Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, January 9, 2024 (part 5 of 6)

Since development of my 2017 memorandum, I understand additional information has been added to the historical record as presented in amended Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Update Sheet on the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf by Fallin Steffen of Dudek. This amendment included a very clear graphic of the Wharf chronology, which I have reviewed, and I agree with the information presented. Further, Ms. Steffen’s amended DPR form was included in the original DEIR published September 2020. Additionally, the information shown in the chronology of physical changes to the Wharf over time, in the October 18, 2023 Agenda Report as Attachment 3 “Archival Evidence of Wharf Expansion,” also provides additional documentation for the record.

As I understand the current, only very slightly revised, Wharf Master Plan project, continues to include the East Prominade and Westside Walkway, unchanged from their previous proposed configuration. The Westside Walkway would occur at an area of the Wharf that has been altered previously; the proposed Westside Walkway does not extend to any portions of the Wharf that are original to Brunnier’s design, and would not materially alter the form, intent, or integrity of that design, which has already changed substantially over time. Moreover, although some Wharf extensions, additions, and alterations have been present for some length of time, most of these additions were constructed after the period of significance, which was identified as 1914 to 1964 in Ms. Steffen’s amended DPR form. Generally, alterations that occur after the period of significance are not considered contributing elements to the historic resource. The section of the wharf constructed at the west side in the 1950s would be considered contributing to the historic resource. However, the improvements proposed for the Westside Walkway are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and would not impact either the 1950s addition or the original Brunnier-designed elements of the Wharf.

Therefore, it is my continued professional opinion that the Westside Walkway, as proposed, would not impact the elements of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf that are deemed characterdefining in the historic documentation. As indicated in my previous review, the characterdefining features, which are the physical features that enable the structure to convey its historical significance are limited to its location, setting, alignment, wooden materials (piers), its nearly original length of 2,745 feet long and its continued function as a wharf structure. Future improvements envisioned in the Master Plan would not alter the Wharf’s association with the economic history of Santa Cruz, nor would it change the Wharf’s location. The proposed future improvements would not adversely impact the physical characteristics that convey the historical significance of the Wharf as none of the improvements would alter the overall historic integrity of the resource. The proposed improvements would not impact those elements of Brunnier’s design that result in the Wharf being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under

27.242
Mr. McCormic
December 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

Criterion C, as a distinctive engineering structure known to be the longest wooden pier structure located along the Pacific coast. Thus, adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan and construction of proposed projects and future buildings and improvements would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource. As noted above, there have been no revisions to the Wharf Master Plan Project or other new information that would suggest otherwise.

Sincerely,
Bridget Maley
Principal

27.243
Additional Recommended Master Plan Modifications
The Revised Wharf Master Plan (WMP) includes modifications to the Plan that were previously adopted by City Council on November 24, 2020, as well as clarifying statements at staff recommended changes at the start of the renewed public review process for the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report (RPDEIR). During the public review process additional considerations were raised by the public, advisory commissioners, and by staff as they explored the implication of Master Plan policies and standards on planned and concurrent projects, like redevelopment of the former Miramar site at 45 Municipal Wharf. Discussion of these matters has led staff to recommend that following additional modifications to the Wharf Master Plan. If adopted, these changes would be incorporated into a final publication of the Wharf Master Plan as the appropriate locations.

Proposed recommendations state the existing language and proposed recommendations where possible and are grouped according to area of subject matter.

Recreation related policy recommendations
The following recommendations would be added to the Summary of Policies and Proposed Actions chapter of the Revised Wharf Master Plan (beginning on page 11 of the WMP) and aligned with the most appropriate overarching policy or action as identified by policy number; bullet lettering below is provided to simplify discussion of proposed policies.

5. Provide for an increase in the number, diversity, seasonality and appeal of events and make the educational, scientific, historic, environmental and cultural dimensions of the Wharf an integral and meaningful part of the visitor experience.

A. Ensure that development, events, and interpretive elements on the Wharf are implemented with a emphasis on equity, diversity, and inclusion, including the daylighting of untold stories of the historically disenfranchised and preservation of subsistence activities like fishing.

9. Improve public services and facilities and enhance a sense of safety, security, comfort and convenience on the Wharf.

B. Identify and implement areas of safe passage beneath the Wharf for small watercraft, water sports, and open water swimming to reduce conflict with fishing and other wharf activities.

27.244
Design Guidelines
The following recommendations would be added to the Design Standards chapter of the Revised Wharf Master Plan (beginning on page 53). Existing language is provided, followed by the proposed modifications.

1. On December 20, 2023 the HPC received an update on initial concepts for development of a restaurant on the former Miramar site. Where the existing language proposes sloped roofs to reduce maintenance burden, improve sanitation, and discourage nesting.

Discussion at the hearing suggests that a variety of roof types may be desirable to reflect the dynamic nature of architectural history on the Wharf. The proposed language below suggests a minor modification to allow for variable roof types.

EXISTING
Roof: Flat roofs are discouraged, except when used for rooftop dining. A sloped standing seam roof of no less than 4 in 12 pitch is encouraged with a light reflective color and corrosion-resistant material. Mechanical equip- ment shall be enclosed to prevent creating an attractive nuisance for bird nesting and hidden from view within a clerestory portion of the roof.

PROPOSED
Roof: Flat roofs are discouraged, except when used for rooftop dining, however a variety of roof types may be constructed to diversify the skyline. A sloped standing seam roof of no less than 4 in 12 pitch is encouraged with a light reflective color and corrosionresistant material. Mechanical equipment shall be enclosed, whenever feasible to prevent creating an attractive nuisance for bird nesting and hidden from view within a clerestory portion of the roof.

2. While working on initial concepts for redevelopment of the former Miramar site, staff and the project architect encountered conflicts with this policy. Namely that the proposed depth of 12-feet would cause awnings to conflict with existing infrastructure like street lights and kiosks, and would completely obscure views of second floor activities from the sidewalk. Further discussion with HPC at the December 20, 2023 update for the proposed project adds consideration of human experience and architectural precedent to the discussion. The proposed language below attempts to address these concerns and add flexibility to projects.

EXISTING
Sidewalk Canopy: A sidewalk canopy or roof overhang of a 12-foot depth and 12 to 15 foot height is required over the entire sidewalk adjacent to and the length of each of the premises to provide continuous weather protection for pedestrians. The canopy shall be structured to be a permanent part of the façade. Awnings or fabric extensions are not an

27.245
acceptable alternative. Lighting must be incorporated in the overhang to improve the uniformity ratio of parking area lighting, and provide for side- walk illumination.

PROPOSED
A sidewalk canopy or roof overhang of up to 8-foot depth and 10 to 15 foot height may be required over the sidewalk adjacent to a building, extending up to the length of each of the premises to provide weather and bird dropping protection for pedestrians. The canopy shall be structured as a permanent part of the façade and shall be designed to discourage roosting. Lighting should be incorporated in the overhang to improve the uniformity ratio of parking area lighting and provide for sidewalk illumination. Varied heights, forms, and materials are encouraged, along with carefully selected openings to promote a sense of differentiation, discovery, and to highlight upper floor uses and features where appropriate.

3. Review of historical imagery for the Miramar project revealed a long history of diverse and eclectic signage, lending a dynamic character to building facades, indoor/outdoor spaces and window displays. The proposed language maintains revised guidance for large primary signage, but also encourages smaller secondary signage and dynamic displays.

EXISTING
Signage: Pedestrian scale signage is encouraged. The principal identity signage shall be below canopy blade type heraldic signage that is no more than 7 square feet in size, located perpendicular to the path of movement, and providing for at least 8 feet of vertical clearance from the sidewalk. Identity signage on the front edge of the canopy is permitted but shall be limited to two feet in height and no more than half of the frontage length.

Major identity signage is only permitted for large restaurants and only one sign per establishment with 100 feet or more of frontage including liner uses. Major identity signage shall be fabricated in metal and of high-quality materials and limited in size to

1.5 square feet for each linear foot of frontage. These signs shall be no more than 7 feet by 20 feet in size and locations 15 feet above grade are encouraged.

No advertising signs can be placed on the storefront. Identity signs placed within the window area of the storefront shall be no more than 10% of the glazed area with individual letters or an identity logo that permits visibility to the interior and that creates an appropriate juxtaposition between the activity within the storefront, the identity on the glass and the outside area. In addition, menu displays on the storefront shall be limited to 24 inches by 17 inches in size. No backlit, flashing or canned signage is permitted. No rooftop signs or any sign that is silhouetted against the sky is permitted.

27.246

PROPOSED
Signage: Pedestrian scale signage is encouraged. The principal identity signage shall be below canopy blade type heraldic signage that is no more than 7 square feet in size, located perpendicular to the path of movement, and providing for at least 8 feet of vertical clearance from the sidewalk. Identity signage on the front edge of the canopy is permitted but shall be limited to two feet in height and no more than half of the frontage length.

Major identity signage shall be encouraged for large restaurants and only one sign per establishment. Signage for liner uses shall include distinctive branding and be subordinate to major identify signage. Major identity signage shall be fabricated in metal or other durable high-quality materials and limited in size to 1.5 square feet for each linear foot of front- age. These signs shall be no more than 7 feet by 20 feet in size and locations 12 to 15 feet above grade are encouraged.

Advertising signs on the storefront shall not exceed 5% of the frontage and shall employ creative artful branding. Identity signs placed within the window area of the storefront shall be no more than 10% of the glazed area with individual letters or an identity logo that permits visibility to the interior and that creates an appropriate juxtaposition between the activity within the storefront, the identity on the glass and the outside area. In addition, menu displays on the storefront shall be limited to approximately 60 inches by 48 inches in size; although slightly larger sizes may be allowed for pre-fabricated models.

No backlit, flashing or canned signage is permitted. Digital displays or signage shall only be allowed for menus, event promotion, interpretive materials, and interactive kiosks.

Historic Preservation Policies
As the Historic Preservation Commission hearing on October 18, 2023, HPC recommended the following statement for City Council consideration.

PROPOSED BY HPC
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommends the following language regarding development review on the historic Wharf, and the proposed Western Walkway.

Development Review
All development on the Wharf is subject to either an Administrative Historic Alteration Permit or an Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with historic alteration permit requirements applicable to other historic sites in the City. Administrative Historic Alteration Permits are reviewed and approved by staff without Commission review.

Historic Alteration Permits require review and approval by the HPC during a public hearing.

27.247
For the Landmark Building, the Events Pavilion and the Gateway Building, the applicant shall gather input from the HPC and a consulting historic architect as early as possible in the design process. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

Western Walkway
The proposed Western Walkway should not be constructed because it will have a significant impact on the iconic view of the Wharf from West Cliff Drive. This is the only remaining view of the Wharf that dates to the period of significance, which has been identified as 1914-1964. This view not only shows the structural components of the wharf, but it also emphasizes the end of the Wharf which is bent to the west creating the hallmark L-shape, part of the original design.

The addition of the 815-foot, Western Walkway would significantly compromise the integrity of Master Engineer, Henry John Brunnier’s unique design. The proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design. The proposed walkway would cause a substantial adverse change to the visual character of the 109- year-old Santa Cruz Wharf, the longest wooden pier structure in California.

Appendix F: Historical Resources Reviews, part of the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Draft EIR, March 2020, includes three separate analyses of the wharf’s history. All of these reports address the design elements of the Santa Cruz Wharf indicating that the structure retains integrity of design in addition to other aspects of integrity as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. These reports are unequivocal.
1) “The structure retains integrity of location and overall design, workmanship, feeling and association.”, Maley, Bridget, Principal, architecture+history, llc., Memorandum, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, September 26, 2017, p. 8.
2) “Integrity Discussion …the Santa Cruz Wharf appears to retain a high degree of integrity of setting, and location, and sufficient degree of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” DPR 523, Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, Steffen, Fallin, Dudek, November 19, 2019. p. 10. 3) “While many of the original materials, both above and below deck, have been replaced over time in order to maintain the Municipal Wharf as a functioning structure (and, as such, lacks integrity of materials and workmanship), the Wharf does maintain its integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association.” DPR 523, Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, URS Corporation, December 10, 2012, p. 4 of 12.,

27.248

PROPOSED BY STAFF
Staff does not support the proposal to remove the Westside Walkway and HPC statements regarding potential historic impacts of its construction are contrary to the historical record, as well as traditional historic preservation practices. The architectural historian who worked on the Wharf Master Plan, Bridgey Maley of Architecture + History, has also reviewed the HPC proposal and confirmed that the Westside Walkway would not negatively impact any historical resources on the Wharf or its historical integrity.

Staff generally concurs with the intent of HPC’s language on Design Review but feels that the language previously approved by Council on November 24, 2020 and incorporated into the Revised Wharf Master Plan already capture the same intent, however staff is proposing to update the historic preservation language as shown below in effort to align with HPC’s recommendation and outstanding needs for clarity on implementation. Based on the HPC recommendation. The following statement from the Commission could be added to the existing policy, although it is already part of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties which projects are required to comply with.
“Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.”
Staff has also proposed a number of Policy recommendations to add clarity to implementation of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and streamline wharf maintenance.

Development Review
C. All development projects on or about the Wharf shall be reviewed for consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and shall require an Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with historic alteration permit requirements applicable to historic properties and sites in the City.

D. The Historic Preservation Commission shall work with staff to establish clear thresholds that identify what types of projects will be subject to either administrative or discretionary review for historic alterations on the Wharf.

E. Routine Wharf maintenance, including substantially in-kind replacement, legally required improvements, emergency or life-safety improvements, and work conducted pursuant to a City Council approved Maintenance Program, shall be considered consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Specially, that ongoing maintenance is necessary to avert unsafe or dangerous conditions, minimize economic hardship, and is essential to the long-term preservation of the Wharf. As such, the Historic Preservation Ordinance or implementing resolution(s) should be updated to exempt routine Wharf

27.249
maintenance as approved by right as consistent with rationale authorized by the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended.

F. Alteration Permits require review and approval by the HPC during a public hearing. For the Landmark Building, the Events Pavilion and the Gateway Building, the applicant shall gather input from the HPC and include a consulting historic architect as early as possible in the design process.

G. As projects proceed, the HPC and staff should work together early to establish objective guidelines that infuse historic rehabilitation principles into projects, while conforming with Wharf Master Plan design standards.

27.250

MEMORANDUM
To: David McCormic City of Santa Cruz
From: Dave Compton, Senior Ornithologist, Dudek
Subject: Santa Cruz Bird Club comment letter, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Date: December 14, 2023
cc: Stephanie Strelow, Dudek
Attachment(s): Santa Cruz Bird Club comment letter
This memorandum has been prepared in response to a comment letter dated October 31, 2023 provided to the City of Santa Cruz (City) Planning Commission with regard to the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and EIR. The letter requests that the Planning Commission adopt Alternative 2 considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which does not include the “Western Walkway” (referenced as “Westside Walkway” in the Wharf Master Plan). The comment letter focuses specifically on impacts to nesting pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba), a species known to nest at concealed locations under the Wharf deck. In requesting the adoption of Alternative 2, the comment states that the Westside Walkway would be “eight feet below deck level and [extend] a third the length of the Wharf” on the western side of the Wharf. Stating that guillemots return “to their same nests under the Wharf” and are easily disturbed, the comment further states that the Westside Walkway would present a “major barrier” to the “protected Pigeon Guillemots” seeking to access their nest sites underneath the Wharf deck. In addition, the comment states in passing that the proposed boat launches and the lowered viewing deck on the south end of the Wharf would also present barriers to nesting guillemots. Therefore, after briefly describing the status of pigeon guillemots, this response focuses on:
• Nest site fidelity (tendency to return to the same nest over multiple years) of pigeon guillemots generally and at the Santa Cruz Wharf specifically.
• Likelihood of increased disturbance occurring to guillemots due to the construction of the Westside Walkway.
• The Westside Walkway as a potential barrier to guillemot flight to and from the nest. • Potential barriers presented by new boat landings.

Pigeon Guillemot Status
As noted in the DEIR under the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP; City of Santa Cruz 1994), pigeon guillemots are considered a locally sensitive species; the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (City of Santa Cruz 2012) identifies pigeon guillemots as nesting on the Wharf and considers the Wharf to be sensitive habitat. Under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, they are also protected while nesting. However, pigeon guillemots are not rare or sensitive in the sense that they are not listed under the

27.251

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SANTA CRUZ BIRD CLUB COMMENT ON WHARF MASTER PLAN 10312.04 2
DECEMBER 2023
federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, they are not considered Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code, and they are not a California Bird Species of Special Concern, Nest Site Fidelity
The contention that pigeon guillemots return to the same nest in subsequent years is supported in the literature, specifically with regard to the habits of a well-studied population at Southeast Farallon Island, an island approximately 27 miles west of San Francisco. But this tendency has generally not been observed in recent annual surveys at the Santa Cruz Wharf. A study of the population at Southeast Farallon Island reports that, of individuals that bred in one year and returned to the island the next year to breed, 87% nested in the same crevices where they nested previously (Nelson 1991). Nesting colonies described at Southeast Farallon Island (Nelson 1991) are typical of nesting locations for this species, which is known to nest in rock cavities or burrows along rocky coastlines (Ewins 2020).

At the Santa Cruz Wharf, guillemots find similarly hidden locations adjacent to nearshore foraging habitat to nest under the Wharf deck; but the fact that the birds choose to nest in an anthropogenic structure, rather than in cliffs or offshore rocks, is not typical. And evidence from annual surveys suggests that, in the nesting environment at the Wharf, guillemots do not generally nest in the same location in consecutive years. Surveys in 2017 and from 2021 through 2023 detected 9 guillemot nests in 2017, 8 in 2021, 12 in 2022, and 9 in 2023 (KEC 2017, 2021, 2022; KEC unpublished data 2023). The four-year gap between full nesting bird surveys between 2017 and 2021 does not permit assessing nest site fidelity between those years. In addition, location data provided from 2021 to 2023 are mapped more precisely on repairs plans provided by Santa Cruz Public Works. But while some of the 2021 nests appear to have been observed relatively near the locations of 2017 nests (for example, a nest in the lifeguard area on the west side of the Wharf in 2017 was likely less than 20 feet from a nest identified four years later in 2021), it appears that none of the 2021 nests were in specific crevices that guillemots had used under the Wharf deck in 2017 (KEC 2017, 2021).

Data from three consecutive years, from 2021 to 2023, provide a better year-to-year comparison of nest locations.

Of the 8 nest locations mapped in 2021, only one was occupied in 2022, even though more guillemots nested under the deck of the Wharf in the latter year (KEC 2021, 2022). The same location, which is on the west side of the Wharf at Bent 47, an area that won’t be obstructed by the Westside Walkway, was occupied again in 2023 (KEC unpublished data). But no other location where guillemots nested in 2021 or 2022 were occupied in 2023. The area from Bent 81 to Bent 83 supported at least one nest each year (all in the eastern half of the Wharf), but no location was occupied twice. The bents and piles under the Wharf deck basically reproduce more or less identical potential nesting sites throughout the structure. This abundance of nesting opportunities may influence the fact that the guillemots tend to occupy different sites from year to year. Regardless, the observation from Southeast Farallon Island that pigeon guillemots return to the same cavity to nest over multiple consecutive years does not appear to apply at the Santa Cruz Wharf.

Potential Disturbance to Pigeon Guillemots
The comment states generally that guillemots are “easily disturbed” but does not make any connection between inclusion of the Westside Walkway in the Master Plan and any disturbance to pigeon guillemots. Nest “disturbance” often refers to construction period disturbance, in which project activities (resulting in noise, vibration, human presence) near the nest may disrupt nesting activities, flushing incubating birds or deterring birds with nestlings

27.252

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SANTA CRUZ BIRD CLUB COMMENT ON WHARF MASTER PLAN 10312.04 3
DECEMBER 2023
from bringing food to the nest. Such disturbance may result in nest failure, which is a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. However, the Project includes Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which would require nesting bird surveys prior to construction activities scheduled to begin during the nesting bird season. The measure further requires that, if active nests are found, construction shall be delayed or a buffer shall be established to protect the nesting birds as long as the nests remain active.

Observations during annual surveys in 2022 suggested that such measures work. Avoidance of work within 100 feet of active guillemot nests was implemented during routine maintenance and associated construction in 2022.

No adverse effects to nests were observed from work activities (KEC 2022). Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would result in avoidance of disturbance to pigeon guillemot nests due to construction activities. “Disturbance” could also refer to some deterrence from nesting following construction, for example, if the construction of the feature results in noise or human presence after completion of the walkway that would deter the birds from nesting in the future. However, as explained on page 4.2-45 of the DEIR, the construction of the East Promenade would expand the Wharf structure by 28 feet and provide additional area for nesting underneath the Wharf that would increase the ability of pigeon guillemots to nest away from the Westside Walkway, if human presence there provides a disturbance to guillemots. As the addition would incorporate an underlying structure similar to that of the existing Wharf, as noted on page 3-21 of the DEIR, guillemots should be able to nest in locations under the Wharf deck that are similar to those where they have nested in the past, and more such locations would be available.

The Westside Walkway as a Barrier to Nesting Guillemots The contention that the Westside Walkway would result in a barrier to guillemots accessing their nests is speculative. Even at high tide, approximately 9 feet of space would remain between the underside of the walkway and the ocean surface (DEIR Figure 3-4), although this distance will vary depending on tides and wave heights. This distance is almost exactly that cited as the height above the water within which pigeon guillemots usually fly (3 meters; Thoresen and Booth 1958, as cited in Ewins 2020). At lower tides, more space will be available. Therefore, pigeon guillemots will have sufficient space under most conditions to fly under the Westside Walkway. In addition, guillemots will still be able to access the underside of the Wharf in areas away from the new Westside Walkway, as they do currently.

Other Potential Barriers
With regards to the statement that the boat docks recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would provide barriers to nesting guillemots, the Wharf already has five existing boat landings as described on page 3-2 of the DEIR. Boat activity already occurs on the east side of the Wharf, and the existing boat landings would be consolidated with the new Small Boating Landing. Although a second South Landing area also would be added, it is roughly in the same location as the existing Public Landing No. 2. The majority of the eastern side of the Wharf would remain open. Also, with the Wharf expansion resulting from the proposed East Promenade, a larger area would be available under the Wharf for nesting. Thus, activity associated with the new boat landings would not affect nesting.

27.253

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SANTA CRUZ BIRD CLUB COMMENT ON WHARF MASTER PLAN 10312.04 4
DECEMBER 2023
References
City of Santa Cruz. 1994.Local Coastal Program and Coastal Land Use Policies and Maps. Adopted October 27, 1992; Amended October 25, 1994.

City of Santa Cruz. 2012. Final Environmental Impact Report: General Plan 2030. April 2012.

City of Santa Cruz. 2012. City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Final EIR. [SCH#2009032007] Certified June 26, 2012. Includes Draft EIR document, September 2011.

City of Santa Cruz. 2020a. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan [SCH NO:
2016032038]. Prepared by Dudek for the City of Santa Cruz Economic Development. March 2020.

City of Santa Cruz. 2020b. Final Environmental Impact Report, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan [SCH NO:
2016032038]. Prepared by Dudek for the City of Santa Cruz Economic Development. September 2020.

City of Santa Cruz. 2023. Final Environmental Impact Report, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, Volume 2 [SCH NO:
2016032038]. Prepared by Dudek for the City of Santa Cruz Economic Development. August 2023.

Ewins, P.J. 2020. “Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba), version 1.0 in Birds of the World, eds. A.F. Poole and F.B.

Gill. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.piggui.01. Accessed November 2023.

KEC (Kittleson Environmental Consulting, LLC). 2017. 2017 Santa Cruz Wharf Nesting Bird Surveys. December 21, 2017.

KEC. 2021. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Wharf Spring Bird Surveys. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Parks and Recreation. February 2, 2022.

KEC. 2022. 2022 Santa Cruz Wharf Nesting Bird Survey. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz, Department of Parks and Recreation. December 22, 2022.

KEC. Unpublished data. Unpublished survey results for 2023 Santa Cruz Wharf Nesting Bird Survey.

Nelson, D. 1991. Demography of the Pigeon Guillemot on Southeast Farallon Island, California. Condor 93: 765– 768.

27.254
Tuesday October 31, 2023
Dear City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission Members ,
Please accept these comments from the Santa Cruz Bird Club on the Wharf Master Plan and recirculated EIR for deliberation at your meeting on Thursday November 2.

The Santa Cruz Bird Club strongly requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Alternative 2- Modified Project be adopted for the Wharf Master Plan EIR. This Alternative, which can be found in Chapter 5, CEQA Considerations, of the 2020 EIR in Section

5.5.2 (Alternatives Considered), removes the lowered Western Walkway. This proposed new Walkway, eight feet below deck level and extending a third of the length of the Wharf on the western (Cowell Beach) side, not only visually bisects the pilings which was of great concern to the Historic Preservation Commission (who continued their meeting to further examine the issue) but also is a major barrier for the migratory, protected Pigeon Guillemots to access their nests under the Wharf.

These migratory birds return from the far north every spring to their same nests under the Wharf.

They are easily disturbed.

Alternative 2-Modified Project was determined in the EIR to be the environmentally superior alternative and in the words of the city, it “met all project objectives.” That the city failed to adopt this Alternative without evidence was included in the 2022 Court's ruling which required the city to address their failure to adopt it. The city’s claim that the Walkway is important to Wharf stability failed to mention that there are alternatives to achieve the same goal.

All the new construction for the Wharf under the Wharf Master Plan, such as the 200 ton boat landing on the eastside, the lowered viewing deck to the south, the additional boat landings and boat launchings will all present barriers to the nesting birds. However it is the lowered Western Walkway and its human foot traffic that most significantly affects the nesting birds.

With the adoption of Alternative 2, there are still a great deal of changes possible for the Wharf if that is desired. The protection of our migratory birds can be achieved with the simple adoption of Alternative 2, which achieves all project objectives.

The Santa Cruz Bird Club urges you to vote yes on this recommendation.

Sincerely,
Lisa Sheridan, President, Santa Cruz Bird Club
Jane Orbuch, Conservation Officer, Santa Cruz Bird Club

27.255
ATTACHMENT 15 - Storm Damage Evidence (Jan. 5, 2023 and Winter 1982- 1983) OCTOBER 12 , 2023 PREPARED BY: David McCormic, ED
SCALE IS NOT PRESERVED IN EXHIBIT.
1983

27.256
ATTACHMENT 15 - Storm Damage Evidence (Jan. 5, 2023 and Winter 1982- 1983) DECEMBER 21 , 2023 PREPARED BY: David McCormic, ED
SCALE IS NOT PRESERVED IN EXHIBIT.

DEBRIS REMOVAL

CAPITOLA - COLLAPSE IN WAVE

CRASH ZONE
BROKEN PILING - “SWINGER”

WAVE FORCE BUFFERING -

PROTECTING STRUCTURE

MARINE DEBRIS

BROKEN PILES - FLOATING

AWAY FROM WHARF

27.257

WAVE DISSIPATION
CAPITOLA WHARF (JAN. 5, 2023)

27.258
https://youtu.be/DpwCqt3GRwo

OVERTOPPING
SEACLIFF PIER (JAN. 5, 2023)

27.259
ATTACHMENT 15 - Storm Damage Evidence (Jan. 5, 2023 and Winter 1982- 1983) OCTOBER 12 , 2023 PREPARED BY: David McCormic, ED
SCALE IS NOT PRESERVED IN EXHIBIT.

NOTE: DECK REPAIR EXHIBIT PREPARED IN 2018

AS PART OF THE WHARF MASTER PLAN AND
ENGINEERING REPORT. PLAN DEPICTS

INACCESSIBLE PILES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DAMAGE THAT ACCUMULATED OVER TIME

BENEATH THE MIRAMAR SITE, UP TO ITS
DEMOLITION. DECK AND STRINGER DAMAGE IS
DOCUMENTED SEPARATELY IN THE PLANS.

27.260

RESILIENCE IMPROVEMENTS
West walkway

GUARD PILESPROTECT AGAINST

MARINE DEBRIS
VULNERABLEPILES + DIFFICULTTO REPAIR

LIGHTWEIGHTPERMEABLEDECKING

DEBRIS REMOVAL

27.261

WESTSIDE

WALKWAY
• Protects from marine debris• Dissipates wave force
AKA “wave force attenuation”

WAVE FORCE ATTENTUATION

PERMEABLE DECKING

27.262

27.263

27.264

27.265

27.266

27.267

27.268
From: Bonnie Bush
To: City Council
Subject: FW: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] For Jan. 10th meeting Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 4:39:57 PM
Attachments: Wharf 2024.doc
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email: [email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com In observance of the Holidays, City offices will be closed starting December 25, 2023 and re-opening January 8, 2024. Accordingly, our response times for public records act requests during this closure will be delayed. We will, however, diligently process any pending requests upon our return. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Moran <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] For Jan. 10th meeting Please let me know that you received this. Thank you. Chris Moran

27.269
RE: SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL WHARF PLAN December 30, 2024
Councilmembers:

I worked 26 years at the City of Santa Cruz and was the Waste Reduction Manager so I know Waste when I see it: the wharf master plan is a waste of time, money and resources.

The Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf was pounded by massive waves, again this week and more storms will come. Erecting 40-foot buildings on the wharf is antithetical to what Santa Cruz stands for. What a travesty. The Wharf should not be the extension of the downtown business plan, our wharf is different. It is a place to unwind, get some lunch, and watch for whales. We’re a Sanctuary not a retail Outlet opportunity.

This City Council is making its mark on downtown and the wharf but it isn’s a good look.

Tourists and locals enjoy Santa Cruz because of its small town feel --which it’s losing.

People need sanctuary, a place to be, surrounded by ocean. The council wants to block views, make it look like downtown LA. Those tax dollars will be money down the drain when pieces of the wharf are washed away to become marine debris (think Capitola and Cement ship). The end of the wharf is closed indefinitely, today, because of regularly occuring surf conditions.

Across from Las Palmas Taco Bar the City removed Otto’s Garage, replacing it with a skateboard park (which was used a lot), and then with the Monterey Bay National Marine Exploration Center. That building is under-used because it is filled with plastic representations of sea life when actual sea life is across the street on the wharf where there are real jelly fish, seals, whales, fish and birds. People don’t come here for buildings, they come for the ocean. That Marine Exploration “Center” two-story building ruins the walking and driving view from West Cliff. You used to be able to walk up the hill and get a sweeping view of the ocean, now you just see the backside of the that building. It’s a sin. Are we going to keep making the same poor “design choices.”
If you want a 40-foot building, there it is, put that one to better use instead of trying to make the Municipal Wharf into something it should’nt be. You are erasing the rich fishing industry and local history of Santa Cruz when you gentrify our wharf. Steel pilings will not safeguard these plans against mother nature.

Chris Moran
10310 California Drive
Ben Lomond, CA 95005

27.270
From: Sandi Dutra
To: City Council
Subject: SC Wharf Plans Need to Reflect Resident’s Input Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 1:23:45 PM
Please do not approve plans as they currently exist.

Please do not add tall buildings to the wharf as they will restrict views.

Please don’t add a wide walkway to the wharf.

Please listen to the public which you are supposed to serve.

Sandi Dutra
2395 Delaware Ave
408-373-4164
7-year Santa Cruz resident
Sent from my iPhone

27.271
From: John
To: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Community Feedback Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 4:37:33 PM
Attachments: 010324 WMP Letter to Council.docx
Esteemed Council Persons,
Please see my attached letter in support of the Wharf Master Plan. Many Thanks. - Jon Bombaci

27.272
Jon Bombaci
2550 Parker Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
January 3, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz , CA 95020
Esteemed Mayor and City Council Persons,

27.273
As the most recently retired in a long line of Wharfingers (19 by my count) in service to the City of Santa Cruz, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I am such an ardent supporter of the Wharf Master Plan in its entirety. Having spent nearly 40 years repairing, upgrading, promoting, and then supervising maintenance and operations on the Wharf and Beachfront between 2011 and 2021, I believe I have a unique overview of what is needed for the Wharf to thrive structurally and economically throughout the remainder the 2000s and beyond.

Global Warming is now upon us, and no further evidence need remind us than the latest damage to the south end of the Wharf, but as harrowing a sight as this is, it provides the perfect illustration as to why the west walkway is a most necessary element of the Wharf Master Plan (WMP).

Beyond creating a barrier between large wave-born flotsam (trees, boats, propane tanks etc.), and the pilings that support the West side building’s weight bearing edges, an effective evacuation corridor, upwind firefighting position and a huge improvement to public recreational access, it provides a path to and a platform on which repairs to damage on the west side of the Wharf may be staged. Imagine for a moment that the Dolphin were a new building perched at the Wharf’s terminal edge, as are some of the others now on the Wharf’s west side. The only approach there would be from the water, doable in a protected bay, too risky to insure in our open water.

27.274
As someone who is very aware of all of the Wharf’s structural strengths and weaknesses, and has spent many sleepless nights triaging maintenance needs within the confines of the City’s budget limitations, it is my sincere opinion that the only way to maintain the Wharf as a productive city asset is to enclose it in new construction. This accomplishes several goals critical to maintaining structural and economic resiliency though the heavier weather years we’ll see through the end of the century. The most important goal a barrier construction accomplishes is dampening the wave-born lateral movement tearing at the fabric of the sheer panel (deck framing) that holds the Wharf together. New construction, with advanced fastening systems, would contain this movement well enough to complete maintenance on the Wharfs aging core at a pace more in line with the budget and the new maintenance restrictions mandated by the Coastal Commission. New construction will also allow for the efficient placement of new, more durably constructed and safely mounted utility conduits increasing fire safety, power, water and internet reliability. As importantly, the additional space will provide a better atmosphere for a woefully underserved visitor audience that already exists, as well as an anticipated increase in new visitors, by providing ADA access to all areas of the Wharf (including water craft via the Small and South Landings), parking for bicyclists (a potentially huge source of patronage for Wharf businesses) out of pedestrian traffic paths, and new fishing access immediately adjacent to, but not in conflict with, auto, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. The best part in all of it is the improvements in public access. The quality of recreational experience and opportunity are precisely the types of improvements that are most attractive to a broad variety of grant funding agencies, which make the endeavor an entirely likely proposition.

The findings and conclusions supporting each element of the WMP were recommended by the most experienced highly regarded marine architectural engineering and retail business professionals in the State, all operating out of an in- depth knowledge of the Wharf’s construction, maintenance and operational historical challenges and successes.

27.275
I had been a frequent visitor to the Wharf for over two decades before coming to work in October of 1982 to repair damage from the storms that battered the Wharf earlier that year. I have seen many, and have worked on several of the additions to the Wharf over the years, and can truthfully say they have all yielded a net positive towards maintaining the Wharf’s resiliency, utility and capacity as a beloved regional recreation mecca.

The Wharf Master Plan has enjoyed broad majority support from our elected officials at every turn of its development, and I implore you now, before more construction time and funding drain away, to please pass the Wharf Master Plan in its entirety so that our children’s children might come to love and enjoy the Wharf they will know as theirs tomorrow, as much as we enjoy this one that we see as ours today.

Sincerely,
Retired Wharf Supervisor, Jon Bombaci

27.276
From: Vivienne Cruzio Account
To: City Council
Subject: Don’t warp the wharf , no 40 foot buildings no western lowered walkway Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 5:47:57 AM
I oppose the eyesores and potential harm to migrating wildlife and birds…No to 40 foot buildings and to an unattractive and very visible walkway on the west side of the Santa Cruz Wharf. I love our current wharf with longtime, and a few newer businesses, and see no need for changes besides some more funding for structural maintenance … with climate change increasing the storminess of the coast, and with tourists already finding plenty to enjoy here, let’s not spoil the historic character of the wharf and its surroundings.

Sincerely,
Vivienne

27.277
Your individual emails will help convince the city council to scale the Wharf Master Plan way down; at least by removing the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan.

Concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf.

Email City Council at [email protected] by Monday January 8th and/or attend the January 9th city council meeting at City Hall. Check the council agenda the previous Friday to see where the Wharf item is placed on the agenda.

Thank you!
Who We Are
We are the Santa Cruz Group of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, the world's oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization. With over 3.8 million members and supporters, the Sierra Club has the resources to empower people and to influence public policy through community activism, public education, lobbying, and litigation.

Our mission is to Explore, Enjoy and
From: Karin Grobe
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:10:53 AM

27.278
From: Kathy Haber
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:31:18 AM
Santa Cruz City Council members,
I am writing in opposition to some of the proposed additions to our Municiple wharf. I feel that the 40 ft tall buildings would disfigure it's overall appearance. And that they would weaken the structure by presenting a force multiplier during strong winds. I also think that the lowered walkway on the west side would be awash several times each winter and would probably be repeatedly damaged.

Please vote to remove these features from the Plan and concentrate our money and efforts on replacing pilings and repaving. You also must consider the large effort that will be required just to repair the damage to the end of the wharf that has already been caused by neglect and last week’s high surf.

Kathy Haber

27.279
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Subject. Wharf Master Plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:36:08 AM
I encourage the City Council to scale the Wharf Master Plan way down by removing the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan. Instead, concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf.

27.280
From: Christine Welch
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Project
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:39:10 AM
Dear City Council,
Please do not vote for a lower extended walkway on the Wharf. This would disturb wildlife habitat.

Also no high 40' buildings.

These changes would ruin the historical look of the Wharf.

Also I'm all for smaller garbage trucks as it has been proven that the large ones being used now do the most structural damage to the Wharf.

Thank you
Christine Nordquist
Santa Cruz resident and voter
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

27.281
From: Peggy O"Shea
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf changes
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:41:05 AM
Santa Cruz has always been a place where we are prided with environmental sensitivities. The new walkway suggested for the wharf 1. takes away from its historic presence and 2. Impedes the migratory birds who make their nests and could also keep them from nesting at all.

Aren't there better ways to use the funds at your disposal? Thank you, and I vote
Peggy O'Shea
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

27.282
From: Andy Bell
To: City Council
Subject: Jan. 9, 2024 meeting - Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Master Plan Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:53:21 AM
Dear Councilpersons,
Please remove the following from the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Master Plan:

1. The proposed walkway on the west side of the wharf, stretching beneath the restaurants. Besides threatening sensitive species, such a walkway would significantly alter the profile of the wharf on the west side.

2. Proposed new buildings. These should not be included in the plan. If allowed, they would significantly alter the character of the wharf, particularly if allowed at their proposed height.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these requests.

Sincerely,
Andrew M. Bell
Santa Cruz

27.283
From: Jean Brocklebank
To: City Council
Subject: 1/9/24 meeting agenda - Retain and restore historic wharf and reject three aspects of the Wharf Master Plan Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 9:23:47 AM
Dear City Council members ~
Since moving from Montana to Santa Cruz in 1979, I and my family have enjoyed the Wharf in all its myriad ways -- the views of the ocean and beach activity to the east and west, the sea lions resting below, the delightful variety of restaurants, the shops, the socializing, the busy-ness of life in all forms, including soaring birds to remind us of the sky above. Every trip to the wharf is unique and continues to rewards us.

The wharf has served humanity - and animal life - for over 100 years. Please, please recognize a jewel and allow it to shine with proper maintenance and renewal, retaining its scale appropriate to its historic value. Let residents and visitors alike find delight in its sufficiency in a world that destroys simplicity in the name of ever expansive massive buildings with bird-killing windows.

Remove the following three aspects of the plan before you, before acceptance:

Lowered west walkway
40' tall buildings
Garish entrance
I close with a photo that show how the Wharf makes its own light and allows sea life to sleep after dark.

27.284
Thank you,
Jean Brocklebank

27.285
From: Holly Ansett
To: City Council
Subject: future of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:45:28 AM
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I would like to register my comments regarding the upcoming city council meeting on the 9th Jan regarding the future of the Santa Cruz Municipal Warf.

I am a long time Santa Cruz county resident, of 28 years, I go regularly to the wharf, I take family members, tourists and friends. It is an incredibly unique wharf due to its openness, ability to view the sealions, the unrestricted view of the ocean, birdlife, and sealife.

I was incredibly disheartened to hear the future plans of the wharf, such as the 40ft building at the end, enclosing the sealion viewing areas and basically ruining the overall character of the wharf.

I understand and support it needs repairs, especially after recent damage, but can we just repair what needs to be repaired and not completely destroy this unique wharf that allows people to feel the beauty and nature.

Please consider repairs without destroying the wharf and turning it into a 40 ft building. If this happens there would be no reason to bring tourist and friends to such an ugly place.

Sincerely
Holly Ansett - concerned resident

27.286
"In sum: the 110-year-old historic Wharf, a treasure for both locals and visitors, is in overall good structural condition thanks to its original design in 1914 by Master Engineer Henry J.

Brunnier and since then, its upkeep by the dedicated Wharf crew.

The Sierra Club has commented at each step of the Wharf Master Plan process, most recently with a letter detailing the reasons for removing the west side walkway to protect the migratory birds and because that Alternative (removing the walkway) was found to be the environmentally superior Alternative in the Environmental Impact Report." From: Michele A. Halligan
To: City Council
Subject: PLEASE SCALE THE WHARF PLAN WAY DOWN!
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:45:30 AM
Esteemed Council Members,
As a former chair of the Bainbridge Island, Washington, City Council (late 1990s), l worked hard to be respectful of the community "climate of opinion" and to weigh the cost-effectiveness of any plan going forward.

Today as I read and listen to opinions of members of the Santa Cruz community, my sense is that the LAST thing people want to see is more change to the historical character of the town -- the Municipal Wharf in this case -- especially when it is costly and perhaps unnecessary at this time.

Below are comments from the local Sierra Club. Please pay careful attention and consider acting on the club's suggestions. They make wonderful sense to me: they're sensitive to constituents struggling with the pace of change and, always key, cost-effective.

Sierra Club suggestions in brief:

Scale the Wharf Master Plan way down; at least by removing the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan.

Concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf.

Best of luck in your deliberations and best hopes for a respectful, carefullydecided and reasonable outcome for the community, Michele Halligan
[email protected]

27.287
(530)624-2671
2091 Huntington Drive
Aptos, CA 95003

27.288
From: Diane Heckman
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz Wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:18:46 AM
City Council,
I love birds and bird watching. One of the reasons that I moved to Santa Cruz two years ago was the abundance of bird life. I like to go to the end of the Wharf to observe pelagic birds.

I oppose the lowered walkway proposal because it will interfere with the Guillenmot nesting habitat.

I also enjoy taking visitors to the sea lion observation holes" at the end of the Wharf. Please ensure that these stay open.

I do support improving the roadway. On a bike or in a car, the condition of the paving is terrible.

Replacing the dumpsters and the traffic from the heavy garbage trucks should keep the paving in better condition.

Diane Heckman
Seabright neighborhood
PS. I vote, and I pay attention

27.289
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: wharf master plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:50:41 AM
Instead of spending millions on an unpopular Wharf Master Plan and consulting attorneys to defend indefensible environmental impact reports, the city would do well to scale back the Plan to one more acceptable to the public by removing the tall buildings and the westside lowered walkway.

Alison Reason 212 California St

27.290
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Council
Subject: Proposed wharf renovations
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:54:11 AM
Hello:

As a Santa Cruz resident, I urge the council to scale the Wharf Master Plan down; at least by removing the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan. Please concentrate on fixing the roadway as suggested by the engineers, and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf.

I oppose the proposed lowered walkway on the west side of the wharf, which the City’s Historic Preservation Commission voted to remove from the Plan, stating that the walkway would “degrade the visual character of the Wharf by introducing an appendage to the Wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design.” HPC October 2023.

Also the lowered west side walkway would impact migratory birds (Guillemots) from accessing their nests under the Wharf when they return each year from Puget Sound. That, plus other below deck additions around the Wharf will likely mean the Guillemots will abandon their nests entirely.

Regarding the proposed addition to the Wharf of three new buildings, each at forty feet in height, this would totally change the small beach town charm and character of the Wharf as it appears now. Sadly, with all of the tall buildings going in around Santa Cruz now, we can say goodbye to the charming small beach town feel that brings so many tourists to enjoy. It is becoming a big city with more traffic, noise and shaded streets (goodbye sunlight, which the tall buildings will block), and there is no going back. Therefore I opposed adding buildings that are taller than what is already there.

Thank you for your consideration and hard work!
Patricia Damron
5510 Coast Road
Santa Cruz

27.291
From: Debbie Bulger
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:07:59 PM
Dear Council members,
Please DO NOT approve the current re-design of the Wharf with the lowered pedestrian walkway.

With predicted sea level rise a horizontal walkway affixed to the pilings will only present a bigger target for storm surges and high surf.

As a pedestrian advocate, I do not see that such a lowered walkway would be safer for pedestrians.

As a community we must plan better for Climate Change.

Please send this poor design back to staff to remove this ill-advised wave target.

Regards,
Debbie Bulger

27.292
From: Ren Curry
To: City Council
Subject: wharf: NO westside walkway NO 40 foot buildings Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:48:18 PM
The westside walkway does not improve wharf stability according to the court ruling in 2022.

The City Staff is tone deaf to what the pubic wants and they undermine public input. The Landmark building, in particular, will change the character of the wharf
Renwick Curry
Santa Cruz resident for 25 years

27.293
From: Patricia Bowers
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 1:08:30 PM
Dear City Council, Although I am
not a city resident I use the wharf to walk, to dine and to buy fish. Stick with Alternative 2 in making your decision about the wharf’s future, it makes for a much friendlier, charming spot for locals and visitors.

Patricia Bowers
341 36th Ave.

Santa Cruz

27.294
From: Lorna Grundeman
To: City Council
Subject: Future plan for Santa Cruz Wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 1:12:28 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
Please do not vote to construct new multiple story buildings on the Santa Cruz wharf nor a new walkway below the existing wharf deck. This wharf is structurally sound, has been for years with the continuous replacement of the pilings.

Lorna Grundeman
2470 Felt St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Sent from my iPhone

27.295
From: Lee Taiz
To: City Council
Subject: No on wharf plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 1:41:19 PM
The Wharf master plan is a poor one. We don’t need tall buildings or a lowered walkway.

Our current Wharf just needs some repairs. The city of Santa Cruz has a lot of needs, but a new wharf isn’t one of them.

Another thing we don’t need is a giant Warriors stadium.

Lee Taiz

27.296
From: Rita Hester
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Changes/ Attention for 1/9/2024 meeting
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 2:25:09 PM
Hello City Council,
Please do not include the walkway under the wharf. I have seen this in other locations and it is very unsightly. But the main reason is that it will adversely affect migratory birds, Guillemots, that nest there.

The additional tall buildings are again very unsightly. While I understand that the revenue generated will benefit the city, the beauty of the Wharf, as it is, brings much value to our community.

Thank you,
Rita Hester
124 Dimond Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Give thanks, for unknown blessings are already on their way. ~Native American Prayer

27.297
From: Martha Graham-Waldon
To: City Council
Subject: Reject the Wharf plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 2:52:06 PM
The Wharf structure in good overall condition: An Engineering Report for the city examined every one of the 4,500 Wharf pilings and found them “in good condition overall” with only 5% needing replacement. Most of those have been replaced; however, a few remain, with one of them failing in the past week’s high swells and tides next to the Dolphin restaurant. The Engineering Report found the road in poor condition and recommended it be replaced and fixed. That work is still largely to be done. The Report also recommended that the garbage collection be revamped with smaller vehicles since the large garbage trucks do the most damage to the Wharf road. That recommendation has not yet been implemented.

In sum: the 110-year-old historic Wharf, a treasure for both locals and visitors, is in overall good structural condition thanks to its original design in 1914 by Master Engineer Henry J.

Brunnier and since then, its upkeep by the dedicated Wharf crew.

Reject the new plan that will destroy the historic ambience of our wharf.

Martha Graham-Waldon
9501 E Zayante Rd
Felton 95018

27.298
From: Jeffrey Smedberg
To: City Council
Subject: Scale back Wharf Master Plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 7:28:18 PM
Council Members,
I urge you to reduce unneeded and excessive development in the Wharf Master Plan.

Specifically, remove the westside walkway as it will disrupt animal habitat, and do not include the three tall buildings in the Plan. Rather, fix the roadway and revise the garbage and recycling systems to use smaller collection vehicles, thereby protecting the Wharf from heavy garbage trucks.
-Jeffrey Smedberg
170 Hagemann Ave 95062

27.299
From: eilene donnelly
To: City Council
Subject: SC Wharf
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 7:40:21 PM
I oppose the current plan to redo the SC wharf. I’m opposed to the walkway Sincerely,
Eileen Donnelly
422:Cleveland Ave
Santa Cruz
Sent from my iPad

27.300

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
GROUP
Of The Ventana Chapter
P.O. Box 604, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
https://www.sierraclub.org/ventana/santacruz
email: [email protected]
City of Santa Cruz City Council January 3, 2023
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Re: Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Meeting Date: January 9, 2023 Item 27 Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
As you consider the Wharf Master Plan and its EIR, the Sierra Club joins the Santa Cruz Bird Club and the Historic Preservation Commission in urging the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission to vote in favor of EIR Alternative #2. This alternative removes the lowered westside walkway from the Wharf Master Plan, with no reduction in project objectives according to the 2023 EIR and noted in the Court ruling. The reasons the City gives for including the lowered walkway were determined by the recent Court Ruling to be achievable with alternatives that avoid the negative impacts on both migratory birds and the Wharf’s historic integrity.

Both the Sierra Club and the Santa Cruz Bird Club submitted comments to the EIR that detail the impact of this lowered walkway on the ability of migratory Pigeon Guillemots to access their nesting sites underneath the Wharf, to which they return every spring from the far north. The lowered walkway would bring people, noise, and activity in the range of their nesting sites, which have historically been undisturbed.

The Historic Preservation Commission at its meeting on October 18th voted against the adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and its EIR. They voted to recommend to the City Council that the lowered westside walkway be removed. This is Alternative #2. Their reasons were to preserve the historic pilings on the west side from the visual, aesthetic and character-altering impact of such a populated structure, horizontally bisecting the pilings for a third of the Wharf’s length. It behooves the Planning Commission to heed the recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, whose mandate is clear regarding this historic Santa Cruz icon.

The Sierra Club notes that in both the 2020 EIR and the recirculated 2023 EIR, Alternative #2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative and was quoted as “meets all project objectives” in both the 2020 and the 2023 final EIR. The Court Order stated that the City

27.301
failed to provide compelling evidence why the decision was made to not adopt the environmentally superior alternative that met all project objectives.

The Sierra Club submitted comments for the 2020 EIR as well as for the 2023 recirculated EIR.

The City did not respond to our submitted comments for the 2023 EIR, other than to reference the rescinded 2020 EIR.

For the above reasons, we urge you to follow the Historic Preservation Commission’s unanimous vote against approval of the 2023 Wharf Master Plan and the 2023 EIR as presented, and vote for adoption of Alternative #2.

Michael Guth, Executive Committee Chair
Santa Cruz Group of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club

27.302
From: fred geiger
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf master plan
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:49:42 PM
If you don’t remove the walkways lower than the wharf deck Mother Nature will remove then anyway! Also tall bldgs and reducing the viewing ports are I’ll conceived measures that will diminish the appeal of wharf! Fred G.

27.303
From: sheila carrillo
To: City Council
Subject: Modify and scale back the wharf plan!
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:56:23 PM
Dear Council,
Per the Sierra Club’s recommendations, I urge you to scale the Wharf Master Plan way down; at the very least, by removing the westside walkway and the three 40’ tall buildings from the Plan.

Allow maximum space for fishing and crabbing, which has been a tradition for generations of many local families, mine included.

Concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf from damage.

Please take our community’s concerns seriously!!
Sheila

27.304
From: Kevin Samson
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 7:52:56 AM
Council Members,
As a longtime resident of the city of Santa Cruz, 42 years in the Westside neighborhood, I kindly urge the council to reject the Wharf Master Plan of constructing taller buildings and a lower walkway on the west side of the wharf. A more environmentally friendly alternative (2) exists that I urge the council to seriously consider.

We are troubled by the recent rush to build higher buildings obscuring the natural beauty and historic charm of our unique beach town on Monterey Bay. A lower walk way on our wharf makes no sense for several reasons, the least of which is the fact of sea levels rising and major swells pummeling our coast, which is only going to continue as our climate has and continues to change. Let’s be smart rather than foolish.

This is an urgent request.

Kevin and Barbara Samson
130 Gharkey St.

Sent from my iPhone

27.305
From: Ajax Stoneworks
To: City Council
Subject: Don"t Morph the Wharf
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:25:35 AM
To whom It May Concern,
I'm very concerned about the current proposals for "improving" the wharf.

The current plan does not take into account "where" the seal viewing holes will be moved.

This is something very concerning. Also, if the Landmark building is built, it will be a 40 ft. structure on top of where the current seal viewing holes exist. The wharf has been reported to be in good condition except for a few pilings.

Please do the right thing and don't "morph the wharf."
Sincerely,
Jeff Arnett

27.306
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz wharf master plan, oh no!
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:32:49 AM
Dear Council members,
The fragile environment of our coastal region needs as much protection as possible. Recent storms have shown us what severe damage happens to wharfs in our area. It seems common sense to me that spending money to build 40’ tall buildings would cause further stress to the structure of wharf as it is already at the mercy of Mother Nature.

The walkway below the wharf is also a terrible risky idea for safety, for animal habitat, not to mention lack of esthetic appeal.

The wharf needs road repairs, clean up, and consistent care. That is how money should be spent, protecting what we already have. Do not set up a situation that could cost millions of dollars to build and later repair. Look at the disaster on West Cliff, Capitola, New Brighton, Rio Del Mar.

Please be sensible!
Sincerely,
Marlena Revay
1555 Merrill St #138
95062

27.307
From: Carole Arcellana
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Plan
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:43:28 AM
Dear City Council Members,
As a local citizen I request your support/vote on the plan that will be ensure the protection and longevity of the Municipal Wharf by:
1) Removing the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan. 2) Concentrating on fixing the roadway.
3) Replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
Carole S Arcellana
(707)815-0086

27.308
From: Mark Trabing
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed changes to Wharf Master Plan - Public Hearing on January 9, 2024 Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 11:43:45 AM
Dear City Council,
I grew up on the west side of Santa Cruz and had a career in city government in Southern California. I have reviewed the Wharf Plan (Plan) and EIR(s). Despite the immense amount of work that has gone into the Wharf Master Plan, I am concerned about the future of the wharf. I understand this is the final meeting to consider the Plan.

Cities with more resources than Santa Cruz, have redeveloped their historic waterfronts and, in my opinion, failed. I refer to Pier 39, in San Francisco and Cannery Row, in Monterey.

These waterfronts are described in beloved fiction by Jack London and Steinbeck. Now, for the most part, they are unremarkable entertainment and retail centers. These redevelopment projects might be considered a success to a City's Economic Development Department, because they generate more City revenue, but the more intangible benefits of historical aesthetics were lost forever.

We all agree that the wharf must be properly maintained and that there are funky areas that could be improved. But implementing the current Plan does not do enough to honor the history and traditions of the Wharf.

In addition, please do not leave key wharf development decisions up to future Councils to grapple with. Unlike the arduous process we all have been through, future decision-makers may not take the time to consider the wharf’s historical aesthetics, when offered the opportunity to make a quick buck, from wharf businesses.

The region has lost so much recently - the Cement Ship, Big Basin, the urbanization of downtown. Leave us something to hang on to. Everyone is glad we saved Light House Field.

The Wharf is a key part of our water front, connecting our iconic West Cliff Drive to the historic Board Walk. Let’s preserve one aspect of Santa Cruz that we all love.

Thank you for all the work you do as City Council members.

Mark Trabing

27.309
From: Mark Trabing
To: City Council; [email protected]
Subject: AMENDED Proposed changes to Wharf Master Plan - Council Agenda Item #27, January 9, 2024 Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 1:56:44 PM
Dear City Council,
I grew up on the west side of Santa Cruz and had a career in city government in Southern California. I have reviewed the Wharf Plan (Plan) and EIR(s). Despite the immense amount of work that has gone into the Wharf Master Plan, I am concerned about the future of the wharf. I understand this is the final meeting to consider the Plan.

Cities with more resources than Santa Cruz, have redeveloped their historic waterfronts and, in my opinion, failed. I refer to Pier 39, in San Francisco and Cannery Row, in Monterey.

I’m sure the City would like to approve the Plan and move forward. At this point, in order to preserve some of the aesthetic and historic value of the wharf, I would recommend removing from the Plan:
1) the proposed 40’ Landmark building at the end of the wharf. 2) the proposed 870’ stainless steel Walkway on the west side of the wharf In addition, please do not leave key wharf development decisions up to future Councils to grapple with. Unlike the arduous process we all have been through, future decision-makers may not take the time to consider the wharf’s historical aesthetics, when offered the opportunity to make a quick buck, from wharf businesses.

The region has lost so much recently - the Cement Ship, Big Basin, the urbanization of downtown. Leave us something to hang on to. Everyone is glad we saved Light House Field.

The Wharf is a key part of our water front, connecting our iconic West Cliff Drive to the historic Board Walk. Let’s preserve one aspect of Santa Cruz that we all love.

Thank you for all the work you do as City Council members.

Mark Trabing

27.310
From: tess weisbarth
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf proposal
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 9:15:08 AM
Greetings Council,
I just received a notice from the Sierra Club about proposed wharf changes, and hopefully you see after recent storms and damage to the wharf that the scale downed version of the plan the Sierra Club has offered makes a great deal of sense/cents.

Santa Cruz is known for its concerns and care for the wildlife and care taking of the environments humans and wildlife, Thank the goodness, many places don’t live in balance, and are only concerned about cents/profit. I am backing the Sierra Club’s scaled down proposal because it does care for the migratory birds, takes into consideration the safety of the wharf with acknowledging the need to fix the roadway, replace dumpsters so heavy garbage trucks don’t continue to damage the historical site, and stop the consideration of 3 tall buildings on the wharf. It is a balanced proposal that cares for the environments and includes the awareness of city funding.

I know 3 more buildings would provide more revenue and more choices to the new tourists coming in with the new building of hotels along the wharf, AND we have seen over the last few years, due to the affects of climate change, the destruction of wharfs in Capitola, our own wharf in Santa Cruz, as well as the costly damage to wharfs all along the CA coast, north and south, and the dramatic costly change of our coastline in the county, especially West Cliff Drive! Frankly as a coastal city I don’t see how we can continue to rebuild and put more and more money into these historical sites anymore than we do right now. I’m all for preserving what we have, and I’m not naive to know we are in a huge change with climate and believe the monies that go into rebuilding these toothpicks compared to the power of the ocean at this time is not a healthy long term investment.

Hopefully those in this decision making process see the bigger picture and future of beautiful Santa Cruz, and make wise balanced environmental as well as generating funds decisions for our community and for those who come to visit our gem.

Thank you for your consideration, and hopefully support of the Sierra Club’s proposal, Tess Weisbarth
Scotts Valley CA

27.311
From: Jim MacKenzie
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #27, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 2:44:26 PM
To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Councilmembers
Re: Agenda Item #27, Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination (ED/PL/PR), Santa Cruz City Council Meeting, January 9, 2024 Fr: Jim MacKenzie, Santa Cruz
I am writing to register my enthusiastic support for adopting the Revised Wharf Master Plan.

REGARDING THE WESTSIDE WALKWAY:
(1) It is clear that there is no “iconic view of the Wharf from West Cliff Drive" to preserve.

At its October 18, 2023, meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission's wharf master plan subcommittee made the following recommendation:
"The proposed Western [sic] Walkway should not be constructed because it will have a significant impact on the iconic view of the Wharf from West Cliff Drive. This is the only remaining view of the Wharf that dates to the period of significance, which has been identified as 1914-1964. This view not only shows the structural components of the wharf but it also emphasizes the end of the Wharf which is bent to the west creating the hallmark L-shape, part of the original design." It is clear from the “Archival Evidence of Wharf Expansion” materials provided in the HPC meeting agenda packet that there cannot be an “iconic view” of the Wharf, which has deviated from its original 1914 design through numerous physical changes that have taken place over the ten-plus decades of its existence.

The archival materials provided show that, along the entire length of the proposed Westside Walkway, the appearance of the Wharf’s western side was significantly “morphed" at least once during that “iconic” 1914-1964 period — when the width of the Wharf at "Bent 100" is shown, on a Wharf sewer plan dated 1962, as having increased from 72’-6” to 92’ some time between 1956 and 1962.

That section of the Wharf was significantly widened on its western side, again, during or soon after 1974, when the width of the Wharf at Bent 100 increased from 92’ to 145’ to accommodate various visitor-serving businesses.

The western side of the Wharf was modified again in 1983, when the Agora expansion and Commons expansion were added to the western side of the Wharf.

The 1974 Wharf expansion included the addition of many new pilings to support adding 60 feet of width to the western side of the Wharf along most of the length of the Wharf where the proposed Westside Walkway is envisioned. This significant change alone to the appearance of the Wharf’s western side makes preservation of an “iconic view” a moot argument.

And to say that the addition of the Westside Walkway would somehow alter the perception that the seaward end of the Wharf is angled (btw, that angle is more like a “dogleg” than an “L” shape) seems like a specious argument in that the Commons expansion in 1983 already “softened" that angle.

27.312
(2) In addition to serving as a visitor and recreational amenity, the Westside Walkway will also serve as a buffer against stormy, destructive seas, protecting and preserving the structural integrity of the western side of the Wharf, where most Wharf businesses are located. Without such a buffer, pilings under the commercial and public structures on the west side of the Wharf, are in direct jeopardy from the ongoing impacts of extreme climate events that affect the behavior of the ocean and increase the potential for large chunks of flotsam (e.g., tree trunks, firewood, parts of buildings, etc.) to make their way, during storm events, into the bay, where they could destructively impact the Wharf’s substructure.

The Westside Walkway will provide a contiguous pedestrian loop and a way for visitors to access westward views from the Wharf that are now pretty much limited to restaurant goers — without adversely impacting restaurant views. “A new walkway is proposed on the westside of the commercial uses to provide public access and a necessary linkage to complete a full one-mile circuit of pedestrian movement around the entire perimeter of the Wharf. The walkway will extend approximately 870 feet from Bent 135 to Bent 77, will be 12 feet wide and approximately 10,440 square feet in size. It will be built at a lowered elevation, of approximately +15 MLLW or 8 feet below the existing Wharf deck level, to allow for undisturbed visual access from the existing restaurants and commercial spaces along that edge.” (Wharf Master Plan Recommendations, Part One, page 21)
But the Westside Walkway will also serve important structural functions — (1) to strengthen and stabilize the Wharf’s western side in the face of rising seas and the dynamic challenges of a rapidly changing climate and (2) to act as a buffer to protect the pilings and other infrastructure elements that support the Wharf’s westside commercial buildings and other visitor venues.

According to various sections of the FEIR for the Wharf Master Plan, the Westside Walkway would accomplish the following: “...help disrupt wave force and intercept seaborne debris before it reaches vulnerable pilings beneath buildings” (Summary of Policies and Proposed Actions, page 11) In addition: “Although the west walkway will have greater exposure and resulting damage by wave forces, by absorbing these forces it will also lessen the impact to the existing piles beneath the buildings where it is far more difficult to replace piles. In addition, the walkway will serve to dissipate cresting wave energy that might otherwise strike the existing building walls and picture windows in the restaurants. This will provide increasing benefit as sea level rises.” (Engineering Report, page 4-9) For all of the reasons stated above, I believe that eliminating the Westside Walkway from the Wharf Master Plan would be extremely questionable. Please do not eliminate such an important structural and climatemitigating component from the Wharf Master Plan. Retain the Westside Walkway as an essential part of the Wharf Master Plan.

To quote the reference often cited by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission as its touchstone and guide, “The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings" (2017), on page 72 in the section entitled “Resilience to Natural Hazards,” RECOMMENDED is “Identifying the vulnerabilities of the historic property to the impacts of natural hazards (such as wildfires, hurricane, or tornadoes,) using the most current climate information and data available.” NOT RECOMMENDED is “Allowing loss, damage, or destruction to occur to the historic building, its site, or setting by failing to evaluate potential future impacts of natural hazards or to plan and implement adaptive measures, if necessary to address possible threats.”
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatment-guidelines-2017-part1-preservation-rehabilitation.pdf REGARDING THE LANDMARK BUILDING:

It is notably ironic that those who ask that the Wharf’s "iconic appearance," originating in 1914, not be

27.313
changed would reject the Landmark Building. When the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf opened to great fanfare on December 5, 1914, a large, distinctive building — the Municipal Wharf Warehouse — stood at its seaward end. The Wharf Warehouse remained there until 1960, when stormy seas and wood-eating worms resulted in the physical failure of a significant number of the wooden pilings that held up the Wharf’s decking and the Warehouse built upon it.

The Warehouse was photographed on its opening day in 1914 with a steamship (the Roanoke) docked at its side, unloading passengers to enjoy opening-day festivities (see footnote i). Another iconic photo was shot from the roof of the warehouse, looking down the length of the newly christened wharf towards shore (see footnote ii). Days before, the Santa Cruz Evening News had announced that the Wharf’s gala opening would include “an afternoon dance in the warehouse, musical concerts during the entire day, an enormous fish dinner…” (see footnote iii).

From 1915 onward, the warehouse at the end of the wharf served many roles — as a depot for loading and unloading passengers and cargo; as a drydock for working on and storing fishing and pleasure boats; as a refrigerated storage facility, processing center, and distribution hub for bay fishermen’s daily catch.

For nearly a half century, the warehouse was a prominent physical and visual presence on the Wharf. If their was any “iconic” element of views from the Boardwalk, Lighthouse Point, Cowell and Main beaches, and Cliff Drive, it was the Wharf Warehouse, which was clearly visible in numerous photographs taken between 1914 and 1960. It is, for example, in the background of a series of historic 1939–40 photographs of Santa Cruz surfing pioneers Alex “Pinky” Pedemonte, Harry Mayo, and others riding the waves off Cowell Beach (see footnote iv).

In 1959, it was discovered that rot, wood-eating worms, and winter storms had critically weakened the pilings under the section of the end of the wharf that supported the warehouse. City officials determined that, to prevent catastrophic structural failure, the pilings would have to be replaced immediately. To access the failing pilings, they also determined that the warehouse would have to be demolished (see footnote v).

But the city coffers at the time lacked funds for either the demolition work or the needed repairs. So, city officials turned to the state to find the money, ultimately identifying the state’s Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) as a potential funding source (see footnote vi). City officials proposed that, if the WCB would fund the demolition and repairs, the last 230 feet of the Wharf, where the Warehouse currently stood, would assume a new role: public sport fishing. ANer much coaxing and cajoling, the WCB finally voted — unanimously — to accept the city’s proposal and provide the needed funds. In 1960-61, the Warehouse was demolished, the pilings replaced, and a sport-fishing area established. Today’s “sea lion viewing holes” at the end of the wharf are what remain of numerous “fishing wells” installed as part of this state-funded project, which was completed in 1963 (see footnote vii).

As the decades passed, the memory of the Wharf Warehouse’s nearly half-century presence at the end of the Wharf gradually faded into the mists of time – until 2015. It was then that a new Wharf Master Plan proposed, in addition to reinforcing and strengthening the current Wharf to make it more resilient to climate change and sea-level rise, as well as providing greater public access and expanding recreational and educational opportunities, that the Wharf’s historic profile could be recreated by constructing a new, multipurpose “Landmark Building” at the end of the pier that would closely resemble the original Wharf Warehouse design (see footnote viii).

The Wharf Master Plan, revised in 2023, states that the “Landmark Building” and other proposed structures will be “designed in a manner that helps restore the historical character of the Wharf without creating a false historical narrative” through “early consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission to establish objective project goals and to ensure the buildings align with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of historic resources (see footnote ix).

27.314
The Master Plan also states: “Any potential development at the end of the Wharf shall preserve, to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular ‘sea lion viewing’ and ‘fishing’ holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must seek to preserve the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and be consistent with the character of the Wharf, as determined through community engagement” (see footnote x). i “The Visit of the S.S. Roanoke Was Arranged for the Official Opening and Dedication of the Pier,” UCSanta Cruz Digital Collections,
https://digitalcollections.library.ucsc.edu/concern/works/8k71nk470?locale=en ii Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 15, Number 33, 9 December 1914, p.1. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCEN19141209.1.1&srpos=68&e=------191-en--20-SCEN-61--txttxIN-%22Municipal+Wharf%22----1914— iii Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 15, Number 18, 21 November 1914, p. 4. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCEN19141121.1.4&srpos=2&e=------191-en--20-SCEN-1--txttxIN-%22Mesmer+%26+Rice%22+warehouse iv Harry Mayo Surfing Photo Collection
https://calisphere.org/collec?ons/27156/
v Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 130, 2 June 1959 Page 1. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19590602.1.1&srpos=1&e=-------en--20-SCS-1--txttxIN-%22Legal+Levers+Sought+For+End+Of+Wharf%22-------1 vii Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 48, 26 February 1961, . https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19610226.1.1&srpos=14&e=------196-en--20-SCS-1--txttxIN-%22wildlife+conserva?on+board%22----1961---1 viii Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, October 2014 (revised 2023), p. 31. www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000 ix Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, October 2014 (revised 2023), p. 11. www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000 x Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, October 2014 (revised 2023), p. 12. www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000 REGARDING THE EVENTS PAVILION:

The proposed Events Pavilion is intended to make an existing, underutilized, windblown open-air public space on the Wharf — the South Commons — more usable by covering it with a roofed, weather-protective canopy that will enable year-round use. The city has a dearth of such public spaces, and this would give an existing resource greater utility and a new, greatly expanded life as a weather- and noise-protected community gathering place and potential source of revenue for the Wharf. It’s proposed scale seems quite appropriate for its intended uses and iconic positioning in the angle where the linearity of the Wharf breaks to meet its angled terminus.

REGARDING THE GATEWAY BUILDING
I feel that the proposed Gateway Building will provide a much-needed and long-overdue Wharf welcoming

27.315
space and visitor center, providing information to visitors related to commercial uses and public activities of the Wharf and becoming the appointed place to rendezvous and assemble for guided tours; act as a threshold/entry point for the Westside Walkway, and serve as headquarters for an open-water swim club.

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS IMPORTANT PLANNING DOCUMENT.

Jim MacKenzie, Santa Cruz
--------------------

27.316
From: Russell Weisz
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 4:01:59 PM
Please scale the Wharf Master Plan way down. Remove the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan. Concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf. Let's have the visually appealing and environmentally sensitive Plan that we deserve. sincerely,
Russell Weisz, Judith Carey
319 Laguna St. Santa Cruz CA 95060
831-246-1770

27.317
From: Renee Flower
To: City Council
Cc: Renée Beville Flower
Subject: Agenda of January 9, 2024 :: Item 27 - Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 5:01:59 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-01-05 at 1.56.40 PM.png
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan_Draft EIR_comments_RF.pdf
To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council
Regarding: Agenda of January 9, 2024
Item 27. Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination From: Renée Flower
I am writing to express my strong support for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, and to urge the council to adopt the Revised Master Plan.

I do not support the proposal to remove the Westside Walkway from the Wharf Master Plan. In my opinion, the Westside Walkway would not have any negative impacts to any historical resources on the Wharf or to the Wharf's historical integrity.

I am in favor of the proposed “Landmark Building” and the “Events Pavilion.” Some people have expressed subjective concerns about possible visual impacts that the proposed Westside Walkway might have on H. J. Brunnier’s original design for the municipal wharf. Brunnier was a structural engineer, not an architect. He had a degree in Civil Engineering. His interest was not in the aesthetic appearances of a building’s design, but in its structural integrity and safety.

Brunnier had a private practice as a consulting structural engineer from 1908 through 1971 and became a leader in earthquake-resistant design. He had a significant role in helping to approve designs for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1936 (Oakland Bay Bridge Board of Consulting Engineers). He helped establish and served on the first California State Board of Registration for Civil Engineers and was elected the first president of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California.

There can be some confusion over the difference between architects and structural engineers. Architects are responsible for the look of a building and how people interact with it, and for providing an artistic appearance and feel. Structural engineering, on the other hand, focuses on the structural elements of a building, such as its support beams, frame and joints, and load-bearing capacity. A primary objective of structural engineers is to create buildings that can withstand stress and natural elements so they are safe for occupancy.

It’s doubtful that Brunnier would find any merit in the idea that an “iconic” view of the wood pilings on the wharf’s west side should be protected for historic aesthetic significance. Excerpts from a 1954 Sentinel article suggest that Brunnier would surely support the Wharf Master Plan’s proposed Westside Walkway because it would provide additional needed structural support and protection for the wharf.

In 1954, Brunnier provided advice to the city’s school board about two Santa Cruz schools that had been closed under the state’s Field Act because they were not seismically sound. The two schools, Santa Cruz High School (1915) and Branciforte Elementary School (1914) were both designed by architect William Henry Weeks. Brunnier's comments to the school board clearly reveal that his interest was in the integrity of a structure and not in a building’s aesthetics.

Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 99, Number 224, 21 September 1954, Page 1 “Engineer Advises Board Against School Building Rehabilitation” Excerpts from article:
• “Henry J. Brunnier, internationally recognized authority on earthquake stresses, yesterday afternoon advised the city school board against trying to rehabilitate the Field Act-closed high school and Branciforte elementary school buildings.” • “His pronouncement, that ‘I concur with Kelberg's report that they are lousy buildings,’ stirred up a storm…” • “The San Francisco structural engineer, who is the first of three invited to talk to the board about the buildings here this week, went through the closed structures before making his 5 p.m. appearance before the school. He told the board he has ‘been through a number of buildings Weeks has designed and, as far as lateral stability is concerned, they just don’t have it.’ Brunnier conceded that ‘the buildings have quite a bit of inherent strength,’ but repeated, ‘They are not what I call sound buildings for an earthquake condition.’” • “‘I certainly wouldn't go to the expense of reconstructing these buildings to comply with the law,’ Brunnier asserted, estimating that rehabilitation would cost about 60 to 75 per cent of the cost of replacement ‘and you still would have 1914 buildings.’” • “Reed drew attention to the ‘beauty’ of the closed structures, to draw Brunnier's rejoinder, ‘there were no better looking buildings anywhere than the school buildings in Long Beach, before the earthquake.’ It was the devastating quake in Long Beach in 1933 that prompted enactment of the Field Act. In designing the Long Beach schools, Brunnier maintained, ‘they put their money in beauty instead of stability.’”
Please also consider a few Santa Cruz Sentinel articles published in 1959 and 1960 while the city was debating what actions might be taken in response to serious damage to the aging municipal wharf. Evidently, based on what was reported in the Sentinel, Mr. Brunnier did not seem much concerned about alterations the city had made or might make to the wharf’s structure. In 1960, the “Santa Cruz Municipal Pier lessees” wrote this about Brunnier: “His only comment made public was that wharf has outlived its time 20 years. It originally had been designed to last only 25 years.” Given Brunnier’s comments about the wharf at that time, it’s highly probable that he would agree with today’s engineering recommendations included in the Wharf Master Plan to protect the wharf’s structural integrity.
• May 14, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 114. Page 4. “General Fish Corp. Ordered To Vacate Its End Of Wharf Building By June 1” Excerpt:
“General Fish corporation was ordered to vacate its end-of-the-wharf building by June 1 in an official notification today from City Manager Pete Tedesco. The unsafe condition of the wharf at that point was given as the reason. The move marked low tide in the history of the 43-year-old municipal wharf which suffered from the ravages of rot, storm and the voracious teredo worm. The notice also came as members of the mayor’s wharf committee were scheduled to hold first hearing today on just what the wharf needs in the way of repairs, how much the work may cost and, toughest of all, how the construction can be financed. Tedesco said the notice was issued, ‘On the strength of City Engineer Alex Russell’s and structural Engineer H. J. Brunnier’s warning that the far end of the wharf could collapse at any time. Such a catastrophe could carry fishermen, sightseers, General Fish employees and anyone else on the spot into the water.’ Since the danger at the end of the wharf and the generally poor condition of pilings running under much of the remainder of the structure were discovered early this year, city officials have discussed several plans but made no recommendations pending a report from the wharf committee. Off-the-cuff suggestions have included moving the new buildings in from the end of the wharf and shortening it to allow for cheaper maintenance and better access by foot traffic. Another would be to widen the wharf to allow for more parking, including repair of the wharf under General Fish and make that area a parking lot.” • June 24, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 149, page 1. “Muni Wharf Funds Asked By Tedesco”
“Funds for an inventory of existing pilings of the municipal wharf will be requested by City Manager Peter Tedesco at an adjourned session of the city council Tuesday evening, The Sentinel learned today. Tedesco will ask for an appropriation for the hiring of an experienced marine diver. Such a recommendation was made by Henry J. Brunnier, consulting engineer for rejuvenation of the wharf he built in 1914. A spokesman said the city will decide within six months whether the wharf will be simply repaired or rebuilt.” • July 6, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 159. Page 12. “Future Of Wharf To Be Studied At SF Meeting”
“City officials and an expert structural engineer will ponder the future of Santa Cruz’ aging, sagging municipal wharf tomorrow in a meeting at San Francisco. City Manager Pete Tedesco said he and City Engineer Alex Russell will meet with H. J. Brunnier, who originally designed the municipal wharf when it was built primarily to serve coastal shipping. Tedesco said part of the discussion would center around how best to utilize divers who will survey the structure’s decaying pilings. Brunnier has been retained as a consultant by the city council to aid in drawing up a master plan for the wharf, or to tell it that a new structure is needed if he decides the 1914 structure cannot be saved. Currently City Attorney John Barber is attempting to oust General Fish Corporation and the Ship Cafe from the wharf’s end where the most critical structural conditions exist. City officials hope to raze the warehouse building and attempt to save the wharf below. If the underpinnings prove too rotted, that portion of the wharf will be destroyed before winter’s storms begin, Tedesco has stated.” Question: Did the city ever publish a master plan for the wharf in the 1960s that includes Brunnier’s recommendations? • July 8, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 161. Page 1. “City Reaffirms Need For State Funds For Wharf”
“Leaving no stone unturned in the quest for funds for rehabilitation of the aging municipal wharf, City Manager Tedesco has restated the city’s desire for monetary assistance in a letter to the state Wildlife Conservation Board. Tedesco said the letter was simply a restatement of a request made earlier this year when the infirmities of the pier first caused alarm. ‘We just want them to know that we want to be first in line if they should get any more funds for this use,’ Tedesco said. He said the City of Berkeley has received over $150,000 to rejuvenate its wharf. The state agency informed Tedesco after his first application, that it had no more funds available. The city has instituted two suits to remove business establishments from the tip of the wharf, considered most dangerous. A proposed meeting with Henry J. Brunnier, consulting engineer who built the wharf in 1914, failed to materialize yesterday, Tedesco said, due to conflicting schedules of city officials.” • March 8, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 57, page 5.

Excerpt:
“We, the undersigned Santa Cruz Municipal Pier lessees, are naturally concerned over the future and disposition of the wharf. We have had many inquiries from interested people locally and nation-wide. We hereby submit a few of the facts and viewpoints relative to this vital issue. […] (3) It is our conviction that the wharf end is anchor for the rest. If outer end is no good, neither is the rest because it is older. The City Council, City Manager have never seen or been given concrete estimate on destruction of wharf's end or its rehabilitation. Has the City Council any figures from a competent underwater engineering firm? Regarding Henry Brunnier’s visit: No Survey of new construction was made to our knowledge. A goodly number of new piles have been put into the wharf since the initial construction. Brunnier rode out on the wharf, took a boat ride with group of local officials. His only comment made public was that wharf has outlived its time 20 years. It originally had been designed to last only 25 years. Henry Brunnier was the original designer of the wharf. A few weeks after Brunnier's visit, the end of the wharf was closed to fishermen. At the time the end was roped off, City Hall issued a statement to the effect that Brunnier had declared it structurally unsafe in its present condition.” The Westside Walkway will provide needed protection and support for the wharf’s infrastructure that underlies and buildings along the western side of the wharf by protecting the pilings from damage by marine debris and by dissipating wave force. I understand that the walkway would be constructed next to sections of the wharf that were altered in the 1950s and 1982 which increased the width of the original 1914 wharf. Given the recent January 2024 storm damage to the wharf, the construction of protective elements that are similar in appearance and materials to the existing wharf structure would be a sensible choice. “Install defensive guard pilings and lateral supports as part of the Westside Walkway that will help disrupt wave force and intercept seaborne debris before it reaches vulnerable pilings beneath buildings.” (From “Summary of Policies and Proposed Actions” for the preservation, restoration, improvement, and management of the Wharf, Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, revised 2023, page 11)
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000 Although the Wharf Master Plan was not intended as a plan for a historic preservation project, here are two relevant excerpts from “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings” 2017 (see table on page 72 titled “Resilience to Natural Hazards”):
— “Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed as part of a Preservation project. A historic building may have existing characteristics or features that help to address or minimize the impacts of natural hazards. These should always be used to best advantage when considering new adaptive treatments so as to have the least impact on the historic character of the building, its site, and setting.” — Not recommended: “Allowing loss, damage, or destruction to occur to the historic building, its site, or setting by failing to evaluate potential future impacts of natural hazards or to plan and implement adaptive measures, if necessary to address possible threats.” Source: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatment-guidelines-2017-part1-preservation-rehabilitation.pdf Illustration from “Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report,” revised 2023. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93406/638202173961930000 I also strongly support the proposed “Landmark Building” which would honor the wharf’s original warehouse building. The historic wharf warehouse was integral to the purpose and function of the 1914 wharf and was tragically lost. The historic wharf warehouse was demolished in 1960 to make it possible to replace the damaged and missing pilings at the end of the wharf. A new large building at the end of the wharf will provide a splendid space for public and private events with views of the bay and shore. The covered Events Pavilion will provide a space that can be used year-round, day and night, protected from sun, wind, and rain. I imagine that revenue from leasing the new spaces would support ongoing wharf maintenance.

I am attaching a PDF version of the comments I submitted in May 2023 to the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR. My comments include many pages of transcribed Santa Cruz Sentinel articles that provide the history of the lost historic wharf warehouse building and the origins of the so-called “sea lion viewing holes.” My comments to the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR are published here:

Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Volume 2
City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department
August 2023
Letter 5, pages 4-80 through 4-100
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/95646/638291157610870000 Sincerely,
Renée Flower
Santa Cruz, California
----------------------------

27.318
1 To: City of Santa Cruz, Economic Development Department From: Renée Flower
Date: May 25, 2023
Project Title: Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan
Comments to the following documents:
• Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR • Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR – Chapter 7, Figures • Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, Revised 2023
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– These comments are in response to revised or new text and figures related to the proposed “Landmark Building” and the “fishing/viewing holes” included in the “Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR,” “Partial Draft EIR Chapter 7, Figures,” and the “Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, Revised 2023.” The history of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf is essential to a thorough understanding of its present circumstances and to inform any plans for its future. The Draft EIR provides some of the Wharf’s history, including several mentions of the former municipal warehouse that was previously located on the end of the Wharf and the Wharf’s fishing/viewing holes. However, the Draft EIR only briefly explains why the warehouse was demolished and doesn’t appear to connect the warehouse’s history to the creation of the fishing/viewing holes.

The fishing/viewing holes at the end of the Wharf were created as part of a Wharf restoration project funded by the State Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) in 1960. That project provided funding for fishing “wells” for public use. In my opinion, relocating the existing “wells” or creating equivalent or improved opportunities for fishing and viewing wildlife from the Wharf would be consistent with the original intent of the 1960 restoration plan funded by the WCB. The plan is described in WCB meeting minutes from June and September 1960. Those minutes are available on the WCB’s website.

I have included links to the State of California Wildlife Conservation Board documents and the complete text from the meeting minutes of June and September 1960 related to the Santa Cruz Wharf project.

State of California Wildlife Conservation Board.

Minutes of Board Meeting June 17, 1960.

Agenda Item number 9: Santa Cruz Pier, pages 9-10.

Wildlife Conservation Board; 6/1960. [Cited 2023 May 21]. Available from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=98141 WCB_Minutes_6-17-1960.pdf
–––––––

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MINUTES, MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1960
Item No. 9. Santa Cruz Pier, Page No. 9-10

9. Santa Cruz Pier
Mr. Nesbit introduced Senator Donald L. Grunsky, 23rd District, relative to a request by the City of Santa Cruz for a feasibility study on their plan to rebuild the municipal pier for sportsfishermen’s use.

27.319
2 Senator Grunsky introduced Mr. Peter Tedesco, City Manager; Dr. Enrico Raffanti, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission; and Carl Bengston, Superintendent, Parks and Recreation, all of Santa Cruz. He asked the Board’s consideration of this request for a feasibility study at this opportune time when the city is in the process of reconstructing the municipal pier. He informed the Board that at the present time people from the city as well as out of town visitors are fishing between parked cars because the city does not have facilities to accommodate them.

In answer to Chairman Elser’s question as to the appropriateness of Board participation in this project, Senator Grunsky and Mr. Tedesco replied that the feasibility study should give the answer and that reconstruction of the pier would be a joint venture by City and State. Cost estimates for the proposed project were discussed and the Board was informed that $300,000 for reconstruction of the pier and approximately $50,000 for that portion dedicated to fishing use would be required.

IT WAS MOVED BY SENATOR BROWN, SECONDED BY SENATOR JOHNSON, AS A JOINT MOTION, THAT THE

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO MAKE A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THAT PART OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SANTA CRUZ PIER AS IT RELATES TO USE BY SPORTSFISHERMEN.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The City has agreed to do the construction under Section 1350 of the Fish and Game Code. In addition, they will provide engineering services estimated at $11,000 as well as additional construction of such items as benches for the fishermen at an estimated cost of $3,500. This, of course, is in addition to the annual maintenance cost provided by the City.

The Department of Fish and Game endorses this project and points out that a sustained fishery is available with jacksmelt, perch, cod, cabezon, crokers, flatfish, as well as skates, rays, and sharks being the common species caught.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– State of California Wildlife Conservation Board.

Minutes of Board Meeting September 19, 1960.

Agenda Item number 7: Santa Cruz Public Fishing Pier, pages 7-8.

Wildlife Conservation Board; 9/1960. [Cited 2023 May 21]. Available from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=98142 WCB_Minutes_9-19-1960.pdf
–––––––
State of California

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD
Minutes, Meeting of September 19, 1960
Item No. 7. Santa Cruz Public Fishing Pier, Page No. 7-8

7. Santa Cruz Public Fishing Pier – Santa Cruz County, Proj. No. 139 $49,550.00 Mr. Nesbit stated that at the June 17, 1960, meeting, the Board staff was instructed to study the feasibility of a plan to rebuild a portion of the municipal pier at Santa Cruz to be used by sportsfishermen. This study has been made, and a report was supplied to each member.

27.320
3 The Santa Cruz pier was built in 1913-14 to provide shipping facilities for the then thriving lumber and fishing industries. Other businesses later were located along this 80-foot-wide pier. The farthest end of the pier was occupied largely by a warehouse. This building has recently been removed as this portion of the pier is structurally unsafe.

The proposal is to rebuild the end 230 feet of pier and retain this portion for exclusive use by fishermen. It would contain “fishing wells” or openings through the decking for fishing. This portion with access thereto would be leased to the State for a 25-year period. Maintenance would be by the City.

In the report the City officials state: “Surely a more lucrative facility, financially speaking of course, might be the leasing of the end portion to such a commercial venture as a restaurant; however, there are many who feel strongly about the opportunity to provide for the residents and visitors to the community an easy access to ocean fishing. Santa Cruz, while actually a community of some 27,000, may swell to 75,000 during many of the weekends and through the summer months. Many of these recreation seeking visitors are from as far away points as the central valleys of our state.”
Cost estimates are as follows:

Demolition $6,750.00
Piling replacement, including caps $8,500.00
Stringers $7,000.00
Decking and paving $13,500.00
Restrooms, Fish Cleaning Table,
inc. plumbing and wiring $6,800.00
Hand Rails $2,500.00
Subtotal $45,050.00
Contingencies,
inc. title report, signs, etc. $4,500.00
Total $49,550.00
The City has agreed to do the construction under Section 1350 of the Fish and Game Code. In addition, they will provide engineering services estimated at $11,000 as well as additional construction of such items as benches for the fishermen at an estimated cost of $3,500. This, of course, is in addition to the annual maintenance cost provided by the City.

The Board has received numerous endorsements from individuals and organizations in support of this project, in the vicinity and from as far away as Fresno.

The cost per lineal foot available for fishing approximately that of the very successful project at the Berkeley Pier, i.e., $40.00 per lineal foot. Mr. Nesbit believed that per dollar of capital outlay this promises to be one of the Board’s most intensively used project. It is also in line with the policy just adopted, he added.

Mr. Peter Tedesco, City Manager of Santa Cruz, informed the Board that the City simply does not have the funds to develop this kind of project and requested the Board seriously consider the approval of the project, otherwise, the pier, no doubt, would be committed to a commercial venture.

Mr. Belotti observed that there was much enthusiasm for pier fishing and wondered if it stemmed from the fact

27.321
4 that no fishing license was required. Mr. Nesbit informed the Board that a survey of Berkeley Pier users indicated 70% had fishing licenses or did not require licenses.

Mr. Nesbit clarified the point that since proprietary interest by the State would be held in the outer portion of the pier as well as access thereto, maintenance of the completed project by the City of Santa Cruz would include the access also. Therefore, there would be no fear that the project would be made useless because of failure to keep up the landward portion of the pier.

IT WAS MOVED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BELOTTI, SECONDED BY SENATOR BEARD, THAT THE JOINT INTERIM

COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD APPROVE THE SANTA CRUZ PUBLIC FISHING PIER, PROJECT NO. 139; ALLOCATE $49,550.00 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FROM THE WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND FOR REHABILITATION OF THIS PIER SUBSTANTIALLY AS PRESENTED; AND AUTHORIZE THE

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY LEASE, OPERATING AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHANNON, SECONDED BY MR. ELSER, THAT THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD APPROVE THE SANTA CRUZ PUBLIC FISHING PIER, PROJECT NO. 139; ALLOCATE $49,550.00 TO THE DEPARTMENT

OF FISH AND GAME FROM THE WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND FOR REHABILITATION OF THIS PIER SUBSTANTIALLY AS PRESENTED; AND AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY LEASE, OPERATING AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Tedesco thanked the Board for its cooperation and extended an invitation in behalf of the City of Santa Cruz to visit Santa Cruz and make a first-hand inspection of the completed project. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, Recirculated Partial Draft EIR • Page 3-10: “Future development at the end of the Wharf shall preserve or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf.” • Pages 3-15, 3-16: “The Wharf Master Plan revisions include a new action under Policy 4 that states that any potential development at the end of the Wharf shall preserve to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must seek to preserve the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and be consistent with the character of the Wharf, as determined through community engagement. Several alternative possible layouts are included in the Wharf Master Plan as part of the Master Plan revisions and are shown on Figure

4.8-8 in Section 4.8 of this document.”
• Page 4.8-14: “The southern portion of the Wharf includes five “fishing holes” that were first cut through the Wharf structure in the early 1970s to expand fishing opportunities; these have been relocated or modified at least once since then. Although originally designed for fishing, these holes have become popular with visitors who can view sea lions that haul out on the ledger beams spanning pilings beneath the Wharf. This is recognized as a popular recreational pastime on the Wharf, and these areas are highly appreciated by members of the public.”

27.322
5 Comment: Although the text excerpt from page 4.8-14 is not new and has not been revised, the subject addressed – “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes – is inextricably connected to the new text that appears on pages 3-15, 3-16. The history of the Wharf’s “fishing holes” is much more complicated than what is presented on page

4.8-14: “…Wharf includes five ‘fishing holes’ cut through the Wharf structure in the early 1970s.” The reference to the “early 1970s” in relation to the history of the fishing holes appears twice in the Draft EIR without supporting sources. The original fishing holes at the end of the Wharf were created in the early 1960s as part of a project funded by the State of California Wildlife Conservation Board (see Wildlife Conservation Board Minutes included above, and the newspaper article chronology appended below). Wharf Master Plan policies related to the preservation or relocation of the fishing holes must be informed by the historical record. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR – Chapter 7, Figures • Figure 4.8-2: NEW- Representative Photos of Nature and Wildlife Viewing at the Wharf • Figure 4.8-3: NEW- Representative Photos of Existing Wharf Fishing Comment: The upper right-hand photo in Figure 4.8-2 shows an existing “fishing/viewing hole,” but the lower right-hand photo included in Figure 4.8-3 appears to be a photo showing two of the original Wharf “fishing holes” from the early 1960s when the holes were first created, and is therefore not a representative photo of existing Wharf fishing in 2023.
• Figure 4.8-8: NEW- Concepts for Fishing Hole / Sea Lion Viewing Relocation Comment: Because the original 1963 fishing holes, or “wells,” were not specifically designed for “sea lion viewing,” relocating and redesigning this aspect of the Wharf could provide improved sea lion viewing opportunities and an enhanced experience.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report, Revised 2023
• Page 11: “Ensure new buildings are designed in a manner that helps restore the historical character of the Wharf without creating a false historical narrative. The three new cultural buildings and entrance signage should be developed through early consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission to establish objective project goals and to ensure the buildings align with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of historic resources such as the Wharf structure. Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Alteration Permits may be required for modifications to the Wharf and associated non-historic structures.” Comment: In relation to the historic warehouse building and the proposed new “Landmark Building,” the history of surfing at Cowell Beach should be examined as part of the Wharf’s historical narrative. The Harry Mayo Surfing Photography Collection includes photos of surfers on Cowell Beach that show iconic views of the wharf with the historic municipal warehouse located on the end of the wharf in the background. The warehouse building was a distinctive element of the view from Cowell Beach, Main Beach, the Boardwalk and Pleasure Pier, and West Cliff Drive in that era (1930s -1940s), and up until it was demolished in 1960. The Harry Mayo Surfing Photography Collection is available at:

University of California, Calisphere
Digital Collections
Harry Mayo Surfing Photography Collection
https://calisphere.org/collections/27156/

27.323
6 University of California, Santa Cruz
University Library, Digital Collections
Harry Mayo Surfing Photography Collection
https://digitalcollections.library.ucsc.edu/collections/2n49t173w • Page 12: “Any potential development at the end of the Wharf, shall preserve to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must seek to preserve the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and be consistent with the character of the Wharf, as determined through community engagement.” Comment: The revised section on page 12 should include consideration of the historical origins of the “fishing holes” at the end of the Wharf. The original “fishing holes” were created in relation to funding provided by the state in 1960 to restore the damaged end of the Wharf. Because the original fishing holes, or “wells,” were not designed for “sea lion viewing,” relocating and redesigning this aspect of the Wharf could provide improved sea lion viewing opportunities and an enhanced experience. Informed community engagement around this feature of the Wharf would include benefit from a review of the full history of the origin of the “fishing holes” and their relation to the demolition of the historic warehouse building at the end of the Wharf.

There is an inseparable connection between the “large landmark building” that was located at the end of the Wharf and the creation of the popular fishing/viewing holes. Stories published by the Santa Cruz Sentinel in the late 1950s and early 1960s confirm that funding for the Wharf and its maintenance is not a new problem. In fact, an ongoing severe revenue shortage apparently contributed to the transformation of the end of the Wharf into a public fishing area with fishing wells. In 1959, the City searched everywhere to find a source of funding to make critical repairs to the damaged Wharf. Funding was ultimately provided by the State of California Wildlife Conservation Board in 1960, but that funding was provided only to repair the Wharf to create a public fishing area. There was no funding provided to rebuild the Wharf’s original warehouse. The damaged Wharf could not be repaired without demolishing the warehouse building and the City did not have its own funds to complete the work required to save the end of the Wharf. Prior to the grant of funds from the state, the City had explored the idea of removing the damaged end of the Wharf. This history is documented in Santa Cruz Sentinel archives. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Newspaper article chronology
Newspaper stories provide a helpful chronicle of history as it relates to the revised sections of the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Recirculated Partial Draft EIR and the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Report. Here is a chronological selection of newspaper articles to support my comments about the Wharf’s historic warehouse building and the fishing wells, along with a few additional interesting articles related to the Wharf’s history.

October 12, 1914. Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 14, Number 149. Page 1.

The Last Piles in Pier Tomorrow
“The last pile driving in the construction of the municipal wharf will occur tomorrow, according to Superintendent Charles F. Brower. The last seventeen piles arrived today, after being delayed at Watsonville Junction, due to needed repairs on the Southern Pacific cars on which they were loaded. Work will now be rushed on the completion of the pier. The warehouse is yet to be built, painting is to be done, new fishhouse constructed. The decking on the outer end is not yet completed. It will be another month before the pier is actually completed as to the Mesmer & Rice contract.”
November 21, 1914. Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 15, Number 18, Page 4.

Wharf Celebration Date Is December 5; Steamer Roanoke To Participate “The chamber of commerce committee in charge of the wharf celebration affair has definitely decided on Saturday, December fifth as the day of dedication. Through the kindly interest of President C. P. Doe, of the North Pacific Steamship company, the steamer Roanoke will arrive in Santa Cruz early Saturday morning en route to Los Angeles, and by special arrangement will remain here all day, giving a portion of the time to discharging the freight that will have been sent here through the orders of local merchants. The Roanoke will leave Seattle, Washington,

27.324
7 for San Francisco, twenty-four hours in advance of her regular schedule in order to accommodate the demands of Santa Cruz and remain here for a whole day. The passengers on the Roanoke have been specially invited by the local committee to participate in the festivities of the day here, including the big fish feed that is to be provided by the local fishermen. Any freight to be consigned to the boat for shipment to Santa Cruz should be delivered to Pier Seventeen, San Francisco, before the evening of the fourth of December. Among the attractive events planned for the fifth along the front will be an afternoon dance in the warehouse, musical concerts during the entire day, an enormous fish dinner, to which many outsiders will be invited, and a general good time on the pier. President Odell, of the Producers’ Association, stated to the wharf committee this morning that the members of his organization desired to distribute fruit free of charge on the day of the celebration to the visitors at the festivities. There will be a meeting of the celebration committee at the chamber of commerce rooms Monday morning at nine o’clock for the purpose of perfecting the details of the day’s events. The directors of the chamber will meet this afternoon and formally send invitations to the citizens of surrounding cities and towns to attend the big event.” November 24, 1914. Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 15, Number 20, Page 1.

City Accepts New Wharf; Bill For Moving Fish Houses Still Unsettled “The city council this morning formally accepted the new municipal wharf under the terms of the contract just completed by Mesmer & Rice. This afternoon at 3 o’clock the council met with Engineer H. J. Brunnier, Mr. Rice, representing his firm, and Superintendent Gilbert for the purpose of adjusting the claim of $1612.17, alleged to be due Mesmer & Rice for the extra cost of constructing the fish houses on the pier on the west side of the structure, instead of the east side, as originally planned. This is the last detail to be attended to in the municipal wharf job.

Mayor Drullard and some of the councilmen take the stand that there was no warrant in law for the extra work in constructing the fish houses on the west side of the pier, on account of the council not formally ordering the work done, Engineer Brunnier having instructed Mesmer & Rice to go ahead after coming to an informal understanding with the city fathers. The council, however, does not challenge the fairness of the bill, as far as the amount is concerned. City Attorney Johnston is prepared to give a legal ruling on the matter. Two smaller bills, one of $13.48 for some extra drift bolting done by the contracting firm, and $36.25, the cost of driving mooring piles for the last Fourth of July celebration, are still to be paid by the city and are not contested. Mr. Brunnier announced this morning that Mesmer & Rice have agreed to withdraw their claim against the city for loss of time due to the nonarrival of a load of piles in the early stages of the work. Mr. Brunnier explained to the council that the additional cost to the city over the contract of the ‘soft spot’ found in the early stages of the construction was approximately $1000. In reality the city, though, has not lost any money by this incident, because when the bids were originally asked for the city was enabled through having taken soundings to give the length of every pile in the proposed structure, a big advantage to the contractors. If this had not been done, all of the bidders would have added probably $10,000 to each bid as protection against loss in case of having expensive driving during the process of the job.

There are thirty-nine piles on the beach that still belong to the city, valued at $724.98.” December 4, 1914. Santa Cruz Evening News, Volume 15, Number 29. Page 6.

Fast Work on Wharf Recently
“The decoration of the new warehouse at the end of the pier for the wharf celebration is about completed and the interior of the building presents a very pleasing effect, there being thirty-two large American flags suspended from the beams overhead. The decoration is under the direction of John C. Geyer. The work of laying the water mains under the direction of Superintendent Robert Tait is also progressing rapidly, the mains now being laid as far as the wholesale fish houses, from where they will have to be laid under the floor of the wharf, making the work necessarily slower.”
September 27, 1932. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 86, Number 72, Page 2.

Notes Gathered on Waterfront
Excerpt: “The yachts of Frank Wilson and P. Nicolai of the Santa Cruz Yacht club were taken from their moorings on Sunday, lifted by the davits to the municipal wharf and then hauled to the warehouse on the wharf to remain there for the winter months. Two more yachts remain in the bay. The large fishing launch ‘Billie,’ owned by Sunday Faraola, is in the drydock in the municipal warehouse. It is undergoing a thorough over hauling, especially the engine, under William Nagle. It will be in use again for fishing purposes on the first of October.”

27.325
8 October 24, 1940. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 99. Page 5.

Ernest Otto’s Waterfront
“The drydock in the municipal wharf warehouse is filled to overflowing. The boats, yachts, rafts, etc., are stored in such quantities that applicants to store their craft had to be refused.” June 10, 1942. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 87, Number 115. Edition 02. Page 2.

Ernest Otto’s Waterfront
“Never since the municipal wharf warehouse was constructed has there been as many boats in the drydock at this time of the year. There are fishing launches, several yachts, skiffs and other craft. Only three of the 20 boats there belong to alien fishermen. The Santa Cruz Yacht club boats are there and some of the boat owners are away doing national defense work.”
August 31, 1945. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 90, Number 208. Edition 02. Page 4.

Waterfront News Notes, Gathered by Ernest Otto
“Carl Walton has arrived from Los Angeles with the blueprints for the refrigeration plant for the General Fish Corporation, Johnny Loero manager. The work was started yesterday afternoon and this refrigeration plans in the rear of the municipal wharf warehouse will be 43x50 feet and 11 feet high. Over a carload of cork blocks have arrived and are used between the walls, ceiling and beneath the floor. The walls are to be eight and six inches thick.”
December 12, 1951. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 96, Number 294. Page 6.

Ernest Otto’s Waterfront News Notes
“The General Fish corporation has frozen and packed 80,000 pounds of squid: 25,000 pounds, 35,000 pounds and 20,000 pounds in consecutive days. Twelve workers came from Monterey to help with the work. The squid were shipped to Honolulu, New York City, Chicago and Boston. Three tons of mackerel and black cod also were brought in to this company. A new freezing plant has arrived and a new automatic glazing and washing machine to do quicker work. J. Alioto. head of the General Fish Corporation, came from San Francisco yesterday. This firm, which occupies practically the entire municipal warehouse, has plans to enlarge and double the capacity of the local freezing plant.”
January 5, 1955. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 100, Number 4. Page 4.

Ernst Otto’s Waterfront News Notes
“Another wharf improvement is on at the present time at the municipal wharf warehouse at the end in the General Fish Corporation section. In this building the Granite Rock company is engaged in laying an entire new flooring known as Vita Seal. This adheres to the concrete flooring and includes a mixture in which there is some tar. This paving gives with the movement of the wharf, when at times, owing to heavy swells, the pilings move. If this new flooring should crack, salesman say it can be ironed out with hot irons. A hot iron with the flames above is being used in the laying of this new material.”
March 4, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 53. Page 1.

City Planning Quick Action On Muni Wharf
“Positive recommendations to end the critical safety problem at the city wharf will be made to councilmen immediately, City Manager Pete Tedesco assured The Sentinel today. Tedesco, members of the council and city department heads yesterday made a boat tour around the pilings and lower section of the municipal wharf and came to a unanimous conclusion. Something has to be done and done soon to prevent possible tragedy or loss of property caused by collapse of part of the wharf. The problem is caused by the loss of a score of pilings through storm damage and by rot in uncounted other creosoted timbers holding up the wharf and city-owned buildings.

Presumably should any part of the wharf collapse, the city would be liable for damage caused to person and property. Tedesco indicated his recommendations must wait in part on figures and engineering possibilities compiled by the city engineer’s office. Replacing rotted and missing pilings beneath buildings on the wharf requires either getting a pile driver into the building or dismantling enough of the structure so the big machine can be wheeled into place.”

27.326
9 March 29, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 74. Page 6.

Like A Fading Hollywood Star, Wharf Needs Major Facelifting Excerpt: “Santa Cruz’s creaking, decaying municipal wharf is something like fast fading Hollywood beauty. She is still one of our chief attractions but she needs surgical face lifting in the worst sort of way. In this case surgery may run something over $500,000 which the city simply doesn’t have in its bank account. The generally run-down condition at the wharf has been caused by too many years of storms, rot, and the depredations of the teredo worm, water-borne termite. During this year’s January storm, nearly a score of the heavy, creosote-covered pilings were bashed from under the wharf and washed up on nearby benches. In the comprehensive inspection which followed, city hall officials found dozens more of the timbers in danger of following the same path to the beach in some future storm. But worse, the General Fish Corporation’s heavy freezers and the building itself were in immediate danger of collapsing into the bay. A study is under way at city hall to determine just how the financing of repairs and rehabilitation can be accomplished.”
May 14, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 114. Page 1.

It’s The End At Wharf’s End
“Acting Harbor Master Howard Bethel pauses with his tape measure before he takes dimensions for barricades blocking the end of the wharf to fishermen and sightseers. Bethel today served notice to vacate to the Ship Cafe and Doc’s Bait shop and a registered letter is on its way to the San Francisco office of General Fish corporation telling the firms to be out of the building by June 1. The drastic move was made necessary because of critical structural conditions under the hulking General Fish building, and official city fears that the structure may collapse at any time. After the businesses leave the premises, the city will begin repair of the wharf, if feasible, George Scontriano of the Ship Cafe and Mrs. William Coomes of the bait shop refused to sign acceptance of the notices until they meet with their attorneys. Although Scontriano denied his business was in drastic danger, Mrs. Coomes, wife of the former council candidate, said there was no question as to the seriousness of the condition. ‘It just catches my business at the wrong time of the year,’ she lamented. For a complete story of the wharf’s problems, see Page 4 in today’s Sentinel.”
May 14, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 114. Page 4.

General Fish Corp. Ordered To Vacate Its End Of Wharf Building By June 1 By John Wheeler
“General Fish corporation was ordered to vacate its end-of-the-wharf building by June 1 in an official notification today from City Manager Pete Tedesco. The unsafe condition of the wharf at that point was given as the reason.

The move marked low tide in the history of the 43-year-old municipal wharf which suffered from the ravages of rot, storm and the voracious teredo worm. The notice also came as members of the mayor’s wharf committee were scheduled to hold first hearing today on just what the wharf needs in the way of repairs, how much the work may cost and, toughest of all, how the construction can be financed. Tedesco said the notice was issued, ‘On the strength of City Engineer Alex Russell’s and structural Engineer H. J. Brunnier’s warning that the far end of the wharf could collapse at any time. Such a catastrophe could carry fishermen, sightseers, General Fish employees and anyone else on the spot into the water.’ Since the danger at the end of the wharf and the generally poor condition of pilings running under much of the remainder of the structure were discovered early this year, city officials have discussed several plans but made no recommendations pending a report from the wharf committee. Off-the-cuff suggestions have included moving the new buildings in from the end of the wharf and shortening it to allow for cheaper maintenance and better access by foot traffic. Another would be to widen the wharf to allow for more parking, including repair of the wharf under General Fish and make that area a parking lot. This would aid solving one of the wharf businessmen’s worst problems. How to get customers into the stores or restaurants with a maximum of ease and convenience. How would any of this be paid for? Brainstorming at city hall includes doubling parking meter rates to a dime and drastically increasing wharf rents, a solution to which businessmen have taken strong exception.

Although no actual engineering surveys have been made, City Engineer Alex Russell opined that 85 per cent of the wharf’s pilings might have to be replaced. This in turn caused speculation that a new and much smaller structure suited for tourists rather than cement shipping might be built. Chief villain of the piece is a silent, voracious armada of teredo worms which has chewed its way through wharf pilings to such an extent that in some places whole sections of timber are missing or only a shell remains. The worm long has had a bad reputation with sea-going men.

In 1917-’21 an estimated $25 million in damage to San Francisco Bay wharves, jetty and the like was caused by a particularly bad outbreak of the ‘shipworm.’ After being weakened and in some cases severed, timbers are bashed

27.327
10 loose during winter storms and in turn act as wild battering rams against their brothers as waves pound them toward the shore. During last January’s storm, nearly a score of pilings was lost this way. As a result of this and earlier losses, the wharf’s water line resembles a dentist’s dilemma of rotting and missing teeth. The damage particularly was severe below the General Fish building, which in addition to structural weight includes several giant freezers.

Part of the building already has torn away from the wharf and been jerry-rigged to stave off further damage until repair can be made. To repair the wharf at this point will require a virtual demolition of the General Fish building to allow pile drivers to be moved into place.”
May 20, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 119. Page 1.

City Reiterates Stand On Wharf
“All business operations at the end of the municipal wharf will end June 1 because of dangerous structural conditions, City Manager Pete Tedesco reaffirmed today. The decision ended speculation that the city might allow General Fish corporation to remain in operation if the city were legally excused from liability in case of collapse of the wharf’s end. Businesses affected by the decision are General Fish, Ship Cafe and Doc’s Bait Shop. All are included in the barn-like building squatting at the wharf’s terminus which Mayor Dr. Ted Foster said, ‘would be condemned structurally if it were anywhere in the city.’ Tedesco said this morning the building will be torn down as soon as vacated. Then the wharf pilings below would be repaired, if possible, he added.” May 22, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 121. Page 1.

Wharf Closing May Bring On Legal Battle
“The first legal battle over the city’s closing of wharf’s end businesses appeared ready to break into the open today.

Harry Lucas, representing George Scontriano of the Ship Cafe, said he would ask the city to relocate the business to a new site on the wharf, allow it to stay with structural modifications or face legal action. The cafe has been ordered to vacate the General Food [ sic ] Corporation’s building by June 1, along with that firm and Doc’s Bait shop. The bait shop, operated by Mrs. William Coomes, is expected to be relocated. General Fish and the cafe have both been told by city officials there is no new place for them to go on the wharf. The order to vacate was issued by City Manager Pete Tedesco recently because of serious structural weaknesses below the big building. The remainder of the wharf still is termed safe by city inspectors. Lucas said that termination of the lease appeared to be without due cause since his client is not located over the area where the structural weaknesses exist. He added he felt the city could not terminate the lease legally under present conditions. The attorney stated his client would leave by the June 1 date if no agreement could be reached by that time. Court action would follow, he added. General Fish has not indicated what course it will follow and has not acknowledged the city’s order, according to Tedesco.” June 2, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 130. Page 1.

Legal Levers Sought For End Of Wharf
“Legal levers to pry loose stand-pat, end-of-the-wharf businessmen will be proposed to councilmen tomorrow by City Attorney John Barber. Object of the action will be General Fish Corporation and Ship Cafe, both of which have been ordered to vacate the end of the wharf because of unsafe structural conditions. The date to leave passed yesterday, with both firms doing business very much as usual. City Manager Pete Tedesco said he will advise the council to press aggressively for action so the General Fish building can be torn down and the end of the wharf be repaired, if possible, before the advent of the winter storm season. Tedesco said present plans call for an inventory and short-range solution for the end of the wharf due to the danger to the structure because of missing pilings and generally weakened structural conditions. The possibility has been raised that should the end of the wharf be bested by wind and wave; it might carry a large portion of the rest of the structure with it on the way to the water. ‘Our primary concern is to protect the city from liability problems and the lives and property involved,’ Tedesco claimed this morning. After a temporary end of the wharf solution is agreed upon, the remainder of the structure will undergo a survey designed to find out if it is worth repairing and how much the job might cost. Engineer Henry Brunnier will be contacted this week to discuss his $250-a-day consulting contract with the city on the wharf he designed in 1914. ‘But there is not much he can do until we clear the General Fish building off,’ Tedesco stated.

Yesterday, both businesses in the building indicated they would remain as long as possible to take advantage of the summer tourist and salmon season. Mrs. William Coomes, manager of Doc’s Bait Shop, already has left the building as walkways along both sides of the structure were barricaded by the city.”

27.328
11 July 6, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 159. Page 12.

Future Of Wharf To Be Studied At SF Meeting
“City officials and an expert structural engineer will ponder the future of Santa Cruz’ aging, sagging municipal wharf tomorrow in a meeting at San Francisco. City Manager Pete Tedesco said he and City Engineer Alex Russell will meet with H. J. Brunnier, who originally designed the municipal wharf when it was built primarily to serve coastal shipping. Tedesco said part of the discussion would center around how best to utilize divers who will survey the structure’s decaying pilings. Brunnier has been retained as a consultant by the city council to aid in drawing up a master plan for the wharf, or to tell it that a new structure is needed if he decides the 1914 structure cannot be saved. Currently City Attorney John Barber is attempting to oust General Fish Corporation and the Ship Cafe from the wharf’s end where the most critical structural conditions exist. City officials hope to raze the warehouse building and attempt to save the wharf below. If the underpinnings prove too rotted, that portion of the wharf will be destroyed before winter’s storms begin, Tedesco has stated.” July 8, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 161. Page 1.

City Reaffirms Need For State Funds For Wharf
“Leaving no stone unturned in the quest for funds for rehabilitation of the aging municipal wharf, City Manager Tedesco has restated the city’s desire for monetary assistance in a letter to the state Wildlife Conservation Board.

Tedesco said the letter was simply a restatement of a request made earlier this year when the infirmities of the pier first caused alarm. ‘We just want them to know that we want to be first in line if they should get any more funds for this use,’ Tedesco said. He said the City of Berkeley has received over $150,000 to rejuvenate its wharf. The state agency informed Tedesco after his first application, that it had no more funds available. The city has instituted two suits to remove business establishments from the tip of the wharf, considered most dangerous. A proposed meeting with Henry J. Brunnier, consulting engineer who built the wharf in 1914, failed to materialize yesterday, Tedesco said, due to conflicting schedules of city officials.”
July 14, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 166. Page 1.

Wildlife Funds Can’t Be Used To Repair Wharf
“State wildlife conservation funds are not available for rejuvenation of the Santa Cruz municipal wharf, City Manager Peter Tedesco was informed today in a letter from the conservation board. The board has made funds available for rehabilitation of piers, but only when the state is given sole proprietary interest in the structure. This is considered impracticable here, Tedesco said. He said that Assemblyman Glenn E. Coolidge (R-Felton) is continuing an investigation of possible sources of state revenue for the municipal wharf. The city, fearful over the condition of pilings destroyed or weakened through the years, has instituted two suits to remove business establishments from the tip of the wharf. Rebuilding and widening of the entire structure has been suggested.” September 17, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 221. Page 1.

General Fish Plans For Leaving Wharf
“City Manager Peter Tedesco said this morning he is ‘confident General Fish Corporation will finalize its plans to leave the municipal wharf by next week.’ The statement followed a telephone conversation with Joseph Flannigan, president of the firm. Tedesco was told the firm was holding meetings tonight and tomorrow night in an attempt to settle terms of its relocation elsewhere in the Monterey Bay area. Tedesco yesterday issued a ‘last warning’ to the firm to vacate the dangerous wharf-end premises or face legal action. However, after the talk with Flannigan absent from San Francisco officers of the firm yesterday the city manager said, ‘It appears that one more week of patience may obviate the necessity of long and arduous litigation.’ He said that if there is no definite action by the firm next week, the city attorney will be asked to consider revival of pending suits against General Fish. The city on June 1 ordered the corporation to cease operations in the city-owned structure at the end of the pier. Pilings underneath the building have been described as in ‘critical’ condition. An injunction action was filed in municipal court. It later was transferred to superior court, but the city has not pressed the suit there. Tedesco said the city has attempted to let General Fish relocate peaceably. At present, a pair of San Jose divers is beginning removal of about 10 defective pilings from beneath the wharf. Tedesco said they have about 45 hours of work remaining. Then they will inventory the remainder of the structure, built in 1914. Results will determine if the structure is to be replaced or rejuvenated.”

27.329
12 November 2, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 260. Page 4.

End Of Wharf Removal Proposed
“A recommendation that the last 160 feet of the Santa Cruz municipal wharf be removed as soon as possible, will be made to the city council, it was decided Friday evening at a meeting of the Wharf Improvement and Rehabilitation committee. The area is that now occupied by the General Fish Company warehouse. The firm is in process of moving as the wharf at that point is dangerous because of storm-damaged pilings, officials said. The committee is checking into the possibility of having the section and pilings removed without cost by someone wanting it for the salvage involved, said City Manager Pete Tedesco. The committee also decided to make a preliminary survey of the rest of the wharf to locate defective pilings for possible replacement, Tedesco said. He reported that the remaining portion of the wharf is ‘structurally sound.’ The city council meets again a week from Tuesday, and the report should be prepared by that time, Tedesco said.” November 8, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 265. Page 1.

Review Of Wharf Revenue And Leases Will Be Asked
“A review of municipal wharf revenues and leases will be requested Tuesday night at the regular city council meeting, beginning at 7:30 o’clock. City Manager Peter Tedesco said Friday he will ask the mayor to have the committee on wharf improvements and rehabilitation prepare recommendations especially in reference to future capital outlays. Recent recommendation of the committee that the last 160 feet of the pier be removed as soon as possible also will be offered for council consideration. Tedesco said his request is related to the apparent need for rehabilitation or improvement of other portions of the wharf, generally ‘without repair since it was built in 1913. At present, our primary sources of revenue are parking meters, rents, and general fund contributions,’ Tedesco said. ‘These barely meet operating expenses.’ He said operations costs for the current fiscal year are estimated at $50,000. Tedesco said that improvements on the pier rent for nine cents a square foot.” November 11, 1959. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 103, Number 268. Page 5.

Council Authorizes Removal Of 160 Feet From Wharf End
“Santa Cruz city council last night authorized City Manager Peter Tedesco to negotiate for removal of 160 feet of the southerly, or tip, end of the municipal wharf. The mayor’s wharf rehabilitation and improvement committee also was charged with responsibility for an immediate review of the financial structure of the venerable pier. City Engineer Alex Russell told the council that about 40 per cent of the pilings under the present General Fishing corporation building at the end of the pier are no longer present or are inadequate. ‘Probably the only reason the section has stood as long as it has is that it was originally designed for a much heavier load than has been on it,’ Russell said. He pointed out that most of the piles have been in the water for 45 years. ‘We have been doing well to get as long a life out of them as we have,’ Russell said. Tedesco said it might be possible to have the end section removed for salvage value. Councilman Robert Burton questioned removal of the 60 per cent of piles which might be serviceable. ‘If nothing else, they might act as buffers,’ he said. Councilman Bert Snyder pointed out that these eventually would be nothing more than battering rams. The wharf committee was asked to study wharf rentals, parking meter rates and other revenue sources which might put the wharf on a self-sustaining basis. Tedesco has suggested that the committee might investigate the possibility of providing for capital improvements by wharf tenants. Once constructed, these would be conveyed to the city and would be leased back on a long-term basis with allowance for amortization. ‘This would obviate the need for public financing of building improvements and place the burden on present or prospective wharf tenants, Tedesco said.’ ” March 2, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 52. Page 1.

Fishing Exec Plans Fight To Save Wharf
“Fishing executive Malio Stagnaro raised storm warnings today over city council action yesterday morning reaffirming an earlier decision to have the ‘tip’ of the municipal pier removed. ‘It’s our life and I can’t stand by and let the city cut it down,’ said Stagnaro, president of the Cottardo Stagnaro Fishing corporation. The outspoken wharf lessee threatened an injunction to stop any razing of the end of the wharf; challenged engineering surveys conducted by the city and figures which have been quoted in discussion of removal or rehabilitation of the end section. City Manager Peter Tedesco said earlier this morning he feels much of the dissension among wharf lessees is due to misunderstanding. ‘I would like to make it clear that at no time has the council talked about ‘scrapping’ the wharf. It has been concerned exclusively with the portion presently covered by the General Fish Corporation warehouse,’ Tedesco said. The city manager added that the council is looking for ‘concrete suggestions’ from the

27.330
13 Santa Cruz of Tomorrow committee on how best to integrate the wharf with the total recreational development of the area. Controversy arose after the city council in a breakfast session yesterday reaffirmed a decision made last November to have the portion presently covered by the warehouse removed. An inventory last fall had shown about 40 per cent of pilings to be missing or inadequate. Since the original council action, wharf lessees have protested removal of any of the structure. They have suggested the section be reinforced to provide a parking area. Tedesco explained that the council action yesterday was based on two points: Money for rehabilitation of the section could better be spent elsewhere on the wharf. There is no assurance the added parking would be a material improvement for the wharf. Stagnaro said today he will discuss an injunction with his attorney, Donald Younger, as soon as the latter recovers from illness. ‘They say they are just going to cut off this end piece, but what’s to stop them from coming down closer and closer to shore,’ Stagnaro said. He pointed out that the end section was a prime recreational fishing area before it was closed, General Fish warehouse. ‘We out on the wharf feel the end section is the anchor,’ Stagnaro said. ‘If it is removed the whole thing might go.’ He said that he would challenge the inventory made on the pilings last fall. ‘The men that were used were incompetent to give a thorough analysis.

They were two skin divers, and that’s it!’ He pointed out that $146,000 quoted as replacement cost for the end section refers to total replacement. ‘It would not take nearly this amount to put it in shape for parking,’ he suggested.”
March 8, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 57. Page 5 Save the Wharf
Excerpt: “We, the undersigned Santa Cruz Municipal Pier lessees, are naturally concerned over the future and disposition of the wharf. We have had many inquiries from interested people locally and nation-wide. We hereby submit a few of the facts and viewpoints relative to this vital issue.” April 11, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 86. Page 1.

Tedesco Unhappy Over Wharf Bids
“We’re just going to have to do it ourselves, one way or another,” City Manager Peter Tedesco said this morning after a startling look at the sole, $7000 bid on demolition of the warehouse at the end of the municipal wharf. City crews have stripped the former General Fish warehouse to its framework, but it was felt the final razing should be handled by fully insured and experienced workmen. The bid of Granite Construction company was opened Friday.

Tedesco said he asked for bids on the basis of an informal proposal of about $2600. However, that party had ‘difficulties’ in respect of bonding and insurance he said. ‘It appears we are going to have to hire someone and take the liability ourselves,’ Tedesco said. General Fish Corporation was ordered from the facility last spring after it was found that the huge storage boxes were pushing through the decking of the wharf, weakened by storm damage to pilings.”
May 4, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 106. Page 1. [Note: the photo included with this article shows men standing in front of a partially demolished wharf warehouse, holding a drawing of a proposed fishing area at the end of the wharf.] Possible Design For Wharf Turnaround
Photo caption: “City and state officials and wharf lessees scan a sketch proposal for recreational fishing and vehicle turnaround areas on the tip portion of the municipal wharf presently covered by a warehouse. The structure, being razed by a two-man city crew, looms in the background. Holding the artistic drawing are, left to right, Giovanni Stagnaro, State Sen. Donald Grunsky, City Manager Peter Tedesco and Malio Stagnaro. Ralph Gray, a city park commissioner, is visible in the background and Parks Director Carl Bengston is in foreground. The turnaround proposal has been drawn up by Gray as a park commission recommendation for use of the seaward wharf section.

Informal response of wharf including the two Stagnaro firms, has been favorable. Bengston pointed out that the plan at present is merely conceptual. No cost figures can be determined until condition of the wharf sections is determined. Provision for recreational fishing away from parking areas is an integral part of the proposal. Tedesco pointed out the recreational fishing aspect of the plan might qualify the city for some state financial assistance.

Grunsky has offered to set up a meeting of city and state wildlife conservation board representatives to explore this possibility, Tedesco said. Such a plan might require giving the state a proprietary interest in the wharf section, he pointed out.”

27.331
14 Image: Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 106. May 4, 1960. Page 1.

May 22, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 121. Page 7.

Nesbit To Meet With SC Officials On Muni Wharf
“Ray Nesbit executive secretary of the California Wildlife Conservation Board will meet Thursday with city officials concerning possible state financing of a recreational fishing pavilion at the end of the municipal wharf.

State Senator Donald L. Grunsky (R-.Wat.), Nesbit, City Manager Peter Tedesco, councilman Harold E. Carriger, parks and recreation superintendent Carl R. Bengston, and recreation commission chairman Dr. Enrico Raffanti will take part in the discussions. In announcing the conference, Grunsky said, ‘while it is not assured that the fishing pavilion will qualify for wildlife financing, there is a precedent for this use of the board’s funds.’ The wildlife board rehabilitated the Oakland fishing pier after leasing it for 25 years.” May 24, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 123. Page 1.

Recreation Use Of Muni Wharf To Be Discussed
“Does the municipal wharf qualify for state financial assistance for recreational fishing? This will be the theme of discussion tomorrow by city officials and Ray Nesbitt, assistant coordinator of the Wildlife Conservation board.

The state board has funds available for promotion of recreational fishing. Whether the partially commercial Santa Cruz wharf can qualify for these is the primary question. City Manager Peter Tedesco said tentative plans for large recreational fishing and auto turnaround at the end of the wharf will be a central topic of the discussions.”

27.332
15 August 1, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 180. Page 1.

Better’n The Good Old Days
“Hundreds of leisure fishermen enjoyed reopening of the end of the municipal wharf to the public Saturday. The tip portion had been closed since condemnation of the erstwhile General Fish Corporation warehouse in May, 1959.

City crews Friday installed pipe railing for 290 feet along the westerly side and end of the wharf. The easterly side of the seaward section also will be opened within a few days, according to Carl Bengston, recreational director.

Benches are being constructed and water pipes have been extended for drinking fountains, Bengston said. ‘This will be the extent of improvements for the time being. We wanted to get immediate use of this area for recreational fishing this summer,’ he added. The interior of the end portion bared with razing of the warehouse this spring has been fenced off, leaving a 16-foot walkway. This is a decided improvement over the narrow shelf which existed next to the old warehouse. Bengston said long range plans call for development of fenced fishing wells for youngsters through the decking. All work has been done with city funds. Bengston said possibility of state assistance still is being pursued. This photo was taken from pile driver which is fortifying the end section.” Image: Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 180. August 1, 1960. Page 1

27.333
16 August 16, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 193. Page 1.

Public Support Sought For State Aid To Wharf
“Public support of the request for state wildlife conservation funds for development of improved public fishing facilities on the municipal wharf is being sought by the city. City Manager Peter Tedesco, in a letter to about 100 private citizens, civic groups, and organizations with a particular interest in the wharf, has suggested that they submit letters supporting the program to the wildlife conservation board. ‘We are in need of the endorsement of the organization or body which you represent in order to demonstrate area-wide interest and support,’ the letter said.

These must be in the hands of the city parks and recreation department no later than Thursday. They also may be mailed directly to the Wildlife Conservation Board, Department of Fish and Game, 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, 14, Calif. The city is seeking a state grant to assist in redecking and reinforcing the seaward 250 feet of the wharf and to provide adequate railing and other facilities to insure use of the area as a prime recreational fishing facility. Justification for the funds would be statewide interest.” September 11, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 214. Page 28. “A year of testing, structural analysis, and planning have shown that our Municipal Wharf is adaptable or rehabilitation. Further development such as improved recreational fishing facilities and new businesses will make this charming landmark an even more valuable community asset.” [Note: Page 28, part of a special newspaper section titled, “Santa Cruz, Its People, Its Progress,” includes a photo of the end of the wharf showing a pile driver working in the area where the warehouse had been demolished, and a drawing of a plan for the proposed fishing area to be funded by the state. The drawing indicates the locations of fishing wells, a bait shop, a snack bar, and restrooms.] Image: Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 214. September 11, 1960. Page 28.

27.334
17 September 12, 1960. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 104, Number 215. Page 12.

State Wildlife Board To Hear Wharf Aid Plea
“Request for a $50,000 recreational fishing grant for the end of the Santa Cruz municipal wharf will be heard by the state wildlife conservation board Monday, September 19, in Eureka city council chambers. [ … ] The funds for the municipal pier would be for rebuilding the end section and providing it with railing and other facilities for safe fishing. Studies are being completed showing a statewide interest in the fishing area and outlining plans and estimated costs. The grant would be conditioned on the city granting the state a proprietary interest in the rehabilitated area.”
January 12, 1961. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 10. Page 14.

Wharf Program Go-Ahead Given To Tedesco
“The city manager was authorized Tuesday to execute a contract for engineering services in connection with recreational development of the seaward end of the municipal wharf. Consulting engineer H. N. Krull of Palo Alto has submitted a proposal for a three-phase program to implement site plans prepared by the city park and recreation department. A maximum contract of $2500 is specified. The engineering services will be covered by a $50,000 grant recently approved by the state Wildlife Conservation Board for the Santa Cruz project. The three phases of study outlined by Krull include use of existing data to determine condition of the wharf and load criteria, preparation of structural plans for necessary renovation and rest room facilities, and consulting inspection necessary for completion of the work.”
January 31, 1961. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 26. Page 12.

Quitclaim On Wharf Land To Be Asked By City
“The state lands commission will be asked to convey all rights and interest in land under the municipal wharf to the city of Santa Cruz, City Manager Peter Tedesco said today. This quit claim action is necessary to clear the way for a $50,000 state wildlife conservation board grant for conversion of the seaward tip of the pier into a modern recreational fishing area. ’The wildlife board wants to make sure that we own the wharf before they release any funds,’ Tedesco said. He said he could foresee no stumbling blocks in this requirement. H. N. Krull, a Palo Alto consulting civil engineer, has been hired by the city to prepare structural plans and specifications for use in the reconstruction, including accessory restroom structures.” March 1, 1961. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 51. Page 3.

Views From the Waterfront by Malio J. Stagnaro - HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN “An early start is expected on the recreational fishing area at the end of the famous Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.

The plans are complete and have been forwarded to the State Wildlife Conservation Board for approval since that body is to provide the funds. It is expected the area will be completed by June 1. The Wharf is gradually being reconditioned under strict safety standards under the efficient wharf maintenance crew headed by Wharfinger Howard Bethel, under the direction of Carl Bengston, city recreation director. Close cooperation to this rehabilitation program is being given by every tenant on the Wharf. Marvelous improvements are being made daily.”
July 27, 1961. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 176. Page 1.

Clearance Is Granted For Wharf Work
“Final clearance has been granted for the $50,000 recreational fishing development at the tip of the Santa Cruz municipal wharf. Work will begin after the summer season, according to Carl Bengston, city parks and recreation director. The rehabilitation program will include replacement of piling and installation of new decking and more than 1550 lineal feet of railed and fenced fishing space. Restrooms, benches and wind screens also will be provided.

Costs are to be met by a $49,550 grant from the state Wildlife Conservation Board. This was approved as a pilot project in development of accessible recreational fishing areas. Facilities must be provided to the public free of charge and commercial concessions will be limited from the area. The seaward 230 feet, cleared of a warehouse last year, will be affected. The grant was approved in September. Engineer H. N. Krull of Palo Alto drew up work specifications last winter. Final clearance was delayed in processing by the fish and game and state finance offices.

Notification of the go-ahead came today in a letter from John Alden, fiscal officer of the state department of Fish and Game. City Manager Peter Tedesco said the city will have to support the development and then claim

27.335
18 reimbursement from the state. Portions will be bid and portions will be handled by force account, Bengston said.

The fishing space of 1567 lineal feet includes 10 unique fishing wells. These will permit drop line fishing through the deck. The wells and perimeter will be surrounded by chain-link fences, Bengston said. He said about 60 pilings under the storm battered end section will be replaced. The new decking will be given an armor coating of gravel and blacktop. ‘We hope to complete the project during the fall and winter,’ Bengston said.” October 22, 1961. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 249. Page 5.

Wharf Reconstruction Off to Thumping Start
Photo caption: “Work has begun on rebuilding and refitting the seaward 230 feet of Santa Cruz municipal wharf for recreational fishing purposes. In upper photo, bystanders watch city crews drive a replacement pile on the easterly side of the wharf. In lower photo, city and state officials get a closer view. They include, left to right, Ralph Gray and Chairman Ralph Castro of the city parks and recreation commission; Ray Nesbit, coordinator for the state wildlife conservation board; State Senator Donald Grunsky, Malio Stagnaro, wharf businessman; Carl Bengtson, parks and recreation director; and Alvin Rutsch, state civil engineering associate. The Wildlife Conservation Board has granted $49,550 for the project, being handled by city crews. New underpinnings, decking, railing, restrooms, benches and wind screens will be provided.”
Image: Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 105, Number 249. October 22, 1961. Page 5

27.336
19 December 2, 1962. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 283. Page 1.

Municipal Wharf Fishing Area Open - Wells And All
Photo headline & caption: A Safe Fishing Area. “First visitors ‘discover’ the newly completed fishing area at the end of the Santa Cruz municipal wharf. A joint project of the city and the State Wildlife Conservation board, it marks the first use of novel interior fishing ‘wells,’ designed for not so serious fishermen who use drop-lines.

Attendance by the whole family is further encouraged by the thorough use of protective fencing.” Image: Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 283. December 2, 1962. Page 1.

Municipal Wharf Fishing Area Open - Wells And All
By Sy Berg
“The recreational fishing area at the end of Santa Cruz wharf, under construction for the past year, has opened for use by the public. The 250-foot-long area contains a novel pilot project of the State Wildlife Conservation board. In addition to fishing space on the outside for the fully equipped, veteran anglers, there are 11 interior ‘wells’ that may be fished with drop-lines by youngsters and less dedicated devotees of Izaak Walton. In both cases, fishermen are protected by chain-link, corrosion-resistant, aluminum fencing. Yet to come are benches and wind screens for the comfort of the fishing public. Also planned for the center of the area is building housing a snack bar, a bait shop, and public restrooms. The project has been a joint effort of the state and the city. The state wildlife board contributed on the basis of $3.50 for each foot of space available for fishing, according to Parks and Recreation Director Carl Bengston. This included the ‘length’ provided by the interior fishing wells, making a $49,500 appropriation from the state. Reconstruction of the wharf underpinning began about a year ago. Almost 100 new pilings were driven into the ocean floor. All defective timbers were replaced with new, chemically treated wood

27.337
20 plus an ‘armor-coat’ surface on the deck. The regular city wharf crew did all the work except the fencing. The city was reimbursed by the state for man-hours of labor by the city crew. This precedent-setting project is being closely observed by the wildlife conservation board. If it becomes as popular as anticipated, similar fishing areas will be started along the entire coastline of California.”
January 18, 1963. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 107, Number 15. Page 1.

Wharf Fishing Area Dedication Tomorrow
“Formal presentation to the city of the new end-of-the-wharf fishing facilities will be made tomorrow at 3 p.m. by the State Wildlife Conservation Board. The unique $49,500 project, completed by the city with state funds, is a pilot project to test feasibility of such family-type recreation unities. It will be presented to Mayor Bert Snyder.

Other city, state and federal officials and the Santa Cruz High school band will participate in the ceremonies. About 1180 lineal feet of fishing space is provided. The wharf perimeter is for the veteran fisherman. Eleven ‘wells’ are included on the inside for the use of drop-line enthusiasts, young and old. Emphasis is on safety and fun for the whole family. Yet to come are benches and wind screens. Also planned is a building housing a snack bar, bait shop and public restrooms. Featured speaker of the dedication ceremony will be A. Heaton Underhill. U.S. Department of Interior official and former longtime chief of New Jersey fish and game department. Underhill is here for the Associated Sportsmen of California ‘little convention’ this weekend (See sports page). Sam McNeely, newly elected president of the Greater Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, will serve as master of ceremonies. He has promised a fast-moving schedule. Among the notables appearing will be State Sen. Donald Grunsky, Assemblyman Alan Pattee and Ray Nesbitt coordinator of Wildlife Conservation Board, who will make the presentation to the mayor. Also expected are W. T. Shannon, director of the state fish and game department and Sen. Aaron Quick (Imperial), a member of the Wildlife Conservation Board.” January 20, 1963. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 107, Number 16. Page 1.

Wharf Fishing Area Dedication
Note: This article includes a photo of the dedication ceremony. “A. Heaton Underhill, department of the interior official, yesterday told a crowd of about 150 persons at Santa Cruz wharf fishing area dedication that California must continue to set aside public recreation facilities while they are still available. Ray Nesbit, coordinator of the state Wildlife Conservation Board, formally turned the $50,000 fishing area over to the city of Santa Cruz. Mayor Bert Snyder accepted. Cottardo Peter Stagnaro represented the youth of Santa Cruz who will use some of the 1180 lineal feet of improved, protected fishing space provided in the pilot program.”
February 3, 1963. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 107, Number 28. Page 2.

Views From the Waterfront
C. Stagnaro Fishing Corp., Malio J. Stagnaro, President By Estrella Stagnaro, Center of Municipal Wharf, Santa Cruz Beach “— oOo — MAD! MAD! MAD! MAD SEA ... BUT BEAUTIFUL!
“Weather” or not, the popularity of the world famous Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, is always in evidence, day in, day out, as throngs of people swarm to the wharf to thrill to the sea At Santa Cruz ... It was a mad sea . . . but beautiful! REMINISCING! DEDICATION DAY ON THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL WHARF. . . Jan. 19, 1963! THIS WAS THE DAY . . . long awaited by many of us who have watched the many months of work to complete the beautiful fishing area at the end of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.

THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD’S COOPERATION . . .with the City of Santa Cruz . . . affords one of the finest fishing facilities in the State of California for all to enjoy.” August 4, 1963. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 107, Number 183. Page 13.

EYE . . . OPENER.
“NEWS . . . . .THE DOLPHIN . . . NEW RESTAURANT . . . . IS OPEN ON THE further end of our Municipal wharf ... same kind faces . . . new building and more and better food . . . ALSO OUT THERE . . . BRAND NEW IS WALT’S BAIT SHOP . . . along with the here-to-for mentioned REHABILITATED fisherman’s wharf . . . now it is really different out there !!! ... “on the further end”. . . good luck out there, we’ll be a seein’ ya!” ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

27.338
From: Judi Grunstra
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 27
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 5:21:25 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I echo the many letters urging you to reject the Wharf Master Plan. City staff is adept at generating documents but despite claims of wanting to listen to the community, they have persisted in pushing a plan that is opposed by many. The Wharf Master Plan must be revised to eliminate the oversize buildings, the Western Walkway, and re-position the entry gate where it will not cause traffic back-ups and endanger wharf visitors as cars back up to exit the wharf. The gross commercialization of the historic nature of the wharf will repel, not attract future visitors.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

27.339
From: Claire Appelmans
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf project
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 11:25:16 AM
Dear Councilmember,
I urge you to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the City's historic Wharf! Please abide by the City's Historic Preservation Commission. The proposed changes would not only degrade the visual character of the Wharf, but would also negatively impact migratory birds.

Birds already have enough troubles globally, and the overdevelopment of this central coast area has also affected them negatively.

Furthermore, the Wharf area is already too congested, and too many people/visitors are behaving badly. Though I suppose that if you allow the project to proceed, the eyesore and unruly crowds will disincline locals to access the Wharf. It encompasses mainly a bunch of tourist traps and I believe the Council is motivated by the prospect of increased revenues. But at what cultural and environmental costs? Our streets can’t accommodate the summer crowds at even present levels.

Thank you for your attention.

Claire Appelmans
“ring the bells that still ring...there is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”
Leonard Cohen

27.340
From: Carole DePalma
To: City Council
Subject: Morph the Wharf
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 1:06:30 PM
Scale back the New wharf Plan. No 800 ft walkway below wharf level. No height changes of buildings. The wharf in in present design serves Santa Cruz well. I support only needed repairs .

Carole Depalma.

Former SC City Council Member. 1975d to 1979

27.341
From: Rhonda Martyn
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 1:43:48 PM
Dear City Council,
Our historic wharf is a treasure for our community and our visitors and as a long time Santa Cruz resident, I am very much in favor of its responsible upkeep and renovation. But I would prefer to see the Wharf Master Plan revised to reflect the charter of the historic wharf and our community. I would urge you to remove the westside walkway and the three tall buildings from the Plan. They are detrimental to the nature, history and visual appeal of the wharf.

Please do fix the roadway which is in dire need of repair if not replacement. Do replace the dumpsters so that the heavy garbage trucks no longer have to degrade the roadway. Put a less "wear & tear” system in place for garbage collection and removal.

Thank you for reading my concerns and many thanks for your service to our wonderful, aware community.

Sincerely,
Rhonda K. Martyn
128 Swift Street
Santa Cruz

27.342
From: Nancy Knudegard
To: City Council
Subject: REMOVE WESTSIDE WALKWAY--APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 2!! Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 2:11:42 PM
As a 25-year resident of Santa Cruz, I am upset and insulted by the city staff continuing to ignore or minimize public input on changes to our wharf!
The Wharf Master Plan did not include public input from residents or visitors to Santa Cruz. WHY? The Master Plan was created by a San Francisco design firm. WHY? The original plan and associated EIR was cancelled by a court order in 2022, yet the staff insists on pursuing basically the same plan again. WHY?
The staff has used deceptive methods in an attempt to hoodwink the public into accepting the plan that the city wants.

For example: Staff ignored input from visitors to Santa Cruz; staff minimized comments from the Sierra Club, Santa Cruz bird club, and Don’t Morph the Wharf organizations into one letter signed by one person, instead of comments from many individuals; staff claimed the Wharf had tsunami damage when it did not; staff claimed expenses to the Wharf budget for lifeguard and rescue services, even though those expenses are paid by the Fire Department budget.

What about the 800 ft long lower deck walkway? This was claimed as necessary to structurally reinforce the wharf.

The court ruling in 2022 disagreed. A walkway would be a public safety hazard in big storms, an impact to migrating birds and a visual blight to the wharf. An Engineering study has ALREADY identified 5% of the pilings that need repair or replacement. The piling under the Dolphin restaurant that was damaged by the recent storm was one of those identified.

WHY had it not been repaired yet?
ELIMINATE the walkway, ELIMINATE the 40 ft buildings, repair the remaining pilings AND the street surface of the deck.

Please adopt ALTERNATIVE #2.

Sincerely,
Nancy Knudegard
2395 Delaware Ave #21
Santa Cruz, CA

27.343
From: Aethia Danforth
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz Wharf
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 5:16:47 PM
City Council Members,
Please reject the idea of a walkway added to the Wharf on the westside that continues for about 870 feet and is 8 feet below the existing wharf . Do not disturb the migrating birds that nest here.

And please do not add 3 new buildings 40 feet in height! There is enough ugliness going on already downtown with the new additions that mar the skyscape.

The Santa Cruz Wharf is iconic and historic, preserve it! Aethia Danforth

27.344
From: Ls Chavez
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 8:20:25 PM
Attachments: The Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.pdf
TIME SENSITIVE: Please read the attached letter re the above.

Thank you.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

27.345
To: [email protected]
Ref: January 9, 2024 City Council Meeting
Re: The Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
I am compelled to write to you regarding the revised proposed wharf master plan, addressing the environmental impact, access by visitors to the wharf, as well as the proposed "landmark building." I am a longtime resident; I bring people out to the wharf from all over the world to see the sea lions and to eat the marvelous food.

Query: I have spoken with many of the people working on the Wharf and they are not even aware of this proposal. Has no formal effort been made to let these people know or are they to find out when they can no longer work due to the proposal.

First and foremost, the "landmark building" should not even be considered for the many reasons that have already been stated and for the obvious fact that the Wharf is the landmark. Nothing more needs to be said regarding it other than what an embarrassment.

As to the environmental issues, this too has been addressed by Ms.

Greensite in her recent op ed setting forth a brief history of the wharf as well as noting,
"The damage to the Wharf is visible next to the Dolphin Restaurant at the Wharf’s southern end. One piling visibly failed leading to the partial collapse of the narrow pathway between the restaurant and the Wharf railing. Further evaluation may reveal other piling failures in the same area. It is important to place this Wharf damage in context, so it is not exploited to further the false impression that the Wharf is fragile, in danger of collapsing and needs a protective shield around its exterior."
She goes on to state that,
"Therefore, the only accurate conclusion regarding the recent Wharf damage is that it could have been anticipated, is limited to the area previously determined as needing attention by the engineers and should not be generalized to the rest of the Wharf structure."
1 of 2

27.346

Page 2 of 2 ends

Re: The Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
"This fact is important because the false impression that the Wharf is fragile and is vulnerable is presented at every hearing to promote the need for the unpopular proposed "westside
walkway."

I concur that this walkway and other unpopular additions from the Wharf Master Plan should be tanked, and that they keep the viewing areas for the sea lions and that they have ample designated parking for people to fish. My husband was ADA and when no space was available he could not fish. Also I feel that the council has lost its way for caring for the public and its needs as to this matter.

Best regards,
Lynda Stoodley Chavez
621 Marnell Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95065

27.347
From: Gary Patton
To: City Council
Subject: The Wharf
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 8:22:28 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members:

I have written before. Here’s a very short note to make the point again. Please delete that proposed “Western Walkway” from the Wharf Master Plan. The tides and the ocean have given us all a message since you last dealt with the issues around the Wharf. Adding that walkway element is not only putting it directly into the area where we now have proof that future wave action will damage it - almost to a certainty. There is every reason to believe that adding that walkway will actually undermine the integrity of the current Wharf design - already under attack, and damaged, by giant waves.

I hope you will simply dispose of this issue. Adopt a “clean” Wharf Master Plan, not one that postulates new and questionable elements that would detract, not add, to what our wonderful wharf should be!
Very truly yours,
Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1038
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: 831-332-8546
Email: [email protected]
Website / Blog: www.gapatton.net
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gapatton

27.348
From: Jane
To: City Council
Subject: wharf plan
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 8:44:25 PM
I'm writing because I oppose the plan to build a westside walkway and three tall buildings on the Santa Cruz wharf. Please concentrate on fixing the roadway and replacing the dumpsters and the heavy garbage trucks with a new system that protects the Wharf. We don't need walkways that affect wildlife and buildings that tower over other buildings, There are so many changes happening in Santa Cruz at the moment. Instead of keeping our beautiful town quaint and the seaside town that it is, we have giant new buildings, trees being cut down and the overall aesthetic of our town is being ruined.

Please make the right choice in this case. Please choose wildlife and keeping with the aesthetics of our historic wharf.

Thank you,
Jane F.

27.349
From: fred geiger
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf master plan
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:03:50 PM
Dear Councilmembers:

I want to express my concern that the City is needlessly costing your constituents large amounts of our tax monies for legal fees by not compromising on the issues that caused a lawsuit on the Wharf Plan.

It is my understanding that if the overly large buildings at the end of the Wharf and the potentially dangerous ( from large waves) walkway are deleted from the Plan the potential for further lawsuits will be eliminated.

Please take this reasonable course of action and allow the Wharf Plan process to continue unimpeded.

Thank you!
Fred J. Geiger
Santa Cruz

27.350
From: Knitsnpaints
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item Comments: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:42:25 PM
Agenda Item of 1/09/24 Comments: Wharf Master Plan
Dear City Council Members,
After losing an expensive lawsuit, which vacated the Wharf Master Plan with instructions to redraw the Plan almost completely, the essentially same Wharf Master Plan is being presented again!
The City Staff will needlessly cost the taxpayers yet another expensive lawsuit when this same Plan is again challenged. Why?!? Besides the unnecessary expense, more time will be lost In starting improvements.

This Plan needs to be rewritten without the huge building at the end of the Wharf and the dangerous and unecological lower walkway must be eliminated. Adhering to the mandates of the Judge’s ruling will allow a new Plan to go forward, and the work can begin.

Thank you,
Susan Martinez
City Resident
Dear Councilmembers:

Please take this reasonable course of action and allow the Wharf Plan process to continue unimpeded.

Thank you!

27.351
From: Mark Trabing
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf Master Plan, January 9th, Agenda Item #27 Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:49:08 PM
Dear City Council,
I grew up on the west side of Santa Cruz and had a career in city government in Southern California. I have reviewed the Wharf Plan (Plan) and EIR(s). Despite the immense amount of work that has gone into the Wharf Master Plan, I am concerned about the future of the wharf. I understand this is the final meeting to consider the Plan.

Cities with more resources than Santa Cruz, have redeveloped their historic waterfronts and, in my opinion, failed. I refer to Pier 39, in San Francisco and Cannery Row, in Monterey.

The region has lost so much recently - the Cement Ship, Big Basin, the urbanization of downtown. Leave us something to hang on to. Everyone is glad we saved Light House Field.

The Wharf is a key part of our water front, connecting our iconic West Cliff Drive to the historic Board Walk. Let’s preserve one aspect of Santa Cruz that we all love.

Thank you for all the work you do as City Council members.

Mark Trabing

27.352
From: melanie mayer
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (#27 on Jan 9, 2024 agenda.) Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 10:36:53 PM
Concerning the portion of the Wharf Master Plan that would build a Western Walkway: Such an addition will NOT ENHANCE the ESTHETICS, NOR the STABILITY of the wharf once the recent damage to its pilings is repaired. And it is NOT GOOD FOR THE BIRDS who nest under the wharf, NOR for their SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT. I would like for you to vote NO on the Western Walkway.

Melanie J Mayer

27.353
From: Marianne Franks
To: City Council; Marianne Franks
Subject: Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Plan
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 11:01:35 PM
Attachments: Santa Cruz Sentinel Guest Comm. .pdf
Dear City Council Members;
I am writing to ask you to remove the Westside Walkway and the Landmark Building from the Municipal Wharf Plan. As a 60 year resident married to a native Santa Cruzan I have spent many wonderful moments on the Wharf and brought countless friends and family from all over the world to enjoy the views and food. The sea lion viewing holes have always been a special treat. The Landmark building does nothing to enhance the wharf experience and on the contrary takes away from it's beauty and the delightful viewing holes.

The Westside Walkway detracts from the historic beauty of the wharf. "The city’s Historic Preservation Commission voted in October to recommend removal of the proposed westside walkway, stating that, the “proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design.” I am attaching Gillian Greensite's excellent guest commentary to the Sentinel that describes this in greater detail.

I know that each of you care greatly about our wonderful Santa Cruz and hope you will preserve this precious landmark for years to come.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marianne Franks
719 Fairmount Ave
Santa Cruz CA 95062
Marianne Franks [email protected]
This is a CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION intended solely for the named recipient. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not such person (or their agent), call us immediately and delete the material from any computer.

27.354
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Guest Commentary
Don’t Morph the Municipal Wharf!
The final decision and vote regarding the future of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf is now confirmed for next Tuesday, January 9th. Originally scheduled for November 28th, which generated an earlier guest commentary on the issue, the date was changed at the last minute for reasons not publicly shared.

In the meantime, we have experienced high tides coinciding with big swells which caused much damage to Capitola. The Santa Cruz Wharf also experienced some damage.

The damage to the Wharf is visible next to the Dolphin Restaurant at the Wharf’s southern end.

One piling visibly failed leading to the partial collapse of the narrow pathway between the restaurant and the Wharf railing. Further evaluation may reveal other piling failures in the same area. It is important to place this Wharf damage in context, so it is not exploited to further the false impression that the Wharf is fragile, in danger of collapsing and needs a protective shield around its exterior.

The Wharf was designed and built by Master Engineer Henry J. Brunnier in 1914. This year the Wharf is 110 years old. Mr. Brunnier knew his craft. The Wharf deck sits atop 4,450 Doug. Fir pilings, driven into the sand and standing twenty- three feet above Mean Low Lower Tide, allowing even big waves to flow under the Wharf. Over the past century, as pilings were attacked by shipworms and showed evidence of rot, they have been routinely replaced by the hard-working dedicated Wharf crew. In 2014, the city commissioned an Engineering Report to accompany the Wharf Master Plan. The Report examined all the pilings underwater and evaluated the integrity of each one. The conclusion? That the “Wharf is in good structural condition overall” with only five percent of the pilings needing to be replaced.

Since then, much of that five percent of pilings has been replaced with federal grant monies.

The new pilings were limited to the area beneath the demolished Miramar Restaurant. The others earmarked as needing replacement were left as is. They included those near the Dolphin restaurant. This fact can be verified by checking the map of pilings needing replacement in the 2014 Engineering Report available on the Wharf Master Plan page at the city’s website.

Therefore, the only accurate conclusion regarding the recent Wharf damage is that it could have been anticipated, is limited to the area previously determined as needing attention by the engineers and should not be generalized to the rest of the Wharf structure.

This fact is important because the false impression that the Wharf is fragile and vulnerable is presented at every hearing to promote the need for unpopular proposed “westside walkway.” This proposed new structure would extend 870 feet below deck on the west side of the Wharf

27.355
under the current restaurants such as Riva’s and Gilda’s. It is proposed to be 12 feet wide, 8 feet below deck level. The city’s claim that it would not obstruct views from the restaurants does not pass the straight face test as the late Scott Kennedy was fond of saying. It also would block access to their nests for the migrating Pigeon Guillemots who return annually from Puget Sound to the underside of the Wharf and have for generations. It would bring people and activity into a sensitive habitat area. The city’s Historic Preservation Commission voted in October to recommend removal of the proposed westside walkway, stating that, the “proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design.” It is time for the council to remove this walkway and other unpopular additions from the Wharf Master Plan, a Plan that was imposed on the community rather than developed with it. If you agree write to [email protected] by Monday January 8th.

Gillian Greensite
130 Liberty St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831 427-2174
Gillian Greensite is a long-time resident of the city of Santa Cruz

27.356
From: Renee Flower
To: City Council
Cc: Renée Beville Flower
Subject: Agenda of January 9, 2024 :: Item 27 - Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:06:17 AM
To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council
Re: Agenda of January 9, 2024
Item 27. Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination From: Renée Flower
Dear Mayor Keeley and members of the Santa Cruz City Council, I am writing again to express my support for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, and to urge the council to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and adopt the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan.

I DO NOT support Project Alternative 2 because this alternative eliminates the Westside Walkway and therefore would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf and would not provide protection for the aging pilings beneath the wharf’s buildings.

The wharf’s designer, Henry J. Brunnier (1882-1971), graduated from Iowa State College in 1904 with a degree in civil engineering. Brunnier was a structural engineer, not an architect. The Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf is an engineered structure designed to support specific activities. In particular, the wharf was originally designed to enable water transportation of goods and passengers. The wharf’s structural elements are not a form of artistic architectural expression. The wharf continues to support economic and recreational activities on a platform above the waters of Monterey Bay, and the Wharf Master Plan improvements, including the Westside Walkway, will enhance the wharf’s structure and reduce risks to public health, safety, and economic activities. These improvements will not detract from Brunnier’s 1914 structural design, but rather support and respect his work and the goals of a structural engineer by extending the wharf’s viability.

I support the proposed Westside Walkway and Landmark Building.

The proposed Westside Walkway would be constructed on a section of the Wharf that is not historic, therefore it would not have any significant impacts related to the wharf’s aesthetics or historic resources.

The proposed Landmark Building will honor and replace the wharf’s historic warehouse building that was tragically lost to demolition in 1960. When the warehouse was demolished, iconic views of the wharf from the shore were altered. The Landmark Building will restore the historic wharf profile as seen from various points along the coast. Objections to the proposed Landmark Building as being too large, or as interrupting views of the coast, sound like a repudiation of the wharf’s history, its original purpose and economic functions, and its structure. Because I support the Landmark Building as a replacement for the lost warehouse, I also support relocation of the so-called “sea lion viewing holes” which have a history closely tied to the lost warehouse. — Renée Flower
Santa Cruz
——————————————
This photo shows the scale of the warehouse building that was located at the end of the wharf.

Source: https://digitalcollections.library.ucsc.edu/concern/works/6t053h98j?locale=en —————
The interior of the wharf’s warehouse (photo shot on the wharf’s opening day in December 1914).

This photo appears on page 64 of Geoffrey Dunn’s book, “Santa Cruz Wharf” (2016). ---------------------------------

27.357
From: Jane Orbuch (via Google Docs)
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Wharf master plan letter 1/8/24
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:34:30 AM
Attachments: Wharf master plan letter 1824.pdf
Jane Orbuch attached a document
Jane Orbuch ([email protected]) has attached the
following document:

Please accept this letter into the records for the city council meeting 1/9/24. Please note it is from the Santa Cruz Bird Club and its 450 members.

Wharf master plan letter 1/8/24
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
You have received this email because [email protected] shared a document with you from Google Docs.

27.358
Monday January 8,2024
Dear City of Santa Cruz Council Members ,
Please accept these comments from the Santa Cruz Bird Club on the Wharf Master Plan and recirculated EIR for deliberation at your meeting on Tuesday January 9, 2024.

The Santa Cruz Bird Club strongly requests that the City Council endorses Alternative 2- Modified Project be adopted for the Wharf Master Plan EIR. This Alternative, which can be found in Chapter 5, CEQA Considerations, of the 2020 EIR in Section 5.5.2 (Alternatives Considered), removes the lowered Western Walkway. This proposed new Walkway, eight feet below deck level and extending a third of the length of the Wharf on the western (Cowell Beach) side, not only visually bisects the pilings which was of great concern to the Historic Preservation Commission (who continued their meeting to further examine the issue) but also is a major barrier for the migratory, protected Pigeon Guillemots to access their nests under the Wharf. These migratory birds return from the far north every spring to their same nests under the Wharf. They are easily disturbed.

The Santa Cruz Bird Club urges you to vote yes on this recommendation.

Sincerely,
Lisa Sheridan, President, Santa Cruz Bird Club
Jane Orbuch, Conservation Officer, Santa Cruz Bird Club

27.359
From: margaret gorman
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 9:11:45 AM
Dear Council,
Please reject the idea of a walkway added to the wharf on the westside that continues for about 870 feet and is about 8 feet below the existing wharf. 2) please reject the idea of adding 3 new buildings to the wharf 40 ft in height to the wharf.

The past storm only should remind the council why these additions are a poor use of funds and will only be a source of more damage in future storms.

The wharf in its more humble configuration really represents Santa Cruz . We do not need what is being suggested. Please fund restoration.

Thank you,
M. Gorman
Cheers, Peggy

27.360
From: Donald Rich
To: City Council
Subject: Warf
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 10:33:34 AM
I am against adding a walk way or new building to the warf. Leave it as it is. It is a waste of money and not consistent with who we are here in SanTa Cruz
Donald Rich
706 Western dr
Santa Cruz, CA

27.361
From: KIM STONER
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Wharf Master Plan Agenda Item...

Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 10:44:40 AM
Attachments: Letter to City Council regarding Wharf Master Plan 11-25-2023 #.pdf 1983-1-27 El Nino Big Swell Photos #.pdf
Honorable Council,
I am resending this email so it makes it in the agenda packet for the Wharf Master Plan item you are voting on 1/9/2024 tomorrow.

Respectfully, Kim Stoner
---------- Original Message ----------
From: KIM STONER <[email protected]>
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Date: 11/26/2023 9:47 AM PST
Subject: Wharf Master Plan Agenda Item...

Honorable Council members,
Please read my attached pdf and look at the
other pdf which has 2 photos I took back
in January 1983 regarding my concerns.

Many Thanks for all you do for our community!
Kim Stoner

27.362
Honorable Elected City Council Members, Saturday, 11-25-2023 I was selected back in 2014 to represent the Santa Cruz Longboard Union and the surfing community to help formulate and contribute to the future Wharf Master Plan. I attended numerous meetings and spoke about my suggestions and concerns regarding this Master Plan.

My main concern was the lowered walkway on the west side of the wharf. Speaking from being a surfer, and having sailed on the bay here in Santa Cruz for over 60 years… I have a history and understanding of the tides, swells, and wind directions.

I am sharing again these 2 photos attached I took back in the El Nino winter of 1982-83 from the 2nd level of the Dream Inn during a 6.6 high tide, and very large 15’ swell. This larger swell had waves that broke the windows out of the former Malio’s restaurant, over topped the wharf, and tore off the safety railings on the entrance section of the wharf and also damaged the roadway. My one photo shows a large wave which is already at street level rubbing the bottom of the wharf just in front of Lifeguard Headquarters.

In the 2nd photo, a few of the waves overtopped the sidewalk at the wharf entrance and washed all the way back to the railroad tracks on the Dream Inn side. Some of the people in the one photo I took were knocked down and washed backwards just after I took the photo. I witnessed this event along with others.
*I am against installing a lowered walkway on the west side of the wharf in the Master Plan.* My main point here is “2 common sense reasons”.
1) The incoming swells from all directions, which wrap around Lighthouse Point, have an adverse impact on the west side of the wharf.
2) After a long rain storm which includes a lot of precipitation we have fallen tree debris and logs which wash down the San Lorenzo River into the bay. At times, some of this debris gets caught under the wharf between the pilings and can cause structural damage during larger swells. This debris mixed with large waves hitting the west side of the wharf would damage this lowered proposed walkway. I remember the Consultant group saying, well… this walkway will actually strengthen the wharf and prevent damage. That is baloney, in my opinion, as this proposed lowered walkway would work fine on a pier over a lake, but not on our wharf.

Just wanted to share a little history with all of you… which… you might not have know about.

Respectfully, Kim W. Stoner

27.363

27.364

27.365

27.366
From: Joe Michalak
To: City Council
Subject: 9 Jan 2024-Council Meeting: Wharf Master Plan comments Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:06:32 PM
Attachments: 2024-9Jan-Wharf Master Plan-comments-JM.pdf Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Attached are my comments regarding the proposed Wharf Master Plan's Western Walkway Respectfully submitted,
Joe Michalak
--
Joe Michalak
114 Escalona Dr.

Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
Mobile: 831.234.4817

27.367
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
I am writing this letter NOT as a member of the City of Santa Cruz, Historic Preservation Commission, but as a concerned citizen.

Westside Walkway Risk Assessment
Regarding the proposed Westside Walkway, I believe that before any final decision is made to commit funds (either City obligations or outside funding) for this proposed project that a thorough risk assessment be undertaken to establish the financial costs/risks that would be underwritten by the City. These are some of the issues that I believe should be considered.
1) Personal liability. Potential personal liability issues associated with public use would need to be evaluated for potential risks.
2) Vulnerabilities from storm damage. Given the lowered walkway (15 ft. above sea level) the structure would be exposed to powerful ocean waves that have reached the top of the wharf (23 feet, most recently). It is obvious that the new structure would be vulnerable to damage in this scenario given its proximity to the ocean. Instead, would it not be more cost effective to maintain and repair the current structure rather than undertake a new Walkway whose build costs are unknown, but would most certainly be in the millions? Building an 815-foot Walkway with over 100 pilings would be cost prohibitive given the City’s current perilous financial situation. This is money we currently don’t possess so outside funding would have to be secured. I would expect any funding source would undertake a careful risk/benefit analysis that might not support funding the Walkway given concerns over an unstable environment from sea level rise and recent devastating wave activity.

Consider the California Coastal Commission’s assessment of the Wharf Master Plan written in 2020, (Letter to David McCormic from Colin Bowser, Coastal Planner, Central Coast District, California Coastal Commission, May 27, 2020.) “Two coastal hazards associated with climate change that the Wharf will likely face in its lifespan are sea level rise (SLR) and more powerful storm waves generated by more intense and more frequent coastal storms.…With sea level in the Monterey Bay area predicted to rise between 5 inches and 24 inches by 2050, powerful coastal storm waves could pose a serious threat to the Western Walk and the main Wharf’s structural supports to which the walkway attaches.” I conclude from the Commission’s assessment that it might be wiser to maintain and repair what we already have rather than build a costly “sacrificial” Walkway that will also require maintenance and repair as sea level rises and storms persist. Nature can’t be tamed it can only be accommodated.

27.368
Respectfully,
Joe Michalak
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
8 January 2024

27.369
From: Ann Simonton
To: City Council
Subject: Settle Lawsuit on Wharf Now!
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:32:40 PM
Dear City Council – I am writing to encourage you to consider settling the wharf lawsuit and forget the westside walkway. The walkway will not provide a buffer or will it be a stabilizing factor for waves. Talk to engineers. It ruins the beauty of the original 110 year old wharf design that has lasted all these years.

It makes the most sense to work with the current lawsuit and move on to get basic improvements on the wharf. Or you can continue to waste tax-payer’s money on lawsuits for another 2-4 years trying to build a ridiculous water walkway that will potentially put tourists in harm’s way with sneaker waves. Sneaker waves WILL increase with climate change.

What have you spent on these legal battles thus far? Do you even know the price tag? Please remember that a healthy city is run by will of the people. It is run by the voters who elect you to represent them. It is badly run when representatives decide to do whatever city management tells them to. Independent thought and working with community input and their awareness of the plans first is by far the best way to run a city.

It should always be collaborative.

Thank you for your service.

Ann Simonton

27.370
From: Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; City Council; Bonnie Bush; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner Subject: Comments on the recirculated Municipal Wharf Master Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (REIR).

Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:46:19 PM
Attachments: Wharf Council letter 1-8-24-1-signed.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley, Councilmembers, and City Clerk:

Please accept these comments on the adequacy of the recirculated Municipal Wharf Master Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (REIR) submitted for the 1/9/24 City Council hearing.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you,
Rachel
Law Office of Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Santa Rosa CA 95404
(707) 291-6585

27.371

Page 1 of 12 ends

Law Office of Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
[email protected]
(707) 291-6585
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
City of Santa Cruz
Mayor Keeley and Vice Mayor Renee Golder
[email protected]
[email protected]
City Council and Clerk
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
January 8, 2024
Via email
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers:

On behalf of the public benefit community organization, Don’t Morph the Wharf! thank you for the opportunity to comment regarding the adequacy of the proposed recirculated Municipal Wharf Master Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (REIR). As the Council is aware, the REIR must comply with the requirements of CEQA and must also conform to the requirements of the Court’s Writ that found the previous EIR for the Wharf Master Plan was inadequate and required the EIR to be rescinded and corrected. The Court’s decision is quoted at length herein to reinforce and clarify aspects of the ruling and to provide guidance on whether the particulars of the Court’s order have been satisfied by the current revisions to the EIR.

Don’t Morph the Wharf! along with the City’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), the Sierra Club, and the Santa Cruz Bird Club, have all urged the adoption of Alternative 2, which removes the Westside Walkway (WW), as the environmentally superior alternative that meets every City objective identified in the EIR, and reduces impacts to biology. Their letters commenting on the adequacy of the REIR and the HPC’s findings, are adopted here by reference.

We urge the City to adopt the Master Plan without the WW, which is comprised of a twelve-foot wide, eight hundred and seventy-foot long walkway, below deck, on the west side of the Wharf. Despite staff’s assertions, this alternative is feasible. Commenters on the REIR thoroughly documented the drawbacks to the

27.372

Page 2 of 12 ends

WW and this letter will not restate every comment – their objections have been lodged with the City and were before the Planning Commission when it met.

Recent 2024 High Tides and Storm Damage
As a preliminary matter, member of Don’t Morph the Wharf! and community advocate, Gillian Greensite’s recent public column documented what is known about the present damage to the Wharf due to the recent January 2024 storms. … We have experienced high tides coinciding with big swells which caused much damage to Capitola. The Santa Cruz Wharf also experienced some damage.

The damage to the Wharf is visible next to the Dolphin Restaurant at the Wharf’s southern end. One piling visibly failed leading to the partial collapse of the narrow pathway between the restaurant and the Wharf railing. Further evaluation may reveal other piling failures in the same area. It is important to place this Wharf damage in context, so it is not exploited to further the false impression that the Wharf is fragile, in danger of collapsing and needs a protective shield around its exterior.

The Wharf was designed and built by Master Engineer Henry J. Brunnier in 1914. This year the Wharf is 110 years old. Mr. Brunnier knew his craft. The Wharf deck sits atop 4,450 Doug. Fir pilings, driven into the sand and standing twenty-three feet above Mean Low Lower Water Level, allowing even big waves to flow under the Wharf. Over the past century, as pilings were attacked by shipworms and showed evidence of rot, they have been routinely replaced by the hard-working dedicated Wharf crew. In 2014, the city commissioned an Engineering Report to accompany the Wharf Master Plan. The Report examined all the pilings underwater and evaluated the integrity of each one. The conclusion? That the “Wharf is in good structural condition overall” with only five percent of the pilings needing to be replaced.

Since then, much of that five percent of pilings has been replaced with federal grant monies. The new pilings were limited to the area beneath the demolished Miramar Restaurant. The others earmarked as needing replacement were left as is. They included those near the Dolphin restaurant.

This fact can be verified by checking the map of pilings needing replacement in the 2014 Engineering Report available on the Wharf Master Plan page at the city’s website. Therefore, the only accurate conclusion regarding the recent Wharf damage is that it could have been anticipated, is limited to the area previously determined as needing attention by the engineers and should not be generalized to the rest of the Wharf structure. This fact is important because the false impression that the Wharf is fragile and vulnerable is presented at every hearing to promote the need for unpopular proposed “westside walkway.”

27.373

Page 3 of 12 ends

This proposed new structure would extend below deck horizontally for 870 feet on the west side of the Wharf under the current restaurants such as Riva’s and Gilda’s. It is proposed to be 12 feet wide, 8 feet below deck level. The city’s claim that it would not obstruct views from the restaurants does not pass the straight face test as the late Scott Kennedy was fond of saying. It also would block access to their nests for the migrating Pigeon Guillemots who return annually from Puget Sound to the underside of the Wharf and have for generations. It would bring people and activity into a sensitive habitat area.

The city’s Historic Preservation Commission voted in October to recommend removal of the proposed westside walkway, stating that, the “proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design.”
The Court’s Ruling as to Alternative 2
The Court ruled, as sought by petitioner Don’t Morph the Wharf!, that the City Council’s conclusion that Alternative 2 is infeasible is not supported by substantial record evidence or Topanga-compliant findings. The following is the excerpted section from the Court’s ruling regarding the City’s inadequate findings as to Alternative 2.

Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v County of Los Angeles (1974) Cal. 3d 506 requires a public agency to provide the “analytic route” to the ultimate decision, The City presumably knows this legal mandate of CEQA, and need not be reminded of its legal duty to comply.

The City has acknowledged that, “conflicts with established recreational activities can constitute a significant impact, the Project will result in ‘removal’ of the sea lion viewing holes, and that this could be perceived as a conflict with an established recreational activity.”
Several of the DEIR’s findings do not meet the Topanga test for substantial evidence, as they fail to “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence and the ultimate decision (e.g., the land use findings on consistency with GP and LCP policies; the finding that the Westside Walkway “could impact nesting coastal birds, but would be offset by the overall increase in Wharf area for nesting and roosting” - therefore “this is considered to be a less than significant impact” and no mitigation measures are required.

CEQA defines feasibility as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” Guideline 15364; Pub.

Resources Code 21061.1.

The City’s finding that Alternative 2 is infeasible is not supported by substantial evidence. This Alternative would eliminate the Westside Walkway

27.374

Page 4 of 12 ends

and reduce the height of the Landmark Building. It was designated the environmentally superior alternative. The City found that Alternative 2 would reduce impacts, and would meet all the Project Objectives, but that it was infeasible. The finding of infeasibility was made on the basis that (1) it would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf and protect pilings beneath the Wharf; and (2) it could not expand public access, recreational opportunities or enhance the pedestrian environment "as effectively" as the full Project (emphasis in italics added).

This finding is not supported by substantial evidence for the following reasons: Staff comments at the approval hearing demonstrate that reduction of the height of the Landmark Building is “absolutely” possible. The finding does not meet the Topanga test for substantial evidence, as it fails to bridge the “analytic gap” between the evidence and the ultimate decision. The finding does not explain why engineered infrastructure support, other than a pedestrian walkway (which the City acknowledges would have adverse impacts on nesting coastal birds) could not be utilized to provide lateral support and protect pilings.

In its Supplemental brief on this issue the City cites to evidence in the Administrative Record which it contends establishes substantial evidence to support its finding that Alternative 2 is infeasible because: “the Western Walkway is essential to 'increasing' the lateral resiliency of the Wharf... and eliminating it would hinder the Project's public safety goals” It then cites to various portions of the 2014 Wharf Engineering Report and the 2014 Wharf Master Plan Report which describe how the addition of the Western Walkway will “increase resiliency of the structure”; “enhance public safety”; “increase the Wharfs ability to withstand ... waves and other lateral forces”; “lessen the impact toexisting piles beneath the buildings where it is far more difficult to replace piles”; and that it is designed to “enhance a sense a safety... on the Wharf”. These are all factors which are said to support the conclusion in the DEIR that “elimination of the Westside Walkway would not 'increase' the lateral resiliency of the Wharf as would occur with the realization of the walkway in the full Project proposal. The City contends that this supports its ultimate finding that “elimination of the Western Walkway would not protect public safety” or expand public access or recreation 'as effectively' as the City intended”.

While the desired enhancements and improvements to public safety are all laudable goals, there is no citation to the record which suggests that regular maintenance, repairs and additional structural support to the existing structure cannot ensure the necessary public safety required of the Wharf under all the forecasted conditions to which it will be exposed.

The portion of the 2014 Engineering Report cited by Petitioner demonstrates that preliminary structural analysis of the Wharf confirms

27.375

Page 5 of 12 ends

the “Wharf structure is in good condition overall” and that lateral stability can be increased by the additions of piles, boltings and side plates and replacement of structural members.

The City contends that it’s finding that Alternative 2 could not expand public access, recreational opportunities or enhance the pedestrian environment 'as effectively' as the full Project, constitutes a proper rejection of the Alternative based upon an important policy decision as permitted by Public Resource Code §2108l(a)(3) and California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957. However, as that case establishes, before an environmentally superior alternative may be rejected as infeasible the record must contain substantial evidence that the rejected alternative is “truly infeasible”. Here that evidence is lacking because there is no substantial evidence to suggest that the stated public safety concerns could not be attained by retrofitting the existing wharf infrastructure. Further, the record is devoid of any evidence which demonstrates that the City decisionmakers engaged in the weighing process required by Public Resource Code §21081(b).

There is insufficient evidence to establish that the City adequately considered the environmentally superior Alternative 2, explained the considerations that led them to conclude that that Alternative was infeasible because it failed to advance the City’s articulated policy decision, weighed those considerations against the environmental harm that the Project would cause and made specific findings that the benefits of those policy considerations outweighed the environmental harm. (See, CNPS, supra, at pp. I007- 1008). … … VI. VIOLATION OF CEQA’S SUBSTANTIVE MANDATE
As a result of the above described EIR deficiencies, the City has violated CEQA’s substantive mandate. CEQA requires a public agency to refrain from approving a project for which there are feasible mitigations or alternatives that will avoid or reduce significant impacts. Mountain Lion v Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 105, 134. This is codified in Public Resources Code §21002, and implemented by §21081, which mandate that an agency “shall not” approve a project with significant impacts unless (1) a fact based finding is made that it has (a) adopted feasible mitigation measures as to each significant impact, or (b) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations" make the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report infeasible"; and (2) if significant environmental impacts remain, the agency makes a further finding that “specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment”. Public Resources Code Section 21081; Guideline Section 15093.

The City argues that, even if the Landmark Building and Westside Walkway would have significant impacts, it may reject an alternative based on policy considerations. However, it may not do so unless the specific findings set

27.376

Page 6 of 12 ends

forth in Section 21081 are made, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is issued. The City did not do so.

Merits of Alternative 2
The removal of the Westside Walkway (WW) is the key feature of Alternative

2. The other aspect of the alternative, reducing new public building heights from 45 to 40 feet, has already been adopted by the Council in 2020, therefore adoption of the alternative would only entail removal of the WW.

As noted by the Court, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the 2020 EIR and the 2023 REIR also identified it as such. The EIR concluded that “alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives.” (Emphasis added.)
The Historic Preservation Commission at its meeting on October 18, 2023, voted to remove the WW from the Plan. In their motion, the following reasons for adoption of this alternative were explained.

The addition of the 815-foot, Western Walkway would significantly compromise the integrity of Master Engineer, Henry John Brunnier’s unique design. The proposed lengthy, highly visible walkway would degrade the visual character of the wharf by introducing an appendage to the wharf that is incompatible with its original historic design. The proposed walkway would cause a substantial adverse change to the visual character of the 109-year-old Santa Cruz Wharf, the longest wooden pier structure in California.

Alternative 2 is feasible and should be adopted as recommended by the comment letters submitted to the City by Don’t Morph the Wharf!, the Sierra Club, Santa Cruz Bird Club, the City’s own Historic Preservation Commission, and numerous citizens as well.

The City’s Draft Findings Re. Infeasibility are not Supported by Substantial Evidence
The City’s draft findings state:

WHEREAS, the City Council finds, in the exercise of its inherent discretion to weigh and balance project objectives and policy and planning goals for the City, that while Alternative 2 would reduce potential biological impacts resulting from construction, the exclusion of the Westside Walkway in this alternative would not meet the project objectives of expanded public access, enhanced pedestrian environment and recreational opportunities, and public safety as well as the proposed Project; specifically, that elimination of the Westside Walkway would not expand pedestrian access to circumnavigate the Wharf, nor provide a defensive barrier to disrupt waves and intercept

27.377

Page 7 of 12 ends

debris, nor enhance public safety through increased emergency and fire response access, nor expand maritime and recreational uses to the westside of the Wharf, and as such, for any of these reasons individually or all of them, the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is not feasible.

Even though the EIR established that Alternative 2 met all project objectives, staff now claims that the alternative does not meet the project’s objectives as well as the proposed project and further, that Alternative 2 is infeasible, similar to the argument unsuccessfully made before the Superior Court.

It is well established that an alternative need not meet every project objective, otherwise only the project would qualify for adoption. One of the primary holdings of CEQA is the requirement to consider alternatives to the project that meet most objectives and reduce the project’s impacts. CEQA provides that reasonable project alternatives required to be studied in an EIR are those that “would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project.” (Guidelines, §15126.6(a).) This Guideline makes clear that a 3-part test identifies alternatives to study in an EIR: in addition to meeting most basic project objectives, they must reduce or avoid impacts and be “potentially feasible.” (Guidelines, §15126.6; Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908.

Reasonable alternatives must be considered “even if they substantially impede the project or are more costly.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 750; Guidelines, §15126(d)(1).) Similar to the defects in the previous findings, the City cannot provide factual to support its claim for the absolute need for the WW as the only feasible proposal to resolve claimed risks, consistent with the Topanga decision. The City’s CEQA process is not remedied without evidence that analyzes actual risks requiring mitigation – not just by repairing pilings as may be needed – but by way of a WW.

The risks warranting the WW are not analyzed or proven remedied by the WW and therefore, the City’s findings do not “bridge the analytic gap” as required in Topanga.

The City’s findings again focus on whether the alternative meets the objectives as fully as the project, yet the Court noted that this type of weighing of benefits is not allowed when the factual analysis of an alternative’s “true infeasibility” has not been demonstrated. So it is here.

The City just added new language to the draft findings in its agenda report purporting that the alternative would also not “protect property, jobs, and economic livelihood provided by Wharf businesses” without supporting evidence to back up these new assertions.

Furthermore, the alternative’s infeasibility should have been discussed in the EIR and was not. The Court made a specific finding that the City’s reasons for

27.378

Page 8 of 12 ends

discounting Alternative 2 were insufficient. The City was aware that there was considerable support for adoption of the alternative. In order to fulfill its public disclosure obligations, the City should have provided the public with an opportunity to review the City’s new reasons for discounting the Alternative.

Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, held that an agency’s reasons for finding an alternative to be infeasible must be explained in the EIR. The case is quoted here at length to provide the reasoning for such a requirement.

The Regents miss the critical point that the public must be equally informed. Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process. We do not impugn the integrity of the Regents, but neither can we countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in light of CEQA’s fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their public officials.” To facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 []; People v. County of Kern, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841-842 [conclusory statements fail to crystallize issues]
An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.

If the Regents considered various alternatives and found them to be infeasible, we assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that they had good reasons for doing so. Those alternatives and the reasons they were rejected, however, must be discussed in the EIR in sufficient detail to enable meaningful participation and criticism by the public. “’[Whatever] is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.’” (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831 [EIR found inadequate], quoting Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist. 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 706 [104 Cal.Rptr. 197], [emphasis added].) If the Regents previously considered alternatives in their internal processes as carefully as they now claim to have done, it seems the Regents could have included that information in the EIR.
(Id. at 405-407.)

27.379

Page 9 of 12 ends

The RFEIR claims without support at page 4-65 that infeasibility need not be discussed in the EIR.

CEQA Findings. The comment states that the Court found that the City’s findings as to the infeasibility of Alternative 2 were not supported by substantial evidence and that a complete revised draft must correct this deficiency as the partial revision has not done so. Response: The findings referenced by the commenter are not part of the EIR. Rather, they are prepared to support approval of the Project after conclusion of the EIR process. The findings will be revised for City Council consideration later in the City’s administrative process for the Project.

The City thus erred in failing to include the required analysis in the REIR, failed to respond adequately to this comment, and failed to provide the basis for its conclusions.

Wharf Stability
The City again claims that “The Engineering Report concluded that the Westside Walkway is essential to improve safety on the Wharf …” [citing page 10-1] This is inaccurate. The entry on page 10-1 of the Engineering report under Summary, does not contain any reference to the WW as being essential to improve safety on the Wharf.

What the report says is “Additional piles to widen the Wharf will increase the Wharf’s ability to withstand these waves (future sea level rise) and other lateral forces.” Additional pilings are planned for many parts of the Wharf irrespective of the WW. If needed, an extra row of deck-level pilings could be attached to the current walkway outside the restaurants, providing stability, a buffer for logs and debris while avoiding the environmental problems associated with the WW. The finding that the WW is an essential component of stabilizing the Wharf is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

Furthermore, most of the piles needing replacement were under the demolished Miramar Restaurant. Theses have been replaced with a grant from the Federal Government. The map of pilings needing replacement (including those under the Miramar) are predominantly under the pavement, not under the restaurants.

In fact, Wharf designer and engineer Brunnier placed the pilings at a height of twenty- three feet to allow even big waves to flow under the Wharf. Putting obstacles in the way, such as the WW presents more problems than it solves.

27.380

Page 10 of 12 ends

The City further claims:

The record therefore supports the determination that proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements, as a whole and including the Westside Walkway are needed to wrap the existing Wharf in a protective layer of new infrastructure that will reduce risks to public health, safety, and economic activity, while also expanding access and recreational uses, consistent with the project objectives …
The City’s claim does not accurately summarize the engineering report. There is no reference in the engineering report to “wrap the existing Wharf in a protective layer of new infrastructure.”
The Court noted that alternatives for lateral stability are available. The engineering report concluded “the Wharf structure is in good condition overall” with less than 5% of pilings needing replacement, and that many have already been replaced. The road and substrate were cited as in poor condition but the City can solve these issue without implementation of the WW.

As the Court noted, the City must provide the underlying analysis and “bridge the analytic gap” as a basis for its conclusions, not just state bare conclusions without evidence.

Revised Recreation Section
The City claims that it has rectified the deficiencies in the recreation section of the REIR.

Don’t Morph the Wharf! offered the following extensive detailed comments to rebut the City’s estimation that impacts to recreation have been solved and fishing opportunities will not be lost. The City’s assurances that fishing opportunities will not be lost are not backed by substantial evidence and fail to mitigate the loss.

Despite stating that the popular tailgate fishing will be reduced by 1705 linear feet due to the new East Promenade, and current fishing areas lost to boat landings and pontoons, the city claims that “allowable fishing space will expand by 21% or 1000 linear feet.” A close look at the city’s reasoning and measurements behind this claim shows that they lack validity, as demonstrated in the following points.

Figures 4.8-3, 4.8-4 and 4.8-9 attempt to compare existing and proposed Fishing Areas. The drawings are difficult to read due to their small size and use of similar colors in the key. The hard copy at the library is no better. The Figure for proposed fishing includes areas that will not be suitable for fishing and/or a decision whether to include fishing will be made at a later date, so their inclusion in calculating future available

27.381

Page 11 of 12 ends

fishing areas is premature at best.

The city claims the “most pronounced expansion will enable 800 linear feet of fishing in among pilings and sheltered waters.” They name this “reef fishing” and cite the Western Walkway and the Terrace Overlook as these new fishing areas.

Both the Western Walkway and the Terrace Overlook, if built, will be located in the least sheltered of waters. The former faces the weather side, prevailing winds, waves and strong west to east currents. The latter faces the exposed southern end of the Wharf. The Terrace Overlook is supposed to be, as its name suggests, a viewing platform with tiered seating within a relatively small area. To add fishing to this area is unrealistic.

It should not be included in the Draft EIR as an assured activity. Will the city revise and acknowledge these limits in its calculations?
The Western Walkway is a confined space, 10 to 12 feet wide, with restaurants and plate glass windows on one side and a railing on the other. To add people fishing, far from their vehicles, casting their lines with people trying to pass by in a confined space, is at least a safety issue and compromises views of nature from the restaurants above. Shouldn’t this space more realistically be classified as a conflict zone? The Western Walkway is also planned to be seasonal, closed in winter. It is not appropriate to add it to the future available fishing areas without qualification. Will this qualification be added?
The decision on whether to allow fishing from the Western Walkway has not yet been made. It will be a future decision from the Public Works Department. Future unknowns cannot properly be factored in an environmental document as though they are guaranteed. Shouldn’t this fact be acknowledged?
To get to its figure of 1,000 linear feet, the city includes proposed fishing at the site of the ten new 25 foot outriggers on the east side as well as in the area of the gangplank leading to the South Landing and passenger vessels. It is doubtful that fishing will be allowed or possible from either of these sites. Wouldn’t it be a more accurate assessment of future fishing areas to exclude them from the calculations?
David McCormic, Project Manager, with respect to the above fishing calculations, stated at the zoom Community Meeting on 5/30/23 that “future policies may modify how fishing goes.”
If future policies may reduce the available fishing areas on the Wharf, how is this section going to be modified to reflect that fact?

27.382

Page 12 of 12 ends

Regarding the elimination of most of the tailgate fishing areas, the Draft states, “While the method of accessing many fishing opportunities would change to require a short walk from one’s vehicle, similar to what currently exists at the end of the Wharf, this would not result in elimination or substantial change of an existing recreational use or result in a significant adverse change to the physical environment, and therefore would not be considered significant.” The reference to “a short walk” is misleading. That “short walk” will involve crossing and navigating benches, people sitting, pedestrians and bicyclists. Removing tailgate fishing is a significant change to a long-standing historical recreation activity at the Wharf.

For the above reasons, the city’s claim of “no substantial change of an existing recreational use” is not supported by the evidence and should be revised. How will this revision be reflected in the FEIR? In response to these comments the RFEIR states that to “make-up” for any loss of existing fishing areas, the City proposes new areas that will be subject to future policy review. Securing future potential fishing opportunities cannot said to be accomplished when they depend upon enacting potential future policies and cannot make up for the loss of fishing opportunities described by the Master Plan which results in an impact to Recreation. Furthermore, some of the other areas proposed for fishing are patently unsafe due to “use conflicts”.

The City claims that the WW will contribute to new fishing areas despite a significant loss of tailgate fishing due to the East Promenade. This is manifestly proven false by the City’s recently released Agenda Report for January 9, 2024, that states the WW “would likely be closed seasonally due to winter conditions or bird nesting, and necessary storm repairs.” The reference to closure during winter conditions has been known, however the reference to closure during bird nesting is new. Since migratory birds nest and fledge during the spring, summer, and early fall months, the closure may extend year-round! That essentially renders the WW not as viable for fishing as the current areas on the Wharf.

Furthermore, new recreation uses, such as scuba tours, scuba diving, high diving or jumping from the Wharf, open water swimming, paddle boarding, surfing, e-foils and windsurfing, identified in the RDEIR, have not been fully described or been subjected to any analysis contained in the revised or previous document. Recreation impacts remain significant and unmitigated.

Thank you for your consideration,
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Attorney for Don’t Morph the Wharf!

27.383
From: CATHERINE O" KELLY
To: City Council
Subject: Please do not construct the walkway or add tall buildings to the wharf.

Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:59:21 PM
Item # 27 on the Agenda for January 9, 2024:

In regard to the vote tomorrow evening to approve or disapprove the proposed changes to the municipal wharf, please listen to your citizens and to the groups who have begged you not to make the absurd changes you are suggesting! I was a resident of your city for 50 years, but I still love the city I had to leave. I'm also a 25-year member of the Sierra Club and am writing as a member of that group.

With the recent high waves and the destruction that was caused up and down the Pacific Coast in California, I'm sure you now have second thoughts about constructing a pathway on the west side of the wharf, facing the tidal waves and subjecting anyone walking on that path to being swept into the bay!
For many of us, we are also opposed to the construction of 4-storey buildings out on the end of the pier, where the Dolphin restaurant is, and where visitors can see and hear the elephant seals underneath the pier.

Where is the money coming from that you want to spend on this unwanted project? Your city needs more affordable housing (that's why I had to leave). No one who I've talked to is in favor of the proposals you have made to dramatically change the face of the wharf.

Please listen to your citizens and put the money into simply upgrading the existing wharf with any safety measures it may need to assure its survival after the next major storms.

Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter.

J. Catherine O'Kelly
[email protected]

27.384
From: Gretchen
To: City Council
Subject: No to the Wharf Master Plan
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 1:27:23 PM
As a citizen of Santa Cruz, I want you to know that I DO NOT support this plan.

It’s good news that the Wharf is sound. I do NOT support a walk way for humans that interview with the natural habitat.

Gretchen Vannice
1555 Merrill St.

Spc 155
Santa Cruz, Ca 95062

27.385
From: d wirkman
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 27: Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination (ED/PL/PR)Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 1:46:07 PM
Mayor Keeley and Council,
Why must the Santa Cruz Wharf grow so large? Our wharf is located in sensitive marine habitat, very close to the San Lorenzo River mouth, which is inhabited by endangered coho salmon, threatened steelhead, and many other struggling species. As I commented previously during the CEQA process for the wharf expansion plan, I am concerned about adding so many more chemically treated pilings to the wharf to make it larger. The pilings will be treated with large amounts of preservatives, including ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) and a polyurea coating. According to the Initial Study and associated comments and responses, this combination of ACZA wood preservative plus polyurea coating has only been used for this particular application for a relatively short time, (about 15 years) and there have been some problems with it. The potential impacts to water quality and marine biota of adding the hundreds of additional pilings planned for this project have not been determined.

Maintaining so many more pilings will be costly to the city. Future budgetary concerns could mean cutting back on wharf repairs, including repair and replacement of deteriorated pilings, to the potential detriment of water quality and marine biota contamination, potentially impacting the food web over time.

I'm also concerned about the impacts to water quality and marine biota from the disruption of sediments that will occur during the installation of hundreds of new pilings. Contaminants buried in the sediments and in old, buried pilings, such as dioxin, mercury, arsenic and lead will be disturbed during construction. Is there a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for the wharf expansion project?
I'm concerned about the wisdom of adding the westside walkway. How well have factors such as storm wave direction and power, and climate change been considered? I hope that the recent giant storm waves demonstrated that the lowered walkway would likely increase impacts and damage to the wharf from the force of large, powerful storm waves and debris.

Creating a new, lower structure that will take the force of large waves rather than allowing waves to pass with minimal impact seems unnecessary and unwise. Have the forces the proposed wharf structure will need to withstand been fully and accurately modelled? Adding a large building to the end of the wharf, which was just damaged by massive waves, also seems impractical. The complexity and cost of storm damage repairs will likely skyrocket if a large structure is built at the end of the wharf.

As responsible stewards of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and of the endangered coho salmon and threatened steelhead that inhabit the San Lorenzo River it's incumbent upon our city's leaders to ensure that wharf construction is done with careful environmental consideration. As responsible stewards of our city's finances, a scaled-down wharf design is the responsible choice.

27.386
Thank you for considering my comments on the proposed expansion of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.

Sincerely,
Debra Wirkman
Santa Cruz City Resident

27.387
From: JoAnn Christiansen
To: City Council
Subject: Wharf
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 1:50:04 PM
To whom it may concern,
As a voter, who lives in Soquel I would like to strongly object to the changes proposed for the wharf. Put your energy into fixing the roadway, replacing the dumpsters in the heavy garbage cans with a new system that will protect the wharf. I am particularly concerned about migrating birds.

Thank you,
JoAnn Christiansen
[email protected]
413-586-6696
Sent from my iPad

27.388
From: Robin Brune
To: City Council
Cc: Gillian Greensite; [email protected]; Robin Brune Subject: Wharf Master Plan
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:23:49 PM
My name is Robin Brune. I am a member of the Sierra Club and the Don't Morph the Wharf group.

I am the original writer of the petition Don't Morph the Wharf and I am writing to note my objection to the Wharf Master Plan.

I support both the presentations of the Sierra Club and Don't Morph the Wharf.

I oppose the lowered walkway on the west side of the wharf, which the City's Historic Preservation Commission voted to remove from the Plan. I agree this walkway would degrade the visual character of the Wharf and that it is incompatible with the historic design. It would also impact migratory birds and disturb the sea lions below.

While the city claims it would not allow big commercial ships here, I am concerned that such a decision would change over time and adversely impact the marine sanctuary with such added sewage, noise, and disturbance.

I don't like the addition of three new buildings all 40 feet in height, almost double the size of current buildings. You are also planning to allow concerts and weddings in one of the buildings at the end. This is going to disturb the night life of the marine sanctuary, and also deprive the general public of the overall view at the end of the wharf for limited, high price usage, as well as affect the view from walkers on WestCliff drive.

I think the wharf structural renovations in Pismo Beach is a guide, they made a beautiful walkway allowing all to enjoy the ocean and they kept the tourist attractions on land.

Ventura County made similar choices.

We have a lovely downtown area right next to the Wharf that is usable. I see no need to add more "land" to the bay in order to support builders, and little else. It is doubtful many of the current restaurants and businesses on the wharf can survive the construction process and the increased costs that you will undoubtedly charge.You are looking to increase commercial space by 30 percent and this is a disservice to the traditional use of the wharf. It is likely we will lose our hometown feel and local businesses in favor of big business who can afford the increased fees. We have plenty of commercial space in Santa Cruz which is under utilized.

Let's keep the Marine Sanctuary a marine sanctuary, and not overbuild our wharf to our detriment.

Robin Brune

27.389
From: Andrea Rosenfeld
To: City Council
Subject: Comments re: Wharf master Plan
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:41:15 PM
Dear City Council:

I am writing to urge you to reject the Wharf Master Plan as currently proposed by city staff, in favor of adopting Alternative “B,” which eliminates the lower western walkway. I would also urge you to reject the proposal for building the new, large structures, particularly, the Landmark building at the end of the wharf.

As I’m sure you are very aware of many disputed aspects of this plan, I will highlight aspects below that are of particular concern to me:

I do not feel the city has in good faith responded to the Writ of Mandate issued by Judge Burdick when the city lost the 2022 case, Don’t Morph the Wharf v. City of Santa Cruz requiring the city to invalidate the entire EIR. The city has recirculated only part of the previous EIR and has limited public comments on the new recirculated version. I disagree that the city’s CEQA attorney has offered valid advice to the city in this regard.

The City’s Historic Preservation Commission voted in October 2023 to remove the lower western walkway because it would be “incompatible” with the original historic design of the wharf. Alternative B eliminates the walkway, yet the city did not select this option.

The impact to the migratory birds accessing their nests under the wharf has not been given the proper attention in the current EIR, with City staff only seeming to be concerned about delays of the construction due to the existence of the birds and their nests, not to the potential disruption to the birds.

Additionally, this walkway is expected to hold both anglers, who will now have fewer tailgating options, as well as pedestrians. How this will work, I cannot imagine. To say nothing of the danger of sneaker waves, or sudden severe weather conditions that could impact use of the walkway.

The engineering report indicates that only 5% of pilings need replacement (prior to the most recent storm). The report recommended that the single greatest impact on the pilings were the large garbage trucks, not the number of other vehicles on the wharf, and yet to date, nothing has been done by the city to implement solutions.

Large landmark buildings, a metal walkway just below dining windows, heightened buildings and new commercial launch areas to the east are all disturbing images to hold in my mind’s eye as I consider the now historic, quaint Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf. Although I know change is inevitable, we do not need to destroy the historic nature of the wharf to make upgrades.

As currently proposed, The Wharf Master Plan is based on falsehoods and does not address numerous concerns expressed by the public over the past several years. I urge you to take public comment and longstanding opposition to aspects of this plan into consideration and arrive at a compromise that sincerely considers the concerns of the public.

Regards,
Andrea Rosenfeld
Member, Don’t Morph the Wharf, Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter, COMMUNITY CITIZEN [email protected]
415.370.2154

27.390
From: Charlene Clarke & Bill Barnes
To: City Council
Subject: For Council Meeting January 9 - Comments on Item 27 Conset Calendar re, Wharf Master Plan Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:22:11 PM
We would like to comment on the current design and possible adoption today of our municipal wharf's Master Plan by our City Council (item 27 on the Consent Calendar).

While we support the City's efforts to stabilize and replace wharf pilings to ensure our wharf's structural safety, we are strongly opposed to the concept of a 870 ft walkway along the westside of the wharf just 8 feet below the wharf structure. This seems fool hardy given the recent closure of the wharf for repairs after our most recent storm.

Although we had reached out to the City to have a better idea of the cost of those repairs - a walkway of that size -- so exposed to incoming storm surf and surge just seems like a bad investment by the City.

In addition, we would urge the City Council to reject including the possibility of 3 40 ft buildings being added to the wharf. We believe the wharf has ample commercial space to serve visitors and residents alike. We would hate to see the wharf "morph" into San Francisco's Pier 39 by adding more height and visual clutter to our wharf.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Char Clarke
Bill Barnes
Bill Barnes & Charlene Clarke
Steamer Lane Cottage
227 Oregon Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

27.391
From: Barbara Wright
To: City Council
Subject: WMP Westside Walkway aka (amityville redux)
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:30:31 PM
Dear City Council,
The recent damage to the Dolphin and the pilings beneath it was caused by a failure to perform scheduled maintenance: why was that?
If the single-story Dolphin can be structurally damaged by neglected piers, high winds and surf, then what might befall the proposed “Landmark Building” adjacent to the Dolphin? And at thrice the height, weight and surface area of its neighbor? Perhaps that monstrosity should be named “The Spinnaker.” Also apropos because it will block denizens’ views of real spinnakers, notably on Wednesday evenings.

But I digress! Please don’t let the WMP city staff and their attorneys pretend that the “Westside Walkway” (envisioned by $$$$ architects who neither live here nor give a flying Guillemot about our wharf) might have averted the 2024 deck collapse and Dolphin damage.

The claim that the midsection walkway is necessary to fortify and stabilize the wharf is false:
there has been no threat to the wharf — above or below deck — along the proposed walkway length in 100+ years. Most recently, an unmoored boat smacked into the pilings, warranting repairs but causing no interruptions in business-as-usual.

Imagine what might happen to the new walkway when the next boat or rogue wave crashes into it?
Will the city staff urge the city council to propose residential tax increases to fund walkway st/roller death and accident lawsuits?
Or, might the following sign(s) need to be posted at the entrance to the westside walkway? “Tour the underside of an old pier, where migratory birds once nested and sea lions once congregated (USE AT YOUR OWN RISK: NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH OR INJURY (Santa Cruz City Ordinance #blahblahblah)”
Or: “THIS SECTION CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE PERMANENTLY." Tuesday, January 9th, you get to decide whether to scuttle WMP’s Westside Walkway (aka Alternative 2) and I urge you to vote YES!
PS. I love the current wharf admonition: "No Crabbing.” Sorry I cannot obey this time.

Barbara Wright
Rathburn Way

27.392
From: Dr. Susan Gyn
To: City Council
Subject: New wharf deck on westside of whart
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 4:24:49 PM
Dear Council Members,
After seeing the review of the wharf deck proposal, I would like to object to the planned structural change on the Santa Cruz wharf.

Thank you,
Susan Hughmanick, MD

27.393
From: A Webb
To: City Council; Fred Keeley
Subject: 1/9/23, Item #27, SC Wharf project
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 4:43:47 PM
This project needs to be scaled down significantly!
Tourists do not come to Santa Cruz wharf to have a commercial experience - they can have that anywhere. This historic wharf, its vistas all around, fishing with friends and family, sea lion viewing holes and watching marine life are number #1 sought after. Indeed these things are a generational tradition for locals and tourists alike.

Existing restaurants and boutiques do not need taller buildings and more floors to add more of the same. They need good promotion and a repaired roadway and pilings.

We do NOT need 3 new 40 foot tall buildings to block incomparable views that we value while walking the wharf. There's no comparison. Even viewing the wharf and the visitas over/beyond it from W. Cliff, the beach, the San Lorenzo river mouth cliffs, and the harbor lighthouse walkway can be magical for sunrises, sunsets, rainbows, and moonrises! Watching all manner of seabirds swarming above and diving next to the wharf will be ruined with such obstructions.

We do NOT need a lowered walkway on the west side! What a waste of money that would be in the face of climate change, rising ocean, and the ongoing increasing intensity of the storm and waves, the strongest swells of which hit that very side of the wharf! Anyone who witnessed the recent storms, or those of the last 15-20 years, saw waves hitting the top of the wharf, and the damage to pilings on the west side.

In addition, the lowered west side walkway will impact migratory birds (Guillemots) from accessing their nests under the Wharf when they return each year from Puget Sound. That, plus other below deck additions around the Wharf will likely mean the Guillemots will abandon their nests entirely.

Please focus on the things that MATTER:

1. Repairs to roadway and pilings;

2. Replacing dumpsters and heavy garbage trucks that cause further damage with a system that protects the wharf.

3. Downsize expansion on the east side

4. Say NO to three new excessively tall buildings

5. Say NO to the lowered walkway on the west side
Thank you to all those who work hard to preserve this historic marine landmark and its most treasured visitor experiences!

27.394
Sincerely,
Anita Webb
40-yr Santa Cruz resident
and frequent visitor with 3 generations to our valued historic wharf

27.395

WHARF MASTER PLAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

DETERMINATION
CHOOSESANTACRUZ.COM

CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 9, 2024

27.396

OVERVIEW
• Context
• What is the Master Plan?
• Why is it needed?
• Revised EIR
• Recommendation
• Next Steps

27.397

WHARF TODAY
• 2+ million visitors per year
• Top 3 regional visitor attraction
• 20+ local business partners
• Nearly 500 employees
~10% of City’s restaurant
workforce
• $30 million yearly sales
• $2.9 million in annual City revenue
(2015-2020 average)
• Community asset valued at ~$119.3 million (2018)

27.398

WHAT IS THE

WHARF MASTER
PLAN?
• Result of public engagement
process + engineering report
• A framework, not a prescription
• 20-30 year plan
• Financing tool (req’d by law)
• Set rules, goals, + guidelines
• Expands public access
+2.5 acres

27.399

THE WHARF

MASTER PLAN

WILL NOT
• Immediately authorize or fund any
development
• Allow Ocean-liners or cruise ships
• Remove “Sea lion viewing” holes
• Mandate tall buildings (40’ max)
• Significantly impact bird or marine life
• Close the door on community
engagement on Wharf projects
• Reduce fishing or sight-seeing
opportunities 27.400

OUTREACH
4 City Council meetings
9 Commission hearings
8 Focus group meetings
15+ Stakeholder meetings
10 Interagency meetings
4000+ Mailers + Notices
100th Anniversary Showcase
Broad News Coverage

27.401

STAKEHOLDERS
• Wharf Outreach Network
• 20+ Wharf Tenants
• Beach Area Business
• Marketing and Tourism
• Community Groups
• Civic Organizations
• Marine Industry
• Interagency Partners

27.402

ADVISORY BODY

INVOLVEMENT
• PLANNING COMMISSION
– 2.20.2014 – Update + feedback on draft WMP – 11.17.2016 – Recommend approval of MND/IS – 10.15.2020 – Rec. approval of EIR + WMP – 11.2.2024 – Rec. approval of Revised EIR + WMP • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
– 10.14.2020 – Rec. approval of EIR + WMP – 9.20.2023 – Continued to next meeting – 10.18.2023 – Reject staff recommend. + statement to remove WW • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
– 3.4.2014 – Update + feedback on draft WMP – 9.14.2020 – Update + feedback on WMP + Final EIR – 10.9.2023 – Rec. approval of Revised WMP + EIR

27.403

INFRASTRUCTURE

BACKLOG
• $14M+ likely needed today
• Engineering Report Prepared in 2014
• Result of age, wear + deferred
maintenance (i.e. budget constraints)
• Cost to rehab existing structure
– Pilings
– Deck + Paving
– Utilities, sewer, + landings
• Grants are rare for rehab vs. new
construction

27.404
$636,706
$11,404
$(1,453,707)
$4,099,624 $4,047,232
$2,593,525
$1,808,827
$2,509,305
$(2,000,000)
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020FY 2021FY 2022 FY 2023
Year End Estimate
Balance Expenses Revenues Maintenance + Ops Linear (Balance) INSURANCE PROCEEDS Wharf Revenues vs. Expenses (2015-2023)

27.405
WHAT’S NEW?
Stepped Overlook
East Promenade
Overlook w/ Ledgers
Western Extension
South Landing
Small Boat Landing
East Promenade
Gateway Entrance
Landmark
Building
Westside Walkway
Welcome Center
Events
Pavilion
Lifeguard Station Upgrade

27.406
CEQA

CHALLENGE
Don’t Morph the Wharf
- Feb. 2022, Court ruling
required City to correct:
• Recreational analysis
• Land use policies related
to recreation
• Rationale for rejection of
Alternative” (#2)
• Rescind approvals

27.407

RECREATION STUDIED
• Walking, Biking, and
Active Transportation
• Nature and Wildlife Viewing
• Recreational Fishing
• Small Craft Boating
• Open Water Sports
• Education and Science
• Cultural Activities, Events,
and Entertainment
• Dining and Shopping
• Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation

27.408
“SEA LION HOLE” FEASIBILITY
RPDEIR examined options to preserve or relocate the “sea lion viewing holes,” if needed to construct the landmark building.

27.409

SEA LION VIEWING

SEA LION VIEWING HOLES
30% PROJECT LEVEL PLANS FOR EASTERN PROMENADE SHOW
SEA LION VIEWING HOLES ARE PRESERVED AS IS.

27.410

RECREATIONAL

FISHING
• East promenade
• Westside Walkway
• Terrace overlook

POTENTIAL IMPACTS
- 21% increase in allowable fishing
- 430% in reef style fishing
- Tailgate fishing reduced by ~1,705’
- 80-100 spaces preserved
- Dedicated seating areas
- Reduced conflicts between fishing
+ pedestrian/bicycle access
- Expanded boat + westside fishing 27.411

RECREATIONAL

FISHING
• CA Dept. of Fish and Game

START AND STOP DATA
- Average daily fishers counted
at start and stop of sampling for
by CDFG staff.
4 58
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70

AVERAGE DAILY FISHERS, BY MONTH
(CDFG)
AVG Start Anglers AVG Stop Anglers

27.412

COMPARISON OF FISHING
- RPDEIR compared existing fishing opportunities with that proposed by WMP - Analysis included linear feet and type of fishing by habitat + catch opportunities

27.413

LAND USE

POLICIES
(RECREATION)
Documents Analyzed
• 2030 General Plan
• Local Coastal Program
• CA Coastal Act
• Parks Master Plan 2030
• SC Active Transportation Plan
• Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary Management Plan
• Beach South of Laurel Area Plan

27.414

LAND USE

POLICIES
(RECREATION)
Master Plan is consistent and would
not conflict with recreation policies
- Protect and enhance public access
+ coastal recreation
- Not intrude on beaches or bluffs
- Expand economic + educational
opportunities
- Provides free multi-modal access
- Maintain + expand fishing access 27.415

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

2.Expand and enhance maritime activities.

3.Integrate education and research initiatives.

4.Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5.Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

6.Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces.

7.Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience.

8.Improve service and maintenance operations.

9.Enhance public safety

27.416
ALTERNATIVE 2
• Remove Westside Walkway
• Reduce building 40’ (already included)

POTENTIAL IMPACTS
- Does not provide additional lateral
stability or defensive barrier
- Loss of new pedestrian public access
- Reduction in fishing opportunities
- No new accessible water access on
westside of Wharf
- No new wildlife viewing or sightseeing
from westside of Wharf
- Loss emergency response access

27.417

RESILIENCE IMPROVEMENTS
West walkway

GUARD PILES

PROTECT AGAINST

MARINE DEBRIS

VULNERABLE
PILES + DIFFICULT

TO REPAIR

LIGHTWEIGHT

PERMEABLE

DECKING

DEBRIS REMOVAL

27.418

REVISED

RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt a resolution adopting the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
2) Adopt a resolution approving Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and approving the revised Wharf Master Plan under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
3) Adopt the revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, subject to one of the following packages of modifications proposed by staff; and,
a) The Revised Master Plan, as is, plus additional revisions recommended in this report; or, b) The Revised Master Plan, with the alternative chapter for end of Wharf development and all references of the Landmark Building removed, plus additional revisions recommended in this report, or c) The Revised Master Plan, with the alternative chapter for end of Wharf development and all references of the Landmark Building removed, plus additional revisions recommended in this report, approving Alternative 2 of the Revised EIR (Project without Westside Walkway), directing staff to make conforming changes to the Wharf Master Plan consistent with Council’s approval, directing staff to obtain additional technical studies of options to improve the resiliency of the Wharf to climate change and wave damage and return to Council with recommendations from the studies; and 4) Direct staff to prepare a Public Works Plan with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for implementation of the Wharf Master Plan.

27.419

ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER
(BAYWARD END)
• Removes Landmark Building
• Anticipates that future
development will be needed to
sustain the bayward end
• Calls for new public process
when planning new structures
• Ties future development to
wharf needs, not speculation
• Focuses on human experience

BAYWARD END

27.420
ALTERNATIVE 2
• Would not protect from
marine debris; or,
• Dissipate wave force
AKA “wave force attenuation”

WAVE FORCE ATTENTUATION

PERMEABLE DECKING

27.421

WAVE DISSIPATION
CAPITOLA WHARF (JAN. 5, 2023)

27.422
https://youtu.be/DpwCqt3GRwo

OVERTOPPING
SEACLIFF PIER (JAN. 5, 2023)

27.423

WESTSIDE WALKWAY

EAST PROMENADE

27.424

NEXT STEPS
• Prepare a Public Works Plan with
the Coastal Commission
• Coastal Conservancy Resilience
Grant in February 2024 ($6,893,000)
– Repair of outer East Parking Lot
– Interpretive Plan
– Outreach, Permitting, + Engineering
• East Promenade
• Small Boat Landing
• South Landing
• Entrance Gates
– Entrance Gates Relocation

27.425

FUTURE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Many opportunities ahead for
ongoing public engagement +
design input:
• As plan proposals become
funded projects
• Commission + council hearings
• State + federal permitting
• Outreach for grants
• Design refinements
• Interpretive plan

27.426

REVISED

27.427

PUBLIC COMMENT
• Questions
• Comments

27.428
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/18/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/09/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.11 – Delivery Driver Tipping at Section 5.11.030 - Exceptions (CA)
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapter 5.11 – Delivery Driver Tipping at Section 5.11.020 “Tipping Option Requirement” and 5.11.030 “Exceptions” pertaining to delivery driver tipping.

BACKGROUND: At its regular meeting of December 12, 2023, after several months of study and extensive outreach to the package delivery industry, the City Council approved for final adoption an ordinance adding Chapter 5.11 – Delivery Driver Tipping (the “Tipping Ordinance”) to the Municipal Code, and directed staff to return at its January 9, 2024 meeting to consider amending the ordinance as set forth below.

DISCUSSION: The recently adopted Tipping Ordinance, when it is implemented in June of 2024, will require delivery companies to provide residential customers the ability to tip their delivery drivers, with certain exemptions specified in Section 5.11.030, including:
a. Delivery companies with six (6) or fewer employees;
b. Delivery drivers who are independent contractors;
c. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who engage in regular face-to-face interactions with customers including, but not limited to, furniture and appliance deliveries, service calls, installation services and similar transactions.
d. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement;
e. The United States Postal Service; or
f. Business-to-Business deliveries.

At the December 12, 2023 meeting, the Council approved the Tipping Ordinance for final adoption, and directed staff to return at the January 9, 2024 meeting to amend Sections 5.11.020 and 5.11.030 as follows:

Section 5.11.020:
 Under subsection (b) renumber items a through e as 1 through 5.

28.1 Section 5.11.030
 Under subsection (a): renumber to replace a through f with 1 through 6.  Add new subsections 7 and 8 to read as follows:

7. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce;

8. Any motor carrier holding interstate for hire motor carrier operating authority from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or any federally certificated air carrier operating under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.  Add subsection (b): The exceptions in subsection (a) shall not apply to delivery companies that both process consumer goods orders and arrange for transportation in a single transaction.”
The ordinance attached hereto is responsive to Council’s direction.

Health in All Policies (HiAP) – The proposed ordinance is consistent with the HiAP framework, particularly equity and sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT: No significant fiscal impact anticipated.

Prepared and Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE - CLEAN.DOCX

2. ORDINANCE - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

28.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ CHAPTER 5.11 “DELIVERY DRIVER TIPPING” AT SECTIONS 5.11.020 “TIPPING OPTION REQUIREMENT: AND 5.11.030 “EXCEPTIONS”
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 5.11 (Delivery Driver Tipping) is hereby amended at Section 5.11.020 and

1. During the checkout or order placement process;

2. Through a hyperlink in an SMS or e-mail notifying the customer of the delivery status;

3. On printed material affixed to the delivery box or within the package with instructions on how to leave a tip;

4. On an order/delivery tracking page that a customer has access to; or

5. A generally available website that customers are directed to at which a tip can be given for a specific delivery by providing a tracking number or other unique identifier to the delivery company. This website must be easily accessible and discoverable such as, for example, by including its web address and instructions on the delivery company’s packing label.

5.11.030 – EXCEPTIONS.
(a) This ordinance shall not apply to:

1. Delivery companies with six (6) or fewer employees;

2. Delivery drivers who are independent contractors;

3. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who engage in regular face-to-face interactions with customers including, but not limited to, furniture and appliance deliveries, service calls, installation services and similar transactions.

4. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement;

28.3 5. The United States Postal Service; or

6. Business-to-Business deliveries.

7. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce;

8. Any motor carrier holding interstate for hire motor carrier operating authority from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or any federally certificated air carrier operating under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (b) The exceptions in subsection (a) shall not apply to delivery companies that both process consumer goods orders and arrange for transportation in a single transaction.” SECTION 2. Severability.

If any section or portion of this chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter, which shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 3. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in force and take effect on June 9, 2024.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 9th day of January, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

28.4 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this ___ day of ______, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: _____________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above
and foregoing document is the
original of Ordinance No. 2024-XX
and that it has been published or
posted in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Santa Cruz.
___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

28.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ CHAPTER 5.11 “DELIVERY DRIVER TIPPING” AT SECTIONS 5.11.020 “TIPPING OPTION REQUIREMENT: AND 5.11.030 “EXCEPTIONS”
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 5.11 (Delivery Driver Tipping) is hereby amended at Section 5.11.020 and

5.11.030 to read as follows:
“5.11.020 – TIPPING OPTION REQUIREMENT.
(a) All delivery companies, as defined in Section 5.11.010, operating within the City of Santa Cruz shall offer a tipping option to their customers, either through their website, mobile application, or other means of electronic communication. Companies engaged in the shipping or delivery of products or packages on their own behalf or on behalf of third parties from the point of origin to the final residential destination shall, jointly and severally, be responsible for compliance with this Chapter including, but not limited to third-party contractors such as, for example, Amazon Delivery Service Partners. (b) The tipping option shall be prominently displayed and easily accessible to the customer by one or more mechanisms that may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
1a. During the checkout or order placement process;
2b. Through a hyperlink in an SMS or e-mail notifying the customer of the delivery status;
3c. On printed material affixed to the delivery box or within the package with instructions on how to leave a tip;
4d. On an order/delivery tracking page that a customer has access to; or 5e. A generally available website that customers are directed to at which a tip can be given for a specific delivery by providing a tracking number or other unique identifier to the delivery company. This website must be easily accessible and discoverable such as, for example, by including its web address and instructions on the delivery company’s packing label.

5.11.030 – EXCEPTIONS.
(a) This ordinance shall not apply to:
1a. Delivery companies with six (6) or fewer employees; 2b. Delivery drivers who are independent contractors;
3c. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who engage in regular face-to-face interactions with customers including, but not limited to, furniture and appliance deliveries, service calls, installation services and similar transactions. 4d. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement;

28.6 5e. The United States Postal Service; or
6f. Business-to-Business deliveries.

7. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce;

8. Any motor carrier holding interstate for hire motor carrier operating authority from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or any federally certificated air carrier operating under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (b) The exceptions in subsection (a) shall not apply to delivery companies that both process consumer goods orders and arrange for transportation in a single transaction.” SECTION 2. Severability.

SECTION 3. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in force and take effect on June 9, 2024.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 9th day of January, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

28.7 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this ___ day of ______, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

28.8 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/12/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/09/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Affirming Santa Cruz’s Commitment and Support for Ceasefire and Peace (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution affirming Santa Cruz’s commitment and support for ceasefire and peace.

BACKGROUND: Over the past several months, many Santa Cruz community members have actively engaged with city leaders, expressing profound concern regarding the mass and rapid loss of human life in Israel and Palestine. Community members have also conveyed the impacts on their own lives, sharing painful stories of loved ones affected by the violence, requesting local elected bodies give voice to their concerns and help advocate for a just and humane resolution.

The City of Santa Cruz embraces a Health in All Policies framework recognizing that local governments play a role in community well-being through policy and decision making by prioritizing the three pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability, and has a historical dedication to international cooperation, positioning itself as a city that values diverse perspectives and seeks global responsibility.

DISCUSSION: The resolution presented by the City of Santa Cruz is rooted in the City's commitment to principles of justice, equality, and international cooperation. With input from a multitude of community members, leaders, and neighbors, with varying perspectives and views, it reflects a comprehensive and nuanced approach to addressing the impacts felt locally from the mass and rapid loss of lives in Palestine and Israel.

The resolution recognizes and incorporates the diverse opinions and differing perspectives within the community about the potential impact of a ceasefire. Despite these differences, the resolution prioritizes a shared desire within the community to prevent further violence and deaths, and advocates for solutions of peace. The City calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the entry of humanitarian assistance aligns with international humanitarian law.

In addition, the resolution goes beyond immediate actions and encourages the community to engage in activities that foster tolerance, empathy, education, and understanding. The added declaration of "City of Santa Cruz, California Peace Month" for the month of January 2024 reflects a commitment to support ongoing dialogue and peace-building efforts. Overall, the

29.1 resolution seeks to address concerns from the people of Santa Cruz, promote peace, and support the community in building understanding and empathy.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES:

The resolution aligns with the City’s Health in All Policies framework, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing diverse community perspectives, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity or nationality, and advocating for the well-being of all residents.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Submitted By:

Sonja Brunner
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

29.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AFFIRMING SANTA CRUZ’S COMMITMENT AND SUPPORT FOR CEASEFIRE AND PEACE WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz, with a population of 62,000 residents, has adopted a Health in All Policies framework which calls on the City Council and residents alike to value and prioritize diverse community perspectives and to advocate for the health, safety, dignity, freedom, and equality of all people, regardless of religion, race, or nationality; and WHEREAS, in the 1982 Planetary City resolution, the City of Santa Cruz resolved that “to solve world problems and live in peace, all people must share global responsibility for international cooperation and extend their citizenship responsibilities beyond state and nation” and declared itself a “Planetary City, dedicated to international cooperation and just world law”; and WHEREAS, the people of Santa Cruz recognize the suffering of the peoples of Palestine and Israel and the current humanitarian crisis that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions of civilians and children
WHEREAS, over the last several months, hundreds of community members have reached out to city leaders through written communications, phone calls, meetings, and a presence at City Council meetings regarding concerns about the mass and rapid loss of human life; and WHEREAS, some community members have shared how the mass and rapid loss of human life has impacted their own lives, through connections and painful stories of loved ones, friends, and family members who have been killed or displaced, as well as discrimination and hate incidents experienced at home in Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, many community members have called upon city leaders to adopt a resolution that calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all parties to protect the safety and security of innocent civilians; the release of all hostages; the unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, including the restoration of food, water, electricity, medical supplies; and the respect for international humanitarian law; and
WHEREAS, some community members have also asked the City Council to not call for a ceasefire due to concerns about what a ceasefire means for them, specifically the destruction of Israel and its people and the creation of further divisions within our community; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz recognizes that members of our community are feeling anxious, hurt, and fearful about the impacts both in Palestine and Israel and within local communities around the world, and
WHEREAS, in spite of differences within our community, all express a shared desire to prevent further violence and deaths of civilians and children, many of whom are connected to people right here in Santa Cruz; and

29.3 WHEREAS, in alignment with other national and international leaders and organizations, we must do all we can to voice advocacy for all parties to find a way to a sustainable ceasefire, leading to a sustainable peace.

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

1. Acknowledges the mass suffering of the peoples of Palestine and Israel, and the direct impacts to the people of Santa Cruz.

2. Stands united against violence and affirms our shared humanity and wish for peace.

3. Supports all efforts to establish a collaborative monitored agreement to end violence and support peaceful dialogue among all parties.

4. Calls for a permanent, sustainable, and immediate ceasefire by all parties such that a future can be created where Palestinians and Israelis can live together with dignity in peace, equality, and justice.

5. Urges the release of all hostages, and immediate entry of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza, including the restoration of food, water, electricity, medical supplies; and the respect for international humanitarian law; and

6. Encourages our community to develop and participate in activities that bring us together, foster tolerance, empathy, education, and understanding of each other and people of all backgrounds and religious faiths.

7. Declares that January 2024 will be “City of Santa Cruz, California Peace Month” where all can have the opportunity to participate in activities and dialogue that promotes peace in Santa Cruz, Palestine and Israel, and around the world.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution expressing the voices of our community be sent to the offices of Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, Assemblymember Dawn Addis, State Senator John Laird, Governor of California Gavin Newsom, U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta, U.S. Senator Laphonza Butler, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, U.S. President Joe Biden, and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, urging them to take immediate action to help be a voice for an end to violence, to prevent the further loss of civilian lives, and to advocate for peace and compliance with international humanitarian law.

29.4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ______________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

29.5 29.6

29.7 29.8

29.9 29.10
From: Dorah
To: City Council
Subject: Approve the Ceasefire resolution!
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:16:52 AM
Dear Mayor & City Council,
As a second generation US citizen and an Ashkenazi Jew who belongs to Temple Beth El, I plead with you to pass a ceasefire resolution. Many, many of my relatives on both my parents’ sides were killed by the Nazis, in Treblinka, Dachau and other camps. When people from Gaza talk about having dozens of their family killed or even an entire family line obliterated, I feel such anguish! I know what it’s like to realize that you and the next generations have ghost grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins and no one in your own generation.

My family lost hundreds of members under the Nazis’ ethnic cleansing. I don’t want the same thing to happen to innocent Palestinians who were already suffering under a harsh government and Israeli Occupation. Half of Europe’s Jews and droves of Romani, LGBTQ and other marginalized peoples were killed by the Nazis because the rest of the world stood by even after WW II was underway, despite clear evidence of the mass killings.

The US government is not just standing by, it is actively abetting Israel’s war crimes by funding weaponry and vetoing UN resolutions. That is why we are turning to you, our local elected officials. Jimmy Panetta and other California Congressional members and California’s Senators are not listening to the thousands of constituents who have been calling for ceasefire since mid-October.

If Santa Cruz and enough other cities & counties pass ceasefire resolutions, we expect that our federal Administration and Congress will stop Israel’s mass murder and collective punishment of civilians.

We want a permanent ceasefire, humanitarian aid to the Israelis harmed in the October 7th attacks and to the Gazan and West Bank Palestinians harmed in Israel’s retaliation, an end to the Occupation and an end to the billions of dollars given to Israel to buy US manufacturers’ weapons. As the Rev. Dr. King often said: “Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
Sincerely,
Dorah L. Rosen,
Registered voter
122 Kirby St.

Santa Cruz 95060
Pronouns: She/hers
With gratitude and respect to the Amah Mutsun, Uypi, Quiroste, Zayante, Coastanoan Ohlone and others who stewarded and continue to steward the unceded lands currently known as Santa Cruz County.

29.11 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: No to ceasefire
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 7:12:48 PM
Please tell me that no one in their right mind is actually considering voting for this ridiculous cease fire city council support call to action. I am part of the Jewish community and have been absolutely devastated by the idea that anyone would believe Palestine/Hamas wants a cease fire or to consider any compromise with Israel. They already broke the last one -and refused any negotiations the last several times they have been offered. Hamas are continually calling for the genocide of Jewish people. Anyone that supports this- is a monster. Focus your energy on bringing home the hostages that are currently being tortured by (Palestinian elected) Hamas, and make sure there is a safe return for them to Israel.

Devastated Santa Cruz resident

29.12 From: Judi Grunstra
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 29
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:01:50 AM
Dear Mayor and Council,
Not every Bay Area city takes an official stand. Also, invoking the Health in All Policies framework in this case is a real stretch.

Judi Grunstra
https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/04/alameda-city-council-rejects-mayors-lettercalling-for-ceasefire-in-gaza/

29.13 From: Garrett
To: City Council
Subject: 1.9.23 Agenda Item #29 Resolution caving in to the usual (UC)SC grievance mongers Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:57:09 AM
Agenda Item #29 Resolution caving in to the usual (UC) SC adoptive grievance mongers, socialist DSA, UCSC woke groomed and indoctrinated (and others) Dear Council,
I can appreciate your predicament when the council is descended upon by so many faux emotional protestors for hours and hours last meeting. So sorry for you.

As to the resolution, it misses several points.
a) Hamas is a terrorist state bent on the total destruction and death of Israel. b) Israel has the right to exist, has historical claim to the land as valid as any people (more actually)
c) Israel has the right to defend itself.

All of those should be acknowledged in any resolution. Might work well in the WHERAS(s) section.

I support resolution items #1,2,6,7, not so much the others.

Yeah, sure, peace is better than war. By all means, let's have peace but get real.

Enforcing peace exactly how? "a collaborative monitored agreement" doesn't do that. And then what if the peace isn't honored (let's say by Hamas who has broken many such agreements)? You don't say.

Maybe you left off HAMAS on the cc of this resolution because if they don't buy into it, it's worthless. Same-o Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and the rest of the anti-Israel axis. This is clearly an attempt to side with the Gazarians and excuse their terrorist ways. You don't even mention the atrocities of Oct 7.

However, I oppose escalated involvement by the US fearing the same type of endless war we have gotten sucked into over and over. We have no interest in that and should say so.

The pro-Palestinian protestors all over the world have acted miserably blocking freeways, celebrations, holy places, at the site of 911, and threaten violence themselves which shows their true colors as anti-West revolutionaries.

Some have these very different agendas and are yes, quite the anti-Semites.

29.14 I appreciate your predicament but don't be intimidated or show cowardice.

In a very real sense, Israel is the front line of democracy in the middle-East and the conflict is an old, very old, East vs West one.

You should be on the side of the Western values and beliefs that are very different than typical middle Eastern ones.

The citizens of Gaza are not exactly cupcakes. They elected terrorist Hamas, support them, have shown glee at the atrocities committed by Hamas, engage in fake propaganda, and indoctrinate their children to hate Israel.

It is a vexing situation that has reached the boiling point of war.

Sincerely, Garrett Philipp

29.15 From: Joan Timpany
To: City Council
Subject: Please consider drafting a new version of the Resolution re: Gaza Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 4:25:49 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and members of Santa Cruz City Council, I am writing to ask that you oppose the City Council Resolution entitled “Affirming Commitment and Support for Ceasefire and Peace.”
While seeking peace is essential, the language of the proposed resolution will only deepen the divide within our local community.

We must strive for peace, safety, and the inclusion of all people, I believe that the resolution in its current form fails to reflect these values. The complexity of the issues requires a nuanced approach that unites rather than divides our community.

We need to promote dialogue and understanding. We can work together towards drafting a resolution that encapsulates our shared goals of peace and inclusivity.

I ask you to please vote "No" on the resolution as it stands.

Regardless of how each of us may feel about the current war and the events that led to it, the language of this resolution serves to divide our community rather than foster critical and open dialogue that supports peace. Please give peace a chance.

Joan Timpany, Santa Cruz Resident

29.16 From: Anthony Sloss
To: City Council
Subject: Middle East Resolution
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 9:34:21 AM
City Council members,
The current resolution call for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza without addressing the need for the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas, the need for internationally monitored elections in Gaza, and a condemnation of the October 7 savage attack on unarmed citizens of Israel is clearly biased and anti-Israel. As it stands, this resolution is not pro-peace, it is propaganda for the narrative that one actor, Israel, is at fault and to blame.

Yes, I want a peace and security for all peoples in the Middle East, but simply calling for a cease-fire while ignoring the horrific terrorist attack of October 7 and countless attacks before that, the history of rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza into Israel, the explicit goal of Hamas to destroy the state of Israel, and many other historical facts, makes this resolution a divisive and prejudiced statement that will spur anti-Israel sentiment and quite possibly more rhetoric against jewish students on the UCSC campus.

You have alternatives. You can support alternative resolutions that acknowledge the suffering of both sides, call for an end to all forms of hate, an end to anti-islamic and anti-semitic rhetoric, such as that passed by the City of Santa Clara United Against Hate resolution.

This resolution will stoke more division, anger and hate in our community. Please create an alternative resolution that unites the community against all forms of hateful acts and rhetoric.

Respectfully,
Tony Sloss
Santa Cruz

29.17 From: Sarah Young
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback: another Santa Cruz Jew in support of the Ceasefire resolution Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 11:34:41 AM
Dear City Council,
I know that the ceasefire resolution is getting a lot of attention. Thank you for spending so much time on it, with all the other million things you have to attend to.

I am a Santa Cruz Jew that is strongly in favor of passing the resolution as written. There are many of us. While it’s true that Santa Cruz alone can’t influence the current situation, joining in with hundreds and possibly thousands of cities and towns across the country can have an impact on policy, by demonstrating widespread lack of support for the war.

I know there is a lot of fear of division in the Jewish community. We can work on that. I have lived most of my life here, and have been a member of one or the other of the local temples for over 20 years. I believe we can work with each other on those fears.

Thank you for holding strong to pass the resolution.
best,
Sarah Young
941 Delaware, SC.

29.18 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Gaza
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 1:01:36 PM
Importance: High
Dear Councilmembers:

We strongly encourage you to support a resolution for the unconditional cessation of Israel's genocidal assault on innocent children, women and men in the Gaza Strip.

Most Gazans are either refugees themselves or descendants of refugees from the 1948 expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes through violence itself or the threat of violence. Most citizens of the US are ignorant of these crimes and subsequent ethnic cleansing by the Israeli military. (UN Secretary General Guterres is correct: this history did NOT start on October 7, but has been underway for more than seven decades!) All of this is happening before our eyes. The white-supremacist societies of the US and Europe are turning a blind eye to the massacres, just like they did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and so on.

Stop the indiscriminate murder of innocent human beings NOW and begin the process of negotiation and a political resolution to this human tragedy.

Sincerely,
Gigo deSilvas and Robert deFreitas (95060)

29.19 From: Lee Taiz
To: City Council
Subject: Opposed to City Council Resolution 29
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 4:24:07 PM
Dear City Council,
Although I am not a member of the Jewish community, it is clear to me that the City Council Resolution “Affirming Commitment and Support for a Ceasefire and Peace” as it stands is decisive to the Santa Cruz Community and does not actually promote peace or safety, or inclusiveness. I hope you will oppose it. Antisemitism has become rife in our community and on the UCSC campus. I hope you as city council members will to your best to combat it.

Lee Taiz
328 Oxford Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

29.20 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: quit wasting time and energy on Isreal/Palestine Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 6:09:25 AM
We obviously have way more pressing local issues that you are supposed to address.

Thanks,
Neal Saiki
2099 El Rancho Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

29.21 From: Doug Putnam-Pite
To: City Council
Subject: No cease fire resolution
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:34:10 AM
I strongly urge the city council to not pass a ceasefire resolution. If you want to pass a resolution ask Hamas to denounce terroism and lay down their weapons. This is not something the city council should be working on. There are many more urgent local issues that need to be addressed.

Regards,
Doug Putnam-Pite

29.22 From: Debra Ellis
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Vote YES on the Ceasefire Resolution on 1/9; reject amendments that seek to weaken its intent or dehumanize Palestinians
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:39:24 AM
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I am an active, 34 year resident and registered voter of the City of Santa Cruz.

I am calling on you to pass the ceasefire resolution on the 1/9 agenda and reject amendments that set out to 1) remove the word “ceasefire” 2) condition humanitarian aid and 3) denounce the violence by Hamas without denouncing 75 years of continued violence and occupation by Israel.

I strongly oppose any other changes that weaken the intent of this resolution, justify the extreme violence taking place, diminish humanitarian aid for any reason, or dehumanize the Palestinian people in any way.

I strongly support the inclusion of the following calls made by this ceasefire resolution:
+ A permanent and immediate ceasefire.
+ The release of all hostages.
+ The unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. + The restoration of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies to Gaza. + The respect for international law and protection of the security of all innocent civilians.

And to the Board of Supervisors – I understand Supervisors Manu Koenig, Zach Friend, and Bruce McPherson do not support a ceasefire in Gaza. I urge you to reconsider your stance. I am calling on you to agendize a ceasefire resolution that includes the calls listed above at your next meeting and pass it.

Our Humanity Depends On All of US Staying Human,
Debra Ellis
Debra Ellis
(831) 440-7664

29.23 From: Dennis
To: City Council
Subject: Vote no on cease fire
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 9:46:47 AM
Dear City Council,
The complex, tragic situation in Gaza and Israel is heartbreaking, but that does not make it an agenda item for the Santa Cruz City Council.

There are many important issues facing the Council, which will impact our local community. No one, outside of the city of Santa Cruz, will pay any attention to the Council’s position on the complex war in the Middle East.

Please vote no on any resolution which takes a stand on this issue.

Dennis Hagen
Westside, SC

29.24 From: Michele A. Halligan
To: City Council
Subject: Please support the resolution!
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 10:14:06 AM
I'm writing to offer support for a resolution calling for a Permanent and Immediate Cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas.

I believe it's the right thing to do under the circumstances as we know them from the news.

Good luck in making your decision,
Michele Halligan
[email protected]
2091 Huntington Drive
Aptos, CA 95003

29.25 From: Joe De Meo
To: City Council
Subject: Middle east
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 12:11:39 PM
Esteemed Council,
We elected all of you to deal with local issues which you have control over We are all upset with the death and destruction going on in the middle east as well as Ukraine and elsewhere. That being said I feel you have enough on your plate without a small group of activists pressuring you to make a statement on the war which will have no effect but to upset some of our community.

I ask you to stick with city business.

Regards Joe De Meo

29.26 From: Marilyn Rigler
To: City Council
Subject: Resolution Item 29
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 2:18:58 PM
Dear Council Members and Mayor Fred Keeley,
I Have thought long and hard about the resolution which the council is now considering. What do you hope to accomplish? I am Jewish. I do not want Plastinians,Gazans or Houtis to perish.

The world is experiencing difficult and complicated times. I feel we need to pursue compassion to all but not through a ressolution. Is it possible to talk with each other without anger?
I elected my city council to take care of the needs of our city. We need solutions to problems like transit, crime, homelessness. I am hopeful that you will pursue these issues starting today.

Thank you, Marilyn Rigler
622 Western Drive, SC95060

29.27 From: Erik Staats
To: City Council
Subject: Vote for the ceasefire resolution
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 5:06:21 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I would like to start by condemning the horrific actions taken by Hamas on October 7 of last year. As with any other nation, Israel has the right the defend itself.

However, Israel's response has gone too far and is risking its own security. It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel cannot wipe out Hamas in Gaza, and, what's more, Hamas has started actively recruiting in Lebanon. Israel's actions are merely sowing the seeds of terrorism throughout the Middle East.

While the IDF is more than capable of preventing the destruction of Israel at the hands of Hamas, the wide scale destruction in Gaza risks the entry of Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, and others that could seriously jeopardize Israeli security. In such a scenario, the US undoubtedly would be drawn into yet another conflict in the Middle East and commit troops to the region, including service members from Santa Cruz. This would have a direct impact on our community.

In a Wall Street Journal essay, Richard Haass writes, "One rule of much Middle East history is that things get worse before they get even worse." It's time for Israel to step back from the brink before it gets even worse.

I urge the Santa Cruz city council to add our collective voice to the growing international chorus calling for a cease fire in Gaza and the entry of humanitarian assistance.

Respectfully,
Erik Staats
Registered voter
555 Pacific Ave
Santa Cruz 95060

29.28 From: Laurel Maxwell
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Please Pass Ceasefire Resolution 01/09
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 5:53:28 PM
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I am an active, registered voter of the City of Santa Cruz.

To the Board of Supervisors – I understand Supervisors Manu Koenig, Zach Friend, and Bruce McPherson do not support a ceasefire in Gaza. I urge you to reconsider your stance. I am calling on you to agendize a ceasefire resolution that includes the calls listed above at your next meeting and pass it.

Thank you,
Laurel

29.29 From: William Rentz
To: City Council
Subject: Demand a cease-fire in Gaza -- it"s your duty to your constituents Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 6:06:33 PM
This is a critical concern to your constituents. All of your constituents pay taxes, and those taxes feed into the $38 billion per year ($10 million per day) that this country is giving to Israel to enable Israel to slaughter innocent women, men, and children in Gaza -- now over 22,000 dead, all of their homes destroyed.

All that money now given to Israel could instead go to local governments to help deal with some of our own problems. A large part of you constituency, likely a big majority, want an immediate cease fire to stop this slaughter and allow the return of the remaining hostages. A cease fire is the only way to stop the slaughter and return the hostages. We, your constituents, demand it. Washington does not listen to your constituents' voices. You, as an institutional part of our system of national government, can speak more loudly than ordinary citizens can speak. You have a duty to do for your constituents what they cannot do for themselves as effectively as you can and so to demand that Washington do whatever it can to get the ceasefire.

You do not have to decide how, or know how, or tell Washington how to accomplish that ceasefire. You need only demand it, so that Washington will figure out how to get it done. Thank you. -- William K. Rentz
242 Moore St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

29.30 From: Bonnie Bush
To: City Council
Subject: FW: updated ceasefire letter from Santa Cruz Mental Health Professionals Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 7:53:55 AM
Attachments: image001.png
1_9_24_ SCMPH4Palestine Demand for Ceasefire Resolution.pdf Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
In observance of the Holidays, City offices will be closed starting December 25, 2023 and re-opening January 8, 2024. Accordingly, our response times for public records act requests during this closure will be delayed. We will, however, diligently process any pending requests upon our return. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

From: SC Mental Health Professionals for Palestinian liberation <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2024 3:26 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh KalantariJohnson <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>; Laura Schmidt <[email protected]>; Lisa Murphy <[email protected]>; Suzanne Haberman <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: updated ceasefire letter from Santa Cruz Mental Health Professionals Good morning,
We are re-submitting our letter to you with a dozen more signatures added (we have 106

29.31 signatures from local therapists), requesting that you will vote "yes" on the ceasefire resolution this Tuesday, without removing the word "ceasefire" from the resolution, and calling for unrestricted entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza. We've spent hundreds of hours, cumulatively, on this project and hope you will read our statement.

Thank you and see you Tuesday,
The Santa Cruz Mental Health Professionals for Palestine

29.32 SCMPH4Palestine Demand for Ceasefire Resolution
1/8/24
Dear Santa Cruz City Council Members, County Supervisors, City Staff Members and to whom it may concern:

We are a collaborative group of therapists and other mental health professionals local to the Santa Cruz area. We find it imperative to take immediate action to address the violence and humanitarian crisis in Palestine. We believe in safety, dignity, and liberation for all human beings, and that every human life is sacred. We are vehemently against Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, and discrimination of any kind.

As mental health providers who work directly with traumatized members of our community, we have extensive experience with what traumatization looks like in the human body and are painfully aware of the impacts of trauma on development, connection, and long-term psychological and physical health. We understand how trauma can also ripple out from individuals to families, communities, and beyond, and can have lasting impacts for generations to come. We want to make clear that what is happening to the Palestinian people is deeply harmful and traumatizing, and is psychologically damaging to all of us as witnesses.

When people walk into our offices we get to know them as individuals on an extremely deep level. We know every human life is valuable and wholly meaningful. We stand against the dehumanization of Palestinian people being called "collateral damage" or "human shields" and understand the sanctity of each life- of each human injured or killed, of each person who digs through the rubble in hopes of finding the survivors or remains of their family or neighbor, of each child who has lost their family and is growing up under the sounds of bombardment and destruction, of each family forced to flee their homes. We would never allow these things to be ignored if they occurred in our own community and we will not stand for them to be ignored or justified when they are happening to Palestinians.

We also work with grief in our capacity as mental health providers. We recognize the importance of dignity in death and the importance of death rituals and ceremonies to honor loved ones. We know when grief is blocked, that is itself a trauma. The chaos and destabilization in Palestine has not allowed refugee survivors to have sufficient time or space to rest, process, and to honor the lives that have been lost. A ceasefire is required.

29.33 As therapists we are guided by a set of ethical principles including the right to autonomy and to control one’s life, avoiding actions that cause harm, working for the good of the individual and society, justice, fidelity, and veracity. These principles are in direct opposition to the ongoing use of our tax dollars and global influence to continue perpetuating the bombing and murder of the people of Palestine and Lebanon. The whole world is watching in live time as horrific war crimes are being allowed to continue and entire family lines are being wiped out - all without any immediate protective action.

Hope is the antidote to despair, and is crucial for good mental health and a person’s ability to function. The vicarious trauma experienced by those witnessing this widespread horror is staggering and is compounded by our community leaders not taking a stand. This is especially true for our Muslim, Palestinian and non-Zionist Jewish community members. The harm is deep and wide. By passing a resolution for a ceasefire, you have the opportunity to instill hope in our community. Your actions could go a long way toward helping Santa Cruzans feel like we are neither powerless nor hopeless.

We understand there may be some worry that a resolution supporting a ceasefire could be divisive for the community, but also acknowledge that taking a stand on important issues has nearly always been divisive. Issues such as abolishing slavery, desegregation, reproductive autonomy, and trans and queer rights, among many others, have long histories of being controversial, despite their clear moral standing and importance for the safety and well-being of the people they most impact.

As we heard during public comment at the City Council meeting on December 12, 2023, your backing of a ceasefire could help members of our community feel safer, as it shows we stand against hate and violence. As a city that has historically taken pride in being at the forefront of issues of justice, we urge you to join other cities around the country and globe in taking a stand against injustice and to call for a ceasefire now.

As a follow up to the hundreds of calls and emails for a ceasefire you have received, including those made at the 12/12 council meeting, we are writing to request the following action from the City Council. We firmly believe the mass killings in Gaza require immediate action. The difference in when this meeting happens could impact many people’s survival.

As discussed by countless community members, we have the expectation that you pass a resolution which centers the call for a permanent and immediate ceasefire (please use the word “ceasefire”, specifically) and unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance to

29.34 Gaza. We believe this resolution can unite our community in a life-affirming stance for peace.

We will continue to stand against genocide and ask that you represent us in sending this clear mandate for peace to higher levels of office.

For your reference, here is a link to a copy of the Oakland resolution:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRMdDAtVf-QU_ZhB5Hxjvg5aHNNLur Q9UiMI_r0eoE6scvuC_6IrNt2q6VbyztIgDjB0wDHX0JPr3z3/pub
We would like the Santa Cruz resolution to be as similar to this resolution as possible, with changes only made to acknowledge the different jurisdiction and to update the alarming and heartbreaking rise in the number of Palestinians who have been killed. We will not support changes that dehumanize the Palestinian people in any way.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter,
Lisa Navarra, ASW
Liz Fitzgerald, LCSW
Ellen Garfield, MA, LMFT
Jasmeen Miah, MA, LMFT
Anica Leon-Weil, LMFT
Lisa Ward, LCSW
Harper Cheaney, LMFT
Ramana Gasch, Psychological Associate
Carly Rose Bretl, LMFT
Tenaya Schnare OTR/L, MHRS
Kai Rendón, LCSW, Psychotherapist, Medical Social Worker Julia Pinsky, LMFT
Erika Abrahamian, AMFT
Rahul Manchanda, LMFT
Elisa Martinez, LMFT
Darcy Cavanaugh, AMFT
Kirsten Juel, LCSW
Miranda Emmanuel, LMFT
Taylor Stocki, ASW
Sarah Greene, AMFT
Julianne Weinzimmer, PhD, MFT trainee
Pearl Chaiyarat, LMFT
Leah Kaplan, LCSW

29.35 Mackenzie Studebaker, AMFT
Rachel Fader, Psy.d
Sylvie Stein, LMFT
Craig Beeson, PhD
Bianca Pisano, MFT trainee
Finn Gratton, LMFT, LPCC
Anthony Ross, MA, AMFT
Callia Hansen, LCSW
Jill Wimmer, MFT trainee
Erin Johnson, LMFT
Monique Miller, LMFT
Kaori Herrera, LMFT
Erin Burton, LCSW
Marisa Abzug, LMFT
Julie Norton, LMFT
Theresa Barreras, LCSW
Eliza Ballantyne, LMFT
Murphy De Sousa, LMFT
Sage Smiley, LCSW
Harvey Cohen, LMFT
Chrissy Lacy, LCSW
Erin Twomey, LCSW
Annie Yabroff, LMFT
Eileen Retzloff, LCSW
Noelle Darling, LMFT
Erin Hohengarten, LMFT
Marisa Morris, LMFT
Melissa Virosko, LCSW
Susan Wallace, LCSW
Pamela Cooke, LMFT
Annabelle Drda, LMFT
Magali Morales, MSW
Colette Virostko, AMFT, pending
Jason Beiley, MA, Trainee
Juliet Olmos, LPCC student
Trevor Buckley, LMFT
Emma Ledvina, MSW
Laina James, MA
Nicole Nemiroff, MA, LMFT
Judie Roberts, PhD

29.36 Meredith Flores, ASW
Jennifer Sredniawa, LCSW
Pablo Orozco-Castro, LCSW
Regina Lazarovich, PhD
Shane Hill, PhD
Daniel Blumrosen, LMFT
Adriana Rivera, MA, CTRS, ABCBA
Kaleo Kalani Kaluhiwa, LMFT
Alison Jackson, LMFT
Katherine Sloan, LCSW
Jessica Zovar, LMFT
Kevin Gallagher, ASW
Melissa Fritchle, LMFT
Jennifer Ann Gosk, LMFT
Jennifer Casey, AMFT
Emily Solick, LCSW
River Ornellas, LMFT
Jori Leslie, LCSW
joshua Schwartz, ASW
Olivia Winter, MS
Dean Khambatta, LMFT
Tiffany Riley Harper
Vanessa Wilson, LMFT
Shandara Gill, MSW
Amanda Nisewaner, LCSW
Connie Batten, LMFT
Leilani Jefferies, LCSW
Lou Ursa, LMFT
Melinda Martindale, LCSW
Mary Bergman, LCSW
McKenzie Ganon, ASW
Andrea Wright, ASW
Ed Croteau, MS, Marriage and Family Therapist Trainee
Amy Schmidt, LMFT
Susan Ritter Splain, LMFT
Gwen Chiarmonte, LCSW
Micheen Levee, LMFT
Liberty Flidais, LMFT
Tina Thompson, MFT trainee
Sebastian Beca, LMFT

29.37 Patrice Hamilton, LCSW
Johanna Jeffries, LCSW

29.38 From: calia kammer
To: City Council
Subject: Please pass Ceasefire Resolution
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 9:31:14 AM
Hello,
I am a registered voter in Santa Cruz, I live in District 3, and I am encouraged to know that SC City Council will be voting on a ceasefire resolution. I sincerely hope that this Council will pass the proposed ceasefire resolution and reject any amendments that would remove the word "ceasefire”, condition humanitarian aid or denounce the violence by Hamas without denouncing 75 years of continued violence and occupation by Israel.

I hope that this Council understands that passing this ceasefire resolution is the necessary beginning to establishing a just peace. For the sake of our children, who rarely see a world of justice or safety for the oppressed, please pass this resolution to join Santa Cruz in the united call for the sanctity of life.

Thank you,
Calia Kammer

29.39 From: eric grodberg
To: City Council
Subject: Item 29 - Ceasefire Resolution
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:13:40 AM
Attachments: Hamas resolution letter to Council.odt
Dear Council,
Please see attached.
-Eric Grodberg

29.40 Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder and Council, I appreciate Council's desire to promote peace in the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Palestinian people have endured a great deal of suffering and been mistreated by all parties – violent Israeli settlers, the right wing Netanyahu government, Arab leaders and above all, the Palestinian leadership itself – Hamas and Fatah. There is no doubt that the entire world has failed the Palestinian people.

On the face of it, the resolution before you is a well intentioned peace affirming statement. However, in its attempt to appease all sides, it lacks important context and facts that render it harmful. I cannot support it and I hope you follow the County Board of Supervisors lead and do not pass it.

Please consider the following:

1.City Business, not Performative Statements: The City has many pressing and serious issues that deeply affect our local residents. It is not within Council's remit to weigh in on international issues.

Spending so much time on this diverts attention and efforts away from important local issues.

Furthermore, there are many horrible wars and conflicts around the world today, many of which have resulted in more destruction, death and suffereing than the Israel-Gaza conflict. Why is this conflict more deserving of Council's attention than the others?

2. Lack of Effectiveness: Council has no ability to influence either of the direct parties, the Israeli Government or Hamas, and neglible influnce on the Biden administration.

3. Hamas has rejected a Ceasfire:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-islamic-jihad-reject-giving-up-power-returnpermanent-ceasefire-egyptian-2023-12-25/

4.October 7 Massacre not acknowledged: The proximate cause of the IDF's invasion into Gaza was the October 7 massacre in which Hamas engaged in horrific crimes against civilians, Jews, Arabs, Asian guest workers and foreignors alike - killing babies and elderly, raping, torturing and murdering women. In a glaring omission, the resolution makes no mention of this.

5. Council is being used by radical and violent groups: Though Council is well intentioned, the groups behind this resolution are not. They are not peace loving - rather they support and celebrate Hamas' brutal October 7 massacre. One of the principal groups behind this resolution, described Octorber 7 as an opportunity for Palestinians to “reconnect with their home,” as if they were going to a high school reunion rather than undertaking a murderous rampage. By supporting this resolution, you are tacitly supporting this hate filled action and ideology. As experienced politicians you must make the effort to discern the true intentions of parties that ask for your support. Don't mistakenly let Council and the City be used by these groups. See below.

Regards,
-Eric Grodberg

29.41 https://www.instagram.com/p/CyPr2wIOq2N/?hl=en&img_index=1

29.42 From: Bonnie Bush
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Opposed to Resolution (item 29) content used for "Resolution Affirming Santa Cruz"s Commitment and support for Ceasefir and Peace (CN)" Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:21:49 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
In observance of the Holidays, City offices will be closed starting December 25, 2023 and re-opening January 8, 2024. Accordingly, our response times for public records act requests during this closure will be delayed. We will, however, diligently process any pending requests upon our return. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

From: William Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>
Cc: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposed to Resolution (item 29) content used for "Resolution Affirming Santa Cruz's Commitment and support for Ceasefir and Peace (CN)"
To the Mayor and council members,
I appreciate the efforts that each of you make by taking the oath of office; however I am writing to ask that you oppose the City Council Resolution 29 entitled “Affirming Commitment and Support for Ceasefire and Peace” as it does not provide a balanced approach in the way it is crafted.

While seeking peace is important, the language of the proposed resolution will only serve to deepen the divides within our greater local community.

Specifically, the resolution in its current form fails to reflect the values of peace, safety, and the inclusion of all people. This is a complex issue that does require a nuanced approach that unites rather than fragments our community.

I enlist you to reject this resolution until it has been crafted hand in hand working collectively putting forth a resolution that encapsulates our shared goals of peace and inclusivity from the Santa Cruz community.

I ask you to please vote "No" on the resolution as it stands.

Thank you for your continued service to all members of the Santa Cruz community.

Brian Smith
703 Spring Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
-
This Tuesday at 5pm, the Santa Cruz City Council will be considering a resolution (Item 29) titled “Affirming Santa Cruz’s Commitment and Support for Ceasefire and Peace (CN).” I am asking members of our Congregation and larger community to write personal letters, emails and if possible, attend the Council Meeting. We have tried working with some members of the city council to craft a resolution that is more balanced and includes condemnation of what happened on October 7.

29.43 From: yucca w
To: City Council
Subject: Public Comment: Resolution for a ceasefire
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:30:44 AM
Hello,
My name is Yucca Westrup and I am a new constituent to Santa Cruz. I would like to put a public comment in for the city council meeting tomorrow regarding the vote for a ceasefire in Gaza. If the city passes a ceasefire resolution, it would be following in the brave footsteps of so many other small and large cities.

I am an acupuncture student and have been in the public health field for over 10+ years. It is horrendous to witness the violence on families, hospitals, children, and disabled people - all who already have limited access to healthcare. The growing health inequities have me disturbed each day, each doctor that has been killed has been unnecessary and preventable. As a healthcare professional, I would like the city council to understand the importance of a permanent ceasefire so that people can access the health care they need.

The ceasefire resolution should include:
1) Calls for permanent, sustainable and immediate ceasefire 2) Urge the release of all hostages
3) Immediate entry of humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza 4) the restoration of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies, 5) the respect for international humanitarian law.

I reject any amendments that do not follow the above guidelines. I hope you can add my comment to the hundreds of others that have submitted for a ceasefire resolution. Thank you! Best,
Yucca Westrup

29.44 From: Monica Larenas
To: City Council
Subject: Urging support of Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Resolution Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:40:11 AM
Dear Mayor Keely and Santa Cruz City Council Members,
I write to strongly urge your support of the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Resolution being considered at the January 9th council meeting.

I am appalled that President Biden is giving Israel unconditional support in our names in spite of the clear violations of international law by the state of Israel against the community of Gaza and the West Bank. Incredibly, my local US government representatives (US Congressmember Panetta and Senators Padilla and Butler) have not responded to my emails urging them to do what they can to insist that the Biden administration pressure Israel for a ceasefire before more US aid be allocated.

While I normally don’t ask that our local city council weigh in on matters of national policy, the current ongoing crisis between Israel and Hamas--which is increasingly moving towards an expanded regional war that will likely involve the US and our allies-- is to large of a matter to ignore and it will have impacts on the entire US.

You are the closest representatives to voters in Santa Cruz. Our voice is apparently not being heard as individual citizens with our federal representatives. If the Santa Cruz City council acts on our behalf, urging an immediate ceasefire, it is my sincere hope that your actions will ‘raise the volume’ on what the majority of citizens of Santa Cruz want: peace and end to human rights violations committed on civilians in Gaza, which are directly support by US tax dollars.

Yet those truths don’t make this a hard decision. International human rights law is clear, and it must be defended when it’s in our power to do so, even when the decision to act may feel uncomfortable.

Thank you for your consideration.

Monica Larenas
215 Darwin Street
Santa Cruz

29.45 From: Soly Marcotte
To: City Council
Subject: CEASEFIRE NOW
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 11:55:36 AM
Dear Mayor Keely and Santa Cruz City Council Members,
I write to demand your support of the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Resolution being considered at the January 9th council meeting.

I am horrified that President Biden is giving Israel unconditional support in our names in spite of the clear violations of international law by the state of Israel against the community of Gaza and the West Bank. Incredibly, my local US government representatives (US Congressmember Panetta and Senators Padilla and Butler) have not responded to my emails urging them to do what they can to insist that the Biden administration pressure Israel for a ceasefire before more US aid be allocated.

You are the closest representatives to voters in Santa Cruz. Our voice is not being heard as individual citizens with our federal representatives. If the Santa Cruz City council acts on our behalf, urging an immediate ceasefire, it is my sincere hope that your actions will ‘raise the volume’ on what the majority of citizens of Santa Cruz want: peace and an end to human rights violations committed on civilians in Gaza, which are directly support by US tax dollars.

I realize this will not please all citizens of Santa Cruz. I understand (and agree) that the history of the region is complex and that the Hamas Dec 7th attack was violently atrocious and must be condemned in the strongest way. Yet those truths don’t make this a hard decision. International human rights law is clear, and it must be defended when it’s in our power to do so, even when the decision to act may feel uncomfortable.

Thank you for your consideration.

Monica Larenas
215 Darwin Street
Santa Cruz

29.46 From: Veronica Larenas
To: City Council
Subject: Urging support of Israel-Hamas Cease Fire Resolution Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:00:54 PM
> Dear Mayor Keely and Santa Cruz City Council Members, >
> I write to strongly urge your support of the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Resolution being considered at the January 9th council meeting.
>
> I am appalled that President Biden is giving Israel unconditional support in our names in spite of the clear violations of international law by the state of Israel against the community of Gaza and the West Bank. Incredibly, my local US government representatives (US Congressmember Panetta and Senators Padilla and Butler) have not responded to my emails urging them to do what they can to insist that the Biden administration pressure Israel for a ceasefire before more US aid be allocated.
>
> While I normally don’t ask that our local city council weigh in on matters of national policy, the current ongoing crisis between Israel and Hamas--which is increasingly moving towards an expanded regional war that will likely involve the US and our allies-- is to large of a matter to ignore and it will have impacts on the entire US. >
> You are the closest representatives to voters in Santa Cruz. Our voice is apparently not being heard as individual citizens with our federal representatives. If the Santa Cruz City council acts on our behalf, urging an immediate ceasefire, it is my sincere hope that your actions will ‘raise the volume’ on what the majority of citizens of Santa Cruz want: peace and end to human rights violations committed on civilians in Gaza, which are directly support by US tax dollars.
>
> I realize this will not please all citizens of Santa Cruz. I understand (and agree) that the history of the region is complex and that the Hamas Dec 7th attack was violently atrocious and must be condemned in the strongest way.

Veronica Larenas
217 Darwin St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95062

29.47 From the Desk of
Rabbi Paula Marcus
This Tuesday, January 9, at 5pm, the Santa Cruz City Council will be considering a resolution (Item 29) titled “Affirming Santa Cruz’s Commitment and Support for Ceasefire and Peace (CN).” I am asking members of our Congregation and larger community to write personal letters, emails and if possible, attend the Council Meeting.

We have tried working with some members of the city council to craft a resolution that is more balanced and includes condemnation of what happened on October 7.

The proposed resolution will further separate our community; therefore, we are advocating for alternative resolutions that will support peace, especially here in Santa Cruz. More than ever we need the Council to combat Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism here in our own community.

29.48 From: Peter Cook
To: City Council
Subject: Please stay out of international politics
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:09:28 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder and Council,
You are doing great work for our city, thank you. I would urge you to please stick to our city and not delve into international affairs. There are still many issues in our city that need your attention.

If you are going to address the situation in Gaza I would ask, why have you not addressed the war in Ukraine?? And why are you not condemning Iran and Russia’s involvement in arming and directing Hamas?
The reality is that the Palestinians are being used in a proxy war against Israel by Iran and being used by Russia to divide and coalition allied against Russia. They are also being used to stymie relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Russia benefit from more dead Palestinians, which is why they are arming Hamas and directing Hamas to reject a ceasefire.

Any coherent call for a ceasefire must address Iran and Russia’s involvement in this crisis and included a condemnation of their actions.

Sincerely,

29.49 From: Caitlin Brune
To: City Council
Subject: Urging Support of Israel-Hamas Ceasefire
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:36:28 PM
Dear Mayor Keely and Santa Cruz City Council Members,
I write to strongly urge your support of the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Resolution being considered at the January 9th council meeting.

I am appalled that President Biden is giving Israel unconditional support in our names in spite of the clear violations of international law by the state of Israel against the community of Gaza and the West Bank. Further, I am incredibly disappointed that my local US government representatives (US Congressmember Panetta and Senators Padilla and Butler) have not responded to my emails urging them to do what they can to insist that the Biden administration pressure Israel for a ceasefire before more US aid be allocated.

I normally don’t ask that our local city council weigh in on matters of national policy. However, the current ongoing crisis between Israel and Hamas-- which is increasingly moving towards an expanded regional war that will likely involve the US and our allies-- is to large of a matter to ignore and it will have impacts on the entire US.

You represent voters in Santa Cruz. Our voice is apparently not being heard as individual citizens with our federal representatives. If the Santa Cruz City council acts on our behalf, urging an immediate ceasefire, it is my sincere hope that your actions will ‘raise the volume’ on what the majority of citizens of Santa Cruz want: peace and end to human rights violations committed on civilians in Gaza, which US tax dollars currently directly support .

Thank you for your consideration.

Caitlin Brune
539 Sumner St
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
********
Caitlin M. Brune
We plant seeds that will flower as results in our lives, so best to remove the weeds of anger, avarice, envy and doubt, that peace and abundance may manifest for all. ~ Dorothy Day Schedule with me here: https://calendly.com/caitlinbrune Pronouns: she/her/hers ** Email: [email protected] ** Tel: 831-345-1901 ** https://www.homeconsulting.me ** Living and working on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the Upyi, Awaswas and Amah Mutsun indigenous peoples, represented today by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band.

Please note: my working day may not be your working day. Please don’t feel obligated to respond to my emails outside of your working hours.

29.50 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Item 29 - Resolution for Ceasefire and Peace - Opposition Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:59:12 PM
There are numerous reasons why we oppose the passing of this resolution. We will only address a few that we believe are critical and do not appear to be raised in other correspondence.

It is notable that the resolution does not require Hamas, as a condition of the ceasefire, to verifiably abandon its stated goal of genocide of the Jews from the river to the sea. The result is an invitation to Hamas to use any ceasefire as in the past, to prepare the next attack on Israel.

As such, the resolution will be interpreted as being Pro-Hamas and anti-Israel. The likely result is an increase in anti-semitic acts.

As far as the City’s duty to act on this matter, it is notable that the City has not taken any action to comment or urge a ceasefire in the Ukraine/Russia War. It is not appropriate for the City to act on the Hamas/Israel war either.

We urge you to vote against the proposed resolution.

Submitted by David and Cindi Baskin

29.51 From: Amy Argenal
To: City Council
Subject: Ceasefire resolution
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 1:06:03 PM
Dear City Council of Santa Cruz,
I am writing now to express my support for the Santa Cruz City Council to vote on a ceasefire resolution modeled off of Oakland's ceasefire. We are living in unprecedented times, in which the massive destruction and loss of life in GAZA is like no other contemporary conflict.

I am a long term scholar of human rights and migration, and have taught the case of Palestinian diaspora for a number of years. I have also been teaching HRW and Amnesty International's definition of apartheid the past couple of years. As a scholar on these issues, watching the mass destruction and displacement of almost all of Gaza's population is deeply disturbing. What is even more disturbing is the lack of willingness to engage with voters from our national elected leaders. I have been in meetings with Senator Padilla's office, and there is a complete refusal to listen to constituents. This is where local politics matter. This is a chance for us to share our values for peace and justice.

Asking for a ceasefire in times of deep humanitarian crisis is the humane thing to do. There are reports of famine, starvation, and large scale spread of infectious diseases in Gaza. This morning, it was reported that there are only 5 doctors left in the main hospital in Central Gaza.

We also have reports of larger regional conflicts starting, and we know that the only way to avoid a much larger war in the region is through a ceasefire. As a local form of government, Santa Cruz has the opportunity to demand our national politics represent the will of the people. I was present at the meeting in December, and shared my voice then. There was a definite majority of those who spoke in favor of a ceasefire and I imagine that the same will be true this week.

I urge you to listen to the calls of the people, of the community you represent and do the human thing to do! Vote yes for the resolution calling for a ceasefire.

All the best,
Amy Argenal

29.52 From: Kathleen Avraham
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 1:09:14 PM
Dear Members of the Santa Cruz City Council:

I am a “native” of Santa Cruz. I am also a member of Temple Beth El. I wish to chime in with my thoughts about the proposed “resolution” you will be considering on Tuesday, Jan. 9th, regarding a cease fire in Israel.

While I appreciate (and agree) with your wish for peace lin the Middle East (and Russia/Ukraine and Africa and all places in the world where war is present), I do not think the statement you propose making is balanced for all parties involved, both Palestinians and Jews. I also feel you could be opening up further anti-semitism by doing so. My husband and I have already experienced back-lash in the form of negative and/or angry remarks towards us from both a neighbor we did not know well and a stranger in downtown Santa Cruz. This does not feel safe.

My next point (and perhaps most important one) involves how I see the role of the City Council. You are the core voice of our community. As so you can, and should, be advocates for those issues OUR local community is facing.

Yesterday, I delivered part of the meal to “Housing Matters” homeless shelter off River St. (Temple Beth El provides the meal there every Sunday and has for years). Coral St. in front of the shelters is lined with hungry, homeless people trying to endure the cold weather under tarps, small tents, blankets. The utter despair in this scene is heart-breaking. I strongly feel the S.C. City Council would serve our local needs a lot better by making resolutions to end homelessness, HERE in Santa Cruz. Further issues your united voice could impact are mental illness, drug addiction and adequate health care for all. I served on the Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board for 8 years. I am sorry to say I was frequently disappointed the S.C. City Council did not persist in leading citizens to take long-term action on the issues just mentioned.

We all want peace. We want it here where we live. We want it in the Middle East and throughout the world. Perhaps a resolution on a "global “ ceasefire would be more appropriate and not subject local Jews to further prejudice. I count on you to do the right thing.

Thank you and lbest regards. Kate Aver Avraham, 10 Oak Shadows Lane, Aptos, Ca. 95003 (formerly resident of Santa Cruz)

29.53 From: Carol Polhamus
To: City Council
Subject: Item 29, please vote NO
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:25:50 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder and Council Members:

Please vote no on Item 29, the Support for Ceasefire and Peace resolution. I have two reasons for asking you to do so.

My family, like many in Santa Cruz, is a culturally blended family. Half of my family is Jewish. During the holidays this year, among the multitude of Christmas-related activities, events and images in our city, there was one solitary event dedicated to Jewish tradition, the lighting of the menorah at the Town Clock on 12/7. Many Jewish families looked forward to this beautiful tradition with their young children to celebrate the customs and traditions of Jewish life on the first day of Hanukkah.

Unfortunately, on that day, intentionally, at the very same time there was also a protest against Israel organized at the Town Clock, with multiple people with face masks, signs and slogans. The consequences of this action were that the event turned from one of joyous celebration into one of fear and intimidation for little children and their families. These protestors may have been well intentioned (by their own assessment), but who protests a family religious ceremony with young children present? I am attaching a photo so you can see what the protest looked like to those children. How would you feel if your children were there? Although most of the people requesting a ceasefire are doing so for purely humanitarian reasons, some members of the group who organized this city council event call Israel "apartheid" "colonizers" and "murderers" on social media, and demonstrate a political agenda that is not at all benign toward Israel. Some justify antisemitism behind their support for Palestinians seemingly without regard for the extremely complex history of the region and the longstanding history of violence there. This antisemitism must not be tolerated; it certainly should not be encouraged.

My second point is that, although most of us strongly desire peace and a "two state" solution for Israel and Palestine where peaceful coexistence occurs, and fervently wish that there were no more casualties on either side of this conflict, a Santa Cruz city council resolution will do little, if anything, to accomplish this. This kind of symbolic gesture may satisfy some people, but there are many other city residents who feel it is far beyond the role of the city council to spend time on international issues when other pressing needs exist within the city that are within the purview of the city council.

I am asking that you join the County of Santa Cruz and the City of Watsonville in voting no on this resolution. The insistence on picking a side in this awful conflict is inappropriate and may serve to create even more divisiveness around this evolving crisis and result in a feeling of less safety for some city residents. Thank you for listening and for your service to our city.

Yours,
Carol Polhamus

29.54 POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTE MOTION LANGUAGE
Whereas the City of Santa Cruz, CA acknowledges the suffering of the peoples of the Middle East and affirms our shared humanity.

Whereas the City of Santa Cruz, CA recognizes the history of conflicts in the Middle East.

Whereas the City of Santa Cruz, CA values peaceful conflict resolution.

Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Santa Cruz, California:

1. Acknowledges the suffering of the Peoples of the Middle East.

2. Affirms our shared humanity and wish for peace.

3. Calls for collaborative efforts supporting peaceful dialogue among all parties involved.

4. Urges our community to develop and participate in activities that foster tolerance, empathy, education, and understanding of people of all backgrounds and religious faiths.

5. Looks forward to a future where all can live with dignity and security in PEACE.

6. Declares that January 2024 will be “City of Santa Cruz, California Peace Month” where all can have the opportunity to participate in activities and dialogue that promotes peace locally and around the world.

29.55 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/21/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/09/2024
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue (PR)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval of tree removal permit application TR23-0089 submitted by Santa Cruz Property Management to remove one coast redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Avenue.

BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2023, Santa Cruz Property Management submitted tree permit application TR23-0089 requesting the removal of one heritage-size coast redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Ave. The reasons stated on the request for tree removal were “Redwood tree is causing sidewalk to uplift and very close to proximity to building” (Tree Permit Application TR23-0089 and Pictures).

The City’s Urban Forester evaluated the tree on April 26, 2023 (Heritage Tree Evaluation TR23- 0089) and posted a tentative permit for tree removal (Notice of Action TR 23-0089) on May 10, 2023.

On May 19, 2023, Keelan Franzen filed an appeal of the staff decision stating “Sidewalk can be replaced, tree cannot. Twin trunks have massive 28-foot circumference at chest height. 10 feet in diameter. Roots make up an integral portion of ground mass & slope stabilizing. Violation of codes 9.56.050(d) 9.56.060(e) the city has not made a good faith attempt to alter the projects design to accommodate the heritage tree.” (Appeal Form C TR23-0089).

The Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal at its regular meeting on August 14, 2023 (Meeting Summary, Parks and Recreation Commission, August 14, 2023). By a vote of three to two, with two commissioners absent, the Commission upheld the Parks and Recreation Department staff decision to approve permit TR23-0089 for removal of the heritage tree.

On August 23, 2023, Keelan Franzen appealed the Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision to the City Council (Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Ave - Franzen). The appeal states, “We believe that the city and/or the rental property owners have not made a good faith attempt to alter the proposed plan to accommodate the heritage tree. There should be no basis for granting a heritage tree removal permit without further considering alternative solutions.”

30.1 On September 26, 2023, The City Council considered the appeal and made a motion to continue the item in approximately three months after more information has been gathered on the redwood tree and sidewalk area repair costs.

DISCUSSION: City Council Resolution No. NS-23,710 sets the criteria and standards under which a heritage tree or shrub may be altered or removed. It requires that one or more of the following findings be established by the applicant and confirmed by the Director of Parks and Recreation for the removal of a heritage tree or heritage shrub:
(1) The heritage tree or heritage shrub has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way; (2) The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation, warrants alteration or removal; or
(3) A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or heritage shrubs.

Staff’s determination is that findings have been established by the applicant that the coast redwood tree at 339 Walnut Avenue meets criterion one (1): that the heritage tree has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way. The tree is approximately 120 feet tall with two large individual trunks. The tree is codominant by definition as the two trunks share a common root system. The trunk of the tree is less than a foot from the building foundation. The root system of the tree is in contact with the building foundation and has caused property damage to the structural integrity of the building.

Cracks can be seen in the apartment building foundation on the Lincoln Street frontage and the brick masonry veneer is also damaged adjacent to the tree. The tree is damaging the structural integrity of the building therefor qualifying for a permit to remove per the City Council adopted resolution. There is no way to mitigate this property damage.

In addition to the Urban Forester’s Certified Arborist opinion supporting tree removal, an independent Consulting Arborist Don Cox (Arborist Report 5-30-23 - Donald Cox ISA Certified Arborist) concludes: “Removal is determined as unavoidable due to proximity to the structures.

The tree is an obstacle for essential repairs. No reasonable means of mitigation is available that would preserve the tree.”
On December 9, 2023, an additional arborist report focusing on a tree root crown inspection was submitted to the city (Arborist Report 12-9-23 - Donald Cox ISA Certified Arborist). The Consulting Arborist used an air spade tool and probe to identify and locate tree roots to defend that damage to the structure is caused from the tree. He confirmed roots from the redwood tree are in contact with and growing against the building foundation causing cracks and damage to the structural integrity of the building. The arborist field report notes that “There is definite contact with the wall of the building by the expanding root crown of the tree, as further evidenced by the appearance of a bowed inward curvature of the brick siding at the points of contact.” It is clear from this additional Arborist review that the redwood tree’s root system is the cause of the damage to the building.

A structural assessment prepared for Santa Cruz Property Management by Professional Engineer Jodi Collins Henry (Structural Assessment 7-17-23, Jodi Collins PE) states that the tree “has already caused minor structural damage to the foundation and framing of the apartment building.” It further states, “If the redwood remains, it will continue to grow and cause

30.2 substantial structural damage to the building which will threaten the structural integrity of the building.”
Upon Council’s request for further information, on December 13, 2023, Jodi Collins reviewed the building for a second time after the arborist root inspection was performed. Her assignment was to determine if there are any other foundation design types that could allow for the tree to remain adjacent to the building given the existing conditions. The engineer also evaluated how much of the building would need to be modified if the tree were to remain in place (Structural Assessment 12-13-23, Jodi Collins PE). On the first point Collins concludes that “replacing the foundation. . . while maintaining the same building footprint is not possible since the tree roots are in contact with the brick veneer attached to the wall and floor framing.” On the second she determined that to get the building at least 10 feet away from the tree approximately a 24 ft. by 12 ft. section, eliminating two apartments, would need to be removed from the building.

On December 11, 2023, Santa Cruz Property Management submitted information from Tino’s Plumbing stating that there is root intrusion in the main sewer line (Plumbing Repair Estimate 12-11-23, Tino’s Plumbing) providing further documentation to support the finding of damage to utilities from the redwood tree, criterion one (1).

Staff approved tree removal primarily due to the damage to the structural integrity of the building that cannot be mitigated from root pruning. A secondary concern is the damaged public sidewalk adjacent to the redwood tree. The owner is responsible for repairs and is also liable under Chapter 15.20 and 13.30 for this damage and repair per the Municipal Code. The public sidewalk has been cracked and lifted by the tree’s roots, creating a public access concern.

Additionally, a fire hydrant next to the tree could be compromised in the future.

At the request of Council, Public Works staff has explored options for sidewalk repair and alteration. Staff prepared a plan sheet (Public Works Sidewalk Design- Exhibit A) to create additional planter area for the tree by moving the sidewalk into the parking area, which requires reconstruction of the adjacent sidewalk and curb ramps to current accessibility standards. The estimated cost for this design would be $127,940.02 (Public Works Sidewalk repair estimate).

Although this sidewalk repair plan is possible, it is costly and may also not be a permanent solution. In May of 2011 the sidewalk was repaired at the expense of the owner and by 2017 the tree had again caused damage to the repair. In 2022 the sidewalk was severely impacted from the tree and since that time the sidewalk lifts have become significantly worse. Given the location and growth rate of the tree, the adjacent sidewalk is likely to require periodic replacement at the owner’s expense if the tree is to remain. Additionally, this repair option does not address the tree root damage to the building which was the basis of staff’s approval of the application for tree removal. The property owner has also submitted a repair cost for the sidewalk without the tree (Watsonville Grading & Excavation sidewalk repair estimate 3-7-23) which totals $8,900.00.

At the September 26, 2023, Council meeting concerns were raised over whether removal of the tree could lead to destabilization of the slope and the adjacent sidewalk and roadway. Public Works engineers who worked on the sidewalk alteration plan did not consider this to be a significant issue. Additionally, stump grinding is typically relatively shallow and limited to the trunk and immediate buttress roots and is not deep enough to lead to stability concerns.

30.3 While root pruning and moving the sidewalk could be a viable medium-term option to mitigate sidewalk damage, root pruning to lessen impact to the building foundation is not possible without destabilizing the tree and damaging the tree’s health. The International Society of Arboriculture’s formula for root pruning is at a minimum of three times the diameter of the tree’s trunk, because pruning more closely can reduce tree stability. The Society’s Best Management Practices—Root Management notes that “severe loss of stability is common when cuts are made at a distance that is less than 1 to 1.5 times the trunk diameter.” The tree is too close to the foundation to perform this root pruning work to industry standard or to protect the building foundation. There is no reasonable mitigation option to save the tree or prevent ongoing damage to the structural integrity of the building. The redwood tree is still relatively young and of relatively small diameter compared to mature redwoods in their native habitat.

Staff and the Parks & Recreation Commission have determined that this application meets criterion one (1) required for tree removal approval as specified by City Council Resolution No.

NS-23,710. The coast redwood tree at 339 Walnut Avenue currently has an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of the adjacent building, the sewer main for the building, and the public sidewalk. As the tree continues to grow it is likely to have a greater adverse effect upon the structural integrity of the building, and lead to repeated damage to the sidewalk, even if modified. Root pruning could theoretically occur for sidewalk repair but is not an option to prevent ongoing damage to the building. Root pruning for the building would both harm and destabilize the tree and only postpone the need for tree removal.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Leslie Keedy
Urban Forester
Travis Beck
Superintendent of Parks
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOC

2. TREE PERMIT APPLICATION TR23-0089 AND PICTURES.PDF

3. HERITAGE TREE EVALUATION TR23-0089.PDF

4. NOTICE OF ACTION TR23-0089.PDF

5. APPEAL FROM C TR23-0089.PDF

6. MEETING SUMMARY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AUGUST 14 2023.PDF

7. TREE APPEAL - 339 WALNUT AVE - FRANZEN.PDF

8. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. NS-23,710.PDF

9. STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 7-17-23 - JODI COLLINS PE.PDF

10. ARBORIST REPORT 5-30-23 - DONALD COX ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST.PDF

11. SECOND ARBORIST REPORT 12-9-23 - DONALD COX ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST.PDF

12. SECOND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 12-13-23 - JODI COLLINS PE.PDF

13. PLUMBING REPAIR ESTIMATE 12-11-23 TITO'S PLUMBING.PDF

14. PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK DESIGN - EXHIBIT A.PDF

15. PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK REPAIR ESTIMATE.PDF

16. WATSONVILLE GRADING AND EXCAVATION SIDEWALK REPAIR 3-7-23.PDF

30.4 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DENYING THE

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S

DECISION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE ONE COAST REDWOOD TREE LOCATED AT 339 WALNUT AVENUE, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Property Management property has filed an application for a tree removal permit to remove one coast redwood tree located at 399 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, the application was approved and Keelan Franzen appealed the staff decision to approve the application and filed an appeal with the staff to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation Commission upon consideration of the request and written reports on the subject coast redwood tree upheld staff’s decision, approving the removal of the trees; and
WHEREAS, a letter of appeal from Keelan Franzen was submitted to the City Clerk following the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision on August 23, 2023, to approve the request for the removal of one coast redwood tree; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz held a public hearing on the matter on September 26, 2023 and January 9, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision is upheld and authorization for the removal of one coast redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Avenue is hereby granted.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
DISQUALIFIED:

ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

30.5 30.6

30.7 30.8

30.9 30.10

30.11 30.12

30.13 30.14

30.15 30.16

30.17 30.18

30.19 30.20

30.21 30.22

30.23 30.24

30.25 30.26

30.27 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Parks & Recreation Department
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Summary
August 14, 2023
4:00 PM GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS (809 CENTER ST)
Parks & Recreation Commission
Call to Order 4:08 PM
Roll Call - Commissioners: Bradley Angell, Jane Mio, Jacob Pollock, Vice Chair Hollie Locatelli and Chair Kristina Glavis.

Absent: Leonardo Cruz and Nik Strong-Cvetich
Staff: Tony Elliot (Director), Travis Beck (Superintendent of Parks), Lindsay Bass (Principal Management Analyst), Leslie Keedy (Urban Forester), and Tremain HeddenJones (Recreation Superintendent).

Presentations
1 2023 Outcomes of the City of Santa Cruz Summer Youth Trail Crew program Presentation by Emma Ussat, Senior Community Engagement Manager for Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship, on the 2023 outcomes of the City of Santa Cruz Summer Youth Trail Crew program.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Oral Communications – None.

Announcements

30.28 2 Commission and Department Updates.

1. Presiding Officer – None.

2. Commissioners – None.

3. Department Staff (written submission)

4. Director of Parks & Recreation
Director Elliot provided updates on West Cliff, the San Lorenzo River Levee FEMA certification process, the Wharf Master Plan EIR, Local Hazards Mitigation – Survey, Special Events street closure notification efforts and Harvey West Pool.

Approval of Minutes
3 Approval of Minutes for the June 12, 2023 meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Motion carried to approve the meeting minutes from the meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission on June 12, 2023, as submitted.

Consent Agenda
4 Water Street Bridge Historical Marker
Commissioner Mio pulled Item 4 for discussion.

Motion carried to approve the Water Street Bridge Ad Hoc Committee recommended secondary location (near the County Courthouse) for the historical marker and that temporary signage be installed while the San Lorenzo Park Redesign process is completed.

Public Hearings
5 Tree Appeal – 339 Walnut Ave. (Tree Removal Permit #23-0089) Motion carried to uphold the Parks and Recreation Department staff decision to approve request for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit (Application #23- 0089) to remove one Coast Redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Ave.

General Business – None.

Adjournment –5:58PM

30.29 30.30

30.31 30.32

30.33 30.34

30.35 30.36
Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz

Page 1 of 10 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilJanuary 9, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
January 9, 2024