Santa Cruz City Council
March 14, 2023

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting – March 14, 2023
12:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM/COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM 2:00 P.M. CONSENT, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS,

ZOOM/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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, March 13th
March 14, 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, March 12th 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.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council agenda and the complete agenda packet containing public records, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, are available for review on the City’s website:
www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council-meetings and at the Office of the City Clerk located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours.

Agenda Materials Submitted after Publication of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, public records related to an open session agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available at the same time they are distributed or made available to the legislative body on the City’s website at: www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-councilmeetings and are also available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, 809 Center Street Room 9, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours, and at the Council meeting.

Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-420-5030.

March 14, 2023 City Council 3
Closed Session
12:00 PM
Closed Session

1. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) 1) Property: 333 Locust Street
APN: 005-033-03
Owner: Smith Laura Trustee, Mathews William G. and Cynthia S.

Trustees, and Smith Sara Wood, Trustee
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Laura Smith Trustee et al.

Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
2) Property: Approximately 8.15 acres located on Mount Hermon Road in Scotts Valley, CA
APNs: 022-721-07, 022-721-08, 022-721-09
Owner: City of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both

2. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95)
1) Claimant: Laural Pannabecker
2) Claimant: Davida Seliger
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz

3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(4))
Initiation of litigation (one potential case)
March 14, 2023 City Council 4
City Council
2:00 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Presentation

4. Parking for Hope Check Presentation
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 Extending the Local Emergency Declaration in Connection with the December 2022 and January 2023 Winter Storms (CA/CM) Resolution extending by sixty days the Local Emergency Declaration in connection with the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms.

March 14, 2023 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)

7. Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Appointments (CC)
Motion to:
1) Approve Mayor Keeley’s nomination of Jessie Durant to the Historic Preservation Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2027; and 2) Approve Mayor Keeley’s nomination of Timerie Gordon and Vice Mayor Golder’s nomination of Michael Polhamus to the Planning Commission, with terms ending January 31, 2027.

8. Minutes of the February 28, 2023 Meeting of the City Council (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.

9. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion to reject the liability claims of 1) Laural Pannabecker and 2) Davida Seliger, based on staff recommendation.

10. Santa Cruz Police Officers' Association and Santa Cruz Police Management Association Tentative Agreements for Successor Memoranda of Understanding (HR)
Resolution approving tentative agreements with the Police Officers' Association effective March 4, 2023, through March 4, 2026; and Police Management Association effective March 4, 2023, through March 13, 2027.

11. Project Management Support for Information Technology System Implementation (IT)
Motion to approve scope of work amendment with HDR, Inc. to extend Project Management Services in support of the City’s implementation of Cityworks, a Computerized Maintenance Management System, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney.

March 14, 2023 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)

12. Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion to accept the work of Granite Rock, Inc. (Watsonville, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505).

13. 3rd Quarter FY 2023 Water Department Capital Investment Program Transfer – Budget Adjustment (WT)
Resolution amending the FY 2023 budget and transferring budget appropriations within the Water Department Capital Investment Program (CIP) to update various project budgets with current cost forecasts.

14. Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project – Approval of CEQA Exemption, Plans and Specifications, and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract (WT) Motion to approve the Plans and Specifications for the Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project (c701606) and authorize staff to advertise for bids and the Water Director to execute change orders within the approved project budget and find the Project exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract as authorized by Resolution No. NS-27,563. The Water Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

End Consent Agenda
March 14, 2023 City Council 7
Public Hearings

15. Appeal of the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s Approval of Parking Removal on Laurel Street as part of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan (m400029) (PW)
Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street; and
2) Direct staff to investigate additional diagonal parking on Myrtle Street with neighbors.

16. 2023-2024 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan, Amendment to the 2019-2020 HUD, Amendment to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan, and Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan (ED)
Motion to:
1) Make initial funding recommendations for the 2023-2024 U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME).
2) Amend the 2019-2020 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and direct staff to submit to HUD for approval. 3) Direct staff to submit the 2023 Lower Ocean/Downtown/River Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan as an amendment to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.
4) Amend the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect the merger of the Community Programs Committee with the Health in All Policies Committee and amend the public input schedule for all HUD Plans.

March 14, 2023 City Council 8
Oral Communications Announcement – Members of the public may address Council on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Council. 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications. No extra time for groups will be granted.

Oral Communications
Public Hearing

17. Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-line Adjustment, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to Demolish the Existing Surface Parking Lot and Structures and Construct the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project, Encompassing Development of a New, Approximately 273,194 Square-Foot, Eight-Story Building Including a Three-story, Approximately 38,069 Square-Foot City Library Featuring Two Floors; a Three-Story Parking Garage with 243 Parking Spaces; a Five-Story, 100% Affordable Housing Component Comprising 124 Residential Units; a Three-Story, Approximately 9,598 Square-Foot Commercial Tenant Space; a One-Story, Approximately 1,231 Square-Foot Childcare Facility with Adjoining 674 Square-Foot Outdoor Play Area; and New Landscaping and Associated Site Improvements, Including Removal of 12 Trees, on Land Located in the CBD/FP-O (Central Business District/Floodplain Overlay Zone Districts) and within the Cedar Street Village Corridor and Pacific Avenue Retail District Subareas of the Downtown Plan (Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption – Section 21083.3 / State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; Categorical Exemptions Sections 15532 and 15305) (PL)
Resolution acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-line Adjustment, and Density Bonus request, and upholding the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, allowing demolition of the existing surface parking lot and structures, removal of the existing trees, and construction of the Library Affordable Housing Project, based on the findings.

Adjournment
March 14, 2023 City Council 9

INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 14, 2023

18. City Manager: Quarterly Grant Report – Fiscal Year 2023 as of December 31, 2022 - 3/6/23 (CMFYI 263)

MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 14, 2023

19. Proclaiming February 24, 2023 as “Solidarity With the People of Ukraine Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in commending the people of Ukraine for their strength, courage, and bravery and to stand in support of them and their struggle for freedom.

20. Proclaiming March 31, 2023 as “Tom Habashi Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in expressing heartfelt appreciation for his numerous contributions and dedicated service and wishing him all the best in his retirement.

21. Proclaiming March 9, 2023 as “Andrew Trowbridge Hunger Fighter of the Year Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in honoring him as an inspiring example of an individual whose efforts are supporting the Second Harvest Food Bank’s mission, “to educate and involve individuals to end hunger and alleviate malnutrition in our communities,” and expressing heartfelt appreciation for his contributions on behalf of all those in need.

22. Proclaiming March 9, 2023 as “Margaret Loehr Hunger Fighter of the Year Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in honoring her as an inspiring example of an individual whose efforts are supporting the Second Harvest Food Bank’s mission, “to educate and involve individuals to end hunger and alleviate malnutrition in our communities,” and expressing heartfelt appreciation for her contributions on behalf of all those in need.

March 14, 2023 City Council 10
MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS (continued)

23. Proclaiming Friday, March 10, 2023 as “Linda Jean Calciano Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in expressing heartfelt appreciation for her tireless efforts and numerous contributions to strengthen adolescent behavioral health resources in our community over the years.

24. Proclaiming March 16, 2023 as “Arbor Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in recognizing the important work and contributions of the Cabrillo College Horticulture Program and the City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department and urging students and citizens to plant trees to offset climate change and enhance our local environment and natural world for our present and future generations.

25. Proclaiming March 20, 2023 as “Nowrūz Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in this observance.

Advisory Body Appointments
The following positions are vacant. Council will make the appointments at a future meeting.

Children’s Fund Oversight Committee One Opening – at-large nomination County Latino Affairs Commission One Opening – at-large nomination Planning Commission One Opening – at-large nomination
March 14, 2023 City Council 11
Public Hearing
If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

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

City Council Agenda Legislative History Addendum
No information was submitted.

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

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

Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
March 20 Council Chambers Council Special Meeting
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 April 18 155 Center St.  Council Special Meeting ‐ Strategic Plan Workshop 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 May 23 and 24 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 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
Yom Kippur (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2023
November 28
City Hall Closure ‐ Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Day After Thanksgiving Day
June 27
September 12
September 26
May 23
City Hall Closure ‐ Juneteenth
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change Passover (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
August 8
March 28
May 9
April 11
April 25
June 13
City Hall Closure ‐ Labor Day
August 22
July 11 and 25 Meetings Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Independence Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Memorial Day
Rosh Hashanah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
November 14
October 10
October 24
City Hall Closure ‐ Veteran's Day (observed)

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 December 7/8
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public December 25
December 12
December 26 Meeting Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)

5.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney/City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Extending the Local Emergency Declaration in Connection with the December 2022 and January 2023 Winter Storms (CA/CM) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution extending by sixty days the Local Emergency Declaration in connection with the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms.

BACKGROUND: Storms in December 2022 and January 2023 have caused significant flooding, infrastructure damage, 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), to “[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.” In view of the facts and circumstances described above, on January 4, 2023, the City Manager declared the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Cruz. The City Council ratified the emergency declaration by Resolution No. NS-30,085 at its January 10, 2023 regular meeting.

At its regular meeting on January 24, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution NS-30,095, further extending the declaration of emergency by 60 days.

The attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council, would extend the emergency declaration related to the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms emergency by an additional 60 days, to May 13, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT: Actions taken by the City during a declared emergency are potentially recoverable from Cal OES (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

6.1 Prepared By:

Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

6.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ EXTENDING

THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE 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, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest practicable time; 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 5th, 2023, increasing flooding and other storm impacts, including downed trees, major infrastructure damage, 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 (the "Emergency Proclamation").

WHEREAS, at its January 10, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-30,085 declaring the existence of a State of Emergency in connection with the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms, confirming the January 4, 2023 Emergency Proclamation by the Director of Emergency Services; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 24, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution NS-30,095, further extending the declaration of emergency by 60 days; and WHEREAS, damage to City infrastructure from the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms is extensive and as a result, the City’s emergency response to the December 2022 and January 2023 winter storms will likely be ongoing.

6.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 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 emergency declaration adopted at its January 10, 2023 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-30,085, and extended an additional 60 days on January 24, 2023 by Resolution NS-30,095, shall be extended an additional sixty (60) days from its adoption pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630, et seq., by this Resolution; and
B. This Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and shall thereafter terminate on the sixtieth (60th) day after its adoption, unless earlier terminated or further extended by subsequent City Council action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

6.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 5:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 3.14.23 Consent Agenda Item

3.14.23 Consent Agenda Item
Dear Council,
Aren't you forgetting to issue a resolution declaring the end of the Covid Emergency? The State of California has done so already as of Feb 28.2023 , and you are out of excuses otherwise as this was the basis for all extensions of the declarations.

You wouldn't keep an emergency declaration active without any justification to allow it to expire (slip out the back jack) without notice, would you? It seems to me like the people should know it's over, don't you? Garrett Philipp - Westside

6.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/28/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Appointments (CC)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Approve Mayor Keeley’s nomination of Jessie Durant to the Historic Preservation Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2027; and
2) Approve Mayor Keeley’s nomination of Timerie Gordon and Vice Mayor Golder’s nomination of Michael Polhamus to the Planning Commission, with terms ending January 31, 2027.

BACKGROUND: Jessie Durant was appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) on January 24, 2023 as Councilmember Newsome’s nominee, and Timerie Gordon and Michael Polhamus were appointed to the Planning Commission on January 24, 2023 by Vice Mayor Golder and Mayor Keeley, respectively.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Keeley would like to nominate Jessie to the commission, and Councilmember Newsome will nominate someone during the annual appointment process in January 2024.

Vice Mayor Golder and Mayor Keeley would like to swap their appointees, with Timerie Gordon becoming Mayor Keeley’s nominee and Michael Polhamus becoming Vice Mayor Golder’s appointee.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

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

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023
1:30 PM
Mayor Keeley opened the City Council Closed Session at 1:34 p.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 Newsome, Brown, Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

Absent: Councilmember Watkins.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, City Attorney T. Condotti, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

Public Comment
Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period at 1:35 p.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period at 1:35 p.m., at which time the meeting was closed to the public and Council adjourned to the Courtyard Conference Room.

Closed Session

1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) Police Officers Association
Police Management Association
SEIU Temporary Employees
City Negotiator – Sara De Leon
Council received a status report from the City Negotiator, and no reportable action was taken.

8.1 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6382
Closed Session (continued)

2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(2)
Significant exposure to litigation (1 potential case to be discussed) Council received a status report, and took no reportable action.

Below item 3.1 was deleted prior to the meeting and was not discussed.

3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) Don’t Morph the Wharf! v. City of Santa Cruz et al.
(Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 20CV02731)
2) Destiney Rodgers v. Nicole Adamo, et al.

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00944
Council received a status report and, by motion, unanimously approved to direct the City Attorney’s Office to file a cross-complaint against the current defendant, Santa Cruz Pacific Associates.

4. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) 1) Claimant: Mochi Xue
2) Claimant: Joziah Justin Gran
3) Claimant: April R. Laird
4) Claimant: Capital Insurance Group
5) Claimant: Brian Todd Shulman
Council received a status report, took up under agenda item 11, and no reportable action was taken.

8.2 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6383
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023
2:45 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Keeley called the meeting to order at 2:47 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins (arrived at 2:48 p.m.), Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Public Works N. Nguyen, Chief of Police B. Escalante, Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Finance Director E. Cabell (via Zoom), Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler, Chief People Officer S. De Leon (via Zoom), Deputy City Manager L. Murphy (via Zoom), Library Director Y. Wilburn (via Zoom), Purchasing Manager E. Millwee (via Zoom), Transportation Planner C. Gallogly, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

At this time Mayor Keeley called for a moment of silence in honor of Loran "Butch" Baker and Elizabeth Butler.

Presentation

5. Mayoral Proclamation in Solidarity with the People of Ukraine on the One-Year Anniversary of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
Mayor Keeley presented Tatiana Berdiak with a proclamation in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

Presiding Officer's Announcements – None.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

8.3 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6384
Additions and Deletions – None.

City Attorney Report on Closed Session – See pages 6381—6382 for the report.

Council Meeting Calendar

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

Consent Agenda
Purchasing Manager E. Millwee responded to Councilmember Brunner’s questions regarding item 12.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson made a comment on item 9 and requested to direct staff to include the County in the work, specifically implementation of some of the state legislation, and have the County present Council with an implementation plan and other efforts around crisis response to the unhoused at a future meeting.

Homelessness Response Manager L. Imwalle responded to Councilmember Brown’s question regarding item 9.

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

MOTION: Councilmember Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember KalantariJohnson, to approve the Consent Agenda, including the amendment to item 9.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner, KalantariJohnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

7. Minutes of the February 14, 2023 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

8. Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Appointment (CC) Motion carried to approve Vice Mayor Golder’s nomination of Anissa Novak to the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women.

8.4 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6385
Consent Agenda (continued)

9. Authorization for Application and Acceptance of California Interagency Council on Homelessness Grant Funds for Encampment Resolution Funding Program Round 2 (ERF-2-R) (CM)
Motion carried to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,109 authorizing the City Manager to apply for and accept the California Interagency Council on Homelessness Grant Funds for Encampment Resolution Funding Program Round 2 (ERF-2-R) and, if awarded, to execute any agreement(s) or documents in a form to be approved by the City Attorney and take any other actions necessary for implementation of the grant-funded project.
 Direct staff to include the County in the work, specifically implementation of some of the state legislation, and have the County present Council with an implementation plan and other efforts around crisis response to the unhoused at a future meeting.

10. Resolution Ratifying Identifying Authorized Agents (FD) Resolution No. NS-30,110 was adopted identifying authorized agents on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz who are authorized by the City Council to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) regarding grants that have been applied for.

11. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion carried to reject the liability claims of 1) Mochi Xue, 2) Joziah Justin Grant, 3) April R. Laird, 4) Capital Insurance Group, and 5) Brian Todd Shulman, based on staff recommendation.

12. Living Wage Rate Annual Prescription for Fiscal Year 2024 (FN) Resolution No. NS-30,111 was adopted upwardly indexing the prescribed minimum living wage rate by 6.4%, the amount which corresponds to San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, for the period ending October 31, 2022, to become effective July 1, 2023; and rescinding Resolution No. NS-29,996.

8.5 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6386
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Resolution Approving Fire Management Association Memorandum of Understanding (HR)
Resolution No. NS-30,112 was adopted approving the Fire Management Association (FMA) Memorandum of Understanding.

14. Garfield Park Branch Public Library Renovation (c351802) – Notice of Completion (LB)
Motion carried to accept the work of CRW Industries, Inc. (Scotts Valley, CA) as completed per plans and specifications and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Garfield Park Branch Public Library Renovation Project (c351802).

15. Rising Prices for City Vehicle and Equipment Fuel – Budget Adjustment (PW) Resolution No. NS-30,113 was adopted amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate funds in the amount for $333,000 to fund rising fuel expenses.

16. Recycling Center Storm Water Quality Improvements (c402111) – Award Contract (PW)
Motion carried to approve a contract modification and change order with Pacific States Environmental (Dublin, CA), for providing storm water treatment system rental at the Resource Recovery Facility Recycling Center. 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.

17. Approval of Amendment to Marketing Contract – Go Santa Cruz Downtown Employee Transportation Demand Management Program (PW)
Motion carried to approve the amendment to the existing agreement with Miller Maxfield (Santa Cruz, CA) to add an additional three years of marketing services for the GO Santa Cruz Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for downtown employees.

8.6 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6387
Consent Agenda (continued)

18. San Lorenzo Riverwalk Lighting Project (c401910) – Notice of Completion (PW) Motion carried to accept the work of Alfaro Communications Construction, Inc. (Compton, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the San Lorenzo Riverwalk Lighting Project (c401910).

19. Branciforte Creek Bank Stabilization – Professional Services Agreement Amendment (WT)
Motion carried to:
 Accept the proposal of Cal Engineering & Geology (Walnut Creek, CA) for design, permitting, and construction-support services of the Branciforte Streambank Repair Project in the amount of $111,310, and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney; and
 Authorize the Water Director to approve change orders with Cal Engineering & Geology in a form to be approved by the City Attorney for amounts that are within the approved project budget.

20. Rodriguez Street Water Main Replacement Project - Notice of Completion (WT) Motion carried to accept the work of Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA) as complete per the plans and specifications, authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Rodriguez Street Water Main Replacement Project, and further authorize the Water Director to sign the Notice of Completion as the Owner’s Authorized Agent.

End Consent Agenda
Consent Public Hearing
Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to approve the Consent Public Hearing Agenda.

8.7 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6388
Consent Public Hearings (continued)
ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner, KalantariJohnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

21. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-03 Amending Chapter

5.10 of the Municipal Code Related to the Annual Living Wage Adjustment Index (FN/CA)
Motion carried to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-03 amending Chapter 5.10 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code related to annual adjustments of the living wage based on Consumer Price Indices published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

22. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-04 for Sidewalk Vending Administrative Amendments and Program Update (PL)
Motion carried to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-04 amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) Chapter 5.82 (“Sidewalk Vending”).

General Business

23. West Cliff Update, Temporary Traffic Control Efforts, and Traffic Control Next Steps (CM/PW)
Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt and Director of Public Works N. Nguyen gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

City Manager M. Huffaker and Finance Director E. Cabell responded to Councilmember questions.

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

Nicholas Whitehead
Bob Goldbeck
Al Ramadan
Shaun Burns
Garrett
Nairi

8.8 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6389
General Business (continued)
Public Comment (continued)
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Glenn Seiler
Nancy
Kim Dean
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to:
1) Receive an update on citywide West Cliff work; and
2) Retroactively approve the design and installation of traffic striping and signage for emergency protective measures on West Cliff Drive due to the January 2023 storm damage; and
3) Direct staff to coordinate work, including community outreach, to determine pilot of one-way traffic controls options and neighborhood traffic calming in and around the West Cliff storm damage area between Columbia Street and Almar Avenue during repairs.
4) Return to Council in May for approval to pilot West Cliff Drive with one-way automobile traffic options, two-way bicycle and pedestrian access, neighborhood traffic calming measures, and monitoring plan in and around Columbia Street, Almar Avenue, and Delaware Avenue; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,114 amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate $700,000 from the General Fund stabilization reserve to a West Cliff Resiliency and Accessibility project; and
6) Authorize staff to advertise and award for professional services to design West Cliff Drive Pilot Project with Neighborhood Traffic Calming in and around Columbia Street, Almar Avenue, and Delaware Avenue. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved budget.

8.9 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6390
General Business (continued)

23. West Cliff Update, Temporary Traffic Control Efforts, and Traffic Control Next Steps (CM/PW) (continued)
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Councilmember Brunner requested to amend #3 as follows.
3) Direct staff to coordinate work, including community outreach, to determine pilot of one-way traffic controls options and neighborhood traffic calming in and around the West Cliff storm damage area.

Vice Mayor Golder did not accept.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Brunner moved, to:
1) Receive an update on citywide West Cliff work; and
2) Retroactively approve the design and installation of traffic striping and signage for emergency protective measures on West Cliff Drive due to the January 2023 storm damage; and
3) Direct staff to coordinate work, including community outreach, to determine pilot of one-way traffic controls options and neighborhood traffic calming in and around the West Cliff storm damage area. 4) Return to Council in May for approval to pilot West Cliff Drive with one-way automobile traffic options, two-way bicycle and pedestrian access, neighborhood traffic calming measures, and monitoring plan in and around Columbia Street, Almar Avenue, and Delaware Avenue; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,114 amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate $700,000 from the General Fund stabilization reserve to a West Cliff Resiliency and Accessibility project; and
6) Authorize staff to advertise and award for professional services to design West Cliff Drive Pilot Project with Neighborhood Traffic Calming in and around Columbia Street, Almar Avenue, and Delaware Avenue. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved budget.

The substitute motion failed due to lack of a second.

8.10 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6391
General Business (continued)

23. West Cliff Update, Temporary Traffic Control Efforts, and Traffic Control Next Steps (CM/PW) (continued)
ACTION: The original motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Staff Assignment:

Vice Mayor Golder requested to seek enforcement at the West Cliff stop signs.

Public Hearing

24. Resolution to Annex Parcels at 538 Center Street into Parking District No. 1 (PW)
Transportation Planner C. Gallogly spoke.

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

Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Newsome moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution No. NS-30,115 to annex the remaining parcels at 538 Center Street (Assessors Parcel Numbers 005-148-17, 005-148-21, and 005- 148-24) in to Parking District No. 1.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.11 February 28, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6392
Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.

Oral Communications
At 4:59 p.m. Mayor Keeley opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the City Council agenda.

Unidentified person spoke regarding lack of representation at Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), and California Forward.

Rhonda Reyna spoke regarding being the victim of severe domestic violence.

Garrett spoke regarding the COVID-19 emergency declarations.

At 5:07 p.m. Mayor Keeley closed Oral Communications.

Adjournment – Vice Mayor Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn. By consensus City Council adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Fred Keeley, Mayor

8.12 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to reject the liability claims of 1) Laural Pannabecker and 2) Davida Seliger, based on staff recommendation.

BACKGROUND: N/A
DISCUSSION: Claims to be rejected:

1. Claimant: Laural Pannabecker
Date of occurrence: 09/03/2022
Date of claim: 02/22/2023
Amount of claim: Unspecified
Claimant seeks damages and compensation for medical expenses related to injuries allegedly sustained in a bicycle accident in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County.

Represented by legal counsel.

2. Claimant: Davida Seliger
Date of occurrence: 09/03/2022
Date of claim: 02/22/2023
Amount of claim: Unspecified
Claimant seeks damages and compensation for medical expenses related to injuries allegedly sustained in a bicycle accident in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County.

Represented by legal counsel.

FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.

Prepared By:

Ross Brandon
Risk & Safety Manager
Submitted By:

Elizabeth Cabell
Finance Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

9.1 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/02/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
SUBJECT: Santa Cruz Police Officers' Association and Santa Cruz Police Management Association Tentative Agreements for Successor Memoranda of Understanding (HR)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution approving tentative agreements with the Police Officers' Association effective March 4, 2023, through March 4, 2026; and Police Management Association effective March 4, 2023, through March 13, 2027.

BACKGROUND: The Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Santa Cruz Police Officers' Association (POA) and Police Management Association (PMA) expired on March 3, 2023. The POA and the City have been meeting since late 2022 and with the PMA as of early 2023; as a result, tentative agreements on successor MOUs were reached with both parties.

DISCUSSION: The Union and the City have been meeting and conferring on successor MOUs for each union and have reached an agreement. In summary, the major terms of the new MOUs include:

POA:

A three-year term, with the following cost-of-living adjustments: a four percent (4%) in year one; four percent (4%) in year two, a four percent (4%) in year three. Additionally, an increased longevity percentage to five percent (5%) at ten (10), fifteen (15), and twenty (20) years of service for a total of fifteen percent (15%); Community Service Officers will receive investigation premium pay for at five percent (5%) special compensation added to their base pay when assigned to Investigations, and an education incentive for those with an Associates or Bachelor’s degree: two and one half percent (2.5%) for associate level degrees and five percent (5%) for bachelor degrees. Finally, to strengthen recruitment efforts, effective March 1, 2025, steps A and B of the salary compensation plan will be eliminated, and March 1, 2026, a new top step will be added to the salary compensation plan. The final MOU will be brought forward at a later meeting.

PMA:

A four-year term, with the following cost-of-living adjustments: a four percent (4%) in year one; four percent (4%) in year two, a four percent (4%) in year three, and an additional contract year at three percent (3%) coinciding with the extended contract term. Additionally, an increased longevity percentage to 5% at ten (10), fifteen (15), and twenty (20) years of service for a total of fifteen percent (15%), and moving the Deputy Chief Vehicle Allowance to a commensurate

10.1 increase to base pay as pensionable compensation. The final MOU will be brought forward at a later meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: Additional costs resulting from approval of these Tentative Agreements will be covered by fund balance. If additional appropriations in FY 2023 are needed, they will be included in a mid-year budget adjustment to Council. Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 expenditures will be included in future budgets.

Prepared & Submitted By:

Sara De Leon
Chief People Officer
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TENTATIVE AGREEMENT.PDF

3. POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TENTATIVE AGREEMENT.PDF

10.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ APPROVING TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION AND

POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Santa Cruz and Police Officers’ Association have been meeting since late 2022 to bargain for successor agreement; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Santa Cruz and Police Management Association have been meeting since early 2023 to bargain for successor agreement; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Agreements with the Unions have been entered into by the respective parties and duly ratified by each Union’s members; and WHEREAS, the terms of the Tentative Agreements are attached as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, that the City Council hereby approves the Tentative Agreements for successor Memoranda of Understanding for the Police Officers’ Association effective March 4, 2023, expiring March 4, 2026; and for the Police Management Association effective March 4, 2023 expiring March 13, 2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 14, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keely, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

10.3 SUCCESSOR MOU NEGOTIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND

POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

TOTAL TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
February 14, 2023
In accordance with the parties signed Ground Rules, the parties enter into the following Tentative Agreement.

Item Agreement MOU Section
Term
The City parties agree to an MOU
commencing on March 4, 2023 expiring
on March 4, 2026.

Section 1.00
Structural
compensation
increases
The City will assume the cost of
structural compensation increases from
step increases and retirement benefits.

All represented employees will receive
a 4.0% COLA effective the pay period
following the meeting Council approves
the MOU in open session.

All represented employees will receive
a 4.0% COLA effective the first pay
period in March 2024.

All represented employees will receive
a 4.0% COLA effective the first pay
period in March 2025.

Section 14.01
Longevity Effective the first pay period in March
2023, the longevity pays for 10, 15,
and 20 years of service will each be set
at five percent (5%) for a total of fifteen
percent (15%)
Section 14.02.03
Salary Steps
(Schedule Change)
Effective March 1, 2025, Step B for
Police Officer shall be eliminated and
employees who are currently at Step B
on the effective date shall move to Step
C.

Effective March 1, 2025, Steps A and B
for Police Sergeant shall be eliminated
and employees who are at Step A and
Step B on the effective date shall move
to Step C.

Section 14.02

10.4 Effective March 1, 2026, add a new top
step five percent (5%) above the
current top step to the salary
compensation plan for all represented
positions (police officer, sergeant,
victims advocate, and community
service officer). All employees at top
step (J) for one year or more to receive
new top step on the effective date;
balance of employees at current top
step (J) receive new top based on
anniversary.

Investigations
Premium Pay
The Community Service Officer
classification will be added to the listed
classifications that when assigned to
Investigations will receive a five percent
(5%) special compensation added to
their base pay.

The special compensation will be
reported as income to PERS.

Section 14.08.01(A)
Education Incentive Community Service Officers will be
eligible for the following education
incentive compensation:

AA/AS Degree – 2.5% differential of
base pay
BA/BS- 5% differential of base pay
Section 14.19
Clean-up language
At the 2/3/23 meeting, POA discussed
concern associated with the
investigation pay and on-call pay and
receiving investigation pay if on light
duty. A request was made to separate
language. More specific information is
needed.

Clarity Neededplease provide
recommended clean
up language.
_________________________________ ____________________________ Tim Davis Mark Eveleth
City of Santa Cruz Police Officers Association
__________________________________ _____________________________ Date Date
__________________________________ _____________________________ Sara De Leon Joshua Trog
Chief People Officer Police Officers Association
__________________________________ _____________________________ Date Date

10.5 _________________________________ ____________________________ Tori Zimmermann Robert Caposio
Police Officers Association Police Officers Association __________________________________ _____________________________ Date Date

10.6 10.7

10.8 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Big Joe 77 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Public Correspondence: 03.14.2023 Council Agenda Items 10 & 11: SCPD POA/ Management Pay Raises
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council,
I see you all are poised to rubber stamp 4% pay raises for Police in ADDITION to their 5% annual merit raises, in ADDITION to assuming the cost of structural compensation increases from step increases and retirement benefits.” (aka- pension debt).

I’m not sure any of you understand “how money works,” so let me try to explain… You don’t have any. Your inclinations for frivolous spending has “ceased to be.” The City is in debt $9.3 million dollars.

Debt adversely affects your ability to borrow. It's a credit rating that forces one to pay higher interest when seeking bonds.

In the not too distant future, you have an entire arm of your bureaucracy (Homeless response) that is UNFUNDED after June 30th. 5 new salaried FTE’s go with that.

Sincerely,
‐‐
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real
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.

10.9 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Reggie Meisler <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 9:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Consent agenda item 10 for 3/14 city council meeting Hello councilors,
Please amend the MOU for the Santa Cruz Police labor contract (consent agenda item 10) to include the removal of the Vehicle Abatement Officer position and end the Vehicle Abatement Hotline.

Rarely are vehicles actually “abandoned”. More often, calls to this hotline are aimed at vehicles which provide shelter to our unhoused neighbors. Several recent stories published in Lookout Santa Cruz and City of a Hill Press demonstrate how this system is being misused to target our poor and houselessness community members with harassment.

The resources spent on this system of explicitly discriminatory abuse are better spect on services for the unhoused, like trash receptacles, lockable‐storage space, port‐a‐potties, and emergency shelter space.

Amend the MOU to erase this shameful role from our city and put these funds to use more productively and compassionately.

Reggie Meisler
Santa Cruz Cares
Santa Cruz Homeless Union
415‐846‐8097

10.10 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Information Technology
SUBJECT: Project Management Support for Information Technology System Implementation (IT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve scope of work amendment with HDR, Inc. to extend Project Management Services in support of the City’s implementation of Cityworks, a Computerized Maintenance Management System, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney.

BACKGROUND: Following a competitive request for proposal process, the City chose to implement CityWorks Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for asset management in the Water Department, Wastewater/Stormwater Collection, and Wastewater Treatment Operations Divisions of the Public Works Department. However, IT could not staff a critical a Project Manager role due to staff availability issues, and this prompted the City to enter into a professional services agreement with HDR, Inc. (HDR) to provide project management services during the initial phase of the Cityworks implementation.

While the project is currently expected to be operational in August, the original scope of work for this agreement was for six months, with a scheduled end date of March. Due to the continued lack of staffing for the IT Project Manager, extending the project management services from HDR is required to complete the implementation. To date, HDR has successfully led a complex cross-departmental software implementation. Continuing to partner with HDR for project management will ensure that the CMMS project is completed on schedule.

DISCUSSION: The Purchasing Ordinance, Section 3.08.150 authorizes the Purchasing Manager to grant a contract without soliciting competitive bids if there is only one source accessible for the necessary item or service. Using this procurement approach will enable the City to continue its collaboration with HDR for the entirety of the CMMS implementation and take advantage of their understanding of the City's current implementation and ability to efficiently see the project through go live.

The IT Department has a fully executed professional service agreement already in place with HDR; staff is recommending approval of this current statement of work amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT: The additional funds requested to cover project management services for the remainder of the project is not to exceed $44,793. This will bring the total amount for project management services $144,376. This cost will be shared between the Public Works and Water

11.1 Departments and will have no impact to the General Fund. Budget exists in Capital Investment Program projects c702202 (CMMS Software Replacement for Water Department) and C402205 (CMMS Upgrade for PW Department) in Fiscal Year 2023.

Prepared & Submitted By:

Ken Morgan
IT Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORIGINAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK.PDF

2. FIRST AMENDMENT CMMS CONTRACT EXECUTABLE VERSION.PDF

3. SECOND AMENDMENT TO CMMS CONTRACT.PDF

4. CMMS CHANGE ORDER.PDF

11.2 11.3

11.4 11.5

11.6 11.7

11.8 11.9

11.10 11.11

11.12 CONSULTANT
By:----------- Date: -------
Printed: ---------- Title: -------

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By:

Ken
("""'-
Morgan
M ) ./'-
Information Technology Director
8/12/2022
Holly LL. Kennedy, PE Sr. Vice President

11.13 11.14

11.15 11.16

11.17 11.18

11.19 11.20

11.21 City of Santa Cruz First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
March 2023 Page 1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING,INC. FOR CMMS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”), effective as of March 1, 2023, (“effective date”) to the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT dated September 1st, 2022, for Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (“CMMS”) Implementation Project Management Services, is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and HDR Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to individually, as a “Party” and collectively,as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City and Consultant have previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services (“Agreement”) dated September 1st, 2022, incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was set to expire on March 1, 2023, pursuant to “Section 7: Time of Beginning and Schedule for Completion;” and
WHEREAS, to complete the required service under the Agreement, City and Consultant desire to enter into this First Amendment to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement, 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 on the effective date as follows:

1. Amendment to “Section 7: Time of Beginning and Schedule for Completion.” The term of the Agreement is extended by this First Amendment for an additional one (1) month period and will terminate on March 31, 2023.

Except as amended by this First Amendment, all other applicable terms and conditions of the original Agreement and attachments shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this First Amendment shall control if any conflict exists.

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












 


11.22 City of Santa Cruz First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
March 2023 Page 2
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.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]













 


11.23 City of Santa Cruz First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
March 2023 Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this First Amendment effective as of the date first written above.

Signature Requirements for Business Entity:

Corporation – 2 officer signatures required (one from each group below, unless person signing holds officer positions in both Group 1 and 2):

Group 1: Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, President, or Vice President Group 2: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer Approved As To Form:

By: _____________________________ Date: ___________
Office of the City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: _________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: __________________

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ IT DEPARTMENT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Ken Morgan, Information Technology Manager














 












11.24 City of Santa Cruz Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
April 2023 Page 1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR CMMS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (“Second Amendment”), effective as of April 1, 2023, (“effective date”) to the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT dated September 1st, 2022, for Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (“CMMS”) Implementation Project Management Services, is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and HDR Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to individually, as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City and Consultant have previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services (“Agreement”) dated September 1st, 2022, incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement on March 1, 2023 to extend the terms of the Agreement for an additional one (1) month period to March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to enter into this Second Amendment to the Agreement to further extend the Agreement based on a revised Scope of Work, Fee Schedule, and Work Schedule, 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 on the effective date as follows:

1. Amendment to “Section 1: Scope of Work.” The Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the amended Scope of Services for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services, as specified on pages 1 through 3 of Consultant’s proposal dated January 24, 2023, which is attached hereto, and incorporated herein, as Exhibit A-2.

2. Amendment to “Section 4: Fees and Payment.” The Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the amended Fee Schedule, as specified on page 3 of Exhibit A-2, attached hereto. The new budget amount is not to exceed the amount of $44,792.

3. Amendment to “Section 7: Time of Beginning and Schedule for Completion.” The Work Schedule set forth in Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the amended 













 

11.25 City of Santa Cruz Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
April 2023 Page 2
work schedule, as specified in Exhibit A-2, attached hereto. The term of the Agreement is extended by this Second Amendment and will terminate on September 30, 2023.

4. Amendment to Provisions Referencing Exhibit A. All provisions that reference Exhibit A in the Agreement are hereby amended to replace any reference to Exhibit A with Exhibit A-2, attached hereto.

Except as amended by this Second Amendment, all other applicable terms and conditions of the original Agreement and attachments shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this Second Amendment shall control if any conflict exists.

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

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

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

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















 

11.26 City of Santa Cruz Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
April 2023 Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this Second Amendment effective as of the date first written above.

Signature Requirements for Business Entity:

Corporation – 2 officer signatures required (one from each group below, unless person signing holds officer positions in both Group 1 and 2):

Group 1: Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, President, or Vice President Group 2: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer Approved As To Form:

By: _____________________________ Date: ___________
Office of the City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: _________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: _________________________ Title: __________________

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ IT DEPARTMENT
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Ken Morgan, Information Technology Manager

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Matt Huffaker, City Manager















 












11.27 City of Santa Cruz Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services
April 2023 Page 4
EXHIBIT A-2: CONSULTANT PROPOSAL














 

11.28 January 24, 2023
Mr. Ken Morgan, Director of Information Technology
City of Santa Cruz, Information Technology Department
809 Center Street, Room 8
Santa Cruz, California 95060
RE: Scope of Services for CMMS Implementation Project Management Services Change Order Dear Ken,
HDR is pleased to provide this proposed scope of work to extend Project Management Services in support of the City’s implementation of the Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The City has selected this system to be implemented for the Water Department and the Wastewater/Stormwater Collection and the Wastewater Treatment Operations Divisions of the Public Works Department. The original Project Management Services Scope of Work assumed a six-month implementation period ending in March. The current projects schedule plans for the system to go live in the beginning of August with additional, on-going support through September.

This scope covers the additional project management activities during that period (April – September) plus additional technical implementation management and support time for historical data loading, system integration, and user acceptance testing. It also provides a fixed budget of support hours of as-needed post implementation activities.

As the City’s representative for this effort, Project Manager is responsible for managing and coordinating implementation activities, and for managing schedule and budget. These services include management and oversight of the implementation vendor (Centricity), coordination of City staff resources necessary for the implementation, collaboration with department consultants who represent the department-specific business needs and working with the City’s Information Technology Department to see that the City’s technical requirements and on-going system support needs are met.

The scope of work for Project Management Services is provided below.

Scope of Services
Task 1. Project Management
Project Management subtasks and activities include the work necessary to manage the overall implementation for an additional six months. Under this Task, HDR will manage Centricity in completion of their stated scope of work, as well as allocating time for coordination and collaboration with each of the involved City Departments. Also, this task will include project management activities for completion of this Task Order (i.e., project status reporting, invoicing.) Subtask 1.1. Vendor Project Management and Coordination Vendor Project Management includes weekly project coordination meetings with Centricity (as stated in the Centricity scope of work), review of monthly invoices and project status reports, tracking of project risks, agreements, and actions items. hdrinc.com
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300, Folsom, CA 95630-8709
(916) 817-4700

11.29 Mr. Ted Morgan
January 24, 2023

2 Subtask 1.2. City Department Coordination
City Department Coordination provides a means to communicate and collaborate with the Water, Wastewater, and Information Technology sponsors and stakeholders to keep all parties informed and to facilitate strategic decision-making as the project progresses. Activities include virtual and in-person status meetings, providing status reports and other update activities as needed.

Subtask 1.3. Management of Project Management Task Order Management of Project Management Task Order covers activities needed to monitor and manage this Scope of Work. They include status reporting for this Task Order, monthly evaluation of earned value and estimate to complete, monitoring and update of the Task Order schedule, and reviewing/approving Task Order invoices.

Task 1 Deliverables:
• Project coordination meeting notes
• Reviewed Centricity status reports and invoices
• Risk, agreement, and action item logs
• Monthly status reports for this project
• Monthly invoices
Task 1 Assumptions:
• Duration of task is 26 weeks
• All status meetings are anticipated to be virtual.
• One-hour project meetings with vendor will occur once a week during the project. • Six status meeting and status reports are anticipated for City Department coordination. • Six project status reports and invoices will be prepared for this project Task 2. Implementation Support and Coordination
Implementation Support and Coordination are project management activities necessary to support the CMMS vendor and Department implementation consultants in completion of their scopes of work. The work proposed here will provide additional, necessary support to the technical team based on the implementation process and current project schedule.

Subtask 2.1 Vendor Coordination and Support
Vendor Coordination and Support will cover additional management activities related to Centricity’s scope of work. These hours will augment the support hours identified in the initial phase of work.

Support activities in this scope of work are:
• Historical Data Migration (Centricity Task 6)
o Additional facilitation of historical data migration planning (4 hours) o Four, 1-hour coordination meetings for strategic planning, oversight and assessment of results during the migration process (6 hours) • City Systems Integrations (Centricity Task 7)
o Project management review of the Functionality Review Report (4 hours) • User Acceptance Testing (UAT) (Centricity Task 8)
o Coordinate, schedule, and facilitate UAT (4 hours)
• Ad-Hoc Support (Centricity Task 12)
o Up to 20 hours of as-needed support to coordinate and facilitate the CMMS change management process for the City

11.30 Mr. Ted Morgan
January 24, 2023

3 Task 2 Deliverables:
• Data migration meeting notes and action items
• One round of review and comments on Functionally Review Report • Meeting notes for UAT coordination meetings
• Document change management process and develop change management materials Task 2 Assumptions:
• Attendance for 4, one-hour virtual data migration meetings • Wincan integration will be completed using existing configurations and workflows defined by Centricity or Azteca.
• Centricity will provide tools and training for documenting UAT testing results. • Centricity will provide UAT test scripts and data for review at least 10 days in advance Fee Estimate
The following costs are based on a six-month period of performance. It is assumed that all additional meetings are virtual, and no travel expenses will be needed.

Task
No. Task Description
Project
Manager
Project
Administration
Accounting Total HDR
Labor Hours
Total HDR
Labor ($)
Total HDR
Expenses ($)
Total
Cost ($)
Rates $ 390.72 $ 114.92 $ 127.17
1 Project Management

1.1 Vendor Project Management and Coordination 33 33 $12,894 $12,894

1.2 City Department Coordination 12 12 $4,689 $4,689

1.3 Task Order Management 18 6 24 $7,796 $7,796
Subtotal Task 1 63 0 6 69 $25,378 $0 $25,378
2 Project Management

2.1 Vendor Coordination and Support 48 4 52 $19,214 $200 $19,414 Subtotal Task 2 48 4 0 52 $19,214 $200 $19,414
COLUMN TOTALS 111 4 6 121 $ 44,593 $ 200 $ 44,793
If you have any questions, please contact Allan Scott at 916.813.3501 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Holly L.L. Kennedy, PE (CA 74682) Allan Scott
Senior Vice President Project Manager
10354061(PN)/AS/cs

11.31 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/28/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505) – Notice of Completion (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the work of Granite Rock, Inc. (Watsonville, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505).

BACKGROUND: The storm drain running along the west side of Chestnut Street had long been in a nearly failed condition and required replacement. This had caused drainage problems which adversely impacted the condition of the pavement.

In addition, the Public Works Department has implemented a program to rehabilitate city streets long plagued by deferred maintenance. This program targets heavily used arterial and collector streets. The City of Santa Cruz (City) uses the pavement condition index, or PCI, as the pavement condition measurement, and it ranges from zero to 100. A newly constructed street will have a PCI of 100, while a failed road will have a PCI of 25 or less. The pavement condition index is divided into four categories: from 0 to 25, pavement condition is considered very poor; from 25 to 50 pavement condition is poor; from 50 to 70, pavement condition is good; and from 70 to 100, pavement condition is very good. The pavement condition is primarily affected by the climate, traffic, loads and volumes, construction materials, and age. Chestnut Street has a PCI that ranges from 24 (Laurel St to Lincoln St) to 47 (Lincoln St to Green St).

At its February 22, 2022 meeting, the City Council approved the Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation Project and authorized staff to advertise for bids and award the contract.

On April 26, 2022, the project was awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder Granite Rock, Inc. (Watsonville, CA), in the amount of $2,328,046,60.

This project replaced approximately 1,700 feet of the failing storm drainpipe and constructed new manholes and catch basins.

The project also increased safety for all roadway users but in particular pedestrians and bicyclists. The improvements include: Removal of non-ADA-compliant curb ramps and installing ADA compliant curb ramps along Chestnut Street from Laurel Street to Green Street.

Removal and replacement of asphalt pavement the width of Chestnut Street from Laurel Street to

12.1 Green Street. Installation of new striping that will help reduce any potential conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These striping improvements include, but are not limited to, shared lane markings, high visibility yellow crosswalks in school zones, and bike lane buffers where possible.

DISCUSSION: The project is now complete and 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 $2,358,480.00 and is funded by $1,000,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds from the CTC and funding from Measure D, Gas Tax, and the General Fund in the FY 2022 Capital Investment Program.

Prepared By:

Miguel Lizarraga
Associate Professional
Engineer
Submitted By:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. NOTICE OF COMPLETION.DOCX

12.2 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: Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation Project (c401505)

3. Nature of Work Performed on the Property or Materials Furnished for the City. The Project consisted of work described as: This project replaced approximately 1,700 feet of the failing storm drainpipe and constructed new manholes and catch basins. Additionally, the project also included the removal of nonADA-compliant curb ramps and installing ADA compliant curb ramps along Chestnut Street from Laurel Street to Green Street. Removal and replacement of asphalt pavement the width of Chestnut Street from Laurel Street to Green Street. Installation of new striping that will help reduce any potential conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These striping improvements include, but are not limited to, shared lane markings, high visibility yellow crosswalks in school zones, and bike lane buffers where possible.

4. The general site location description or address (the “Property”) of the public improvement is located at: Chestnut Street from Laurel Street to Green Street

5. Name and Address of Contractor. The Contractor on the Project is: Granite Rock Co. PO Box 50001, Watsonville, CA 95077.

6. Date of Completion. The Project on the Property was completed on: January 31, 2023

7. The filing of this Notice of Completion was authorized by the Santa Cruz City Council Minute Order on Tuesday, March 14, 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

12.3 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 March 14, 2023, at Santa Cruz, CA
Nathan Nguyen
Director of Public Works, City of Santa Cruz

12.4 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 March 14, 2023, at Santa Cruz, California.

Miguel Lizarraga

12.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: 3rd Quarter FY 2023 Water Department Capital Investment Program Transfer – Budget Adjustment (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution amending the FY 2023 budget and transferring budget appropriations within the Water Department Capital Investment Program (CIP) to update various project budgets with current cost forecasts.

BACKGROUND: The Water Department recently updated capital project spending forecasts through the end of FY 2023. Spending forecasts are tracked and updated monthly and a few times each fiscal year, the Water Department requests a budget adjustment to align current budget appropriations with current spending forecasts.

City Council Policy 12.6, Appropriation Control/Transfers of Appropriations, requires City Council approval of all transfers over $100,000 between CIP projects.

DISCUSSION: No new budget appropriation is being requested. The Water Department’s current FY 2023 amended CIP budget is slightly over $96.5 million and current FY 2023 yearend expenditure forecasts are within the existing amended budget total.

The purpose of the attached budget adjustment is to reduce appropriations in capital projects that are complete or nearing completion and transfer the appropriations to active projects. This will have a net zero impact to the Water Department’s FY 2023 CIP budget but will reduce the amount needed in FY 2024 for active capital projects.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

Prepared By:

Malissa Kaping
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

13.1 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
02/22/2023
3rd Quarter FY 2023 transfers within the Water Department's CIP for various projects. See attached. 0 See attached
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: 2023.02.22 15:30:41 -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: 2023.03.02 13:12:57 -08'00'
Nicholas
Gong
Digitally signed by Nicholas Gong
DN: cn=Nicholas Gong, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected],
c=US
Date: 2023.03.02 16:45:52 -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: 2023.03.09 11:37:11 -08'00'

13.2 3rd Qtr FY23 BA - CIP Transfers
Eden Project # GL # Project Title 3rd Qtr BA needed Reason c700002-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7151-57302 Main Replacements - Engineering 2,100,000 ĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚĞschedule for two Soquel projects from FY24 to FY23. No new funds requested in FY24.
c700025-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7152-57302 Graham Hill WTP Facility Improvement Plan 1,200,000 Project is currently over budget due to current PO encumbrances for future work. Add'l funds also needed for increased city staff time, Project Manager work, and environmental work.
c701502-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7152-57302 Graham Hill WTP Flocculator Rehab/Replacement (84,906) To close, project complete c701507-100-2020-0 711-70-97-7151-57302 Mains Replacements- Distribution Section 650,000 ĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚĞschedule for two projects from FY24 to FY23. c701603-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7153-57302 Meter Replacement Project (470,000) Reduce project to $1M at this point. Project substantially complete. c701701-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7153-57302 Newell Creek Pipeline Rehab/Replacement (55,912) To close, project complete c701908-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7153-57302 North Coast System Repair and Replacement Project (35,701) To close, project complete c702003-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7159-57302 Water Program Management Reserve (2,540,426) Approved use of reserve funds c702108-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7152-57302 Beltz WTP Filter Rehabilitation (500,924) To close, project complete c702204-100-2020-0 711-70-91-7153-57302 Newell Creek Pipeline Grant Management (12,131) To close, project complete c702301-100-2020-0 711-70-92-7152-57302 GHWTP Chlorination Station Improvements (250,000) To close, project complete NET IMPACT (0)
P:\_Public\Budgets\!!!FY 2023 Budget Documents\!FY 2023 Budget Adjustments\Draft\3rd Qtr FY23 CIP transfers FINAL2/22/2023

13.3 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project – Approval of CEQA Exemption, Plans and Specifications, and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract (WT) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Plans and Specifications for the Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project (c701606) and authorize staff to advertise for bids and the Water Director to execute change orders within the approved project budget and find the Project exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract as authorized by Resolution No. NS-27,563. The Water Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: In 2019 the Santa Cruz Water Department began construction of the Newell Creek Dam Inlet/Outlet Replacement (NCD I/O) Project which consists of replacement of the City’s existing aging inlet/outlet works in new locations at the Loch Lomond Reservoir and other associated improvements. Project construction is anticipated to be completed in late spring 2023.

Project construction required unavoidable temporary and permanent impacts to Waters of the US, Waters of the State, and riparian habitat regulated by federal and state agencies. As part of project permitting, the City received permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Coast California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These permits require compensatory mitigation in the form of habitat restoration projects.

The permitting agencies approved a series of mitigation projects to meet required compensatory mitigation. These projects included off-site mitigation projects which have been completed, and on-site mitigation projects which are required to be completed within one year of the completion of the NCD I/O project. The on-site mitigation projects are planned for installation in summer and fall of 2023.

DISCUSSION: The Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris project is an on-site compensatory mitigation project that will install large wood structures in a 750 foot length segment of Newell Creek on City-owned property downstream of Newell Creek Dam.

The goal of the project is to improve instream habitat complexity and cover for native stream species and to restore natural stream processes by trapping sediment and forming pools. The

14.1 section of Newell Creek downstream of the dam is habitat for a variety of native freshwater species, including resident rainbow trout.

The wood structures will be a combination of full-sized trees, small trees, and other smaller wood material all locally sourced and placed in the channel to create a complex network of wood structures throughout the 750-foot stream segment.

Installation of the project is estimated to take up to 60 working days.

The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act §15333, Small Habitat Restoration Projects; a Notice of Exemption will be filed by staff following City Council approval.

FISCAL IMPACT: The engineer’s estimate is $110,000 which includes a 20% contingency.

Funds are available in the Water Department Capital Investment Program FY 2024 budget, project c701606 Newell Creek Dam Inlet/Outlet Replacement project. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Heidi R. Luckenbach
Deputy Director/Engineering
Manager
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. NEWELL CREEK INSTREAM HABITAT RESTORATION - LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.PDF

14.2 WATER DEPARTMENT

INVITATION FOR BID,

SPECIFICATIONS, AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
FOR
Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL
Fred Keeley, Mayor
Renee Golder, Vice Mayor
Sonja Brunner
Sandy Brown
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Scott Newsome
Martine Watkins
Matt Huffaker, City Manager
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney
Rosemary Menard, Water Department Director
Bids Open April 13, 2023 at 10:00am
Closing time to receive bids will be according to
Water Department Engineering Counter wall clock.

Heidi Luckenbach, RCE No. C58091
Deputy Director / Engineering Manager

14.3 i

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

WATER DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris

1. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ............................................................. 1—1

2. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS ............................................................ 2—3

2.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................. 2—3

2.1.1 Obtaining Bid Documents........................................................................... 2—3

2.1.2 Definitions................................................................................................... 2—3

2.1.3 Bid Form..................................................................................................... 2—3

2.1.4 Examination of Contract Documents, and Site of Work ............................ 2—3

2.1.5 Interpretations and Addenda ....................................................................... 2—4

2.1.6 Qualification of Bidders.............................................................................. 2—4

2.1.7 Local Hire Requirements............................................................................ 2—4

2.1.8 Bid Security ................................................................................................ 2—4

2.1.9 Preparation of Bid ....................................................................................... 2—5

2.1.10 Submittal of Bid.......................................................................................... 2—5

2.1.11 Modification and Withdrawal of Bid.......................................................... 2—5

2.1.12 Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference .................................................................. 2—5

2.1.13 Bid Due Date............................................................................................... 2—6

2.1.14 Opening of Bids.......................................................................................... 2—6

2.1.15 Award of Contract....................................................................................... 2—6

2.1.16 Bid Protest................................................................................................... 2—6

2.1.17 Execution of Agreement ............................................................................. 2—6

2.2 BID PROPOSAL (SUBMIT WITH BID) ........................................................................ 2—8

2.3 NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION (SUBMIT WITH BID) ...................................... 2—10

2.4 BID FORM (SUBMIT WITH BID).............................................................................. 2—11

2.5 BID SECURITY FORM (SUBMIT WITH BID) ........................................................... 2—13

2.6 BIDDER INFORMATION FORM (SUBMIT WITH BID)........................................... 2—14

2.6.1 Bidder’s Qualifications............................................................................. 2—14

2.6.2 List of Subcontractors............................................................................... 2—15

2.7 DIR COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT (SUBMIT WITH BID)........................................... 2—17

3. CONTRACT FORMS ................................................................................. 3-1 AGREEMENT......................................................................................................................... 3-1 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND.................................................................................... 3-5 LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND......................................................................................... 3-8 ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION......... 3-11 GOOD NEIGHBOR COMMITMENT.................................................................................. 3-14

4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................ 4-1

14.4 ii

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Location and Scope........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Time of Completion....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.3 Failure to Complete Work on Time (Liquidated Damages).......................... 4-1

4.1.4 Final Completion/Correction Period.............................................................. 4-1

4.1.5 Local Hiring Compliance Forms ................................................................... 4-2

4.1.6 Apprentice Hiring Records and Compliance Forms...................................... 4-3

4.1.7 Retention........................................................................................................ 4-3

4.1.8 Securities in Lieu of Retention ...................................................................... 4-4

4.1.9 Good Neighbor Commitment ........................................................................ 4-4

4.1.10 Assignment of Unfair Business Practice Claims........................................... 4-4

4.1.11 Third Party Claims......................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.12 Dispute Resolution......................................................................................... 4-5

4.1.13 Force Majeure ................................................................................................ 4-5

4.1.14 Contractor Not an Agent................................................................................ 4-5

4.1.15 Conflicts of Interest........................................................................................ 4-5

4.1.16 City Property.................................................................................................. 4-5

4.2 REVISIONS TO CITY’S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS...................................... 4-8

4.2.1 Insurance Requirements................................................................................. 4-8

4.2.2 Trade Names and Alternatives..................................................................... 4-10

4.2.3 Labor Discrimination ................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.4 Prevailing Wage........................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.5 Public Safety ................................................................................................ 4-11

4.2.6 Subcontracting ............................................................................................. 4-12

4.2.7 Protection of Public Utilities........................................................................ 4-12

4.2.8 Hours of Work ............................................................................................. 4-13

4.2.9 Partial Payment ............................................................................................ 4-13

4.2.10 Final Payment .............................................................................................. 4-14

4.3 DAS FORM 140 (FROM REV. 1/04)............................................................................. 4-15

4.4 DAS FORM 142 (FROM REV. 9/03).............................................................................. 4-17 GOOD FAITH EFFORT STATEMENT FOR LOCAL HIRE .............................................. 4-18 LOCAL HIRE RESIDENCY COMPLIANCE...................................................................... 4-19

5. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 5-0

5.1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS............................................................................................... 5-0

5.1.1 Submittals ...................................................................................................... 5-0

5.1.2 Underground Utilities .................................................................................... 5-0

5.1.3 Traffic Control ............................................................................................... 5-0

5.1.4 Clean-up of Site and Erosion Control............................................................ 5-0

5.1.5 Inspection....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.6 Coordination of Work with Others................................................................ 5-2

5.1.7 Street Sweeping ............................................................................................. 5-2

5.1.8 Site Safety and Security ................................................................................. 5-3

5.1.9 Supervision and Superintendence .................................................................. 5-3

5.1.10 Storage and Supply Management .................................................................. 5-4

5.1.11 Materials and Equipment ............................................................................... 5-4

5.1.12 Stockpile Management................................................................................... 5-5

14.5 iii

5.1.13 Temporary Controls....................................................................................... 5-6

5.1.14 Noise Control................................................................................................. 5-6

5.1.15 Dust Control................................................................................................... 5-6

5.1.16 Water Control................................................................................................. 5-6

5.1.17 Pollution Control............................................................................................ 5-7

5.1.18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control............................................................... 5-8

5.1.19 Water Quality................................................................................................. 5-9

5.1.20 Solid Waste .................................................................................................... 5-9

5.1.21 Sanitary and Septic Waste ............................................................................. 5-9

5.1.22 Liquid Waste................................................................................................ 5-10

5.1.23 Hazardous Waste ......................................................................................... 5-10

5.1.24 Water Conservation ..................................................................................... 5-11

5.1.25 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning ................................................................ 5-11

5.1.26 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling and Maintenance ...................................... 5-12

5.1.27 Examination of Site...................................................................................... 5-12

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF BID ITEMS..................................................................................... 5-13 Item No.1: Mobilization/Demobilization......................................................................... 5-13 Item No.2: Site Preparation: Clearing and Grubbing; Erosion Control.......................... 5-13 Item No.3: Large Wood Habitat Structures, Recruited Onsite Wood (8 Key Logs, 4 Structure Logs, 1 unit Branch Packing Wood)................................................................. 5-13 Item No.4: Large Wood Habitat Structures, Imported Wood (1 Key Logs, 5 Structure Logs) 5-13

6. PROJECT PLANS AND DRAWINGS.................................................... 6-14 EXHIBIT A: NEWELL CREEK INSTREAM HABITAT RESTORATION – LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS ......................................... 6-15

14.6 1—1

1. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Santa Cruz, California, invites sealed Bids for the following Project:

Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris CWO 2023-004
Sealed bids for the construction of the Project will be received at the Santa Cruz Water Department, 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, until April 13, 2023, at 10:00am local time. At that time the Bids received will be publicly opened and read; it is strongly recommended that attendees wear face masks, social distance, and follow any other safety measures currently recommended by the County Public Health Officer.

Bids will be received for a single prime contract for felling and installation of large wood material into Newell Creek to improve instream habitat and enhance rearing conditions for resident rainbow trout.

The Engineer’s estimate anticipates that the total bid price will be $80,000 and the Contract Time for the completion of all the Work of the Project is 130 calendar days. The proposed Work is generally described as follows:
o Fell and haul mature trees ranging from 12-40+ inches diameter at breast height under the responsible charge of a forester licensed in the State of California. o Construct habitat restoration structures by installing large wood features in the stream channel using ground based logging equipment.

Bidding Documents may be downloaded, without charge, from ebidboard.com, accessible from the City’s website http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/business/bidding-information. Prospective Bidders are urged to register with ebidboard.com as a Bidding Documents holder, even if Bidding Documents are obtained from a plan room or source other than ebidboard.com. Ebidboard.com will be updated periodically with Addenda, lists of registered holders of the Bidding Documents, reports, and other information relevant to submitting a Bid for the Project. All official notifications, Addenda, and other Bidding Documents will be offered only through this website. City is not responsible for Bidding Documents, including Addenda, if any, obtained from sources other than the designated website or the City.

A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 10237 Newell Creek Road, Ben Lomond, CA 95005 on March 31, 2023 at 10:00am. All Prospective Bidders must sign in on the City-provided sign-in sheet at this conference to be eligible to bid for the Project. Attendees are strongly recommended to wear face masks, social distance, and follow any other safety measures currently recommended by the County Public Health Officer.

The Contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible responsive bidder. The City reserves the right to reject any or all Bids, including for any minor irregularities. The City may reject a Bid if the City determines that any of the bid prices are materially unbalanced to the potential detriment of the City.

Each bid shall be accompanied by one of the following forms of Bidder’s security: cash, certified or cashier’s check drawn upon a responsible bank, or Bid Bond executed by an admitted surety insurer, made payable to the City of Santa Cruz. The Bidder’s security shall be in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the total bid price, and shall be conditioned to be forfeited to the

14.7 1—2
City in the event that the Bidder, if their bid is accepted, does not execute the Contract for the Project and provide the required bonds, certificates of insurance, and endorsements as required. A bid will not be considered unless one of the approved forms of Bidder’s security is enclosed with it.

Bidders and their proposed subcontractors shall hold such licenses as may be required by the laws of the State of California for the performance of the work specified in the Contract Documents. Bidders bidding as the Prime Contractor shall possess a valid California Registered Professional Foresters License and/or a California Licensed Timber Operator Type A License at the time of contract award and throughout the contract term. The Contractor will also be required to ensure that all subcontractors working on this Project are holding valid licenses suitable for their trade.

This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR pursuant to the California Labor Code section 1771.4. No General Contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 (with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)). No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Additionally, the General Contractor and all Subcontractors must make good faith efforts to hire qualified individuals who are residents of Santa Cruz County as required by Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) Chapter 3.10, and to employ apprentices who are enrolled and participate in a viable apprenticeship program approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

Progress payments are subject to 5% retention withholding until thirty five (35) calendar days after recording the notice of completion. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22300, for monies earned by the General Contractor and withheld by the City to ensure the performance of the Contract. The General Contractor, may, at its option, choose to substitute securities meeting the requirements of California Public Contract Code Section 22300, or have the retained, earned monies deposited in an escrow account at a federal or state chartered bank.

For all further requirements regarding Bid submittal, qualifications, procedures, and contract award, refer to the Instructions to Bidders that are included in the Bidding Documents.

Technical questions and requests for information related to this Invitation for Bids should be directed to Maryna Sedoryk, Water Resources Analyst, [email protected] This Advertisement is issued by:

Owner: City of Santa Cruz, California
By: _____________________________________ Dated: __________________ Matt Huffaker, City Manager

14.8 2—3

2. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

2.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1.1 Obtaining Bid Documents
Bid documents, including Drawings and Specifications, can be obtained in any of the following ways:

Type Source Contact Cost
Electronic Copy City File Share Website
Send request to 831-420-
5475 or
[email protected]
Free
Electronic Copy Construction Bidboard,
Inc. www.ebidboard.com Membership or free trial
Paper Copy City Water Dept.
212 Locust St., Suite C
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5210
8 am to 5 pm, Monday -
Thursday
$0.25 per printed
page
If Bidders receive bid documents for this project from any other source, they should contact the Water Department’s Engineering Division to ensure they are recorded as a plan holder. Only Bidders who appear on the Water Department’s plan holder list will be notified by the Water Department when Addenda to the Contract Documents are issued. Failure to include signed addenda with the bid package may result in rejection of the bid. It is the sole responsibility of the Bidder to include all issued addenda in the bid package.

2.1.2 Definitions
Contract Documents – Contract Documents include this Invitation For Bid document, the Standard Specifications documents referenced in the Agreement, the Particular Specifications defined below, the Bid Proposal, and the resulting Agreement.

Particular Specifications – Refers to the Special Provisions (Section 4), Project Requirements (Section 5), and Exhibits of this document and addenda or other documents issued by the City as part of the bid process.

Standard Specifications – Refers to the documents referenced in the Agreement.

2.1.3 Bid Form
Complete sets of Contract Documents must be used in preparing Bids; the City does not assume any responsibility for errors or misinterpretations resulting from the use of incomplete sets of Contract Documents.

2.1.4 Examination of Contract Documents, and Site of Work It is the responsibility of each Bidder before submitting a Bid to:

1. Examine and carefully study the Contract Documents, including any Addenda and the other related data identified in the Contract Documents.

2. Visit the Sites and become familiar with and satisfy Bidder as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, storage of equipment and materials, and performance of the Work.

3. Become familiar with all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, or performance of the Work.

4. Become aware of the general nature of the work to be performed by City and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents.

14.9 2—4

5. Determine that the Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for the performance of the Work.

2.1.5 Interpretations and Addenda
All questions about the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents are to be submitted in writing to:

Maryna Sedoryk
Water Resources Analyst
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
123 Jewell Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Interpretations or clarifications considered necessary in response to such questions will be issued by Addenda mailed or delivered to all parties recorded by the Water Department as having received the Contract Documents. Questions received less than five (5) working days prior to the date for opening of Bids may not be answered. Only questions answered by Addenda will be binding. Oral and other interpretations or clarifications will be without legal effect. No addenda will be issued within three (3) working days of the bid opening date.

2.1.6 Qualification of Bidders
For a bid to be considered complete and responsive at the time of bid opening, a Bidder will hold valid State of California Registered Professional Forester License or Licensed Timber Operator Type A License AND possess the qualifications obtained through prior project experience outlined in the Bidder’s Qualifications Form. Bidders, and their subcontractors, will be required to register with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations as a public works contractor and maintain compliance with prevailing wage laws.

2.1.7 Local Hire Requirements
The Contractor, and all subcontractors, must comply with the local hiring provisions of Chapter 3.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Cruz, which is incorporated into these Contract documents by reference. Chapter 3.10 specifically requires City Contractors and subcontractors to make good faith efforts to hire qualified individuals who are local residents, as workers on City public works projects of estimated value of greater than the formal bid limit, unless prohibited by State or Federal laws or regulations.

The Contractor and all listed subcontractors must complete and submit to the City, after the Award of Contract and prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the form entitled, “Good Faith Effort Statement for Local Hire,” as contained in these Contract Documents.

The Contractor must also complete and submit to the City, on a weekly basis, documentation of local hiring.

The certified payroll documents required as part of this Contract will be deemed acceptable documentation if the certified payroll documents are accompanied by the form Local Hire Residency Compliance of these Special Provisions or if certified payroll documents are modified to include the information therein.

2.1.8 Bid Security
A Bid must be accompanied by Bid security made payable to the City of Santa Cruz in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the bid, and in the form of a certified or cashier’s check or a Bid Bond. The Bid security of the Successful Bidder will be retained until such Bidder has executed the Contract Documents, furnished the required Contract security and met the other conditions of the Notice of Award, whereupon the Bid security will expire or be returned. The City of Santa Cruz reserves the right to revoke the award of the Contract and the Contractor’s bid security will be forfeited if required documents are not delivered in an acceptable form within ten (10) calendar days, excluding weekends and legal

14.10 2—5
holidays, after the date of the written notice of Contract award. The bid security of all Bidders may be retained by the City for up to sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening, whereupon bid security will expire or be returned.

2.1.9 Preparation of Bid
The Bid Form is included with the Contract Documents. All blanks will be completed by printing in ink or by typewriter and then signed. A Bid price will be indicated for each section, Bid item, alternative, adjustment unit price item, and unit price item, listed therein, or the words "No Bid," "No Change," or "Not Applicable" entered.
• All names will be typed or printed in ink below the signatures. • Bids will be clearly written without erasures or deletions. • Bids will be signed by a duly authorized officer or agent. • Total sum of bid will be written out in words and shown in numerals. • The Bid will contain a signed copy of all Addenda.
• The Bid will contain evidence of Bidder's authority and qualifications. • Bidder's State of California contractor license number will also be shown on the Bid Proposal.

2.1.10 Submittal of Bid
A complete and responsive Bid will include all of the following:

1. Bid Proposal

2. Bid Form – Payment Item Schedule

3. Bid Bond

4. Bidder Information Forms

5. All Addenda issued and signed by Bidder
Bid will be submitted no later than the date and time prescribed and at the place indicated in the Invitation to Bidders and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the project title, the name and address of Bidder, and will be accompanied by the Bid security and other required documents. If a Bid is sent by mail or other delivery system, the sealed envelope containing the Bid will be enclosed in a separate envelope plainly marked on the outside with the notation “Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, CWO 2023-004”.

No bids received after the time fixed for receiving them will be considered. It is the responsibility of the bidder to see that bid is received on time. No telephone bid or telephone modification for a bid will be considered.

2.1.11 Modification and Withdrawal of Bid
A bidder may withdraw their bid, either personally or by written request, at any time prior to the scheduled time for the opening of bids.

2.1.12 Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference
A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 10237 Newell Creek Road, Ben Lomond, CA 95005 on March 31, 2023 at 10:00am. All Prospective Bidders must sign in on the City-provided sign-in sheet at this conference to be eligible to bid for the Project. Attendees are strongly recommended to wear face masks, social distance, and follow any other safety measures currently recommended by the County Public Health Officer.

14.11 2—6

2.1.13 Bid Due Date
Sealed bids for the project will be received by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, until April 13, 2023 at 10:00am at the Water Engineering counter located at 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz, California 95060, in a sealed envelope plainly endorsed:

Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, CWO 2023-004

2.1.14 Opening of Bids
The sealed bids will be publicly opened and read aloud on April 13, 2023 at 10:00am.

No bids will be accepted later than the above date and time. Closing time to receive bids will be verified from the Water Department Engineering Division wall clock. Any bids received after this date and time will be returned to the sender, unopened.

2.1.15 Award of Contract
The Contract, if awarded, will be awarded to the responsible and responsive bidder who has proposed the lowest Contract Sum, subject to the City’s right to revoke the award of the Contract if required documents are not delivered in an acceptable form and within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of written notice that the Contract has been awarded. The City of Santa Cruz reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any irregularity or minor defects in any bids received.

In evaluating the responsibility of Bidders, the City will consider the qualifications of Bidders and may consider the qualifications and experience of Subcontractors, Suppliers, and other individuals or entities proposed for those portions of the Work for which the identity of Subcontractors, Suppliers, and other individuals or entities must be submitted.

City may conduct such investigations as deemed necessary to establish the responsibility, qualifications, and financial ability of Bidders, proposed Subcontractors, Suppliers, individuals, or entities to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

2.1.16 Bid Protest
Any Contractor who unsuccessfully bids on a City Contract or any trade association representing workers who would have potentially been employed by such a Contractor may file a protest. The bid protest will be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within five (5) calendar days of the date of the City’s written notice of intention to award the bid. The City Council will hear the bid protest prior to award of the Contract. The protesting party may protest the bid award for the City’s or successful bidder’s failure to comply with Contract requirements or applicable provision of City Code. The bid protest will clearly set forth the basis for the bid protest. Grounds not set forth in the written protest may not be considered by the City Council at the bid protest hearing. The City Council will sustain a bid protest if the protesting party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, as specified above, the City would act improperly in awarding the bid. The decision of the City Council will be final.

2.1.17 Execution of Agreement
The Contractor will be allowed ten (10) calendar days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, from the date of the written notice of Contract award within which to deliver:

14.12 2—7

1. Executed Construction Agreement

2. Faithful Performance Bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price

3. Labor and Material Bond in the amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price

4. Certificate(s) of Insurance in compliance with the Special Provisions

5. Proof of registration with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations for the Contractor and all subcontractors

6. Division of Apprenticeship Standards Form 140

7. Good Faith Effort Statement for Local Hire

8. Construction Schedule

9. Contractor’s Field Supervisor, and Disturbance Coordinator (for handling complaints)

10. Injury and Illness Prevention Plan and Site Safety Plan with Designated Safety Officer The City of Santa Cruz reserves the right to revoke the award of the Contract if required documents are not delivered in an acceptable form within the time limit stated. The Bidder furthermore agrees that in case of default in executing said contract with necessary bonds, the check or bond accompanying this Proposal and money payable will become and remain the property of the City of Santa Cruz. Upon acceptance of all required documents, the Contract will be signed by the City Manager of the City of Santa Cruz and the Contractor will receive a written Notice to Proceed.

14.13 2—8

2.2 BID PROPOSAL (Submit with Bid)
Project Identification:

Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Santa Cruz, California.

TO: The Council of the City of Santa Cruz
PROPOSAL OF:

Business Address:

Business Telephone:

The undersigned Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to enter into an Agreement, in the form specified in the Contract Documents, with Owner to complete all work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents for the Contract Price and within the Contract Time indicated in this Bid and in accordance with the Contract Documents.

The undersigned bidder understands that any or all quantities of work shown herein are approximate only and are subject to increase or decrease, and offers to do the work whether the quantities are increased or decreased at the unit prices as stated in the following tabulation. The undersigned bidder agrees to take in full payment for the work, including all applicable state and local taxes, the amount shown on the bid sheet.

Please note closing time to receive bids will be verified according to local telephone company time.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS BID IS BASED UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITHIN 130 WORKING DAYS, AND THE

PRICES INCLUDE ALL STATE, FEDERAL AND OTHER TAXES APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT.

The undersigned agrees to do any extra work, not covered by the above schedule of price, which may be ordered by the City, and to accept as full compensation therefore, such prices as may be agreed upon in writing by the City and the Contractor in accordance with the “Measurement and Payment” Section of the Standard Specifications.

If awarded the contract, the undersigned hereby agrees to execute the Contract with necessary bonds, of which the Agreement, this Proposal, the Notice of Inviting Bids, Standard Specifications, Plans and Special Provisions, and any and all other Contract Documents will be part, within ten (10) calendar days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, after receipt of notice of the award of said contract, and to begin work within ten (10) days after receiving the Notice to Proceed.

The undersigned Bidder has carefully examined the form of Contract, the Standard Specifications, the Plans and Special Provisions for the project hereinbefore described and referred to in the “Invitation to Bidders” inviting proposals for Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, CWO 2023- 004 and also the site of the work and will provide all necessary machinery, tools apparatus and other means of construction, and do all the work and furnish all materials required by said Specifications and Plans and Special Provisions in the manner described therein.

No bid will be considered for less than all items of this schedule and one contract will be awarded for the entire project.

14.14 2—9
The undersigned has carefully checked the bid prices, and all computations involved in the preparation of this bid, and understands that the City of Santa Cruz will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in making up this bid.

This proposal is made with a full knowledge of the kind, quantities, and quality of the work and of materials, equipment, and plans required. This proposal is also made after a complete, careful, and independent examination and investigation of the site of the work, local conditions affecting the same, and materials to be encountered.

The Bidder furthermore agrees that in case of his/her default in executing said contract with necessary bonds, the check or bond accompanying this Proposal and money payable will become and remain the property of the City of Santa Cruz.

Enclosed is bidder’s bond, certified check, or cashier’s check no. of the Bank for $ which is not less than 10 percent of the bid submitted by the undersigned, payable to the City of Santa Cruz, California, and which is given as a guarantee that the undersigned will enter into the contract if awarded the work.

It is understood and agreed that the City may reject any or all proposals, or waive any informalities or minor defects in proposals received.

It is agreed that this bid may not be withdrawn over a period of sixty (60) days from the opening thereof.

Note: Bidders should not add any conditions or qualifying statement to this bid as otherwise the bid may be declared irregular as being not responsive to the Advertisement for Bids.

Dated: Firm Name:

Official Address: Phone:

By: Title:

State Contractor’s License No.:

Signature of Bidder:

14.15 2—10

2.3 NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION (Submit with bid)
(Pursuant to Section 7106 of the Public Contract Code)
Name of Bidder:

Project Name/Number:

The undersigned declares:

I am the of , the party making the foregoing bid.

The bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The bid is genuine and not collusive or sham. The bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid. The bidder has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or to refrain from bidding. The bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder. All statements contained in the bid are true. The bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, to effectuate a collusive or sham bid, and has not paid, and will not pay, any person or entity for such purpose.

Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a bidder that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the bidder.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on , 20__, at [City], , [State].
(Signature)

14.16 2—11

2.4 BID FORM (Submit with Bid)

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, CWO 2023-004

PAYMENT ITEM SCHEDULE
Item No. Estimated
Quantity
and Unit
Item Description Unit Price
(Figures)
Unit Price Ext
or Lump Sum
(Figures
General
1 L.S. Mobilization/Demobilization $
2 L.S. Site Preparation: Clearing and
Grubbing; Erosion Control
$ $
3 L.S. Large Wood Habitat Structures,
Recruited Onsite Wood (8 key
logs, 4 structure logs, 1 unit
branch packing wood)
$ $
4 L.S. Large Wood Habitat Structures,
Imported Wood (1 key log, 5
structure logs)
$ $
Construction Subtotal
10% Contingency Allowance
Total Bid Price
$
$
$
Total Bid Price (in words)

14.17 2—12

ADDITIVE AND/OR DEDUCTIVE ITEMS
Not Used

14.18 2—13

2.5 BID SECURITY FORM (Submit with bid)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT:

THAT WE, _________________________________________________ AS PRINCIPAL, AND ________________________________________________ AS SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Santa Cruz in the penal sum of 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BID of the Principal above named, submitted by said Principal to the City of Santa Cruz for the work described below, for the payment of which sum in lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be made to the City of Santa Cruz to which said bid was submitted, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In no case shall the liability of the surety hereunder exceed the sum of $___________________________________.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, WHEREAS, the Principal has submitted the above-mentioned bid to the City of Santa Cruz, aforesaid, for certain construction specifically described as follows, for which bids are to be opened at 10:00am / April 13, 2023/ 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 For:
“Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, CWO 2023-004” NOW, THEREFORE, if the aforesaid Principal is awarded the contract and, within the time and manner required under the specifications, after the prescribed forms are presented to him/her for signature enters into a written contract, in the prescribed form, in accordance with the bid, and files the certificate of insurance and two bonds with the City, one to guarantee faithful performance, and the other to guarantee payment for labor and materials as required by law, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this _________day of____________, 20 ___.

PRINCIPAL SURETY
__________________________________ (Seal) ___________________________ (Seal) __________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Signature
________________________________ ___________________________ Title Title
__________________________________ _________________________________ Address Address
(Note: Signatures of those executing for the surety as an Attorney-in-Fact must include a Notary Acknowledgement.)

14.19 2—14

2.6 BIDDER INFORMATION FORM (Submit with bid)

2.6.1 Bidder’s Qualifications
Failure to provide this information may constitute grounds for rejection of the bid.

The Bidder has been engaged in the contracting business under State License No.(s) for a period of years.

The following are five owners for whom the Bidder has constructed projects of similar scope to that proposed. Such projects will have been completed within the past five years.

1. Name, Address, Phone No:

Project Description:

Date Completed:

2. Name, Address, Phone No:

Project Description:

Date Completed:

3. Name, Address, Phone No:

Project Description:

Date Completed:

4. Name, Address, Phone No:

Project Description:

Date Completed:

5. Name, Address, Phone No:

Project Description:

Date Completed:

14.20 2—15

2.6.2 List of Subcontractors
In conformance with §4104 of California Public Contract Code, the Bidder will provide the following information for each Subcontractor to whom the Bidder proposes to subcontract portions of the work in an amount in excess of one-half of one percent of the total Bid Proposal.

1. Name of Subcontractor:

Address: Phone No:

Contractor License Number:

Public Works Contractor Registration Number:

Individual, Partnership or Corporation:

Work to be Performed:

2. Name of Subcontractor:

Address: Phone No:

Contractor License Number:

Public Works Contractor Registration Number:

Individual, Partnership or Corporation:

Work to be Performed:

3. Name of Subcontractor:

Address: Phone No:

Contractor License Number:

Public Works Contractor Registration Number:

Individual, Partnership or Corporation:

Work to be Performed:

4. Name of Subcontractor:

Address: Phone No:

Contractor License Number:

Public Works Contractor Registration Number:

Individual, Partnership or Corporation:

Work to be Performed:

5. Name of Subcontractor:

Address: Phone No:

Contractor License Number:

Public Works Contractor Registration Number:

Individual, Partnership or Corporation:

Work to be Performed:

14.21 2—16
Attach additional sheets if needed.

14.22 2—17

2.7 DIR COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT (Submit with Bid)
Name of Bidder:

Project Name/Number:

California Labor Code requires private contractors, and their subcontractors, to pay prevailing wages to their workers when working on a project funded by a public entity. Prevailing wages are due if the project costs more than $1,000, and involves the following construction work: new construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair and maintenance. Contractors must also make an attempt to hire apprentices when the total project costs exceed $30,000.

Prior to commencement of the Contract, all Contractors and subcontractors are required to register, and maintain active registration throughout the duration of the contract with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). For information regarding registration, please go to https://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/PublicWorks.html.
• No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project (effective March 1, 2015) unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].
• No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project (effective April 1, 2015) unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.
• DIR registration is required each fiscal year (July 1 – June 30).

I, the Bidder, certify that:
"I acknowledge that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. I am aware of the provisions of Senate Bill SB 854 and Labor Code sections 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1774-1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815 which require Contractors to comply with all labor compliance requirements, including but not limited to, prevailing wage requirements, Public Works Contractor Registration Program, Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting, and other requirements described in the DIR website. I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract, and maintain compliance throughout the completion of said contract.” Signature Date
Print Name Title
DIR Registration Information and Worker Classifications follow:

14.23 2—18
Prime Contractor Name: _____________________________________________________________ DIR Registration #:_______________________ CSLB #: ____________________________________ Contact Name: __________________________ Email Address: _______________________________ Project Worker Classifications (select all classifications that apply) Asbestos Boilermaker Bricklayers Carpenters
Carpet/Linoleum Cement Masons Drywall Finisher Drywall/Lathers Electricians Elevator Mechanic Glaziers Iron Workers
Laborers Millwrights Operating Engineer Painters
Pile Driver Pipe Trades Plasterers Roofers
Sheet Metal Sound/Comm Surveyors Teamster
Tile Workers
Subcontractor Name: _____________________________________________________________ DIR Registration #:_______________________ CSLB/Professional License #: ___________________ Contact Name: __________________________ Email Address: _______________________________ Project Worker Classifications (select all classifications that apply) Asbestos Boilermaker Bricklayers Carpenters
Carpet/Linoleum Cement Masons Drywall Finisher Drywall/Lathers Electricians Elevator Mechanic Glaziers Iron Workers
Laborers Millwrights Operating Engineer Painters
Pile Driver Pipe Trades Plasterers Roofers
Sheet Metal Sound/Comm Surveyors Teamster
Tile Workers
Subcontractor Name: _____________________________________________________________ DIR Registration #:_______________________ CSLB/Professional License #: ___________________ Contact Name: __________________________ Email Address: _______________________________ Project Worker Classifications (select all classifications that apply) Asbestos Boilermaker Bricklayers Carpenters
Carpet/Linoleum Cement Masons Drywall Finisher Drywall/Lathers Electricians Elevator Mechanic Glaziers Iron Workers
Laborers Millwrights Operating Engineer Painters
Pile Driver Pipe Trades Plasterers Roofers
Sheet Metal Sound/Comm Surveyors Teamster
Tile Workers
Continue on another page if there are additional Subcontractors.

14.24 3-1

3. CONTRACT FORMS

AGREEMENT
For Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ________day of ______________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called “City,” and _________________________________, hereinafter called “Contractor”. City and Contractor are also referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively, as the Parties”.

WITNESSETH, that the Parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:

ARTICLE I
That for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained and the payments at the prices stated in the bid proposal attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, the Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to furnish any and all required supervision, labor, equipment, material, services, and other items as set forth in the “Contract Documents” as hereinafter defined, and will bear any and all other expense necessary or incidental to the performance of certain work hereinafter specified, and to build, construct, reconstruct, pave or repave and complete improvements for:

Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris (the “Project”) in strict conformity and compliance with the Contract Documents and to do everything required by this Agreement and by the Contract Documents (the “Work”).

ARTICLE II
It is expressly agreed and understood by the Contractor that the “Standard Specifications” which apply to this Project consist of the documents on file at the Water Department of the City of Santa Cruz, entitled:

1. City of Santa Cruz: Water Department Standard Specifications (December 2009 Revision);

2. City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Water Department 2002 Standard Specifications (“City Standard Specifications”);

ARTICLE III
It is expressly agreed and understood by the Parties to this Agreement that the following documents are hereby incorporated and made a part of this Agreement (hereinafter the “Contract Documents”):

1. All applicable laws and regulations

2. Duly issued Agreement modifications, and allowance authorization(s) signed by the City, in chronological order by effective date of each.

3. Agreement, including:
a. Exhibit [Z] –Contractor’s Bid Proposal
b. Exhibit [Y] – Good Neighbor Commitment

4. Performance Bond

5. Labor and Material Bond (Payment Bond)

6. Escrow Agreement (when signed by the parties)

14.25 3-2

7. Invitation For Bids Packet for Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris CWO 2023-004, including Section 1:Advertisement for Bids, Section 2: Instructions To Bidders, Section 4: Special Provisions, Section 5: Project Requirements, and Exhibit A. a. Includes all Addenda

8. Project Specific Specifications

9. Standard Specifications
The parties to this Agreement do hereby expressly acknowledge that they have read, understand, and promise to comply with each and every provision of Contract Documents. There are no Contract Documents other than those indicated above. In the event inconsistencies, conflicts, or ambiguities between and among the Contract Documents are discovered, the parties shall attempt to resolve any ambiguity, conflict, or inconsistency informally, recognizing that the Contract Documents shall take precedence in the order in which they are listed above. Inclusion of an order of precedence herein does not in any way negate or reduce Contractor’s obligation to report conflicts, discrepancies, apparent omissions, and similar matters to the City.

ARTICLE IV
Contractor shall conform to all laws and regulations of the United States and the State of California, as well as laws of Santa Cruz, as may be applicable to the Project. In addition, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz endorses the MacBride Principles and the Peace Charter and encourages all companies doing business in Northern Ireland to abide by the MacBride Principles.

ARTICLE V
The City hereby contracts to pay said Contractor the prices provided for in the Bid Proposal in the manner, to the extent, and at the times set forth in the Contract Documents. Contractor shall not undertake any work beyond the scope of work set forth in Exhibit A unless such additional work is approved in advance and in writing by City in the form of a change order.

ARTICLE VI
It is agreed by the parties hereto that the acceptance of the Contractor's performance will be made only by an affirmative action of the City of Santa Cruz City Council in session, evidenced by resolution, and upon the filing by the Contractor of a release of all claims of every nature on account of work done under this Agreement, together with an affidavit that all claims have been fully paid. The acceptance by the Contractor of final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against the City arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.

ARTICLE VII
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its respective officials, officers, directors, partners, employees, and authorized agents (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, damages, expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation (collectively, “Losses”), arising from personal or bodily injuries, death, property damage, or otherwise in any way related to, connected with, or resulting from the obligations or performance of the Work under this Agreement by Contractor, subcontractors, and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, or other third parties directly or indirectly employed by or under the authority or control of Contractor or subcontractors. This provision shall not be deemed to require the Contractor to indemnify or hold harmless an Indemnitee for any Loss proximately caused by the sole or active negligence or willful

14.26 3-3
misconduct of the Indemnitee, as determined by a court or other adjudicatory body of competent jurisdiction.

Contractor acknowledges and agrees that Contractor’s obligation to defend the City and the other Indemnitees arises at the time such Losses is tendered to Contractor by the Indemnitees and continues at all times until finally resolved, and/or decided by an adjudicatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement or the completion of the Work.

This indemnification clause supersedes any other indemnification clauses contained in any other Contract Documents.

ARTICLE VIII
General Terms

1. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, along with the terms and conditions in the Contract Documents and, any attachments, is the full and complete integration of the Parties’ agreement with respect to the matters addressed herein, and that this Agreement supersedes any previous written or oral agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein.

Unless otherwise stated, to the extent there is any conflict between this Agreement and any other agreement (written or oral), the terms of this Agreement shall control.

2. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

3. Waiver. Waiver by any party of any portion of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the same or any other portion hereof.

4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law.

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

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

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

Signature Page to Follow

14.27 3-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the City Manager of the City of Santa Cruz, under and pursuant to a resolution of the City Council authorizing such execution, and the Contractor has affixed his/her signature hereto the day and year first hereinabove written.

Technical Review by:

Date:

Heidi Luckenbach, Deputy Water Director/Engineering Manager Approved as to Form by:

Date:

Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney
For Contractor Name:

Signature: Date:

Name: ____________________________ Title: __________________________________ Authorized by:

Date:

Rosemary Menard, Water Director
For CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a municipal corporation
Date:

Matt Huffaker, City Manager

14.28 3-5

FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, and hereinafter designated
as “Principal” have entered into an agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete the work or improvement described in the contract documents entitled: Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz on , 20__; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is about to enter into the annexed agreement with the City of Santa Cruz as is required to furnish security for the faithful performance of said Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Santa Cruz, in the sum of ($ ), such sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated contract cost of the work, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the City of Santa Cruz, for payment of which sum, well and truly to be paid, we hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, by these presents; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the above bound Principal, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns will in all things abide by and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or her part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to the true intent and meaning, and will indemnify and save harmless the City of Santa Cruz, its officers and agents, and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation will become null and void, otherwise it will be and remain in full force and effect.

As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there will be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the City.

As a condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the said contract, an obligation in the amount of ($ ), being not less than ten percent (10%) of the estimated contract cost, will remain in force for a period of one (1) year after the official acceptance of said work, during which time if the Principal, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns will fail to make full, complete and satisfactory repairs and replacements or totally protect the City of Santa Cruz from loss or damage made evident during said period of one (1) year from the date of official acceptance of said work and resulting from or caused by defective materials or faulty workmanship in the prosecution of the work done, the above obligation in the sum of ($ ), will remain in full force and effect, otherwise the obligation will be discharged. However, notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, the obligation for the surety hereunder will continue so long as any obligation of the Principal remains.

The surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications will in any manner affect this obligation upon this bond, and it does hereby explicitly waive notice of any such changes, extensions of time, alterations, or additions to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications, and it further explicitly hereby waives its rights under California Civil Code §2819.

14.29 3-6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument under their seals this day of , 20___, and duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to the authority of its governing body.

PRINCIPAL:

Firm name:

Printed name:

Signature: Date:

Title:

SURETY:

Firm name:

Printed name:

Signature: Date:

Title:

I hereby approve the form of the within bond.

City Attorney Date

14.30 3-7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ______________________ before me, ___________________________________________, (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

14.31 3-8

LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND
WHEREAS, as the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, has awarded to hereinafter designated as the “Principal”, a contract for constructing the work or improvement described in the contract documents entitled: Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz on , 20____ and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a Labor and Material Bond, the surety of this bond will pay the same to the extent hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the said Principal is about to enter into the annexed contract with the City of Santa Cruz to complete the work or improvement referred to above for the City of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, State of California, all as more particularly and in detail shown upon the Standard Specifications and Particular Specifications filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz:

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and , a
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Santa Cruz in the sum of dollars ($ ), such sum being not less that one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated contract cost of the work, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the City of Santa Cruz, for payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assign jointly and severally.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if said Principal or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, vendor supplies, or equipment as provided in the contract documents, upon, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or waiver thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed by any such claimant, or fails to pay any of the persons authorized under Civil Code Section 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond, or fails to pay for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Franchise Tax Board for the wages of employees of the Principal or his/her subcontractor pursuant to Section 18806 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or fails to pay for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the principal and all subcontractors with respect to such work and labor that the surety or sureties will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount hereof, a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the Court.

The condition of this obligation is such that its terms inure to the benefit of any of the persons and entities authorized in Civil Code Section 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond so as to give a right of action to such persons or entities or their assigns in any suit brought upon or action to enforce liability on the bond.

The surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder shall in any manner affect its obligation upon this bond, and it does hereby explicitly waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder, and further explicitly hereby waives its rights under Civil Code Section 2819.

14.32 3-9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this instrument under their seals this day of , 20_____, and duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to the authority of its governing body.

PRINCIPAL:

Firm name:

Printed name:

Signature: Date:

Title:

SURETY:

Firm name:

Printed name:

Signature: Date:

Title:

I hereby approve the form of the within bond.

City Attorney Date

14.33 3-10

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ______________________ before me, ___________________________________________, (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ____________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

14.34 3-11

ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION (Optional)
This Escrow Agreement is made and entered into by and between City of Santa Cruz, hereinafter called “Owner”, whose address is 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA 95060; and , hereinafter called “Contractor”, whose address is
; and , hereinafter called “Escrow
Agent”, whose address is .

For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows:
(1) Pursuant to §22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California, Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the Owner and Contractor for: (Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris) in the amount of ($ ), dated: , 20___, (hereinafter
referred to as the “Contract”). Alternatively, on written request of the Contractor, the Owner will make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent. When Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent will notify the Owner within ten (10) days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at the time of the substitution will be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor. Securities will be held in the name of the City of Santa Cruz and will designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner. (2) The Owner will make progress payments to the Contractor for such funds which otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above. (3) When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Agent will hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until such time as the escrow created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties will be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly. (4) Contractor will be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses and payment terms will be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent. (5) The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow and all interest earned on that interest will be for the sole account of Contractor and will be subject to withdrawal by Contractor at any time, and from time to time, without notice to the Owner. (6) Contractor will have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from the Owner to the Escrow Agent that the Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be withdrawn by Contractor.

14.35 3-12
(7) The Owner will have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default be the Contractor.

Upon seven (7) days written notice of the default to the Escrow Agent from the Owner, the Escrow Agent will immediately convert the securities to cash and will distribute the cash as instructed by the Owner.
(8) Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent will release to Contractor all securities and interest on deposit less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow will be closed immediately upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payment of fees and charges. (9) Escrow Agent will rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the Contractor pursuant to Sections (4) to (6), inclusive, of this agreement and the Owner and Contractor will hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent’s release and disbursement of the securities and interest as set forth above.
(10) The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of the Contractor in connection with the foregoing, and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows:

On behalf of Owner: On behalf of Contractor:

Water Director
Title Title
Rosemary Mernard
Name Name
Signature Signature
809 Center Street, Room 102
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Address Address

14.36 3-13
On behalf of Escrow Agent:

Title
Name
Signature
Address
At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor will deliver to the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their proper officers of the date first set forth above.

City of Santa Cruz
Owner Contractor
Water Director
Title Title
Rosemary Menard
Name Name
Signature Signature
Approved as to Form by:

City Attorney Date

14.37 3-14

GOOD NEIGHBOR COMMITMENT
(Agreement Exhibit A)
When the Santa Cruz Water Department undertakes construction projects in a neighborhood we are committed to being the best neighbor we can be. That means that our neighbors should expect:

Work to be conducted safely
• Staff, consultants and contractors will be properly trained in equipment use. • Staff, consultants and contractors will at all times comply with Cal OSHA requirements. • Work will adhere to all CEQA mitigations and any other permit requirements. • Traffic control measures will be provided when normal traffic flow is impacted. • Equipment and the project site overall will be secured outside of regular construction hours.

Construction to begin and end at scheduled times
• Work hours to be observed are 7:00am – 5:00pm. Violation of the Construction Work Hours violates the noise ordinances in Santa Cruz County Code (SCCC) sections

8.30.010 and 1.13.070. Violations of the SCCC can result in administrative or criminal citations, and financial penalties.
• Construction hours will be posted.
• Construction activity, including operating heavy equipment and utilizing backup alarms on vehicles is not permitted without prior approval from SCWD. • Advance notice will be given for work that must be done outside of regularly scheduled hours.
• Non-construction activities outside of working hours will be kept to a minimum.

Staff and contractors working on projects to behave professionally • Appropriate language will be used at all times in public. • Non project-related noise will be kept to a minimum.

Project questions or concerns to be responded to
• Dedicated project hotlines and email will be available. • Staff and contractors will be provided with cards with SCWD contact information that they can share with neighbors.
• Calls or emails made to project hotlines will be returned within 2 business days.

To receive regular project communication
• Regular and ongoing project communication with SCWD community relations staff is required.
• Project descriptions and timelines will be provided by SCWD to neighbors in advance. • Notification of regular (non-emergency) service disruptions will be given 48 hours in advance.
• Unforeseen changes will be shared as timely as possible. • Bi-weekly project updates will be given by SCWD to neighbors for projects lasting longer than six weeks.

14.38 3-15
The neighborhood will be left in the same condition as when we arrived • Debris will be removed.
• Project sites will be swept and cleaned.
• Excavations will be filled and patched when the project is complete.

I certify that I have read the above Good Neighbor Commitment and agree to perform the Work according to these commitments.

Name: ____________________________________
Signature: _________________________________
Date: _____________________________________

14.39 4-1

4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1.1 Location and Scope
The work to be performed under this contract is located in the unincorporated portions of the County of Santa Cruz and consists of construction, complete in place, of the items described as Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris, in accordance with the Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, and Plans.

The Contractor will furnish all labor, material, equipment and services, except as otherwise set forth herein, required to complete the work. The limit of work to be performed under this contract is located in the unincorporated County of Santa Cruz on Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris.

The work will consist of installing large wood material into the stream channel to improve fisheries habitat and rearing conditions, as shown on the project plans.

4.1.2 Time of Completion
The Contractor will promptly start the contract work within ten (10) days after the Notice to Proceed, and will prosecute the work so that all portions of the contract will be complete and ready for use by September 29, 2023.

4.1.3 Failure to Complete Work on Time (Liquidated Damages) All time limits stated in the contract documents are of the essence. If the work is not completed by Contractor in the time specified in the Contract Documents, or within any period of extension authorized by the City, it is understood that City will suffer damage; and it being impracticable and infeasible to determine the amount of the actual damage, it is agreed that Contractor will pay the City, as fixed and liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed and accepted, and Contractor and his/her surety will be liable for the amount thereof, provided, however, that Contractor will not be charged liquidated damages because of any delays in the completion of the work due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Contractor. In the event of unexcusable delay, City may, at its option, perform the remaining work and Contractor will pay City the actual cost of such work plus an administrative overhead fee of fifteen percent (15%).

4.1.4 Final Completion/Correction Period
Final completion will be defined to mean that the entire project has been successfully constructed and tested and has met the conditions of acceptance (guarantees) defined in the project plans and Specifications resulting in the issuance of a Notice of Completion.

Correction Period
a. If within one year after the date of substantial completion or date of final completion of the work, (or such longer period of time as may be prescribed by the terms of any applicable special guarantee required by the Contract Documents), whichever is later, City gives Contractor written notice that any work has been found to be defective, or that Contractor’s repair of any damages to the site or adjacent

14.40 4-2
areas has been found to be defective, then after receipt of such notice of defect, Contractor shall promptly, without cost to City and in accordance with City’s written instructions:

1. correct the defective repairs to the site or such adjacent areas;

2. correct such defective work;

3. remove the defective work from the project and replace it with work that is not defective, if the defective work has been rejected by City, and

4. satisfactorily correct or repair or remove and replace any damage to other work, to the work of others, or to other land or areas resulting from the corrective measures. b. If, after receipt of a notice of defect within the correction period, Contractor does not promptly comply with the terms of City’s written instructions, or in an emergency where delay would cause serious risk of loss or damage, City may have the defective work corrected or repaired or may have the rejected work removed and replaced. Contractor shall pay all costs, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) arising out of or relating to such correction or repair or such removal and replacement (including but not limited to all costs of repair or replacement of work of others), plus City’s overhead fee of an additional 15% of all costs incurred by City. c. In special circumstances where a particular item of equipment is placed in continuous service before final completion of all the work, the correction period for that item may start to run from an earlier date. d. Where defective work (and damage to other work resulting therefrom) has been corrected or removed and replaced under this paragraph prior to the date of the Notice of Completion, the correction period hereunder with respect to such work will be extended for an additional period of one year from the date of Notice of Completion.
e. Contractor’s obligations under this paragraph are in addition to all other obligations and warranties, guarantees, and obligations for maintenance, and to correct, and remedy defective work including but not limited to the warranty period after the final completion of the work. Approval of all or any part of a payment to Contractor may be withheld for failure to remedy defective work. Neither the Notice of Completion nor the final payment nor any provision in the Contract Documents shall relieve the Contractor of responsibility for faulty material or quality of Work. The provisions of this section are not to be construed as a substitute for, or a waiver of, the provisions of any applicable statute of limitations or City’s legal remedies.

4.1.5 Local Hiring Compliance Forms
The Contractor, and all subcontractors, must comply with the local hiring provisions of Chapter 3.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Cruz, which is incorporated into these contract documents by reference.

Chapter 3.10 specifically requires City Contractors and subcontractors to make good faith efforts to hire qualified individuals who are local residents, as workers on City public works projects of estimated value of greater than the formal bid limit, unless prohibited by State or Federal laws or regulations.

The Contractor and all listed subcontractors must complete and submit to the City, after the Award of Contract and prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the form entitled, “Good Faith Effort Statement for Local Hire.” as contained in Section 3 of these Special Provisions.

The Contractor must also complete and submit to the City, on a weekly basis, documentation of local hiring.

The certified payroll documents required by the Department of Industrial Relations, will be deemed acceptable documentation if the certified payroll documents are accompanied by the form shown in Section

14.41 4-3
3 of these Special Provisions or if certified payroll documents are modified to include the information therein.

4.1.6 Apprentice Hiring Records and Compliance Forms
The Contractor, and all subcontractors, must comply with the apprentice hiring provisions of Chapter 3.10 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) and the California Department of Industrial Relations, which is incorporated into these contract documents by reference. Such provisions specifically require each City Contractor or subcontractor to make a good faith effort to hire an apprentice on the project who is enrolled in a viable apprentice program. Viable apprenticeship programs are listed on the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) web site (select Santa Cruz County):
http://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/das/pwaddrstart.asp. The apprenticeship requirement will apply for each apprenticeable craft in which the contractor employs workers in performing any of the work under the contract. Attention is also directed to State Labor Code Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 and California Apprenticeship Council regulations concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or subcontractor.

SCMC Chapter 3.10 further requires the maintenance of documents demonstrating that the Contractor has requested an apprentice from a minimum of two viable apprenticeship programs after the Contractor is awarded the contract and prior to commencing work. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of Chapter 3.10, including the maintenance of the records, will be deemed a breach of the contract or subcontract and may result in the Contractor or subcontractor being declared “non-responsible” by the City and ineligible for the award of future City contracts. In addition, State Labor Code 1777.5 provides for penalties of up to one hundred dollars ($100) a day for non-compliance. City apprentice requirements do not apply to projects less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in value.

If the contractor is exempted from the apprentice requirement according to the exemptions described in State Labor Code 1777.5, the contractor must notify the City in writing of their exemption prior to commencing work and explain the exemption in detail. Contractor may consult the local Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) office whose telephone number is available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/das/das_contactUS.html.

Unless exempted from this requirement, the Contactor or subcontractor will, prior to commencing work, submit to the City and the appropriate apprenticeship program, a DAS Form 140, provided in Section 4 of these Special Provisions. The Contractor or subcontractor will also submit DAS Form 142, Request for Dispatch of Apprentice Form, provided in Section 4 of these Special Provisions, at least three (3) working days before the date on which one or more apprentices are required. These forms are also available from the DAS web site (http://www.dir.ca.gov/das/PublicWorksForms.htm ).

4.1.7 Retention
In accordance with the Contract Documents and applicable law, the City may retain out of any payment due the Contractor up to 5% of the payment. In no event shall the City’s total retention proceeds exceed 5% of the contract price.

Under no circumstances shall any provision of this section be construed to limit the ability of the City to withhold 150 percent of the value of any disputed amount of work from the final payment, as provided for Public Contract Code section 7107(c). In the event of a good faith dispute, nothing in this section shall be

14.42 4-4
construed to require a public entity to pay for work that is not approved or accepted in accordance with the proper plans or specifications.

4.1.8 Securities in Lieu of Retention
In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300, except where federal regulations or polices do not permit substitution of securities, the Contractor may substitute securities for any moneys withheld by the City to ensure performance of the Work. At the Contractor’s request and expense, securities equivalent to the amount withheld will be deposited with the City, or with a state or federally chartered bank in California as the escrow agent, who will then pay those moneys to the Contractor under the terms of an Escrow for Security Deposit agreement. The Escrow for Security Deposit agreement is provided in the Contract Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of the Work, the securities will be returned to the Contractor.

Alternatively, at the Contractor’s request and expense, the City will pay retentions earned directly to the escrow agent. At the Contractor’s expense, the Contractor may direct investment of the payments into securities. Upon satisfactory completion of the Work, the Contractor will receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the City pursuant to this provision and the terms of the Escrow for Security Deposit agreement. The Contractor will, within 20 days of receipt of payment, pay to each subcontractor the respective amount of interest earned, less costs of retention withheld from each Subcontractor, on monies withheld to ensure the Contractor’s performance of the Work.

Securities eligible for investment in accordance with this provision include those listed in Government Code Section 16430, bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit, interest bearing demand deposit accounts, standby letters of credit, or any other security mutually agreed to by the Contractor and the City.

The Contractor will be the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for moneys withheld and will receive any interest thereon.

4.1.9 Good Neighbor Commitment
Contractor will comply with the Good Neighbor Commitment included in the Contract Documents.

Violation of the Construction Work Hours and failure to adhere to this policy can result in administrative or criminal citations, and financial penalties, including attorney fees and costs related to enforcement of its terms.

4.1.10 Assignment of Unfair Business Practice Claims
In accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 7103.5, the Contractor and any subcontractors offer and agree to assign to the City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action the Contractor or any subcontractors may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with § 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to this contract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the City tenders final payment to the Contractor, without further acknowledgement by the parties.

4.1.11 Third Party Claims
The City shall timely notify Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract, and the City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred in providing such notice.

14.43 4-5

4.1.12 Dispute Resolution
The Parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Either party may initiate negotiations by providing written notice in letter form to the other party, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested.

Promptly upon such notification, the Parties shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place in order to exchange relevant information and perspective, and to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event that no resolution is achieved, and if, but only if, the parties mutually agree, then prior to pursuing formal legal action, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by non-binding mediation or negotiations between representatives with decision-making power, who, to the extent possible, shall not have had substantive involvement in the matters of the dispute. To the extent that the dispute involves or relates to a public works project, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by complying with the claims process as set forth in Public Contract Code sections 9204(e), 20104-20104.6, but without waiving the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, Gov’t Code section 800 et seq. unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.

4.1.13 Force Majeure
Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, acts of terrorism, war, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and without the negligence of the respective Parties. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any Force Majeure claimed to delay, hinder or prevent performance of the services under this Agreement. Each Party will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement.

4.1.14 Contractor Not an Agent
Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

4.1.15 Conflicts of Interest
Contractor owes City a duty of undivided loyalty in performing the work and services under this Agreement.

Contractor covenants (on behalf of Contractor and its employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors) that there is no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required under this Agreement. Contractor acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions of conflict of interest law and regulations, including the Political Reform Act, Section 1090 of the Government Code, and the City’s conflict of interest code. Contractor will immediately advise City if Contractor learns of a conflicting financial interest of Contractor during the term of this Agreement.

4.1.16 City Property
Unless otherwise provided herein, Contractor agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of projectrelated documents and materials pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in the City and Contractor waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of City. Any work product related to this Agreement shall be confidential, not to be used by the Contractor on other

14.44 4-6
projects or disclosed to any third party, except by agreement in writing by the City, or except as otherwise provided herein.

4.1.17 Contract Working Days
a. Working days will begin ten (10) working days after the date of Notice to Proceed. b. Working days include normal weekdays and any day on which Contract construction work is performed.
c. Construction work includes all field work required and implied by the Contract except efforts toward protection of the work or work site, including maintenance of traffic control devices, safety measures, BMP’s, and site cleanliness.
d. Adverse weather days are not working days, unless construction work is performed despite the weather. Adverse weather includes, but is not necessarily limited to, rain, adverse conditions resulting from rain, high wind, or temperatures which may affect the quality of the work. Adverse weather days do not apply to work taking place indoors or for shop fabrication efforts. e. Any day for which the National Weather Service has forecasted a 50% or greater chance of precipitation or ½-inch or greater total rainfall on the day prior may be considered an adverse weather day regardless of whether precipitation actually occurs on that day. The Contractor will assume responsibility for monitoring the National Weather Service weather forecast on a daily basis during the Contract and notifying the City when an adverse weather day is predicted to occur. Notification will be given to the Engineer via e-mail or other written means delivered no later than 7am on the day the work will be performed. Adverse weather days will only be accounted for with this written notification delivered on time or as approved by the Project Engineer on the day of the occurrence and will not be accounted for as working days. f. Legal Holidays recognized by applicable collective bargaining agreements as requiring holiday pay may not be considered working days if no construction work is performed. g. City observed holidays are not working days and no construction work will be performed on such days. Holidays that occur on a weekend will be observed on a weekday. The following is a list of City-observed holidays:
• New Year’s Day
• Martin L. King Day
• President’s Day
• Memorial Day
• Juneteenth Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Veteran’s Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Day after Thanksgiving
• Christmas Eve
• Christmas Day
• New Year’s Eve
h. Erosion control and BMP measures shall be in place and maintained by the Contractor at all times during the Contract period.

14.45 4-8

4.2 REVISIONS TO CITY’S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

4.2.1 Insurance Requirements
Replace Section 3.07 of the City’s Standard Specifications with the following:

Contractor will procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, its/his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

A. CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS
The City will be issued a Certificate of Insurance (a Memorandum of Understanding will not be accepted) with the following minimum requirements:
• Certificate(s) will show current policy number(s) and effective dates, • Coverage and policy limits will meet, or exceed, requirements below, • The Certificate Holder will be City of Santa Cruz, Risk Management, 333 Front Street, Suite 200, Santa Cruz, CA 95060,
• Certificate will be signed by an authorized representative, • An endorsement will be provided to show the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds.

B. MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
Contractor acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. The City will be entitled to coverage for the highest limits maintained by Contractor. Coverage will be at least as broad as:
• COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (CGL): $2,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE; $2,000,000

AGGREGATE
Proof of coverage for $2 Million per occurrence including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury will be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit will apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit will be at least twice the required occurrence limit. • AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY:

Proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
• WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH STATUTORY LIMITS, AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

The Worker’s Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor and its employees.

14.46 4-9
(Not required if Contractor provides written verification it has no employees) - If Contractor has no employees, Contractor shall complete and sign a Workers’ Compensation Exemption Declaration and Release of Liability
C. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
If Contractor maintains broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above in section B, the City of Santa Cruz requires and shall be entitled to the broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Cruz.

The insurance policies are to comply with the following provisions:
• ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL and CPL policies with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage will be provided in the form of an endorsement to Contractor’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10 CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 (if a later edition is used).
• PRIMARY COVERAGE
For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor’s insurance coverage will be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents will be excess of Contractor’s insurance and will not contribute with it. • NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Each insurance policy required above shall state that the coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
• WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Contractor hereby grants to the City a waiver of any right to subrogation, except as otherwise not applicable, which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss, including attorney’s fees under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effectuate this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
• EXCESS LIABILITY/UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICIES
The excess/liability policies will provide similar coverage as the primary CGL policy with no new exclusions - Excess liability insurance must follow form the terms, conditions, definitions, and exclusions of the underlying CGL insurance. The excess/umbrella policy must also be written on a primary and noncontributory basis for an additional insured, and that it will apply before any other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers that person or organization as a named insured, and we will not share with that other insurance.

The policy regarding Limits of Insurance regarding Aggregates must provide that the aggregate limits if applicable shall apply in the same manner as the aggregate limits shown in the Schedule of the Underlying Insurance.

14.47 4-10
• SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City. • ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
• CLAIMS MADE POLICIES
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
• VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Contractor will furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL and CPL Policies listing all policy endorsements to be approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning will not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

D. SUBCONTRACTORS
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

E. SPECIAL RISKS/CIRCUMSTANCES
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances and provide notice to Contractor.

4.2.2 Trade Names and Alternatives
The last sentence of Section 6.05 of the City of Santa Cruz Standard Specifications is amended to read as follows:

The Contractor, pursuant to Public Contract Code, Section 3400 et seq., shall have at least 35 days after award of the Contract for submission of data substantiating a request for a substitution of “or equal” item.

14.48 4-11

4.2.3 Labor Discrimination
Add as a new final paragraph of Section 7.02 of the City of Santa Cruz Standard Specifications the following:

Furthermore, the City of Santa Cruz, as defined in Resolution NS-20,137 and Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.83, further prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, height, weight and physical characteristics. Contractor agrees to abide by all of the foregoing statutes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

4.2.4 Prevailing Wage
Replace Section 7.04 of the City’s Standard Specifications with the following:
a. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Contractor will be responsible for verifying compliance with all prevailing wage laws and regulations for all subcontractors.
b. As required by § 1770 and subsequent sections of the California Labor Code, the Contractor and all subcontractors will pay no less than the prevailing rate of wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations as applicable to the date of the Construction Agreement. c. A contractor or subcontractor will not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in the Labor Code, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work at the time the contract is awarded. Refer to DIR website, www.dir.ca.gov, to register and to find the correct wage rates and answers to questions related to prevailing wage requirements. d. The Contractor and all subcontractors must submit to the Labor Commissioner of the DIR, on regular intervals (weekly, biweekly, or monthly), electronic certified payroll records as specified by SB 854.

Payroll records will contain all the information required pursuant to Labor Code Section 1776 and be signed under penalty of perjury.
e. The Contractor will post job site notices prescribed by DIR regulation.

4.2.5 Public Safety
Add as a new first paragraph of Section 7.10 of the City of Santa Cruz Standard Specifications the following:

In accordance with generally accepted construction practices and applicable law, the Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the Work site, including safety of all persons and property during performance of the Work. This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. For purposes of California Labor Code Section 6400 and related provisions of law the Contractor and the Contractor’s privities and any other entities engaged in the performance of the Work will be “employers” responsible for furnishing employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees, if any, of such entities engaged in the performance of the Work. Neither the City nor its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers or Contractors will be “employers” pursuant to California Labor Code Section 6400 and related provisions of law with respect to the Contractor, the Contractor’s privities or other entities engaged in the performance of the Work.

14.49 4-12

4.2.6 Subcontracting
Replace Section 7.26 of the City’s Standard Specifications with the following:

The Contractor shall comply with Public Contract Code Sections 4100 et seq, inclusive, relating to subletting and subcontracting.

No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid or proposal for a public works project unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or enter into any contract for public work, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. By submitting a bid or proposal to the City, Contractor is certifying that he or she has verified that all subcontractors used on this public work project are registered with the DIR in compliance with Labor Code sections 1771.1 and 1725.5, and Contractor shall provide proof of registration to the City.

Space is provided in the Proposal for listing subcontractors, and their DIR registration information, to be employed on the Project.

In no case shall the use of subcontractors in any way alter the position of the Contractor or his/her sureties with relation to this Contract. When a subcontractor is used, the responsibility for every portion of the work shall still remain with the Contractor.

4.2.7 Protection of Public Utilities
Replace Section 7.27 of the City’s Standard Specifications with the following:

In accordance with California Government Code Section 4215, the City assumes the responsibility for the timely removal, relocation or protection of existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Work site if such utilities are not identified in the plans and specifications made a part of the invitation for bids. The City will compensate the Contractor for the costs of locating, repairing damage not due to the Contractor’s failure to exercise reasonable care, and removing or relocating existing main or trunk line utility facilities located at the Work site and not identified with reasonable accuracy in plans and specifications made a part of the invitation for bids. The City will also compensate the Contractor for the cost of equipment on the Project necessarily idled during such work. The Contractor will not be assessed liquidated damages for Work completion delays caused by the City’s failure to provide for removal or relocation of such main or trunk line utility facilities.

Nothing in this provision or the Contract Documents will be deemed to require the City to indicate the presence of existing service laterals or appurtenances whenever the presence of such utilities on the Work site can be inferred from the presence of other visible facilities, such as buildings, meter and junction boxes, on or adjacent to the Work site; provided, however, that nothing in this provision or the Contract Documents shall relieve the City from identifying main or trunk lines in the plans and specifications made a part of the invitation for bids.

Nothing in this provision or the Contract Documents will preclude the City from pursuing any appropriate remedy against the utility for delays which are the responsibility of the utility.

14.50 4-13
Nothing in this provision or the Contract Documents will be construed to relieve the utility from any obligation as required either by law or by contract to pay the cost of removal or relocation of existing utility facilities.

If the Contractor while performing the Work discovers utility facilities not identified by the City in the plans and specifications made a part of the invitation for bids, the Contractor must immediately notify the City and utility in writing.

Either the City or the utility, whichever owns existing main or trunk line utility facilities located on the Work site, shall have sole discretion to effect repairs or relocation work or to permit the Contractor to perform such repairs or relocation work at a reasonable price The Contractor will be required to work around public utility facilities that are to remain in place within the construction area or that are to be relocated and relocation operations have not been completed, and (s)he will be held liable to the owners of such facilities for any damage or interference with service resulting from his/her operations.

The exact locations of underground facilities and improvements within the construction area shall be ascertained by the Contractor before using equipment that may damage or interfere with service resulting from his/her operations. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to notify public utilities that (s)he is working in the vicinity of their facilities.

Other forces may be engaged in moving or reconstructing utility facilities or maintaining service of utility facilities, and the Contractor shall cooperate with such forces and conduct his/her operation in such a manner as to avoid unnecessary delay or hindrance to the work being performed by such other forces.

The City owns, operates and maintains its own water distribution and sewer collection systems and will cooperate with the Contractor insofar as it is reasonable and practicable. Water, as required for City projects, may be obtained at City-owned fire hydrants provided that application is made to the Water Department and permission obtained with provision for payment.

Full compensation for conforming to the requirements of this article, not otherwise provided for, shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the various contract items of work and no additional allowance will be made therefor.

4.2.8 Hours of Work
The first paragraph of Section 8.17 of the City of Santa Cruz Standard Specifications is amended to read as follows:

No work will be done between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., nor on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except with the permission of the Director, except in case of an emergency.

4.2.9 Partial Payment
Replace Section 9.06 of the City’s Standard Specifications with the following:

At monthly intervals, as fixed by the City, the Contractor will prepare an estimate in writing of the total amount of work done and the acceptable materials furnished and delivered by the Contractor on the

14.51 4-14
ground and not used, to the time of such estimate, and the value thereof. Acceptable materials shall be those materials which will become a part of the finished construction work. The basis for partial payments of lump sum or other unit Contract items will be determined by agreement between the Director and the Contractor. The City shall retain 5 percent of such estimated value of work done and 20 percent of the value of the materials so estimated to have been furnished and delivered and unused as aforesaid and shall pay at the established monthly intervals to the Contractor, while carrying on the work, the balance not retained as aforesaid, after deducting therefrom all previous payments and all sums to be kept or retained under the provisions of the Contract. No such estimate of payment shall be required to be made when, in the judgment of the Director the work is not proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Contract, or when in his/her judgment the total value of the work done since the last estimate amounts to less than $500. No such estimate or payment shall be considered to be an acceptance of any defective work or improper materials. All progress estimates and payments shall be subject to correction in the final estimate.

4.2.10 Final Payment
Section 9.07 of the City’s Standard Specifications is amended to replace the time period to pay any retained amount from “the 35 days after completion of the work and the filing of Notice of Completion and Acceptance . . . ” to “60 days . . . .”(in compliance with Public Contract Code 7107).

14.52 4-15

4.3 DAS Form 140 (From Rev. 1/04)

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD INFORMATION
Contract award information must be sent to your Apprenticeship Committee if you are approved to train. If you are not approved to train, you must send the information (which may be this form) to ALL applicable Apprenticeship Committee in your craft or trade in the area of the site of public work. Go to:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/das/PublicWorksFroms.htm for information about programs in your area and trade. You may also consult your local Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) office whose telephone number may be found in your local directory under California, State of, Industrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

Do not send this form to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards NAME OF YOUR COMPANY CONTRACTOR’S STATE LICENSE No.

MAILING ADDRESS, NUMBER & STREET, CITY , ZIP CODE AREA CODE & TELEPHONE No.

NAME & ADDRESS OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DATE YOUR CONTRACT EXECUTED

DATE OF EXPECTED OR ACTUAL START OF

PROJECT

NAME & ADDRESS OF PUBLIC AGENCY AWARDING CONTRACT ESTIMATED NUMBER OF JOURNEYMEN HOURS
THIS FORM IS BEING SENT TO: (NAME & ADDRESS OF APPRENTICESHIP

PROGRAM(S)

OCCUPATION OF APPRENTICE

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF APPRENTICE
HOURS

APPROXIMATE DATES TO BE EMPLOYED
This is not a request for dispatch of apprentices.

Contractors must make a separate request for actual dispatch, in accordance with Section 230.1 (a) California Code of Regulations Check One Of The Boxes Below

1.  We are already approved to train apprentices by the Enter name of Committee
Apprenticeship Committee. We will employ and train under their Standards.

2.  We will comply with the standards of
Enter name of Committee
Apprenticeship Committee for the duration of this job only.

3.  We will employ and train apprentices in accordance with the California Apprenticeship Council regulations, including § 230.1 (c) which requires that apprentices employed on public projects can only be assigned to perform work of the craft or trade to which the apprentice is registered and that the apprentices must at all times work with or under the direct supervision of journeyman/men.

Signature Date
Typed Name
Title

14.53 4-16
State of California – Department of Industrial Relations DIVISION OF APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS

14.54 4-17

4.4 DAS Form 142 (From Rev. 9/03)

REQUEST FOR DISPATCH OF AN APPRENTICE
(Do not send this form to DAS)
You may use this form to request dispatch of an apprentice from the Apprenticeship Committee in the craft or trade in the area of public work. Go to: http://www.dir.ca.gov/das/PublicWorksForms.htm for information about programs in your area and trade. You may also consult your local Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) office whose telephone number may be found in your local directory under California, State of, Industrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

Date:

To Applicable Apprenticeship Committee:

Address:

Telephone: Fax:

Contractor Requesting Dispatch:

Address:

Telephone: Fax:

Person Making Request:

Number of Apprentice(s) Needed: Craft or Trade:

Date Apprentice(s) to Report: (48 hours notice required) Name of Person to Report to:

Address to Report to:

Time to Report:

You may use this form, or make a verbal or written request, to ask for the dispatch of an apprentice. Please take note of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 230.1 (a) which says in part: if in response to a written request an Apprenticeship Committee does not dispatch any apprentice to a contractor who has agreed to employ and train apprentices in accordance with either the Apprenticeship Committee’s Standards or these regulations within 72 hours of such request (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) the contractor will not be considered in violation of this section as a result of failure to employ apprentices…

14.55 4-18

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

WATER DEPARTMENT

GOOD FAITH EFFORT STATEMENT FOR LOCAL HIRE
In conformance with Section 7.03 of the City Standard Specifications and Chapter 3.10 of the Municipal Code, each Contractor and subcontractor will complete and submit this Statement following Award of Contract and prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed.

Project Title:

Name of Person Completing Statement:

Contractor of subcontractor:

Date Statement Completed:

Address:

Contractor (or subcontractor) estimates that fifty percent (50%) or more of its workforce for this project meets the local hire requirements of this contract:  Yes  No* *If no, complete the following table:

Name & Address of Local
Recruitment Source
Date of Recruitment
Contact
Person Contacted &
Phone #
Trade & Classification
# of Hire Referrals
Requested
# of Local Hire(s) Made as
Result of Contact
Name & Address of Local
Hire(s), as a Result of
Contact
(Additional Sheets May Be Attached As Needed)

14.56 4-19

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

WATER DEPARTMENT

LOCAL HIRE RESIDENCY COMPLIANCE
Prevailing wage statements will be deemed acceptable documentation to accurately record hiring information required to comply with Chapter 3.10 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Local Hiring.

However, the following information will accompany the prevailing wage statement.

For pay period ending
I. For each employee, complete residency compliance by marking the appropriate box.

Employee Name a. Resident of the County of
Santa Cruz for at least one
year preceding date of
Award of Contract, or
b. A member of a Building Trade
Journeyman, or Building Trade
Apprentice program whose
organization has jurisdiction
over all or part of Santa Cruz
County.

1.  Yes  No  Yes  No

2.  Yes  No  Yes  No

3.  Yes  No  Yes  No

4.  Yes  No  Yes  No

5.  Yes  No  Yes  No

6.  Yes  No  Yes  No

7.  Yes  No  Yes  No

8.  Yes  No  Yes  No
Apprentice  Yes  No  Yes  No
(Duplicate as necessary)
II. Calculate total weekly project local hiring percentage based on personnel and hours reported on prevailing wage statement. %
III. Calculate cumulative total project local hiring percentage based on personnel and hours reported on prevailing wage statement. %

14.57 5-0

5. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Technical Specifications

5.1.1 Submittals
The Contractor will submit 3 copies of the project schedule and information submittals for all materials required for the installation of the large wood structures. Deliver submittals to the City Project Manager at the address specified in the Bidding Requirements. Submittals should be submitted within thirty (30) days after receiving Notice to Proceed to allow the City of Santa Cruz Water Department sufficient time to verify compliance with the requirements of the City of Santa Cruz Water Department Standard Technical Specifications.

5.1.2 Underground Utilities
The locations of all underground utilities are approximate and so indicated on the attached plans. The accuracy and completeness of the locations are not guaranteed and, therefore, it will be the Contractor’s responsibility to contact all the owners of underground utility facilities regarding the locations. The Contractor will accurately locate all utilities by pot-holing, or other proven acceptable methods, before construction is started.

Unless otherwise specified in writing from the concerned utility company, the Contractor will be responsible for keeping all gas, sewer, electrical, water, cable television, telephone, and all other residential service lines connected and in operation at all times.

Should the Contractor disturb, disconnect, or damage any utility lines, regardless of whether such lines are or are not shown on the Plans, the Contractor will contact the appropriate utility company immediately and all expense of repair or replacement thereof will be borne by the Contractor.

In particular, the Contractor should note that sewer laterals are not owned by the City and, therefore, accurate information concerning the location of sewer laterals may not be available.

5.1.3 Traffic Control
Throughout the performance of the work under this contract, the Contractor will at all times have a minimum of one (1) lane open to traffic. It the traffic is re-routed over or around existing traffic lanes, the new traffic lanes will be adequately marked by flagmen, barricades, and/or lights. The layout and routing of traffic will be approved by the City Project Manager before any change is made and will be in accordance with Caltrans Traffic System for Lane Closure, Drawing T13. All lanes, except the actual work area, will be open for traffic between 4:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. daily, and at all times on weekends and holidays.

All roadway restrictions will be marked twenty-four (24) hours a day by flagmen, barricades, and/or lights, as specified in the Water Department Standard Specifications.

Requirements of this section will be at no additional expense to the City unless otherwise noted in writing.

5.1.4 Clean-up of Site and Erosion Control
The Contractor will keep the construction sites in a neat and sanitary condition at all times. The Contractor will remove all trash and excess excavated material from the sites If dust problems should occur, dust control will be provided by the Contractor in a manner approved by the City Project Manager

14.58 5-1
at no additional expense to the City. At the start of the project, Contractor will place filter fabric in all storm drain inlets in the project area so as to prevent soil particles from entering.

The Contractor must prevent soil particles from leaving the site during rain events. At a minimum, install the following sediment control measures before any forecasted rain:

1. Install gravel-bag check dams in gutters flowing from the construction site at 50-foot maximum intervals between the site and the nearest drop inlet. Install check dams such that water pools in the gutter, but does not overtop the sidewalk, or pool onto private property, or driveway approaches. Gravel-bag check dams will be cleaned after each rain event to remove any soil that has accumulated.

2. Install gravel-bag dams around storm drain drop inlets. Do not block the drop inlets with filter fabric. Gravel-bag check dams will be cleaned after each rain event to remove any soil that has accumulated.

3. Encircle the disturbed areas with fiber-roll, silt fencing, or gravel bags and filter fabric, or similar to prevent sediment transport away from the site.

4. Cover stockpiles with plastic. Secure the plastic with gravel bags or stakes so that it will not blow away. Encircle the bases of stockpiles with fiber roll, hay bales, or gravel bags and filter fabric
If the Contractor fails to implement sediment control measures in accordance with this section and all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations and requirements pertaining to storm water discharges, it is understood that City will suffer damage; and it being impracticable and infeasible to determine the amount of the actual damage, it is agreed that Contractor will pay the City, as fixed and liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, the sum of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars per occurrence, and Contractor and his/her surety will be liable for the amount thereof, provided, however, that Contractor will not be charged these liquidated damages due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Contractor as determined by City.

5.1.5 Inspection
All work done and all materials and equipment furnished under this Contract will be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Project Manager and authorized inspectors. The City Project Manager and City Project Manager's representatives will at all times have access to the work during its construction and will be furnished with every reasonable facility and assistance for ascertaining that the materials and the workmanship are in accordance with the requirements and intent of the Contract Drawings and Specifications.

The Contractor will notify the City upon arrival of any material or equipment to be incorporated into the work and will remove protective covers or otherwise provide access in order that the City may inspect such items upon request.

Properly authorized inspectors will be considered to be representatives of the City Project Manager. It will be their duty to inspect those portions of the work to which they are assigned.

An inspector will have the authority to order the work entrusted to the inspector's supervision stopped, if in the inspector's opinion such action becomes necessary until the City Project Manager is notified and has determined that the work may proceed to fulfill all Contract requirements.

14.59 5-2
The inspection of the work does not relieve the Contractor of the obligation to fulfill the Contract as prescribed. Any work, materials or equipment not meeting the requirements and intent of the Drawings and Specifications may be rejected and unsuitable work or materials will be made good.

Any work constructed without inspection as provided above or constructed contrary to the instructions or orders of the City Project Manager or City Project Manager's authorized representative must, if requested by the City Project Manager, be made available for examination and properly reconstructed at the Contractor's expense.

Construction inspection of those items of work pertaining to the various utilities involved will also be subject to the utility company's inspection.

The Contractor will notify the City Project Manager at least 48 (forty eight) hours in advance of work, verbally, with a follow-up in writing, whenever any of the following applies:

1. Starting work or

2. Suspending work or

3. Starting work after suspension of operation

5.1.6 Coordination of Work with Others
Nothing herein contained will be interpreted as granting the Contractor exclusive occupancy of the site of the work. Contractor will not cause any unnecessary delay to any other contractor working on any project, which encompasses the work. If the performance of any work is likely to be interfered with by the simultaneous execution of some other contract or contracts, City will decide which contractor will cease work temporarily and which contractor will continue, or whether the work can be coordinated so that the contractors may proceed simultaneously.

The City reserves the right to do work with its own forces or to let other contracts for work on or contiguous to the work set forth in these Plans and Specifications.

The City will not be responsible for any damage suffered or extra costs incurred by the Contractor resulting directly or indirectly from the award or performance or attempted performance of any other contract or contracts on the work, or caused by any decision or omission of City respecting the order of precedence in the performance of the Contract awarded for the completion of the work.

5.1.7 Street Sweeping
The Contractor will keep the construction sites and staging area in a neat and sanitary condition at all times. The Contractor will remove or secure all trash and excess excavated material from the site as required by these special provisions. If visible dust should occur, dust control will be provided by the Contractor.

The Contractor will sweep streets around the construction site on a daily basis as needed.

Street sweeping must be done at:

14.60 5-3

1. Paved roads near Contractor’s staging area(s)

2. Wherever construction activities have distributed debris on the roadway

5.1.8 Site Safety and Security
The Contractor will be solely responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work. Contractor will take all necessary precautions for the safety of and will provide the necessary protection to prevent damages, injury, or loss to: (1) all persons on the Site or who may be affected by the Work; (2) all the Work and materials and equipment to be incorporated therein, whether in storage on or off the Site; and (3) other property at the Site or adjacent thereto, including trees, shrubs, pavements, roadways, structures, utilities, and underground facilities not designated for removal, relocation, or replacement in the course of construction. Contractor will comply with all applicable laws and regulations relating to the safety of persons or property, or to the protection of persons or property from damage, injury, or loss; and will erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for such safety and protection. Contractor will notify owners of adjacent property and of underground facilities and other utility owners when prosecution of the Work may affect them, and will cooperate with them in the protection, removal, relocation, and replacement of their property.

Contractor will be solely responsible for safety training and documentation. Contractor will provide the City with Contractor’s Injury and Illness Prevention Plan and site safety plan with designated safety officer. All employees will be current on all safety training and Contractor will provide training documentation for all employees.

The Contractor will furnish, erect, and maintain such fences, barriers, lights and signs and provide such competent flaggers and guards as are necessary to give adequate warning to the public of the construction and of any dangerous conditions to be encountered as a result thereof and direction for the safe movement of the public through or around the work. No material or equipment will be stored where it may interfere with the safe passage of public traffic, including bicyclists. At the end of each day's work and at other times when construction operations are suspended for any reason, the Contractor will remove all equipment and other obstructions from the roadway open for use by public traffic. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public travel way will be removed promptly.

The Contractor will ensure the site is secure at the end of each day and will comply with all Water Department and City security procedures.

5.1.9 Supervision and Superintendence
The Contractor will supervise and direct the Work competently and efficiently, devoting such attention thereto and applying such skills and expertise as may be necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Contractor will be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction, but the Contractor will not be solely responsible for the negligence of others in the design or selection of a specific means, method, technique, sequence, or procedure of construction that is indicated in and required by the Construction Documents.

14.61 5-4
The Contractor will be responsible to see that the completed Work complies with the Contract Documents.

The Contractor will designate and keep on the project at all times during its progress a competent superintendent who will not be replaced without written notice to the City. The superintendent will be the Contractor's representative at the site and will have authority to act on behalf of the Contractor. All communications given to the superintendent will be as binding as if given to the Contractor.

Whenever the superintendent is not present for a particular part of the Work where the City needs to clarify or interpret the Drawings or Specifications, or to reject materials or work performed, the City may inform the foreman or other worker in charge of the particular aspect of the Work. Information so given will be as binding as if given to the superintendent.

The Contractor will designate in writing an authorized representative who has the authority to represent and act for the Contractor before starting work.

A Contractors’ authorized representative will be present at the site of the work at all times while work is actually in progress on the Contract including but not limited to staging, maintenance, cleanup, or inspections. When work is not in progress and during periods when work is suspended, arrangements acceptable to the City Project Manager will be made for any emergency work which may be required.

5.1.10 Storage and Supply Management
No supplies, materials, or equipment will be stored on the public streets, sidewalks or right of ways. Short term storage of materials on site will be in designated areas only as approved by the Project City Project Manager.

5.1.11 Materials and Equipment
Material will be delivered, used, and stored for this Contract in a manner that eliminates discharge of material into the air, storm drain systems, or watercourses. The Contractor will store liquids, petroleum products, and substances listed in CFR Title 40, Parts 110, 117, and 302 in containers or drums approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and place them in secondary containment facilities. Secondary containment facilities will be impervious to the materials stored there for a minimum contact time of 72 hours. Secondary containment facilities will be covered during non-Working Days and when precipitation is predicted.

Secondary containment facilities will be adequately ventilated. The Contractor will keep the secondary containment facility free of accumulated rainwater or spills. After precipitation, or in the event of spills or leaks, accumulated liquid will be collected and placed into drums within 24 hours. These liquids will be handled as hazardous waste in accordance with the provisions in "Hazardous Waste" of these special provisions, unless testing determines them to be nonhazardous. Incompatible materials, such as chlorine and ammonia, will not be stored in the same secondary containment facility.

14.62 5-5
Materials will be stored in the original containers with the original product labels maintained in legible condition. Damaged or illegible labels will be replaced immediately. The secondary containment facility will have the capacity to contain precipitation from a 24-hour-long, 25-year storm (per County of Santa Cruz rainfall intensity curves, approximately 8 inches in 24-hours); and 10 percent of the aggregate volume of all containers, or all of the volume of the largest container within the facility, whichever is greater. The Contractor will store bagged or boxed material on pallets. Throughout the rainy season, bagged or boxed material will be protected from wind and rain during non-working days and when precipitation is predicted.

The Contractor will provide sufficient separation between stored containers to allow for spill cleanup or emergency response access. Storage areas will be kept clean, well-organized, and equipped with cleanup supplies appropriate for the materials being stored. The Contractor will repair or replace perimeter controls, containment structures, covers, and liners as needed. Storage areas will be inspected before and after precipitation, and at least weekly during other times. The Contractor will supply the Material Safety Data Sheet (Safety Data Sheet) to the City Project Manager for material used or stored. The Contractor will keep an accurate inventory of material delivered and stored at the construction site. Employees trained in emergency spill cleanup procedures will be present when hazardous materials or chemicals are unloaded. The Contractor will use recycled and less hazardous products when practical.

5.1.12 Stockpile Management
The Contractor will eliminate potential air and water pollution from stockpiled material including soil, paving material, or pressure treated wood. The Contractor may discontinue adding or removing material for up to 21 calendar days and a stockpile will still be considered active.

Material and soil stockpiles will be located away from gutters, storm drain inlets, and water bodies. The Contractor will protect active stockpiles with plastic cover or soil stabilization measures, and with linear sediment barrier when precipitation is predicted. Stockpiles will be protected from stormwater run-on and runoff. The Contractor will protect inactive soil stockpiles with a plastic or geotextile cover, or with soil stabilization measures at all times during the rainy season. A linear sediment barrier around the perimeter of the stockpile will also be used.

During the non-rainy season soil stockpiles will be covered and protected with a linear sediment barrier when precipitation is predicted. The Contractor will control wind erosion during dry weather as provided in Section 2.5, "Dust Control," of the City of Santa Cruz Water Department Water System Standard Specifications. Stockpiles of Portland cement concrete rubble, aggregate base, or aggregate sub-base will be covered with plastic or geotextile, or protected with a linear sediment barrier at all times during the rainy season, and when precipitation is predicted during the non-rainy season. Stockpiles of pressure treated wood will be covered with impermeable material and placed on pallets at all times during the rainy season, and when precipitation is predicted during the non-rainy season. The Contractor will repair or replace linear sediment barriers and covers as needed or as directed by the City Project Manager to keep them functioning properly. Sediment will be removed when it accumulates to 1/3 of the linear sediment barrier height. The total area occupied by stockpiles and spoils piles will not exceed 6000 square feet.

14.63 5-6

5.1.13 Temporary Controls
Contractor will provide and maintain methods, equipment, and temporary construction, as necessary to provide controls over environmental conditions at the construction site and adjacent areas. Remove physical evidence of temporary facilities at completion of Work.

5.1.14 Noise Control
Contractor’s vehicles and equipment will be such as to minimize noise to the greatest degree practicable. Noise levels will conform to the latest OSHA and City standards and in no case will noise levels be permitted which interfere with the work of the City or others. Noise producing activities will be limited to working hours only unless otherwise approved by the Project City Project Manager.

5.1.15 Dust Control
Contractor will be responsible for controlling objectionable dust caused by its operation of vehicles and equipment, clearing or for any reason whatever. Contractor will apply water and calcium chloride or use other methods subject to the City Project Manager's approval which will keep dust in the air to a minimum.

5.1.16 Water Control
Contractor will provide methods to control surface water and water from excavations and structures to prevent damage to the Work, the site, or adjoining properties. Control fill, grading and ditching to direct water away from excavations, pits, tunnels and other construction areas; and to direct drainage to proper runoff courses so as to prevent any erosion, damage or nuisance.

Prevent any water or materials other than permitted or natural storm water from entering any storm sewer system or drainage channel, in accordance with the rules and regulations of all applicable jurisdictions, by the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Provide, operate and maintain equipment and facilities of adequate size to control surface water. Dispose of drainage water in a manner to prevent flooding, erosion, or other damage to any portion of the site or to adjoining areas and in conformance with all environmental requirements. Comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations and requirements pertaining to storm water discharges. Failure to do so can result in the issuance of a Stop Work Order until such time as the site is brought into compliance.

The Contractor will inspect and if necessary, maintain water pollution BMP’s as follows:

1. Before a forecasted storm,

2. After precipitation that causes site runoff,

3. At 24-hour intervals during extended precipitation

4. On a predetermined schedule, a minimum of once every 2 weeks outside of the defined rainy season.

5. On a predetermined schedule, a minimum of once a week during the defined rainy season.

If the City Project Manager or the Contractor identifies discharges into surface waters or drainage systems causing or potentially causing pollution, or if the City Project Manager or the Contractor receives a written notice or order from a regulatory agency having jurisdiction, the

14.64 5-7
Contractor will submit a written report to the City Project Manager within 7 calendar days of the discharge, notice or order. The report will include the following information:

1. The date, time, location, and nature of the operation, type of discharge and quantity, and the cause of the notice or order, if applicable.

2. The water pollution control practices used before the discharge, or before receiving the notice or order.

3. The date of placement and type of additional or altered water pollution control practices placed after the discharge, or after receiving the notice or order.

4. A maintenance schedule for affected water pollution control practices The Contractor will train all employees and subcontractors regarding:

1. Material pollution prevention and control;

2. Waste management;

3. Non-storm water management;

4. Identifying and handling hazardous substances;

5. Potential dangers to humans and the environment from spills and leaks or exposure to toxic or hazardous substances. Training will take place before starting work on this project. New employees will receive the complete training before starting work on this project. Instructions for material and waste handling, storage, and spill reporting and cleanup will be posted at all times in an open, conspicuous, and accessible location at the construction site.

5.1.17 Pollution Control
Contractor will provide methods, means and facilities required to prevent contamination of soil, water or atmosphere by the discharge of noxious substances from construction operations.

Provide equipment and personnel, and perform emergency measures required to contain any spills, and to remove soils or liquids contaminated as a result of contactor's activities. Excavate and dispose offsite at a City approved location any contaminated soil or liquid and replace with suitable compacted fill and topsoil. The approved location will be submitted per Contract Section Submittals prior to the disposal of any contaminated soil or liquid. Take special measures to prevent pollutants of any harmful substances from entering public waters. Prevent disposal of wastes, effluents, chemicals, or other such substances adjacent to streams, or in a manner that they could enter surface waters, sanitary or storm sewers, in compliance with the rules and regulations of all applicable jurisdictions. Provide systems for control of atmospheric pollutants, prevent toxic concentrations of chemicals, and prevent harmful dispersal of pollutants into the atmosphere. Equipment used during construction will conform to all current federal, state and local laws and regulations.

The Contractor's responsibility for pollution control will continue throughout any temporary suspension of work. If the Contractor or the City Project Manager identifies a deficiency in the implementation of pollution control practices, the deficiency will be corrected immediately, unless an agreed date for correction is approved by the City Project Manager. The deficiency will be corrected before the onset of precipitation. If the Contractor fails to correct the deficiency by the agreed date or before the onset of precipitation, the City may correct the deficiency and deduct the cost of correcting deficiencies plus 15% overhead cost from payments due, or

14.65 5-8
payments that will become due to the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to conform to the provisions of this section, the City Project Manager may order the suspension of work until the project complies with the requirements of this section.

The Contractor will monitor the National Weather Service weather forecast (www.weather.gov) on a daily basis during the Contract. The Contractor may use an alternative weather forecasting service if approved by the City Project Manager. Appropriate pollution control practices especially BMP’s for water pollution control will be in place before precipitation.

5.1.18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Contractor will plan and execute construction and earth work by methods to control surface drainage from cuts and fills and from borrow and waste disposal areas. Prevent erosion and sedimentation by minimizing the areas of bare soil exposed at one time and providing temporary control measures such as berms, dikes and drains. Construct fills and waste areas by selective placement to eliminate surface silts or clays which will erode. Periodically inspect earthwork to detect any evidence of the start of erosion or sedimentation, apply corrective measures as required to control erosion and sedimentation. Plan and execute Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce tracking of materials offsite to the maximum extent practicable.

No land clearing, grading, or excavation will be done between October 15th and April 15th unless approved by the City Project Manager. Any deviation from this condition requires review and approval of a separate winter erosion control plan prior to beginning such construction. The Contractor will be responsible for implementing and maintaining site erosion and sedimentation control at all times.

If the Work is anticipated to occur between October 15th and April 15th a City approved storm water pollution control plan is required to be submitted by October 1st. Unnecessary grading and disturbing of soil will be avoided. Between October 15th and April 15th exposed soil will be protected from erosion at all times. Cover bare soils and slopes as soon as possible. Use one or more of the following to reduce the erosion potential from bare, exposed, or disturbed soil: rolled erosion control products (e.g. filter fabric, erosion control blankets, geotextiles), hydraulic mulch or hydroseeding, straw or wood mulch, seeding, vegetation planting, or other appropriate cover material. Do not use seeding or loose mulch on slopes greater than 3:1. Promptly repair or reinstall any erosion control measures and structural devices that were damaged during construction and maintain them so that they do not become nuisances with stagnant water, odors, insect breeding, heavy algae growth, debris, and/or safety hazards. Filter berms, fiber rolls, silt fences or other means will be employed to prevent sediment from leaving the work site or entering any watercourse.

At any time during construction, no turbid water or foreign materials will be permitted to enter any drainage channel, storm drain system or sanitary sewer system. Use of silt and grease traps, filter berms, fiber rolls or silt fences will be used to prevent such discharge.

All excavated material will be removed to an approved disposal site on a daily basis. Any material temporarily stockpiled in Contractor’s staging yard(s) will be covered with plastic, especially during the winter months or during periods of rain.

14.66 5-9
All projects that include ground disturbance must include a stabilized construction access/exit, unless construction vehicles and equipment will remain on paved surfaces at all times during construction. Any material tracked out of the construction area by construction vehicles will be promptly swept up. It is the Contractor's responsibility to see that additional measures, necessary to control site erosion and prevent sediment transport off-site are implemented.

All work on the site is subject to review and approval of the City of Santa Cruz or their agent.

5.1.19 Water Quality
The contractor shall ensure project activities do not pose a threat to aquatic life through impacts to water quality in Newell Creek. Water quality goals for Newell Creek are as follows: where natural turbidity is between 0 and 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), increases shall not exceed 20 percent; where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs; where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 percent. The water quality goals described are for receiving waters. Compliance with the goals is measured in the downstream receiving water. Other parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, settleable solids) as indicated in the Central Coast Water Board Basin Plan and as deemed appropriate by Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff may also be required to be controlled. Allowable zones of dilution within which higher concentrations are allowable may be negotiated by the City with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

5.1.20 Solid Waste
The Contractor will provide enough dumpsters of sufficient size to contain the solid waste generated by the project. Dumpsters will be emptied when refuse reaches the fill line. Dumpsters will be watertight. The Contractor will not wash out dumpsters on the construction site. All spoils, including remnants of abandoned facilities will be legally disposed of at Contractor’s expense.

5.1.21 Sanitary and Septic Waste
Wastewater from sanitary sewer systems will not be discharged or buried within public right of way. The Contractor will inspect sanitary or septic waste storage and monitor disposal procedures at least weekly.

If portable toilets are used, the Contractor will conduct visual inspections for leaks and ensure that the leasing company properly maintains the toilets and promptly makes repairs as needed.

Place portable toilets on a level surface and to the extent practical, away from paved areas and storm drain inlets. Secure them to prevent blowing over. Provide secondary containment for portable toilets located within 20 feet of a stream, storm drain, or street.

14.67 5-10

5.1.22 Liquid Waste
The Contractor will not allow construction site liquid waste, including the following, to enter storm drain systems or watercourses:

1. Concrete slurries or fluids,

2. Liquid waste running off a surface including wash or rinse water, or

3. Other non-storm water liquids.

The Contractor will hold liquid waste in structurally sound, leak proof containers such as:

1. Sediment traps,

2. Containment pools, or

3. Portable tanks.

Liquid waste containers will conform to the requirements of the section entitled “Materials and Equipment” of these special provisions, and will be of sufficient quantity and volume to prevent spills and leaks. The Contractor will remove and dispose of deposited solids from sediment traps as provided in "Solid Waste" of these special provisions. Liquid waste may require testing to determine hazardous material content before disposal. If the City Project Manager determines that an appropriate location is available, fluids and residue exempt under California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 2511(g) may be dried by evaporation in a leak proof container.

The remaining solid waste may be disposed of as provided in "Solid Waste" of these special Provisions.

5.1.23 Hazardous Waste
The Contractor will implement hazardous waste management practices when waste is generated on the construction site from the following substances:

1. Petroleum products,

2. Asphalt products,

3. Concrete curing compound,

4. Pesticides,

5. Acids,

6. Paints,

7. Stains,

8. Solvents,

9. Wood preservatives,

10. Roofing tar, and

11. Materials classified as hazardous by California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division

4.5; or listed in CFR Title 40, Parts 110, 117, 261, or 302. Nothing in these special provisions will relieve the Contractor of the responsibility for compliance with Federal, State, and local laws regarding storage, handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The WPCM will oversee and enforce hazardous waste management practices. Production of hazardous materials and hazardous waste on the construction site will be kept to a minimum. Perimeter controls, containment structures, covers, and liners will be repaired or replaced when damaged.

The Contractor will have a laboratory certified by the Department of Health Services (DHS) sample and test waste when hazardous material levels are unknown to determine safe methods for storage and disposal. The Contractor will segregate potentially hazardous waste from

14.68 5-11
nonhazardous waste at the construction site. Hazardous waste will be handled, stored, and disposed of as required in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Section 66262.34; and in CFR Title 49, Parts 261, 262, and 263.

The Contractor will store hazardous waste in sealed containers constructed and labeled with the contents and date accumulated as required in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division

4.5; and in CFR Title 49, Parts 172, 173, 178, and 179. Hazardous waste containers will be kept in temporary containment facilities conforming to the provisions in "Materials and Equipment” of these special provisions. There will be adequate storage volume and containers will be conveniently located for hazardous waste collection. Containers of hazardous waste will not be overfilled and hazardous wastes will not be mixed. Containers of dry waste that are not watertight will be stored on pallets. The Contractor will not allow potentially hazardous waste to accumulate on the ground. Hazardous waste will be stored away from storm drains, watercourses, moving vehicles, and equipment. The Contractor will clean water based or oil based paint from brushes or equipment within a contained area and will not contaminate soil, watercourses, or storm drain systems. Paints, thinners, solvents, residues, and sludges that cannot be recycled or reused will be disposed of as hazardous waste. When thoroughly dry, latex paint and paint cans, used brushes, rags, absorbent materials, and drop cloths will be disposed of as solid waste.

The Contractor will dispose of hazardous waste within 90 calendar days of being generated.

Hazardous waste will be disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste transporter using uniform hazardous waste manifest forms. A copy of the manifest will be provided to the City Project Manager upon request.

5.1.24 Water Conservation
The Contractor will implement water conservation practices when water is used on the construction site. Paved areas will be swept and vacuumed, not washed with water. Construction water runoff, including water from water line repair, will be directed to areas to infiltrate into the ground and will not be allowed to enter storm drain systems or watercourses, unless approved by the City Project Manager.

5.1.25 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
The Contractor will limit vehicle and equipment cleaning or washing on the construction site to the extent necessary to control vehicle tracking or hazardous waste. Vehicles and equipment will not be cleaned on the construction site with soap, solvents, or steam. The Contractor will not use diesel fuel to clean vehicles or equipment, and will minimize the use of solvents. The Contractor will clean or wash vehicles and equipment in a structure equipped with disposal facilities. If using a structure is not possible, vehicles and equipment will be cleaned or washed in an outside area with the following characteristics:

1. Located at least 50 feet from storm drainage systems or watercourses,

2. Paved with AC, HMA, or Portland cement concrete,

3. Surrounded by a containment berm, and

4. Equipped with a sump to collect and dispose of wash water.

14.69 5-12
When washing vehicles or equipment with water, the Contractor will use as little water as possible. Hoses will be equipped with a positive shutoff valve. Wash racks will discharge to a recycle system or to another system approved by the City Project Manager. Sumps will be inspected regularly, and liquids and sediments will be removed as needed.

5.1.26 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling and Maintenance
The Contractor will fuel or perform maintenance on vehicles and equipment off the construction site whenever practical. When fueling or maintenance must be done at the construction site, the Contractor will designate a site, or sites, and obtain approval from the City Project Manager before using. The fueling or maintenance site will be protected from storm water, will be on level ground, and will be located at least 50 feet from drainage inlets or watercourses. The Contractor will inspect the fueling or maintenance site regularly. Fueling or maintenance outside of the designated maintenance site will be restricted to small equipment, such as j-tamps, handheld saws, etc. Fueling outside of the designated maintenance area will be restricted to less than 5 gallons.

The Contractor will use containment berms or dikes around the fueling and maintenance area.

Adequate amounts of absorbent spill cleanup material and spill kits will be kept in the fueling and maintenance area and on fueling trucks. Spill cleanup material and kits will be disposed of immediately after use. Drip pans or absorbent pads will be used during fueling or maintenance unless performed over an impermeable surface. Fueling or maintenance operations will not be left unattended. Fueling nozzles will be equipped with an automatic shutoff control. Vapor recovery fueling nozzles will be used where required by the Air Quality Management District.

Nozzles will be secured upright when not in use. Fuel tanks will not be topped-off. The Contractor will recycle or properly dispose of used batteries and tires.

5.1.27 Examination of Site
The Contractor will be held to have visited the site and be satisfied as to the conditions under which the work is to be performed. The Contractor will check existing conditions, which may affect the work required. No allowances will be subsequently made on the Contractor's behalf for any extra expense to which they may put due to failure or neglect to discover conditions affecting his/her work.

14.70 5-13

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF BID ITEMS
Item No.1: Mobilization/Demobilization
Mobilization will consist of preparatory work and operations, including, but not limited to those necessary for the movement of personnel, equipment, suppliers, and incidentals to the project site, for the establishment of all facilities necessary for work on the project; and for all other work and operations which must be performed or costs incurred prior to beginning work on the site.

Demobilization will consist of post-construction work and operations, including, but not limited to restoration of surfaces, site cleanup and restoration, movement of personnel, equipment, supplies, and incidentals from the project site, breakdown of all temporary facilities necessary for work on the project; and for all other work and operations which must be performed or costs incurred after the completion of construction work on the stie. After construction activities are completed, the site cleanup and restoration will include all labor, material, and equipment to return the site to the preconstruction condition Payment for mobilization/demobilization will be the lump sum price bid complete and accepted.

Item No.2: Site Preparation: Clearing and Grubbing; Erosion Control Consists of providing all labor, material, and equipment for preparation of the work site for construction activities, including but not limited to: necessary clearing and grubbing of vegetation, bushes, roots, trees, stumps, or other vegetative debris as allowed by project environmental permits; and installation and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures as required by project environmental permits.

Payment for site preparation, clearing and grubbing, and erosion control features will be the lump sum bid, complete and accepted.

Item No.3: Large Wood Habitat Structures, Recruited Onsite Wood (8 Key Logs, 4 Structure Logs, 1 unit Branch Packing Wood)
Consists of providing all labor, material, and equipment for felling, hauling, as needed, and placement in the stream channel of mature trees within the defined project area. Key logs are defined as trees with a minimum 24 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) and 80 – 100 feet in length. Structure logs are defined as trees with 12 – 24 inch DBH and up to 80 feet in length.

Branch packing wood is defined as logs less than 12 inches DBH and 20-40 feet in length.

Payment for large wood structures, recruited onsite wood, will be the lump sum price bid complete and accepted.

Item No.4: Large Wood Habitat Structures, Imported Wood (1 Key Logs, 5 Structure Logs) Consists of providing all labor, material, and equipment for felling, hauling, and placement in the stream channel of mature trees recruited outside the defined project area but within the City property boundaries.

Key logs are defined as trees with a minimum 24 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) and 80 – 100 feet in length. Structure logs are defined as trees with 12 – 24 inch DBH and up to 80 feet in length.

Payment for large wood structures, recruited onsite wood, will be the lump sum price bid complete and accepted.

14.71 6-14

6. PROJECT PLANS AND DRAWINGS
Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project Plans

14.72 Not For Bidding

PROJECT SITE

LOCH LOMOND

NEWELL CREEK

NEWELL CREEK ROAD
APN: 076-251-24
APN: 076-251-40

PROJECT SITE
1 7
JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY COVER SHEET LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C1
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\COVER_SHEET_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY:

A B C D E
1 2
3 4

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTESNEWELL CREEK LARGE WOODY MATERIAL

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CA

CONTACTS
cbec, INC.
cbec, INC.
cbec, INC.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

CHRIS HAMMERSMARK, PROJECT DIRECTOR

NICK SOUTHALL, PROJECT MANAGER

EVAN PESUT, PROJECT DESIGNER

MARYNA SEDORYK, WATER RESOURCES ANALYST

GAR EIDAM, CHIEF RANGER
(916) 668-5236
(916) 572-0182
(916) 572-0659
(831) 420-5475
(831) 251-7477

LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

SHEET LIST TABLE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE C1 COVER SHEET C2 GENERAL NOTES C3 EXISTING CONDITIONS, ACCESS & STAGING C4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS C5 NEWELL CREEK PROFILE C6 SECTIONS C7 LARGE WOODY MATERIAL STRUCTURE DETAILS LEGEND
EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ON (08/24/2022) REDWOOD GROVE EXTENTS APPROXIMATE SITE ACCESS ROAD LOCATION WATER LINE OVERHEAD POWER LINE KEY LOG - MIN 24" DBH, 80-100 FT LENGTH STRUCTURE LOG - 12-24" DBH, UP TO 80' LENGTH
BRANCH PACKING LOG - <12" DBH, 20-40' LENGTH

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING LOG
100

ABBREVIATIONS ELEVATION

LARGE WOODY MATERIAL MAXIMUM

MINIMUM

NOT TO SCALE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
ELEV
LWM

MAX MIN
N.T.S. WSE
NOTE: THE SURFACE SHOWN IN PLAN VIEW IS A COMPOSITION OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY LIDAR, BOWMAN & WILLIAMS SURVEY DATA (2019), AND CBEC SURVEY DATA (2022). THE COMPOSITE SURFACE IS TIED INTO THE STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM SPC (0403 CA) NAD83 AND NEWELL CREEK DAM ELEVATION DATUM. -- ##

INDICATES SECTION LABEL

INDICATES SHEET NUMBER

IN WHICH SECTION APEARS
W
OH NOTE: REPORT ALL HAZARDOUS SPILLS AND ILLEGAL DUMPING TO 911 AND SANTA CRUZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, (831) 454-2022

14.73 Not For Bidding
72 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTYGENERAL NOTES LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI NS CH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C2
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\GENERAL_NOTES_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY: A B C D E 1234

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES

GENERAL NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS
DEFINITIONS OWNER: CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEER/OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: CBEC AND AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTORS WILL ACT AS ENGINEER/OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. ENGINEER WILL COORDINATE AS NEEDED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, CONTRACTOR, AND SUBCONTRACTORS. GENERAL 1. SAFETY: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY AND SECURITY AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSESS RISK AND MAINTAIN SAFE OPERATIONS AT ALL TIMES. CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES SHALL ATTEND MANDATORY ORIENTATION. 2. PROTECTION: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL EXISTING FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPROVEMENTS, AND VEGETATION NOT PLANNED FOR REMOVAL OR MODIFICATION, AND SHALL REPLACE IN - KIND ANY DAMAGED FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPROVEMENTS, OR VEGETATION AT CONTRACTOR'S OWN EXPENSE. 3. COMPLIANCE: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING AWARE OF AND COMPLYING WITH ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND PERMITS APPLICABLE TO PERFORMING THE WORK. THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL COORDINATE WITH PROJECT ENGINEERS TO ENSURE CONTRACTORS ARE FULLY AWARE OF ALL PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES. OWNER SHALL PROVIDE CONTRACTOR WITH A COPY OF ALL PERMITS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSEMBLE A PERMIT BINDER AND CIRCULATE TO ALL OPERATORS AND FOREMEN FOR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR PROVIDING A PERMIT BINDER TO ALL SUBCONTRACTORS AND THEIR OPERATORS AND FOREMEN. PRECONSTRUCTION

4. OWNER SHALL COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR OF CONSTRUCTION NOTICE TO PROCEED. SEE TABLE 1. MOBILIZATION/SITE PREPARATION

5. SITE ACCESS: THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROUTE IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS (SHEET C3), WITH SECONDARY ACCESS ROUTES IDENTIFIED TO ACCESS PROJECT SITES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL SITE ACCESS AND STAGING LOCATIONS WITH THE ENGINEER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 6. WORK WINDOWS: ACCOUNTING FOR ALL MITIGATION AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, WORK MAY PROGRESS FROM JUNE 1 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30 AS GOVERNED BY WATER LEVELS AND SUITABLE AVOIDANCE OR CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOTA. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE LOW-FLOW PERIOD BETWEEN JUNE 15 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30 EXCEPT BY EXTENSION APPROVED BY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CDFW AND NOAA FISHERIES. 7. UTILITIES: KNOWN UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ITS OWN ASSESSMENT REGARDING

PRESENCE OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND VERIFY ALL UTILITY INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 8. CONTRACTOR'S STAGING AREA: TO BE APPROVED BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNER AND ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL STORE, MAINTAIN, AND REFUEL ALL EQUIPMENT IN A DESIGNATED LOCATION IN THE STAGING AREA. 9. EQUIPMENT STORAGE: DURING NON-WORKING HOURS OR DAYS, ALL VEHICLES SHALL BE STORED OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN OR ACTIVE CHANNEL ZONE. CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET ALL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE FOR CONTAINMENT AREAS FOR EQUIPMENT TEMPORARILY STORED IN THE FLOODPLAIN. 10. GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: MATERIAL SUBMITTALS ARE REQUIRED WHERE SPECIFIC MATERIALS OR GRADATIONS ARE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. SUBMITTALS SHALL BE NEAT, TYPE-WRITTEN AND INCLUDE DATE, SUBMITTAL NUMBER, AND INDICATE WHETHER IT IS A RESUBMITTAL. ALLOW FIVE BUSINESS DAYS FOR SUBMITTAL REVIEW AND COMMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITH THE STIPULATED WORK UNTIL RECEIVING WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. 11. WORK PLAN: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ON A PROPOSED WORK PLAN WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. THE WORK PLAN SHALL IDENTIFY KEY ITEMS OF THE WORK, EQUIPMENT TO BE USED, AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE INCLUDING DURATION AND MILESTONE DATES OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE WORK PLAN FROM THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE WORK PLAN TO THE ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED START OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. PROJECT REACH ISOLATION AND FISH RESCUE 12. THE DESIGN REACH (STA 9+50 TO 17+00) OF APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET WILL BE ISOLATED AT THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM ENDS WITH FISH EXCLUSION NETTING. RELOCATION OF FISH AND AMPHIBIANS WILL BE PERFORMED PER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES. OWNER TO NOTIFY AGENCIES 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO FISH RESCUE ACTIVITIES. LARGE WOOD MATERIAL PLACEMENT 13. SEQUENCE OF WORK: ALL TREES FOR HARVEST/SALVAGE WILL BE FLAGGED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 14. RIVER FLOWS: IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH ALL PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON WORK WINDOWS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER REGARDING AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO PERFORM WORK WITHIN THE CHANNEL BASED ON WATER YEAR TYPE AND ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING RIVER FLOWS AS WELL AS COMMUNICATING WITH OPERATORS RELATED TO ANY RAIN OR STORM EVENTS THAT COULD ENDANGER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 15. DIMENSIONS: DIMENSIONS CAN BE SCALED FROM THESE 22"x34" PLANS IF SCALEBARS SHOWN REFLECT THE STATED LENGTH PER 1” AS MEASURED ON PLANS WITH A SCALE. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION IF DIMENSIONING IS UNCLEAR OR INSUFFICIENT AND CONFIRM DIMENSIONS OF ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES WITH THE ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 16. AS-BUILT SURVEYS: WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE ENGINEER WITHIN 60 BUSINESS DAYS OF COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS WILL BE PLOTTED AT THE SAME SCALE AS THE DRAWINGS. 17. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING ALL WORK NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT DESIGN TO WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TOLERANCES UNTIL THE WORK CONFORMS TO DESIGN AND IS NOTED TO BE WITHIN TOLERANCE BY THE ENGINEER. ENGINEER WILL COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER WHO WILL ISSUE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. 18. COMPACTION: NO COMPACTION IS REQUIRED OTHER THAN THAT RESULTING FROM MACHINE TRACKING. 19. FLOODPLAIN GRADING: ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO THE ACTIVE CHANNEL. GRADING TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PERMIT CONDITIONS 20. PERMITS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS OBTAINED FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK. THESE PERMITS ARE ON FILE WITH THE OWNER AND COPIES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR AND BE AVAILABLE ONSITE IN A PERMIT BINDER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS FROM THE PERMITS. TABLE 1 SUMMARIZES THESE CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR MUST REFER TO PERMIT DOCUMENTS FOR FULL PERMIT LANGUAGE. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

21. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM THE WORK IN A MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH ALL PERMITS AND IS PROTECTIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING AIR AND WATER QUALITY, WILDLIFE, VEGETATION, AND HUMAN HEALTH. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, ASSOCIATED PENALTIES AND REQUIRED REMEDIAL MEASURES FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 22. EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION: TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF PLANT PATHOGENS, INCLUDING PHYTOPHTHORA, PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION ON-SITE, CONTRACTOR SHALL DECONTAMINATE ALL EQUIPMENT. a. VEHICLES, HEAVY MACHINERY, AND LARGE TOOLS (SUCH AS EXCAVATORS, TRENCHERS, GRADERS, INCLUDING TIRES, TRACKS, UNDERCARRIAGE OF ON-SITE VEHICLES, AND THEIR

TOOLS AND IMPLEMENTS) SHALL BE CLEANED FREE OF DEBRIS AND SOIL WITH HIGH PRESSURE WASHER AND DISINFECTED WITH PROPELLER™ (OR SIMILAR) FROM ANY PRIOR WORK SITE PRIOR TO ARRIVING TO THE PROJECT SITE. b. FOOTWEAR AND SMALL TOOLS (SUCH AS HAND TOOLS, SHOVELS, TROWELS, HOES, AND

PERSONNEL BOOTS) SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED OF DEBRIS AND SOIL THEN WIPED WITH SEVENTY (70) PERCENT ETHANOL OR ISOPROPANOL PRIOR TO USE WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. c. EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS MOVED OFF-SITE AND RETURNED LATER FOR USE WILL AGAIN REQUIRE DECONTAMINATION BY CONTRACTOR. 23. DISINFECT EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO WATERCOURSE. TO PREVENT SPREAD OF INVASIVE AQUATICS AND DISEASES, EQUIPMENT TO BE USED IN WATERCOURSE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO BOOTS, WADERS, HAND TOOLS, AND NETS SHALL BE DECONTAMINATED WITH A MINIMUM 5% CHLORINE SOLUTION FOR TWO MINUTES PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO A WATERCOURSE. IN ADDITION, IF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO AREAS HARBORING NEW ZEALAND MUD SNAILS, THEN THE EQUIPMENT SHALL EITHER BE DRIED OUT FOR TWO WEEKS, FROZEN FOR 48 HOURS, OR PLACED IN 55 C WATER FOR 5 MINUTES. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSPECTED BY CITY STAFF (RANGERS) PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO WATERCOURSE. 24. PRIOR TO MOBILIZING TO THE SITE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP A WORK PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) TO COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS SUMMARIZED IN TABLE 1. AT A MINIMUM, THE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE: · WRITTEN AND GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF BMP COMPONENTS INCLUDING FIGURES

SHOWING THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE DESIGNATED FUELING AREAS AND LOCATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES · A FUEL AND OIL SPILL PREVENTION PLAN AND EMERGENCY CLEANUP PLAN · A DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE TURBIDITY AND LIMIT MIGRATION OF SEDIMENT DURING WORK IN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL · SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL MEASURES IN THE EVENT A STORM EVENT OCCURS (OR IS PREDICTED) DURING CONSTRUCTION · SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED AFTER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR · A DESCRIPTION OF HOW ALL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SCHEDULING, SEQUENCING AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE WORK · METHOD FOR ACCOMMODATING HIGH STREAM FLOWS DUE TO REGULATED RELEASES AND/OR STORM EVENTS

25. IN THE EVENT THAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SITES, FEATURES, OR ARTIFACTS) ARE EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK OCCURRING WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE FIND SHALL IMMEDIATELY STOP UNTIL A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST, MEETING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS, CAN EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIND. THE ARCHAEOLOGIST WILL DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL STUDY IS WARRANTED. SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED, THE ARCHAEOLOGIST MAY INSTALL TEMPORARY FLAGGING AROUND A RESOURCE TO AVOID ANY DISTURBANCES FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. DEPENDING UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIND UNDER CEQA (14 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 15064.5(F); PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21082), THE

ARCHAEOLOGIST MAY RECORD THE FIND TO APPROPRIATE STANDARDS (THEREBY ADDRESSING ANY DATA POTENTIAL) AND ALLOW WORK TO CONTINUE. IF THE ARCHAEOLOGIST OBSERVES THE DISCOVERY TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDER CEQA, ADDITIONAL TREATMENT MAY BE REQUIRED. DEMOBILIZATION

26. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ALL ACCESS ROUTES TO THEIR PREDISTURBANCE CONDITIONS. REMOVE ANY RUTTING, PLACE SLASH MATERIAL OVER EXPOSED SOILS, AND SEED DISTURBED SOILS WITH CITY SUPPLIED NATIVE SEED MIX. VEGETATION LEGEND

SPECIES CODE/REFERENCE COMMON NAME ALD ALDER BAY BAY DBL DOUBLE

EUC EUCALYPTUS

FIR FIR MPL MAPLE PIN PINE RDWD REDWOOD
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PERMIT CONDITIONS

14.74 Not For Bidding 375
380
385
390
370
375
360
365
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00 17+00
18+00
19+00
20+00
360
360
395
390
385
375
380
365
370
375
380
380

NEWELL CREEK ROAD
SHEET C4
W

EXISTING RESIDENCE
EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE 1, N.T.S.

EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE 2, N.T.S.

EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE 3, N.T.S.

EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE 4, N.T.S.
36" FIR
7 TREE CLUSTER
8" TO 24" RDWDS
30" RDWD
18" RDWD
20" PIN
42" RDWD
48" RDWD
20" RDWD
30" RDWD
24" RDWD 20" FIR
40" FIR
36" RDWD
24" RDWD
36" RDWD
36" RDWD
24" MPL
20" MPL
36" RDWD
20" RDWD
24" RDWD
48" RDWD
30" RDWD
36" RDWD
20" UNKNOWN
24" UNKNOWN
48" FIR
20" ALD
16" RDWD
30" UNKNOWN
30" RDWD 32" RDWD
34" RDWD
28" RDWD
34" RDWD
22" RDWD
34" RDWD
24" ALD 32" RDWD
24" ALD - BRACING TREE
18" ALD - BRACING TREE
24" FIR
18" BAY
24" BAY
14" RDWD
30" FIR
18" ALD
40" RDWD
40" RDWD
24" RDWD
12" RDWD
20" RDWD
12" RDWD
36" RDWD
30" RDWD
36" RDWD

NEWELL CREEK

CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
APPROXIMATE SITE ACCESS. EXACT

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN

CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER, AND
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

FLOW

WATER SURFACE

ELEVATION
(08/24/2022)

MATERIALS STAGING AREA
APPROX. EXTENTS

LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED

IN THE FIELD BY OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.

NEWELL CREEK
WELL

ABANDONED WATER LINE OVERHEAD

POWER LINE
WATER
TANKS
SHED
DECK

EXISTING

SPOIL PILE

PROTECT EXISTING

REDWOOD GROVE

WITH CALTRANS

EXCLUSION FENCING
40" FIR

AVOID WATER TANKS,

TREATMENT SHED,

GENERATOR AND

PROPANE TANK
APPROX. LOCATION OF

LEACH FIELD AND LAWN

W/ SPRINKLER SYSTEM
SEPTIC
TANK
APPROX. LOCATION OF

LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION

AVOID STORAGE TANK,

WELL/SHED, AND PIPING

FROM NCP TO WATER

TANK AND WATER TANK

TO WELL/SHED

POWER POLE AND

IRRIGATION SYSTEM

ELECTRICAL

UNDERGROUND

TO HOUSE
2 - 18" RDWD
2 - 22" RDWD

PROTECT EXISTING

REDWOOD GROVE WITH

CALTRANS EXCLUSION

FENCING
73 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY EXISTING CONDITIONS, ACCESS & STAGING LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C3
0 120 FT
1" = 40' 40 80
NOTES:

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP EXISTING WOOD

STRUCTURES BY REMOVING LOOSE MATERIAL AND

DEBRIS FROM PRIOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, AS
DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. DEBRIS
INCLUDES 2 EXISTING CULVERTS, ONE UPSTREAM OF
EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE 1, AND ONE AT
APPROXIMATELY STA 16+50.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB THE CHANNEL,

RIPARIAN VEGETATION, OR BED CONDITIONS BETWEEN
ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AREAS.

3. VEHICLE STAGING AREA ON NEWELL CREEK ROAD ON
GRAVEL PAD NORTHWEST OF NEWELL CREEK BRIDGE.

LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\EC_ACCESS_STAGING_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY:

A B C D E
1 2
3 4

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES

14.75 Not For Bidding 375
370
360
365
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00 17+00
360
360
395
390
385
375
380
365
370
375
380
380
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00 17+00

NEWELL CREEK ROAD

EXISTING RESIDENCE

NEWELL CREEK

CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
12" RDWD
FELLED
20" RDWD
FELLED
30" RDWD
FELLED
36" FIR

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
7 RDWD, 8" TO 24"
ONE 24" RDWD

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
24" FIR
FELLED
30" FIR
FELLED
40" RDWD
FELLED
20" RDWD

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
40" FIR

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
24" RDWD

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
36" RDWD

FELLED AND HAULED

TO CHANNEL
32" RDWD
FELLED

TEMPORARY SITE
C
ACCESS
D
A
B
(5) 12" - 24", STRUCTURE LOGS

RDWD OR FIR

IMPORTED
24" MIN, KEY LOG

RDWD OR FIR

IMPORTED

PROTECT EXISTING REDWOOD

GROVE WITH CALTRANS

EXCLUSION FENCING
40" FIR
(IMPORTED)
W

NEWELL CREEK

MATERIALS

STAGING AREA

FUTURE LOW

WATER CROSSING

PROTECT EXISTING REDWOOD

GROVE WITH CALTRANS

EXCLUSION FENCING
74 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT PROPOSED CONDITIONS LARGE WOODY MATERIAL NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C4
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\PROPOSED_CONDITIONS_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY:

A B C D E
1 2
3 4

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES
0 90 FT
1" = 30' 30 60

TREE RECRUITMENT
SPECIES QUANTITY DIAMETER (IN) TYPE PROCUREMENT RDWD 2 20-24 STRUCTURE FELLED & HAULED RDWD 2 24-36 KEY FELLED & HAULED
FIR 2 36-40 KEY FELLED & HAULED
RDWD 3 30-40 KEY FELLED
RDWD 1 20 STRUCTURE FELLED
FIR 1 24 STRUCTURE FELLED
FIR 1 30 KEY FELLED
RDWD OR FIR 5 12-24 STRUCTURE IMPORTED
FIR 1 40 KEY IMPORTED
LEGEND
EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ON 08/24/2022 REDWOOD GROVE EXTENTS APPROXIMATE SITE ACCESS ROAD LOCATION KEY LOG - MIN 24" DBH, 80-100 FT LENGTH
STRUCTURE LOG - 12-24" DBH, UP TO 80' LENGTH
BRANCH PACKING LOG - <12" DBH, 20-40' LENGTH

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING LOG
100
NOTE:

IMPORTED MATERIAL TO INCLUDE TWO FIRS ON EXISTING SPOIL PILE AND FIR LOCATED ON NORTH BOUNDARY OF REDWOOD GROVE.

14.76 Not For Bidding ELEVATION ELEVATION

STATION
340
342
344
346
348 350
352
354
356
358 360
362
364
366
368 370
372
374
376
378 380
340
342
344
346
348 350
352
354
356
358 360
362
364
366
368 370
372
374
376
378 380
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00

EXISTING GROUND

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
ON 08/24/2022
DIRECTION OF FLOW CROSS SECTION D STA:11+30 CROSS SECTION C STA:12+10 CROSS SECTION B STA:15+10 CROSS SECTION A STA:15+70 BRANCH

PACKING
LOG

STRUCTURE LOG

KEY LOG
75 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY NEWELL CREEK PROFILE LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C5
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\PROFILE_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY: A B C D E 1234

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES
-- NEWELL CREEK PROFILE
C4 SCALE: H1" = 30', V1"=3'
LEGEND
KEY LOG - MIN 24" DBH, 80-100' LENGTH
STRUCTURE LOG - 12-24" DBH, UP TO 80' LENGTH
BRANCH PACKING LOG - <12" DBH, 20-40' LENGTH

14.77 Not For Bidding ELEVATION ELEVATION

STATION
350
360
370
380
390
400
350
360
370
380
390
400
0+00 0+92 ELEVATION ELEVATION

STATION
360
370
380
390
400
360
370
380
390
400
0+00 1+00 ELEVATION ELEVATION

STATION
350
360
370
380
390
350
360
370
380
390
0+00 1+00 1+40 ELEVATION ELEVATION

STATION
350
360
370
380
390
350
360
370
380
390
0+00 1+00 1+17

EXISTING
GROUND

EXISTING
GROUND

EXISTING
GROUND

EXISTING
GROUND
WSE ON
08/24/2022
WSE ON
08/24/2022
WSE ON
08/24/2022
WSE ON
08/24/2022
76 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SECTIONS LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C6
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\SECTIONS_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY: A B C D E 1234 DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES A STATION 15+70 SECTION C4 SCALE: H1" = 10'; V1" = 10' C STATION 12+10 SECTION
C4 SCALE: H1" = 10'; V1" = 10' B STATION 15+10 SECTION
C4 SCALE: H1" = 10'; V1" = 10' D STATION 11+30 SECTION
C4 SCALE: H1" = 10'; V1" = 10'
LEGEND
KEY LOG - MIN 24" DBH, 80-100' LENGTH
STRUCTURE LOG - 12-24" DBH, UP TO 80' LENGTH
BRANCH PACKING LOG - <12" DBH, 20-40' LENGTH

14.78 Not For Bidding

SIDE VIEW

PLAN VIEW

SIDE VIEW

1. DRILL 7/8 INCH HOLE THROUGH BOTH LOGS.

2. INSERT 3/4 INCH DIA, STAINLESS STEEL, FULLY
THREADED ROD (FTR). 3. INSTALL STAINLESS STEEL WASHER AND NUT ON EACH END OF FTR. 4. TIGHTEN NUTS ON EACH END AND CUT FTR WITH 1/2 INCH PROTRUDING FROM NUT. 5. STRIKE ENDS OF FTR TO MUSHROOM ROD TO SECURE NUT. 6. FILE OR GRIND OFF ANY SHARP EDGES.

PLAN VIEW

1. SECURE MANILA ROPE TO ANCHOR LOG. 2. WRAP FEATURE LOG 2 TIMES MINIMUM. 3. USE CLOVE HITCH TO SECURE ROPE. 4. LEAVE 1 FT MIN TAG END OF ROPE AND SECURE TO FEATURE ELEMENT WITH STAPLES, MIN. 2 INCHES OF EMBEDMENT. 1 INCH MANILA ROPE
3/4 INCH STAINLESS OR GALVANIZED
STEEL THREADED EYE BOLT WITH MIN.
2 INCH WASHER AND NUT

WHERE POSSIBLE,

REMOVE BARK

FROM LOGS AT

INTERSECTION

NOTCH LOG TO ENSURE FLAT

BEARING SURFACE FOR WASHER
A
B

BRACE RECRUITED WOOD ON

UPSTREAM SIDE OF EXISTING

TREES WHERE POSSIBLE AT THE

DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER
BRANCH

PACKING
LOG

STRUCTURE
LOG

KEY LOG
POOL
FLOW

TOP OF BANK
WSE

TOE OF BANK
RIFFLE

LOG TO LOG

CONNECTION

LOG TO LOG

CONNECTION
77 JANUARY 2023
22-1017 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY LARGE WOODY MATERIAL STRUCTURE DETAILS LARGE WOODY MATERIAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWELL CREEK CALIFORNIA (831) 420-5475 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 SANTA CRUZ 123 JEWELL STREET CITY OF JI CHCH NS, EP 100% PLANS
C7
LOCATION: d:\Work\Projects\22-1017_newell_creek_lwm_enhancement_project\400_Data\403_cad_emp\403_CAD\_DWGS\production\100percent\DETAILS_100p.dwg PLOT:1/27/2023 OF

JOB NUMBER DATE
SHEET DESIGNED DRAWN REVIEWED APPROVED USE OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF cbec, inc. CLIENT: PREPARED BY:

A B C D E
1 2
3 4

DOCUMENT RELEASE REVISION NOTES

LOG TO LOG CONNECTION DETAIL
1 WITH MANILA ROPE
-- NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL PLAN VIEW

NOT TO SCALE

A TYPICAL POOL SECTION
--

B TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
-- LARGE WOODY MATERIAL STRUCTURE NOTES: 1. DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ARE PENDING FINAL RECRUITMENT AND PROCUREMENT OF LARGE WOOD MATERIAL. 2. DUE TO VARIABILITY IN ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF MATERIALS, LARGE WOODY MATERIAL (LWM) STRUCTURES MAY VARY FROM THE TYPICAL DETAILS SHOWN. LARGE WOOD DIMENSIONS AND CONDITION SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BY PROJECT ENGINEER. 3. FORCE BALANCE CALCULATIONS WILL BE PERFORMED FOR ACTUAL LARGE WOOD SOURCED (DIMENSIONS AND SPECIES). ACTUAL INSTALLATION LOCATIONS AND ORIENTATION TO BE FINALIZED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. EACH LARGE WOODY MATERIAL STRUCTURE CAN CONSIST OF THREE LOG ELEMENTS/TIERS:
a. KEY LOG - A MINIMUM OF 24” DBH WITH LENGTH OF 80-100 FT, WITH OR WITHOUT INTACT ROOTWAD, AND INCLUDING THE TREE CROWN. b. STRUCTURE LOG - A 12-24” DBH LOG OF UP TO 80 FT IN LENGTH, WITH OR WITHOUT AN INTACT ROOTWAD, AND INCLUDING THE TREE CROWN. c. BRANCH PACKING LOGS - SMALLER DIAMETER LOGS AND BRANCHES LESS THEN 12” DBH AND AN OVERALL LENGTH OF 20-40 FT, ANCHORED BETWEEN AND BENEATH KEY LOGS AND STRUCTURE LOGS.

5. LOG ELEMENTS SHALL BE SEQUENCED IN THEIR PLACEMENT, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER, TO ENSURE GOOD STREAMBED CONTACT WITH THE LOWEST TIER OF LOGS. THE ACCELERATED WOOD RECRUITMENT APPROACH TYPICALLY AVOIDS PERMANENTLY ANCHORED STRUCTURES. WHERE POSSIBLE, WOOD WILL BE UNANCHORED AND SELF BALLASTED. LOGS SHALL BE DIRECTIONALLY FELLED, OR WINCHED AND BRACED BETWEEN, OR ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE, OF EXISTING STANDING TREES. FINAL LOCATIONS AND ANCHORING TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY PROJECT ENGINEER.

6. RECRUITED TREES SHALL BE FELLED BY EITHER CUTTING DOWN OF THE TREE (WEST SLOPE) OR PARTIAL EXCAVATION AND TIPPING OF THE TREE WITH THE ROOTWAD (EAST BANK). TREES NOT RECRUITED SHALL BE LEFT UNDISTURBED WHERE POSSIBLE. RECRUITED TREES WILL BE EITHER: a. DIRECTIONALLY FELLED INTO THE CHANNEL. b. FELLED UPSLOPE AND WINCHED INTO THE CHANNEL OR FINAL LOCATION. c. IMPORTED TO THE SITE FROM ELSEWHERE ON THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ PROPERTY. 7. LWM STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN SHEET C4 UNDER DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 8. THE NEED FOR FASTENING METHOD AND PRECISE LOG PLACEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED IN FIELD BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. SURFACE CONDITIONS, SUBSTRATE TYPE AND SPECIFIC LWM STRUCTURES GEOMETRY WILL DETERMINE APPROPRIATE FASTENING METHOD. POTENTIAL ANCHORING METHODS ARE PROVIDED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET. 9. LOG TO LOG CONNECTIONS WITH MANILA ROPE MAY BE USED TO ATTACH BRANCH PACKING LOGS TO STRUCTURE LOGS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER AND SHALL BE SECURED WITH 1-IN (MIN.) DIAMETER MANILA ROPE. ALL SLACK SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROPE CONNECTIONS. A CLOVE HITCH SHALL BE TIED AROUND EACH HABITAT FEATURE ELEMENT AND CINCHED AS TIGHT AS FEASIBLE. THE TAG END OF THE ROPE SHALL BE TRIMMED TO 1 FT BEYOND KNOT AND FASTENED TO THE FEATURE LOG WITH METAL STAPLES WITH MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES OF EMBEDMENT AS A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ROPE FROM SLIPPING. 10. LOG TO LOG CONNECTIONS WITH THREADED REBAR MAY BE USED TO ATTACH KEY LOGS TO STRUCTURE LOGS. LOG TO LOG CONNECTION DETAIL 2 WITH THREADED ROD
-- NOT TO SCALE

KEY LOG
WSE
WSE

STRUCTURE LOG

BRANCH PACK

BENEATH LOGS

AND IN STRUCTURE
VOIDS
BRANCH

PACKING LOG

NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

STRUCTURE LOG

LOG TO LOG

CONNECTION WITH THREADED
ROD, SEE DETAIL 2, C7

LOG TO LOG CONNECTION WITH THREADED
ROD, SEE DETAIL 2, C7

LOG TO LOG CONNECTION

WITH MANILA ROPE,
SEE DETAIL 1, C7

14.79 EXHIBIT A: Newell Creek Instream Habitat Restoration – Large Woody Debris Project Specific Specifications

14.80 Not For Bidding
DIVISION 01, SECTION 00 00 10

LARGE WOOD INSTALLATION
ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL

1.1.DESCRIPTION
A. Install logs and associated anchoring along the designated reach of Newell Creek, upstream of the access road bridge as indicated on the Construction Drawings and in compliance with Contract Documents.

B. Logs shall be placed along the general alignments and locations indicated in the Construction Drawings, unless otherwise instructed by the Owner’s Representative based upon field conditions.

C. All wood will be procured from the Owner’s property. The table below summarizes the wood species, quantity, diameter at breast height (in inches), and procurement method.

Species Quantity Diameter Type Procurement
Redwood 2 20‐24 Structure Felled & hauled
Redwood 2 24‐36 Key Felled & hauled
Fir 2 36‐40 Key Felled & hauled
Redwood 3 30‐40 Key Felled
Redwood 1 20 Structure Felled
Fir 1 24 Structure Felled
Fir 1 30 Key Felled
RDWD or
Fir
5 12‐24 Structure Imported*
Fir 1 40 Key Imported*
*Imported refers to elsewhere on the Owner’s property.

D. Note that the Construction Drawings identify tree species and sizes to use and are intended to represent the work to be done. The actual materials to be used will be those available on site. As such, material shapes are variable and have not been determined. Structure details may vary according to available materials and will be determined during construction by the Owner’s Representative.

E. Field fitting may be required to place and orient the large woody material (LWM) structures in the channel. Field fitting will be coordinated between the Contractor and Owner’s Representative during construction.

F. Owner’s Representative shall be on site for the duration of wood installation. Contact Owner 3 weeks prior to installation to schedule work.

1.2. SUBMITTALS
A. Contractor is required to attend a pre‐construction site inspection to identify trees to use, and to confirm LWM structure installation sequencing.

B. Contractor shall prepare a Construction Plan for Owner’s Representative to approve.

The plan shall identify specific trees to be used, how they are to be relocated, and limbing/bucking methods if deemed necessary. Contractor shall provide equipment and

14.81 Not For Bidding
methods, sequencing, travel plan, and contingency planning, noting any variances from Construction Drawings.

1. Contractor shall minimize impacts to creek and banks. The methods and equipment portion of the Construction Plan shall identify ways that impacts will be avoided.

2. Owner’s Representative approval is required prior to construction. Contractor shall provide the Construction Plan to the Owner’s Representative at least 1 week prior to construction.

1.1. QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Contractor shall provide proper quality control measures to assure compliance with specified requirements.

ARTICLE 2 – PRODUCTS

2.1. MATERIAL SOURCE
A. Available logs and rootwads and their locations are described in the Construction Drawings. If additional large wood is required, the Property Owner’s preference is to harvest it on site with the approval of the Owner’s representative (City Forester).

2.2. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
A. Recruited and Imported trees must be of minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 12 inches to be acceptable for logs and rootwads.

1. Key Logs, minimum 24" DBH, 80‐100 ft length

2. Structure Logs, 12‐24" DBH, up to 80 ft length

3. Branch Packing Log, <12" DBH, 20‐40 ft length.

B. Sources for imported logs and rootwads shall be approved by the Property Owner prior to import. Ground based logging equipment must be used to load and unload.

Approved species shall be from the following:

1. Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)

2. Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

3. Other species approved by the Owner’s Representative C. Pressure treated or otherwise chemically treated logs will not be allowed under any circumstances.

D. Limbing and Bucking.  Limbing and bucking of Structure Logs and Branch Packing logs may be required to ensure good bed contact between logs and channel substrate.

E. The Contractor shall furnish all materials, tools, equipment, facilities, and services as required for performing the necessary log placement work. Provide back‐up equipment as necessary for replacement and for unanticipated emergencies.

F. Contractor to provide 1 inch diameter manilla rope and galvanized steel staples for attaching the rope to logs. The staples shall be wide enough to fit over the rope without puncturing it (min. 1 1/16 inches) and long enough to provide 2 inches minimum embedment in logs (min. length 3 inches).

G. Contractor to provide 1 inch threaded rebar or all thread (stainless steel or galvanized steel), nuts, and washers, or approved equal.

14.82 Not For Bidding
H. Alternative fastening methods must be approved prior to implementation and inspected after implementation by the Owner’s Representative.

ARTICLE 3 – EXECUTION

3.1. GENERAL
A. Work location is a sensitive environment. No equipment is allowed to enter the channel.

Take measures to minimize impacts to the channel during construction.

B. Recruited trees will be felled by either cutting down or partial excavation and tipping of the tree with the rootwad. Trees not recruited shall be left undisturbed where possible.

C. Recruited trees will either be:

1. Directionally felled into the channel

2. Felled away from the channel and winched into place

3. Imported to the channel from elsewhere on the City of Santa Cruz Property, as designated in the engineering plans.

D. Preserve tree structure/limb trees as appropriate to comply with channel bed or to create a blockage. Limb or buck trees only as needed to fit in the channel or to suit structural needs.

E. Transport imported trees carefully using appropriate ground based logging equipment, avoiding dragging and dropping, and using existing roads and trails wherever possible.

3.2 INSTALLATION
A. Because of the procedural and technical complexities associated with the execution of large wood projects that rely on directional falling, installation must be completed under the responsible charge of a forester licensed in the State of California.  An experienced licensed timber operator is required to conduct the felling of the trees.

B. Build log structures according to the Construction Plan: Owner’s Representative shall review and approve contractor’s Construction Plan prior to construction. Owner’s Representative will provide on‐site guidance during construction for sequencing, log placement, and anchoring.

C. Ground based logging equipment shall be used to construct large wood treatments and will not enter the channel. Ground based logging equipment may include rubber‐tired grapple skidder, a rubber‐tired backhoe, or a tracked excavator.  Ground‐ or vehicle‐ based winches may also be used to haul material into the channel.

D. Anchoring will be achieved passively by bracing against existing trees, or by securing logs under larger, heavier logs, as directed by Owner’s Representative. Anchoring may consist of structural retainment using manilla rope or threaded rebar pins with washers and nuts, at the direction of the Owner’s Representative.  Rock ballast will not be used for anchoring.

E. At completion of construction, Contractor shall remove all construction related materials and debris and treat all access routes and skid trails with locally generated slash.  The slash shall be track‐walked and compacted into the ground. Seed disturbed ground with Owner‐supplied seed mix.

END OF SECTION

14.83 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/28/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s Approval of Parking Removal on Laurel Street as part of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan (m400029) (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street; and
2) Direct staff to investigate additional diagonal parking on Myrtle Street with neighbors.

BACKGROUND: The Pure Water Soquel project has completed the underground piping phase of their project on Laurel Street and has begun restoring the roadway over the pipeline. The restoration includes rebuilding the pedestrian islands at Felix Street and Blackburn Street, microsurfacing the roadway, and striping the restored surfaces. The pedestrian islands will be widened to improve comfort for pedestrians and aligned to reduce impacts from turning vehicles. The Pure Water Soquel project is responsible for the described construction effort which gives the City of Santa Cruz (City) a quick and cost-effective opportunity to improve Laurel Street. The improvements are expected to occur in Spring 2023.

Laurel Street is a minor arterial that connects the Westside and Seabright neighborhoods east to west through downtown. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 25 miles-per-hour. There are two METRO routes, the 15 and 18, that connect downtown and UCSC via Laurel Street and run at a combined headway of 15 minutes qualifying the roadway as a “major transit corridor”.

The roadway was last significantly modified in 2012 when the left-turn lanes at Walti Street, Felix Street, and Blackburn Street were added with two pedestrian islands mentioned above. The improvements reduced the crash rate along the corridor from a two-year average of 8 crashes per year in 2012 to 2.5 crashes per year in 2019. Other minor improvements, including the addition of green lanes, have been installed to improve multimodal safety. The Local Roadway Safety Plan, completed in 2021, identified Laurel Street as a priority corridor city-wide for improvements because of the number of crashes still occurring.

A new striping plan was developed for Laurel Street to improve the existing features which have been shown to reduce crashes and add new safety features such as separated bicycle lanes, green

15.1 conflict, wider pedestrian islands, and daylighting of intersections at side streets. In order to implement the proposed improvements, the striping plan proposed converting the space used for on street parking to bike and pedestrian facilities. When parking is modified, the City notices neighbors to provide an opportunity for a public appeal to the Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) consistent with municipal code 10.16. Additionally, roadway improvements plans are shared with the Commission prior to bringing them to Council.

The initial plan and parking removal appeal were presented at the January 23, 2023 TPWC meeting. The plan was supported by all seven of the TPWC commissioners with the conditions described below. The parking appeal was denied 5-2, meaning parking reduction on the corridor was supported. That denial of the appeal at TPWC was appealed to Council and is the subject of this report. Since the TPWC meeting, staff have investigated the conditions and reviewed how to mitigate concerns about parking removal.

The TPWC conditions were reviewed and are responded to as follows:

1. If the geometry of the Walti and Felix intersections would allow an equal safety benefit with less than 20 feet of daylighting.

Staff modified the striping plan after reviewing the available sight distance at each sidestreet and was able to reduce the length of the daylighting in some locations. That analysis is provided as an attachment.

2. Removal of the possibly-dead tree at Walti
Staff is working with code-compliance and the City Arborist to contact the property owner in compliance with municipal code 13.30 “Clear Vision Area”.

3. Ways to reduce downhill speed on Laurel with striping Staff modified the striping plan with buffer and posts adjacent to the downhill lane to reduce the apparent roadway width which can reduce speed. Additionally, there are already speed reduction markings with “SLOW” text included in the striping plan.

4. Signage to warn downhill cyclists of left turning cars Staff modified the striping plan to include warning and regulatory signs at the turn conflicts.

5. To keep in mind opportunities for improving lighting on the corridor.

Laurel Street lighting is provided by Pacific Gas and Electricity. There are opportunities to increase the number of streetlights on existing utility poles however, that would require capital and operating expenses beyond the scope of this project.

6. Have staff explore the removal of the eastbound righthand turn lane at the intersection of Laurel & Chestnut, replacing with a barrier protecting the westbound and eastbound bicycle lanes from vehicle travel lanes
The striping plan at this intersection was not modified. Staff was unable to design the requested protected intersection due to the need for barriers within the railroad crossing.

As originally designed, the striping plan would result in a loss of 19 parking spaces. This was a concern for Commissioners at the TPWC meeting. Staff conducted a detailed sight-distance analysis and confirmed the need to remove parking on Laurel Street and enforce the clear-corner ordinance but did reinstate some parking on the side-streets. To offset the overall loss of parking, it was determined that Myrtle Street was wide enough to convert some parallel parking to angled parking, which increases the number of stalls. With the changes described the parking loss to the neighborhood can be reduced to four stalls, down significantly from the 19-space reduction presented to the TPWC.

15.2 DISCUSSION: Staff has taken the opportunity to evaluate improvements that can be made as part of the street restoration and developed the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan. The striping plan intends to improve the existing features, which have been shown to reduce crashes, while implementing new safety features such as separated bicycle lanes, wider pedestrian islands, and daylighting side-street intersections to improve visibility.

Making improvements to roadway safety, especially for pedestrians and bicycles, removes a perceived barrier to those modes and in turn can change how people travel. For example, separated bike lanes have been shown to increase cycling by 21-500 percent and reduce injuries by 41-99 percent as documented by research in the Caltrans Active Transportation Benefit Study by University of California Davis. If the city is going to meet its Climate Action Plan goal to increase walking and biking, more of these facilities will be required. Roadway widths are often too constrained to fit safety improvements and trade-offs, like removing parking, are required.

In August of 2019, the City of Santa Cruz adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets by 2030. To achieve those results, layers of safety improvements are needed on our roadways. This project uses separated bike lanes (41-99% reduction noted above), parking prohibition (20% reduction according to United States Department of Transportation Crash Modification Clearinghouse), and daylighting (14% reduction according to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) to layer safety improvements together to achieve the goals of vision zero.

At the public hearing a couple residents expressed concern about their personal safety walking along Laurel Street and contested that removing on-street parking in front of their homes would expose them to more crime. After the meeting, Santa Cruz Police Department confirmed that this neighborhood is not an area people need to be concerned walking in. Staff also reviewed the prevalence of off-street parking and verified that 88% of properties on Laurel Street between Walti and Chestnut have off-street parking either in a driveway or from alley access. The removal of parking on Laurel Street won’t expose people to more crime, and if they feel unsafe, most can park on their property. The appellant’s address has multiple off-street parking spaces accessible via the alley.

Public outreach has included posting notices and sending mailers in December 2022 to everyone impacted by the parking reductions. Additionally, neighbors not in the parking-impacted area were also sent a mailer, a website was created to share the plan and solicit feedback, and the plan was advertised on the Public Works social media page. The TPWC meeting on January 23, 2023 solicited feedback from residents and approved the parking removal. Since then, staff has been responsive to the feedback received and modified the project as described above. The online comment board as of February 23, 2023 received 9 messages, 4 were supportive, and 4 asked for additional project scope, and 1 was from the appellant.

Policy Support
The proposed Laurel Street striping plan is in alignment with and will assist to implement components of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Active Transportation Plan (project No. 241), and Vision Zero. The General Plan calls for a “citywide interconnected system of safe, inviting, and accessible pedestrian ways and bikeways” (Goal M4). The Climate Action Plan includes¬¬ the transportation objective to meet an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will be accomplished largely by providing low-carbon transportation

15.3 options that rival the efficiency and safety of the automobile. Vision Zero is a policy that supports the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries and supports increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all.

FISCAL IMPACT: The traffic striping improvements at Laurel Street will be funded through the Pure Water Soquel Conveyance Project, Gas Tax and City Street Restriping – Maintenance (m400029) budget. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Matt Starkey
Transportation Manager
Submitted By:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. LAUREL STREET STRIPING PLAN.PDF

3. MYRTLE STREET STRIPING PLAN.PDF

4. LAUREL STREET - SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT.PDF

5. LAUREL STREET - MYRTLE STREET PARKING EXHIBIT.PDF

6. LAUREL STREET - OFF STREET PARKING.DOCX

7. APPEAL.PDF

8. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FROM JANUARY 23, 2023.DOC

9. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 23, 2023 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING.DOC

10. SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE.PDF

15.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DENYING THE

APPEAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISION DECISION

AND APPROVE THE LAUREL STREET VISION ZERO STRIPING PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2030 Santa Cruz General Plan in June 2012 with a goal to create a citywide interconnected system of safe, inviting, and accessible pedestrian ways and bikeways; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Active Transportation Plan on February 28, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted at Vision Zero Policy (NS-29,568) on August 27, 2019 that says there are no acceptable number of traffic deaths and serious injuries on Santa Cruz Roadways; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan on September 13, 2022 with measures to implement programs for active transportation (walking and biking) and implement programs and policies to discourage driving single-occupancy passenger vehicles.

WHEREAS, the Laurel Street Striping Plan was developed with the aforementioned policies; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation and Public Works Commission approved the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan and denied the appeal of the associated parking removal on January 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the decision of the Transportation and Public Works Commission was appealed on February 2, 2023; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby denies the appeal and approves the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

15.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

15.6 MYRTLE ST

BLACKBURN ST

CHESTNUT ST

LAUREL ST
6'
3'-6"
5'
10' 2' 12'
17'-6" 10'-6"
5'
11'
3'
11'
4'
5'
4'
5'-6"
11'
7'-6"
6'
5'
5'
6'
10'
10'
10'-6"
2' 6'
6'
5'-6"
11'
10'-6"
4'-6"
6'
6'
VARIES
VARIES
10'-6"
2' 6'
4'
5'-6"
11'
11' 3' 6'
6'
10'
6'
11'
10'
11'
6'
6'
3'-6"
11'
6'
3'-6"
6'
2'-6"
10'
10'
10'
5'
3'-6"
5'
20'
20'
24'
24'
24'
121'

TOP OF RAMP

TOP OF RAMP

DRIVEWAY
20'

LAUREL ST

MYRTLE ST
20'
20'
19'
15'
10'
19'
12'
12'

LAUREL ST

WALTI ST

FELIX ST

CALIFORNIA ST
5'
2' 10' 12'
10' 10'
6'
2'-6"
10'
10'
10'
5'
10'
10'
5'
12'
6'
4'5'-6" 10'
4'-9"
10'
5'
5'
9'
5'
10'
10'
10'
5'
4'
6' 3' 11'
11'
4'-6"
6'
4'
6'
11'
VARIES
11'
6'
6'
11'
10'
10'
5' 10'-6"
5'
10'-6"
10'-6"
4'
4'
4'
R=5' 4'
3' 3'
3'
20'
24'
20'
24'
11'
16'
20'

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:

FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A
C
R
U
Z
C

A L I F O R N I A
1866

P U B L I C W O R K S D E P A R T M E N T

SANTACRUZ

C I T Y O F
# STRIPING IMPROVEMENT PLAN

LAUREL STREET
# #
DE, DC

MS, RV, DE
DC
02/23/2023 1" = 40'
1 1
120'
12'
(4' O.C.)
18'
(6' O.C.)
24'
(8' O.C.)
30'
(10' O.C.)
36'
(12' O.C.)
CLR 27 SF
38 45 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
22 45 LF

SPEED REDUCTION MARKING DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
12' 10' 8' 6' 4'

TOP OF ISLAND
7'
S1-1 (36") BACK TO BACK
R1-6b (36" x 12")
R1-6b (36" x 12")

SIGN 'A' DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

SIGN 'B' DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

TOP OF ISLAND
1' 1.5'

MATCH LINE A-A
BTAG 1 EA
BTAG 1 EA

SEE ISLAND

DETAIL B

SEE ISLAND

DETAIL A

MATCH LINE A-A
W16-7p (L/R) (36" x 18")

BACK TO BACK
GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE
THERMOPLASTIC AND MUST MEET 2018 CALTRANS

SPECIFICATIONS

2. PRIOR TO INSTALLING THERMOPLASTIC ON TO ANY
CONCRETE, CLEAN AND APPLY PRIMER.

3. REMOVE ALL (E) STRIPES THAT CONFLICTS WITH
THE NEW STRIPES.

4. REMOVAL/INSTALLATION OF SIGNS BY OTHERS.

5. ALL DIMENSIONS STARTS AT THE FACE OF CURB.

6. INSTALL PARKING T's AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.

SHRG 1 EA
39 129 LF
32 86 LF
SLOW 23 SF
BTAG 1 EA
39Z 38 LF
CWW 115 LF
CWW 150 LF
22 56 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
38 52 LF
SHRG 1 EA
LL 21 LF
CWW 115 LF
39Z 39 LF
SHRG 1 EA
39Z 43 LF
CWW 140 LF
BLAG 1 EA
LL 24 LF
BKBG 220 SF
BTAG 1 EA
LL 21 LF 39A 60 LF
38 90 LF
22 99 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
39 104 LF
29 185 LF
29 52 LF
BBL1 280 LF CHNL 21 EA
BTAG 1 EA
A1 1 EA
SLWY 23 SF
38 40 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
22 40 LF
32 132 LF
S25 17.5 SF
CWY 110 LF
BTAG 1 EA
A1 1 EA
YLD 15 LF
40 44 LF
BTAG 1 EA
BBL1 177 LF
S25 17.5 SF
SLWW 23 SF
SLWW 12.5 SF
SLWW 12.5 SF
SLWW 23 SF
KEP 24 SF
39Z 47 LF
BTAG 1 EA
SCH 35 SF
BBL1 84 LF
YLD 15 LF
39Z 45 LF
32 160 LF
SCH 35 SF
39A 22 LF
SHRG 1 EA
29 27 LF
CWY 120 LF
YLD 14 LF
BBL1 82 LF
38 40 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
SCH 35 SF
22 187 LF
BTAG 1 EA
22 250 LF
A4(L/R) 2 EA
38 82 LF
39 94 LF
LL 70 LF
CWW 175 LF
BTAG 1 EA
BTAG 1 EA
38A 82 LF
39 82 LF
BTAG 1 EA
A4(L/R) 2 EA
39Z 106 LF
RR 134 SF
39 52 LF
BTAG 1 EA
KEP 24 SF
BBL1 138 LF
BBL2 120 LF
22 40 LF
SHRG 1 EA
CLR 27 SF
KEP 24 SF
39Z 42 LF
BBL1 50 LF
CWW 90 LF
CWW 130 LF
LL 24 LF
RSTR 1 LS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

1. 4-YEL: 4" YELLOW STRIPE

2. 6-WHT: 6" WHITE STRIPES 45° ANGLE 6' GAP

3. 39Z: MODIFIED DETAIL 39A GREEN STRIPE (2' STRIPE, 6' GAP)

4. A1: CALTRANS ARROW TYPE 1

5. A4(L/R): TYPE IV (LEFT/RIGHT) ARROW LEGEND.

6. BBL1: BUFFERED BIKE LANE (INSIDE/OUTSIDE DET 39 AND 6" WHITE STRIPES 45° ANGLE 12' GAP).

7. BBL2: BUFFERED BIKE LANE (INSIDE DET 39A, OUTSIDE DET 39 WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP AND 6" WHITE STRIPES 45° ANGLE 12' GAP).

8. BBL3: BUFFERED BIKE LANE (INSIDE/OUTSIDE DET 39A WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP AND 6" WHITE STRIPES 45° ANGLE 12' GAP).

9. BBL: BUFFERED BIKE LANE (INSIDE/OUTSIDE DET 39Z WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP AND 6" WHITE STRIPES 45° ANGLE 8' GAP).

10. BKBG: PREMARK VIZIGRIP GREEN BIKE BOX.

11. BLAG: BIKE AND LEFT ARROW WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP

12. BTAG: BIKE AND THROUGH ARROW WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP.

13. BUS: "BUS" MARKING.

14. CHNL: CHANNELIZER 10' O.C. (8.5' MIN FROM FACE OF CURB). (PEXCO FG 300, WHITE)

15. CLR: "CLEAR" MARKING.

16. CWW: INSTALL/REFRESH CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK (12" WHITE LINE)

17. CWY: INSTALL/REFRESH CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK (12" YELLOW LINE)

18. DWS: DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (SURFACE APPLIED)

19. KEP: "KEEP" MARKING.

20. LL: LIMIT LINE (12" WHITE LINE)

21. ONL: "ONLY" MARKING.

22. RR: RAILROAD CROSSING SYMBOL WITH 2' WIDE WHITE LIMIT LINE.

23. S25: "25" MPH SPEED LIMIT MARKING

24. SCH: "SCHOOL" MARKING.

25. SHR: SHARROW MARKING.

26. SHRG: SHARROW MARKING WITH GREEN VIZIGRIP.

27. SLWW: "SLOW" (WHITE) MARKING.

28. SLWY: "SLOW" (YELLOW) MARKING.

29. STP: "STOP" MARKING.

30. XNG: "XING" MARKING.

31. YLD: YIELD MARKING
BBL1 34 LF
SHRG 1 EA
BUS 20 SF
BUS 20 SF
CLR 27 SF
41 40 LF
39 43 LF
XNG 21 SF
BUS 20 SF
SLWY 23 SF
LL 13 LF
STP 22 SF
22 44 LF
LL 16 LF
STP 22 SF
CWY 120 LF
22 46 SF
41 42 LF
CHNL 5 EA
CHNL 16 EA
XNG 21 SF
KEP 24 SF
CLR 27 SF
29 58 LF
BBL3 60 LF
4'-6"
155°
4'-9"
R = 1.5
R = 1.5 R = 1.5

SIGN 'B'

SIGN 'A'
3'-9"

DWS (CAST

IN PLACE)
TYPE A3
CURB TYPE A3
CURB

RIVER ROCK
FINISH

ISLAND DETAIL A (FELIX ST)

NOT TO SCALE
6'-10"
4'-4"
2'-6"

ISLAND DETAIL B (BLACKBURN ST)

NOT TO SCALE
10'

SIGN 'A'

SIGN 'B'
151°

RIVER ROCK
FINISH

DWS (CAST

IN PLACE)
R = 1.5
TYPE A3
CURB
4'-6"
10'
3'-10"
R = 1.5
R = 1.5
R = 1.5
5'-5" 6'-8"
1'-6"
6" WHITE STRIPE 44' LONG
WITH 6" WHITE HATCH,
45° ANGLE, 12' GAP.
41 41 LF
39 237 LF

DAY LIGHTING DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
20'

OR APPROVED BY

ENGINEER

SEE NOTE
8" WHITE STRIPE WITH
8" HATCH, 45°, 10' O.C.

PAINT CURB RED
NOTE:

WIDTH SHALL MATCH ADJACENT
PARKING LANE WIDTH (7' MAX.).

MAINTAIN 10' MIN. TRAVEL LANE.

BEGIN DAYLIGHTING AT POINT OF

CURB CURVATURE OR AT RAMP

WING (ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT)

DAY LIGHTING
(SEE DETAIL)

DAY LIGHTING
(SEE DETAIL)
CWY 100 LF

DAY LIGHTING
(SEE DETAIL)
XNG 21 SF
BBL1 36 LF
BBL1 40 LF

DAY LIGHTING
(SEE DETAIL)
39Z 34 LF
BBL1 36 LF
BTAG 1 EA
39 106 LF
29 78 LF
XNG 21 SF
SLWY 23 SF
BTAG 1 EA
39 105 LF

CHANNELIZER PLACEMENT DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

FACE OF CURB

CHANNELIZER

SIDEWALK
7'-6" (MIN)

CLEARANCE
2' CLEARANCE
BBL1 52 LF
22 112 LF
BBL1 29 LF
BBL1 46 LF
39A 30 LF
CHNL 3 EA
29 80 LF
SLWY 23 SF
CHNL 5 EA
BTAG 1 EA
39A 18 LF
CHNL 3 EA
SCH 35 SF
CWY 120 LF
YLD 19 LF
39A 38 LF
CHNL 3 EA
39Z 50 LF
39A 38 LF
BBL1 34 LF
BBL1 34 LF
CHNL 5 EA
BTAG 1 EA
39A 14 LF
CHNL 4 EA
CHNL 6 EA
BUS 20 SF
SHRG 1 EA
BBL2 144 LF
39 27 LF
BTAG 1 EA

SPEED REDUCTION

MARKING (SEE DETAIL)

SPEED REDUCTION

MARKING (SEE DETAIL)
39 109 LF
CHNL 29 EA
BBL1 27 LF

15.7 MYRTLE ST

LAUREL ST

LAUREL ST

MAPLE ST

MYRTLE ST
15'
10'
11' 7' 20'
20' 19'
15'
10'
19'
12'
12'

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:

FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF

P U B L I C W O R K S D E P A R T M E N T
809 Center Street, Room 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS SANTACRUZ

C I T Y O F

C I T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 STRIPING PLAN
MYRTLE STREET 1 1
02/23/2023 1" = 50'
DnC
MS
DnC
# #
#

INSTALL DIAGONAL PARKING
(SEE DETAIL BELOW)

DIAGONAL PARKING DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
22 276 LF
45°
15' 9'
(E) CURB
(E) SIDEWALK
NOTE:

INSTALL PARKING T's AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN

PAINT CURB RED AS SHOWN

INSTALL DIAGONAL PARKING
(SEE DETAIL BELOW)
INSTALL PARKING T's (TYP)

15.8 LAUREL ST

WALTI ST

FELIX ST
2 280'
1 370'
32'

TOP OF RAMP

DRIVEWAY
101'

DRIVEWAY

TOP OF RAMP
5'
5'

FELIX ST
63'

END RED CURB
3 240'
4 280'

DRIVEWAY
18' 24' 18'
3' END RED CURB
41'
11'
24'
5'
20'

DRIVEWAY

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS LAUREL ST - WALTI ST LAUREL ST - FELIX ST 15.9

BLACKBURN ST
5 240'
6 280'
43' END RED CURB

DRIVEWAY
18' 18'
3' 11'
136'

END RED CURB

DRIVEWAY
20'
20' 24' 24' 24'
9'
20' LAUREL ST

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS LAUREL ST - BLACKBURN ST 15.10

MYRTLE ST LAUREL ST
9 240' 10 280' LAUREL ST

MYRTLE ST LAUREL ST LAUREL ST
7 240'
8 280'
20'

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS

LAUREL ST - MYRTLE ST (NB)

LAUREL ST - MYRTLE ST (SB)

15.11 WALTI ST

FELIX ST

BLACKBURN ST

MYRTLE ST
917
913
909
905
903 LAUREL ST 821 819 807 809
803 721 709
159 708 704 622 620 616 612
156
102
(-1)
(-2)
(-1)
(-4)
(-3)
(+2)
(+2)
(-1)
(-2)
(+6)

MAPLE ST

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

LAUREL STREET& MYRTLE STREET
PARKING EXHIBIT NOTES: PARKING REMOVED: (14) PARKING ADDED: (10) PERCENTAGE OF HOMES FRONTING LAUREL STREET WITH OFF-STREET PARKING BETWEEN CHESTNUT STREET AND WALTI STREET: 88% 15.12 Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements

OFF STREET PARKING ATTACHMENT
Alley between 709 and 721 (Salvation Army) Laurel Street

15.13 709 Laurel Street off-street parking (Alley access) 721 Laurel Street off-street parking (Blackburn St access)

15.14 809 Laurel Street
809 Laurel Street off-street parking

15.15 807 Laurel Street off-street parking
819 - 821 Laurel Street off-street parking

15.16 903 Laurel Street off-street parking (Felix St Access) 905 - 909 Laurel Street off-street parking

15.17 913 Laurel Street off-street parking
704 – 708 Laurel Street off-street parking

15.18 620 Laurel Street off-street parking
612 – 616 Laurel Street off-street parking

15.19 803 Laurel Street off-street parking (Blackburn St Access)

15.20 15.21

15.22 15.23

15.24 15.25

15.26 15.27

15.28 15.29

15.30 15.31

15.32 15.33

15.34 15.35

15.36 15.37

15.38 15.39

15.40 15.41

15.42 15.43

15.44 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 28, 2022
AGENDA OF: January 23, 2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion that the Transportation and Public Works Commission recommend that the City Council approve the striping plans prepared for the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Improvements.

BACKGROUND:

The Pure Water Soquel project has completed the underground piping phase of their project on Laurel Street and has begun restoring the roadway over the pipeline. The restoration includes rebuilding the pedestrian islands at Felix Street and Blackburn Street, micro-surfacing the roadway, and striping the restored surfaces. The pedestrian islands will be widened to improve comfort for pedestrians and aligned to reduce impacts from turning vehicles. The improvements are expected to occur in Spring 2023.

Laurel Street is a minor arterial that connects the Westside and Seabright neighborhoods east to west through downtown. The most recent data available shows that in 2015 the roadway carried an average of 13,500 vehicles per day with the eastbound 85th percentile speed measured at 27 miles-per-hour and the westbound 85th percentile speed measured at 33 miles-per-hour. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 25 miles-per-hour. There are two METRO routes, the 15 and 18, that connect downtown and UCSC via Laurel Street and run at a combined headway of 15 minutes qualifying the roadway as a “major transit corridor”.

The roadway was last significantly modified in 2012 when the left-turn lanes at Walti Street, Felix Street, and Blackburn Street were added with two pedestrian islands mentioned above. The improvements reduced the crash rate along the corridor from a two-year average of 8 crashes per year in 2012 to 2.5 crashes per year in 2019. Other minor improvements, including the addition of green lanes, have been installed to improve multimodal safety. The Local Roadway Safety Plan, completed in 2021, identified Laurel Street as a priority corridor city-wide for improvements because of the number of crashes still occurring.

The improvements included in the proposed Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan maintain the left turn lanes and medians because they have contributed to a crash reduction on the roadway. To improve safety for people walking and biking, a buffer is added between the bike lane and vehicle lane to separate the turning vehicles from the cyclists and slow-down turning conflicts at intersections. Additionally, parking on the side streets is restricted for 20 feet in advance of the intersection to improve visibility of people crossing and vehicles turning in and out of the intersections in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Those improvements are called “daylighting”. At the bus stops, the separated bike lanes will share the curbside space and be marked to

15.45 Transportation and Public Works Commission December 28, 2022 Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Page 2
alert cyclists and bus operators of the potential conflict. The proposed plan for daylighting and separation reduces parking along the corridor by 19 spaces.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed striping plan on Laurel Street is consistent with the policies and plans adopted the City.

On August 27, 2019, the City Council adopted a Vision Zero resolution. Vision Zero is a policy that supports the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries and supports increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all. The improvements support the goals of the resolution.

The Climate Action Plan (CAP) supports this plan from action items: T-1: Implement programs for active transportation (walking and biking) and T-3: Implement programs and policies to discourage driving single-occupancy passenger vehicles. The new striping plan expected to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. A tradeoff to the multimodal improvements is that the proposed design requires reducing parking supply. This tradeoff is supported by the CAP.

Equity is an important part of the decision for the striping improvements in accordance with the Health in all Policies (HIAP). The people who will benefit from these improvements are those biking and walking along Laurel Street. Citywide, cyclists and pedestrians represent 19.6% of trips taken but account for 45.7% of injuries, and 66.7% of fatalities according to the 2017 Active Transportation Plan.

The burden of collisions falls disproportionally on those walking and biking and this plan will be a small step in addressing that inequity.

Public outreach has included posting notices and sending mailers in December 2022 to everyone impacted by the parking reductions. Additionally, neighbors not in the parking-impacted area were also sent a mailer, a website was created to share the plan and solicit feedback, and the plan was advertised on the Public Works social media page. Public feedback will be received at the January Transportation and Public Works Commission meeting and subsequent Council meeting.

The new striping layout is expected to improve safety along Laurel Street and therefore increase the number of people that are comfortable walking and biking in the City consistent with the CAP and HIAP. There will be a reduction in parking stalls which is consistent with the CAP.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Pure Water Soquel project is responsible for striping in-kind replacement. There will be a small increase in the effort required to install and maintain green bicycle lane markings and the flexible posts in the buffers. Additional cost for striping enhancements will come from the annual striping maintenance budget. The parking spaces are not metered and do not contribute to the downtown parking district.

Prepared by:

Matt Starkey, P.E.

Transportation Manager
Submitted by:

Matt Starkey, P.E.

Transportation Manager
Approved by:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works

15.46 Transportation and Public Works Commission December 28, 2022 Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:

Laurel Street Striping Plans

15.47 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes Transportation and Public Works Commission
Regular Meeting
Minutes
6:00 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2023
Zoom Webinar
Call to Order: 6:00 P.M.

Roll Call: Chair Philip Boutelle; Vice Chair Ron Goodman; Commissioners: Candace Brown, Kyle Kelley, Ryan Meckel, Robert Orrizzi and Zennon Ulyate-Crow Absent with Notification: None
Absent without Notification: None
Statements of Disqualification: None
Oral Communications
At 6:03 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened oral communications and the following people spoke:

CO
Kathy Greon
Chris
At 6:08 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed oral communications.

Announcements
Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works, and Josh Spangrud, Senior Professional Engineer, gave updates regarding the emergency storm response efforts for the recent storm events.

Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works, announced the promotion of Katie Stewart to Stormwater/Wastewater Senior Professional Engineer, promotion of Heather Sawyer to Parking Program Manager, the advertisement of Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer position, and congratulated Chair Boutelle on the end of his service to the Commission and thanked him for his years of service.

At 6:18 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #6.

Presentations:

15.48 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes 2 1. Update on Bike Share Program
At 10:19 P.M. Chair Boutelle returned to Item #1.

At 10:19 P.M. Vice Chair Goodman moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley that the Transportation and Public Works Commission extend the meeting to 10:30 P.M.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Chair Boutelle, Vice Chair Goodman, Commissioners: Brown, Kelley, Meckel, Orrizzi, and Ulyate-Crow
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
Claire Gallogly, Transportation Planner II, gave a presentation on updates to the Bike Share Program and fielded questions from the Commission.

At 6:52 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #2.

Approval of Minutes:

2. November 21, 2022 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes
At 6:52 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #2.

MOTION: Commissioner Orrizzi moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2022 Transportation and Public Works Commission meeting with corrections to the spelling of Commissioners Ulyate-Crow’s and Orrizzi’s last names.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Chair Boutelle, Vice Chair Goodman, Commissioners: Brown, Kelley, Meckel, Orrizzi, and Ulyate-Crow
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
Consent: None
At 6:54 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #3.

15.49 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes 3 General Business:

3. Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan
Matt Starkey, Transportation Manager, presented the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan and responded to questions with the assistance of Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works.

At 7:36 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened public comment and the following people spoke:

Keresha Durham
Susan Monheit
Robin Belkin
Andrew Jarvis
Kathy Greon
Guerrero
Chris
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Melanie Burr
Fiona Wolf
Adriana Figueroa
At 8:06 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed public comment.

MOTION: Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Vice Chair Goodman, that that the Transportation and Public Works Commission recommend that the City Council approve the striping plans prepared for the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Improvements with a request to consider:
 If the geometry of the Walti and Felix intersections would allow an equal safety benefit with less than 20 feet of daylighting;  Removal of the possibly-dead tree at Walti;
 Ways to reduce downhill speed on Laurel with striping;  Signage to warn downhill cyclists of left turning cars; and  To keep in mind opportunities for improving lighting on the corridor.  Have staff explore the removal of the eastbound righthand turn lane at the intersection of Laurel & Chestnut, replacing with a barrier protecting the westbound and eastbound bicycle lanes from vehicle travel lanes
ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Chair Boutelle, Vice Chair Goodman, Commissioners: Brown, Kelley, Meckel, Orrizzi and Ulyate-Crow

15.50 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes 4 NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
At 8:33 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #4.

4. Appeal of Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan Parking Removal
Nate Goodman, Engineering Technician, presented the Appeal of Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Parking Removal and responded to questions with assistance from Matt Starkey, Transportation Manager, and Claire Gallogly, Transportation Planner II, and Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works.

At 8:38 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened public comment and the following people spoke:

Michelle Taniguchi
Jim Stark
Robin Belkin
Barry Guerrero
Keresha Durham
Veronica
Naoki Taniguchi
Kathy Greon
Adriana Figueroa
Chris Zegers
Pamela Richmond
At 9:03 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed public comment.

MOTION: Commissioner Meckel moved, seconded by Chair Boutelle, that the Transportation and Public Works Commission deny the appeal of parking removal required by the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Chair Boutelle, Vice Chair Goodman, Commissioners: Kelley, Meckel, Ulyate-Crow
NOES: Commissioners Brown and Orrizzi
ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
At 9:24 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #5.

15.51 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes 5 5. Appeal of New Single Space Markings on David Way
Nate Goodman, Engineering Technician, presented the Appeal of New Single Space Markings on David Way and responded to questions with the assistance of Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works, and Claire Gallogly, Transportation Planner II.

At 9:28 P.M. Vice Chair Goodman moved, seconded by Chair Boutelle that the Transportation and Public Works Commission extend the meeting to 10:00 P.M.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Chair Boutelle, Vice Chair Goodman, Commissioners: Brown, Kelley, Meckel, Orrizzi, and Ulyate-Crow
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
At 9:28 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened public comment and the following people spoke:

Reggie Meisler
Jasmeen Miah
(xxx)xxx-2367
Masao Drexel
CO
Sabina Holber
Francesca
Renee Quan
At 9:58 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed public comment.

MOTION: Commissioner Meckel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Transportation and Public Works Commission uphold the appeal of requested new Single Space Markings on David Way.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:, Commissioners: Brown, Kelley, Meckel, Ulyate-Crow NOES: Chair Boutelle Brown, Vice Chair Goodman, and Orrizzi ABSENT: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
At 6:18 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #6.

15.52 January 23, 2023 – Transportation and Public Works Commission Draft Minutes 6 Informational Items:

6. Update on Local Wastewater Constituent Discharge Limits and Enhanced Source Control Efforts
Akin Babatola, Wastewater Laboratory and Environmental Compliance Manager, gave an update on local wastewater constituent discharge limits and enhanced source control effects and fielded questions from the Commission.

At 6:26 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened public comment and the following people spoke:

Robin Belkin
At 6:27 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed public comment.

At 6:30 P.M. Chair Boutelle moved to Item #7.

7. West Cliff Storm Damage and Detours Update
Matt Starkey, Transportation Manager, gave an update on West Cliff Storm Damage and Detours and fielded questions from the Commission with the assistance of Nathan Nguyen, Director of Public Works, Josh Spangrud, Senior Professional Engineer, and Claire Gallogly, Transportation Planner II.

At 6:48 P.M. Chair Boutelle opened public comment and the following people spoke:

Masao Drexel
At 6:52 P.M. Chair Boutelle closed public comment.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports: None
Items Initiated by Members for Future Agendas:

Commissioner Brown requested a presentation on where we stand with the assessment of the levee system and FEMA certification.

Adjournment: 10:34 P.M.

15.53 1
Matt Starkey
From: Wes Morey
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:20 PM
To: Matt Starkey
Subject: RE: Laurel Street Striping Improvement Feedback Hi Matt,
I’ve looked into the data.  This is not a high crime area where residents would have to worry about being victimized while walking to or from their vehicles.

Wes
From: Matt Starkey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 12:54 PM
To: Wes Morey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Laurel Street Striping Improvement Feedback Hi Wes,
We’re propsoign to remove parking along Laurel from Felix to Myrtle and restrict one stall on each of the side street.

Sketch below.

There were neighbors that were concerned about being exposed to more crime if they must walk further to their cars.

We’re able to make a transportation safety improvement with these changes, but neighbors were concerned they would become less safe if they are walking around longer exposed to more criminal activity. Ideally we could share some data about how “safe” this neighborhood is to alleviate those concerns. Looking forward chatting more.

Cheers,

15.54 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Daniel Story <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 6:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Deny appeal on Laurel Street parking removal...

Dear City Council Members,
As a resident who lives just off of Laurel Street (on Felix St.) and regularly walks and bikes rather than drive, I am asking that you please vote to deny the appeal on item 15 concerning the proposed removal of parking along Laurel Street.

Planning staff have done a fantastic job in researching and proposing significant improvements to pedestrian and cyclist safety along this highly trafficked stretch of road. Please look to the future and support a more active, less car dependent Santa Cruz by allowing this plan to go through as proposed.

Thank you,
Daniel

Daniel J. Story, PhD (he/him)
Digital Scholarship Librarian
University Library Center for Digital Scholarship
University of California, Santa Cruz
@danieljstory
‐‐
Consulting Editor, American Historical Review
Host and Producer, History in Focus
‐‐
Series Producer, Stories from the Epicenter

15.55 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: jfbergs <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 7:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 15 appeal
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
Please deny the appeal to remove parking on Laurel Street as part of the vision zero Laurel Street Improvement plan.

Thank You Very Much
Joel Steinberg
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

15.56 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Miles Payton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 9:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please deny the appeal on Item 15
Hi City Council,
I grew up off Laurel St on Myrtle and used to ride my bike every day to Bay View and SCHS growing up. I’m very familiar with Laurel and had my fair share of close calls with cars, including crashing once to avoid a tight hook, and the high speed traffic and lack of crosswalks meant the other side of Laurel was pretty inaccessible.

I was very happy to hear about the plan to remove parking to make Laurel a safer street. As there aren’t that many houses facing Laurel, ample parking on the side streets, and most houses on Laurel have driveways, it seems like a layup.

Please deny the appeal on this plan. It’s imperative that the city be able to remove parking in order to ensure safe streets for all. If you truly have a goal of Vision Zero and meeting any climate goals, you’ll ignore this selfish appeal and implement this plan.

Miles

15.57 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ernesto Anguiano <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 7:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Parking Removal on Laurel Street as part of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing to support removing the parking from Laurel street and improving the safety of everyone who uses Laurel.

The Staff has laid out perfectly why I support removing parking to increase the safety of pedestrians, people on bikes, or other forms of micro transportation.

Time and time again we have prioritized drivers and cars over people at the expense of walkable and livable communities. And really at the expense of everyone's safety. Truly protected bike lines are what we need to encourage people to walk or ride their bike versus driving. This will help the city and our community reduce vehicle miles traveled.

What is not going to help improve our community is continuing to provide FREE on‐street parking for cars. We should not continue to allow a small number of drivers and their cars to dictate how our city is designed. Think of how much of our city streets are already dedicated to cars and drivers. They take up so much valuable real estate that could be used to promote a vibrant walkable community.

If the resident who brought up safety concerns looked at the data and looked at the risk objectively, they would realize that driving or traffic accidents are far more likely and the most dangerous thing they do in their day. Traffic violence is one of the leading causing of death for teenagers and is experienced every day in our city/county. If we are serious about our vision zero and multi‐modal goals we will move forward with removing the parking to implement a safer street. It just has become so common no one notices it. And the more walkable a community is the more community members and neighbors are out on the street which tends to deter crime and create safer communities.

These improvements are supported by a majority of residents. No amount of education, signage or striping will fix how dangerous our streets are because of cars. We need to design them to be safe, and the traffic‐calming improvements and protected bike lanes are what this city needs to reduce VMTs, reach our Vision Zero and Climate goals, and create a safer more walkable community.

Thank you,
Ernesto Anguiano

15.58 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lisa Hochstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please deny the appeal on Item 15 and approve the proposed safety improvements on Laurel St Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council members,
I am writing to ask you to deny the appeal regarding Item #15 on the March 13 agenda, and to approve the proposed Laurel Street Vision Zero safety measures.

Protected lanes and green lanes have proven to enhance the safety of our streets for all users, particularly people on bikes and pedestrians who are the most vulnerable. This particularly dangerous stretch of road needs to be made safer for all users and you have a plan in front of you that will do just that.

As a senior (and a voter) who mostly gets around by bike and on foot, I am especially aware of the risk I take each time I choose go out and leave my car at home. I hope you will prioritize our community's health and safety as you consider your vote on this item.

Sincerely,
Lisa Hochstein
521 National Street

15.59 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jonathan Kaufman Scher <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Deny appeal for item #15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high‐collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

I write this as a daily Santa Cruz bike commuter.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Scher
220 Swift St
Santa Cruz CA 95060
620‐288‐6423
(sent from my phone)

15.60 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: John Caletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support bike project on Laurel
I request that you support the plan to re‐stripe Laurel to make it less dangerous for people on bikes.

I welcome the removal of car parking on the street.

Thanks!
John Caletti
Caletti Cycles
Custom bicycles handcrafted in Santa Cruz, CA
caletticycles.com 831-426-0575
Instagram: @caletticycles
Member: 1% For The Planet - We give 1% of sales to nonprofits working to protect and restore the environment.

15.61 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Brendan Quirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Laurel Street Bike Striping
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

I bike up and down Laurel to get back and forth to my work office on Water Street from my home in West Cliff. I often detour past the high school and down Walnut because Laurel street feels so unsafe as a biker. Please install some safety measures for bikers.

My Best,
Brendan Quirk

15.62 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jonathan Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bike lanes on Laurel Needed Now
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please support bike lanes and public safety by denying the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward.

With an office on Laurel Street I both biked and drove to downtown Santa Cruz on Laurel often. Increased protection for cyclists is needed and there are plenty of excess parking spaces on side streets to Laurel.

Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces.

Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Increase public safety and mobility for Santa Cruz residents.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Evans
Santa Cruz, 95062

15.63 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Eric Richter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #15 - Safety First
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
I’m asking that you please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda so that the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project will move forward as planned.

Laurel Street is a key bike and pedestrian route across our city and was ranked #2 as a high‐collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a workable, sensible plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street and which results in a loss of only four parking spaces. While I am empathetic to the needs of residents regarding automobile parking, I believe we have to prioritize public safety in this case.

Thank you for your service and consideration, and hopefully, your support.

Sincerely,
Eric Richter

15.64 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Dimitry Struve <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bike safety improvements on Laurel
Hi, as a Westside resident and bicyclist I encourage the Council to approve the proposed striping and parking changes on Laurel. Laurel is an important bike route to and from downtown and across town, and with the hill, the curve, the high school, bus stops, not to mention the narrow stretch further up between California and Mission, it is not a safe route. Everything we can do to improve safety and increase riding vs driving is important for our future.

Also, on both the uphill side of Laurel, and on the downhill side of Lincoln, the sidewalks are frequently overgrown making walking difficult. I think the High School could be a better neighbor … Thanks ‐ Dimitry Struve
Otis Street

15.65 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Michelle Taniguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan Dear City Council Members,
Please do not remove the parking on Laurel. Our area is already plagued with various safety issues and this will make it more unsafe by making Laurel even more of a racecourse than it already is. Drivers will view it as a high-speed thoroughfare instead of the residential road it is (and should remain.) There are many neighbors that would be adversely affected by this, but as an example, if parking on Laurel is removed our household would be impacted in the following ways:
- My young child will not be able to get safely picked up by carpools in front of our home - My elderly mother will not be able to park close to our home. - Our family and friends will have to circle the neighborhood to look for parking. - Our friends who are disabled will be unable to visit our home if Laurel parking is removed To improve safety, the city instead needs to put stop signs at Felix and Blackburn and/or blinking lights on the crosswalks at Felix and Blackburn, crosswalks and/or a stop sign across Laurel at Myrtle, increase lighting in the area between Chestnut and California on Laurel, and create a way to slow down bikes and cars coming down the hill between California and Walti. Removing parking will not change the number of accidents caused by speeding vehicles around Laurel Hill. There already is no parking in the high-risk area between California and Walti.

As seen in the city’s traffic studies, the traffic safety issues on Laurel are at the intersections of Chestnut, Felix, California, and Walti. For those not familiar with our street, California is at the top of the hill, Felix and Walti are at the bottom. The street parking between Blackburn and Chestnut has zero impact on those intersections and collisions happening there.

Not only will removing our parking make our street even less safe than it already is, but it will also increase emissions by forcing residents and visitors to drive around the neighborhood searching for parking.

Please, do not misdirect our city funds by needlessly removing our parking. Instead, please slow down traffic at the hill, which will drastically improve the safety of our street.

Thank you,
Michelle Taniguchi
A 14‐year resident of lower Laurel Street
Live, work, and play in Downtown Santa Cruz!

15.66 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tommy Zabonik <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 5:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Regarding the re-striping on Laurel
Hello,
My name is Tommy and I have been a resident in the downtown Santa Cruz community for 3 years now, having recently lived on Myrtle St.

Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 highcollision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes. When living near Laurel, I would regularly commute by bike, but I would mostly avoid riding on that road due to the speedy and reckless drivers. Re-painting and introducing traffic calming measures will bring the overall speeds down, and show the community of Santa Cruz that the streets belong to people and not automobiles. We NEED to reduce our community's cardependency... It is the largest infrastructure challenge of our times. Take a stand for human beings and deny this appeal. Move forward with Vision Zero improvements now.

Best regards,
Tommy Zabonik
Downtown Santa Cruz Resident and Employee

15.67 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: david van brink <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 5:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Vision Zero, Laurel Street
Dear Mayor Keeley and Esteemed Council Members,
Please move forward with improving bicycle safety on Laurel Street.

I am a cyclist and am keenly aware of areas on Laurel which seem to encourage cars to clip close to the sides of the road.

I'm also ashamed to mention that, once long ago as a car user, I barreled through that street with a near miss; so I'm keenly aware that change is needed!  We need to facilitate non‐car options at every opportunity.

Thank you ‐‐ David Van Brink // Westside Resident 35 years.

15.68 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Rita Hester <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 5:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Deny appeal on item 15 March 14th agenda
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

I have been a cyclist for basic transportation needs for over 45 years. Every collision I have had with a vehicle has been here in Santa Cruz. That was before the bike lanes were established on Soquel ave. They have made a huge difference.

Only 4 parking places  will be lost with the added side street parking.

Thank you,
Rita Hester. MS, RN
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone

15.69 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Linda Werner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 6:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #15 on agenda March 13
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
I have been biking to work from 1985 until my recent retirement. Now I bike to my doctors' appointments at the PAMF locations on Soquel Ave and on Seabright Ave. I also bicycle for groceries. Since the best route for me to get to the PAMF locations is to use Laurel Street, I ask you to deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda on Tuesday, March 13 and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward.

Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high‐collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only 4 parking spaces.

Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz streets over parking for a small number of homes.

Sincerely
Linda Werner

15.70 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joe Karpinksi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 8:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: bike line on laurel
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Sincerely,
Joe Karpinski

15.71 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sheryl Kern-Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 9:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for protected bike lanes and green striping Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing to encourage your support for the addition of protected bike lanes and green striping on Laurel Street between California and Chestnut. This is an area where children constantly travel to Bay View, Mission Hill, and Santa Cruz High School. The traffic is driving at faster speeds around curves. And, toward evening, the setting sun blinds drivers going up the hill toward California. This combination of conditions creates a very dangerous situation. Please add bike safety lane protection and green striping.

I would also like to encourage you to continue the green striping through Pacific and Front streets and all the way to the bridge. With the massive new buildings, there will be increased traffic and these intersections are already crowded with cars, pedestrians, and bikers. A prevention approach in advance for the increased traffic brought by the new buildings would be extremely helpful.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sheryl Kern-Jones
Santa Cruz resident

15.72 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 10:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Laurel Street Vision Zero Safety Improvement Project Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Karsten Mueller MS, PhD
831.359.5931

15.73 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: David Lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 8:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Vision Zero Striping on Laurel Street
Dear members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing to ask that you support Vision Zero Striping on Laurel Street. I live in the area and use Laurel street quite often. It is a crazy mess the way it is now.

Thanks,
David Lieby
310 Everson Dr, Santa Cruz, Ca 95060

15.74 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Kevin Lockwood <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 12:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Vision Zero on Laurel
City Council,
Please deny the appeal and move forward with Vision Zero improvements. As a daily biker living on the west side Laurel street is an important biker corridor that needs to be made safer.

Thank you,
Kevin Lockwood

15.75 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tim Brattan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 1:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Deny the appeal for Agenda Item #15
Dear Mayor and Council,
I urge you and your Council to approve the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project and deny the appeal for Agenda item #15. As a bike commuter who regularly travels on Laurel Street, I know how dangerous this key bike route is and am not surprised it is the #2 high-collision bicycle corridor in the last five years.

City staff has created a safety plan on Laurel Street that will remove just four parking spaces. The plan will accommodate a vital improvement for all forms of active and micro e-transportation. Please demonstrate your commitment to a walkable and bikable community that prioritizes transportation equity and safety for all Santa Cruz residents.

Sincerely,
Tim Brattan
City of Santa Cruz

15.76 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Debbie Bulger <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 1:15 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Matt Starkey; Fred Keeley
Subject: Laurel Street striping plan
Dear City Councilmembers:

RE: Item #15, March 14 Council Meeting
Mission: Pedestrian supports the Vision Zero striping plan for Laurel Street.

We have been waiting for over a year for the replacement of the median islands which played a key role in dramatically reducing the number of crashes on Laurel before being removed for the Pure Water Soquel project. We are pleased that the replacement medians will be wider and offer more protection to pedestrians crossing the street.

The addition of buffered bike lanes will add additional protection for pedestrians walking on Laurel. Laurel Street is a main pedestrian route from the westside to downtown Santa Cruz.

15.77 2
The implementation of daylighting is welcome for the increased visibility of pedestrians crossing streets and should further increase safety on Laurel.

These are key SAFETY improvements for Laurel Street and should take precedence over parking inconvenience.

Regards,
Debbie Bulger, Coordinator
Mission: Pedestrian

15.78 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: amelia conlen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 2:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please approve resolution to move forward with Vision Zero striping on Laurel St Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item #15 on Tuesday's agenda to deny the appeal of the Vision Zero striping plan for Laurel Street. Laurel Street is the #2 location for bicycle collisions in the City and is a key route across town and between downtown and UCSC. City staff has done a great job minimizing parking removal, and the updated plans create a net loss of only four parking spaces.

Transportation is the #1 source of emissions in the City of Santa Cruz, and if we want to achieve our Climate Action Plan goals we need to make it safer for people to ride bikes. In my work with Ecology Action, safety is frequently identified as a reason why people do not bike to work and for other daily trips. There is a known safety issue on Laurel Street that these plans will help to address.

Achieving our Climate Action Plan goals and being the green city we want to be will require tough choices, and this is one of them. Please prioritize the safety of our citizens and our climate future and approve the plans for Vision Zero striping on Laurel Street.

Sincerely,
Amelia Conlen
Santa Cruz resident
Bike Santa Cruz County board member

15.79 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nadene Thorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Vision Zero Bike Lane Striping on Laurel - Please Deny Appeal Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 HIGH COLLISION CORRIDOR FOR BICYCLE COLLISIONS in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that REMOVES ONLY FOUR parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

It's clear that the benefit to bicycle safety on this well‐traveled route is far greater than the loss of 4 parking spaces.  You will be supporting Santa Cruz's Active Transportation Plan as well as Vision Zero.  Not to deny this appeal is going backwards in achieving the community we want to be, and which you yourselves have campaigned on.

Thank you,
Nadene Thorne
140 Averitt Street
Santa Cruz 95060

15.80 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: JT Rueppel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 3:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: DENY Item 15 Appeal
Hello! I’m writing to you today in regards to Item 15. Please DENY the appeal.

The City of Santa Cruz adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets by 2030. To achieve those results, layers of safety improvements are needed on our roadways. This project uses separated bike lanes, parking prohibitions, and daylighting. By changing the already established Laurel Street design to include parking for only…4 residents, you completely eliminate any safety improvements the City has adopted as a goal.

Don’t let 4 parking spaces get in the way of changing one of the most dangerous road sections in town.

SCPD has even stated this isn’t a high crime area. DENY this appeal.

Thanks!

15.81 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 3:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: DENY Item 15 Appeal
Hello! I’m writing to you today in regards to Item 15. Please **DENY** the appeal.

The City of Santa Cruz adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets by 2030. To achieve those results, layers of safety improvements are needed on our roadways. This project uses separated bike lanes, parking prohibitions, and daylighting. By changing the already established Laurel Street design to include parking for only…4 residents, you completely eliminate any safety improvements the City has adopted as a goal.

Don’t let 4 parking spaces get in the way of changing one of the most dangerous road sections in town.

SCPD has even stated this isn’t a high crime area. DENY this appeal.

15.82 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 4:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please DO NOT remove Laurel parking!!!!
Dear Council,
I manage several rentals near where it is proposed to remove 19 parking spaces on Laurel Street. This is a bad idea and will significantly negatively impact my tenants. Laurel is fine for biking as is, this change is unnecessary. The adjacent side streets already have parking problems, please don’t make it worse.

Sincerely,
Peter Cook
Sent from my iPhone

15.83 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Kurt Canfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: DENY Item 15 Appeal
Hello! I’m writing to you today in regards to Item 15. Please DENY the appeal.

The City of Santa Cruz adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets by 2030. To achieve those results, layers of safety improvements are needed on our roadways. This project uses separated bike lanes, parking prohibitions, and daylighting. By changing the already established Laurel Street design to include parking for only…4 residents, you completely eliminate any safety improvements the City has adopted as a goal.

Don’t let 4 parking spaces get in the way of changing one of the most dangerous road sections in town.

SCPD has even stated this isn’t a high crime area. DENY this appeal. ‐Kurt Canfield

15.84 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Anna Finn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 6:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please deny appeal for item 15: Parking Removal on Laurel Street as part of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan
Dear City Council Members,
This is my first letter to council but I feel compelled to write both because of the content of the issue and the principle that it represents.

On the content issue, we must be bold in making our city safe for alternative transportation, especially bikes. As much as I'm in favor of it, I wouldn't call item 15 bold ‐ it's a net loss of four parking spaces, but it is a step. If we can't commit to this marginal step to promote bike safety, how can we take the big steps we need? I recently had a terrible fall on Laurel on my bike and fortunately I avoided major catastrophe because I was wearing a helmet. I almost never take Laurel even though it's the most direct route between my house and work, because it is so dangerous. If you have the power to make it just a little bit safer, why not do so? On a content level, this is the right thing to do and serves the interest of far more constituents and our long term plans to face climate change.

The staff have done great work showing the soundness of the plan. I find some of the language of the appeal inappropriate and unprofessional toward the excellent staff and the work they've done.

On the principle issue, I hope the council will give careful consideration to the way extremely local interests have so consistently outweighed larger community interests in Santa Cruz. We've failed to build adequate housing, protected the historic value of gas stations and parking lots, chained ourselves to invasive species, and so much more all to prevent change, to keep Santa Cruz like it once was and to keep more people from enjoying this beautiful place. Our city can't be preserved in amber and we shouldn't want it to be. I hope you'll vote with the community, not a few people who feel that their right to store their vehicles in a public street is more important than the safety of the hundreds of people who travel the street each day.

Thank you for considering this letter as you vote and for your service to Santa Cruz. I'm grateful I get to live here and I look forward to the day when everyone can bike safely.

All best,
Anna Finn
Cayuga Street

15.85 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 5:51 AM
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Letter both urging Rejection of TPWC recommendation of parking removal on Laurel St. and likewise urging Support of the Appeal objecting to Laurel St.

Parking Removal per the "Laurel St. Vision Zero Striping Pla...

Attachments: Objection to Laurel Street Parking Removal Letter to Santa Cruz City Council.docx; Google Map Aerial View with Street Names 2.jpg; Segment 7 of Coastal Rail Trail _ City of Santa Cruz.pdf To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City [email protected] From: Robin Belkin
Date: March 11, 2023
Re: Objection to Laurel Street Parking Removal
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council,
Please carefully consider this plea to Support the Appeal and likewise Reject the TPWC recommendation of parking removal on Laurel St., as part of the Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan. The Plan clearly lacks vision, accuracy, and common sense in myriad ways. But in a nutshell:
a) The eradication of currently proposed, 12 Laurel Street, residential, street parking spaces adjacent to high-density-residents’ homes cannot be characterized as “a new safety feature” per the muchtouted Vision Zero Policy, nor as “safe, inviting, and accessible” (per the General Plan), if it places 41 or likely far more residents at risk every night, in order to questionably protect 2.5 avg. bicyclists per year. (See transportation Mgr. Starkey’s pertinent comment in letter “c” below.) b) Such a plan may cause more injuries than it prevents (e.g., to the forty-one (41) Laurel St. mostly women residents that expressed concern for their safety walking home from remote parking spaces through sketchy, abandoned streets after dark; as well as to vastly more cyclists speeding down the steep Laurel hill).
c) Since the Transportation Mgr. spearheading the Laurel Street Striping Plan stated at the TPWC Zoom Hearing, [Approx. Zoom Hearing time stamp 3:19:00]:
“But parking removal at least part of that is a safety issue right? There’s different people’s safety—I’m not saying one is more important. I don’t know how to balance or measure the two and compare them. But the moving of the parking is not being done as a hostile act against neighbors (his words, not mine…). It’s being done to improve safety.” (In the same breath, he admitted the parking removal simultaneously would create a new safety risk that he “didn’t know how to balance or measure.”
d) Thus, that safety issue evaluation (referenced in “c” above), clearly must be understood and undertaken by the City Council, now. Since the TPWC cannot do so, then the City Council needs to determine whether the intended safety component of Laurel St. parking removal--allegedly to help protect 2.5 bicyclists per year—should take precedent over the equity and safety of at least 41 Laurel St. residents being put in harm’s way nightly, along with the basic home accessibility disruption of all the Laurel St. residents every single day, if the Laurel St. parking removal Plan is implemented.

15.86 2
e) If “separated bike lanes have been shown to increase cycling by 21-500 percent,” (as the TPWC stated in your Agenda Packets), why would the City foolishly encourage such increased cycling on the dangerously steep Laurel St. hill and elsewhere on Laurel St., and at unnecessary, great expense? Vastly safer alternatives exist already, just a few blocks away.

Why isn’t the City promoting and facilitating usage of the safe, equitable, existing multi-million dollar Rail Trail and Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge Trail System just a few blocks away, rather than disrupt the Laurel Neary neighborhood with this ill-conceived, problematic, “Laurel St. Striping Plan?” f) Please carefully note that at the TPWC Hearing, when Commissioner Brown said, “I want to emphasize any way to salvage parking if it’s not a safety issue. It’s hard to justify taking out long stretches of parking right now, on Laurel St. itself.” Transportation Mgr., Matt Starkey’s reply was, “I wouldn’t support adjusting that part of the plan for protected bike lanes.” So clearly, he has an agenda beyond the claims of safety. Candace Brown, the only Commissioner actively listening at the “Hearing” responded, “Parking is a critical issue in that neighborhood. There have been no parking amenities provided for the added density in that neighborhood. I think parking on Laurel St. is still an issue.” Transportation Mgr., Starkey responded dismissively without discussion or justification, “The Council can amend this at their will. This is just our recommendation.” However, if the Council is relying on the TPWC to make a recommendation with full disclosure of all the issues of concern, and the entire story is not being revealed (or is falsified) by the TPWC, then the aforementioned contention clearly is disingenuous.
g) Here’s more of Commissioner Candace Brown’s input that was dismissed by the rest of the Commission: “-Commissioner Brown: [Zoom Hearing recording 2:19:18]: “I’m very sensitive to the safety issues of women. I hear what the women had to say today…” “I’m glad this is going to Council because I hope that the staff heard loud and clear that parking is an essential element to that neighborhood at this time. And without any other alternatives, I do feel that there’s a safety concern there that needs to be heard. And so if there’s any way to mitigate (removal of) those parking spaces along Laurel St., I’m trying to defer to staff because of your expertise. But at the same time, I think the community has some expertise because they live there and experience it every day.”
And here’s the final input from Commissioner Candace Brown that was dismissed by the rest of the Commission…just like the 41 invisible women seeking representation and input in the public comments at the TPWC Hearing. The City Council needs to know this is the approach the TPWC took. It pained me to see that intelligent woman try every which way to be heard, only to be dismissed and shut out without justification by her male colleagues. She was the only Commissioner listening actively, objectively, defencelessly, and thinking critically.
-Commissioner Candace Brown [Zoom hearing 3:06:45] “Unfortunately, this whole thing started with a Striping discussion. Now, there’s an Appeal on it. We’ve had a whole host of issues brought up that could be included in a short-term, mid-term, and long-term Plan. But that’s not what we’re faced with tonight. And yet, there are so many more levers that would be nice to be pulled here—the widths of the street, the appropriate amounts of space allocated for cars and bikes and pedestrians. That’s long-term. But yet in the short-term, we’re basically throwing out anybody that needs parking and saying, ‘You have to completely readjust your life overnight!’ I don’t think that’s fair either. And so, I think in the short-term, we should look at permitting of cars per household, and limit them. So, the message is, there’s only so much parking available, number one, and that should be looked at immediately. And as I mentioned before with the other motion, I would like to have added—to not remove parking on Laurel St., except for the parts within 10’ of the intersections. But if I had proposed that, that would not have passed. But just as a general statement, I will be for this Appeal as a statement that there are other levers that the City can impose, and that we need to listen to this neighborhood that is really struggling right now. And if there are a lot of crime issues, and we’re asking people to walk many, many blocks to get back and forth to their cars on a daily basis, without any improvement in lighting, without any improvement on the sidewalks, I don’t think that’s fair either.

I think we’re just jeopardizing them in other ways. So, we’re creating more safety concerns. What if their car alarms go off three blocks away? The whole neighborhood is going to be up listening to that

15.87 3
until it shuts off. Those are considerations. And so, I’m in favor of holding this Appeal up just for the sake of what’s been presented to us tonight.”
Kindly review the attached Google map of the area in question to grasp the steepness of the Laurel St. hill, and its proximity to the locations blocks away where vital, high-density-resident and guest street parking is proposed to be entirely eliminated, unnecessarily.
[Ref. https://earth.google.com/web/@36.96701553,-
122.03198336,2.90226839a,921.73214854d,35y,357.54421518h,0t,0r] • Parking Removal is not a reasonable nor optimal solution to the problem identified:

Proposed, blanket removal of parking on Laurel Street is blocks away from the site of 2.5 avg. bicycle accidents per year at the bottom of the Laurel St. hill at Walti St. At the Hearing, Transportation Mgr., Matt Starkey, established that, “The kind of overwhelming number of crashes (2.5 avg. per yr.) are bicyclerelated on this corridor, as mentioned, 80% over the last 10 years are bicycle collisions and the concentration of the collisions are really focused around the first intersection right after people come down the hill. That’s where we see the most collisions.” [Ref. Approx. Zoom TPWC Hearing Time Stamp:
1:34:29]
616-709 Laurel St., and 40’ of red curb at 807 Laurel Street are blocks away from the steep, Laurel St. hill at the Walti St. intersection. My house at 709 Laurel already has 48’ (!) of red curb from the Myrtle St. intersection, and on its other side, the entire next block of ‘would be,’ vital street parking on Laurel has been painted red already--in front of the Salvation Army at 721 Laurel St. Thus, no justification exists for frivolously removing all the Laurel street parking mid-block in front of my house. Therefore, the “clearcorner ordinance” justification cited by the TPWC in your Agenda Packet in response to the Appeal is irrelevant at the 709 Laurel St. address, at 807 Laurel, and elsewhere farther down Laurel Street toward 616 Laurel, away from the troubled Walti Street intersection.

If the houses on Walti St. had a water leak, would you shut off the water to the entire Laurel St. neighborhood or just the ones on Walti St.?
‐ Likewise, why would you impose red curbs and eradication of street parking blocks away, after the downhill slope ending at Walti St., if the problem is 2.5 avg. accidents per year on the Laurel St. hill at Walti St.?
‐ Where warranted on Laurel and adjacent side streets, why not start by simply implementing traffic-calming and other less problematic, protective measures such as slower speed limits, speed bumps, stop signs, well-marked crosswalks with reflectors and “in use” lights, larger islands and medians for pedestrians, greater Hwy Patrol presence, and street lights--all of which more directly address the problem at hand without any of the unintended impositions and serious risks to the rest of the neighborhood? Why not just see how that goes before racing into drastic, expensive measures that likely cause more serious problems than they solve? ‐ Apparently, many neighborhood residents submitted a petition to the TPWC in this regard, already. I have submitted one to the Santa Cruz City Council too: [Ref:
https://www.change.org/p/oppose-red-curbs-bollards-removal-of-19-parking-spaces-in-laurel-streetstriping-plan?redirect=false] ‐ Since the Laurel St. hill is dangerous and bicyclists are speeding (as many neighbors reported at the TPWC Hearing, and as the accidents there suggest), why not direct cyclists—some of the most able-bodied among us--to simply walk their bikes down the double-wide sidewalks we have provided—a simple solution and far smaller inconvenience than permanently removing all street parking from all Laurel Street residents and their guests? (And when I say, “We have provided those sidewalks,” I refer to the fact that sidewalk repaving costs were solicited by the City from property owners on Laurel St.) So, I paid $3,570.00 to repave the sidewalk in front of my property, and now the City is suggesting I lose the street parking adjacent to it rather than put it to use as needed for safely walking, if the existing, green bicycle lane allegedly is inadequate (based on no evidence).

15.88 4
• Far less problematic, more cost-effective, and appropriate alternatives to eradication of Laurel Street parking exist already:

Transportation Mgr., Starkey established at the TPWC Hearing that, The types of changes proposed in the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan are known to increase usage. In your Agenda Summary Sheet, he espouses that, “Separated bike lanes have been shown to increase cycling by 21-500 percent.” If so, then why would the City take all these elaborate steps to encourage more cyclists to traverse the clearly dangerously steep Laurel St. hill?
‐ Why not direct cyclists to the Rail Trail just a few blocks away? A 2/3 supermajority of Santa Cruz voters chose to preserve our entire rail corridor for both rail and trail across our entire City as an alternative, new transportation corridor to existing, impacted, transportation corridors, like the one in question. We are implementing that visionary, multi-million-dollar Rail Trail at great expense in order to better address the transportation needs of our City. That transportation corridor “provides a continuous and separated bicycle/pedestrian path spanning the entire 32-mile length of the Santa Cruz County coast. Segments 7 and 8 and part of Segment 9 run through the City of Santa Cruz.”
Phase 1 of Segment 7 was completed in 2020. It “is dedicated to walkers and bikers of all age groups and abilities.” It is “a paved, multi-use trail from Natural Bridges to Bay/California Streets and is 12 to 16 feet wide. It includes 10 green crossbikes from Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California streets—these are roadway crossings that allow cyclists to remain mounted and ride through the intersections with high visibility.” “The total cost of Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I was $6.4 million funded through City, County and State agencies. The voter-approved Measure D sales tax has provided $3.1 million for all of Segment 7.” ‐ Phase 2 of Segment 7 is scheduled to be completed in four months—this July of 2023 at a cost of $11.4 million dollars.
[Ref. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/publicworks/engineering/public-works-projects/coastal-rail-trail] 1) Why are we not promoting that new, Rail Trail bicycle corridor rather than build another disruptive one a few blocks away, and at entirely unnecessary expense? 2) Why are we both gravely inconveniencing this Laurel-Neary residential neighborhood and putting them in harm’s way instead of simply utilizing existing, far more suitable bike routes? Likewise, why is the City not simply directing pedestrians to the walkway and trail system recently added to the Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge? It touts a recently added trail system to the refuge that, "provides a significant shortcut for west side residents walking downtown, skirting the steep Laurel Street hill up to California Street (their words not mine)." “Public entrances to the Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge are located at the end of Chestnut St., the end of Blackburn St., and at the corner of Bay and California Streets.” • Improper Procedure, False and Dangerously Deceptive Representations by the TPWC:

Your Agenda Packets include the following TPWC representation: “At the public hearing a couple residents expressed concern about their personal safety walking along Laurel Street and contested that removing onstreet parking in front of their homes would expose them to more crime. After the meeting, Santa Cruz Police Department confirmed that this neighborhood is not an area people need to be concerned walking in. Staff also reviewed the prevalence of off-street parking and verified that 88% of properties on Laurel Street between Walti and Chestnut have off-street parking either in a driveway or from alley access. The removal of parking on Laurel Street won’t expose people to more crime, and if they feel unsafe, most can park on their property. The appellant’s address has multiple off-street parking spaces accessible via the alley.” - Let’s painstakingly illuminate these deceptive, TPWC representations one at a time. 1) Re: "a couple of residents" voiced safety concerns over parking far from home.” That is categorically false, and easily verified in the Zoom Hearing tape. Vastly more than "a couple residents expressed concern about their personal safety."

15.89 5
- Rather, I expressed concern about the personal safety issue [at 709 Laurel (6-7 tenants) and 709-A Laurel (3 tenants)]; (In the Appeal, approximate Zoom Hearing time stamps of those expressing such concerns are cited.) Melanie Burr voiced concern about the safety of herself and her 7 female housemates; - Claudia expressed concern about the safety of herself and 7 other female roommates on Laurel Street; - Michelle at 708 Laurel expressed concern about the safety of her family of 4; - Veronica expressed concern about her personal safety walking home from a remote parking space as well as concerns about all the people that come around checking door knobs and messing with parked cars every night.
- Adriana expressed concern about the safety risk of walking home from a remote parking space at night after work, and concern for her son who was attacked on Chestnut and Laurel St., as well as for the safety of her car parked out of view from her home at night; and
- Pamela who lives at Laurel and Myrtle expressed safety concerns and also submitted an email expressing same. So, that's 33 people, not "a couple" whose safety concerns were expressed at the TPWC Hearing. - Additionally, the TPWC received letters at least from Vanessa representing 8 mostly female roommates on Laurel Street with no driveway. They expressed safety concerns walking from remote parking spaces at night, too.

Thus, the total number of residents expressing personal safety concerns is at least 41. The TPWC is in possession of this information and was present at its own Hearing. But as stated in the Appeal, the TPWC has been (and continues) misrepresenting the relevant information on this matter both to the public and to the Santa Cruz City Council that will decide this matter. Further, though it's a difficult topic to broach, this appears in part, to be a case of at least 41 women not being heard (and all the rest that live in the neighborhood but did not call in to the Zoom meeting or email the TPWC), but rather being categorically dismissed, by a bunch of men in power. Regardless, the representation is false.
2) Re: “After the meeting, Santa Cruz Police Department confirmed that this neighborhood is not an area people need to be concerned walking in.” Here is the feeble due diligence the TPWC thought was adequate in researching the serious, safety concerns of the forty-one (41) women that spoke out against the Plan to remove parking and force residents (and their guests) to park remotely, walk alone back to their homes or cars at night, and leave their vehicles parked out of view. The TPWC contention to the contrary is supposed to be justified by a single, sloppy email exchange--that lacks any critical context, that the Transportation Manager dashed off, wrought with typos, to Wes Morey from the Westside Neighborhood Policing Team, in your Agenda Packets. Here's the TPWC weak due diligence inquiry From: Matt Starkey Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 12:54 PM To: Wes Morey Subject: RE: Laurel Street Striping Improvement Feedback "Hi Wes, We’re propsoign to remove parking along Laurel from Felix to Myrtle and restrict one stall on each of the side street. Sketch below. There were neighbors that were concerned about being exposed to more crime if they must walk further to their cars. We’re able to make a transportation safety improvement with these changes, but neighbors were concerned they would become less safe if they are walking around longer exposed to more criminal activity. Ideally we could share some data about how “safe” this neighborhood is to alleviate those concerns. Looking forward chatting more. Cheers,"

Lt. Wes Morey's email response to Matt Starkey of the TPWC was, "Hi Matt, I’ve looked into the data. This is not a high crime area where residents would have to worry about being victimized while walking to or from their vehicles. Wes" So the Agenda Packet alleged “Police Dept.” PDF from one officer with no substantiation is far from illuminating. [Ref. SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE.PDF] - For the record, Lt. Wes Morey is not “the Santa Cruz Police Dept.” - Santa Cruz has a D+ crime rating.
- It is "safer than only 3% of US cities."; and
- It is #17 on this list of “Top cities in CA with the highest number of thefts per 100,000 residents"; and
- The mean numbers of robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, and auto thefts is not just “bigger” but “much bigger” here than the State average.

15.90 6
- Further, rape and other sexual assaults are among the most underreported crimes.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "only 30.7% of women who were raped reported the crime.”
- So, many if not most women do not feel comfortable walking alone in most if not all neighborhoods after dark and when streets are mostly abandoned (whether lighted or not, meaning there are other critical issues in addition to lighting--e.g., isolation, police presence, location, etc.). Therefore, when the concerns of those 41 women who expressed their valid safety risks at the TPWC Hearing are dismissed (and surely there are many more that were not represented at the Hearing), and the Plan is pushed through anyway, who should be held accountable?
3) Re: TPWC alleged verification that 88% of properties on Laurel Street between Walti and Chestnut have offstreet parking either in a driveway or from alley access.

This is completely meaningless and deceptive without knowing how many people live at each address. This is a high-density-residency area due to economic issues and housing shortages, coupled with the fact many homes are 80 to 100 years old or more with inadequate on-site parking spaces for today’s density. So, the TPWC “Laurel Street Off Street Parking Attachment” in your Agenda Packet is useless. 4) Re: “The removal of parking on Laurel Street won’t expose people to more crime…” - Refer to item 2 above.
- Refer to the neighborhood networking site, Nextdoor. Note how many people consistently report car break-ins, vandalism, catalytic converter and other thefts, etc., especially when their cars are out of view at night.
5) Re: "...Most can park on their property. The appellant’s address has multiple off-street parking spaces accessible via the alley."
- The concerns of at least 41 people that cannot park on their property were expressed at the TPWC Hearing and in TPWC emails. Where apparently the TPWC will not acknowledge them, hopefully the City Council will rightfully acknowledge and ultimately protect the substantial number of at-risk people who cannot park on their residential property and need to park immediately adjacent to their own homes. - For the record, the Appellant's address has 9-10 tenants/yr.: 6-7 in the 2-story main house built over 100 years ago, and 3 tenants in the duplex below. The 9-10 total tenants have to park in what would be their backyard where there are only 4-5 spaces off the alley--one of which is right in front of the door to their home.

So, the remaining 4-6 tenants rely on street parking permits to park in front of their home. Once again, this is another example of the TPWC recklessly and negligently spreading misinformation and making false claims.

The TPWC has no idea how many people live in each home, including Appellant’s. Thus, it cannot imply these high-density homes have adequate parking on-site for the number of residents living there. The photographs of places for parking at various properties the TPWC provided in the Agenda Packets are useless without knowing how many people live at each property. The irrelevance of the TPWC “Laurel Street Off Street Parking Attachment” in your Agenda Packet was established already in item 3 (above). - Also of note, TPWC expressed repeatedly during the TPWC 1/23/23 Hearing that they wanted to avoid “throwing a wrench into the Plan” or going “back to the drawing board.” But that’s what “the drawing board” is for! They seemed extremely reluctant to alter their Plan based on public concerns, objections or input. At one point a commissioner asked whether parking could be left as is without altering the Plan. The Transportation Mgr. claimed it could not. So, the issue was dropped. But, realistically, Plan alterations to reverse parking removal seem minimal, and the point of public input is to make Plan alterations while they’re still only on paper.

15.91 7
• The Vision Zero policy is laden with loaded words like, “supports increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all,” as the TPWC parroted in the City Council Agenda Report. It uses “a multidisciplinary approach” (apparently except in terms of taking into account the people that live in the areas where all these safe, healthy, equitable, accessible, multidisciplinary approaches are implemented). Vision Zero improves roadway safety. But none of these claims apply to the proposed parking removal aspect of the Laurel Street Plan. In fact, Vision Zero in the Laurel Striping Plan context does the opposite of supporting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Simply saying it, doesn’t make it so. The 41 female Laurel St. residents that have to walk dangerously farther through dark, abandoned streets from remote parking to their homes at night; disabled residents that will lose equitable accessibility to their homes; and the inevitable inconvenience to all residents and their guests isn’t safe, healthy, equitable or accessible. If Laurel Street parking is removed, a) How will Laurel residents with no adjacent street parking move in and move out with all their furniture, etc.? b) How will they carry groceries and packages or receive deliveries? or c) How will they be accommodated in inclement weather? or d) How will families with children in tow be accommodated (e.g., mothers carrying sleeping babies home from a remotely parked car with diaper bags and other young children in tow? or e) How will disabled or elderly folks needing easy, direct access to their homes from their cars be accommodated? and f) How will further risk be accommodated--of having personal vehicles vandalized, stolen, or broken into if they're remotely parked out of view every night? And this alleged application of the Vision Zero Policy similarly may well not serve the best interest of increased numbers of cyclists enlisted to speed down the dangerously steep Laurel hill, too.

In closing, I’d like to point out that 19,000 students come here to attend UCSC nearby. They mostly take the bus to and from school and during the day, but have no reasonable way to move in and out of their homes from afar, travel home on breaks, commute to work after hours along with many other renters and owners. “Most of the residential real estate here is renter occupied…” “In addition, an extraordinary 36.4% of the residents of the Neary / Mission Hill neighborhood are currently enrolled in college.” [Ref:
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/santa-cruz/neary]
The general residential parking/safety concern expressed herein, is an economic and social justice issue; a women's rights issue; and an accessibility and equity issue. Every renter or homeowner is not a young adult, single, cyclist. Bicyclists don't exist in a vacuum. And they are perhaps among the most able-bodied among us so surely they can walk their bikes down the steep Laurel Hill on the doublewide, Laurel St. sidewalks, ride a few blocks over to the Rail Trail, and/or the Neary Lagoon Trail, rather than gravely impact an entire neighborhood of hundreds if not thousands of paying residents by forcing them to relinquish their essential street parking in front of their own homes. Furthermore, this area lacks adequate public transportation to intentionally target car owners for whom we have not provided adequate public transportation alternatives.

Our City Council ought to look out for these women, families, disabled, and mostly renters that seem to be viewed with disdain--as if low-density homeowners are justified to have their own cars but highdensity renters aren't. This is a high-density area because there aren't enough homes for everyone to own one. The majority of people can't afford to own at current rates. They have to share homes with other renters to afford to live here and because of housing scarcity. Furthermore, many homes on and around Laurel are around 80-100+ years old without garages, driveways or adequate onsite parking to accommodate the number of people that must now occupy these homes. And as stated previously, most people cannot solely commute via bicycle if at all. Viewing them with disdain or bias, when we don’t have adequate public transportation alternatives to accommodate them, is unjustifiable. For these and all the reasons I have gone to great lengths to point out in this letter, please Support the Appeal and likewise Reject the TPWC recommendation of parking removal on Laurel St., as part of the Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours,
- Robin Belkin

15.92 To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City [email protected] From: Robin Belkin
Date: March 11, 2023
Re: Objection to Laurel Street Parking Removal
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council,
Please carefully consider this plea to Support the Appeal and likewise Reject the TPWC recommendation of parking removal on Laurel St., as part of the Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan. The Plan clearly lacks vision, accuracy, and common sense in myriad ways. But in a nutshell:
a) The eradication of currently proposed, 12 Laurel Street, residential, street parking spaces adjacent to high-density-residents’ homes cannot be characterized as “a new safety feature” per the much-touted Vision Zero Policy, nor as “safe, inviting, and accessible” (per the General Plan), if it places 40 or likely far more residents at risk every night, to questionably protect 2.5 avg. bicyclists per year. (See transportation Mgr.

Starkey’s pertinent comment in letter “c” below.)
b) Such a plan may cause more injuries than it prevents (e.g., to the forty-one (41) Laurel St. women residents that expressed concern for their safety walking home from remote parking spaces through sketchy, abandoned streets after dark; as well as to vastly more cyclists speeding down the steep Laurel hill).
c) Since the Transportation Mgr. spearheading the Laurel Street Striping Plan stated at the TPWC Zoom Hearing, [Approx. Zoom Hearing time stamp 3:19:00]:
“But parking removal at least part of that is a safety issue right? There’s different people’s safety—I’m not saying one is more important. I don’t know how to balance or measure the two and compare them. But the moving of the parking is not being done as a hostile act against neighbors (his words, not mine…). It’s being done to improve safety.” (In the same breath, he admitted the parking removal simultaneously would create a new safety risk that he “didn’t know how to balance or measure.” d) Thus, that safety issue evaluation (referenced in “c” above), clearly must be understood and undertaken by the City Council, now. Since the TPWC cannot, the City Council needs to determine whether the intended safety component of Laurel St. parking removal--allegedly to help protect 2.5 bicyclists per year—should take precedent over the equity and safety of at least 41 Laurel St. residents being put in harm’s way nightly, along with the basic home accessibility disruption of all the Laurel St. residents every single day, if the Laurel St. parking removal Plan is implemented. e) If “separated bike lanes have been shown to increase cycling by 21-500 percent,” (as the TPWC stated in your Agenda Packet), why would the City foolishly encourage such increased cycling on the dangerously steep Laurel St. hill and elsewhere on Laurel St., and at unnecessary, great expense? Vastly safer alternatives exist already, just a few blocks away. Why isn’t the City promoting and facilitating usage of the safe, equitable, existing multi-million dollar Rail Trail and Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge Trail System just a few blocks away, rather than disrupt the Laurel Neary neighborhood with this illconceived “Laurel St. Striping Plan?” f) Please carefully note that at the TPWC Hearing, when Commissioner Brown said, “I want to emphasize any way to salvage parking if it’s not a safety issue. It’s hard to justify taking out long stretches of parking right now, on Laurel St. itself.” Transportation Mgr., Matt Starkey’s reply was, “I wouldn’t support adjusting that part of the plan for protected bike lanes.” So clearly, he has an agenda beyond the claims of safety. Candace Brown, the only Commissioner actively listening at the “Hearing” responded, “Parking is a critical

15.93 issue in that neighborhood. There have been no parking amenities provided for the added density in that neighborhood. I think parking on Laurel St. is still an issue.” Transportation Mgr., Starkey responded dismissively without discussion or justification, “The Council can amend this at their will. This is just our recommendation.” However, if the Council is relying on the TPWC to make a recommendation with full disclosure of all the issues of concern, and the entire story is not being revealed (or is falsified) by the TPWC, then the aforementioned contention clearly is disingenuous. g) Here’s more of Commissioner Candace Brown’s input that was dismissed by the rest of the Commission: “-Commissioner Brown: [Zoom Hearing recording 2:19:18]: “I’m very sensitive to the safety issues of women. I hear what the women had to say today…” “I’m glad this is going to Council because I hope that the staff heard loud and clear that parking is an essential element to that neighborhood at this time. And without any other alternatives, I do feel that there’s a safety concern there that needs to be heard. And so if there’s any way to mitigate (removal of) those parking spaces along Laurel St., I’m trying to defer to staff because of your expertise. But at the same time, I think the community has some expertise because they live there and experience it every day.” And here’s the final input from Commissioner Candace Brown that was dismissed by the rest of the Commission…just like the 41 invisible women seeking representation and input in the public comments at the TPWC Hearing. The City Council needs to know this is the approach the TPWC took. It pained me to see that intelligent woman try every which way to be heard, only to be dismissed and shut out without justification by her male colleagues. She was the only Commissioner listening actively, objectively, defencelessly, and thinking critically. -Commissioner Candace Brown [Zoom hearing 3:06:45] “Unfortunately, this whole thing started with a Striping discussion. Now, there’s an Appeal on it. We’ve had a whole host of issues brought up that could be included in a short-term, mid-term, and long-term Plan. But that’s not what we’re faced with tonight. And yet, there are so many more levers that would be nice to be pulled here—the widths of the street, the appropriate amounts of space allocated for cars and bikes and pedestrians. That’s long-term. But yet in the short-term, we’re basically throwing out anybody that needs parking and saying, ‘You have to completely readjust your life overnight!’ I don’t think that’s fair either. And so, I think in the short-term, we should look at permitting of cars per household, and limit them. So, the message is, there’s only so much parking available, number one, and that should be looked at immediately. And as I mentioned before with the other motion, I would like to have added—to not remove parking on Laurel St., except for the parts within 10’ of the intersections. But if I had proposed that, that would not have passed. But just as a general statement, I will be for this Appeal as a statement that there are other levers that the City can impose, and that we need to listen to this neighborhood that is really struggling right now. And if there are a lot of crime issues, and we’re asking people to walk many, many blocks to get back and forth to their cars on a daily basis, without any improvement in lighting, without any improvement on the sidewalks, I don’t think that’s fair either. I think we’re just jeopardizing them in other ways. So, we’re creating more safety concerns. What if their car alarms go off three blocks away? The whole neighborhood is going to be up listening to that until it shuts off. Those are considerations. And so, I’m in favor of holding this Appeal up just for the sake of what’s been presented to us tonight.”
Kindly review the attached Google map of the area in question to grasp the steepness of the Laurel St. hill, and its proximity to the locations blocks away where vital, high-density-resident and guest street parking is proposed to be entirely eliminated. [Ref. https://earth.google.com/web/@36.96701553,-
122.03198336,2.90226839a,921.73214854d,35y,357.54421518h,0t,0r] • Parking Removal is not a reasonable nor optimal solution to the problem identified:

15.94 Proposed, blanket removal of parking on Laurel Street is blocks away from the site of 2.5 avg. bicycle accidents per year at the bottom of the Laurel St. hill at Walti St. At the Hearing, Transportation Mgr., Matt Starkey, established that, “The kind of overwhelming number of crashes (2.5 avg. per yr.) are bicycle-related on this corridor, as mentioned, 80% over the last 10 years are bicycle collisions and the concentration of the collisions are really focused around the first intersection right after people come down the hill. That’s where we see the most collisions.” [Ref. Approx. Zoom TPWC Hearing Time Stamp: 1:34:29] 616-709 Laurel St., and 40’ of red curb at 807 Laurel Street are blocks away from the steep, Laurel St. hill at the Walti St. intersection. My house at 709 Laurel already has 48’ (!) of red curb from the Myrtle St. intersection, and on its other side, the entire next block of ‘would be,’ vital street parking on Laurel has been painted red already--in front of the Salvation Army at 721 Laurel St. Thus, no justification exists for frivolously removing all the street parking mid-block in front of my house. Therefore, the “clear-corner ordinance” justification cited by the TPWC in your Agenda Packet in response to the Appeal is irrelevant at the 709 Laurel St. address, at 807 Laurel, and elsewhere farther down Laurel Street toward 616 Laurel, away from the troubled Walti Street intersection.

If the houses on Walti St. had a water leak, would you shut off the water to the entire Laurel St. neighborhood or just the ones on Walti St.?
- Likewise, why would you impose red curbs and eradication of street parking blocks away, after the downhill slope ending at Walti St., if the problem is 2.5 avg. accidents per year on the Laurel St. hill at Walti St.?
- Where warranted on Laurel and adjacent side streets, why not start by simply implementing traffic-calming and other less problematic, protective measures such as slower speed limits, speed bumps, stop signs, well-marked crosswalks with reflectors and “in use” lights, larger islands and medians for pedestrians, greater Hwy Patrol presence, and street lights--all of which more directly address the problem at hand without any of the unintended impositions and serious risks to the rest of the neighborhood? Why not just see how that goes before racing into drastic, expensive measures that likely cause more serious problems than they solve? - Apparently, many neighborhood residents submitted a petition to the TPWC in this regard, already. I have submitted one to the Santa Cruz City Council too: [Ref:
https://www.change.org/p/oppose-red-curbs-bollards-removal-of-19-parking-spacesin-laurel-street-striping-plan?redirect=false] - Since the Laurel St. hill is dangerous and bicyclists are speeding (as many neighbors reported at the TPWC Hearing, and as the accidents there suggest), why not direct cyclists—some of the most able-bodied among us--to simply walk their bikes down the double-wide sidewalks we have provided—a simple solution and far smaller inconvenience than permanently removing all street parking from all Laurel Street residents and their guests? (And when I say, “We have provided those sidewalks,” I refer to the fact that sidewalk repaving costs were solicited by the City from property owners on Laurel St.) So, I paid $3,570.00 to repave the sidewalk in front of my property, and now the City is suggesting I lose the street parking adjacent to it rather than put it to use as needed for safely walking, if the existing, green bicycle lane allegedly is inadequate (based on no evidence).
• Far less problematic, more cost-effective, and appropriate alternatives to eradication of Laurel Street parking exist already:

Transportation Mgr., Starkey established at the TPWC Hearing that, The types of changes proposed in the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Plan are known to increase usage. In your

15.95 Agenda Summary Sheet, he espouses that, “Separated bike lanes have been shown to increase cycling by 21-500 percent.” If so, then why would the City take all these elaborate steps to encourage more cyclists to traverse the clearly dangerously steep Laurel St. hill? - Why not direct cyclists to the Rail Trail just a few blocks away? A 2/3 supermajority of Santa Cruz voters chose to preserve our entire rail corridor for both rail and trail across our entire City as an alternative, new transportation corridor to existing, impacted, transportation corridors, like the one in question. We are implementing that visionary, multi-million-dollar Rail Trail at great expense in order to better address the transportation needs of our City. That transportation corridor “provides a continuous and separated bicycle/pedestrian path spanning the entire 32-mile length of the Santa Cruz County coast. Segments 7 and 8 and part of Segment 9 run through the City of Santa Cruz.”
Phase 1 of Segment 7 was completed in 2020. It “is dedicated to walkers and bikers of all age groups and abilities.” It is “a paved, multi-use trail from Natural Bridges to Bay/California Streets and is 12 to 16 feet wide. It includes 10 green crossbikes from Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California streets—these are roadway crossings that allow cyclists to remain mounted and ride through the intersections with high visibility.” “The total cost of Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I was $6.4 million funded through City, County and State agencies. The voter-approved Measure D sales tax has provided $3.1 million for all of Segment 7.” - Phase 2 of Segment 7 is scheduled to be completed in four months—this July of 2023 at a cost of $11.4 million dollars.
[Ref. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/publicworks/engineering/public-works-projects/coastal-rail-trail] 1) Why are we not promoting that new, Rail Trail bicycle corridor rather than build another disruptive one a few blocks away, and at entirely unnecessary expense? 2) Why are we both gravely inconveniencing this Laurel-Neary residential neighborhood and putting them in harm’s way instead of simply utilizing existing, far more suitable bike routes?
Likewise, why is the City not simply directing pedestrians to the walkway and trail system recently added to the Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge? It touts a recently added trail system to the refuge that, "provides a significant shortcut for west side residents walking downtown, skirting the steep Laurel Street hill up to California Street (their words not mine)." “Public entrances to the Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge are located at the end of Chestnut St., the end of Blackburn St., and at the corner of Bay and California Streets.”

15.96 • Improper Procedure, False and Dangerously Deceptive Representations by the TPWC:

Your Agenda Packets include the following TPWC representation: “At the public hearing a couple residents expressed concern about their personal safety walking along Laurel Street and contested that removing on-street parking in front of their homes would expose them to more crime. After the meeting, Santa Cruz Police Department confirmed that this neighborhood is not an area people need to be concerned walking in. Staff also reviewed the prevalence of off-street parking and verified that 88% of properties on Laurel Street between Walti and Chestnut have off-street parking either in a driveway or from alley access. The removal of parking on Laurel Street won’t expose people to more crime, and if they feel unsafe, most can park on their property. The appellant’s address has multiple off-street parking spaces accessible via the alley.”
- Let’s painstakingly illuminate these deceptive, TPWC representations one at a time. 1) Re: "a couple of people" voiced safety concerns over parking far from home.” That is categorically false, and easily verified in the Zoom Hearing tape. Vastly more than "a couple residents expressed concern about their personal safety." - Rather, I expressed concern about the personal safety issue [at 709 Laurel (6-7 tenants) and 709-A Laurel (3 tenants)]; (In the Appeal, approximate Zoom Hearing time stamps of those expressing such concerns are cited.) Melanie Burr voiced concern about the safety of herself and her 7 female housemates;
- Claudia expressed concern about the safety of herself and 7 other female roommates on Laurel Street;
- Michelle at 708 Laurel expressed concern about the safety of her family of 4; - Veronica expressed concern about her personal safety walking home from a remote parking space as well as concerns about all the people that come around checking door knobs and messing with parked cars every night.
- Adriana expressed concern about the safety risk of walking home from a remote parking space at night after work, and concern for her son who was attacked on Chestnut and Laurel St., as well as for the safety of her car parked out of view from her home at night; and - Pamela who lives at Laurel and Myrtle expressed safety concerns and also submitted an email expressing same. So, that's 33 people, not "a couple" whose safety concerns were expressed at the TPWC Hearing.
- Additionally, the TPWC received letters at least from Vanessa representing 8 mostly female roommates on Laurel Street with no driveway. They expressed safety concerns walking from remote parking spaces at night, too.

Thus, the total number of residents expressing personal safety concerns is at least 41.

The TPWC is in possession of this information and was present at its own Hearing. But as stated in the Appeal, the TPWC has been (and continues) misrepresenting the relevant information on this matter both to the public and to the Santa Cruz City Council that will decide this matter. Further, though it's a difficult topic to broach, this appears in part, to be a case of at least 41 women not being heard (and all the rest that live in the neighborhood but did not call in to the Zoom meeting or email the TPWC), but rather being categorically dismissed, by a bunch of men in power. Regardless, the representation is false. 2) Re: “After the meeting, Santa Cruz Police Department confirmed that this neighborhood is not an area people need to be concerned walking in.” Here is the feeble due diligence the TPWC thought was adequate in researching the serious, safety concerns of the forty-one (41) women that spoke out against the Plan to remove parking and force residents (and their guests) to park remotely, walk alone back to their homes or cars at night, and leave their vehicles parked out of view. The TPWC contention to the contrary is supposed to be justified by a single, sloppy email

15.97 exchange--that lacks any critical context, that the Transportation Manager dashed off, wrought with typos, to Wes Morey from the Westside Neighborhood Policing Team, in your Agenda Packets. Here's the TPWC weak due diligence inquiry From: Matt Starkey Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 12:54 PM To: Wes Morey Subject: RE: Laurel Street Striping Improvement Feedback
"Hi Wes, We’re propsoign to remove parking along Laurel from Felix to Myrtle and restrict one stall on each of the side street. Sketch below. There were neighbors that were concerned about being exposed to more crime if they must walk further to their cars. We’re able to make a transportation safety improvement with these changes, but neighbors were concerned they would become less safe if they are walking around longer exposed to more criminal activity.

Ideally we could share some data about how “safe” this neighborhood is to alleviate those concerns. Looking forward chatting more. Cheers,"
Lt. Wes Morey's email response to Matt Starkey of the TPWC was, "Hi Matt, I’ve looked into the data. This is not a high crime area where residents would have to worry about being victimized while walking to or from their vehicles. Wes" So the Agenda Packet alleged “Police Dept.” PDF from one officer with no substantiation is far from illuminating. [Ref. SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE.PDF] - For the record, Lt. Wes Morey is not “the Santa Cruz Police Dept.” - Santa Cruz has a D+ crime rating.
- It is "safer than only 3% of US cities."; and
- It is #17 on this list of “Top cities in CA with the highest number of thefts per 100,000 residents"; and
- The mean numbers of robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, and auto thefts is not just “bigger” but “much bigger” here than the State average. - Further, rape and other sexual assaults are among the most underreported crimes.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "only 30.7% of women who were raped reported the crime.”
- So, many if not most women do not feel comfortable walking alone in most if not all neighborhoods after dark and when streets are mostly abandoned (whether lighted or not, meaning there are other critical issues in addition to lighting--e.g., isolation, police presence, location, etc.). Therefore, when the concerns of those 41 women who expressed their valid safety risks at the TPWC Hearing are dismissed (and surely there are many more that were not represented at the Hearing), and the Plan is pushed through anyway, who should be held accountable?
3) Re: TPWC alleged verification that 88% of properties on Laurel Street between Walti and Chestnut have off-street parking either in a driveway or from alley access.

This is completely meaningless and deceptive without knowing how many people live at each address. This is a high-density-residency area due to economic issues and housing shortages, coupled with the fact many homes are 80 to 100 years old or more with inadequate on-site parking spaces for today’s density. So, the TPWC “Laurel Street Off Street Parking Attachment” in your Agenda Packet is useless.
4) Re: “The removal of parking on Laurel Street won’t expose people to more crime…” - Refer to item 2 above.

15.98 - Refer to the neighborhood networking site, Nextdoor. Note how many people consistently report car break-ins, vandalism, catalytic converter and other thefts, etc., especially when their cars are out of view at night.
5) Re: "...Most can park on their property. The appellant’s address has multiple off-street parking spaces accessible via the alley."
- The concerns of at least 41 people that cannot park on their property were expressed at the TPWC Hearing and in TPWC emails. Where apparently the TPWC will not acknowledge them, hopefully the City Council will rightfully acknowledge and ultimately protect the substantial number of at-risk people who cannot park on their residential property and need to park immediately adjacent to their own homes.
- For the record, the Appellant's address has 9-10 tenants/yr.: 6-7 in the 2-story main house built over 100 years ago, and 3 tenants in the duplex below. The 9-10 total tenants have to park in what would be their backyard where there are only 4-5 spaces off the alley--one of which is right in front of the door to their home. So, the remaining 4-6 tenants rely on street parking permits to park in front of their home. Once again, this is another example of the TPWC recklessly and negligently spreading misinformation and making false claims. The TPWC has no idea how many people live in each home, including Appellant’s. Thus, it cannot imply these high-density homes have adequate parking on-site for the number of residents living there. The photographs of places for parking at various properties the TPWC provided in the Agenda Packets are useless without knowing how many people live at each property. The irrelevance of the TPWC “Laurel Street Off Street Parking Attachment” in your Agenda Packet was established already in item 3 (above).
- Also of note, TPWC expressed repeatedly during the TPWC 1/23/23 Hearing that they wanted to avoid “throwing a wrench into the Plan” or going “back to the drawing board.” But that’s what “the drawing board” is for! They seemed extremely reluctant to alter their Plan based on public concerns, objections or input. At one point a commissioner asked whether parking could be left as is without altering the Plan. The Transportation Mgr. claimed it could not. So, the issue was dropped. But, realistically, Plan alterations to reverse parking removal seem minimal, and the point of public input is to make Plan alterations while they’re still only on paper. • The Vision Zero policy is laden with loaded words like, “supports increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all,” as the TPWC parroted in the City Council Agenda Report. It uses “a multidisciplinary approach” (apparently except in terms of taking into account the people that live in the areas where all these safe, healthy, equitable, accessible, multidisciplinary approaches are implemented). Vision Zero improves roadway safety. But none of these claims apply to the proposed parking removal aspect of the Laurel Street Plan. In fact, Vision Zero in the Laurel Striping Plan context does the opposite of supporting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Simply saying it, doesn’t make it so. The 41 female Laurel St. residents that have to walk dangerously farther through dark, abandoned streets from remote parking to their homes at night; disabled residents that will lose equitable accessibility to their homes; and the inevitable inconvenience to all residents and their guests isn’t safe, healthy, equitable or accessible. If Laurel Street parking is removed, a) How will Laurel residents with no adjacent street parking move in and move out with all their furniture, etc.? b) How will they carry groceries and packages or receive deliveries? or c) How will they be accommodated in inclement weather? or d) How will families with children in tow be accommodated (e.g., mothers

15.99 carrying sleeping babies home from a remotely parked car with diaper bags and other young children in tow? or e) How will disabled or elderly needing easy, direct access to their homes from their cars be accommodated? and f) How will further risk be accommodated--of having personal vehicles vandalized, stolen, or broken into if they're remotely parked out of view every night? And this alleged application of the Vision Zero Policy similarly may well not serve the best interest of increased numbers of cyclists enlisted to speed down the dangerously steep Laurel hill, too.

In closing, I’d like to point out that 19,000 students come here to attend UCSC nearby. They mostly take the bus to and from school and during the day, but have no reasonable way to move in and out of their homes from afar, travel home on breaks, commute to work after hours along with many other renters and owners. “Most of the residential real estate here is renter occupied…” “In addition, an extraordinary 36.4% of the residents of the Neary / Mission Hill neighborhood are currently enrolled in college.” [Ref: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/santa-cruz/neary] The general residential parking/ safety concern expressed herein, is an economic and social justice issue; a women's rights issue; and an accessibility and equity issue. Every renter or homeowner is not a young adult, single, cyclist. Bicyclists don't exist in a vacuum. And they are perhaps among the most able-bodied among us so surely they can walk their bikes down the steep Laurel Hill on the double-wide, Laurel St. sidewalks, ride a few blocks over to the Rail Trail, and/or the Neary Lagoon Trail, rather than gravely impact an entire neighborhood of hundreds if not thousands of paying residents by forcing them to relinquish their essential street parking in front of their own homes. Furthermore, this area lacks adequate public transportation to intentionally target car owners for whom we have not provided adequate public transportation alternatives.

Our City Council ought to look out for these women, families, disabled, and mostly renters that seem to be viewed with disdain--as if low-density homeowners are justified to have their own cars but high-density renters aren't. This is a high-density area because there aren't enough homes for everyone to own one. The majority of people can't afford to own at current rates. They have to share homes with other renters to afford to live here and because of housing scarcity. Furthermore, many homes on and around Laurel are around 80-100+ years old without garages, driveways or adequate onsite parking to accommodate the number of people that must now occupy these homes. And as stated previously, most people cannot solely commute via bicycle if at all. Viewing them with disdain or bias, when we don’t have adequate public transportation alternatives to accommodate them, is unjustifiable. For these and all the reasons I have gone to great lengths to point out in this letter, please Support the Appeal and likewise Reject the TPWC recommendation of parking removal on Laurel St., as part of the Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours,
- Robin Belkin

15.100

15.101
City of Santa Cruz Segments
The Coastal Rail Trail is part of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan — envisioned 20 years ago by then-U.S. Senator Sam Farr—providing a continuous and separated bicycle/pedestrian path spanning the entire 32-mile length of the Santa Cruz County coast.

There are 20 Coastal Rail Trail segments altogether that are planned and managed by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

Coastal Rail Trail Segments 7 and 8 and part of Segment 9 run through the City of Santa Cruz.

Coastal Rail Trail

15.102
Segment 7 Phase I: Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California Completed Construction 2020 Watch the RIbbon-Cutting Video Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I is a paved multi-use trail that runs 1.2 miles from Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California streets and is 12 to 16 feet wide. It includes 10 green crossbikes from Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California streets — these are roadway crossings that allow cyclists to remain mounted and ride through the intersections with high visibility. The trail includes a bridge over Arroyo Seco channel, a retaining wall west of Almar Avenue and additional vehicle and bike parking at and around New Leaf Market.

Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7/Phase I is dedicated to walkers and bikers of all age groups and abilities. The running slopes on the trail and curb ramps were designed and graded to be ADA compliant, making it easier for public access and use of the trail. For a short section on Bay Street where a sidewalk exists, a Class IV Cycletrack was installed with green striping to separate bikes from pedestrians.

Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I is currently serving over 800 active transportation users daily—thus significantly reducing carbon emissions with an increase in active transportation. On the west end of the project, the trail connects to Natural Bridges State Park, Wilder Ranch State Park and the UCSC Institute of Marine Sciences and Long Marine Lab. Between the Boardwalk and State parks, the trail provides access to two popular shopping centers on Almar Avenue and Fair Avenue.

15.103
The total cost of Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I was $6.4 million funded through City, County and State agencies. The voter-approved Measure D sales tax has provided $3.1 million for all of Segment 7.

The City of Santa Cruz virtually celebrated the ribbon-cutting of Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I on Dec. 10, 2020. Over 200 stakeholders attended the Zoom event with some featured in this ribbon-cutting video. Their testimonials reflect enthusiastic community appreciation for Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I.

FAQs Regional Transportation Commission
Plans
Specifications
Environmental Review/CEQA

15.104
Segment 7 Phase II: Bay/California to Pacific Avenue
Construction Est.: July 2022 - August 2023 (possibly later due to storm damage) Ricardo Valdes, Senior Professional Engineer (831) 420-5198 The City of Santa Cruz began construction of Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase II in summer 2022 and expects completion in July 2023. The estimated construction cost is $11.4 million, funded by a $9 million Caltrans Active Transportation Program Cycle 5 grant. The project grant is matched with Measure D tax funds, passed by over two-thirds of Santa Cruz County voters in 2016.

The project is a 0.8 miles long paved bicycle/pedestrian path between Bay/California streets and Pacific Avenue/Beach Street. It will be 12-16 feet wide and run along the coastal side of the existing rail line. It is designed for walkers and bikers of all age groups and abilities. Running slopes and curb ramps are designed to be ADA compliant, making it easier for public access and use. It will provide a safer active transportation alternative to the high traffic Mission Street/Highway 1 corridor with connection to the popular Beach Street bikeway and favorite public destinations like the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and Municipal Wharf on the east end.

The project will connect to the recently completed Coastal Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase I, which serves over 800 active transportation users per day. Together Phase I and Phase II create 2.1 miles of the Coastal Rail Trail spine between Natural Bridges Drive and Pacific Avenue at the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf. The two-phase trail will connect over 30,000 residents who live within one mile of the project to schools, work, beaches, shopping and other activity centers. This furthers implementation of the largest active transportation project in Santa Cruz County, offering an important path towards long term mode shift and significant reduction of carbon emissions.

Additionally, Segment 7 Phase II is entirely located within a disadvantaged community (DAC) area which is the lowest income census tract in the City of Santa Cruz. It includes an innovative “vertical” non-infrastructure program at Bay View Elementary School, providing active transportation education and encouragement at every grade level for the first time in Santa Cruz City Schools.

City and County officials and at least 200 community members celebrated the project’s groundbreaking on Thursday, Aug. 11, at La Barranca Park, 700 Bay Street. Read more here.

Construction press release June 30, 2022
FAQs Regional Transportation Commission
Plans
Specifications
Environmental Review/CEQA

15.105
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rick Boyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 12:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISION DECISION AND APPROVE THE LAUREL

STREET VISION ZERO STRIPING PLAN
Please deny this appeal and ensure the Vision Zero/Laurel St striping goes forward. We need to ensure this is a city that works for bicyclists and pedestrians and motivates away from car use. A safe bike friendly city is key to SC becoming the green city we all envision.

15.106
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: David Zweig <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 1:24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: DENY APPEAL FOR ITEM #15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward.

Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Sincerely,
Dave Zweig
148 Walk Circle
Santa Cruz

15.107
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Monheit <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 4:59 PM
To: Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner; Renee Golder; City Council; Matt Starkey; Nate Goodman Subject: Approve Item 15 on March 14 City Council meeting - Dear City Councilmembers, Mayor Keeley,
Please deny the appeal and uphold the Transportation and Public Works Commissions approval to design and install the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut to increase safety. The safety of Laurel Street for all users should be prioritized over the privilege of parking a few private cars.

I support the removal of parking spots on Laurel Street, and adjoining Walti, Felix, Blackburn and Myrtle street intersections in order to implement essential SAFETY features, improve visibility, and SLOW TRAFFIC on Laurel Street.

Neighborhood citizens went out on Laurel street last week with a radar gun and clocked traffic on Laurel St going up to 38 mph, both up and down the hill, and in front of the high school. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

A special thank you to Matt Starkey, City Transportation Engineer, who met with a group of neighborhood citizens in the pouring rain for an hour last week, to look at Laurel street, and adjoining intersections, and discuss their plan to make it safer.

Laurel Street is about to become an arterial roadway through the city that either will or won't support the massive development planned at Front St, as part of the Downtown Plan Expansion. That development will add an estimated 3600 cars on Laurel St multiple times a day. Speeding  traffic coming down Laurel St. is treacherously dangerous. There have been many accidents, and even fatalities almost immediately across from the high school which draws hundreds of students, many on bikes.

Thank you,
Susan Monheit

15.108
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Keith Bontrager <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 6:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please deny the appeal of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Supervisors,
I urge you to deny the appeal of the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan.

Laurel Street is an important collector road between Mission St and Downtown. It is used by many people every day, including students accessing Santa Cruz High School. It is also a very dangerous street with a significant number of injuries of vulnerable road users due to collisions with cars..

The current plan is consistent with the goals of General Plan, The Climate Action Plan and the Active Transportation Plan. The plan will increase the safety of all road users.

Sincerely,
Keith Bontrager
Santa Cruz, CA

15.109
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Elizabeth Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 7:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Laurel street parking
To whom it may concern,
As residents of Santa Cruz and persons who live on Myrtle St. we are NOT OK with the proposed city ordinance of taking away parking on Laurel. Parking on our street has already been problematic and the traffic has led to vandalism on our property multiple times. We vehemently protest this move as it will only bring more unwanted traffic and vandalism to our street and residences.

NOT OK OR SUPPORTED BY LOCALS ON MYRTLE.
‐129 Myrtle St.

15.110
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Erik Tews <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 7:56 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Parking on Laurel Street
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council Members ‐ Please approve the appeal for item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets.

As a homeowner on Myrtle street, and lifelong bike commuter and avid walker, I am concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea behind Vision Zero.

I have recently seen great efforts by the city to increase the safety of bicycle lanes.  A good example is the recent addition of pylons and stripes to the corner in front of the Howard Johnson hotel on West Cliff drive.  This addition to the surface of the street is a good example because it increases driver awareness of a bike lane, where otherwise I have observed countless times driver's naturally and habitually cut the corner into the bike lane while driving fast.

Laurel street is a different case, and there are certainly hazards on Laurel street for a cyclist.  But parked cars are not the primary hazard.  The primary hazards are driver's speeding and driving while operating their cell phones.  Removing the parked cars from Laurel will not eliminate either of these factors.  Certainly removing parked cars will provide a wider bike lane between a cyclist and a speeding distracted driver, only if everything lines up correctly.

But eliminating parking on Laurel does not make the bike lane on Laurel consistently wider, it only provides specific locations where it will be wider, leaving other narrow spots un‐resolved.

The idea of improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians is wonderful, but in this case the effort seems misguided.  There will still be speeding drivers, distracted driver's, and possibly drunk drivers on Laurel street.  How do you plan to address these issues?
Asking residents on Laurel to park further from their homes seems to be causing a new problem for these already parking limited neighborhoods, and not solving the problem of safety on Laurel in a manner that seems effective.  It seems that an unwanted side‐effect of removing parked cars from Laurel will be increased speeding and distracted driving.

By eliminating parking on Laurel, you will have made a very minor impact on safety, if any at all, possibly an even more deadly side affect of speeding will arise...and you will certainly be causing stress to the many of the neighbors of Santa Cruz in the form of less available parking.

Is it possible for the city council to rethink these details?  It seems that one criteria for a good decision is when there is no additional misery caused by the decision.

Sincerely,
Erik Tews
831‐818‐8547

15.111
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michiko Pane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Laurel Street Parking
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street. This will make it practically quite challenging for us to visit my brother and his family on Laurel Street. Santa Cruz is the center for our family gatherings. My elderly mother frequently parks in front of their homez both for social gatherings as well as to look aftery nephew. I am concerned about her safety with her having to park at a distance and walk to my brother's house, often after dark. With parking becoming an issue, we will likely shift our gatherings elsewhere and spend less time and money outside of Santa Cruz.

Thank you,
Mich and EricTaniguchi

15.112
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: keiko taniguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 8:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Parking on Laurel
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street.This will make it very difficult for me to visit family on Laurel Street. I pick up and drop off my grandson at his home on Laurel Street. l have to drive from Felton. It is difficult for me to park far away from their house because of my age 78 and because I am often carrying things to and from their house.

Laurel is a very fast street. Both bikes and cars are going much faster than the speed limit. It would be helpful to have  a stop sign and crosswalks for pedestrians at Myrtle.

Thank you,

Keiko Taniguchi

15.113
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Abel pacific <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 8:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Approval of Appeal of Item#15
Dear mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz city council members,
Please approve the appeal for item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle street, Blackburn street, Felix street, Maple street, and Jenne street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

We, as residents as residents of the neighborhood, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero. We acknowledge that Laurel Street between California Street and Walti Street is an area of concern and appreciate the city's efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However the city's own traffic safety reports From 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city's website) show that there are zero pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking residents to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues for your city's residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicycle of safety isn't a concern along the stretch of road.

Abel Wallace

15.114
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Laura Sandoval <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 8:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Approval of Appeal of Item #15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle Street, Blackburn Street, Felix Street, Maple Street, and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

We, as residents of the neighborhood, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero. We acknowledge that Laurel Street between California Street and Walti Street is an area of concern and appreciate the city's efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However the city's own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city's website) show that there are zero pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking residents to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues for your city's residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along the stretch of road.

Laura Sandoval

15.115
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Steve Lustgarden <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 9:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please protect cyclists and other road users on Laurel Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Thank you,
Steve Lustgarden,
Santa Cruz

15.116
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 9:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high-collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff have created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

As an avid cyclist, doing my part to reduce carbon emissions by biking instead of driving, I expect the city to prioritize projects that protect me while I ride.

Sincerely,
Colleen Young
Sent from my iPhone

15.117
From: Dana
To: City Council
Subject: Item 15
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 10:20:00 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please uphold the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street.

We, as residents of Santa Cruz, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero but we do not support the removal of resident and visitor parking without data and evidence that supports their removal. The city’s own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city’s website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle crashes along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

A better idea would be to combine parking, bike lanes, and vehicle lanes as is done all over San Jose and San Francisco. Valencia street in SF is a great example of how it can be done safely. With all the new construction in the future, we will need more parking, not less. Even folks who use bikes for primary transportation usually own at least one car.

We are parents who regularly drop off or pick up children at our friends’ house along Laurel Street. Asking parents of children to park further away creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road. A green striped bike lane already exists in this area (a great feature, by the way) and provides adequate visibility and safety for cyclists. Of greater concern are the speeding drivers who don’t stop for pedestrians crossing Laurel Street. In the name of safety, please implement measures that will result in drivers driving more slowly and carefully along this stretch of Laurel Street.

Dana Damm
Sent from my iPhone

15.118
From: Laura Lorber
To: City Council
Subject: Item 15- family safety
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 10:40:00 PM
Dear City Council,
Please uphold the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street near Myrtle. I am a family member and regular visitor to Laurel Street. Not being able to park near my family's house will be a hardship and safety issue for me.

Thank you,
Laura Lorber

15.119
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: MiChi Kokoro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 11:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Deny Appeal to Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to deny the appeal to the Laurel Street Vision Zero Striping Improvements Plan.

Laurel Street is an important collector road between Mission St and Downtown. It is used by many people every day, including students accessing Santa Cruz High School. It is also a very dangerous street with a significant number of injuries of vulnerable road users due to collisions with cars.

The current plan is consistent with the goals of General Plan, The Climate Action Plan and the Active Transportation Plan. The plan will increase the safety of all road users.

Sincerely,
Michi Kokoro

15.120
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Scott Roseman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 7:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: protect cyclists on Laurel
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to reject the appeal by motor vehicle users who simply don’t care about the safety of cyclists in our City. The plan that was approved was modified so that only 4 parking spaces were removed, while the safety of cyclists was dramatically improved. Time to stop prioritizing cars over bikes. Time to make the right choice in the face of classic NIMBYism. Too many cyclists are injured, maimed, and killed by reckless motorists (and even less reckless motorists due to road conditions that prioritize cars over bikes). Deny the appeal and approve these protected bike lanes.

Thank you.

Scott Roseman
2330 Antonelli Court
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
MB 831.334.2444
[email protected]

15.121
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Keith J <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item 15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street. This will make it very difficult for me to visit my sister and her family on Laurel Street. We often come to visit from out of town and help out with their child. Access to street parking in front of their house is imperative in order to pick up their child for carpools and also to ensure that our vehicle is within sight distance as I am 69 years old and cannot walk far Thank you,
Keith James

15.122
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Iwalani Faulkner <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:09 AM
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: Bonnie Bush; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda Item #15 for March 14, 2023 - Please deny appeal and approve road striping Attachments: 2023-03-14_DenyAppealToRemoveParking.pdf
Dear Honorable Mayor Keeley and City Council Members:

Please find attached our letter regarding the Agenda for March 14, 2023 Item #15, indicating our support for the Santa Cruz City Council to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street.

We have numerous excellent references regarding the traffic violence crisis in Santa Cruz and wise design used in other cities to remedy the problem, but here are a few links you might find interesting and compelling:
 How The Traffic Violence Pandemic Is Creating A Silent Mental Health Crisis  13-year study of a dozen cities found that protected bike lanes led to a drastic decline in fatalities for all users of the road.
 A Vision for Safer Streets
 The Exceptionally American Problem of Rising Roadway Deaths. Why other rich nations have surpassed the U.S. in protecting pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. New York Times  Crossing the Street Shouldn't Be Deadly (but it is)
 Dangerous by Design 2022
 NACTO: National Association of City Transportation Officials  The Street Project PBS Full Special
 Transform your city with Tactical Urbanism
 Santa Cruz Community Traffic Safety Coalition Report 2017 A formal letter is attached.
‐‐
Best regards,
Lani Faulkner, Director
Equity Transit - Tránsito de Equidad
www.EquityTransit.org
831-278-1007

15.123
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
Santa Cruz City Council Members
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
March 13, 2023
RE: Support for City Council to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street;
Dear Honorable Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council Members:

We have an epidemic of traffic violence in this community where every 2-3 days someone is killed or seriously injured in a car crash! This problem worsened as we moved through Covid even as driving decreased on the roads.

Since Covid began, the rate of traffic violence has increased 30% even after a stunning 65% increase in traffic violence in the 10 years leading up to 2019! Speed kills! The infrastructure design of the typical surface road in the United States and in Santa Cruz allows for cars to travel at speeds far beyond what is posted or safe, and our most vulnerable in this community, our children biking to school, our elderly crossing the streets, and people with disabilities, wheelchair users and people who are blind, are at greatest risk. Our pedestrians and people riding bikes face a serious threat every time they cross or bike along the road. This has resulted in our community being a place where many members who would prefer to walk and bike do not do so because they do not feel safe.

The speed of cars on our surface roads directly translates to a high death rate if someone is hit. Santa Cruz has maintained the lead, we have some of the deadliest surface streets in the State of California! There are 3 main ways in which we can address our traffic violence issue; education, enforcement, and infrastructure. We also know that the high percentage of oversized vehicles now popular as status symbols in many communities also contributes to a higher death rate in a crash, especially to our pedestrians and cyclists.

We know that significant work is being done regarding educating the public but reaching significant numbers with a message that shifts behaviors is difficult. Enforcement is also difficult with limited number of law enforcement professionals available to monitor the many busy streets in our city. The most effective way to calm traffic and make our streets safe for everyone, not just prioritize the speed of cars, is to use advanced infrastructure practices we know work in cities around the world that prioritize SAFETY for all over SPEED of cars. The United States and Santa Cruz has been sorely behind in implementing this kind of infrastructure and drivers have become increasingly aggressive. We encourage the council members to implement more advanced infrastructure today, throughout the City, that ensures safe streets for ALL, not prioritizing the speed of drivers or parking for cars that decreases safe street design. https://nacto.org/
We absolutely see the necessity to improve Laurel Street as a next step towards improving the safety of our streets and preventing seriously loss of life and injury. We have biked on Laurel numerous times and seen close calls of speeding cars with bikes and pedestrians. We urge the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street as indicated on the agenda for 03/14/2023.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lani Faulkner, Director

15.124
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bodie Shargel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Please Support Laurel Street Restriping and Deny Appeal Hello Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing today in support of a motion to deny the appeal to the Transportation and Public Works Commission's proposed restriping on Laurel Street. I understand that there is already a motion on the agenda which accomplishes this as well as one to explore options to increase parking in the neighborhood. I also understand that if neighbors believe there is a need for parking in this area, it's wise for the City to meet this need. I hope the City Council ensures that the convenience of residents parking cars on these streets must not outweigh the numerous reasons for which the original T & PW decision was made.

Improvements in the size and protection of bike lanes on these streets not only impact public safety, but are in line with priorities laid out in the City's Climate Action Plan. The same is true for the elimination of the few parking spaces near intersections which obstruct visibility. Assemblymember Lee recently introduced AB413 to accomplish this on a statewide level because pedestrians and cyclists are greatly endangered when visibility at intersections is obstructed by parked cars. Creating a safe City for active transportation is imperative if we are to achieve our Climate Action Goals, improve public health and simply create a happier community. Just imagine the potential improvements on issues of climate, physical and mental health, equity and community cohesion if more parents feel safe having their kids bike to nearby Santa Cruz High School, rather than needing to drive. For these reasons and more, I support the motion to deny the appeal. Thank you for your consideration.

Warm regards,
Bodie Shargel

15.125
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Chiaramonte <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Concerned Citizen
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please uphold the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street.

We, as residents of Santa Cruz, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero but we do not support the removal of resident and visitor parking without data and evidence that supports their removal. The city’s own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city’s website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle crashes along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

We are parents who regularly drop off or pick up children at our friends’ house along Laurel Street. Asking parents of children to park further away creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road. A green striped bike lane already exists in this area (a great feature, by the way) and provides adequate visibility and safety for cyclists. Of greater concern are the speeding drivers who don’t stop for pedestrians crossing Laurel Street. In the name of safety, please implement measures that will result in drivers driving more slowly and carefully along this stretch of Laurel Street.

We are residents, we are parents, we are cyclists.

Ben Chiaramonte

15.126
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ashlee Tews <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: URGENT-Approve the appeal for Item #15
Dear City Council
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side stress, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle Street, Blackburn Street, Felix Street, Maple Street, and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking.

First of all the meeting is scheduled for work hours during a weekday. This is not very inclusive of the homeowners that need to work to continue to live in Santa Cruz. This is also not very supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion efforts in our community.

The city's own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 show there are no pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking tax paying homeowners to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking int he name of safety where there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist stafety is a concern along this stretch of road.

Ashlee Tews
154 Myrtle Street
‐‐
I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday, March 16-17th.

Ashlee A Tews, J.D.

Director of Research Development
Division of Social Sciences
University of California, Santa Cruz
Office hours: Monday through Friday 7am to 4pm
Do to our remote work situation please call my cell-619.709.3956 [email protected]
UC Santa Cruz named the No. 3 public university in the nation for students focused on making an impact on the world in the Princeton Review’s latest college rankings, 2021 UC Santa Cruz is ranked 26th of public national universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. 2018
UC Santa Cruz is ranked first in the world (along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in research influence. Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2013-14

15.127
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #15 - Deny Laurel Street Appeal
Dear Council,
Please deny the appeal of the parking removal along Laurel Street and move forward with the staff recommendation.

With the consideration of redesigning Myrtle for additional diagonal parking, this project results in a net loss of only four parking spaces, a sacrifice we should be happy to make in exchange for a reduction in traffic injuries and deaths. Protected bike lanes and increased visibility at intersections will reduce collisions, speeds, and encourage more people to bike.

Sincerely,
Ryan Meckel

15.128
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Matt Nathanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #15 - Laurel Steet Bicycle Safety
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
Please deny the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and allow the Laurel Street Vision Zero safety improvement project to move forward. Laurel Street is a key bike route across the city and was the #2 high‐ collision corridor for bicycle collisions in the last five years. City staff has created a plan to improve safety for everyone on Laurel Street that removes only four parking spaces. Please prioritize safety for everyone on Santa Cruz over parking for a small number of homes.

Matthew Nathanson, 818 Western Dr., SC CA 95060

15.129
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Candace Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Scott Newsome
Cc: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 15 - Appeal - Laurel and Side Street Changes Dear. Mr. Newsome,
I am reaching out to you as the District City Council member regarding the Agenda item #15 regarding the Laurel Street changes.  I am the TPWC Commissioner who made the motion for restripping Laurel with modifications and it passed unanimously.  However, I attempted to negotiate changes without success that could mitigate the impact for those concerned about safety in the area because of lack of parking.

The majority of those speaking at the public hearing made a very clear point about safety concerns not addressed and as a result the Appeal to the TPWC.  Robert Orizzi and I voted for the appeal in the minority at the same meeting.  It is now before you at tomorrow's March 14, 2023 City Council agenda item #15.

Votes sometimes come down to yes or no responses when there is a need for design changes and additional measures so as not to add to the safety concern of long standing residents along Laurel and side streets.

I would be happy to talk with you about the concerns directly and make myself available today into the evening and tomorrow morning if it would help to clarify any questions you may have.  Scott Ruble, the staff liaison for the TPWC or the City Clerk's Office should have my contact information.

Sincere regards,
Candace  Brown
Transportation and Public Works Commissioner

15.130
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gomez, Marci (Contractor) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 2:16 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: URGENT : Laurel Street parking
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Keeley and Sant Cruz city council members,
Please approve the appeal for ITEM #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as resident on Myrtle street, Blackburn street, Felix Street, Maple Street and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

WE, as residents of the neighborhood are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of VISION ZERO. We acknowledge that Laurel Street between California Street and Walti Street is an area of concern and appreciate that city’s efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However, the city’s own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available o the city’s website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel Street where ethe parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking resident to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of read.

Thank you for voting for what is best for me and my neighborhood, Lane / Gomez
616 Laurel St.

Santa Cruz CA 95060
Marci Gomez
Sutter Health
Sutter Shared Services
Follow Up Assoc. II, Revenue Cycle Operations
Secure phone&fax (916) 854‐7106
[email protected]

15.131
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Hank Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 2:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed removal of parking spaces on Myrtle south of Laurel Attachments: IMG_1845.jpg
As a resident on Myrtle Street, I can confirm that at peak times the on-street parking spaces are limited. The proposal to remove spaces along Laurel and Myrtle will have a definite effect on our neighborhood. I have talked to Matt Starkey about this and made him aware that one problem I have noticed is at two of the intersections, Myrtle at Laurel from the south, and Blackburn at Laurel, is that visibility is impacted by very large hedges on the corners. These hedges are way over the city standard and code. If they were removed or brought into compliance, the removal of much needed parking spaces may not be necessary in some cases. See attached photo of hedge at South West corner of Myrtle and Laurel street.

Hank Miller

15.132

15.133
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Naoki Taniguchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:13 PM
To: City Council; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown
Subject: Objection to the removal of parking along Laurel Street Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please uphold the appeal for item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street as outlined in the Laurel Street Striping Plan.

I am one of the residents who stand to lose street parking in front of my house if this appeal is denied. I am a father of a 10 year old son who is growing more independent every day. We are undoubtedly concerned for his safety every time he walks or bikes in the neighborhood. We are bikers and we are pedestrians. We are in favor of city decisions that affect pedestrian safety in a positive way.

We understand that Laurel hill, from California Street down to Walti Street is a rightful concern and measures should be taken to further reduce collisions there. However, it is completely unfair to punish all of Laurel Street and it's residents for the bike accidents that occur on one particular block and intersection.

Regarding the rest of Laurel Street, according to the city's own 2018 and 2019 Traffic Safety Reports (the latest ones I could find), in a six year span from 2014-2019 (inclusive), there was 1 reported collision involving a bicycle at Laurel and Felix (one block down from Walti, two blocks away from Myrtle). That is less than 0.2 collisions per year. In that same span, there were ZERO pedestrian or bicycle collisions reported on Laurel Street between Blackburn and Chestnut streets (the area most impacted by the "Striping" plan). Removing resident parking at Laurel and Myrtle will not (and technically cannot) decrease the number of accidents along that stretch of road.

We are also cyclists and appreciate all efforts to encourage biking and to make biking safer. As a family, we often bike to the Boardwalk or the Wharf or various beaches or to Wilder Ranch using the provided trails. We used to enjoy biking along the river levees (but not anymore). While I certainly will not downplay or minimize the one collision that happened at Laurel and Felix between 2014 and 2019, I would like to point out that removing resident parking creates other concerns that may lead to other safety issues for your city residents, and at a rate that will most likely exceed 0.2 incidents per year.

As I've stated many time, we are all for more bike safety and bike paths. However, the city simply does not have the data to justify removing the parking in front of our home which already has a green bike lane. This is parking that is used by my elderly mother, that is used when other parents pick up or drop off their kids at our house for play-dates, or used by parents when they pick up or drop off our child for carpooling.

Hopefully it's understandable that this proposal is painful and disheartening for us, watching the city work hard to take away our street parking without justifiable data. I know this striping plan isn’t meant to be a personal attack, but as a couple who saved everything we could, and made numerous sacrifices to be able to buy a home for our family, in a place we could barely afford, this feels very personal. We chose our house based on a number of factors, and one of those was the availability of street parking right out front. To take that away from us is to take away something that we value, appreciate, and cherish about our life experience in Santa Cruz.

Of course we as owner/residents don't want to see bike accidents happen in front of our house, on our street or nearby.

Fortunately, we haven't had to in the 14 years we've lived here. The existing bike lane has already proven its effectiveness for bicycle safety.

The much bigger road safety concern in our neighborhood is the safety of pedestrians CROSSING Laurel Street, not the cyclists riding along the already green bike lanes which have already proven their ability to make biking safe along Laurel Street between Chestnut and Felix streets.

15.134
2 Also, please remember that able bodied cyclists are not the only residents of Santa Cruz that are worthy of your plans and considerations. There are the elderly, the young, the handicapped and disabled, and others who may be vulnerable for a variety of reasons. There is a clear and appalling lack of Equity Mindset in these plans by the Transportation and Public Works Commission.

For the reasons I have expressed above, I sincerely hope that you will listen to your homeowners and residents of the neighborhood and uphold the appeal and NOT move forward with the Laurel Street Striping Plan.

Thank you,
Naoki Taniguchi
Father, husband, cyclist
14 year resident of Santa Cruz

15.135
From: Michelle Taniguchi
To: City Council; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown
Subject: Please uphold the appeal against Laurel Street Striping Plan (Item #15) Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:23:45 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting as I am trying to find childcare. I have items of concern I am hoping to address in the meeting, but in the event that I cannot attend, here they are:

My name is Michelle Taniguchi. I am a 14-year resident on Laurel Street. We bought our home with every bit of our savings, in hopes of living out our lives here.

Accessible parking was part of that expectation.

As noted in the city’s traffic studies, the major traffic issues on Laurel are at the intersections of Felix, California, and Walti. For those not familiar with our street, California is at the top of the hill, Felix and Walti are at the bottom. The street parking between Blackburn and Chestnut has zero impact on those intersections and the crashes happening there.

If parking on Laurel is removed:

My child will not be able to get safely picked up by carpools in front of our home, nor will his friends be able to get safely picked up and dropped off at our home.

My elderly parents and my mother-in-law will not be able to park close to our home.

My mother is disabled and cannot walk far.

Our family and friends will have to circle the neighborhood to look for parking.

Some friends and family who are disabled will be unable to visit our home if parking there is no parking in front of our house.

As someone who lives and works from home on Laurel with my desk facing out our front living room window, I've had the opportunity to observe the foot, bike, and car traffic extensively all day long. There is heavy foot traffic and at least once a day I hear cars squeal as they narrowly miss someone in the crosswalks at Felix and Blackburn. I see high school and college kids trying to dodge through traffic at the corner of Myrtle across Laurel where there is no crosswalk. We have heavy foot traffic and heavy car traffic along this street, with cars regularly going over the speed limit in a school area. We have less bike traffic but those are speeding as well, flying down the hill at speeds far in excess of the 25 mph posted speed limit. (I know that the bikes are far in excess of the speed limit, because when I am driving down the hill I can see my speedometer and they speed by as if I am not moving at 25.) In the middle of the day, when few cars are parked on Laurel, the cars driving speed up significantly, in excess of 35. This is a school area, a pedestrian area, we need stop

15.136
signs, well-lit crosswalks, and more signage. We do not need more reasons for cars and bikes to speed along our street.

Removing parking also creates safety issues for those parking at a distance from their homes, particularly women late at night. This issue was brought to the attention of the transportation commission by many women at the meeting, only to be totally dismissed (except by Commissioner Brown, the only woman on the commission.) the concern over personal safety is not unfounded. Just a couple of days ago, our neighbor had a trespasser in their yard attempting to enter their home. We had someone attempt to break and enter our home less than 2 weeks ago.

There was also the question of equity for elderly and disabled neighbors, which was totally dismissed by all of the commissioners (except Commissioner Brown). There was an elderly, disabled neighbor who lives on Laurel near Myrtle who questioned how she would be able to unload her groceries. There are not any pullover spots, loading zones, or temporary parking planned for things like unloading or dropping someone off. I’d also add that this will create difficulties for the utility trucks that are at 708 Laurel daily to work on the utility box.

The city needs to increase lighting in our neighborhood, create a way to slow down bikes and cars coming down the hill between California and Walti, and put blinking lights and/or stop signs on the crosswalks at Myrtle, Felix, and Blackburn.

REMOVING PARKING ALL ALONG LAUREL WILL NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY SPEEDING VEHICLES ON LAUREL HILL. There already is no parking in the high-risk crash area between California and Walti.

Not only will removing our parking make our street even less safe than it already is, it will also increase emissions by forcing residents and visitors to drive around the neighborhood searching for parking.

Removing parking along our stretch of Laurel is not about street safety, it’s about making the street into a major thoroughfare for the large apartment buildings going up downtown. If it was about safety, there would be stopsigns, additional crosswalks, and lighting added. This change will make Laurel even more of a racecourse than it already is. Drivers will view it as a high-speed thoroughfare instead of the residential road it is (and should remain.) If the parking on Laurel is removed and stop signs are not put in at Felix and Blackburn to slow traffic, I will not allow my child to bike to school when he goes to Mission Hill in a couple of years. It will be too dangerous. Nor do I advise any of you to let your children bike on Laurel without proper traffic control.

It's not the parked cars that are the issue. It's the cars that are moving. It's not the visibility. It's the speed. Please, do not misdirect our city funds by needlessly removing our parking on Laurel. Instead, please slow down traffic at the hill, which will drastically improve the safety of our street.

15.137
Thank you
Michelle Taniguchi
Lower Laurel Resident
I Live, Work, and Play in Downtown Santa Cruz!

15.138
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Anne Chiaramonte <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Uphold appeal for item #15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please uphold the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street.

We, as residents of Santa Cruz, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero but we do not support the removal of resident and visitor parking without data and evidence that supports their removal. The city’s own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city’s website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle crashes along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

We are parents who regularly drop off or pick up children at our friends’ house along Laurel Street. Asking parents of children to park further away creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road. A green striped bike lane already exists in this area (a great feature, by the way) and provides adequate visibility and safety for cyclists. Of greater concern are the speeding drivers who don’t stop for pedestrians crossing Laurel Street. In the name of safety, please implement measures that will result in drivers driving more slowly and carefully along this stretch of Laurel Street.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anne Chiaramonte

15.139
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Melissa J <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Appeal item #15
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda for March 14, 2023, and do not remove street parking along Laurel Street. I was very distressed to learn that the parking spots on Laurel St. could be eliminated. I often visit my sister on Laurel St. and help care for their child. Access to street parking in front of their house is imperative for my safety and the safety of others. I know there have been incidents involving the police at the 7-Eleven on Chestnut and Laurel. I fear for my safety if I have to park and walk by myself or with their young child to a parking spot far from their home. I would also like to ensure that my vehicle is within sight distance as there is a lot of petty theft and attempted break-ins in the neighborhood. This will exacerbate that problem.

I am concerned for my safety, the safety of children as well as other adults (women, elderly, and infirmed all included) in that neighborhood, and the security of personal belongings. With that in mind, I implore you to please approve the appeal for item #15.

Thank you,
Melissa James

15.140
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: VC MAC <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Vision Zero Laurel Street
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I’m writing in regard of the “Vision Zero” plan for Laurel Street.  I’ve lived on the corner of Laurel and Myrtle for 28 years, so I’ve seen a lot of changes.

The current plan, in my opinion, is a “Trojan Horse”.  Trying to appease the public, when all of who live on Laurel know it’s going to become the next Mission St for all of those luxury apartment buildings downtown you’ve given the green light to.

I’d quote stats, but they don’t mean anything.  I’d prefer you hear from a resident of 28 years.  Your PD stats are just that.  This neighborhood isn’t exactly safe.  Just 36 hours ago I had to call 911 for someone trying to break into my house, only to leave and torment another neighbor around the corner.  My next‐door neighbor had someone try to break into her home just 2 weeks ago.  These issues aren’t reflected in SCPD reports, because the PD doesn’t report them.  I’ve broken up more drug deals than I remember.  All in an effort to keep my neighborhood safe.

I attended the TPWC meeting, via zoom.  It was male dominated, (6 males and 1 female) and the 20+ female callers that spoke about safety were told “you can park at Depot Park and walk home”. Seriously.  The single female on the panel was constantly dismissed.  Her objections were said to be “unfounded”.  And they “need more studies”.  But they sent it you, the City Council, like it was approved, despite overwhelming neighbors objections.

Someone from the City was kind enough to take pictures of all the off street parking.  Those pictures, in no way, reflect what the real story is.   Personally, I have 1 driveway space, but have 3 vehicles.  One of our trucks has been vandalized many times, the worst being brake lines cut.

We need to be able to park around our homes so we can see what’s going on with our vehicles. Every night, there is someone trying door handles.

I ask that you rethink about removing parking on Laurel, and consider where the real problem is.   At Laurel/Walti.  4 blocks from where we live.

Why do we have to pay for what’s happened at the base of Laurel Hill? Sincerely,
Veronica

15.141
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pam Richmond <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Laurel Street Parking - Item #15 3/14/2023
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I am a resident living on Laurel Street, where it was proposed 19 parking places be removed. I ask that you uphold the appeal of the project. I attended the Public Works/Transportation public hearing, I agree with others that no reasons were put forth for the removal of the parking spaces. The accident data used by staff was generic and not specific to Laurel Street, and and the only other reason given was invoking the Climate Plan. However, the argument that taking away parking will "get people out of their cars" and "end car culture" is a ridiculous claim, and a disturbing sentiment to hear from the staff responsible for the roadways.

We all know that Chestnut Street is just around the corner. It was recently re-striped and the visibility of the crosswalks is a big improvement. The parking was kept there, and Chestnut has not only bike lanes on both sides, but a train track running down the middle of the road. We pay for parking permits so the limited spaces on our streets are for residents only. When a game is played at the high school, there's already no parking nearby. Not all of us can walk blocks, carrying belongings or shopping bags.

It was made clear at the public hearing that this project on Laurel is an attempt to use leftover restriping funds from the water main project to reconfigure our street. It seems the project outgrew itself. If such impactful changes are to be made, we on Laurel Street and the surrounding area deserve a project that takes our needs and safety into account, as well as those of the pedestrians, students and commuters that use Laurel.

Please uphold the appeal and let us keep our parking spaces. Thanks for your consideration.

Pamela Richmond

15.142
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Luke M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #15 Appeal
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for ltem #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle Street, Blackburn Street, Felix Street, Maple Street, and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

We, as residents of the neighborhood, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero. We acknowledge that Laurel Street between California Street and Walti Street is an area of concern and appreciate the city's efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However, the city's own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city's website) show that there are zero pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking residents to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road.

Best,
Luke Mello

15.143
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sophie Shade <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Uphold appeal for #15
Hi Santa Cruz city council,
Please approve the appeal for #15 and do not remove parking along laurel. I live on Myrtle and have to park on the street and it would only make parking so much more difficult. I live at 159 Myrtle.

There is no evidence to support bicyclists and pedestrians being at risk for the stretch of laurel being talked about.

Thank you so much
Sophie shade

15.144
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Enrique Becerra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Appeal against removing parking
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle Street, Blackburn Street, Felix Street. Maple Street, and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

As things stand, there is already a limited amount of parking inside the neighborhood streets. This decision to remove street parking along this section of Laurel Street will push residents to park further from their homes, instead creating more pedestrian safety issues, especially at night due to the lack of lights in the area.

We, as residents of the neighborhood, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero. We acknowledge that Laurel Street between California Street and Walti Street is an area of concern and appreciate the city's efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However, the city's own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city's website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road.

Enrique Becerra

15.145
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Aditya Verma <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Myrtle street parking
Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council members,
Please approve the appeal for Item #15 on your agenda and do not remove the street parking along Laurel Street and force city residents to park on neighboring side streets, which will have a cascading effect as residents on Myrtle Street, Blackburn Street, Felix Street, Maple Street, and Jenne Street will find it more difficult to find parking close to their homes.

We, as residents of the neighborhood, are concerned about bike and pedestrian safety as well, and support the idea of Vision Zero. We acknowledge that Laurel Street berween California Street and Wali Street is an area of concern and appreciate the city's efforts in making it a safer place for pedestrians and vehicles. However, the city's own Traffic Safety Reports from 2018 and 2019 (the latest available on the city's website) show that there are ZERO pedestrian and bicycle incidents along the stretch of Laurel Street where the parking is proposed to be removed.

Asking residents to park further from their homes instead, creates other safety and logistical issues for your city residents.

We find it unconscionable to propose the removal of resident parking in the name of safety when there is no data that proves that pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a concern along this stretch of road.

Aditya Verma

15.146
Laurel Street
Vision Zero Striping Plan
March 14, 2023
Matt Starkey, PE
Transportation Manager

15.147
Agenda
• Project Background
• Policy Framework
• Existing Conditions
• SCPD Incident Report
• Design Details

15.148
Project Background
• Implementation in Spring 2023 with Pure Water Soquel
• Microsurfacing project = no major reconstruction
• Striping changes only

LAUREL ST

WALTI ST

15.149
Policy Framework
• General Plan
• Active Transportation Plan
• Climate Action Plan
• Promote active transportation
• Discourage driving single-occupancy
vehicles
• Vision Zero Policy
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
• Health in All Policies – Equity
• 20% of trips are ped/bike but
• 67% of fatalities are ped/bike

15.150
How to move people

15.151
How we can change
1 0.07 0.05 0.51 0.37
Types of Cyclists
Strong & Fearless Enthused & Confident Interested but Concerned No Way No How

6.2 Bike Mode Share (2021), 17% Biking and Walking
30% Biking + Walking 2035 Mode Share in Climate Action Plan Separated bike lanes increase ridership by 21-500% and reduce injuries by 41-99%

15.152
Laurel Street: Existing Conditions
• Arterial Roadway with 13,500 ADT
• 42 bikes in morning peak hour (~300 Daily)
• 85th Percentile Speed
• 27 MPH WB, 33 MPH EB
• 25 MPH Speed Limit
• 88% of properties have off-street parking
• Left turn lanes and medians installed in 2013
• Crash History (2yr avg):
• 2012: 8 crashes/yr
• 2019: 2.5 crashes/yr

15.153
Laurel Street Crash Data
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Auto Only Crashes Bike and Ped Crashes
• 44% are broadside collisions
• 54% of the victims are under 24 years old
• Majority of violations are:
• Improper turning
• Right-of-way violation
• Unsafe speed
Left Turn Lanes
and Medians
(2013)

15.154
The proposal

15.155
Parking

15.156
Myrtle Street Parking Additions
SCHS
Maple Street

15.157
SCPD Incident Report
Lt. Wes Morey

15.158
Design Details – Laurel Curve
Protect the uphill bike lane
Speed reduction markings
Smooth curve and buffered
bike lane
Protect the downhill bike lane

15.159
Design Details – Medians and Left Turn Lanes
Easier turn
Widen median >4.0’
Felix Street Blackburn Street
Maintain Turn Lanes

15.160
Design Details - Daylighting
Existing Example – Myrtle Street looking north
Restrict ~10-20’ of parking
at side streets
Daylighting but with planters

15.161
Design Details – Separated Bike Lane with
Protected Corners
Posts for protected
bike lane
Protected corners
Parking removal

15.162
Staff Recommendation:

1. Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Transportation and Public Works Commission’s approval of the design and installation of the proposed striping on Laurel Street between Mission Street and Chestnut Street. And

2. Direct staff to investigate additional diagonal parking on Myrtle Street with neighbors.

15.163
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing
SUBJECT: 2023-2024 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan, Amendment to the 2019-2020 HUD, Amendment to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan, and Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan (ED)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Make initial funding recommendations for the 2023-2024 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). 2) Amend the 2019-2020 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and direct staff to submit to HUD for approval.
3) Direct staff to submit the 2023 Lower Ocean/Downtown/River Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan as an amendment to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. 4) Amend the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect the merger of the Community Programs Committee with the Health in All Policies Committee and amend the public input schedule for all HUD Plans.

BACKGROUND: The City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) entitlement funding annually from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To obtain these funds, the City must develop and adopt a five-year Consolidated Plan (CP) which identifies and analyzes strategies for addressing specific community needs. The five-year CP provides strategic direction for housing and community development activities carried out in the City. The City’s CP was prepared and submitted for approval to HUD’s Office of Community and Planning Development (CPD) in 2020. The CP covers Program Years 2020-2024 and this is Program Year (PY) 2023.

Each PY, the City must approve an Annual Action Plan (AAP) specifying activities that will be undertaken during that PY and setting the annual budget by allocating funds from that year’s CDBG and HOME entitlements plus any unused or uncommitted funds from prior years or any program income (PI) received during the preceding year. A draft of the 2023-2024 AAP budget is provided as an attachment to this report. This draft is based on the CDBG and HOME

16.1 application requests reviewed by the Community Programs Committee (CPC), funding recommendations by the CPC. The CPC funding recommendations are summarized below in the CDBG Program and HOME Program Budget Recommendations sections.

Final allocations are usually provided by HUD to the City in March, barring delays from Congress, however, HUD released the enacted budget for PY 2023 on February 27, 2023, awarding the City approximately $6,159 more under the CDBG program and $84,611 more under the HOME program than originally anticipated.

Staff recommends the City Council make initial funding recommendations based on the draft budget and direct staff to draft the AAP. The AAP will be made available for a 30-day public review period, starting March 24, 2023. This AAP will be adopted and finalized at the second public hearing at the City Council meeting on April 25, 2023. Staff may update the AAP based on the outcome of the second public hearing and the AAP will be available for review and public comment for another 15 days before it is submitted to HUD. The draft AAP will be available for public review at the City’s Economic Development Offices located at 337 Locust Street and on the City’s website below. To meet the established HUD deadlines, the date of the upcoming public hearing and final awards cannot be pushed beyond the second public hearing scheduled for April 25, 2023.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/economic-development/housingassistance-information/hud-programs/hud-consolidated-plan-documents

CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW
CDBG funds are used for a wide range of community development activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities and services. Activities that can be funded with CDBG dollars include but are not limited to:
acquisition of real property, acquisition and construction of public works and facilities, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential and nonresidential properties, and the provision of public services such as employment, food banks, crime prevention, childcare, health, drug abuse, education, and fair housing counseling. The primary beneficiaries of CDBG funded projects or programs must be very-low, low and moderate-income persons and households. Other beneficiaries of CDBG funded projects can include seniors, homeless persons and disabled adults. To oversee programs and projects using CDBG program funding, HUD sets the administration levels at 20% of the combined grant allocation plus program income (PI). This funding covers the City’s costs of administering the CDBG program.

As a requirement of receiving HUD CDBG funding, the City cannot have over 1.5 times its current program year allocation in unspent CDBG funds. If the City is in a state of noncompliance, HUD can reduce future CDBG funding allocations. Therefore, the City considers readiness when allocating funds to projects and programs and reallocates any unspent funds from prior years as necessary.

Additionally, HUD regulations also limit how CDBG funds are used for public service activities.

The City is not permitted to spend more than 15% of its annual grant allocation from HUD plus PI and funds available for reallocation in any PY on public service activities. In general, the City’s CDBG funded programs and projects must either benefit low-income areas (Area Benefit) or low-income individuals (Limited Clientele). To qualify under Area Benefit, an activity must

16.2 be located in and serve a low-income neighborhood. Programs receiving funding under Limited Clientele requirements must document that at least 51% of their clientele are low-income. The City can spend above the 15% specifically when awarding funding to Community Based Development Organizations (CBDOs) that are located with a HUD approved Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA). To qualify as a CBDO, an organization must maintain a governing board of directors comprised of a mix of at least 51% of low-income residents, executive level entrepreneurs in the neighborhood and governing members of neighborhood groups. The City currently has one qualified CBDO – Nueva Vista Community Resources (Nueva Vista).

A NRSA is created under HUD’s CDBG Program to encourage coordination of resources and facilitate jurisdiction’s ability to engage in comprehensive community revitalization strategies for designated low-income areas. The proposed 2023 NRSA includes the lower downtown (below Lincoln/Soquel Streets), beach areas (Beach Flats and Beach Hill), and most of the lower Ocean Street neighborhood. These areas involve the lowest income areas in the City (36% of households are below poverty level vs 18% city-wide) and the City’s highest concentration of Latinx (44% vs 21% of residents city-wide). Based on direction from HUD, staff is preparing a two year “gap” plan to transition to a full five-year plan in 2025. The goal is to synchronize the NRSA Plan with the next HUD CP which will be approved by the City in 2025. The City’s previous five-year NRSA Plans were approved in 2007, 2012, and 2017. The proposed 2023 CP will include strategies for community services, targeted affordable housing programs, infrastructure improvements, and climate action. An important part of the planning effort involves community outreach, which includes an introduction to the NRSA at this Public Hearing. The final draft of the NRSA plan will be available for review prior to the April 25, 2023 City Council meeting, followed by a 15 day public comment period.

HOME PROGRAM OVERVIEW
HOME program funds are exclusively used to help provide housing for low-income households.

Funding assistance can be provided to: (1) help develop or rehabilitate income restricted housing units or (2) support programs that provide financial assistance directly to low-income renters or home buyers enabling them to access or retain housing. To oversee programs and projects using HOME program funding, HUD sets the administration levels at 10% of the combined grant allocation plus program income (PI).

Additionally, the City must set aside 15% of each grant to be used only by a Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). The City currently has two qualified CHDOs – Habitat for Humanity Santa Cruz County and Mid-Peninsula the Farm, Inc. Eden Housing, a non-profit affordable housing developer with CHDO status in the County of Santa Cruz has submitted an application to qualify for CHDO status in Santa Cruz and it is currently in review with City staff. Eden Housing will be working with the HOME funding applicant, For the Future Housing, on the Metro Pacific Station North affordable housing project.

DISCUSSION:

CDBG PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
As mentioned previously, the 2023-2024 HUD funding levels have been provided to staff. The draft AAP budget includes the actual grant amount as awarded by HUD. For the 2023-2024 PY,

16.3 the City will receive approximately $568,725 in CDBG funds from HUD. Combined with PI estimated at $50,000 and unspent funds from a prior year recipient of approximately $100,000, the total CDBG budget is expected to be $718,725, with $123,745 of this budgeted for program administration costs.

The City is required to maintain prior rehabilitation programs’ debt servicing, so staff and CPC recommend funding this at $5,000. The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County (Housing Authority) administers the HOME Security Deposit Program for City residents and incurs certain delivery costs while administering the program, therefore staff and the CPC recommend the delivery costs be funded at $6,900. Staff and the CPC also recommend that the City fund CDBG Public Services at the following levels: the Teen Center ($45,000), Second Harvest Food Bank ($35,000), and Nueva Vista ($125,000). As the funding recommendations are based on estimates, it is possible that not all of the programs could be funded at the full recommendation in the final AAP budget. If this is the case, staff will note these reductions in a revised AAP budget for the second public hearing on April 25, 2023. Both the Teen Center and Second Harvest Food Bank have requested the same amount of funding as last year; however, staff and the CPC recommend a one-time increase in funding for both programs of $10,000 more than PY 2022 as there were less program applications received during this funding cycle. Nueva Vista has requested an increase in funding of $25,000 from last year. Nueva Vista has seen a threefold increase in essential service requests with the COVID pandemic over the past three years and anticipates persistent and lasting impacts on demand for services. If there is an increase in CDBG funding available for public services greater than the estimate, staff recommends increasing the funding equally between all public service programs subject to the 15% limit on public service.

The recommendations above would fund Public Services within the 15% cap set by HUD (currently estimated to be $80,000). The $125,000 awarded to Nueva Vista for Public Services can be excluded from this category due to their current status as a CBDO, which is why the City can fund this category for a total of $205,000.

Additionally, staff and the CPC recommend funding two Capital Investment Program (CIP) project applications. Monarch Services applied for $55,648 in funding to renovate the Mariposa House which provides shelter to women and children who are survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. The funding will facilitate much needed improvements to health, safety and sustainability aspects of the project. Improvements will include the installation of an HVAC system, touchless hygiene and lighting systems, low-flow plumbing fixtures and additional technologies and systems to reduce water and energy consumption. The Parks and Recreation Department applied for $320,000 in funding to renovate the Civic Auditorium and construct American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements. This construction will improve safety features to the seating area in compliance with California Building Code requirements in addition to other improvements. In addition to providing public events and classroom space, this space serves as an emergency shelter site, most recently used during the Presidentially Declared Disaster including the severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides. The CPC recommended $317,505 for this project at their February 16, 2023 meeting, which was prior to the final allocation award from HUD. The applicant has indicated the project could be phased, however, the full funding amount is needed for the project to be completed and this project may need future additional funding pending the architectural assessment. As the final grant numbers have been announced by HUD, and the exact amount of CDBG funding is known, staff

16.4 recommends that the Civic Auditorium project receive the additional $6,159 to fund the project at $322,432.

HOME PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
HOME program funding recommendations are divided into three categories: Program Administration (calculated by formula), ongoing City Programs, and HOME affordable housing projects which can receive residual receipts development loans. There will be an estimated $414,000 available for allocation under the 2023-2024 HOME grant, and an additional estimated $100,000 of PI. There is also prior year funding of $226,000, bringing the total amount available to approximately $740,000. Similarly to the CDBG program, administration funding is set by HUD formula to 10% of the HUD grant plus estimated PI. This administration funding covers the City’s costs of administering the HOME program. As mentioned in the background section, HUD also restricts 15% of the grant plus PI to be used by CHDOs, which totals a little over $60,000 for this PY.

There is one City Program application, the HOME Security Deposit Program, which has been in existence since 1997 and has been funded by multiple sources over the years in partnership with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz. During this current PY, 16 families have been assisted so far. The Housing Authority is anticipating a 42% increase in the total number of families that will need assistance by the end of this PY and expects to help 27 families total this PY. The Housing Authority is anticipating this trend to continue in the 2023 PY.

The City received one HOME project application for 2023-2024 HOME funding, the Pacific Station North project. The application was submitted by For the Future Housing and Eden Housing. When HOME funds are used for low interest loans, this helps ensure that the value will stay in the community and helps in the aim to leverage the dollars further (when the housing project has a cash flow in excess of what is needed for its annual operations, then the loans can begin to be repaid and can re-fund the HOME pot for future affordable housing).

NRSA AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN UPDATES
The NRSA is being updated to enable synchronization with approvals of the City’s CP. This will satisfy the request staff received from HUD to bring the two 5-year documents into an aligned timeline. The draft NRSA Plan will be available for public review beginning April 11, 2023 at the City’s Economic Development Offices located at 337 Locust Street and on the City’s website below.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/economic-development/housingassistance-information/hud-programs/hud-consolidated-plan-documents The Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) is also being updated to reflect a change in the City Council’s Committees. As confirmed at the CPC meeting on February 16, 2023, the CPC is merging with the Health in All Policies Committee (HiAP), therefore requiring updates to the CPP. This update to the CPP will ensure clarity of the City’s schedule for review and adoption of CPs, AAPs and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs). As the HiAP Committee does not regularly meet in February, the CPP schedule for review and adoption will be adjusted as follows: Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) inviting applications for CDBG and HOME funding will be released in October annually with applications due in December. In

16.5 January, the HiAP Committee will review program and project applications and provide direction to staff on funding recommendations to bring to the full City Council at their first public hearing in March. These schedule changes, along with other CPP revisions, will be provided to Council at the second public hearing on April 25, 2023.

Health in All Policies (HiAP) - Funding for the Public Service activities is consistent with the HiAP framework, especially the pillars of equity, and sustainability. The external CDBG Public Service programs help in the goal to invest in downtown and other local businesses.

Additionally, because the NRSA allows the City to fund public services at levels above the 15% cap, the City can provide additional funding to Nueva Vista, bringing additional funding to the City’s lowest income neighborhoods. The HOME program and project recommendations are also consistent with the HiAP framework, directly fulfilling the “Stable, Affordable Housing & Shelter” Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) condition. Equity will be positively impacted with the creation of more affordable housing units for all members of the community as well as access to the HOME Security Deposit Program that helps individuals and households attain and retain housing.

FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended actions have no fiscal impact on the General Fund.

Approving the AAP budget and allocating funds is scheduled for Council action on the April 25, 2023. The program and project costs will be funded by HUD.

Prepared By:

Jessica Mellor
Principal Management
Analyst
Jessica de Wit
Housing and Community
Development Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development and Housing
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. HUD 2023-2024 ACTION PLAN BUDGET.PDF

16.6 $568,725 2023-2024 CDBG Entitlement Grant (Actual 2/27/2023) $50,000 Estimated 2023-2024 Program Income (PI)
$100,000 Prior Years' CDBG Funds Available for Reprogramming $718,725 Total CDBG Program Budget
$123,745 City Program Administration Funding for CDBG (by formula) $594,980 CDBG Funding Available for Allocation
$499,440 2023-2024 HOME Program Entitlement Grant (Actual 2/27/2023) $100,000 Estimated 2023-2024 Year Program Income (PI)
$226,972 Prior Years' HOME Funds Available for Reprogramming $826,412 Total HOME 2023-2024 Grant
$59,944 City Program Administration Funding for HOME (by formula) $766,468 HOME Program Funding Available for Allocation

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME)
2023-2024 PROGRAM YEAR (PY) BUDGET

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) PROGRAM

16.7 ADMINISTRATION (FORMULA: 20% of total Entitlement and Program Income) Activity: Grant Administration $123,745
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz (By Formula)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FUNDING AVAILABLE $123,745
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Rehabilitation Program Delivery Costs $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Applicant: City of Santa Cruz
Activity: HOME Security Deposit Program Delivery Costs $6,900 Other funds $6,900 Applicant: Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
TOTAL ONGOING CITY PROGRAMS $11,900
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Teen Center $35,000 $35,000 $45,000
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz
Activity: Food Banks $25,000 $25,000 $35,000
Applicant: Second Harvest Food Banks
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES SUBJECT TO 15% CAP $80,000
Activity: Nueva Vista & Beach Flats Community Centers (CBDO) $125,000 $100,000 $125,000 Applicant: Nueva Vista Resources
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING (INCLUDING CBDO) $205,000
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Mariposa House $55,648 $0 $55,648
Applicant: Monarch Services
Activity: Civic Auditorium ADA Improvements $320,000 $0 $322,432 Applicant: City of Santa Cruz
TOTAL PROJECTS FUNDING $378,080
GRAND TOTAL CDBG FUNDING $718,725
PUBLIC SERVICES (Subject to 15% CAP)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

CITY PROGRAMS
$123,745

CDBG PROGRAM BUDGET
2023-2024 PROGRAM YEAR

16.8 ADMINISTRATION (Formula: 10% of total Entitlement and Program Income) Activity: Grant Administration & Planning $59,944
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz Economic Development
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $59,944
CITY PROGRAMS Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding

TOTAL NEW HOME FUNDING
Activity: HOME Security Deposit Program $80,000 $80,000 Applicant: Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
PROJECTS & PROGRAMS Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Pacific Station North Affordable Housing Project $625,000 $626,524 Applicant: For the Future Housing and Eden Housing
$706,524
TOTAL HOME FUNDING BUDGETED AMOUNT $766,468

HOME PROGRAM BUDGET
2022-2023 PROGRAM YEAR

TOTAL NEW HOME FUNDING

TOTAL PROJECT/PROGRAM FUNDING

16.9 HUD Annual Action Plan Budget
Presenters:

Jessica de Wit - Housing and Community Development Manager Jess Mellor - Housing Principal Management Analyst
March 14, 2023

16.10 ACTION REQUIRED TODAY

1. Make initial funding recommendations for the 2023-2024 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME).

2. Amend the 2019-2020 U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and direct staff to submit to HUD for approval.

3. Direct staff to publish the 2023 Lower
Ocean/Downtown/River Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan as an amendment to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.

4. Amend the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect the merger of the Community Programs Committee with the Health in All Policies Committee and amend the public input schedule for all HUD Plans.

16.11 CDBG FUNDING
CDBG 2023-2024 PY Grant $568,725
Estimated Program Income $50,000
Prior Yr. Funding (Reprogrammable) $100,000
Total Available $718,725
Administration ($123,745)
Rehab Administration ($5,000)
HOME Security Deposit Program
Delivery Costs ($6,900)
Available to Programs and Projects $583,080

16.12 FUNDING REQUESTS

COMMUNITY PROGRAM APPLICATIONS

PROGRAMS
Teen Center
Second Harvest
Nueva Vista

TOTAL REQUESTS
$35,000
$25,000
$125,000
$185,000

16.13 Recommendations

PROGRAM FUNDING
(HUD CAP Estimate $84,000 – applies to Teen Center and Second Harvest) Nueva Vista - $125,000 Teen Center - $45,000 Second Harvest - $35,000 Total - $205,000
Not subject to activities cap 16.14

APPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY PROJECT APPLICATIONS

PROJECTS
Mariposa House Renovation $55,648
(Monarch Services)
Civic Auditorium ADA $320,000
Improvements
(City of Santa Cruz)

16.15 Civic Auditorium ADA
Improvements - $322,432
Mariposa House
Renovations - $55,648
Total - $378,080
Recommendations

PROJECT FUNDING

16.16 CAPITAL PROJECTS
$378,080
Mariposa House Renovations and Civic
Auditorium ADA Improvements

SUMMARY

CDBG RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
$205,000
Nueva Vista Community Services - Beach Flats
and Familia Center, Second Harvest Food Bank,
Santa Cruz Teen Center
Total - $718,725

ADMIN & CITY PROGRAMS
$135,645
City Staff Admin, Rehab Admin & HOME
Security Deposit Admin

16.17 HOME FUNDING
HOME 2023-2024 PY Grant $499,440
Estimated Program Income $100,000
Prior Years’ HOME Funds
available for reprogramming
$226,972
Total Available $826,412
Administration ($59,944)
CHDO Set aside ($74,916)
Available to Programs and
Projects
$691,552

16.18 RECOMMENDATION
HOME Security Deposit Program $80,000
(in partnership with the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County) Metro Pac Station North $626,524
(affordable housing project; includes $74,916 CHDO set aside) TOTAL - $706,524

16.19 2nd Public Hearing & present final budget - April 25, 2023 - Final approval of CDBG & HOME funding
Staff submits AAP to HUD for final approval - May 15, 2023 Next Steps -AAP

16.20 2023 NRSA Plan [email protected]

16.21 Citizen Participation Plan Updates
Council Committee:

Community Programs
Committee (CPC) changed
to Health in All Policies
Committee (HiAP)
Schedule Changes (AAP)
NOFA Release:

November -> October
NOFA Applications due:

January -> December
Council Committee Public Meeting:

CPC, February -> HiAP, January
Any questions? Email [email protected] 16.22
Questions?

16.23 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2023
AGENDA OF: 03/14/2023
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-line Adjustment, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to Demolish the Existing Surface Parking Lot and Structures and Construct the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project, Encompassing Development of a New, Approximately 273,194 Square-Foot, Eight-Story Building Including a Three-story, Approximately 38,069 Square-Foot City Library Featuring Two Floors; a Three-Story Parking Garage with 243 Parking Spaces; a Five-Story, 100% Affordable Housing Component Comprising 124 Residential Units; a Three-Story, Approximately 9,598 Square-Foot Commercial Tenant Space; a One-Story, Approximately 1,231 Square-Foot Childcare Facility with Adjoining 674 Square-Foot Outdoor Play Area; and New Landscaping and Associated Site Improvements, Including Removal of 12 Trees, on Land Located in the CBD/FP-O (Central Business District/Floodplain Overlay) Zone Districts) and within the Cedar Street Village Corridor and Pacific Avenue Retail District Subareas of the Downtown Plan (Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption – Section 21083.3 / State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; Categorical Exemptions Sections 15532 and 15305) (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, and Density Bonus request, and upholding the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, allowing demolition of the existing surface parking lot and structures, removal of the existing trees, and construction of the Library Affordable Housing Project, based on the findings.

BACKGROUND: The project requests several entitlements, including a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, Density Bonus request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit, to allow demolition of the existing surface parking lot and structures, removal of existing trees, and construction of the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP). As proposed, the project encompasses development of a new, approximately 273,194 square-foot, eight-story building including the following components:
 three-story, approximately 38,069 square-foot City library featuring two floors;

17.1  three-story parking garage with 243 parking spaces;  five-story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units;  three-story, approximately 9,598 square-foot commercial tenant space;  one-story, approximately 1,231 square-foot childcare facility with adjoining 674 square feet of outdoor play area; and
 new landscaping and associated site improvements, including removal of 12 trees.

Because the subject site is located within the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Central Business District and the project proposal includes a request for building height in excess of 35 feet, City Council review is required for consideration of the Use Permit and Design Permit.

Pursuant to City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) Section 24.04.150, decisions regarding all entitlements, including Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit and Lot-Line Adjustment, are made in conjunction with those requiring approval by the decision-making body with highest authority.

On January 10, 2023, at the request of Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome, the City Council voted to consider at the same public hearing the proposal in its entirety, including request for project entitlements, and review of concerns related to Heritage Tree removal as identified in the appeal by Pauline M. Seales of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision to uphold the approval of an administrative Heritage Tree Removal Permit ,. 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 Council for consideration and final action. The City Council may therefore consider recommendation of the Planning Commission and render a decision regarding the totality of the project, including removal of Heritage Trees.

Planning Commission Hearing
On February 23, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a Special Meeting, during which the Commission accepted the staff report and considered the proposed project. At that hearing, the Commission queried staff and the applicant regarding various topics, including the following:
 Number of residential units designated for each category of income level  Approach to evaluation for demolition of a building on a parcel not yet owned by the City  Feasibility of design changes to accommodate the proposed childcare facility, including possible relocation of the trash/recyclable enclosure and reduction in proposed number of parking stalls
 Assessment of environmental abatement and remediation costs  Strategies for reduction in heat gain of the building’s west facade  Consideration of flexibility in future use of the commercial tenant space to allow potential reconfiguration accommodating multiple tenancy
 Integration of design elements in the commercial tenant space to allow for future food and beverage service, including venting (i.e., exhaust shaft) and grease trap sufficient to serve such use
 Strategies for activation of the alley to provide for a high-quality environment and facilitate travel of bicyclists and pedestrians
 Number and types of bicycle parking spaces, including stalls corresponding to the demand for parking of electric bicycles, whose dimensions exceed those of manual bicycles  Requirement of payment for parking by residents of affordable housing units

17.2  Options to allow reduction in residential permit parking fees for future occupants of the project’s affordable housing units
 Provision of bus passes for residents of affordable housing units During the public comment period, members of the public asked questions and expressed support of the project as proposed, highlighting its various benefits, including addition of affordable housing stock, diversity of amenities and benefits associated with a new public library, and creation of jobs offering prevailing wage, among others. A few commenters voiced concern regarding the cost of the project and impacts related to proposed tree removal, among other subjects.

The Planning Commission requested clarification regarding several topics raised during the public comment period and received via written correspondence. The following lists the questions raised, and comments issued, by the Commission, along with associated responses by City staff and project consultants:
 Comment regarding implementation of an exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in conjunction with density bonus waiver request for variation from the standard height limitation for new buildings consistent with standards of the Cedar Village Corridor as established in the Downtown Plan o The City’s consulting CEQA attorney confirmed that waivers and incentives/concessions requested for development of affordable housing may be pursued under State Density Bonus Law; case law as established in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley affirms that approval of waivers required to be granted for Density Bonus-eligible projects do not constitute planning and zoning inconsistencies disqualifying a project from exemptions under CEQA, as the mandatory nature of waivers render standards and limitations, such as height restrictions, inapplicable to the project
o City staff noted that the project has reduced the impact of additional height in part, by locating the tallest element of the project (the residential units) away from Cedar Street, to reduce the massing
 Question regarding preparation of a solar study/shadow analysis, including impacts of casting of shadows to surrounding properties
o Staff presented the solar study included in the plan set and discussed the low potential for loss of sunlight exposure to adjacent properties and public rights-ofway associated with shadows cast by the building as designed  Question regarding granting of preferential access to residential units by employees of downtown businesses and other nearby establishments
o Applicant responded that local preferences would be provided, but only as allowed by Fair Housing laws
 Inquiry regarding payment of prevailing wages to project construction workers o Applicant confirmed that prevailing wages would be paid and that audit for compliance will be conducted by a third-party consultant  Acknowledgement that consideration of tree removal remains outside the scope of Planning Commission review, with question regarding tree replacement compared to proposed tree removal
o Staff noted that, per the recommended Conditions of Approval, trees would be replaced on site at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (with nine trees to be planted to replace the nine Heritage Trees removed), along with 12 trees to be planted off-site, so the

17.3 number of trees proposed to be planted would therefore exceed the number proposed for removal. Staff further expounded that planting of trees off-site would take place per recommended conditions of approval, and that sites for prospective replating had been identified
 Query regarding unit size mix and number of units accommodating tenancy by disabled residents
o Staff stated that the project plans include 13 studio, 48 one-bedroom, 31 twobedroom, and 31 three-bedroom units o The project applicant indicated that the number of accessible units had not yet been defined but would be determined based on demand; staff received clarification that, for housing projects receiving public funding, Building Code standards require the provision of minimally 5% of units , but not fewer than one unit, as mobility unit(s); minimally 2% but not fewer than one unit, as communication unit(s); and all other units on floors served by an elevator to be adaptable units.  Question about net addition to, or subtraction of, parking stalls to total supply of parking within the City’s Downtown Parking District
o Staff relayed that, even with new parking stalls proposed to be included with the project, the overall supply of vehicular parking stalls within the Downtown Parking District would decline due to pending and foreseeable future development Following discussion, the Planning Commission requested several modifications and additions to the recommended conditions of approval. Chair Kennedy introduced several proposed revisions, including to Condition of Approval (COA) #34 to exempt from the requirement for mechanical equipment screening future rooftop bifacial photovoltaic panels; to COA #50, separating the various requirements into separate conditions of approval; to COA #52, specifying that bicycles of various sizes, and charging of e-bikes, shall be considered in project design; and to COA #57, stipulating Operations and Maintenance Plans as required by the California Green Building Code (CalGreen). Chair Kennedy requested the addition of two separate conditions, the first of which includes the option for establishment of a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review proposed revisions to project plans; and the second of which requires addition of electric vehicle (EV) charging units and design for vehicular parking as “EV-ready” stalls accommodating future addition of electric vehicle infrastructure, with a certain number of such EV stalls made available for exclusive use by residents of the affordable housing units. Commissioner Gordon further proposed a condition of approval requiring, for the commercial tenant space, integration of a grease trap and trash and recyclables facilities, along with ventilation infrastructure, sufficient to support a potential future food service use.

The Commission subsequently weighed the suggested modifications and additions to recommended conditions, with some Commissioners expressing reservation regarding the implications of such revisions. Following deliberation, the proposed condition related to establishment of a subcommittee for review of proposed modifications to the project (such as exterior materials changes) was withdrawn, with agreement that staff would bring proposed modifications back to the Planning Commission as an information item. Commissioners, through consultation with staff, voiced concerns regarding the prospect of designation of parking for particular uses; further discussion allowed the requested condition of approval requiring additional EV and EV-ready stalls to proceed, while omitting the aspect of reservation of stalls for particular uses. Remarks by the project architect led to revision of the requested condition of approval to require inclusion of a grease trap and trash facilities adequate to support a food-service use.

17.4 After discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City Council acknowledgment of the environmental determination and approval of the proposed project entitlements with the amended conditions.

Detailed minutes of the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission are included as an attachment to this report.

DISCUSSION: For a thorough description of the proposed project, including the history of development of the project design, opportunities for public input, range of technical analyses conducted, request for Density Bonus, along with in-depth discussion and analysis of the project’s consistency with permit requirements, Health in All Policies, and conformance to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated February 23, 2023 and associated documents, available via link https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Special_Mee ting_2075_Agenda_Packet_2_23_2023_7_00_00_PM.pdf?meetingId=2075&documentType=Ag endaPacket&itemId=0&publishId=0&isSection=false. Rather than reiterate those items here, this section of the report focuses on topics related to proposed removal of Heritage Trees as identified in the appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit request, since that analysis was not detailed in the Planning Commission report.

Appeal of Heritage Tree Removal Permit
On October 12, 2022, an application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with proposed development of the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP). The application proposes removal of nine nonnative trees of Heritage size, defined by the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 9.56, and includes planting of at least nine, and as many as 13, replacement trees as City street trees. A condition of approval requires the planting of a further 12 trees, off-site and within the downtown area, with the specific site to be selected and trees to be planted prior to approval of building permit final inspection. On October 18, 2022, the permit was approved by City staff, and, on October 27, 2022, an appeal was submitted by Pauline M. Seales and co-appellants.

On December 12, 2022, the appeal of the approved Heritage Tree Removal Permit was considered by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, which, upon a vote of 4-3, denied the appeal, upholding staff’s decision to approve the permit. The staff report presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission can be found as a linked attachment to this report. Subsequently, on December 22, 2022, the appellant filed an appeal of the Parks and Recreation decision to uphold staff’s decision to approve the Heritage Tree Removal Permit. Per Code Chapter 9.56, the appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission decision is heard by the City Council.

Although not authorized to act on the appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit appeal, at the February 23, 2023 hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the recommended condition of approval regarding replacement of trees as street trees in the immediately adjacent public rightof-way at a minimum 1:1 ratio (with one tree planted for each Heritage Tree removed) and planting of 12 new trees within the City’s downtown, corresponding to the total number of trees to be removed (including trees not qualifying as Heritage trees due to size below the codified threshold).

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council of the proposed project, including the condition of approval related to tree replacement.

17.5 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.56.070, an appeal of the decision by the Parks and Recreation Commission to deny the Heritage Tree Removal Permit is subject to review by the City Council in conjunction with the proposed project, as underscored in the memoranda of Mayor Keeley and Councilmember Newsome. The vote by the City Council on January 10, 2023 to review the matter of tree removal related to the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project at the same hearing as its review of project entitlements, in accordance with Municipal Code Section

1.16.040, had the effect of reconciling timelines associated with project entitlements and Heritage Tree removal and eliminated the need for an appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit. The City Council is thus requested to render a decision regarding the proposed removal of 12 trees, including nine Heritage Trees, associated with the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project, considering the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission action to uphold staff’s approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit.

Information supporting the proposed removal of existing trees at the project site follows.

Additionally, for reference, attached are statements of the appellant of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, along with staff’s responses.

In support of the application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit, an arborist report dated January 18, 2022, was prepared by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-Certified arborist Torrey Young of Dryad, LLC in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9.56.060(f). Subsequently, an addendum, dated September 9, 2022, was submitted by the same arborist, clarifying findings and recommendations included in the original arborist report dated January 18, 2022. The addendum underscores the findings and recommendations of the original report and clarifies that only one Heritage-sized tree constitutes a candidate for relocation, stipulating that the likelihood for success of such relocation can be assessed only through an evaluation of the tree’s root system, an effort which requires removal of existing hardscape and falls outside the scope of an arborist report. The appellant’s statement claims that the allegedly misleading information (fully made clear in the staff report prepared for the appeal) influenced a Commissioner’s vote; such constitutes speculation which cannot be substantiated, and all information contained in the report to the Parks and Recreation Commission was accurate, which renders the point moot.

Following the Parks and Recreation Commission hearing of December 12, 2022, a second addendum to the arborist report, dated December 19, 2023, prepared by Consulting Arborist Torrey Young, presented further information regarding the declining health of a southern magnolia tree designated in prior documentation as Tree No. 4. Request for additional analysis regarding the viability of that tree was made due to observations of the decline in health of the tree following prior observations by the City Arborist. As described in the second addendum, southern magnolia trees are capable of achieving tremendous size and require proportionate growing space to thrive, demanding corresponding increases in moisture, nutrition and soil aeration. As referenced in the second addendum to the arborist report, the tree’s size and needs have outgrown site limitations, necessitating extensive root pruning, thereby reducing the tree’s ability to absorb the limited elements and moisture available.

The second addendum includes photographs of Tree No. 4, which reveal that the viability of that tree had declined significantly from its already poor condition of a year prior, and reasonable assumptions indicate that such decline will continue. The document reports that, even with revision to the proposed project to accommodate the tree’s continued presence, including major redesign of the building, significant expansion of the rooting area, hand removal of hardscapes, soil cultivation, and the like, Tree No. 4 would continue to present risk of property damage to the

17.6 adjacent sidewalk and street, due to lack of additional growing space at the property’s southwest quadrant. The report states that health and vitality of the tree would likely continue to decline due to its condition and age. The second addendum to the initial arborist report additionally concludes that Tree No. 4 represents a poor candidate for retention on site, with transplantation off-site also inadvisable, as any relocation would likely exacerbate limitations of its environment which have led to its current state of decline.

Although design of the project to fulfill City Council directives precludes retention of existing trees, several measures have been incorporated to offset loss of existing mature vegetation. A recommended condition of approval has been added, requiring compliance with all recommendations of both the original arborist report dated January 8, 2022, and both first and second addenda to the arborist report, dated September 9, 2022, and December 19, 2022, respectively. Payment of a tree replanting mitigation bond was provided by the project applicant, which would accommodate installation of a minimum of nine, 24-inch box-sized replacements as City street trees along the perimeter of the project area to replace the nine Heritage Trees proposed to be removed. A further condition of approval mandates that no tree removal take place prior to issuance of a demolition permit, assuming entitlement of the proposed project. The landscape plan submitted in support of the DLAHP would integrate 14 City street trees (exceeding the nine replacement trees required), of species selected from the City’s approved list of street trees replacing non-native species with varieties appropriate to local soil and climatic conditions in a greater number than the trees proposed for removal. A separate condition of approval requires identification of off-site locations within the City’s downtown for planting of a further 12 trees, each of 24-inch box size, of species consistent with the provisions of the Downtown Plan and approved Street Tree List, for a total of 26 street trees planted to offset the nine heritage trees proposed for removal. Such an effort adds further to the stock of trees present Citywide, supplemented by landscaping included in conjunction with the proposed project.

Public Correspondence
The subject application has elicited much correspondence, including expressions of concern and voicing of support. Public correspondence has been attached to this report and included in the public record for the project. The Planning Commission report details the extensive project modifications that were made in response to the many public comments received during years of robust outreach.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project has been deemed eligible for a categorical infill exemption (Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines) and a statutory exemption (Public Resources Code 21083.3 / CEQA Guidelines Section 15183). The lot line adjustment has also been deemed eligible for a minor land division categorical exemption (Section 15305). The full CEQA analysis is attached to this report. Minor edits were made to the CEQA documents following review by the Planning Commission which do not significantly alter the analysis or conclusions.

SUMMARY
The proposed Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project demonstrates consistency with the development requirements of the Central Business District and standards of the Downtown Plan.

The project conforms to eligibility requirements for State Density Bonus Law, which provides incentives such as allowance for additional building height and elimination of on-site parking

17.7 requirements for residential uses. Through the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project exceeds codified height limits but is situated in the City’s downtown urban core a block from Pacific Avenue; surrounded by existing commercial, mixed-use, and residential development and quasi-public and public facilities; and, with its variations in height and multi-tiered architecture, would provide a natural transition in intensity and form leading from the three-story library, commercial, and childcare building to the taller combined parking garage adjacent to the Cedar Street to the residential component nearer intense development of Pacific Avenue. The subject site is located within a developed, urbanized area supported by existing transit service. The development will enrich the subject lot and surrounding neighborhood through removal of an underutilized City surface parking facility and commercial building of substandard development intensity, replacing it with a flagship downtown library facility offering enhanced opportunities for literacy, job enrichment and training, scholarship, and community gathering; high-density housing project offering new amenities and support services to residents qualifying for affordable housing; care for young residents of the City; as well as active commercial space for gathering and designed for a range of land uses.

It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge the environmental determination, approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Use Permit, Design Permit, and Lot-Line Adjustment, and uphold the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission, based on the attached Findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.

FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid fees to compensate for costs associated with staff’s processing of this application. The project, if approved, will generate additional foot traffic to existing downtown establishments, thereby contribute to increased property tax revenue to the City, and the project developer will be required to pay City impact fees, generating additional sources for funding of municipal services, the costs of which will generally be offset by the fees and taxes.

Prepared By:

Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution, including Findings and Conditions of Approval

2. CEQA Notice of Exemption

3. Project Plans, prepared by TenOver Architects/Jayson Architecture, dated September 8, 2022.

4. Project Plans, prepared by TenOver Architects/Jayson Architecture, updated January 26, 2023

5. Arborist Report by Dryad, LLC dated January 18, 2022

6. Arborist Report Addendum by Dryad, LLC dated September 9, 2022

7. Arborist Report Addendum by Dryad, LLC dated December 19, 2022

8. Statements of Prospective Appellant of Heritage Tree Removal Permit dated 12-21-22 and Staff Reponses

9. February 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Action Summary

10. Memo of Review of CEQA Exemption

11. Environmental Checklist for Determination of CEQA Exemption

12. Public Correspondence

17.8 Online links:

1. Link to Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of December 12, 2022, Item Number 4 (Reports and Associated Information Available from the “Agenda Packet” Link at Top of the Webpage):

Cityofsantacruz.com>All Meetings>Parks and Recreation Commission>2022>December 12, 2022

2. Link to Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 2023:

Cityofsantacruz.com>All Meetings>Planning Commission/2023>February 23, 2023

17.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ACKNOWLEDGING THE CEQA DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A

NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION PERMIT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT,

DESIGN PERMIT, LOT-LINE ADJUSTMENT, AND DENSITY BONUS REQUEST, AND

UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF A HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW

DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT AND STRUCTURES AND

CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, ENCOMPASSING DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW, APPROXIMATELY 273,194 SQ. FT., EIGHT (8)-STORY BUILDING INCLUDING A THREE (3)-STORY, APPROXIMATELY 38,069 SQ. FT. CITY LIBRARY FEATURING TWO FLOORS; A THREE (3)-STORY PARKING GARAGE WITH 243 PARKING SPACES; A FIVE (5)-STORY, 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT COMPRISING 124 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; A THREE (3)-STORY, APPROXIMATELY 9,598 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACE; A ONE (1)-STORY, APPROXIMATELY 1,231 SQ. FT. CHILDCARE FACILITY WITH ADJOINING 674 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR PLAY AREA; AND NEW LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF 12 TREES, ON PARCELS LOCATED AT 113 LINCOLN STREET AND 119 LINCOLN STREET (APPLICATION NO. CP22-0128)
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, a Preapplication was submitted for proposed development of the Library Mixed-Use/Affordable Housing Project, including demolition of the existing City surface parking lot and development of a new, 307,968 sq. ft., eight (8)-story building integrating a three (3)-story, approximately 38,000 sq. ft. City library featuring two floors double-heighted with elevated ceilings; a three (3)-story parking garage with 300-340 parking spaces; a five (5)- story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units; a three (3)-story, approximately 10,000 sq. ft. commercial tenant space; a one (1)-story, 1,800-2,500 sq. ft. childcare facility; and associated site improvements on a site located at 113 Lincoln Street and 119 Lincoln Street (CP22-0118);
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2022, pursuant to the City’s Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects, a community engagement meeting (hosted via Internet video conference) was held to allow for early input from the public related to the project; WHEREAS, on September 28, 2022, a formal application was submitted for proposed development of the project, including demolition of the existing City surface parking lot and development of a new, approximately 273,194 sq. ft., eight (8)-story building including a three (3)-story, approximately 38,069 sq. ft. City library featuring two floors; a three (3)-story parking garage with 243 parking spaces; a five (5)-story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units; a three (3)-story, approximately 9,598 sq. ft. commercial tenant space; a one (1)-story, approximately 1,231 sq. ft. childcare facility with adjoining 674 sq. ft. outdoor play area; and new landscaping and associated site improvements, including removal of 12 trees on a site located at 113 Lincoln Street and 119 Lincoln Street (CP22-0128);

17.10 WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022, applicant Jim Rendler of For the Future Housing submitted an application for Heritage Tree Removal Permit for proposed removal of the twelve (12) existing trees, including nine (9) Heritage Trees, on parcels located at 113 Lincoln Street and 119 Lincoln Street, in conjunction with the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP);
WHEREAS, a decision of the Director of Parks and Recreation approving the Heritage Tree Removal Permit was made on October 18, 2022, with on-site posting regarding the approval made consistent with provisions of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section

9.56;
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission, after hearing public testimony, voted 4-3 to deny the appeal of the decision of the Director of Parks and Recreation approving the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and information from that hearing has been considered by the Council, along with additional information that has been provided; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council acknowledgement of the environmental determination and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, and LotLine Adjustment; WHEREAS, the project requires no further review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 (statutory exemption) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 and 15305 (“In-fill Development Projects” and “Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations” categorical exemptions) and the respective analyses conducted pursuant to those sections; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application and heard public testimony on the matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council now makes the following findings:

With Respect to the Environmental Determination
In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental documents contain an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed project. An earlier analysis may be used when, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(3)(D)). If a previous analysis is used, an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project may be conducted through preparation of an Initial Study checklist that identifies: a) the earlier analyses and states where they are available for review; b) which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) the mitigation

17.11 measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified General Plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the General Plan.

Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified. Section 15183, subdivision (b), states that, if a project is consistent with an agency’s General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15183(b).)
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the City’s General Plan 2030; and a separate EIR was completed for the Downtown Plan. Any project within City limits falls under the purview of the City’s General Plan, and, due to the location of the subject site, the project is additionally regulated by the Downtown Plan. The proposed project provides for consistency with both documents and, therefore, qualifies for streamlined environmental review as allowed by Public Resources Code 21083.3.

An Environmental Checklist for Determination of CEQA Exemption has been prepared for the project by the City’s environmental consultant, Dudek, in accordance with the procedures directed in CEQA and has been considered by the Council in taking this action. The memorandum states that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed the potential environmental effects for all required categories of impacts, and the project necessitates no further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 for likely consequences of the project related to aesthetics; agricultural and forest resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards/hazardous materials; hydrology/water quality; land use; mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation; utilities; and wildfire. Through the evaluation, site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City for all categories of impacts.

Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA.

17.12 In addition to the information above, the project is also found to be exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. CEQA provides “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the California Natural Resources Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The Class 32 categorical exemption is for “in-fill development” projects that meet the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed project meets all of the foregoing criteria to claim the application of the in-fill exemption, and none of the exceptions to the exemption can be made, as explained in the documentation that has been fully considered by the City Council in taking this action.

In addition to the above, the lot line adjustment portion of the project has also found to be exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Section 15305 deals with minor alterations in land use limitations and specifically exempts minor lot line adjustments that do not result in the creation of a new parcel. The two lots in this project are being combined into one, and no new lots are created, and none of the exceptions to the exemptions can be made, as documented in the CEQA Categorical Exemption Review and other documentation considered by the Council. Thus, the lot line adjustment is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.

FINDINGS
Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
The subject parcel has a General Plan land use designation of Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC). The General Plan states
“Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC), 0.25 to 3.5 FAR. Applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts. Areas designated RVC include:
• Downtown Santa Cruz, 0.25 to 5.0 FAR. Emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor

17.13 attractions such as entertainment venues. The Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.

The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:

Goal LU3 A complementary balance of diverse land uses
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.1: Foster land use patterns that balance economic, housing, community, and environmental needs, and promote social diversity.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.3: Develop, maintain, and encourage economically viable neighborhood-serving commercial districts. Cf. LU4.2.4 and ED5.2.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.4 - In neighborhoods near visitor areas, give priority to uses that serve both visitors and residents.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU4.2 Encourage land use changes that reduce the need for autos.

Goal M1 Land use patterns, street design, parking, and access solutions that facilitate multiple transportation alternatives
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 M4.2 Provide and maintain a complete, interconnected, safe, inviting, and efficient citywide bicycle network.
 M4.4 Assure a high level of bicycle user amenities. Cf. PR1.6.4.  M4.4.1 Maintain Zoning Ordinance and parking district requirements that require secure, covered bicycle parking and/or storage lockers at private and public facilities.
 M4.4.3 Increase the supply of bicycle parking throughout the city.

Goal ED1 A vibrant regional economic center
 Economic Development Policy ED1.1 Promote Santa Cruz as the principal retail, cultural, recreational, restaurant, entertainment, and commercial destination in the region.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.

Goal CC 8 Excellent educational opportunities and resources  CC8.5 Provide free and equal access to City libraries.

17.14  CC8.6 Strive for library collections that meet community needs.  CC8.7 Expand the communication and information network in the City’s libraries and optimize its quality.
 CC10.1 Encourage an adequate and diverse supply of childcare facilities and services citywide.
 CC10.2 Encourage development of accessible, affordable, and quality childcare facilities near public transportation, employment centers, and in the Downtown.

PR1.6 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are accessible to all Goal NRC5 An enhanced and sustainable urban forest
 NRC5.1 Protect and manage tree resources in the urban environment, with emphasis on significant and heritage trees.

Removal of multiple trees will be necessary as part of the project; however, standard tree replacement measures will be incorporated, as included in the conditions of approval.

Goal H1: Encourage an adequate diversity in housing types and affordability levels to accommodate present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.  Policy 1.1 Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing
through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations that encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.
 Policy 1.2 Concentrate new housing in the Central Core, along major commercial corridors, and on major opportunity sites consistent with the Land Use Element.  Policy 1.3 Facilitate the production of mixed residential-commercial uses through the use
of appropriate development standards, design and compatibility review, and regulatory and financial incentives.
 Policy 1.4 Establish and maintain residential development standards that support housing
production yet promote the vitality of established neighborhoods.

Goal H2: Increase and protect the supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.
 Policy 2.2 Facilitate the development of affordable housing through the provision of
regulatory concessions, financial incentives and assistance, density bonuses, and other means.
 Policy 2.5 Promote meaningful and informed participation of residents, community groups, and governmental agencies in local housing and community development activities.

17.15 Goal H4: Provide increased opportunities for low and moderate income residents to rent or purchase homes.

Goal H5: Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas.
 Policy 5.3 Ensure that the character and design of both infill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods.  Policy 5.4 Promote the overall vitality and livability of neighborhoods by providing adequate public services, community facilities, infrastructure, landscaping and open space, adequate parking, traffic management, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and public safety to meet the needs of each individual neighborhood, as well as by preventing and eliminating blighting conditions.

Goal H6: Strive to fulfill the city’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries.

Policy 6.1 Ensure a compatible relationship between new housing and circulation patterns and encourage pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities in order to minimize traffic impacts on quality of life.
 Policy 6.7 Promote transit-oriented, mixed-use residential developments that are close to services, reduce dependence on automobile use, and are of high quality.

Specifically, the General Plan designation of RVC characterizes downtown Santa Cruz as emphasizing, “a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues.” The Downtown Plan additionally establishes a vision for the City’s downtown core as embodied in the First Principles originally introduced in the Downtown Plan in 1991 and as subsequently refined in the years following. An excerpt of the Vision appears below:
“Vibrant, vital and active, the central business district constitutes the primary retail, commercial, professional and employment center for the City of Santa Cruz. This compact, high-density area is home to unique businesses, offering residents and visitors a diverse and wholesome environment for commercial, cultural, civic and social pursuits. Local, regional and national businesses combine in a potent blend, making the downtown a major destination for the entire region.

The project site occurs on land within the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Downtown Plan, which the Downtown Plan characterizes as follows:
“The Cedar Street Corridor is immediately west of the Pacific Avenue Retail District. The area provides an appropriate transition in scale and use between the downtown and the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the civic center. In contrast to Front Street, which plays a destinational retail role, Cedar Street serves as a more local-serving street with a mixture of professional offices, support and convenience retail, and restaurant uses. Unlike

17.16 Pacific Avenue, which developed in a relatively consistent manner with a strong "street wall" of buildings, Cedar Street is more diverse in nature, with a mixture of one and twostory structures of varied setbacks. Many of the buildings are wood frame structures with a strong residential character.”
With an FAR of 4.60, the proposed project design conforms to the maximum allowable FAR of 5.0 as specified in the General Plan for development in the City’s downtown.As a mixedused development encompassing a new public library; commercial tenant space; childcare facility; approximately 243-space structured parking; and residential complex incorporating 124 100% affordable residences, including studio-, one-, two- and three-bedroom residential units situated in the City’s downtown urban core, the proposed project demonstrates consistency with the stated purpose of the CBD zone district, Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea and General Plan land use designations, as articulated in the project plans, agenda report, website materials for the project, public hearing presentations, conditions of approval, and elsewhere in these findings. The proposed project would conform to residential unit densities consistent with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law. The associated agenda report text further describes how the State Density Bonus Law is used by the project to remain consistent with the Downtown Area Plan. The site is not located within the Coastal Zone.

2. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
Conditions of approval have been added to the proposed project, including, but not limited to, requirements for construction of a sidewalk of at least 10’ in width per design criteria of the Downtown Plan, establishment of new City street trees per the list of approved varieties and establishment of 12 off-site trees within the downtown area intended to counteract the removal of existing trees, continuation of a 6’ wide westbound bicycle lane and installation of new City streetlights including decorative light standards, collectively improving circulation and safety of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and enhancing the aesthetic environment and streetscape. Required construction of a new trash enclosure and storm drain inlets will additionally provide for upgraded refuse collection and materials recovery as well as treatment of runoff at the project site for mitigation of potential impacts to surrounding properties, public right-of-way for enhanced protection of ground- and surface-water resources.

3. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
Since the time of its inception, the proposed project’s design has evolved in response to feedback received through yearslong community outreach efforts; architectural plans have additionally undergone revision resulting from feedback provided by City staff. As currently proposed, the project satisfies design standards of the Municipal Code and Downtown Plan.

Consistent with provisions of the Downtown Plan, the structure’s design emphasizes the development’s ground floor, accentuating building entries to relate to the human scale, while stepped-back facades and a coordinated program of fenestration present a balanced, intentional appearance which offsets bulk and mass. The building bestows street presence due to its height, width, and substantial footprint, while avoiding the impression of an imposing edifice through use of a tiered form and placement of the tallest components a

17.17 significant distance from the front property line. Integration of new landscaping will soften the appearance of the development by including a drought-tolerant, water-efficient plant palette which will enliven the existing site, enhance the area’s ecology, while additionally providing greater vibrancy and durable functionality, enhancing the pedestrian experience and offering opportunities for usability of outdoor space for passive recreation.

The proposed project meets all district development standards, with the exception of project height proposed as a Density Bonus waiver and incentive/concession, and the overall building mass has been broken up by architectural treatments, including articulated exterior surfaces, a diversified material and color palette, integration of expansive glazing, and incorporation of tasteful exterior detail including score lines, recesses, and overhangs. Visual interest is ensured by incorporation of varied roof forms and relief in building planes. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the project design and screened from view from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, while utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are incorporated into project design, rendering them accessible but screened from view. The commercial childcare facility, although imbedded in the project floor plan, remains sheltered due to strategic placement of building walls and inclusion of separate entrances dedicated to individual uses, while the residential tower remains separated by distance for privacy and security. Through separation by distance and provision of secured access, sensitive uses retain privacy and security programming. Placed adjacent to the Cedar Street frontage, the project’s rooftop terrace, including outdoor community gathering space, remains oriented away from surrounding residences and other land uses, disconnected from adjacent residential uses by building areas, further avoiding impacts related to potential loss of privacy, strategically placed to avoid imparting unintended nuisances activities to surrounding land uses associated with production of noise, vibration, glare, and the like associated with the introduction of new housing units. The library will serve as a community space for resources, learning, and gathering. With all such factors considered, including conditions of approval implemented, the proposed uses incorporated into the project will not constitute a nuisance or impose detrimental impacts to the public welfare of the community.

4. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

The above finding remains inapplicable, as the project does not include a thrift store use.

Large Non-Residential Ground-Level Uses, Downtown Plan

5. The use adds a desired, “targeted” business to the Downtown, which would serve to diversify the Downtown Plan area ground-level business base; The land uses included in the proposed project, including public library, affordable housing units, childcare, and commercial tenant space, represent desirable land uses, as expressed by the City Council and advisory bodies and as additionally affirmed by the community as a whole through feedback received via extensive public outreach. The proposed scope of work

17.18 encompasses three distinct ground-level uses (and four uses overall) within a mixed-use format which would diversify the mix of development in the City’s urban core. The new library would exceed 16,000 square feet in size; however, as a public use open to all members of the community and not representing a “business”, siting of such facility would remain in conformance with the spirit and intent of the above finding, which allows for review of expansive, for-profit land uses. The combined floor area of the proposed childcare and commercial tenant space would remain below the 16,000 square-foot size threshold identified and constitute land uses directed by the City Council for incorporation into the proposed project’s scope of work. Therefore, the above finding can be made.

6. The use provides a public benefit and contributes to an appropriate balance of local or non-local businesses. For the purposes of this finding, it shall be presumed that local businesses serve to sustain the authenticity and unique retail character of the downtown business mix. However, non-local businesses may add to retail draw and contribute to overall downtown vitality in certain circumstances; As a not-for-profit enterprise, the new library would provide an array of public benefits, functioning as a landmark downtown destination providing resources for enhancement of community literacy, offering new capabilities for research, fulfilling the need for a community gathering space, and providing capacity for community events. The library would primarily serve local residents but would also attract some visitors. As a regular destination for many community residents, the library use would support other businesses in the downtown by bringing additional customers to the area. While both under the 16,000-square-foot threshold considered here, the childcare facility would assist in addressing the dearth of much-needed opportunities for care of the City’s youngest residents, and the commercial tenant space would add ground-floor capacity for a range of tenant types and provide for relocation of the existing Toadal Fitness use displaced through the proposed redevelopment of 113 Lincoln Street.

7. The use contributes to an appropriate balance of small, medium and large-sized businesses in the downtown area to diversify the ground-level business mix; to insure the maintenance of the “Santa Cruz” identity, unique character and authenticity; to seek to reduce economic “leakage” of sales out of the City and County; and to induce local investment and employment to the downtown area;
The new library facility, as a public facility affording a diverse array of benefits to the community, constitutes a large facility which nonetheless acts in a service role, providing access to print, digital, and audio media foster development of literacy and fostering life-long learning opportunities for community residents and visitors. As the flagship downtown library boasting an attractive, modern, and urbanist design and replacing the City’s existing, aged downtown branch, the library facility offers a unique addition to the mix of uses and building types in the City’s downtown core and may serve as the impetus for further positive land-use changes within the neighborhood. Siting of the new facility, near the existing library, retains patronage within the immediate vicinity of the existing library and would add foot traffic to the area with potential for an added customer base to surrounding businesses.