Lot 4 in Downtown Santa Cruz:
Whereas trees and humans share a reciprocal relationship in nature, we all deserve reciprocal respect.
Please honor our own HERITAGE TREE ordinance with respect to future development of LOT 4 in Downtown Santa Cruz.
Let's imagine scenarios that would incorporate respect for the living beings that predate any of us.
I suggest Open Space around the existing trees, expanded into a natural area with even more trees, maintaining a dynamic cultural center, thereby promoting mental health for us all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laurie Anderson Hennig
23.55 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: paul stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Removal of 4 heritage trees
Please do not remove Lot 4’s heritage trees. There is nothing like a mature shade tree. Many citizens were against removing these trees.
You should at least incorporate them into the plan.
Suzanne Stephens
Sent from Mail for Windows
23.56 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:40 PM
To: City Council; Matt Huffaker; Lee Butler
Subject: Item 23 - Library Project Tree Removal Permit
Dear Mayor and Council,
Please let the Park and Recreation Commission's decision to affirm Staff's decision to issue the tree removal permit stand (i.e., reject the appellants' appeal) without further Council action.
Measure O was defeated decisively by the voters. This is but one more attempt of a radical minority to derail a project they do not like, and they will use any pretext to stop it - in spite of the will of the voters.
Furthermore, the twelve trees slated for removal on the project site are mostly non-native and in poor condition. Here are some of the arborist's comments:
SUMMARY : My review of the revised plans, collected data and categorizations remain unchanged from my
original report (01/18/22). All twelve trees on site must be removed to accommodate construction.
Specifically,
the building footprint encompasses an area including all twelve trees. Only two trees (nos. 7 & 9) might be
viable for transplant, but that evaluation could change if their root systems are structurally poor, which can only
be determined when surrounding curbs and pavement is removed. Of these two, only tree no. 9 is a Heritage
Tree 1 .
DISCUSSION:
Transplanting (relocating): Under the best of circumstances, transplanting is severely traumatic to tree
physiology, and weak trees are likely to decline over time. The relocation process includes severing much of
the root system, reducing the tree’s ability to recover. The demolition of curbing and pavement required to
relocate, close to tree trunks and covering roots systems, exposes the trees to further root system damage.
The trees on this site exhibit many existing conditions that render them poor candidates for relocation2 . It is my
opinion that mature trees proposed for relocation should exhibit high vigor, desirable architecture, strong
structure, and be free of significant disease and decay. Trees at risk of decline or structural failure are poor
candidates for relocation. I also do not recommend relocation where operations would result in either an
23.57 2
undersized rootball or damage to adjacent tree root systems (9/9/22 Letter from arborist Torey Young to Bonnie Lipscomb)
Though this excerpt primarily addresses transplantation, it also notes that the trees are generally not in good health. Further details of the trees' poor health is documented in the full letter.
Mitigation measures in the library project will more than offset any loss of carbon sequestration from the removal of 12 mostly unhealthy trees.
Please do not override the will of the voters and handcuff the library project by holding it hostage to a small group of people unwilling to accept their defeat at the ballot box.
Please let the P&R Commission's decision stand without further Council action.
Regards,
-Eric Grodberg
23.58 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Timmi Pereira <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #23 Heritage Trees
TPlease support the appeal of destruction of ALL heritage trees on Lot 4! No attempt has been made to save any of them, despite the fact that it is a requirement of city statute that no Heritage Tree be removed unless all attempts to include it in the design have failed.
Timmi Pereira
Cell: 831‐239‐6564
Home: 831‐426‐1150
23.59 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: paul gratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: City council meeting Jan. 10, 2023: agenda item 23 Councilmembers,
Please incorporate persevering heritage trees on the Lot 4 construction site plan.
Sincerely,
Paul Gratz
501 Prospect Hts.
Santa Cruz, 95065
23.60 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: john <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Library Project Tree Removal
Dear Mayor and Council,
Please allow the Park and Recreation Commission's decision to affirm Staff's decision to issue the tree removal permit stand (i.e., reject the appellants' appeal) without further Council action. Measure O was defeated decisively by the voters. This is but one more attempt of a radical minority to derail a project they do not like, and they will use any pretext to stop it - in spite of the will of the voters.
Furthermore, the twelve trees slated for removal on the project site are mostly non-native and in poor condition.
Further details of the trees' poor health is documented in the arborists report. Mitigation measures in the library project will more than offset any loss of carbon sequestration from the removal of 12 mostly unhealthy trees.
Please do not override the will of the voters and handcuff the library project by holding it hostage to a small group of people unwilling to accept their defeat at the ballot box.
Please let the P&R Commission's decision stand without further Council action.
Regards,
John McKelvey
23.61 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Item 23 -- Downtown Library & Affordable Housing Project Permit Applications 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: Casey Beyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari‐ Johnson <SKalantari‐[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>
Cc: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 23 ‐‐ Downtown Library & Affordable Housing Project Permit Applications Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder and Councilmembers Brown, Brunner, Kalantari‐Johnson, Newsome and Watkins:
On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce I write to recommend that the City Council accept and approve the City Staff recommendation on Item 23, a motion accepting the two “call up” requests set forth in the December 16 and December 20 letters, the Council can assure that it will consider the entire project at once, and will do so with the benefit of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s December 12, 2022 input and the Planning Commission’s February 16, 2023 input.
The Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce has been a strong and vocal advocate for the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project. We certainly understand that complexities in the development, entitlement and permit application process. We believe the City staff recommendation is an effort to consolidate the permit application process so all permits are consistently processed for the benefit of the applicant (the City), the project management team and
23.62 2
the community. Our primary concern is to keep the project moving forward so that the project can be in alignment with the various funding programs at the state and federal.
Thank you in advance for consider the views of the Santa Cruz County Chamber on this important downtown project.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey
Casey Beyer
Chief Executive Officer
Santa Cruz County
Chamber of Commerce
(831) 457‐3713
23.63 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Willow Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage trees on Lot 4, SC City Council Agenda item #23 Heritage trees on Lot 4, SC City Council Agenda item #23 To: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda item #23
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
Please seriously consider the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location.
Please abide by our City of Santa Cruz Heritage Tree Ordinance, that directs government officials to take these trees into account, and if possible, to plan projects that protect them.
I urge you in particular to keep the two magnificent liquidambars at the outer edge of the project, though all the heritage trees are worthy of consideration before a finalized design, and all the trees are worthy of protection.
I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the December 12 Parks and Recreation decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal.
Please fully discuss at your February 28th meeting all permits associated with this project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Willow Katz
1230 Shaffer Rd #3103, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
23.64 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeffrey Smedberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23 - Give Trees a Chance
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
Give Trees A Chance!
I encourage you to include consideration of the heritage trees on Lot 4 in the design of the library/garage/housing project planned for that location. Please abide by our own City Heritage Tree Ordinance which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them if possible. Specifically the two large liquidambars at the outer edge of the project should be able to remain, though all the trees are worthy of consideration before a design is finalized. I hope that you will approve Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay any decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal and to have a fuller discussion about all permits associated with the project at your February 28th meeting.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jeffrey Smedberg
170 Hagemann Ave, Santa Cruz
831-469-9467
23.65 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Zack Schlesinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 23. Heritage tree removal
Please do not remove the trees. I would like you to vote to save the trees.
Zack Schlesinger
23.66 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Bodine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item #23" tree removal from Lot 4.
Greetings, Council Members. I'm writing to urge that:
1.: Any tree removal from Lot 4 be suspended until after a through review of building plans, with the aim of incorporating as many of Lot 4's magnificent trees into the building plan as possible. This is required by our Heritage Tree Ordinance. If our City Council doesn't respect our city ordinances, who will?
2. After sincere efforts have been made to incorporate the trees into the building plans, any necessary tree removal should not proceed until final building plans are approved and financing obtained. The rush to remove our beautiful and cooling trees before necessary is a cynical disregard for the ecological and social welfare of our city.
Sincerely,
Ann Bodine
2395 Delaware Av, spc 145
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-600-7362 (landline, no text)
23.67 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Mel & Vicki Nunez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Lot 4 Tree Removal
Dear Councilmembers,
As 50 year residents of Santa Cruz and public
library supporters,we urge you to honor our city's
Heritage Tree Ordinance by overruling the recent
Parks and Rec. commission decision. It denied the
appeal of a permit to remove mature trees.
We watched the proceedings on Zoom and it
seemed the major justification for tree removal was
that the developer found that to respect our tree
preservation resolution would be an "inconvenience"
for their design plan.
Our family, future generations and our downtown's
landscape environment deserve the best plan possible!
This is what the Tree Removal Resolution assures.
Please uphold the appeal of the removal permit.
Sincerely, Mel, Vicki & Annmarie Nunez.
23.68 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: ANNE MITCHELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: January 10, 2023 Agenda Item 23
Dear City Council members:
Please support Mayor Keeley's & Councilman Newsome's requests to Council under Agenda Item 23, to reconsider the deniall of the appeal by Parks & Rec. Commission on heritage tree issue on Lot 4, at a February meeting..
I am asking City Council to ask for project alterations that would incorporate saving some trees.
Large trees store masses of carbon. Please consider the climate crisis and City charm.
Sincerely
Anne Mitchell
104 Stoenycreek Rd.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
23.69 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Renison <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: (General Business Item 23, January 10, 2023) Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project Permit Applications (CN)
City Council Members:
I am writing to ask you to look hard at the Parks & Recreation Commission’s denial of an appeal which affirmed the Parks and Recreation Department’s issuance of a heritage tree removal permit on Lot 4. (General Business Item 23, January 10, 2023)
It seems clear that the Lot 4 garage/library/ housing project was created without any effort to include the existing heritage trees in the design.
It also seems clear that the developers are saying that it now would be too much effort and cost to go back and reaccess their design.
Please do not reward the obvious rule‐cutting efforts of the developers who are taking a "do it now and apologize later" position.
The two liquidambers close to Cedar St. are two heritage trees that could possibly be part of the entry space to the proposed library ‐ and there could be other heritage trees saved as well.
Sincerely,
Susan Renison
23.70 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robin Holland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:23 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Robin Holland
Subject: Urging Council to approve Keeley/Newsome permit application requests as per the 1/10/23 agenda
Dear City Council,
This email is to urge the City Council to 1) approve the two requests from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome related to the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project, and 2) to direct that the Council at a later Council meeting consider, and take final action on, the Parks & Recreation Commission's actions related to the heritage tree removal permit, as well as the other permits and approvals for the project.
It makes sense that the Council would consider the entire project at once and with the benefit of the Parks and Recreation Commission's 12/12/22 input and the Planning Commission's 2/16/23 input.
Thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
Robin Holland
Santa Cruz homeowner
[email protected]
23.71 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Whitten <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage Trees
I live in Santa Cruz because it is such a beautiful city. I often go downtown and park in Lot 4 because it is a beautiful place with the Heritage Trees. I think they should be preserved and that the existing building plans must be revised to include the preservation of our Heritage Trees.
Sincerely
Gary Z. Whitten
(415)747-7230
23.72 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:55 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Scott Newsome; Sandy Brown; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner
Subject: Agenda Item 23; 1/10/23; Heritage Tree Removal Permit Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Elect,
It is very much appreciated that Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome have requested a Council review of the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision concerning the Heritage trees on Lot 4.
I very much support this coming to Council at a future date, but am concerned about the timing. As noted by the arborists' reports, many of the trees are worthy of saving, though the majority of them are located near the interior of the project footprint, making them poor candidates for possible incorporation into a design alteration.
However, a few of the trees along the perimeter (notably, the two large liquid ambers) could be incorporated into the design with minor alterations to the design and program square footage (for instance, a reduction or elimination of the commercial space component).
I greatly hope you will consider asking the architects to follow the Heritage Tree Ordinance and have them undertake a design modification to incorporate some of the perimeter heritage trees. It would make for a beautiful and inviting building to have the front facade broken up by a possible Library entrance courtyard framed by these majestic air scrubbers.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
23.73 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Simonton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: #Item 23
Dear council members, We each lead by example. How will you explain that you helped kill some of the oldest and most beautiful heritage trees downtown?
The current building plan didn’t care to consider incorporating the trees into its design. According to Don Lane the trees must be removed because "we need to fit in the trucks". As if trucks can’t drive around a tree. The tree can’t move and it will be a legacy that each of you will have to live with given the extraordinary climate emergency we are clearly living in. If you can’t care about them yourself. Consider your children and our community’s need for more large trees downtown. Also consider the lies the No on O campaign used on its yard signs. They paid 35 K to come up with "Don’t be fooled‐ Save the Library and Save affordable housing"..
AS IF a Yes on O would kill our downtown library, not offer MORE affordable housing only without the unneeded garage. Trees eat greenhouse gas EVERY day, trees boost our mental health, trees remove particulate matter that affects human lungs, trees are the home of wildlife that we all love, trees cool down the temperature when most needed, and tree roots actually filter water. (https://www.nature.org/en‐ us/what‐we‐do/our‐priorities/build‐healthy‐cities/cities‐stories/benefits‐of‐trees‐forests/?gclid=CjwKCAiAk‐‐ dBhABEiwAchIwkQasJsWgrJZ_6o1aov20g79D9‐
eDZeIO2rlm5K7NldfG9mb2Y5AOjBoCfJ4QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds#elb=1) Thank you for not callously squandering this vital resource in our city, Ann Simonton
23.74 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ed Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 23 Please reconsider the Lot 4 heritage trees Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members, Re: Item 23, January 10th agenda I ask that you adopt Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Scott Newsome's recommendation to delay decision regarding the Dec 12 Parks and Rec decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit appeal.
What's best is to conduct a more comprehensive community conversation on these subjects The contractor acknowledged at that Parks & Rec meeting that it is unnecessary to remove ANY TREE until such time as a project is fully funded, approved , and ground‐breaking is eminent. Why cannot the City be as forthcoming?
I urge you all to consider questions about the heritage trees on Lot 4 de‐novo.
We want you to abide by the Heritage Tree Ordinance, which directs government officials to take these trees into account and to plan projects that protect them whenever possible.
If a project is ultimately to proceed on the lot 4 location, it should conform with Santa Cruz law and tradition. Since no design has been finalized, the Council should direct that the plan include provisions to build around and improve the conditions for as many of the trees as possible. The existence of a proposed plan which does NOT follow this path is NOT a reason to pursue that plan.
Please schedule these topics for full discussion at a future meeting.
Best Regards, Ed Porter 831 427-0836 [email protected] ===========================================================
23.75 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 01/04/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Revise the building height provisions in the draft Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment to provide for a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units, with a 20% affordability requirement on the total number of units and with no single building be more than 12 stories, inclusive of any density bonus incentive.
2) Continue to study the 1,800 units that have been evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) technical analyses since June of 2022, and direct Planning Department staff to study an alternative in the EIR that includes the parameters noted above in Item #1.
BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2022, a majority of the City Council approved a motion directing staff to “initiate work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the area identified for expansion of the boundary of the Downtown Plan.” This decision was the culmination of a planning process that began in 2020 with the objective of accommodating additional residential and commercial capacity in the area and identifying a location for a permanent facility for the Santa Cruz Warriors.
At the June 14th meeting, the Council considered several development scenarios. The staff recommendation for a preferred scenario included, among other development recommendations, a minimum of 1,800 units, a maximum height of 225 feet for one taller building element, 185 feet for three taller elements, and 145 feet for one taller element.
After receiving community input and council discussion, the approved motion incorporated the development recommendations but reduced the minimum number of dwelling units to 1,600 and reduced the building height of the one tall building to 175 feet and 150 feet for the other tall buildings.
Subsequent to the Council action, staff released the Notice of Preparation for the Downtown Expansion Area Amendment EIR on September 16th and a public scoping meeting was held soon after.
24.1.1 DISCUSSION: Since the most recent City Council action, it has been reinforced that the maximum building height is unacceptable to a large number of residents.
Additionally, the community is interested in maximizing the amount of affordable housing that can be produced. Maximizing the number of affordable units must be balanced with making sure that those units can be produced in a financially-viable manner. Given the rental or sales price premium that these units will have by virtue of their prime location in downtown and close to the beach and given the proposed increase in residential capacity for the area that will also generate additional value, the City’s current 20% affordability requirement should be increased to result in 20% of the total number of units to be affordable, including density bonus units allowed under law, since state law precludes application of the City’s current 20% affordability requirement to density bonus units.
In order to address these legitimate concerns, it is recommended as follows:
1. The maximum height limit in the Downtown Expansion Plan Area be 12 stories inclusive of any density bonus incentives;
2. That 20% of the total of 1,600 housing units be affordable, inclusive of density bonuses; and,
3. The staff is directed to amend the Downtown Area Expansion Plan draft that will be presented to the Council to incorporate items 1 and 2 above.
The context in which California cities operate with respect to new housing development has changed significantly in recent years, and density bonus laws provide developers with significant flexibility in how they accommodate additional units that are allowed by said laws. Recognizing this, should Council adopt the policy recommendation cited above to limit new development in the Downtown Plan Expansion area to a maximum of 12 stories, direction to staff would be to contemplate how density bonus would likely be applied by developers and, to the maximum extent feasible, establish policies that would limit developments to 12 stories, inclusive of density bonus.
Another potential approach to ensuring that buildings reach a maximum of 12 stories is to enter into a development agreement with property owners. This would require that the two parties, the City and the affected property owners, agree upon specific development terms, one of which would be that the maximum number of stories in the respective developments be limited to a maximum of 12 stories, inclusive of density bonus. Should Council adopt the policy recommendation cited above to limit new development in the Downtown Plan Expansion area to a maximum of 12 stories, direction to staff would also be to explore the potential for development agreements with property owners in the plan area.
The recommended policy change to establish a maximum number of dwelling units at 1,600 would have implications for how the City meets its required Regional Housing Needs Assessment, under which the City must plan to accommodate 3,736 units in the next eight years.
Reduction of units in this plan area will likely mean that those units will need to be planned for through residential capacity increases elsewhere in the community.
FISCAL IMPACT: Compared to the current direction from the Council, reducing the number of units will reduce the potential property tax revenue from build-out, and sales tax revenue would be reduced with fewer resulting residents. However, residents also cost the City money
24.1.2 through provision of police, fire, library, road maintenance, and various other services. Thus, the net fiscal impact is uncertain.
Prepared & Submitted By:
Fred Keeley
Mayor
Scott Newsome
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
24.1.3 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jessy Beckett Parr <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 9:37 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome
Subject: In Support of Keely's Proposals regarding Building South of Laurel/Downtown Dear Councilmembers,
I write to support Mayor Keeley's proposals regarding the new 15-17 story projects in the South of Laurel section of downtown.
I support the changes Mayor Fred Keeley has proposed a reduction in building height to 12 stories, a lower Maximum density, and a higher (and inclusive) affordable housing component for all developments over 30 units (I support 25%++).
You, as our representatives, do not need to allow buildings outside the specifications of the General Plan without proper EIR and/or trade-offs. Any residential building built outside the specs of the General Plan should contain significant public benefit- such as a large percentage of affordable housing.
Thank you for reading my public comment and for your service.
Regards
Jessy Beckett Parr
Concerned Citizen
24.1.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 24
Dear City Council,
I understand that you will be considering downtown expansion with this agenda item tonight and that part of that discussion will be to decide on heights of buildings. I do not know how high the building at the corner of Laurel/Pacific/Front Streets is, but I feel it casts a pall on the downtown area and dwarfs everything around it.
I need to drive by it every day, and it feels claustrophobic. I am told that part of the downtown expansion would be on the other side of Laurel. Please don’t allow another structure of that size right across the street, unless there are considerable setbacks with open areas around the building. There would be no sunshine in that area.
In addition to not approving any more buildings this height in the Laurel Street area and other areas downtown, are you looking at some of the parking lots as possible open space areas? It is important that people who come here or live downtown can breathe. There are not enough mini‐parks with benches and sunshine, especially if we are going to be providing housing for families with children.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Anderson
2395 Delaware Ave
Space 29
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
24.1.5 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sue Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:27 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 24
Please … no more buildings any taller than the new facility on Laurel/Main/Pacific. We are already having water problems and parking problems. Any thing you build should include more affordable housing and parking within itself.
Sue Myers
225 Alhambra #11
Santa Cruz 95062
Sent from my iPad
24.1.6 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Carol Long <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 8:46 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins Subject: Item 24, South of Laurel project
City Planning Department, Council. Mayor Keeley:
I support Mayor Keeley in proposing a lower height limit for the buildings in this project. In addition, I propose that:
1. The EIR should analyze a maximum (not minimum) of 1600 dwelling units for the Downtown Plan Expansion/ South of Laurel Plan (Plan);
2. A maximum height for the proposed 12-story buildings should be 120 feet. This is the maximum height that should be analyzed in the EIR and Plan; and
3. Identify the maximum number of 12-story buildings that would be acceptable. This must be clearly defined as the "Project" analyzed under CEQA.
4. A new Project description should be circulated to the public, so it is clear what the EIR is analyzing.
These restrictions are in addition to those outlined in the ballot initiative written by the "Stop the Skyscrapers" group, which says that it should take a vote of the people to raise the building height limits above those in the current city General Plan, and requires that the percentage of affordable housing units in projects above 30 units be increased from 20 to 25 %.
Thank you for your serious consideration of citizens' input.
Carol Long
Beach area resident for 26 years
24.1.7 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2023 9:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Skyscrapers
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mara Alverson <[email protected]>
Date: January 8, 2023 at 9:50:51 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>, Fred Keeley <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>, Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <SKalantari[email protected]>, Scott Newsome <[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Skyscrapers
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to limit the height of buildings in our city.
I am requesting that the EIR should analyze a maximum (not minimum) of 1600 dwelling units for the Downtown Plan Expansion/ South of Laurel Plan (Plan).
I request that a maximum height for the proposed 12-story buildings should be 120 feet. This is the maximum height that should be analyzed in the EIR and Plan Please Identify the maximum number of 12-story buildings that would be acceptable. This must be clearly defined as the "Project" analyzed under CEQA.
A new Project description should be circulated to the public, so it is clear what the EIR is analyzing.
Thank you for your work on behalf of our city,
Mara Alverson, MFT
Certified Emotionally Focused Couples Therapist
HappyPassionateMarriage.com
Santa Cruz, California
24.1.8 2
831-588-3013
This electronic communication may contain information that is confidential. Electronic communications are not secure. Please do not mail correspondence you wish to keep private. I can be reached by phone at 831-588- 3013. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration in this security matter.
Sessions not cancelled 48 hours in advance will be charged at the full amount.
24.1.9 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy Maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:12 AM
To: City Council
Subject: High rise downtown a big mistake Look at the consequences It will only encourage short term residents... not permanent . Maybe that is your plan.
This morning there is a flood warning for downtown... add 9 to 12 more buildings of more people in a flood plain...
People who can afford it will more... our spending going elsewhere. 17 stories is ridiculous... so is 12 or 8.
Nancy Maynard
24.1.10 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Roland Saher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 11:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: height of new buildings
Dear council members, I urge you to stick to a maximum height for new buildings of 12 stories, not to exceed 120 feet and with at least 20% affordable units, as proposed by mayor Keeley and council member Newsome.
The city administration must not be allowed to play loosey-goosey with city policies, primarily to satisfy the voracious appetite of developers for ever expanding projects.
Respectfully, Roland Saher
24.1.11 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 24
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The agenda item as presented seems self‐contradictory and confusing. On the one hand, it describes limitations on the building heights and limit to number of new housing units (maximum of 1600). Yet city staff calls for continued consideration of their previous proposals. Which is it? I hope Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome will start their terms of office really listening to residents who have serious concerns with this downtown expansion.
Building heights should be limited to 120' (or lower). There should be a limit as to how many such 120' buildings there will be, and 20% of units should be "affordable." Many more decisions will follow regarding transportation, water supply, environmental concerns, etc.,, but for now, please start with limits on the build environment.
Thank you.
Judi Grunstra, resident for 31 years
24.1.12 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gabrielle Diane Laney-Andrews <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 12:31 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Regarding Mayor Fred Keeley's proposal
Dear City Council, Mayor and others,
I support Mayor Keeley presenting his proposal to City Council at tomorrow’s meeting.
ALSO….
1. The EIR should analyze a maximum (not minimum) of 1600 dwelling units for the Downtown Plan Expansion/ South of Laurel Plan (Plan);
2. A maximum height for the proposed 12-story buildings should be 120 feet. This is the maximum height that should be analyzed in the EIR and Plan; and
3. Identify the maximum number of 12-story buildings that would be acceptable. This must be clearly defined as the "Project" analyzed under CEQA.
4. A new Project description should be circulated to the public, so it is clear what the EIR is analyzing.
Thank you,
Gabrielle Laney-Andrews
[email protected]
24.1.13 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 1:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: 1/10 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting - Correspondence re: Agenda Item 24 Attachments: Item 24 - Support Letter for Downtown Expansion Plan, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831-420-5035
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: Elizabeth Madrigal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/10 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting ‐ Correspondence re: Agenda Item 24 Good afternoon,
Attached you'll find a support letter in regards to agenda item 24 on behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership.
Best,
Elizabeth Madrigal
Housing and Sustainability Policy Manager | Monterey Bay Economic Partnership 3180 Imjin Road, #153, Marina, CA 93933
831-240-8853 cell
24.1.14 January 9, 2023
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Support for Downtown Expansion Plan, Agenda Item 24 Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP), I write to express our support for the Downtown Expansion Plan, and to continue studying the 1,800 units that have been evaluated in the EIR.
Since 2017, MBEP has been actively tracking and supporting efforts related to the Downtown Plan, especially those that create significant new housing opportunities.
The expansion area creates a unique opportunity to plan for more, much-needed housing in one of the most sustainable sites in our region for growth given its close proximity to jobs, transportation, and other key resources.
The identified area for expansion of the boundary of the Downtown Plan incorporates a development scenario that could potentially include 1,800 housing units which would greatly assist the City in reaching its increased 6th Cycle RHNA targets of 3,736 new units by 2030. The Warriors Arena project is also committed to providing affordable housing and a project of this size could yield more than 200 units of affordable housing in the downtown. This project will also contribute to a vibrant atmosphere with people supporting local businesses, engaging in our civic resources, and building community.
It is critical that we take advantage of this expansion by adding more housing in this prime, downtown location.
Thank you for your leadership in addressing this pivotal opportunity to provide more housing and other key resources to the community.
Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
24.1.15 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:51 PM
To: City Council; [email protected]
Cc: Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder; Scott Newsome
Subject: Council Agenda for January 10, 2023 Item # 24.1 & 2:Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision
Re. Agenda for January 10, 2023 Item # 24.1 & 2: Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision Good day Mayor and Council members.
When the Downtown Plan Extension process began the public was led to believe the South of Laurel redevelopment and gentrification process would be comparable to the Downtown Plan. How misleading the City has been. On June 14, 2022 the Council approved 170’ and 150’ buildings to be analyzed in the EIR process. Now the City, led by Mayor Keeley, is attempting to tone down the pending outrage to this overdevelopment proposal. A similar outrage and backlash occurred in the late 1960’s when the Council approved for Lighthouse Field the Hilton Hotel/ Conference Center. The current Staff report pushes back on Mayor Keeley's attempt to ameliorate the fallout from the publicly unpalatable height and density plan proposed in the EIR process.
This issue is not only important for the look and feel and character of Santa Cruz, but how our city is governed.
Our elected officials must be the ones who make policy decisions, not Staff. As flawed as Mayor Keeley’s proposal is, it is more in-line with Santa Cruz’s history and values. The staff report puts forward 12-story buildings throughout the area. The 6+ story Taco Bell project under construction at Laurel and Pacific feels way out of scale. 12 stories nearly doubles the height of the Taco Bell project. The sites originally identified for the 170' and 150’ buildings should be the only sites that the 120’ buildings can be located and not everywhere in the Plan area as proposed in the current staff report. Unlimited 12-story developments instead of 150'-170’ buildings is outrageous and a giveaway to real estate and development interests. This is almost worse than a few 150' to 170’ buildings. 12-story and taller buildings should remain in San Jose not mushroom in Santa Cruz. Try to imagine the process underway and ask yourself if this is the Santa Cruz you have come to know and love? Staff has said the City has no choice but to continue to build massive developments in order to comply with the 3736 units that RHNA requires. To which I say hogwash. There is major Statewide pushback to RHNA and the City of Santa Cruz must join-in, and lead, to not only question the validity of these numbers but to undo these excessive State mandates.
The Downtown Plan Extension appears primarily motivated by the Warriors with everything else rationalizations to support what the Warriors want. When they leave town, and they surely will, we, the community, will be left with their profit-driven vision of land use, and not what a thriving, inclusive, open, and spirited community needs. The planning process must be more inclusive than the wants of the Warriors business organization.
The EIR should be analyzing the project area with 1600 maximum units, not 1800 units. An accurate project description is required under CEQA.
24.1.16 2
The Downtown Plan Extension should plan for no more than 1600 units as Mayor Keeley sets forth. Keep the height and density and set-backs the same as the Downtown Plan. Keep our Local Coastal Plan intact. Simply the Downtown Plan Extension should be in-line with the Downtown Plan, nothing more. The Palomar at 85’ sets the maximum height. At a minimum Mayor Keeley should be supported in his attempt to wrest control over the planning process from Staff. Your decision today could have lasting implications.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention.
Ron Pomerantz
24.1.17 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Barbara Riverwoman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:51 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: item #24 on 1-10-23 agenda
Dear Council Members,
I will never accept any more buildings being built on a flood plain!!!! If we must go up, it should be along Soquel and Mission. But must or should we go up? That should be the serious discussion before our community, not assuming that we should build anything in the flood plain.
Friendly trolleys can carry people back and forth between all the cute shops and restaurants in "Oldtown Santa Cruz” as we make the transition to higher buildings along major corridors to the East and West.
We are deep in environmental and financial denialism if we do not make a rational decision to take development away from the flood plain.
May your better angels prevail in the discussion tonight.
Thank you.
Barbara Riverwoman
24.1.18 From: Keresha Durham
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: NO to Unlimited Tall Buildings -item #24 on agenda Date: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:07:24 PM
Dear City Council,
The community created the height limit in our General Plan for a reason. Please get community input before you disregard this height limit again.
Oppose item #24 proposal on your agenda.
HELP OUR ECONOMY
I have lived in Santa Cruz since 1981 and I am counting on you to preserve the Natural Beauty, the town character and small-unique businesses that residents and tourists love about Santa Cruz! The smaller-built landscape does not overpower the river and green open spaces bring people here from all over the world and the attractive built-landscape makes students choose UCSC.
Businesses rely on tourists and students being drawn to our area (not repulsed by more tall city design.) Since local businesses will continue to leave downtown, (and might be replaced with Target-type chain stores) if you vote for tall buildings, you are draining money from our community and local families. Local businesses' money stays here and supports our community.
NO TO UNLIMITED, 12 STORY BUILDINGS
Please get input from people who live here on a healthy, maximum height limit for our city. Please do not allow short-sighted, greedy development to destroy the quality of life that we have forever. I urge you to scale-down the proposed revision of the Downtown Plan Expansion project to a reasonable height of 5 stories for only a few areas.
Everyone I know does not want an UNLIMITED number of large, 12-story buildings in the South of Laurel area. The current buildings downtown are unaffordable and are not full- Fill up the current spaces BEFORE you build more.
Please stand below the monstrosity going up at the old Taco Bell site, and imagine buildings TWICE as high as this, filling up the whole South of Laurel area. Horrifying!!!!
24.1.19 DARK UNSAFE STREETS & HURTING CLIMATE
It is depressing to walk under Laurel and Front Street on a sunny day since the buildings block out the light and you are walking in a dark canyon. Studies show that streets are safer when you design attractive buildings where other people want to linger, their presence makes the area safer.
Studies show that noisy streets with more car traffic discourages walking and biking, which hurts our climate and causes more extreme weather. It will invite more car traffic when you increase building size and add parking.
SMALL BUSINESS & DIVERSITY WILL SUFFER MORE
Please look at research that shows what happens when you build up and rents go up, often small businesses (operated by local families) will be priced out and have to close.
This happened recently in Scotts Valley when the new Target moved in, commercial rents went up in that shopping center and the local businesses were replaced by national chains; so instead of diverse, unique, Ma and Pa stores, we get the same businesses that are taking over every US city. We will look like so many strip malls in America providing only low paid jobs.
DISPLACE NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES
The proposed development will destroy the homes of many people who live in this low rent area. Many have lived here for years in truly affordable apartments.
Where will these people go? Will they have to join the workers who must drive hours to work from Watsonville? We will lose many small, local businesses here too.
Please oppose the MASSIVE UNLIMITED DEVELOPMENT South of Laurel, which
will alter the character of Santa Cruz FOREVER,
will put a strain on our limited, water supply
will add to overwhelming traffic congestion
will overcrowd and trample our natural beauty
will annihilate the identity of Santa Cruz
will make us like San Jose by the Sea
will ruin our quality of life
Please design a livable community!
24.1.20 Thank you for considering these points before you vote.
Keresha Durham~ environmentalist
"care-sha"
_˜o
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
For a quality future for all living things,
the earth needs small families
Balance population with finite natural resources
24.1.21 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Frank Barron <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:05 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush
Subject: 1/10/23 City Council Agenda Item #24: Proposed Revisions to Downtown Plan Expansion Project
Honorable Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Mayor Keeley's proposed revision to the Downtown Plan Expansion proposal (Item 24). The current proposal, approved by your Council on 6/14/22, includes one 17- story building and three 15-story buildings in the South of Laurel project area. On the plus side Mayor Keeley's proposed revision would reduce the maximum height to 12-stories, but on the negative side it would not place a limit on the NUMBER of massive 12-story buildings that could be built, nor would it place any limits on the building footprints as does the current proposal. This could result in the whole South of Laurel area being covered with hugely out-of-scale and out-of-character high-rises, twice as tall and massive as the ugly behemoth going up at the former Taco Bell site. The overall impact of the Mayor's proposed revision would likely be far worse than the current proposal, despite the lowered height limit.
A better approach, one that would accommodate most of the Downtown Plan Expansion project's objectives, including 1,600 new housing units (with a net 20% affordable) and a new Warriors arena, would be to alter Mayor Keeley's proposal as follows:
1. Instead of having a blanket, area wide 12-story height limit, lower the heights of the currently proposed four tallest buildings by 5-stories each. That would lower the single tallest proposed building from 17- stories to 12-stories (i.e., at the Wheel Works site at SE corner of Laurel and Front), and lower the other three proposed adjacent tall buildings from 15-stories to 10-stories, inclusive of density bonuses, and in the same locations and footprints as currently proposed.
2. Keep the remainder of the South of Laurel project area at the currently proposed building height limit range of 5 to 8-stories (inclusive of density bonuses).
3. Place an objective height limit in feet for all buildings, set at no more than 10-feet per story (e.g., 10-stories = 100-feet).
4. Keep Mayor Keeley's overall new housing unit count in the project area at a maximum of 1,600 units, with a net minimum of 20% affordable.
If your council were to adopt this scaled back hybrid combination of the existing proposal and Mayor Keeley's proposed revision, I think you would find that opposition to the project would virtually disappear, or nearly so.
However, there will be considerable opposition if the either the project as currently proposed, with its four 17- and 15-story buidings, or Mayor Keeley's proposed revision, with its unlimited number of massive 12-story buildings, goes forward.
Given that this proposal constitutes the biggest, most significant land use change in the history of Santa Cruz, one that will forever change the character of the city, and due to recent state laws cannot ever be undone, your council should carefully consider how you will want to be remembered.
24.1.22 2
Sincerely,
Frank Barron, AICP
City resident
24.1.23 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robin Holland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:23 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Robin Holland
Subject: Urging Council to approve Keeley/Newsome permit application requests as per the 1/10/23 agenda
Dear City Council,
This email is to urge the City Council to 1) approve the two requests from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome related to the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project, and 2) to direct that the Council at a later Council meeting consider, and take final action on, the Parks & Recreation Commission's actions related to the heritage tree removal permit, as well as the other permits and approvals for the project.
It makes sense that the Council would consider the entire project at once and with the benefit of the Parks and Recreation Commission's 12/12/22 input and the Planning Commission's 2/16/23 input.
Thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
Robin Holland
Santa Cruz homeowner
[email protected]
24.1.24 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Renison <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins Subject: (General Business Item 24.1, January 10, 2023) Downtown Expansion Area Plan City Council Members,
Concerning the Downtown Expansion Area Plan: I urge a further scaling-back of the proposed revision of the Downtown Plan Expansion project that would replace the four proposed 17 & 15-story towers with 12-story buildings in the South of Laurel area.
I am very concerned about the massive development being planned.
In the proposed EIR, please include a maximum of 1600 units in this plan; have a maximum height of 120 feet for the proposed 12 story buildings; explain HOW MANY buildings are being proposed, and have a project description widely available so everyone can see what the plan's EIR covers.
Sincerely,
Susan Renison
24.1.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Laura Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins Subject: RE: Agenda Item 24. Further reduce building heights and density Dear Council Members,
I urge you to further reduce the heights and densities proposed for the area south of Laurel Street in Santa Cruz.
The proposed revision to the Downtown Expansion Area Plan should go even further to reduce building heights much lower than 12 stories.
If you continue along this path of massive, high density buildings with this level of excessive height (i.e. 12 story maximum), the City of Santa Cruz will suffer. Our environment will become more strained (e.g. water use and traffic) as well as less pleasant and attractive. These tall buildings, including the new 7 story building at Laurel and Front, will diminish the character of Santa Cruz that draws people to live and visit here - a sunny, lower-profile beach town surrounded by forest covered hills.
Any new housing in downtown Santa Cruz should be of a size (height, width and length) and scale that enhance the overall beauty and quality of life in our community for residents and visitors alike. Please further reduce the height and density proposed in the Expansion Plan.
Thank you,
Laura Smith
24.1.26 From: Ellen Adams
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: item #24 on 1/10/23 agenda: Downtown DEVELOPMENT Date: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:30:33 PM
It's a great idea to provide affordable housing, but this development will change Santa Cruz forever. It was bad enough going from the beautiful Pacific Garden Mall to Pacific Avenue after the earthquake, but maybe it was unavoidable.This is not.
Don't get me wrong. Housing is important, but the proposed high rises will completely change the nature of our community. Why do they have to be so tall? Let's maintain a reasonable skyline, 4 or 5 stories, and not overshadow our sweet city with these monstrous buildings.
Ellen Adams MS, LMFT
831-460-1160
--
The proposed scale of this MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT
will alter the character of Santa Cruz FOREVER,
it will put a strain on our limited water supply
add to overwhelming traffic congestion
overcrowd and trample our natural beauty
annihilate the identity of Santa Cruz
make us like San Jose by the Sea
ruin our quality of life
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This communication is intended for the person (s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is protected by Federal and/or State law. If you receive this in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction is strictly prohibited. Please report the error immediately and delete and/or destroy this communication and any attached documents from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
24.1.27 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:03 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Scott Newsome; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Subject: Agenda Item 24; 1/10/23; Downtown Expansion Plan & EIR Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Elect,
The reduction of height from a 17-story limit to a 12-story limit in the proposed Downtown Plan Expansion is a more sensible proposition. I hope you will support Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome's amendment to the original expansion plan and the associated dEIR.
The 20% inclusionary they have proposed (inclusive of density bonus) would be a particularly helpful element to our community. This is an incredible improvement considering how few affordable units are now proportionally being proposed in most market rate projects after the addition of a density bonus.
The Keeley/Newsome proposal also indicates a 1600 maximum for the number of units. It is very important that this maximum of 1600 units be specifically studied in the dEIR, not the 1800 proposed by Staff.
I'm hoping that Council will provide further clarity for the community, the staff, and direction for the dEIR study with the following:
What number of 12-story buildings would be permissible in this new area of downtown? Please set a limit.
What is the height limit to be set for 12-stories? Will it be 120 feet, assuming 10 feet/floor? Please set a solid height limit for the study and associated proposal.
I remain concerned about our infrastructure's ability to withstand this magnitude of growth, as well as the possible dangers associated with flooding, earthquakes, liquefaction, and evacuation times/route capacity for this proposed density in that area.
However, I strongly support the sensible changes to the plan being proposed by Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
24.1.28 From: Susan Monheit
To: Bonnie Bush; Fred Keeley; City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Downtown Expansion Plan_Agenda Item 24, 24.1, and 24.2, January 10, 2023 Date: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:11:53 PM
Dear City Council, Mayor Keeley,
I urge you not to amend the General Plan to allow for buildings taller than 48 feet, 5-7 stories in the area slated for the Downtown Expansion. With current building heights already in our City's General Plan, 900 units could be built in the south of Laurel St area. With density bonus, this could expand to 10-story buildings with 1200 units of housing. This is the strategy I urge you to follow.
Please stop building in the floodplain. Take a look at the evacuations today due to the flooding of the San Lorenzo River.
Please say NO to any building height taller than the Palomar which stands just shy of 90 feet. Buildings proposed at 175' (17-stories) and 150' (15 stories) will obliterate the City. Mayor Keeley's new proposal is moving in the right direction, but still too tall, and does not limit the number of 12-story buildings or specify the maximum building height and locations of the 12-story buildings.
In order for very sunlight to reach the ground among very tall buildings described above, there must be very large setbacks between them. If Santa Cruz were to build the proposed four 17 & 15 story towers - or an unlimited number of 12-story buildings south of Laurel St, the area would become a dark, dank, cavernous cement maze, with increased localized winds and decreased temperatures. It would be a place that discourages small business, pedestrian traffic, and community activity. The consequences of decreased civilian activity on the streets, invite faster driving, and more crime.
Please HELP OUR ECONOMY, by creating smaller, livable scale developments that invite people to come and visit and live in Santa Cruz because it is a unique jewel, with an inviting feeling. Please do not remake Santa Cruz in the image of San Jose, or the SF Financial district.
Further:
1. The EIR should analyze a maximum (not minimum) of 1600 dwelling units for the Downtown Plan Expansion/ South of Laurel Plan (Plan);
2. A maximum height for the proposed 12-story buildings should be 120 feet.
This is the maximum height that should be analyzed in the EIR and Plan; and
3. Identify the maximum number of 12-story buildings that would be acceptable.
This must be clearly defined as the "Project" analyzed under CEQA.
24.1.29 4. A new Project description should be circulated to the public, so it is clear what the EIR is analyzing.
Please oppose the MASSIVE UNLIMITED DEVELOPMENT South of Laurel, which will:
Alter the character of Santa Cruz FOREVER;
Strain on our limited, water supply;
Add to already paralyzing traffic congestion;
Overcrowd and trample our natural beauty;
Annihilate the identity of Santa Cruz;
Make us like San Jose by the Sea;
Ruin our quality of life.
Please design a livable community!
Thank you for considering these points before you vote. ~ Susan Monheit
Santa Cruz Citizen
24.1.30 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 1/10/23 Agenda Item # 24-24.2 Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I appreciate the chance to voice my 1/10/23 Agenda Item # 24.-24.2 comments.
Reviewing the ‘ Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Planning and Community Development (PL)' I have these QUESTIONS:
1. How many total new units are planned for the Downtown Plan, including the S. of Laurel Expansion?
2. What is the population increase for the Plans area & what percentage is that of the current City population?
3. Why did the Downtown area get designated to absorb a drastic population increase, which will dramatically change the character of Santa Cruz?
4. What criteria was applied to justify such planning?
5. Would a Downtown 8 stories height limit address the potential of over 12 stories due to the Density Bonus additional height increase?
6. Were equal efforts applied to the public & developers concerns to explore win-win planning options/alternatives?
Reviewing Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome (CN) I have these comments:
I welcome Mayor Keeley and City Council Member for offering their Plan Amendment Plan, which is response to City Council Members recommendation to lower dwelling units to 1,600. The Amendment Revision doesn't specify how many 12 stories would be permitted thus still allowing for the dramatic character change of Santa Cruz.
It's worth noting that many public members opposed the building density of the Downtown Expansion Area Plan, because of undesired Santa Cruz change.
Their Report statement '...residents also cost the City money through provision of police, fire, library, road maintenance, and various other services.' raises the concern that such a heavy population increase overburdens the Downtown various infrastructures & resources. It would be regretful if the heavy populated Downtown would require more of the City's resources at the expense of other neighborhoods.
The Report mentions 'Reduction of units in this plan area will likely mean that those units will need to be planned for through residential capacity increases elsewhere in the community.'. This implies that the City has the promising options to spread out the dwelling unit increase in a neighborhood friendly way.
In consideration that nobody seems to like the visible proof of the Downtown Expansion on the corner of Pacific Ave./Front St. it is important that the EIR evaluates a Superior Environmental Project alternative with the least impacts.
Thank you for your time considering my input/ feedback,
24.1.31 2
Sincerely,
Jane Mio
24.1.32 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Real <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback
Dear City Council Member,
I am writing to you tonight to urge you to oppose item #24 on your agenda. It is unconscionable to consider unlimited massive building in the downtown south of Laurel area. Prior to the behemoth being built on the corner of Laurel and Front streets most of Santa Cruz buildings were less than 5 stories tall. From various points one has vistas of the Santa Cruz skyline: Holy Cross steeple, the town clock, and and Sunshine villas copulas. The new monstrosity being built is a gigantic box masking many of these vistas. I cannot imagine more buildings going up in that area that are even more massive.
Aesthetics aside, this proposal displaces low income people already living in the area. It will create more congestion in an already extremely congested area where 1000 of tourist cars already fill the streets on a sunny weekend.
Surely we can come up with a less concentrated, less dense and more human scale housing solutions through out our area.
Please do not disregard the General Plan and do not vote for item #24.
Sincerely,
Jane Real
24.1.33 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Simonton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Expansion of Downtown
Dear Council members, It appears the City Council is in a very BIG hurry to push as much development in our downtown as possible. Why not take a breath and consider the implications of building in a flood zone, that is also very dangerous in an earthquake given the liquefied sand that holds the buildings? The earth is changing rapidly and maybe building in another part of town would make a lot more sense.
Maybe one with bedrock that has a bit of elevation to it? This expansion project is being pushed and paid for by the Seaside company’s greed.
Why not stand up to Seaside Company rather than capitulate? The expansion destroys neighborhoods in that area that will have to be relocated. Please give their voice as much credence as Seaside’s. Thank you, Ann Simonton
24.1.34 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gwendolyn Anderson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins Subject: Save Santa Cruz - Sue the State
I oppose high rises and massive construction throughout Santa Cruz I grew up in Santa Cruz and earned a degree in math and economics from UC Santa Cruz. It is somewhat hard to imagine my parents were able to work their ways through college, and that college students used to fill service jobs that have morphed into life-long roles for a lower wage sector versus heavy loans for the higher wage earners.
The state of California has wrongly mandated to overdevelop and bring in millions of new population that is unsustainable. California is comprised of sensitive ecosystems and Santa Cruz is included among the most unique environments in the world.
The idea that dense housing will be "affordable" is nonsense. Dense cities become increasingly costly due to diseconomies of scale, unless you want to become more like Detroit or Flint Michigan. All that will be achieved is a lower quality of life at a higher cost of living and disintegration of the natural beauty intrinsic to Santa Cruz, far too precious to barter for devaluing US dollars.
I would please invite you to join the Catalysts for Local Control (CatalystsCA.org) lawsuit against the exaggerated RHNA housing figures which are for the profit of developers at the loss of the community, our local people who would be burdened having to pay and endure all of the externalities. The lawsuit is low cost especially compared against all of the consulting fees and the fret involved in moving forward doing wrong, truly a bargain set against irreversible damages.
Yes, we do need the right kind of housing for the people who live in California, for all types of people including our public servants, elderly, disabled, vulnerable people, especially those who are rooted in this state. No, we are not the United State of California, there are 50 states and not everyone needs to live here, and no not all of the jobs need to be in California. There is currently an exodus from the state and a potential for century long droughts. No, I am not racist or selfish for saying so. I have read all of the name calling arguments and in fact, housing is a complex topic and no two people will have exactly the same views about any proposal. We do not need upzoning and density, but instead we need biodynamic zoning which considers the existing ecosystems and the future of Santa Cruz along with the entire state.
I would be glad to send you my study which shows the true economics of the situation which is not supply-demand but rather a Long Term Supply Curve which is upward sloping due to diseconomies of scale. For additional background, please refer to the book and film "The Big Short" about the S&L crisis and the book by the same author "Liar's Poker." The housing problem started with the conversion of mortgage loans for the homeowner into mortgage bond securities and the increasing commoditization of housing including Jeff Bezo's "Arrived" which allows small investors to buy small portions of rental housing controlled by Amazon. This is not the way the world needs to be. Please join me.
Gwen Anderson ACAS MAAA
415-794-9980
CatalystsCA.org
24.1.35 From: David Jackman
To: Keresha Durham
Cc: Bonnie Bush; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Re: NO to Unlimited Tall Buildings -item #24 on agenda Date: Monday, January 09, 2023 3:50:17 PM
Agreed. Six stories are definitely the limit.
On Jan 9, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Keresha Durham
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear City Council,
The community created the height limit in our General Plan for a reason. Please get community input before you disregard this height limit again.
Oppose item #24 proposal on your agenda.
HELP OUR ECONOMY
I have lived in Santa Cruz since 1981 and I am counting on you to preserve the Natural Beauty, the town character and small-unique businesses that residents and tourists love about Santa Cruz! The smaller-built landscape does not overpower the river and green open spaces bring people here from all over the world and the attractive built-landscape makes students choose UCSC.
Businesses rely on tourists and students being drawn to our area (not repulsed by more tall city design.) Since local businesses will continue to leave downtown, (and might be replaced with Target-type chain stores) if you vote for tall buildings, you are draining money from our community and local families. Local businesses' money stays here and supports our community.
NO TO UNLIMITED, 12 STORY BUILDINGS
Please get input from people who live here on a healthy, maximum height limit for our city. Please do not allow short-sighted, greedy development to destroy the quality of life that we have forever. I urge you to scale-down the proposed revision of the Downtown Plan Expansion project to a reasonable height of 5 stories for only a few areas.
24.1.36 Everyone I know does not want an UNLIMITED number of large, 12-story buildings in the South of Laurel area. The current buildings downtown are unaffordable and are not full- Fill up the current spaces BEFORE you build more.
Please stand below the monstrosity going up at the old Taco Bell site, and imagine buildings TWICE as high as this, filling up the whole South of Laurel area. Horrifying!!!!
DARK UNSAFE STREETS & HURTING CLIMATE
It is depressing to walk under Laurel and Front Street on a sunny day since the buildings block out the light and you are walking in a dark canyon. Studies show that streets are safer when you design attractive buildings where other people want to linger, their presence makes the area safer.
Studies show that noisy streets with more car traffic discourages walking and biking, which hurts our climate and causes more extreme weather. It will invite more car traffic when you increase building size and add parking.
SMALL BUSINESS & DIVERSITY WILL SUFFER MORE
Please look at research that shows what happens when you build up and rents go up, often small businesses (operated by local families) will be priced out and have to close.
This happened recently in Scotts Valley when the new Target moved in, commercial rents went up in that shopping center and the local businesses were replaced by national chains; so instead of diverse, unique, Ma and Pa stores, we get the same businesses that are taking over every US city. We will look like so many strip malls in America providing only low paid jobs.
DISPLACE NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES
The proposed development will destroy the homes of many people who live in this low rent area. Many have lived here for years in truly affordable apartments. Where will these people go? Will they have to join the workers who must drive hours to work from Watsonville? We will lose many small, local businesses here too.
24.1.37 Please oppose the MASSIVE UNLIMITED DEVELOPMENT South of Laurel, which
willalter the character of Santa Cruz FOREVER,
will put a strain on our limited, water supply
will add to overwhelming traffic congestion
will overcrowd and trample our natural beauty
will annihilate the identity of Santa Cruz
will make us like San Jose by the Sea
will ruin our quality of life
Please design a livable community!
Thank you for considering these points before you vote.
Keresha Durham~ environmentalist
"care-sha"
_˜o
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
For a quality future for all living things,
the earth needs small families
Balance population with finite natural resources
24.1.38 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 1/5/2023
AGENDA OF: 1/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Downtown Expansion Area Plan Amendment Revision - Report from Planning and Community Development (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report and consider the information as part of the evaluation of any modifications to the Downtown Plan Expansion, including consideration of staff’s recommendation to continue studying 1,800 units in the plan’s draft Environmental Impact Report.
BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2022, the City Council provided direction regarding the development approach to study as part of the proposed Downtown Plan Expansion to the south of Laurel Street. The Council direction was as follows:
Direct staff to initiate work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the area identified for expansion of the boundary of the Downtown Plan, and provide that the design align with development Scenario 2 to include the following:
A minimum of 1600 housing units;
Maximum heights not to exceed on one taller building of 175 feet and not to exceed 150 feet on remaining, with each height being inclusive of anticipated height increases associated with a 50% density bonus and with the taller building elements comprising only a portion of shorter podium building forms; An option for auto circulation including the permanent closure of Spruce Street east of Pacific Avenue;
The creation of new civic space in the closed Spruce Street right of way; Enhanced pedestrian connections between the Downtown and the beach; Options for the location of a permanent arena facility for the Santa Cruz Warriors, with a preferred location being on the south side of Spruce Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
The Council direction followed multiple community outreach efforts and followed discussions with the Planning Commission and Downtown Commission. The Council action also took into consideration the 3,736 new residential units that need to be able to be built during the Sixth Housing Element Cycle (discussed below in more detail) spanning the eight years from 2024 through 2031. More information about what the Council considered in its deliberations is available in the attached agenda report from the June 14, 2022 Council meeting.
24.2.1 This report is prepared in response to potential revisions to the Council’s June 14, 2022 direction, as articulated in the separate report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome. The revisions proposed in that separate report include the following:
1) A policy that sets the maximum number of stories at 12, inclusive of density bonus (a state mandate that allows for development to exceed local regulations such as the maximum number of residential units, maximum building heights, and minimum setbacks);
2) A requirement that 20% of the total units be affordable. The City’s current requirement for affordable units that are included within new residential development projects (called the “inclusionary” requirements) calls for 20% of the units in a project to be affordable, but under state law, as discussed below in more detail, the affordability requirement does not apply to additional units that a developer receives pursuant to the state density bonus; and
3) A maximum total of 1,600 residential units, inclusive of density bonus.
DISCUSSION:
12-Story Maximum, Inclusive of Density Bonus – Legal and Practical Considerations As noted above, the Council is considering whether to modify the previously-directed height allowances in favor of buildings across the district having a maximum of 12 stories, including any additional stories that a project may achieve under the state density bonus. For market-rate residential projects (meaning non-100% affordable developments) that include specified percentages of affordable housing, state density bonus law allows for those projects to incorporate up to 50% more units than what would otherwise be allowed by the applicable local (general plan) regulations and to deviate from certain typical development standards to accommodate those additional units. So a project site that could allow for up to 100 residential units under standard rules could use the state density bonus law to include up to 150 residential units, while also deviating from standards like maximum building height or minimum setbacks.
When considering the variations (such as height or setbacks) being requested by a developer, the state law and associated case law give deference to how a project is proposed by an applicant, not how a city or neighborhood desire the development to be designed. Therefore, outside a concurrently-approved development agreement (discussed below in more detail), it will be very difficult for the Downtown Plan Expansion to ensure that the maximum number of stories on new buildings will be 12 stories. Some tools can be used to promote and encourage a maximum of 12-stories as the outcome of projects that use a 50% density bonus. However, some projects, particularly 100% affordable projects that can use density bonus for unlimited density in the plan area (as opposed to the 50% density increase limit for market-rate projects), could potentially go above 12 stories. And depending on a developer’s proposed approach to a density bonus, some market-rate project proponents could potentially go above 12 stories too, given the State’s deference to how developers propose projects pursuant to state law and case law.
Furthermore, staff can craft policies that would make 12 stories the most likely outcome for a 50% density bonus project, if a developer chooses to go above the typical maximum, 85-foot height limit for traditional wood-frame construction. (Given the cost increases associated with
24.2.2 going above 85 feet in height due to changes in construction materials and regulations, some developers may choose to not exceed that height, as was the case with recent developments along Front Street and Pacific Avenue. However, with the views of the Monterey Bay, San Lorenzo River, downtown, and Santa Cruz Mountains that would be provided by taller development in the project area, it is expected that at least some developers will incur the additional development costs associated with the greater building heights, as those costs will be offset by increased rental or sales prices.)
While encouraging the 12-story maximum will be a challenging task that will likely require a variety of paths to increase the likelihood of a 12-story maximum, an approach that could definitively limit new buildings to 12 stories is a development agreement. Part 25 of Chapter
24.08 of the Zoning Code and Section 65864 of the Government Code speak to development agreements, which can be mutually agreed upon by a property owner and the City through an ordinance adopted by the City Council at a noticed public meeting and following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Development agreements specify a range of topics, one of which could be a maximum of 12 stories, but a key factor is that the agreements must be just that – agreements. The City cannot impose a development agreement on a site, so the City and the property owners must both agree on the terms and conditions. For a property owner to be willing to agree to limit themselves to 12 stories in height, inclusive of any density bonus height allowances, they would be seeking other favorable terms from the City as part of the agreement.
12-Story Maximum, Inclusive of Density Bonus – Policy Considerations As noted above, construction costs increase above 85 feet in height. Thus, to go higher than 85 feet, many developers have traditionally wanted to include a substantial number of stories above the 85-foot threshold in order to gain more value from the sale or rent of spaces above that level.
That said, various factors can affect that traditional approach.
Conversations with potential developers will be critical to understand development feasibility of a 12-story maximum. An initial, preliminary conversation with one developer in the area alluded to the potential for 12 stories to be viable if the project were 100% market rate, with the associated affordable units provided off-site.
Variation in building heights and architectural designs at the top of buildings are key considerations of a distinct, attractive, and unique skyline that will define Santa Cruz. If all properties in the plan area were developed at the maximum 12-story limit, the lack of variation in the height of the skyline would provide a relatively monotonous feel. As discussed above, given the change in construction type above 85 feet in building height and the associated costs with that construction, some developers may choose to not exceed 85 feet. Also, as discussed above, some developers may pursue a density bonus approach that could create some variation in building height. These variations could help promote visual interest in the skyline.
Regardless of the ultimate building heights, it will be imperative for policies in the plan to require distinctive building tops to provide an attractive skyline. These policies will also be critical regardless of ultimate building heights and can hopefully help the Council and the public better visualize the ultimate outcomes. While they do not show the potential architectural character of the building tops, massing diagrams developed from three-dimensional modeling do show the concept of taller building elements being only a portion of the overall site. Those diagrams are available online at
24.2.3 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/88906/637868427797900000 and
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/90256/637940209601800000. 20% of the Total Units Being Affordable – Legal and Policy Considerations As noted above, the Council is also considering whether to require that 20% of the total number of units across the project area be affordable. The City’s affordable housing (inclusionary) ordinance requires that 20% of the units in new projects are affordable to families earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Pursuant to state law and as confirmed in the Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa vs. County of Napa, cities’ local affordable housing requirements count towards a project’s eligibility for a state density bonus.
Cities cannot require that the affordable housing necessary to achieve a state density bonus be applied on top of or in addition to the local affordable housing requirements. Instead, the two requirements (local affordable housing requirements and affordable housing requirements to be eligible for the density bonus) overlap, and they cannot be stacked on one another. (For a more detailed explanation of this topic, see the attached memo entitled “Memorandum on Inclusionary Units in a Density Bonus Project.”)
Additionally, state law requires and the City’s local affordable housing ordinance provides alternative approaches to achieving the local affordable housing requirements. Section
24.16.030 of the Zoning Code specifies nine different ways to comply with the City’s affordable housing requirements other than providing the units on-site.
Given the above, if the Council provides direction to include 20% of the total units in the project area as affordable, staff would evaluate a range of options for how either a project could achieve the full 20% of units as affordable, inclusive of density bonus units, or how the project could contribute to achieving the full 20% of the total units as affordable across the entire project area, for example, through off-site, 100% affordable housing projects. Providing a range of options will increase the likelihood that one of the options could be financially viable for a project.
Staff are preparing an analysis of housing barriers for the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as part of the mentioned Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update1, and the timing of the housing barrier analysis is such that it will be submitted to HCD before any policy associated with the Downtown Plan takes effect. That said, HCD could, even before our next Housing Element update, require that we review whether the policy is a barrier to housing production. Regardless of HCD’s position, it will be important for the City to review, vet, and craft various approaches and the policy options carefully to ensure they are not deemed a barrier to housing production.
Maximum of 1,600 Units – Potential Policy Change in the Plan – Legal & Practical Considerations
The final policy change being contemplated under the separate and associated agenda report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome is to have a maximum total number of units 1 A required element of the City’s general plan that must be updated every eight years, per state law, to show how and where the City will accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, as well as how the City will affirmatively further fair housing.
24.2.4 in the plan of 1,600 units. This subsection and the ensuing subsection focus on the potential policy change related to the maximum number of units included in the plan. That policy consideration is separate and distinct from the number of units evaluated in the EIR being prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA approach and recommendation are evaluated under a separate subheading.
Recent state laws have invalidated cities’ growth caps. Specifically, with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, the state legislature suspended the ability of cities and counties to establish or implement any provision that: (i) “Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the affected county or affected city,” (ii) “Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period,” or (iii) “Limits the population of the affected county or affected city.” (Government Code, § 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D). That said, staff believes that, should the Council provide direction to reduce the number of units in the plan area to a maximum of 1,600 units, staff can generally achieve that within the confines of the state law, with two key caveats.
With direction to have a maximum of 1,600 units in the plan area, the expected approach would be to include general plan and zoning allowances for all properties throughout the plan area that accommodate a total of 1,066 units. This would assume that market-rate projects all take advantage of a 50% density bonus, thereby resulting in a total of 1,599 units. This approach should be consistent with state law; however, two key caveats apply.
First, as noted before, 100% affordable projects in this area can use the density bonus to have unlimited density. Therefore, if a 100% affordable project chose to increase its unit count by more than 50%, then the City could not stop the other sites from developing to the full potential allowed by their general plan. To do so would be equivalent to establishing a residential cap, which is not allowed per state law. Thus, the total number of units could eventually exceed 1,600 through 100% affordable projects doing more than a 50% density bonus.
Second, the development intensities for the area are currently expected to be bound by Floor Area Ratio (FAR, the ratio of building square footage to site square footage), not the number of dwelling units per acre. Use of the FAR is expected to allow for more control over the overall heights (the Council’s current direction) or the maximum number of stories (currently being considered by Council). The total building square footage that is allowed by a site’s FAR is then translated to an expected number of dwelling units based on average unit size assumptions.
While it is likely that, across the many projects in the plan area, the average unit sizes will be comparable to the assumed unit sizes, if enough projects included units that are less than the average expected unit size, then the total number of units in the project area could eventually exceed 1,600 units, and the City could not prevent the other sites from developing to the full potential allowed by their general plan.
In either of the caveats noted above, the maximum unit count in the plan would not be exceeded for many years, as most of the sites within the project area would need to redevelop, and such changes take considerable time. For comparison, the Council approved height increases in the Downtown Plan area roughly between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Streets in 2017, and of the many sites affected, only two are currently under construction with new development.
24.2.5 Maximum of 1,600 Units – Potential Policy Change in the Plan – Policy Considerations The primary goal for the Downtown Expansion project is housing production, adding housing capacity that will benefit the City not just in the near term but also for many generations to come.
The City’s next Sixth Housing Element Cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) requires the City to plan for 3,736 housing units between 2024 and 2031. By comparison, the current cycle of the RHNA required the City to accommodate 747 new housing units between 2015 and 2023.
The City’s consultants on the Housing Element Update are still preparing the draft sites inventory that will show how and where the City will accommodate the requisite 3,736 units in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. However, preliminary indications from the consultant are that the City will need to add housing capacity above and beyond what is contained in the General Plan 2030. Thus, a reduction in housing capacity in the Downtown Expansion Area will result in the need to expand housing capacity elsewhere in the City, a task that has regularly proven controversial when general plan capacity increases have been proposed and even when density bonus projects are proposed on individual sites.
The Downtown Expansion Area represents a rare opportunity to plan for a significant amount of new housing in a location that is among the most sustainable sites in the region to grow based on its proximity to jobs, amenities, recreation, and transportation options.
The grants funding a portion of the work for the Downtown Plan Expansion require that the project facilitate the production of housing. If 1,066 units are contemplated in the plan (in order for the maximum to be 1,600 units with the application of a 50% density bonus on all projects), then staff does expect that this would represent an increase in the development capacity, albeit modest, and staff expects that the increase, coupled with the plan updates and environmental work, could meet the grant requirements related to facilitation of housing production.
CEQA Analysis – Staff Recommendation
The analyses for the Downtown Plan Expansion EIR have been underway for nearly seven months. Based on the June 14, 2022 direction from the City Council, where a minimum of 1,600 units were directed and where development parameters for various buildings were provided, the CEQA consultants have been preparing technical reports based on a build-out of 1,800 units. 180 118 136 313
747 859
562 709
1,606
3,736
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total RHNA
RHNA 2015-2023
Housing Built 2015-2021
Draft RHNA 2023-2031
RHNA Comparison
24.2.6 The EIR can continue to study the 1,800 units, which is the most expeditious and cost-effective way to proceed, and the Council could still choose to certify the EIR and approve the plan with an expected maximum of 1,600-units.
CEQA requires that EIRs analyze project alternatives, and a project alternative can specifically analyze the development parameters (12-story maximum, 20% of total units being affordable, and a maximum of 1,600-units) contemplated in the associated report from the Mayor and Councilmember Newsome. Keeping the EIR analyses of 1,800 units is not only the most expeditious and cost-effective approach, it also provides the City with more options as the Housing Element Update proceeds (and for the Warriors, as further discussed later). For example, if increasing housing capacity elsewhere in the City proves too challenging or controversial, any portion of the additional 200 units (the difference between the currentlystudied 1,800 units and the contemplated 1,600-unit maximum) could be considered for incorporation into the plan area as the two processes parallel one another.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends continuing to study 1,800 units, providing important options as the Housing Element Update proceeds. Council will still have full authority to choose what it ultimately certifies for the EIR and approves for the project.
Santa Cruz Warriors Arena
While housing production is the top goal of the project, working with the Santa Cruz Warriors to develop an approach that can facilitate development of a permanent arena is another key goal.
As the project progresses, the Warriors will have more information about the viability of the arena development, particularly because it relates to many external variables such as costs of land, labor, and materials; interest rates; and the housing market. The housing market is included as a factor, because the Warriors are working with landowners and developers to have housing projects help to fund the construction of the arena. Reducing the number of units studied in the EIR would limit the future flexibility that the City may want to leverage (for example, through increased unit counts on one or more specific sites) to help the Warriors finance the construction of their arena.
Health In All Policies
The project is consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainabilty in that it would encourage creation of both needed housing and economic opportunities and foster greater accessibility between the Downtown, San Lorenzo River, and beach areas. Development in the Downtown area is in close proximity to transit, jobs, amenities, and a wide range of entertainment and recreational activities, making it one of the most sustainable places to grow in the region. From an equity perspective, the project area will include space for new inclusionary low-income housing, including replacement housing for any existing low- and very-low income residents. This project encourages active transportation modes that support both personal health and environmetnal sustainability.
CEQA
The Downtown Plan Expansion will require environmental review prior to Council’s final consideration, for which the City is preparing an EIR. The direction contemplated in this report and the associated report from Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome, in and of itself, does not require CEQA clearance.
24.2.7 FISCAL IMPACT: Staff continues to address local housing needs and take advantage of statewide funding opportunities to further this success. In October of 2020, the City Council directed staff to apply for a Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant to expand the current boundaries of the Downtown Plan to accommodate additional residential and commercial development capacity. The project proposal met the main goal of the REAP grant funding source to accelerate housing production and received the full funding allocation of $300,000 in January of 2021. An additional $150,000 in project funding was also approved through the Local Early Action Planning grant (LEAP). Because the LEAP funding requires action by September of this year, staff is coordinating with the applicable state agencies to transfer the $150,000 in LEAP funds from the Downtown Plan Expansion to the Housing Element Update. While the project to which the funds apply could change, the grant amount remains the same.
The total project cost for the Downtown Plan Expansion is currently scoped to be $555,000.
Beyond the grants awarded for this project, totaling $450,000 (or $300,000 if the LEAP money is transferred to the Housing Element Update), general fund sources will be used to cover the additional costs. The City is considering creative solutions to allow the beneficiaries of the plan to reimburse City’s general fund costs towards the funding of the plan on a pro-rated basis, including staffing costs associated with the development of the plan, and policies will be considered for incorporation into the final plan to address these reimbursements.
As the project area is built out, staff anticipates that the additional property, admissions, and sales taxes, together with any special assessments elected for the project area, will have positive impacts on the City’s long-term fiscal conditions. Provision of services to the area will result in additional costs to the City, but given the location and efficiency of land uses under consideration, revenues should be expected to exceed expenses. Creating a new urban destination with distinct urban character and a major events venue of regional importance could make this project the center of a highly successful economic development endeavor, bringing residents and visitors from throughout the region into the downtown and helping them navigate between key points of interest at the beach, river levee, and Downtown.
A reduction in the overall number of units, as considered in the related report, would result in reduced property and sales taxes. However, the City also provides services to new residents, and general fund dollars are used to provide those services. The specific net fiscal impacts of a reduction in units are unknown; however, units not provided in this central, downtown location will need to be provided elsewhere in the City (as discussed above with the RHNA analysis), and provision of services to units outside the downtown could be more costly to the City than provision of services in such a central location.
Detailed and precise information on the longer-term fiscal implications will not be fully known until new uses and buildings are constructed and operating.
Prepared & Submitted by:
Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
24.2.8 ATTACHMENTS:
1. June 14, 2022 City Council Agenda Report
2. Memorandum on Inclusionary Units in a Density Bonus Project
24.2.9 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 6/8/2022
AGENDA OF: 6/14/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Downtown Plan Expansion, Preferred Development Scenario for Study under CEQA (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct staff to initiate work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the area identified for expansion of the boundary of the Downtown Plan, and provide that the preferred development scenario include the following: a minimum of 1,800 housing units; maximum heights of 225 feet for one taller building element, 185 feet for three taller elements, and 145 feet of one taller element, with each height being inclusive of anticipated height increases associated with a 50% density bonus and with the taller building elements comprising only a portion of shorter podium building forms; an option for auto circulation including the permanent closure of Spruce Street east of Pacific Avenue; the creation of new civic space in the closed Spruce Street right of way; enhanced pedestrian connections between the Downtown and the beach; and options for the location of a permanent arena facility for the Santa Cruz Warriors, with a preferred location being on the south side of Spruce Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
BACKGROUND: The Downtown Plan was first adopted as the Downtown Recovery Plan in 1991 in aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. The plan has been amended since, including in 2017, when it was renamed to the Downtown Plan. The 2017 amendments included measures that encourage new development along Front Street and Pacific Avenue between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street, including increased height limits in some areas of the Downtown. Following these amendments, there was an increase in the number of housing applications in the downtown, including new deed-restricted affordable housing and supportive housing units.
Staff has continued to address local housing needs and take advantage of statewide funding opportunities to further this success. In October of 2020, the City Council directed staff to apply for a Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant to expand the current boundaries of the Downtown Plan as a means to accommodate additional residential and commercial development capacity. The project proposal met the main goal of the REAP grant funding source to accelerate housing production and received the full funding allocation of $300,000 in January of 2021. An additional $150,000 in project funding was also approved through the Local Early Action Planning grant (LEAP).
24.2.10 Prior to beginning the consultant procurement process for the current project, staff sought direction from the City Council in March 2021 on a draft expansion boundary. The selected project boundary extends the Downtown Plan south from Laurel Street to the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Center Street, down both sides of Pacific Avenue, and east to the San Lorenzo River levee. The project boundary and was selected based on the goals for the project together with the existing zoning, General Plan, and physical conditions in the area. Below are the current goals for the expansion of the Downtown Plan, which continue to be refined during the process:
1. Add capacity for multi-family housing.
2. Create opportunities for public amenities and infrastructure including parks, the Santa Cruz Riverwalk trail, or other spaces for community use.
3. Better connect downtown with the river and beach areas.
4. Create new economic opportunities for local businesses and workers.
5. Generate new tax revenue to support City services.
6. Improve the pedestrian & bicycle experience.
7. Incorporate a permanent, financially-viable Warrior’s arena into the plan.
Following a standard purchasing process, Kimley-Horn Associates (KHA) was selected as the prime consultant to lead this project at the Council meeting on June 22, 2021. The Councilapproved Scope of Services and Schedule are included in the attachments. The first phase of the project involved the consultant team conducting an existing conditions analysis to understand the relevant physical, financial, and legal characteristics of the project area. Coordination with key stakeholders such as the Warriors began during this phase and an initial community outreach meeting was then held on November 13, 2021 to hear from the community and establish a vision for the neighborhood as redevelopment takes place. The work from this phase is summarized in the attached Real Estate Market Overview Report and Community Outreach Report.
DISCUSSION:
Development Scenarios
The second phase of the project built on the initial community feedback and stakeholder input as well as the established project goals. Three preliminary development scenarios were created to show three different levels of new housing capacity that could be incorporated into the expanded downtown area. The current housing capacity in the project area is around 930 housing units, of which fewer than 200 currently exist. The three development scenarios considered meeting a modest to significant amount of the City’s projected housing needs by increasing that number to just over 1,300, 1,500, or 1,700 new units, respectively. In addition to housing capacity, the preliminary scenarios also include ideas for many other project features such as improved streetscape and circulation, beach connectivity, civic spaces, resiliency, and considerations for a new Santa Cruz Warriors arena. These draft project ideas and development scenarios were presented to the public in an open house format on April 20, 2022. They were then presented to the Planning Commission on May 5, 2022 and to the Downtown Commission on May 12, 2022.
Additional details and illustrative materials can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report.
Circulation and Beach Connectivity
24.2.11 The project team showed a proposal for altering the existing roadways to realign the connection from Front Street to Laurel Street Extension to move the one-way roadway to the base of the cliff, allowing the closure of portions of Spruce Street and a portion of the existing Laurel Street Extension to provide additional space for civic amenities and housing. Removing a road that currently exists between the expansion area and the San Lorenzo River could open up possibilities for new public space to better engage with the river.
For beach connectivity, the team has considered all three ways that connect the project area to the beach area. Two of these ways are around the hill as is most often used currently. The third was is over the hill and the team has put more thought into the pedestrian experience between the project development, the Cliff Street stairs, and the Boardwalk. A new connection incorporating artistic lighting and appropriate street trees between an overlook at the top of the Beach Hill stairs and the Boardwalk would help beach visitors make the short walk up Beach Hill to take in a view of the San Lorenzo River or the ocean. From there, lighting and wayfinding signage can help them find places to eat and other activities to explore in the downtown, without needing to drive between the beach and downtown.
Resiliency
Planning for a significant amount of new housing also means the City is considering the effects of new demand on the planned water supply. The City’s Water Department has planned for growth and continues to look for ways to improve the City’s water storage despite climate change threats to supply. Additional storage capacity identified in existing aquifers, together with potential new supply sources such as Pure Water Soquel, provide sufficient water to meet the planned and projected population growth over the next 20 years, particularly given the significant water efficiency of new multi-family development.
Arena and Civic Space
One of the primary goals of this planning process is to incorporate a land use plan that accommodates a possible location for a new, permanent, arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors GLeague basketball team. A permanent arena facility would likely be somewhat larger than the existing temporary facility in order to incorporate permanent office space for operations staff, league-standard locker rooms, and modern practice facilities, all of which are not present or below standard in the current facility. A somewhat higher seating capacity and an eye for designing the arena with multi-purpose use in mind (i.e., better acoustics) could create an events venue that is not currently available in the Monterey Bay Area, drawing all kinds of new activity to Santa Cruz. In terms of whether such a facility can be built as a privately funded endeavor, the plan for the project area includes significant development intensity in order to off-set arena construction costs by providing return on investment into substantial residential development.
A new, permanent arena also creates a significant opportunity to create a safe, accessible, and engaging social gathering space for the community. The three development scenarios show options for two different locations for a new Warriors arena: the current location south of Spruce Street between Front Street and the river levee or on the adjacent block on the south side of Spruce Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. The different locations provide different opportunities for new civic spaces, a difference in heights adjacent to the San Lorenzo River, and practical considerations for the Warriors during the construction period.
The Spruce Street right of way contains significant underground utility infrastructure for the City’s flood control and wastewater systems, and therefore complete abandonment of this
24.2.12 roadway is not feasible or advised. However, vehicular access could be limited to utility services and the area converted to a pedestrian plaza. By closing parts of Spruce Street to traffic, two of the development scenarios show a possible civic plaza space in its place between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. While conceptual at this point, this plaza could potentially provide space for thousands of community members and visitors to gather for a variety of events. With a successful arena project, a plaza like this could be activated by adjacent commercial uses wrapping portions of the arena exterior or on adjacent properties. A public, urban plaza of this scale could provide a powerful connection to the San Lorenzo River levee area as well. The project area is a bridge between the Downtown, the river, and the beach and it provides an opportunity to create a vibrant neighborhood inspired through art, entertainment, technology, and illumination.
Housing and RHNA
The primary goal for this project is housing production and adding housing capacity that will benefit the City not just in the near term, but also for many generations to come. The City’s draft Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) was released following the start of this project and was taken into consideration in the preliminary development scenarios. The RHNA is the first step in the Housing Element cycle and is intended to ensure that housing is planned for where it is most needed. Factors used by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) in considering the distribution of housing requirements across the region included: the regional growth forecast, a jurisdiction’s share of jobs in the region, the jobs/housing ratio, existing transit routes, wildfire and sea level rise risk, race and affluence concentration, and State of California opportunity mapping. The final draft RHNA would require the City to plan for 3,736 housing units. By comparison, the current cycle of the RHNA required the City to accommodate 747 new housing units between 2015 and 2023.
While more detailed analysis will take place in the beginning phases of the Housing Element Update (slated to start by the summer of this year), staff recognizes that the existing planned housing capacity of the adopted 2030 General Plan will not be sufficient to meet this new requirement. The City needs to identify additional locations and properties to accommodate the City’s housing obligation. By taking advantage of this project area to add more housing in an ideal downtown location, the City will be in a better position during this upcoming Housing Element Update process if sites for further housing capacity need to be identified. 180 118 136 313
747 859
562 709
1,606
3,736
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total RHNA
RHNA Comparison
RHNA 2015-2023
Housing Built 2015-2021
Draft RHNA 2024-2032
24.2.13 The expansion area represents a rare opportunity to plan for a significant amount of new housing in a location that is among the most sustainable sites in the region to grow based on its proximity to jobs, amenities, recreation, and transportation options. New multi-family buildings will have an expected life span of well over 60 years, which means this added capacity can help meet the housing needs of future generations of Santa Cruzans. With that in mind, while it is important to add capacity in the near term to help the City meet its upcoming 2023-2031 RHNA requirement, it is just as important to consider the medium and long term benefits of adding housing and that this housing can lay the groundwork for meeting future RHNA requirements as well.
Development Scenarios: Height
The building heights shown in the preliminary development scenarios show the addition of taller components as buildings start to exceed six or seven stories, with maximum heights between 120 and 200 feet. The proposed building form would dictate that these taller elements are limited to a certain percentage of the total building footprint and are not considered for the entirety of any of the parcels. These scenarios are an increase to the allowed maximum heights in the City and present the opportunity to create a new downtown skyline that helps define the city’s core as a distinct place with a strong urban identity. The taller buildings can also serve as a beacon for visitors to the City, drawing them to downtown where they can support local businesses. The taller building elements are proposed to be located in five distinct areas across four sites, all located away from the historic residential district to the west that is outside of the expansion area.
Open House and Commission Meetings
These development scenarios and topic areas were presented to the community at the second community open house held on April 20, 2022. Following this large community open house, the materials were presented to the Planning Commission on May 5, 2022, and to the Downtown Commission on May 12, 2022. The attached Planning Commission Staff Report of May 5, 2022 includes all the referenced materials. The purpose of the materials presented was to generate feedback and collect ideas for the project going forward and to define the preferred scenario that will become the project description for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The comments received at the April 20, 2022 open house event are shown in the Open House Comments attachment and are organized by topic area. The draft minutes from the Planning Commission and Downtown Commission are also attached.
Following this feedback, staff developed recommendation for the preferred development scenario detailed in the following sections. The presentation to the Council at the June 14, 2022 meeting will also provide further detail and enhanced context.
Based on feedback provided at the April 20 open house and online comments received as of this writing, community members are very supportive of the proposed concepts for changes to the roadway circulation, improved connectivity with the beach area, new civic spaces, and increased housing intensity in the project area. Participants contributed local insights and existing concerns regarding beach-bound traffic congestion and shared ideas about future programming and activation for the new civic spaces and the new arena, such as considering the acoustics of the space so it could serve the needs of the Santa Cruz Symphony. Some expressed concerns about any new development, but most showed support and enthusiasm for a significant change in the project area. Many comments also advocated for increased street closures and further limiting through traffic on Pacific Avenue, Laurel Street Extension, and Cliff Street.
24.2.14 Community comments advocated for green roofs and community garden space, for making roof decks publicly accessible, and for pursuing alternative transportation options like trolleys, shuttles, and pedicabs for better mobility between the beach and downtown. Existing tenants like the Hub for Sustainable Living and existing residential tenants raised questions and concerns about how they can fit into a redeveloped neighborhood and what their options are for relocation.
Another common theme was the need for more housing options for moderate- and lower-income households and support for creating a neighborhood with housing options for all income levels.
The community reacted favorably to proposing taller buildings in order to add more housing capacity and create a new, vibrant node in Santa Cruz. Many participants in the public open house expressed a motivation to increase housing options and to make efficient use of urban land while creating the space for significant public improvements and amenities associated with new development like multi-family housing and the arena. Some community members were initially surprised by the proposed building heights and had questions about how height could be effectively regulated and why taller elements were proposed. As the project team was able to show the increase in the number of housing units, explain the reasons for pursuing taller elements situated over shorter podium building forms, and show the three-dimensional renderings of the massing for different options, many became supportive and even excited about the opportunity created by a new urban neighborhood with thousands of new residents. Some others remained skeptical about the degree of change proposed and expressed a preference for one of the more moderate development scenarios. The attachment showing the Open House Comments captures the written comments made by community members during this event.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission discussed the various components of the development scenario during a regularly-scheduled meeting on May 5, 2022. The Commissioners reacted positively to the ideas for the civic spaces and enhanced connections to the river and beach area. The concept for the realignment of the roadway connections raised concerns among some Commissioners regarding the existing residential care facility at 126 Front Street, and Commissioners requested that the language in the Downtown Plan be clear that the roadway realignment could not take place until an alternative location for the facility could be identified. The Commissioners spent time discussing the advantages of different height limits and building forms, the right number of housing units to recommend for this neighborhood, and the best location for a potential permanent arena site. The motion that passed was passed on a 4-3 vote after some debate. The attachment showing the Planning Commission Minutes of May 5, 2022 includes the full text of the successful motion, and a separate attachment provides additional staff responses (beyond those below) to the motion.
One of the primary points of disagreement among commissioners was the appropriate height and building form of new buildings in the project area. The motion that passed recommended lower heights than even Scenario 1. However, one of the Commissioners who voted for the motion offered a friendly amendment to the motion to remove this restrictive height cap, but the friendly amendment was not accepted by the maker of the motion, and the Commissioner voted in favor of the prior motion that included the height limitations. The language regarding height in the Planning Commission recommendation was for the maximum height in the expansion area to be no taller than the Palomar building (90 feet), inclusive of the use of density bonus, so long as a maximum of 1,600 units can be achieved. Staff is opposed to part of the motion.
24.2.15 The Planning Commission’s maximum height proposal, by itself, is actually more restrictive than even the current Downtown Plan, where its maximum heights are not inclusive of the density bonus. As discussed in greater detail in the height regulation section on page 10, the City would have to set base building heights in the plan even lower to account for the use density bonus.
Because the City can only use base height in the Housing Element unit count, this could require even more units to accounted for elsewhere in the City and increase the possibility of rezoning needed outside of the Downtown.
This recommendation removed all taller height elements in favor of using solid block buildings all at the same height to achieve a maximum of 1,600 units. In order to achieve this unit maximum, the building heights throughout the project area would have to all be seven stories with six floors of residential over one floor of commercial. Given current building typologies and construction cost economies of scale, it is not as likely that some buildings will even achieve that height, particularly on the smaller parcels along Pacific Avenue, reducing the realistic potential of housing development and the likelihood of full build-out of the public and private improvements desired for this area. Based on this lack of feasibility on some sites, Planning Commission’s recommendation is more likely to produce a maximum of 1,458 units. In order to achieve the full 1,600 units, additional height would be needed. An increase of one story to achieve 1,600 units (creating a neighborhood of eight-story buildings) is not likely to be economically feasible either due to the fire code constraints that appear after 75’ of floor height.
These structural requirements add significant costs to projects and would need to be off-set by a commensurate shift in returns in the form of many additional stories containing additional units.
Should it even be feasible for all buildings throughout the expansion area to achieve the maximum 90’ height that allows for seven or eight stories, there is a strong aesthetic and urban design argument in favor of taller building elements. Large blocks of buildings all at the same 90-foot height would look and feel monotonous and oppressive. Taller building elements, which will create a distinctive skyline, would actually feel lighter and allow the base portions of all buildings in the project area to be in scale with their environment, including a lower height along the west side of Pacific Avenue transitioning toward the Neighborhood Conservation zone.
Narrower but taller elements also shorten the amount of time that shade is cast on adjacent properties versus longer and wider buildings. Importantly, taller building elements would also function as a beacon and provide a strong way-finding element in the City skyline, which supports downtown businesses, improves the economic development potential of the downtown, and helps create an anchor and magnet for activity in the new civic spaces.
The Warriors and their development partners currently have some control over blocks A, B, C, and D in the expansion area that are shown in the attached development scenarios. The Planning Commission’s recommendation specifically removes the taller building elements on all of these four blocks and, therefore, removes housing development capacity that could help privately fund the arena and other public amenities. Specifically, the Planning Commission’s recommendation would accommodate approximately 894 units in total across the four blocks, while staff’s recommended Scenario 3.1 would accommodate approximately 1,239 units in total across those same blocks
The Planning Commission also raised questions about potential displacement of current City residents – both directly within the project site as redevelopment occurs and indirectly as new investment raises property values in adjacent neighborhoods. Direct displacement will be addressed under existing State law and City ordinances requiring tenant relocation assistance,
24.2.16 replacement housing for any units occupied by lower-income qualifying households, and the first right of return for those displaced tenants as new affordable housing units are created. Indirect displacement is a broad and complicated issue and one for the City to consider comprehensively as housing costs continue to rise throughout the region. As an important citywide issue, it requires a comprehensive response, not one limited to the geographic area contained within the Downtown Plan Expansion area, which is what would occur if the issue were addressed through policies only applicable in the Plan area. Staff recommends that the City consider this issue on a citywide scale as part of the upcoming Housing Element update, where comprehensive analysis of both direct and indirect displacement is required by California law as part of the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686 of 2018.
Similarly to Planning Commission’s concerns around displacement, the motion also included direction to pursue significantly higher inclusionary housing requirements. Increasing inclusionary housing requirements requires detailed studies and market analyses to ensure a rate that can maximize affordable housing production while also making housing development financially feasible and likely to occur. These studies can take significant time and resources.
The State of California deems inclusionary requirements a potential impediment to the development of housing and requires evidence that an inclusionary rate is not such an impediment as part of a Housing Element Update. In other words, the state seeks to ensure that inclusionary requirements are not abused to prevent or limit housing production. Given that the City is undertaking the Housing Element this summer, increasing the inclusionary rate as part of this project could complicate the Housing Element process and certification. If Council chooses to consider a higher inclusionary rate staff recommends that a separate consultant be brought on board to evaluate the implications of such a change, along with any implications an alternative rate could have on the viability of the privately-funded amenities and the overall viability of development. Staff would also recommend a presentation to Council regarding implications of such work on the Advance Planning Division’s and Economic Development & Housing Department’s respective work plans.
The Planning Commission motion also included a number of other recommendations, and responses to each of those recommendations is contained in an attachment to this report.
Downtown Commission
The Downtown Commission (DTC) discussed the preliminary development scenarios during a regularly-scheduled meeting on May 12, 2022. The DTC received the same materials presented to the Planning Commission. The discussion addressed questions relating to parking in and around the project area, programming elements relating to the proposed new commercial space in the project area, plans for affordable housing, state housing element law, and opportunities for the new civic space. The DTC was enthusiastically supportive of the concepts for the civic spaces and increasing activity and engagement in this area of downtown. Commissioners also identified the possibilities for existing local businesses as newly-built commercial space comes on to the market, noting that new development in this area could support existing businesses that are currently considering costly updates to older commercial buildings.
The DTC favored the most intense development scenario and was excited about creating a downtown expansion area with a distinct identity and skyline. The DTC noted the opportunity this project offered and expressed interest in even more intensity in this area in order to make efficient use of the land and the strengths of this area. The Commission encouraged the project
24.2.17 team to capitalize on the economic opportunities facilitated by a modern sports arena and events venue and pursue more intensity in the project area.
Coastal Commission
Local staff of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) reviewed the scenarios and submitted written comments to staff which can be read in the Coastal Commission Comments from June 8, 2022 attachment. CCC recognizes the importance of this project for the City and is supportive of increased densities in the proposed project areas so long as other amenities proposed in the plan are included. CCC staff desire that attention is paid to both the river side of the project area (i.e., improved connectivity in terms of public recreational access but also aesthetic and ecological connectivity) and to siting/design measures that can reduce perceived scale (e.g., upper stories setback from lower stories, no cantilevers, and the use of cutouts, articulation, etc.). City staff agree on the importance of the river in terms of access and design. These latter, more specific design details will be developed in the next phase of the project as objective standards are created.
CCC did not provide specific direction on maximum building heights in the expansion area but did state that it will be important for the EIR and related materials to thoroughly evaluate such height and massing increases. CCC also stated that the EIR should include alternative height scenarios to ensure that any proposed massing makes sense from a coastal resource standpoint, and they also sought clarity on how the density bonus would apply in the area and within the context of the Local Coastal Program. CCC reiterated the value of visual simulations of scenario alternatives in order to understand potential coastal resource impacts whether they are visual or access-related. These comments will be reflected in the EIR scope of work. CCC stated that the EIR should also provide detailed information on the proposed treatments of the public rights of way throughout the project area to help understand how they might relate to the intensification and densification proposed. Given the programmatic level of the EIR, detailed public right of way design will not be included in the EIR itself but will be in the final plan. Staff agrees with CCC that providing such information will help ensure that public right of way improvements function seamlessly with proposed building development while enhancing multi-modal transportation (bicycle/pedestrian/transit) and vehicular access.
Recommended Development Scenario
Based on the input from all of the above sources, the project team is recommending that the City Council provide direction to study a slightly modified development scenario called Scenario 3.1.
Given the great desire for increased housing, the general interest in taller buildings, the visual draw that taller buildings can have to downtown, and the aspiration to take advantage of the rare opportunity the area presents, Scenario 3.1 was created to be like Scenario 3 in every way but with slightly higher maximum heights on the taller building elements. In Scenario 3.1, the five taller elements in Scenario 3 would be allowed an additional 25 feet in height to provide more housing capacity and allow for greater flexibility with Density Bonus calculations. Scenario 3.1 has the following features:
1) A total housing unit count of no less than 1,800 dwelling units. 2) Maximum building heights of no more than 145 feet on one taller building element, 185 on three taller building elements, and 225 feet on one taller building element. The taller building elements will be controlled to be only a small portion of a site that rises above the associated and respective podium building. This promotes a lighter and more varied feel from the ground and when viewing the skyline.
24.2.18 3) A preferred circulation option that relocates the existing connection from Front Street to Laurel Street Extension to the bottom of Beach Hill, so long as that the residential care facility at 126 Front Street and any existing residents are relocated to an appropriate replacement facility elsewhere in the project area or within the County. Alternatives shall be considered should the facility and its residents not relocate. 4) Consideration for two options for the location of a permanent Warriors Arena:
a. The preferred location on the adjacent block, on the south side of Spruce Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street; and
b. The current site of the temporary arena.
5) Permanent closure of Spruce Street to automobile traffic east of Pacific Avenue. 6) Creation of new civic spaces within the closed Spruce Street right of way and connecting to the San Lorenzo River levee.
7) Enhancement of streetscape in all areas within the project area as well as both sides of Cliff Street connecting to Beach Street.
This recommendation reflects the project team’s understanding of the community interest in focusing housing intensity into the City’s downtown and stepping down height towards the neighborhood conservation district to the west. Scenario 3.1 takes greater advantage of the opportunity for redevelopment in this area. Pursuing a building form where a taller building is situated over a smaller portion of a shorter podium building is the most feasible way to achieve housing development in the desired amount. Helping promote the likelihood of development in the expansion area also helps to privately fund the many great public benefits and public realm enhancements envisioned with this project area, including but not limited to the Warriors arena that would allow them to stay in Santa Cruz. As noted above, in expansion blocks A through D, where the Warriors development team has some partnerships, our recommended Scenario 3.1 anticipates approximately 1,239 housing units while the Planning Commission Scenario would achieve only approximately 894 units, a difference of 345 units that could help fund various public and private amenities. In addition to project feasibility, taller building forms create distinct urban design and wayfinding opportunities that would not be created by shorter, blockier buildings. By adding more height in limited locations, the City can help to create hundreds more housing units for a variety of household sizes and affordability levels, while also increasing the economic and social vitality of Santa Cruz.
Height Regulation
Like Scenario 3, Scenario 3.1 reflects what staff anticipates as the allowed heights of buildings, inclusive of the current maximum 50% Density Bonus for market rate development. There are a few options for achieving these thresholds. First, a property owner could enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City to cap heights at the respective 145-foot, 185-foot, or 225-foot levels (corresponding to the height limits anticipated in for different buildings in Scenario 3.1), in exchange for build out of some of the public benefits planned for the area. This option requires the City and each affected property owner where taller buildings are anticipated to agree on the terms of a contract that will apply to these sites, and once such an agreement is in place, would allow the City to count the number of housing units established in the DA toward efforts to meet the RHNA requirements. Alternatively, the City could think of these heights as the heights that would be allowed after the application for a State Density Bonus, setting the regulations in the Downtown Plan and Zoning code at a lower level of development intensity on the assumption that many of the developers will pursue bonuses. This alternative has a draw back