Listen in Friday, February 7 at 3pm when longtime local activists Frank Barron and Rick Longinotti discuss as Guests on “Community Matters” what they have found tucked away (or absent from) in the Santa Cruz City Downtown Expansion Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

If you haven’t yet heard of this massive development in the Laurel Street area, here is the summary from CEQANet:

Present Land Use
Regional Visitor Serving/ Downtown Subdistrict E, Residential High Density/ Residential-Tourist Commercial

Document Description
The proposed project consists of a series of amendments to the City’s Downtown Plan by extending the boundary of the existing Downtown Plan to incorporate the approximate 29-acre project study area and incorporate policies, development standards and design guidelines for the study area in the City’s Downtown Plan (amended January 28, 2020) that will facilitate future redevelopment of the project area. The project also includes amendments to the City’s General Plan 2030. the Local Coastal Program (LCP). the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan, and the Municipal Code to provide updates consistent with the proposed Downtown Plan amendments, including General Plan/LCP land use designation and zone district changes for parcels within the project area. The proposed Downtown Plan amendments could facilitate additional development as a result of various circulation. land use and infrastructure revisions. For purposes of environmental review, the project area could potentially accommodate a minimum of 1,800 housing units, 60,000 square feet (sf) of gross commercial area, and construction of a new approximately 180,000 sf permanent sports and entertainment arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors basketball team to replace the existing temporary arena. The arena would contain a main event court with spectator seating for approximately 3,200 seats for basketball, and approximately 4,000 seats for concerts and other performances or uses.

Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion 2022090276 – 2025-01-07 – EIR

Comments on the DEIR must be submitted in writing or via email to Sarah Neuse by 5pm Friday, February 21, 2025.Public Review Period: January 8, 2025 through February 21, 2025.

Submit Comments to: Sarah Neuse, Senior Planner, via email: sneuse@santacruzca.gov 

Public Comment is open now until February 21….take a look at the map here and just read one section of the DEIR that most interests you…and write one letter.

Downtown Plan Expansion | City of Santa Cruz
Project page for the expansion of Santa Cruz’s Downtown Plan into the neighborhoods south of Laurel Street.

What will this massive development  affect  traffic, water, and the quality of downtown Santa Cruz?  Listen in from your computer or smart device from anywhere in the world at 3pm Pacific Time Santa Cruz Voice – Listen and Be Heard

Join the conversation by phoning 831-265-5050.  Listen to the recorded program from the Santa Cruz Voice.com website under “Current Shows” at the bottom of the page, under “Community Matters”.

NEVER AGAIN MOSS LANDING.
Please link arms with this fast-growing grassroots group to learn more about what has happened following the disaster at Moss Landing Vistra Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility.  Never Again Moss Landing

When no government agency was stepping up to sample for metal contamination from the fire, this group dug into their own pockets to fund $7,000 in expert testing of more than 140 samples taken from a wide area to  gather information.

Please support them in whatever way you can and consider joining their informational outdoor rally this Saturday:

COMMUNITY MEMBERS WILL ASSEMBLE AND ADDRESS THE VISTRA MOSS LANDING BESS FACILITY FAILURE AND FIRE.

1. “Never Again Moss Landing” is a Fast-response grass-roots all-volunteer resident group which advocates for our community’s voice and interests in response to the Moss Landing BESS Fire. We believe that a disaster like this must never again occur. We coordinate local citizen efforts to organize and deploy facts that can restore our community’s environment, health, and welfare. We are not affiliated with any other governmental, business, or advocacy groups. Our website is NeverAgainMossLanding.org. Queries: info@neveragainmosslanding.org.
2. Our two Facebooks Groups were created in the immediate aftermath of the January 16th fire: 
   a. Moss Landing Power Plant/Vistra Fire Symptoms 
   b.  Moss Landing Battery Plant Environmental Disaster Community Group

3. With over 4700 members there are thousands of individual entries at these two sites detailing personal medical impacts, anger at Vistra Corporation and its response, anger at the EPA and its lack of response, fires at other battery plants, impacts upon pets and livestock, fears of general contamination and environmental degradation, uncertainty about what has happened and continues to happen, and distrust of local, state and federal responses. Members of the media are kindly advised to monitor these sites which reflect widespread citizen responses to the fire and its aftermath.
4. Founded in 2016 out of the bankrupt reorganization of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings (TCEH), Vistra Corporation (VST) is a retail electricity and power generation company headquartered in Texas with a current market capitalization of over $57B. It has traded between $137 and $191 in the past month and closed at $168 a share on January 31st. The company is the largest competitive power generator in the U.S. with a capacity of approximately 39,000 megawatts powered by a diverse portfolio that includes natural gas, nuclear, solar, and battery energy storage facilities. It was ranked the No. 1 polluter in the United States for the 2024 Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index Report, producing 1.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions generated in the United States of America. Vistra opened the Moss Landing BESS facility in June 2021. There were two emergency mishaps reported at their facility prior to the 1.17.24 fire. The CPUC has granted Vistra a 20-year permit to operate at this location.
5. The outcomes sought from this event include:

   a. The Moss Landing/Vistra BESS plant fire must be recognized as an unprecedented and extraordinary disaster for the Monterey Bay region and its residents. This fundamental reality must be shared and clarified locally, nationally, and internationally so that communities understand the scope and seriousness of this environmental and health crisis and its causes.

   b. Legal, administrative, and oversight requirements must be identified and enacted so that a fire will never again occur at the Moss Landing BESS. The required facility standards for regulation and operation must be greatly strengthened. This facility must not be allowed to reopen until the community is satisfied that these requirements have been met.

   c. Local elected officials and our community’s health, educational, and environmental departments need to provide transparency and immediate guidance to residents, businesses, medical and animal welfare facilities, and academic and educational organizations regarding testing protocols and treatment for the ongoing widespread and documented health issues related to this emergency. We are looking for guidance and information from the CA Dept. of Health, the CPUC, and our state elected officials. It is our view that such transparency and guidance have been woefully absent to date.

   d. The EPA, FEMA, Dept. or the Interior, and NOAA need to immediately send personnel to measure and monitor air, soil, and water quality in the greater Monterey Bay Area.

   e. In addition to immediate assessment and testing of impacts upon human, animal, and environmental health, long-term testing of our region must be developed and instituted. The effects of exposure to heavy metals and other toxic chemicals emanated from the burning of lithium batteries is unknown. Vistra must pay for these expenses which would be implemented and administered by government agencies, our educational institutions, and/or independent third parties.

   f. Vistra must immediately be required to release its testing, monitoring, and remediation data including that of third party providers engaged by Vistra. The plant cannot reopen without such full and ongoing disclosures.

   g. Dozens of large environmental, medical, corporate, agricultural, and community-action organizations are present in our community. These groups need to coordinate and collaborate their efforts in response to this disaster. Local government can play an important role in coordinating such efforts.

   h. Finally, the media as representatives of the public, need to demand answers from Vistra to the many unanswered questions about how this disaster happened. Accountability cannot be replaced by complacency or uncritical acceptance of information being provided by Vistra and the Public Relations company FTI consulting (SC) Inc.

   Never Again Moss Landing is a locally created, citizen-led, all-volunteer group facilitating community awareness and response to the Moss Landing/Vistra BESS plant fire.

STATUS OF WATSONVILLE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) IS FURTHER ALONG THAN LEAD TO BELIEVE
On October 29, 2024, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approve in concept three sites in the County to locate Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facilities.  Little did we know that New Leaf Energy and Swift Consulting was circling the Planning Dept., and soon after filed an application for a BESS at 90 Minto Road in Watsonville.

This week, I spent quite alot of time researching the proposed Seahawk BESS project and other types of battery technology that would be much safer than lithium.
Here is what I have learned:

Sodium battery technology is much safer, cleaner and environmentally and socially-responsible.

The project at 90 Minto Road in Watsonville is much further down the road to approval than has been made public:

1. New Leaf Energy did not purchase the land (37-acres).  It remains in a Heritage Trust under Steven K. Dobler, following the death of farmer John Lukrich.
2. County Assessor data base information shows five residences on the property, one dating to 1929, yet these are not listed in the Hazardous Assessment Report filed with the Plan.
3. Plans submitted December 17, 2024 by Swift Consulting on behalf of New Leaf Energy do not include any information about the required public meeting that was required to be held before filing the application.  This meeting was indeed held on December 12, 2024 but it is unknown who received the mailed notice postcard that failed to provide any time of day the meeting was being held at Amesti School.
4. Plans submitted show at least 136 battery storage units, each with only 10′ separation from the next.
5. In April, 2024, DK Engineering developed the Boundary & Topographic Survey for the site for New Leaf Energy.
6. In July, 2024, Dudek Consultants completed a Wetland Stream and Delineation Report for the project.
7. On November 6, 2024, County Planner Matt Johnston approved a stand alone biotic report for the project.
8. On November 6, 2024, County Planner Sydney Niiyama approved a stand alone archeological Report Review for the project.
9. On November 6, 2024, County Geologist Craig Stewart approved a stand alone Geological Hazard Assessment for the project.
10. On December 10,, 2024, C2G Civil Consultants in Scotts Valley, CA developed a Stormwater Control Plan for the proposed project.
11. On December 12, 2024, Swift Consulting filed the project application that included: Health Risk Analysis (which only addresses diesel particulate air quality during construction), Fire Emergency Response Plan, Hazardous Consequences Analysis, Noise Study, and Decommissioning Estimate.  There is NO Neighborhood Meeting Results report.
12. Nearby residences on the adjacent downwind parcel will be vacated until the BESS facility is decommissioned in 2050. These two residences (Gomez” and a barn are shown as nearby receptors (285′ and 300′ away), as is the Pajaro Valley Unified School District bus sheds and offices at the end of Grimmer Lane (1,220′ away from the proposed project.
13. NONE of the adjacent dense residential subdivisions or Shapiro Knolls affordable housing complex is even mentioned, but are actually closer to the proposed BESS than the Grimmer address.
14. The proposed project Plan shows a 12′-14′ high noise wall on the side of the project facing College Lake, but does not include any noise wall for the north side of the project that faces dense residential subdivisions.  That area of the proposed project would have a 7′ tall chainlink fence with vegetative landscaping that includes Incense Cedar trees on one page, and Douglas Fir trees on another version of the plan.  The landscape plan was developed by Dudek’s office in Portland, OR.
15. New Leaf Energy has a local office in Oakland, CA.
16. Sequoia Energy Storage LLC is also listed as parties to the project, with the address in Oakland CA  946112, however the principle Mr. Max Christian has the address in Lowell, MA.
17. All of the proposed BESS project area is within an existing production orchard, and encompasses two parcels: 05110177 and 05110178, and are zoned for agriculture.  The Plan requires significant cut and fill grading. The County must re-zone the land and the County Agricultural Policy Advisory Commission (APAC) must approve taking the land out of agricultural production as well as the required 1:1 conservation agreement inherent.
    [NOTE: The APAC was schedule to meet on February 20 but Planner Sheila McDaniel just informed me that “The meeting was canceled this morning due to a lack of items for consideration.  The support staff should post a meeting cancellation online shortly.”]

18. The proposed project Plan indicates the Zayante-Vergeles Fault is nearby;
19. The proposed project Plan inaccurately lists Central Fire District jurisdiction when in fact, the project is within Pajaro Valley Fire District (Maybe that explains why Pajaro Valley Fire did not receive notice of the December 12, 2024 public meeting.)
20. The proposed project Plan includes only a 10,000 gallon water storage tank on site.
21. The project would be unmanned, with a note that cancer is likely over the course of the project for any personnel visiting the site long-term, and would rely on SCADA radio information to relay indications of storage cell venting (the initial stage of battery failure) and smoke detection. Therefore, pg. 322 states the “Health Risk is less than significant, and the chronic hazard index is less than significant.”  It is unknown where the information would be received, and how quickly staff could respond, and how nearby populations in adjacent subdivisions downwind would be affected.
22. Chemicals listed in the Plan do not include HF gas, which is typical in lithium fires and is extremely hazardous to health and the environment.  The analysis only lists hydrogen gas as a byproduct of refrigerant that would be used, and includes a warning that all fire fighter personnel should stay 100′ from the trouble battery container doors.

I spoke with the Project’s Planner, Mr. Evan Ditmars.  He is aware that New Leaf Energy did not specify any time on the post cards mailed to what seems to be a very small list to notice the one required meeting before filing the application,  and did not seem bothered.  He assured me there will be many opportunities for public input because the project very likely will require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Somehow, I just don’t trust that.

Please contact your County Supervisor, and demand a moratorium on lithium battery energy storage systems until there is a more restrictive Ordinance for our County on this issue, and demand a technical advisory committee be formed that will develop this Ordinance…not the New Leaf Energy CEO or Carlos Palacios, the County Administrative Officer who sits on the Operations Board of Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) and depends on BESS facilities to fulfill the company mission. (Former County Supervisor Bruce McPherson sits on the Policy Board) Governing Boards – Central Coast Community Energy

EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE APPLIES ONLY TO 39 COUNTIES
Last week, Governor Newsom relaxed flood measures that allow groundwater recharge without less regulation in place.  This does not include Santa Cruz County.

The Executive Order suspends the need for a local or regional agency to determine the imminent risk of flooding based off of local planning documents. While few regional or local agencies have established the specified types of planning documents, local or regional agencies are able to determine the presence of flood conditions by other means. The Executive Order allows local and regional agencies to use readily available information and expertise to determine imminent risk. Local and regional agencies continue to be required to issue a public notification that flows are at imminent risk of flooding and inundation of lands, roads or structures.

Technical Guidance Water Code 1242.1 – Flood Diversions for Groundwater Recharge

Wouldn’t it make sense to allow fallow agricultural land to flood with stormwater when it is plentiful and thereby recharge the local aquifers?  Dr. Helen Dahlke at UC Davis has been working on this, upon farmers doing it themselves to raise ag well levels.
Can California’s floods help recharge depleted groundwater supplies?

Take a look…why can’t we do that here in appropriate areas, instead of pumping intreated sewage water that relies on expensive chemical and energy dependent treatment (aka PureWater Soquel Project) with risk of aquifer pollution?
How to Recharge our Aquifers : Helen Dahlke

IS ANYBODY LISTENING?
On May 21, 2024 at the request of the Santa Cruz County Water Advisory Commission, Chair Justin Cummings, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors,  sent a letter to multiple state water regulatory agencies and elected officials and asked for a forensic analysis as to why the Big Basin Water Company (BBWC) management problems were not addressed until the point of a Court-ordered receivership resulted.

“As a critical partner in helping to stabilize BBWC and plan for the water and wastewater resilience of thousands of residents, Santa Cruz County sees an opportunity to draw attention to both the successes and shortcomings that have shaped the current situation.  The County requests that relevant state agencies and representatives involved in private utility oversight capture lessons-learned so they can be built upon to ensure that the hardships and uncertainties felt by BBWC customers are not repeated around the state, especially following a natural disaster.”

The letter was sent to the following, in an effort to learn how to better serve the public.  However, a Public Records Act request with the County reveals that NONE of the recipients has responded to date.

Jennifer Epp
Waste Discharge Requirements Program Manager
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906

Jonathan Weininger
District Engineer, Monterey District  Division of Drinking Water
State Water Resources Control Board
1 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Building 1, Suite 120
Monterey, CA 93940

The Honorable Alice Busching Reynolds
President, California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Why does this matter?  Because the Big Basin Water Company, a small privately-owned water company is just the tip of the iceberg.  Forced receivership and consolidation is on the horizon for others.

Please contact your County Supervisor and ask that they follow up with the officials who received the Board’s May 21, 2024 letter.  Better yet, contact the recipients yourself and discuss the issue.

MEANWHILE…LEGISLATION TO FORCE CONSOLIDATION IS MOVING ALONG
The February 5, 2025  Santa Cruz County LAFCO meeting included Item 7c, reviewing a water report from UC Berkeley and UCLA, along with this discussion and recommendation: (pages 15-39)

“In order to address the ongoing challenges in advancing the State’s interest in making public water systems more resilient through consolidations, with a specific focus on disadvantaged and otherwise underserved communities, a stakeholder group was formed with representatives from the two universities, CWC, LCJA, and various LAFCOs. Attachment 2 provides a copy of a joint letter signed by the stakeholders to advance the water report’s recommendations. Specifically, the letter identifies three legislative proposals:

Next Steps
The stakeholder group is currently developing support documents such as a fact sheet for additional context and a first draft of the proposed bill language. Additionally, the group is searching for possible bill authors. Santa Cruz LAFCO is currently scheduling meetings with our local representatives, including but not limited to Senator John Laird, to discuss the recent water report and potential bill.”

Stay tuned and ask LAFCO to hold a long-promised and required Public Event relating to water issues.

CENTER FOR FARMWORKER FAMILIES AND PFAS IN BUENA VISTA MIGRANT CAMP
The Buena Vista Migrant Camp and adjacent Tierra Alta wells have the highest PFAS levels in the County. Farmworker reality tour

Santa Cruz County Public Library Presentations
All library talks are free and open to the public. We recommend arriving at least 10 minutes early to secure your seat.

Saturday, February 15, 3-4:15pm: Boulder Creek Branch Library
13390 W Park Ave, Boulder Creek, CA 95006

Thursday, March 13, 6:30-7:45pm: Capitola Branch Library
2005 Wharf Rd, Capitola, CA 95010

Thursday, April 24, 6:30-7:45pm: Garfield Park Branch Library
705 Woodrow Ave, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

*Date TBD*: Live Oak Annex @ Simpkins Swim Center
979 17th Ave, Santa Cruz, CA 95062

CAPITOLA WILL SPEND $4.7 MILLION TO RENOVATE JADE STREET COMMUNITY CENTER
Community Center Renovation Project Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council:

1. approve the construction contract for the Capitola Community Center Renovation Project with SSB Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $4,726,000, including selected additive alternates.;
2. authorize the Public Works Department to issue a notice to proceed upon final contract execution;
3. approve Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects for design consultant services for the Project in the amount of $18,320, for a total contract amount of $579,033; and
4. adopt a resolution adopting the NEPA and CEQA determination and amending the FY 2024-25 Budget.

• Community Center Award.pdf (0.09 MB)
• BLRA Amendment 3.pdf (0.02 MB)
• Community Center Award_contract.pdf (0.04 MB)
• Reso.pdf (0.02 MB)
• Budget Amendment – Community Center.pdf (0.47 MB)
• Community Center.pdf (3.55 MB)

Exterior improvements will include replacing the building’s roof and siding, repairing or replacing rafters and concrete piers, and addressing damaged stucco walls. New windows will be added, and all existing exterior doors and windows will be replaced. A shed roof will be installed at the main entry to provide a welcoming and sheltered entrance. Inside the building, the upgrades will include the addition of a single-user accessible restroom, a new office, and a permanent divider between two meeting spaces. Existing offices, the reception area, restrooms, and the kitchen will be enhanced with new finishes throughout. Modern mechanical systems, including a new HVAC system, water heater, and electrical upgrades, will ensure the building operates efficiently.

To improve accessibility, upgrades will be made to the parking area and the paths of travel to ensure compliance with current accessibility standards. In addition to the core project, three additive alternates were included in the bid to provide flexibility based on available funding. These alternates focus on landscaping and irrigation, kitchen and acoustic upgrades, generator enhancements, audio/visual (AV) equipment, and exterior site improvements (such as electric vehicle (EV) charging stations). Although budget constraints prevent the full realization of the outdoor improvements in this phase, the project has been designed to allow for future-phased work as additional funding becomes available.

Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM, January 30

PROPOSED SANTA CRUZ SEABRIGHT AND MIDTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FEES…MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK UP!

A “No” Vote is Not Enough, California Appellate Court Holds

When it comes to assessments for business improvement districts, voting “no” is not enough to exhaust one’s administrative remedies. For a property owner to preserve the right to challenge a BID assessment, the property owner must provide the reasons for its objection to the assessment during the public hearing on the BID formation, in addition to submitting a ballot opposing the assessment, a California Appellate Court has held.

In Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., businesses and property owners challenged the City’s recently formed BIDs. The BIDs were formed under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, and are authorized to fund public improvements benefiting assessed property within the BIDs through the levy of an assessment. Because the assessments would be levied on property, the City was required to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 in addition to those in the PBID Law.

Consequently, prior to forming the BIDs, the City mailed a notice of public hearing and assessment ballot to property owners within the proposed BIDs’ boundaries. At the public hearing, affected property owners had the opportunity to state objections to the proposed BIDs, and the City was required to consider all objections or protests prior to forming the BIDs and levying the assessments. However, the petitioners did not present written or oral testimony at or prior to the hearing stating the reasons for their objections. PBID Law and Proposition 218 prohibit approval of such assessments if a majority of the ballots returned opposed formation of the BIDs and the assessments. There was no majority protest, and the BIDs were established.

The petitioners then filed a petition for writ of mandate, alleging (among other things) that the assessments’ special benefit allocation was flawed. While the trial court denied the petitions on the merits, the Second District Court of Appeal on June 29 affirmed the judgment on the threshold issue of whether the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies.

Parties in California must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts so that agencies have an opportunity to reach a reasoned and final conclusion on issues being contested. Exhausting administrative remedies narrows the scope of claims on judicial review, facilitates the development of a factual record, gives the agency a meaningful opportunity to apply its expertise and may even render litigation unnecessary.

Accordingly, submitting a “no” vote in the BID assessment did not exhaust administrative remedies, where the BID formation process required the City to consider all objections prior to acting on the BID formation. A “no” vote does not allow the agency to address a property owner’s grievance. Rather, objections must be “sufficiently specific so as to allow the agency the opportunity to evaluate and respond.” At minimum, property owners must submit a ballot and state the reasons for their objections at the public hearing, either verbally or in writing.

Property Owners Must Participate in Public Hearing to Challenge BID Assessments

The Eastsife/Midtown Business Improvement Development Plan came before the City Council on January 23 and the petition process to evaluate the costs is now on the move.   It is critical that you speak up about this at every opportunity, or you will not be able to challenge it in the future.

She kindly sent the information below about what residents and businesses can expect going forward. The City Council will review it January 23, along with a review of the Downtown Economic Plan. City Council AGENDA REPORT, Agenda of 01/23/2024

It appears to be scheduled as a benefit assessment and Prop. 218 vote, likely weighted so that those whose assessments would be highest will have more power at the ballot box:

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
January 2025:
• Final MDP and Engineer’s Report upon City review
• Prepare petitions and petition packets to include Management District Plan
• Summary, PBID newsletter, official petition, and petition instructions
• City Council Study Session – Status Update

February 2025:
• Petition kick-off (allow 3 months)

April 2025:
• City Council approves Resolution of Intention and calls for public hearing;
• Assessment ballots mailed to all assessed property owners

June 2025:
• City Council public hearing, tabulate ballots (45 days later)

This sums up alot….

“Development in the pipeline and currently in construction is rapidly changing our physical environment downtown. As more than 1200 housing units are absorbed into the downtown community over the course of the next five years, we will need to regularly revisit circulation, parking use, and consumer and transportation behavior as needs in our downtown core change.”

(page 6 of the City Council agenda report)

Here is information about a Downtown PBID

Do you think this will help businesses or add just one more financial burden?

A NEW GROUP TO ADVISE ON COUNTY FIRE ISSUES
Next Tuesday , County Board of Supervisors will consider approving the process to form a new Fire Department Advisory Group that will  advise the General Services Dept. Director, Mr. Michael Beaton, for the next couple years during what is likely to be major consolidation and reorganization.

“In fulfilling these duties, the FDAG will explore alternatives to the governance structure of County Fire, with a focus on making it more effective. The FDAG will collaborate with other fire agencies and groups concerned about fire and emergency services to examine options for improving services for all who live and work in Santa Cruz County. The FDAG will operate without formal bylaws and will not be governed by the Brown Act. In accordance with Santa Cruz County Code Section 2.38.071(A)(5), alternate procedures concerning public participation, noticing of meetings, quorum requirements, minutes, and any other appropriate matters will be provided.”

See item #10:
Chapter 2.38 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT ADVISORY GROUPS

According to the Operating Procedures in Tuesday’s agenda packet, the new FDAG  will meet only on an as-needed basis.  FDAG meetings will not require a quorum of its membership, or any minimum attendance of members.

While some FDAG meetings will not be held publicly, the public will be able to access the FDAG meeting notice, standing agenda, and minutes for those meetings by either independently viewing them on the County Fire Department website or by requesting the materials to be sent electronically, as available.

Does this seem like open and transparent government to you?? I just don’t think this is an improvement over the former Fire Department Advisory Commission that the Board and CAO Carlos Palacios dissolved last year.  Please write your Supervisor with your thoughts, and participate in the Tuesday, February 11 meeting if you are able.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  CONTACT YOUR COUNTY SUPERVISOR ABOUT PROPOSED LITHIUM BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT IN WATSONVILLE…AND DEMAND A MORATORIUM.

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers,
Becky