Analyzing Homeless Trash

SENTINEL photo by photographer Dan Coyro shows two park rangers approaching a very messy campsite as part of the sweeps which began on July 9th, 2012. Such images are used to villify homeless people and portray the worst case scenario as the norm.

 Do Homeless People "trash" the Environment?

What do the number say?
 

 by Becky Johnson
  

September 23, 2012
 

Santa Cruz, Ca.  -- After a recent beach/inland waterway clean-up by Save Our Shores, the following formula was proffered: Litter Produced = (2.4 oz to 12.9lbs) per volunteer hour x hours worked. Using this standard, we can try to assess how dirty the areas where homeless encampments have been found were/are.

Unifying terms into decimals, we find a range of (0.17 lbs - 12.9 lbs) per volunteer hour collected with an average being 6.4 lbs on Monterey and Santa Cruz County area beaches and inland waterways

SOURCE: Classes of Trash, Monterey County Weekly Sept 20, 2012.

"At the extremes: Carmel River State Beach yielded an average of 2.4 ounces of trash, and Elkhorn Slough produced 12.9 pounds, per volunteer-hour."  -- Laura Kasa, Save Our Shores Sept 20 2012

 A homeless woman is rousted from a large encampment by the Santa Cruz Police Department on December 8, 2011 from San Lorenzo Park. Photo by Chip Scheuer

 


With this formula in hand, we can work backwards and determine how "trashy" an area was at the time of the clean-up. Since homeless encampments are found primarily in the inland waterway areas, those are the statistics we are most interested in.
 

Save Our Shores reports that 550 volunteers picked up 850 lbs of trash (pollution) in 3 hours. So the average person picked up 4.6 lbs of trash at a rate of 1.54 lbs per volunteer hour.
   

  Photo of Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo Park Nov 1 2011 Photo courtesy santacruz.com

The San Lorenzo River Clean-up produced 315 lbs of trash by 130 volunteers in 3 hours or 2.4 lbs of trash per person at a rate of 0.8 lbs per volunteer hour. While not as clean as Carmel River State Beach, 0.8lbs per volunteer hour is squeaky clean. Especially compared to the average found throughout the region during the entire beach/waterways cleanup.
 

Perhaps homeless people are cleaning up more trash than they are leaving?
 Or these are areas where Public Works, Caltrans, and Boy Scout groups clean up regularly?
 

 In any case, groups like Take Back Santa Cruz and editorials by Don Miller in the SENTINEL can't really claim that the  sweeps are justified because of a clear environmental danger.
   

City Council candidates Cynthia Mathews, Richelle Noroyan, and Pamela Comstock don't have any evidence of an "environmental" reason for supporting the homeless sweeps. And Mayor Don Lane's silence on the sweeps is deafening.

Warriors and Seaside Company only winners in Arena deal

Photo: Gary Patton

NOTE TO READER: Below is a letter from former County Supervisor, Gary Patton and current City of Santa Cruz resident. Patton calls the plan "a high risk venture" and is opposed to the City of Santa Cruz investment of 2/3 of our reserves in a for-profit professional basketball league as currently proposed. He has concluded that the deal will make money for the Seaside Company but not the City.  Here is his letter in its entirety delivered and ignored by the Santa Cruz City Council with a 6-0 vote on Wednesday, September 12th.  ---- Becky Johnson, Ed.


Gary Patton's letter can be found online here.

Gary A. Patton

Law Offices – 147 South River Street #221, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Telephone: 831-429-4055 / Email: gapatton@wittwerparkin.com

September 10, 2012

Santa Cruz City Council

Santa Cruz City Hall

809 Center Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Meeting of September 11, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Evening Session

Agenda Items #1 and #2 (Basketball Arena)

Dear Mayor Lane and Council Members:

This letter is to express my personal views. I am a resident of the City of Santa Cruz, and I have an individual and personal interest in the City’s proper compliance with local zoning and other laws, and with the state’s environmental laws. I am also concerned, as a city taxpayer, that the Council not place the financial assets of the city at risk.

I understand that at its September 11, 2012 meeting the Council will consider two different agenda items related to a proposal to build a basketball arena on land owned by the Santa Cruz Seaside Company, located at the intersection of Front Street and Spruce Street, on the fringes of the commercial areas of downtown Santa Cruz. I have reviewed the agenda items made available on the City’s website (which do not include the actual legal and financial agreements that the Council is being asked to approve). I have also read with attention the news articles in the Santa Cruz Sentinel that have commented on the proposal. I was particularly struck by the following statement made by the City Manager (presuming that he was quoted correctly) in the September 8, 2012 edition of the Sentinel:

“This isn’t a money-making scheme for the city.”

I hope that Council Members will pay attention to the implications of this statement by the City Manager. I think it is absolutely clear from the materials that I have been able to review that the City Manager is correct about this proposed project. Supposedly, this is an “economic development” project, but it is a project that the City Manager believes (I think correctly) will not make money for the city. The project will presumably make money for the Warriors. It is likely to make money for the Seaside Company. But it won’t make any money for the City of Santa Cruz.

If that is true (and I think the City Manager is right) why fund this effort?

Financial Concerns

Here are some of my specific concerns about the financial and business aspects of this proposed project, as the project is presented in Agenda Item #1. Again, neither I nor any other member of the public has had the benefit of reviewing the actual financial agreements that the Council would be endorsing, if the Council approves the recommendations before it. Perhaps my concerns would disappear if I were able to review the actual legal documents. More likely, my concerns would be even more focused and specific than the concerns I am presenting in the following list:

1. The City would be investing more than $4.1 million dollars in the arena project (various staff and other costs have not been included in the $4.1 million dollar figure, which is thus a “low” figure with respect to actual city costs). The specific $4.1 million dollar investment has been characterized as a “loan” in various public statements made by City Council members, the City Manager, and others. In fact, the transaction is not really a “loan.” That can be seen most clearly from the fact that the so-called “loan” has a 15‑year amortization period, and yet the facility that the “loan” is helping to construct is temporary, and is slated to be removed after seven years. If there is a remaining outstanding balance after seven years (which there is almost certain to be, since the payments are intended to pay off the “loan” in fifteen years, not seven years), then the City and the Warriors will “split” the outstanding balance due. This transaction results in a “contribution” to the Warriors, not a “loan” to the Warriors. Moreover, the Warriors in a certain sense have an inducement to maximize the amount owing at the end of the seven year period, since the bigger that number, the more the city’s payment will be, and the less the Warriors will have had to pay.

2. Not having seen the actual documents, it’s hard to tell for sure, but it appears that the City does not even get an enforceable commitment by the Warriors to play their next seven seasons in Santa Cruz. If attendance isn’t what the Warriors had hoped (or maybe if some other city gives them another good deal), it appears that the Warriors will be able to walk away. There will be some security, but it’s not 100% security. Again, a genuine “loan” of the city’s financial reserves should only be made if there is true security that is intended to guarantee the return of the loaned amount.

3. Since the city’s contribution is not a “loan,” what is it? In fact, it appears that the city’s investment is a contribution to a kind of joint venture with the Warriors (and not the “real” Warriors, either, but a “shell corporation” using that name, which has no assets of its own). To be clear about it, the recommendation before the Council is that the City of Santa Cruz should go into the basketball and arena business.

4. Let’s examine the “basketball business” first. It appears that the city, not the Warriors, is taking the big risk in that business, as this deal is structured. If the Santa Cruz Warriors don’t make money in Santa Cruz (i.e., if basketball in Santa Cruz isn’t the great draw that people hope it might be), the Warriors can move on. But the City of Santa Cruz is left holding the bag for the facility, since the city is the owner, and the value of that asset will be much diminished without a team. In addition, of course, the city will also have a so-called “loan” that will never be repaid in full.

5. Assuming that things go well with the basketball business, what does that mean? Has the city reviewed any survey of D-League basketball team attendance/revenue, so that the city can gauge what sort of revenue and attendance might be generated at the proposed facility? It’s not mentioned in the materials available to the public on this agenda. There ought to be such a survey, before the city makes a commitment.

6. The proposed location of the arena doesn’t lead me to believe that this is going to be a natural “winner” as a place for a successful arena business. Building a 2,800-seat arena on the fringes of the downtown commercial area, with no adjacent parking, is quite problematic. Those who want to come to the game will first have to locate the facility, and then will have to scout all over downtown for a parking space, and then will have to walk to the arena. This isn’t an automatic game plan for a booming attendance. It could be raining. It could be dark and cold. The Front Street/Spruce Street area in which the arena is proposed is not a great area in which to be walking around during the evening, or at night, and especially not when it’s cold and dark. When there is no parking provided, it makes it really hard to think that this is going to be a great success. Oh, and don’t forget the parking tickets that at least some fans will inevitably get if they do find parking at downtown meters. That’s revenue for the city, of course, but when a fan gets a parking ticket after having had a hard time finding a spot in the first place, that may be the last time that that particular fan ever drives to Santa Cruz for a Warriors game.

7. Has there been a survey to see whether there is any D-League basketball team that has ever had success with a 2,800-seat basketball arena when there is no adjacent parking? There ought to be such a survey before the city makes a commitment.

8. Now let’s look at the “arena” business. It seems clear that if the city is ever going to break even on this proposed deal (much less make money), the city is going to have to rent out the arena facility when the Warriors aren’t using it. The Warriors are only going to be using the arena from November to April, so during the spring and summer, the city is going to have to find alternative users. If the city isn’t successful in finding other users, it’s pretty clear that the city won’t get its so‑called “loan” back.

9. The Council should take a long pause before it puts the city in the position of running an “arena business.” Here are some things to think about:

· The city is already running an “arena” business (the Civic Auditorium). This new arena on Front and Spruce will compete against the city’s own Civic Auditorium facility. That is problematic, in and of itself. In addition, the city has not made money on the Civic. If the city can’t make money on its existing arena business, why does anyone think that it can run two arenas successfully?

· Running the “arena business” will cost money. There are new costs for city staffing that don’t seem to be factored in.

· The current plan assumes that there will be parking available in the greater downtown area during the late fall and winter, when the Warriors will be using the Front/Spruce arena. However, there will be less parking available in the greater downtown area during the spring and summer months, when the general tourist trade ramps up. This means that there is not going to be much chance to attract lots of users during the “on” season of the year. Materials in the agenda packet indicate that UCSC might be interested, but I don’t believe that the campus fields sports teams during the summer. Has there been a formal revenue study, so that the Council can see likely revenues from the city’s operation of the arena during the Warriors’ off-season, and match those likely revenues against actual costs? There ought to be, before the city makes a commitment.

· If the city is actually going to go into the basketball/arena business, there should be a business plan in place before the Council commits two-thirds of the city’s financial reserves to what amounts to a high‑risk venture.

10. Here a few other concerns about the financial and business aspects of the proposal, to the extent that a member of the public can understand that proposal without having access to the actual legal agreements which the Council will apparently be approving:

· How much will it cost to deconstruct and remove the arena facility at the end of the seven years? Who is going to pay for this? I presume that the city will pay for removal, since the city is going to be the “owner” of the facility. I bet the removal costs could be $500,000 or more. Has any study or analysis been done? The Council should have a good estimate of those costs, before it makes a commitment, since deconstruction and removal costs are a cost that will presumably be paid for by the city, and this is another cost that may well not be offset by the revenues that the business is going to generate.

· Has anyone noticed that the Seaside Company owns the land? At the end of seven years, faced with what could be very significant removal costs, the city may want to retain the arena on the Front/Spruce street property. But that property is not owned by the city. Unless the city has an option to lease or purchase the property, set now, the city will be at the mercy of the Seaside Company in seven years, since the city will have to pay whatever the Seaside Company demands, or vacate the property, and incur removal costs that the city may find are truly horrendous. Again, the Council should insure that this issue is fully dealt with in the documents, and that the city’s interests are protected, before it makes a commitment.

· As our community faces a genuine water crisis, I think it is unconscionable that the Council should be asked to excuse the Warriors from paying sewer and water fees. They will be using the water for their business. They should pay for it just like everyone else. Incidentally, the staff report says that these fees, owed by the Warriors, will be “deferred,” giving the impression that the Warriors will pay these costs, but at a later time. In fact, the staff materials also reveal that the city is planning to impose a $1.00 surcharge on each ticket sold, and to use this money to repay itself for the so-called “deferred” fees. In other words, the fans, not the Warriors, will be paying this bill. The fees that the Warriors should normally pay aren’t really “deferred,” at all; they are just going to be paid by someone else – those who attend the Warriors’ games).

· The plan to move 225 cars from the Seaside Company’s private parking lot at Front and Spruce Streets, and to give those cars free parking at the city’s downtown parking garage at Front and River should raise lots of concerns. The Front/River garage is in the heart of the downtown commercial district, and giving away parking places there could have really adverse impacts on the employees of downtown businesses, and on downtown business customers. In other words, if cars of workers who are working at the beach are allowed to take up 225 parking spaces in what amounts to the City’s prime downtown parking structure, the impact of this on downtown businesses may be quite negative. Has there been a study of the possible impacts of giving away these 225 parking spaces, looking forward over the next seven years? Until the Council really understands this potential impact, the Council should not make a commitment to the current proposal.

· Item #11 on the September 11, 2012 Consent Agenda indicates that the Front/River parking garage has 463 spaces. By giving the Seaside Company 225 spaces free, the city would thus be committing 49% of the spaces in that garage to free parking for the Seaside Company, as an in-kind payment for the use of the Seaside Company property on Front/Spruce. Again according to Consent Agenda Item #11, the city is planning to charge everyone else $31 per month for a parking permit in the Front/River garage. That means that the value to the Seaside Company, for 225 spaces, is $6,975 per month; $83,700 per year; and $585,900 over the seven year period contemplated. This payment, going to the Seaside Company, is not discussed in the analysis presented to the Council.

· Finally, it is being proposed that the Council “delegate” to the City Manager (with approval of the City Attorney) the details of the various lease and other agreements that will define this deal in legal terms. The Council should require that the actual agreements come before it, so the Council can assume full responsibility for its actions – and so members of the public can have a chance to see the details of the proposal, before it is approved.

Environmental Concerns

In addition to great concerns about the financial and business aspects of the proposal before the Council, I am quite distressed by what I think is the noncompliance of the city with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I also think that the city is, in effect, avoiding the provisions of its own zoning laws, since the proposed facility is not really appropriate for the RH zone district.

Specifically, with respect to CEQA, I do not believe that the proposed facility qualifies for a categorical exemption, as the Council has been advised. CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared whenever a proposed project “might” have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The parking analysis seems to be based on a 2,800-seat facility, but the facility will be able to seat 4,000 persons for non-Warriors events. This impact has apparently not been analyzed. This is not the kind of “infill” project that qualifies for an exemption. Predictable traffic and parking impacts translate into direct physical changes in the environment that are likely to be significantly adverse. The Council should not make a commitment to this project unless and until it undertakes a proper review of the environmental impacts of the project under CEQA.

Conclusion

I urge the Council not to proceed with the project as proposed. While I think that there are legal deficiencies, my appeal to the Council is mostly based on the lack of a business plan that shows that this investment of about two-thirds of the city’s financial reserve funds is going to have a demonstrably positive impact for the city.

Maybe this proposed project will have positive economic impacts; maybe it will “pay off,” and will represent a good investment of the city’s reserve funds. However, Council Members should pay attention to the remarks of the City Manager:

“This isn’t a money-making scheme for the city.”

When I look at the future, with respect to local government finances, I don’t see a rosy picture. Please don’t put two‑thirds of the city’s financial reserves at risk, on what amounts to a very speculative business venture.

If this is a good business investment, then the business people who own the Warriors should be willing to make the investment. If they ask for city help, by way of investment, then they should sign agreements that will insure that the city’s funds are protected, and that the amount that the city makes available is returned, in full, at the end of the investment period.

That isn’t the deal that is before you on September 11^th.

The Warriors have not asked the city for an “investment” or a “loan.” They have essentially asked that the City of Santa Cruz join them in the basketball/arena business, with the city bearing most of the risk.

Yours truly,

Gary A. Patton

Gary A. Patton

cc: City Manager

City Attorney

City Council Candidates

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Fred Keeley, Gary Reece, Larry Pearson

Beach Hill Neighborhood Association

Santa Cruzans For Responsible Planning

Santa Cruz Neighbors

Letter to the Board of Supervisors on Sweeps of Homeless Encampments

Police photo of the destruction of the encampment in San Lorenzo Park on
December 8, 2011 by Santa Cruz Police, Santa Cruz County Sheriffs,  Scotts Valley Police, Capitola Police, UCSC police, Parks & Rec Rangers and First Alarm Security Services. An estimated 160 people were displaced.

From: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom

309 Cedar St. PMB#14 B -- Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

(831) 423-HUFF or (831) 423-4833

to: Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Cruz

701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

Chair: John Leopold Members: Mark Stone, Neil Coonerty, Ellen Pirie, Greg Caput

cc: Phil Wowak, Sheriff, County of Santa Cruz

cc: Dana McRae, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz

cc: Susan Mauriello, CAO County of Santa Cruz

re: sweeps of homeless encampments in Santa Cruz

September 12, 2012

Dear Chairman Leopold, and members of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Cruz County,

As you know, the City and County of Santa Cruz have inadequate affordable housing available for poor and homeless people. While many public and private shelter options are available and have openings at any one time, they could, in no way, meet the sheer number of those who have no financial resources to purchase legal shelter. So it is with surprise, concern, and dismay that we read weekly accounts of a joint effort between the Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works, and the Santa Cruz Police Department quantifying efforts to sweep areas commonly used for illegal camping. As these campsites are being "abated," press releases have been issued announcing the number of camps destroyed, citations issued and arrests made.

A related concern exists in County government with the recent sentencing of Gary Johnson and his attorney, Ed Frey to jail for 2 ½ years in Gary's case and six months in jail for Ed for the “crime” of lodging. PC 647 (e) draws its origins from a tattered history of Black Codes, Jim Crow, and civil war racism which we had thought had been purged from our justice system during reconstruction. This misdemeanor statute, the statewide anti-lodging code has been mis-interpreted by our courts as outlawing sleeping, when a clear reading of the law says nothing of the kind.

We urge you to use your resources to free both Gary Johnson from captivity and to defer any further punishment of Gary or Ed indefinitely. We ask also, that you review whether it is either legal or advisable to use PC 647 (e) at all.

What these events and policies represent are peoples' lives being uprooted, their meager possessions seized or destroyed, and the persons involved moved along, cited, or arrested.

Let me remind you, two of the three shelters in Watsonville closed recently. This Saturday, Page Smith Community House closes for 5 months, and will be moving its entire population into the Paul Lee Loft. This will leave only the 30 spaces at the River Street Shelter for emergency housing.

In the City, the current City Council are only willing to fund a bus ticket out of town despite critical needs for legal shelter.

With completely insufficient shelter available, homeless people are left to mill around, unable to sit down, lie down, or sleep whether it is daytime or night. Their overall health suffers, sleep deprivation occurs, and many who tend to self-medicate do so more. Even worse for local merchants, is that when these camps are raided and destroyed, their occupants have nowhere to go but into City parks and downtown business areas where they are not wanted at all.

Police raids, and Sheriff's citations for illegal “lodging” conducted during an obvious shelter emergency, are unproductive, a waste of public resources, and in light of the lack of legal shelter available to these people, inhumane. HUFF has already called for the SCPD, Parks&Rec, and Public Works to CEASE AND DESIST massive abatement practices when no alternative shelter can be offered.

Now we are asking you, our elected representatives, to act to enact policy whereby PC 647 (e) citations will be suspended until the shelter crisis recedes.

"Housing" homeless people in jail for the "crimes" of "living" "sleeping" "lodging" or "camping" represent institutional abuse of persons whose economic circumstances forbid their ability to purchase legal shelter. Those who knowingly continue such practices will ultimately be held accountable for the human misery they are fomenting.

I thank you for your personal consideration of these issues and invite further dialogue. HUFF holds weekly meetings and I would invite all or any of you to attend our next meeting to explain your policy and practices using civil dialogue and an open process.

Sincerely,

Becky Johnson of HUFF

With a name like "North Dakota Wizards" what could go wrong?

Zazu Pitts Home on Lincoln Street in Santa Cruz, Ca. inShare

$4.1 Million loaned to a for-profit professional sports entertainment franchise while a burgeoning local homeless population is given the boot and a bus ticket out of town   by Becky Johnson September 8, 2012 Santa Cruz, CA. -- With a name like the "North Dakota Wizards" what could go wrong? The City of Santa Cruz has decided to use a parking lot currently used for Seaside Company employee parking, for a temporary sports stadium to house a feeder basketball franchise in downtown Santa Cruz. And they plan to spend $4.1 million of City money to do it, a clear example of charity to the rich. Just last April it was $2.5 million to $3 million.      Tourism-prompted replica trolley bus which shuttles between the downtown, municipal wharf, and the Boardwalk for 25 cents transportation subsidized by public funding. They are considering using "225 under-used permit parking spaces," if there is such a thing, for the Seaside Company employee parking and the shuttle as transportation to work. So Santa Cruz. All the fluff and cosmetics of antique trolley shuttles for 25 cents carrying workers to jobs that don't pay the rent, don't provide any benefits, and don't go anywhere. "A primary employer of youth," they brag. But few Seaside Company jobs are "good" jobs. None are unionized jobs. And remind me again why we are subsidizing the Seaside Company at all? With a homeless population 22% higher than just two years ago, services are severely impacted. Calvary Episcopal, also known as "the Red Church" downtown fed a record 188 people on Monday, August 27th.  Yet, City Council leaders Ryan Coonerty, Hillary Bryant and Lynn Robinson have vowed that the only new services for homeless that they are willing to provide is a bus ticket out of town. Failing to respond as leaders to an obvious public health emergency, the City did just the opposite. The Santa Cruz Police Department, the Parks & Recreation Department, and the Public Works department teamed up to sweep parks, greenbelts, and the riverbanks in order to remove encampments, issue citations, and to make arrests of homeless people for the "crimes" of "sleeping" "camping" "lodging" or "trespass" on public property. Former City Councilmember and former Mayor Cynthia Mathews, also running again, knows the Red Church and Father Joel Miller well. She's been defrocking priests since 2009! Mathews, who owns the historical "Zazu Pitts" home on Lincoln Street, took such issue with Miller's ministry to the downtown homeless wayfarers. She issued a letter on City letterhead stationery no less, seeking to get the Pastor fired. After an arduous and expensive process, Miller kept his job. Move-along Mathews, as we had called her for her advocacy for the non-commercial display device ordinance, aimed at political tables, allowed only 1 hour's time at any location on Pacific Ave. out of a 24-hour period in which free speech could take place. Maybe we should call her "No-time, no-place, and no-manner Mathews?" She also prevented the Planned Parenthood Westside Health Center from unionizing when she was its executive director. All of this is to say that the City has its priorities all backwards. It is subsidizing the rich, and stealing from the poor. The Coonerty-Robinson-Bryant plan is to use City money to finance a for-profit venture that may or may not pay off financially for the City, but which will certainly pay handsomely for Lynn, Hill, and Ryan's friends. And while construction might involve new jobs, none of these will be union jobs. Maurice Baker plays for the North Dakota Wizards in 2009 Our tiny organization, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, took a stand on this last spring. HUFF passed a resolution saying we did not oppose the Sports stadium being built, but opposed the use of any City funding. I mean, if its a profitable venture, then investors should be lining up, right? Well "the excitement" of a sports stadium pitched back in April claimed "fans would relish in the opportunity to attend a Warriors event."  What worries me is that the City is already in financial trouble. And City Manager Martine Bernal is not making me feel any better.  "This isn't a money-making scheme for the city," he says (see below). Well if the City is investing $4.1 million dollars it BETTER be a "money-making scheme."  Of course, it's not HIS money. It's ours. Or it was ours. SENTINEL ARTICLE SEP 8 2012 ONLINE HERE. Santa Cruz Warriors up investment in relocation deal; City Council vote expected Tuesday By J.M. BROWN - Santa Cruz Sentinel Posted:   09/07/2012 08:48:20 PM PDT SANTA CRUZ - Ahead of a critical City Council vote Tuesday, the Golden State Warriors' Development League team has agreed to strengthen its investment in a $5.4 million, seven-year deal with the city to relocate this fall. According to restructured financial terms revealed Friday, the Santa Cruz Warriors will prepay four years of rent on a temporary 30,000-square-foot arena to be built between downtown and the beach. The city will use the $532,000 to pay down a city loan underwriting the fast-tracked project. Just a week ago, the team had agreed to pay a full seven years of rent at $133,000 per year, but city negotiators decided to credit the team for three years of rent if the Warriors increased their capital investment - from $600,000 to $1.4 million. That money is separate from the loan. City Manager Martín Bernal said the new agreement reduces the city's overall risk by increasing security on the loan, the amount of which has nearly doubled since the team first publicly announced its relocation plans in April. Receiving four years of rent up front, in addition to collecting annual loan payments of $250,000, better secures the city's investment, he said. "In case we had a worst-case scenario and the Warriors decided to leave and default on the loan, what we wanted to have was more collateral," Bernal said. The team, formerly called the North Dakota Wizards, hopes to host its first home game in late December in a facility constructed on an employee parking lot belonging to the Santa Cruz Seaside Co., which owns the tourist magnet Beach Boardwalk nearby. The facility at 140 Front St. will have 2,950 seats for games, and when floor seats are added, 4,000 for concerts or other events. COMPLEX NEW DEAL City and team officials said there is a tentative deal with the Seaside Co. to relocate Boardwalk employee parking to 220 spaces in downtown garage with underused permit capacity and provide shuttles to the beach. The Warriors also will make $35,000 in annual lease payments to Seaside Co. and paint a Boardwalk logo on the arena floor six feet from center court - a sponsorship the team values at $50,000.   As for collateral, the Warriors agreed to cover $529,000 in prepaid construction expenses if the city releases loan funds over time to cover those costs while the team pays down the overall loan. As the facility's owner, the city agreed to credit the Warriors $1.85 million for the value of the leasehold interest, the city's share of a Kaiser Permanente naming-rights deal and assets within the facility.           With the expedited rent payment schedule, that brings to $2.9 million the amount the city views as collateral against its $4.1 million loan from a public trust fund. That fund, created by the sale of property, can only be used for capital investments, and contains only $6.1 million as of June - just a third more than the Warriors loan.   "By shifting rent payments from the back end of lease to prepayment, by acknowledging some money we have already expended and not requiring city to fully extend the loan amount, I personally thought this was a better way to structure it," said Jim Weyermann, president of the Santa Cruz Warriors. "I tried to respond to reduce the overall perceived at-risk position of the city, though my personal view is the money is not at risk." Original estimates for the facility were $2.8 million. But sandy soil, fire safety requirements and other construction-related issues necessitated a sturdier structure than originally planned - all of which raised costs from to $5.4 million. The facility would come down in seven years unless the team and city agree to extend the arrangement while pursuing a permanent structure.    There is no change in the city's intent to collect concessions revenue, including from wine and beer sales, and apply it to the loan. Revenue from renting the arena out for UC Santa Cruz sports teams, concerts or other events will also go toward retiring the debt.   If debt on the loan remains after seven years, the city has agreed to split it with the team. The minimum the city can hope for is repayment, but there is the possibility for the city to make money on a separate admissions tax, any increases in hotel and sales taxes and sharing in merchandise and ticket sales once the loan is repaid.    Still, Bernal said, "This isn't a money-making scheme for the city. The goal is to see whether we can have a better, more modern facility to revitalize this area and see if we can create a connection between the downtown and beach area. This could catalyze that." There is another minor change separate from the loan: The city will defer general plan and water and sewer fees of $147,000, with the expectation that a $1 facility use surcharge added to each ticket will cover them. As is usual for publicly owned facilities, Bernal said the venue will be exempt from traffic impact fees, which could total close to $1 million. NOISE, PARKING CONCERNS Even if council members agree to the new financial terms, they must OK a special use permit for the property, which is zoned multifamily residential. The council will hear concerns from Beach Hill neighbors over noise, parking and traffic created by the team's 24 annual games and other events. The city's Planning Commission heard those complaints Thursday before voting unanimously to recommend approval of the project.  The commission underlined the importance of key conditions - that the team encourage parking in downtown lots or on-street spaces, that Beach Hill residents get the option of year-round parking permits and that noise be monitored by the city.   "We absolutely want them to park downtown," Weyermann said. "If we can't park people and get them in and out, they won't come back."   He said the team will promote off-site parking through the Internet, advertising and direct mail to season ticket holders and possibly provide face painters, balloon makers or street musicians, to create a "Disney-like entrance" that makes the walk toward the arena more pleasant. Noise will be reduced by insulated metal walls, and fans must be out by 10 p.m.     Richard Andrews, former president of the Beach Hill Neighborhood Association and a city parks and recreation commissioner, said he felt the Planning Commission listened to citizen concerns. But many are still worried about noise.    "I think the neighbors are very suspicious of the whole project," Andrews said, adding that they expect to report rowdy fans. "Some of us feel we are going to have to go through that process." Follow Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown on Twitter @jmbrownreports   HOW THE MONEY WORKS Here are some details about the revised 7-year financing deal on the proposed Kaiser Permanente Arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors: COST SPLITTING: • City: $4.1 million public trust fund loan to Warriors • Warriors: $1.2 million capital investment, plus $200,000 for items outside budget • Devcon Construction: $100,000 capital contribution TOTAL: $5.6 million (though project is estimated now to cost $5.4 million) HOW THE LOAN GETS REPAID: • At least $1.75 million in loan payments by the Warriors ($250,000 annually for seven years) • $1.15 million to $1.5 million in estimated concessions and non-Warriors event rental • $532,000 in rent payments by the Warriors ($133,000 annually for four years) TOTAL: At least $3.4 million to $3.75 million, with any balance to be split by the city and Warriors after seven years OTHER COSTS: • $35,000 paid annually by Warriors for city's lease of Santa Cruz Seaside Co. lot at 140 Front St. • Free team sponsorship for Seaside Co. of $50,000 value in lieu of additional rent • Boardwalk employees will be shuttled to downtown garage, where city gives up 220 spaces in underused permit parking garage. IF YOU GO Santa Cruz City Council WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday WHERE: Council Chamber, 809 Center St. INFORMATION: www.cityofsantacruz.com