January 6

THE RACE FOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR IS ON!

With the help of my neighbors and friends, there are now a large signs for my campaign up prominently in the Aptos Village and Rio del Mar, with requests pouring in for others and for yard signs. A post on NextDoor last Saturday caused an explosion in posts (mostly good!) from people throughout the MidCounty area. 

It is humbling, and also enforces what I have known: the people of the Second District want and deserve responsive leadership with respectful equality for all. I would certainly do my best if honored with this job. 

I will be available this Friday, Jan. 10, at Peet’s Coffee in Rancho del Mar Center in Aptos from 6pm-8pm, and Saturday, Jan. 11, 10am-noon. Stop by if you would like to ask questions, discuss matters, and perhaps take home a yard sign.

You can e-mail me at Becky Steinbruner . My website will be up in the near future. HUZZAH!!

HOW DID THAT UGLY BUILDING AT 17th & BROMMER EVER GET APPROVED?
I have wondered this as I travel past the new multi-use development on this busy Live Oak intersection. Someone contacted me to ask about the architect responsible for this ugly beast? I did a bit of research, and learned the public process was anything but robust, and seemed to change the design mid-stream. That sounds a lot like the Aptos Village Project process, too.  

We can only hope that Swenson has perhaps learned that it is smart to pay attention to the triple bottom-line early on, getting important public input and actually incorporating it into the proposed project.

The architect for the 2014 amended design (what we are gagging over now) is Daniel W. Sells. It appears that he is (or was) an in-house architect for Barry Swenson builder but I cannot find any other mention of him in the architectural field. That says a lot right there.  

In the Planning Commission staff report (10/28/2015), there are notes from the one and only community meeting for the project (seven people attended). A Swenson architect named Jeff Current presided there. I found a news release that shows he had worked for Barry Swenson for 28 years as an in-house architect, but launched his own business in January of 2014. He is married to Barry Swenson’s daughter.

I did a search of the County Planning Dept for the address and application and found that the mixed use project (1155 17th Ave., APN 026-311-33) was originally approved in 2008 for eight for-sale apartments and some retail space.  There was some environmental analysis, but it got approved with a Negative Declaration.

The permit approved in 2008 languished, due to economic downturn, but came back to the Planning Commission on October 28, 2015. Swenson wanted to increase the number of units to 13, making them smaller, but only adding two bedrooms total (14 increasing to 16 total), and also making them rental units. The design included seven retail spaces.

It seems that the roofline architecture really changed with this design re-working. Public comment at the community meeting included statements that they liked the roof lines of the other design better.  

I found it shocking that the planner, Annette Olson, stated that the design of the structure “will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding properties.” “The bulk, massing and scale of the structure will be minimized by using varied roof and wall planes and different finish materials…making it compatible with existing built environment..” (page 26 of the October 28, 2015)

In looking at the architect’s plans (an example on pages 45 and 57 of the Planning Commission staff report) 

The County actually did create an environmental review for it, but it, like the Aptos Village Project, got away with just a Negative Declaration. The biggest issue is increased storm water runoff from the impervious surfaces but also the increased sewage to an area that had a moratorium on new sewage service.

The County wanted Swenson to install pervious paving to reduce storm water runoff, but Swenson hired a new soils engineer that submitted a report claiming there is a clay layer that would not permit proper drainage from the (more expensive) pervious paving. So, the County required Swenson to install a storm water treatment unit on site to improve the water quality before it is discharged into the storm water drain. This was on page 15 of the staff report. ( I wonder if that is getting built and if so, who will monitor it’s function?)

There was no traffic study required, just a general trip study to calculate developer fees.

The notes included from the one community meeting held on May 22, 2014, which only seven people attended, noted that people said they liked the old roof lines of the 2008 design better. The response was that the building design had been altered to create an interesting space in the units and provide large windows overlooking the streets. (page 184 of the staff report) There is a note on page 185 that says the previous design was a combination of shed and roof gable design, but it was altered in the 2014 design. According to Barry Swenson Builder website, the in-house architect Daniel W. Sell’s phone number is 408-938-6338. Planning Dept. staff report claimed this project will revitalize the area..I think it will increase traffic speeds as people try to race at top speed past this ugly eyesore and try not to look at it!

WHY WE SHOULD NOT BURY THE LIBRARIES.
Both Jean Brocklebank and Becky Steinbruner worked on the large, expensive and suspicious plan to spend large sums of money on our Downtown library and its future. Jean wrote “In my opinion, the similarities are basic for all branches, even the two that were clearly identified for new construction during the Measure S campaign (Felton and Capitola). Rather than having the branches repaired, upgraded and modernized, we’ve witnessed manipulation of a public fervor for architectural grandeur. Plans call for substituting sleek for cozy, snazzy for practical, brand new loud colored furnishings for all branches, entertaining for informing, loud and noisy for quiet contemplation, and social services for informational services. More empty space than peopled space, for a sense of expansiveness, which is energy foolishness in cities and counties with Climate Action Plans and Climate Emergency Resolutions (e.g., replacement of eleven foot high ceilings with eighteen foot high energy-inefficient ceilings, while even the new shelving will only be six feet high). 

All branches are way over budget totaling millions of dollars throughout the system and that is not due only to the escalation of construction costs, as some would have us swallow. It is due to asking too much and not being content with sufficiency. This constant voracious societal demand for more and bigger is what drives destruction of the environment, locally, nationally and globally. Apparently decision-makers can’t connect the dots. But that may be because they are too busy providing for entertainment rather than education.

The shocking plan to build a large new library downtown beneath a parking garage continues. The proposed parking garage is senseless, and would destroy the space that has hosted the weekly Farmer’s Market providing a wonderful community connection beneath graceful Magnolia trees. The fight to remodel the existing library and thereby save not only the Farmer’s Market, but also lots of taxpayer money, goes on. Many wonder if the parking garage idea is simply to provide parking that is absent from planned dense developments nearby. Below is a thoughtful response from” Don’t Bury the Library” leader, Ms. Jean Brocklebank, remarking on my comparison of the similarities of the Aptos Library’s remodel plans to demolish what is structurally sound in the name of modernization, when remodeling is less expensive and can accomplish the goals intended . Jean kindly gave me permission to share all of what follows: 

Dear friends of the Downtown Library ~

This Update is devoted solely to Stephen Kessler and his latest exquisite column in Saturday Jan. 4 Sentinel. What a pleasant surprise to read it earlier!

Be green now. Save Lot 4. Rebuild the library” by Stephen Kessler 

Stephen captured all aspects of the matter before us and articulated them clearly. It would be well for everyone involved — from the City Council and City Manager, to staff of the Economic Development Department, and the Library System administration — to read and digest this column. 

WHAT MAY BE ON THE HORIZON IN DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ…ANY TREES?
A BrattonOnline reader contacted me about a proposed project at 908 Ocean Street, wondering if I thought the parking at the County Government Building might become shared parking for the 333 new residential units?  The mixed-use development would swallow the 19 parcels encompassing the area from Marianne’s and extend nearly to the Sewing Center at Water Street. Indeed, how will this all work?

You can read more about the proposal here: Designer responds to Ocean Street 333-unit condo project concerns

What made me catch my breath was when I investigated the City of Santa Cruz Planning & Development website, and saw that the large 908 Ocean Street project is only the tip of the iceberg for what is in the works!

Take a look:

Development Projects | City of Santa Cruz

While it is encouraging that the 908 Ocean Street project would provide 15% or 50 of the units to be affordable, one wonders why the percentage is not higher? These are to be 600 SF units for living a quality of life that is something different than what Santa Cruz has known and come to treasure.  

Will there be large trees to provide shade and a sens of nature nearby? Will the parking be waived, as has occurred for the Laurel Towers development? Is there enough water in prolonged periods of drought for all this development without forcing people to drink treated sewage water that requires massive amounts of energy to process and yet may not be reliably clean? Traffic is already a congested nightmare. Are these part of the 700 new units the City has promised to the big tech companies, as City Economic Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb stated on local television two years ago? I suggest you add your contact to the project notifications lists for the project near you…make a big difference by showing up, and speaking out.

ABOUT THAT PROPOSED CSA 48 RURAL TAX…IS IT LEGAL?
The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on January 14 to consider the final public input and voting on the proposed County Service Area (CSA) 48 County fire benefit assessment. This new tax could be substantial, and would be levied in addition to the current CSA 48 property tax. The Board voted October 22 to move forward with this ballot action, referring to the staff’s claim that “County Fire recommends” the Board do so. However, maybe that letter of recommendation and all that staff claimed is not legally correct.

The “Letter of Recommendation” came from FDAC.  However, I attended the meeting at which the FDAC supposedly voted unanimously to make this recommendation and it was not at all what was represented in the staff report to the Board. The FDAC never saw the engineer’s report before it went to the Board. There were only three FDAC members that attended the meeting, but there were other non-voting staff present. Doug Aumack said that the FDAC could not make any recommendations, but Michael Beaton insisted that they do, and pressured them to do so.  

The three FDAC members approved IN CONCEPT action to augment County Fire revenue, but never explicitly recommended the ballot action at hand. Michael Beaton wrote in his staff report to the Board that there were 10 members of FDAC present at the meeting and the vote was unanimous to send the ballot to the property owners.

Here is a link to the minutes of that FDAC meeting (it does not include members of the public who were also present).  I have just noted that the vote recorded for the Item included a vote in favor by Alex Leman. However, the minutes note that Alex Leman was absent.

Also, I think it needs to be pointed out that Carey Pico, the Second District FDAC representative, does not live within the CSA 48 boundaries, and therefore cannot legally support a tax increase for CSA 48.

This was recently established in Santa Cruz County Superior Court by Judge Paul Burdick when residents of the San Lorenzo Valley School District argued that Supervisor Bruce McPherson could not legally sign on to the Measure S school bond ballot measure as a supporter because he does not live in the school district boundaries.  Therefore, Carey Pico should have abstained from any vote on the CSA 48 tax issue.

I submitted a letter that is attached to the October 22 hearing item about the incongruity of what the FDAC actually had done and what Mr. Beaton’s report stated to the Board.

At the October 22 hearing, Supervisor John Leopold did ask Michael Beaton about the FDAC recommendation, and I believe that Mr. Beaton just stated that there had been a quorum present and the vote was unanimous. Doug Aumack, dressed in his County Fire uniform, testified in support of the action. I think it would be worthwhile to review the video of this public hearing (Item #12 at the 1pm hearing) 

I think there are some very serious issues we need to raise in writing. In my experience, it is best to send these issues to the Board early because they will not do anything at the hearing to make staff look questionable if we wait to bring it up at the hearing. 

Write your County Supervisor and raise question of legality in this very vaguely – calculated tax that has rounded UP all acreage to a whole acre amount for assessment, which can mean substantial tax difference for “invisible land”. 

NISENE MARKS STATE PARK CLOSED TO TRAFFIC FOR PAST TWO WEEKS
A reader who lives in the Nisene Marks State Park area let me know that for the past two weeks, the road leading into the Park has been posted daily with the sign you see below, barring visitors from driving to the hiking trail heads, and forcing them to park dangerously alongside the pothole-filled road. I wanted to see if the sign were removed one evening, so drove in on Aptos Creek Road at dusk. The sign was indeed folded and stowed, but there were hikers and bikers dodging potholes in an effort to return to their vehicles parked behind the Aptos Station Center.  

I gave one such young woman a ride. She was grateful because she had not come prepared to have to walk alone at night in the woods for an extra couple of miles to return to her car in Aptos Village. It would seem that perhaps it is time the State Parks considers providing a shuttle bus for such vulnerable visitors at the end of the day when the “PARKING FULL” signs have to go up. Write Mr. Chris Spohrer chris.spohrer@parks.ca.gov with your thoughts.