WILL A BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY BE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
On September 27th, Governor Newsom announced that he has convened a state-level collaborative “to examine battery storage technologies and safety measures”. Battery storage is widely viewed as key to improving reliability and resiliency of the electrical grid.

Governor Convenes State Battery Storage Collaborative to Address Safety and Permitting Issues

The collaborative will include representatives from the California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, CAL FIRE – Office of the State Fire Marshal, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

The collaborative is tasked with identifying ways to “enhance safety while continuing to innovate” and will explore “best practices for outreach and education, permitting and installation of battery projects, inspection and monitoring practices, and first responder training and safety.”

RCRC recently co-hosted an informational webinar with the California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities on battery storage permitting and safety.  That webinar included presentations by the California Public Utilities Commission, State Fire Marshal and industry experts on safety protocols and mitigation measures.

For more information, please contact RCRC Senior Policy Advocate, John Kennedy.
The Barbed Wire – October 4, 2024 | Rural Counties

I wonder if County Supervisor Bruce McPherson will serve on this Committee, as he was keenly insistent that the Board approve four 13 acre-parcels in the County for battery storage sites beneficial to the 3CE power consortium on which he also serves?  That issue has not returned to the Board yet.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE Q
There are many reasons for voting NO on Measure Q.  We should pay attention to the wisdom of the Santa Cruz County Fire Chief’s Association opposition to it…they have good reason to doubt that any of the anticipated $7.3 Million would actually come their way or be used for wildfire risk reduction projects in their fire districts.

Case in point is Measure B, approved by voters in 2022, which increased the County’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) significantly, with the promise of the monies being used in part to fund wildfire resilience.  Local fire agencies have not seen any of the anticipated $2.3 million the County rakes in with this TOT increase.

Measure B – County Transient Occupancy Tax
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA VACATION RENTAL/OVERNIGHT LODGING TAX – To fund Santa Cruz County essential public services including wildfire prevention, emergency response/recovery, street repair, public/mental health services, homelessness programs, and affordable housing, shall Santa Cruz County increase its existing Transient Occupancy Tax, paid by tourists and others staying overnight at lodging facilities in unincorporated areas, from 11% to 12% for hotels/motels/inns, and to 14% for vacation rental properties, providing approximately $2,300,000 annually, until ended by voters?

County TOT

Measure B

Likewise,  voters approved Measure G half-cent sales tax in 2018 for funding fire and emergency response but ZERO dollars have been allocated to fund fire risk reduction projects or the agencies that are tasked with doing that work.  The County Civil Grand Jury agreed there should be better transparency and oversight of that money:

Measure G

So, if the local Fire Chiefs Association does not trust that Measure Q will actually be used to fund wildfire risk reduction projects, should YOU???
Stand in solidarity with the Fire Chiefs and vote NO on Measure Q.

Measure Q

RTC FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR USING MEASURE D TRANSPORTATION MONEY…A BOND IN THE FUTURE?
The County voters approved Measure D in 2016 to add a sales tax whose revenues are restricted to various buckets of uses.  The Regional Transportation Commission oversees how that money is spent, and now is formulating a Strategic Plan for how it will do so in the next five years.  Take a look:

On average, Measure D is expected to generate $27-30 million per year over the next 5 years. The 5-year programs of projects show how the RTC anticipates investing funds for regional investment categories in the near term. The RTC budget is amended to reflect anticipated FY24/25 expenditures and carryover balances from prior years. As previously discussed, total anticipated Measure D revenue needs for the Highway and Trail investment categories will exceed projected revenue on a year-to-year cash basis. To support the proposed plans to expeditiously deliver Measure D projects and leverage grants over the next 5 years, some financing, such as bonding, may be needed starting in 2025. 

(PAGE 12-4: BAC October Packet)

Participate in the RTC monthly meetings, on the first Thursday mornings.

SAFER HIGHWAYS?
Have you had a close call on the highways here lately or seen a problem that needs attention?  Add your thoughts to this data collector survey of rural highways in our County.  I learned at the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting that this information is needed in order to allow the Santa cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to qualify for a highway improvement grant.  Brianna Goodman, RTC staff, said one area of focus is Highway 152 near the Fairgrounds, but the RTC wants to know your thoughts about other highways, too.  Data shows 65% of the accidents that happen on Highway 236 involve bicyclists while 10% of Highway 129 accidents involve bicyclists.

Of course, most areas of Highway One are not open to bicyclists, and are plagued with stop-and-go traffic most of the time anyway.

You can send your comments to Brianna Goodman <bgoodman@sccrtc.org> or attend the public hearings below:
Rural Highways Safety Plan (RHSP) – SCCRTC

I think you will be surprised by and interested in what you learn.

Join us online in late October to learn more about the Rural Highways Safety Plan objectives and the Safe Systems framework, and share your areas of concern regarding safety for all users on Santa Cruz County’s rural highways.

Virtual Community Workshop

• Thursday, October 24, 6:00 – 7:30 pm
• Join via Zoom
• Meeting ID: 831 8575 8479

The RHSP Map-based Survey is Now Live!
RHSP Survey – English
RHSP Survey – Spanish

Please let the RHSP team know about places you have witnessed crashes or near misses, or where you have safety concerns for those traveling using any mode of transportation. Please share this survey with your friends and neighbors!

The Santa Cruz County Rural Highway Safety Action Plan (RHSP) seeks to enhance safety for all users of the County’s six conventional highways: specifically, Highway 1 north of the City of Santa Cruz city limits, Highway 9, Highway 236, Highway 35, and Highways 129 and 152 outside the City of Watsonville city limits, which collectively function as main streets, intercommunity connectors, and rural highways.

SIX MILLION MORE IN DEBT TO FUND SIDEWALKS AND BIKE PATHS THROUGH APTOS VILLAGE
Director of County Public Works, Matt Machado, advised against the Board of Supervisors’ approval last Tuesday to apply for a grant that “is too good to pass up” but plunge the County $6Million deeper into debt to come up with the match.  “It’s now or never to get sidewalks along Soquel Drive between State Park Drive and Freedom Boulevard” warned lame duck Second District Supervisor Zach Friend, bolstered by newly-re=elected First District Supervisor Manu Koenig who waxed poetically about not wanting to fail his children by letting this grand opportunity pass by.

“We can’t let the same thing happen to Aptos here as what happened with financing sewer to the San Lorenzo Valley” pondered outgoing lame duck Fifth District Supervisor Bruce McPherson.  “We had that chance, and turned it down, and now it probably will never happen.”

With the exception of Chair Justin Cummings, the Supervisors voted to plunge the County deeper into debt, for a deal that is “just too good to pass up”. while having no idea where the matching $6 Million will come from .  Maybe the RTC will pick up the bill, they wondered?  Ms. Sarah Christensen, newly-appointed Director of the RTC, stepped up from the audience to assure the Board that the agency could not guarantee anything, “but I will ask.”

The meeting went for a very long time, and this item had been shuffled to the point that I could not stay to participate.  However, I am grateful for the Community TV recording of the meeting.
Click on Item #10 and watch the video discussion

Was this a dog=and=pony show for the benefit of someone, or did the Board really show financial irresponsibility?  Shouldn’t Swenson Builders fund alot of this to mitigate the impacts of the Aptos Village Project?  I remember asking Swenson’s  Project Manager in 2015, Ms. Mary Gourlay, about that, with special reference to the Seacliff Beach area.  “That is beyond the envelope of our project,” was her answer.  But the impacts of the project reach out well beyond the envelope of that project…and the County made many unwritten agreements with Swenson, according to then-Public Works Traffic Engineer Jack Sohriakoff.  Hmmm….

Last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors nor the public had any conceptual information presented at all as to what this project could look like at the time of the 4:1 Board approval to go out on a limb for $6Million.
Here is what Matt Machado wrote later that the Aptos Village face lift could look like:

The proposed conceptual sidewalk segments are as follows (0% design):

• Aptos village between Aptos Creek Rd and Trout Gulch – north side, may eliminate parking. It will not reduce need for rail / trail.
• Aptos St – Bernal to Soquel – would convert Aptos St to one way
• ~3/4 Soquel Drive between Aptos St and Rio Del Mar, north side where it fits within right of way

No additional METRO stops are being proposed

We are planning to go in front of RTC Commission in December to ask that they take lead and responsibility.

  Currently there is no budget nor staffing to begin design, nor pursue other grants.  We will be working to draft a budget proposal, very dependent on RTC action.

The current RTC Segment 12 for the rail and Monterey Bay Scenic Trail in Aptos Village includes taking half of the parking lot area in front of the Bayview Hotel and Trout Gulch Crossing.  Would this proposed sidewalk project take more?  Why would a sidewalk and a trail on the north side of the tracks be needed?

Write Mr. Machado with your thoughts:  Matt Machado <matt.machado@santacruzcountyca.gov> and watch for the RTC’s December 4 meeting.

IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA
County Probation Officer Fernando Giraldo presented the idea of the County building Redwood Coastal Youth Ranch Camp at the existing Juvenile Detention Center in Felton, rather than sending troubled youth to Solano or Sonoma Counties facilities and paying nearly half a Million $ annually to do so.  It seemed like a good idea until the nearly two dozen youth and their leaders who had been waiting all day to speak on the matter stood up and testified against it.

I think you will find watching the Board of Supervisor discussion of agenda item #9 from today’s meeting of great value.  There were many youth and staff from Solano and Yolo County probation who attended and spoke, asking the Board to delay approving the proposed Ranch Camp at Juvenile Hall because there was no involvement in the proposal by those who will be affected

The Board ended up approving a Secure facility but postponing the Ranch Camp decision until December 10, after a public hearing scheduled for November 8 (but not in Watsonville) is held.  The Director of Probation, Mr. Fernando Giraldo, admitted that it would be beneficial to have a meeting in Watsonville.

I was very impressed by the large number of youth who spoke.  it was  unfortunate that the Supervisors rearranged the day’s agenda to put this matter very last, but the youth and staff that had traveled here to speak stayed until the matter was finally heard at about 2pm.

Click on Item #9 to see the proceedings of this discussion.

LIVE OAK LIBRARY ANNEX BOOKSHELVES ARE EMPTY
This week, I attended a meeting in  one of the new Live Oak Library Annex Community Rooms.  i could not help but notice that the “Library” had three bookshelves, all of which were empty.  This “Library Annex” construction was paid for by Measure S Library special fund monies and was the subject of a County Civil Grand Jury Investigation that found many problems

Then-County Supervisor John Leopold and his Parks Commissioner, Mariah Roberts, insisted that a library can be many things.  Take a look at these empty shelves and ask why taxpayer money earmarked for library construction and renovation could be used for this….and remember this when you vote on Measure Q this November.

WATSONVILLE’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF FUTURE ANNEXATIONS
I attended the Watsonville City meeting October 5 that was to provide an opportunity to comment on what should be included in future environmental analysis of the City’s proposed 2050 General Plan.  I had expected a large gathering, so was surprised to be guided to a small conference room where a handful of City staff and the Circlepoint Consultants sat.  I arrived late, and was told “We’re just wrapping up.”   There had been a presentation, but i missed it.  Mr. Justin Meek, asked for my comments, and explained there was a person in the room recording all comments.

I began listing off my concerns:

1. impacts to emergency response and disaster relief to the County if the cross wind runway is closed.  Mr. Meek stopped me there and gave me the history of the City Council’s decision earlier this year to close the crosswind runway, and this study has the purpose of supporting that decision.  “Well, the impacts of doing that need to be analyzed and made public,” I persisted.
2. impacts of removing eucalyptus trees on Buena Vista;  Mr. Meeks stopped me again, saying there was no guarantee the trees would be removed, that this is just a plan. “But the map shows annexation for housing in that area, so tree removal would be necessary, wouldn’t it?” I asked.  He encouraged me to continue.
3. I confirmed that the “HIghway One Gateway” annexation included a significant amount of agricultural land.  “How does that comply with the County’s Measure J? That needs to be analyzed and made clear,” I said.  Mr. Meek stopped me again and asked, for the benefit of the Consultants, to explain what Measure J is.    Hmmmm… had it not even been discussed, I wondered? I did so, explaining that the Voters of the County approved Measure J in the 1970’s or 80’s to preserve agricultural land from growth, establishing the County’s Urban Services Line and setting a 15% affordable housing minimum requirement for all new subdivision projects.  The Consultants nodded and took notes.
4. Impacts on water supply, especially since there were plans for a sports complex with athletic fields at the Gateway area.  Mr. Meek stopped me again,, and said that the truth is, ag takes more water than any use proposed for the Gateway annexation area, “so it would be saving water,” he said.
5. Impacts of removing the Redman-Hirahara House and Farmstead from the National Historic Registry.  Mr. Meek stopped me again, motioning to Ms. Susie Merriam, the City’s Director of Community Development, and former County Historic Resources Commissioner.  She had been a great historic preservation advocate when on the County Commission.  For the benefit of the Consultants and to get on the record, I described the significance of the Redman-Hirahara farm, and how the people of Watsonville had paid the property taxes for the Hirahara family while they were imprisoned in the WW2 Japanese-American camps.  That allowed the Hirahara family to be able to return to their home and farm, unlike many other less fortunate Japanese -American citizens who lost their properties while imprisoned because no one paid the property taxes.  I explained that the Hirahara family converted a barn into apartments for those friends who lost everything, and helped them get back on their feet.  That barn, which has been allowed to fall, was the subject of an hjstoric survey by Cabrillo College’s Rob Edwards, and that a UCSC doctoral student had just finished cataloguing the many significant artifacts collected from the barn.  “The people of Watsonville should be so proud of that story, and want to preserve the house, barn and farmstead, as an event center or something, and keep that history that showcases the heart of the people of Watsonville.”  Mr. Meek sat silently, without expression. The Consultant stood up, excused herself and left the room, telling me that I could submit further written comment but that the recorder at the end of the table had captured my statements.

I got the hint that the people had other things they wanted to do, so I quickly listed off that the Environmental Impact Report analysis should include impacts of traffic, sewer and stormwater runoff into the nearby sloughs.  I mentioned that the County has a mandate that new development retain stormwater onsite.  Mr. Meek said that is addressed as a project’s best practices item.

In closing, I asked how the City had noticed the day’s 1pm-3pm meeting, that I could not find it on the City’s website for the Project, and had learned about it only by attending the Santa Cruz County LAFCO meeting.  “How was this meeting noticed to the public?” I asked, and mentioned that I had spoken about it at the County Board of Supervisors meeting the day before, causing the reporter for The Pajaronian, Mr. Todd Guild, to approach me afterward, seeking more information because he had not heard about it.   Mr. Meek said the notice was on the City’s Notices Website, and various agencies, such as the Air Quality Control Board,  had received notice. “Well, I ask that all future notices be included on the project webpage, so that when people look for information about the Project, they will easily find the notices for future comment opportunities,:” I suggested.  Mr. Meek nodded and said “noted”. Ms. Merriam chuckled and said that no one ever shows up to these kinds of meetings.

I left feeling grateful that at least some public perspective hopefully got recorded for what should be included in the environmental analysis of the 2050 Watsonville City General Plan Update, but at the same time, I was and continue to be troubled that  such crucial meetings are scheduled in the middle of a workday, and that noticing is so poor.

Please write the Watsonville City Council with your thoughts:

NEW SOUTH COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER HAS NO ABILITY FOR PUBLIC MEETING REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Recently, I attended a County Mental Health Advisory Board meeting held in the new South County Government Center in Watsonville, at 500 Westridge Drive, the former West Marine warehouse.  I was puzzled then why there was no ability for people to participate remotely.

Now, in reading an item on the County Agricultural Policy Advisory Commission, I learn that the wireless access it not installed:

“In addition, additional technical work required to provide wireless services has not been completed and may potentially disrupt room availability without notice.” [pdf]

Isn’t that amazing?

NO PLACE TO PARK AT 701 GOVERNMENT CENTER
For the past two months, finding a place to park at the County Government Building at 701 Ocean Street has been a nightmare.  Several times, people have arrived late at the Board of Supervisor and Planning Commission meetings because they had been circling the parking lot in search of an available spot.  Starbucks customers next door take some spaces that usually turn over relatively quickly, but by and large, the greatest offender is the County General Services Dept. using the 2-hour public visitor parking spaces for County vehicle storage.   Take a look…ALL of the vehicles you see in the photos are County vehicles:

The area near Ocean Street in the employee parking area is also full of County vehicles, many of which look as though they have not moved or been used in months:

The problem for the public use for doing their business at the County Government Building is compounded by the fact that the machines for purchasing parking time extension have been broken for over a year, so if you can find a parking place and need to stay in a meeting longer than the one or two-hour spot restriction, you can’t purchase extra time that will allow you to stay and participate without getting a ticket.  The General Services Dept. still employs a fellow to police the parking for violations of time…and he DOES  issue tickets!
Write the Board of Supervisors and General Services Dept. Director Michael Beaton with your thoughts about this:

Board of Supervisors <boardofsupervisors@santacruzcountyca.gov>  831-454-2200
Michael Beaton <michael.beaton@santacruzcountyca.gov>

You might also send a complaint to the County Grand Jury: Grand Jury

A LOOK AT THE LEGISLATIVE AND NEW LAW ACTIONS
The Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) is a marvelous agency looking out for the best interest of people in rural California.  Oddly, Santa Cruz County government is not a member, and staff has rejected the suggestion from the public that the County join. The weekly newsletter, “The Barbed Wire”, is excellent.

This week’s edition provided a review of many legislative bills signed and chaptered, as well as others that we likely will see amended and brought to the Governor in the future. Take a look and write your elected representatives with your thoughts.

Here are a few that caught my interest:

SB 946   (McGuire)   Personal Income Tax Law: Corporation Tax Law: exclusions: wildfire mitigation payments.   SB 946 would exclude payments from the California Wildfire Mitigation Program, the state’s pilot grant program to aid low income homeowners with home hardening retrofits, from eligibility for state income taxes.   Location: Senate Chaptered   Status: 9/29/2024-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 987, Statutes of 2024.   Position:   Support   Staff:  Staci (1)

SB 504   (Dodd)   Wildfires: defensible space: grant programs: local governments.     Location: Senate Chaptered   Status: 9/29/2024-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 982, Statutes of 2024.   Position:   Support   Staff:  Staci (1)

AB 98   (Carrillo, Juan)   Planning and zoning: logistics use: truck routes.   Imposes restrictions and design standards on logistics use projects within 900′ of a wide variety of sensitive receptors. The bill also requires all local governments to update their circulation elements to identify and establish travel routes for the transportation of goods, materials, or freight for storage, transfer, or redistribution. Failure to update the circulation element by January 1, 2028, exposes jurisdictions to penalties of up to $50,000 for each six-month period. Aside from implementation costs, the bill broadly defines “logistics use projects” to include food processing facilities and temporary ag-related storage facilities that served by heavy-duty trucks. Combined with the restrictions on where “logistics use projects” can be located, AB 98 could have fatal consequences for attempts to build any new storage or manufacturing facilities in rural areas   Location: Assembly Chaptered   Status: 9/29/2024-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 931, Statutes of 2024.   Position:   Oppose   Staff:  John (1)

AB 422   (Alanis)   Natural Resources Agency: statewide water storage: tracking.   Would have required CA Natural Resources Agency, on or before June 1, 2024, to post on its publicly available internet website information tracking the progress to increase statewide water storage, and to keep that information updated.   Location: Assembly Dead   Status: 2/1/2024-From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.   Position:   Watch   Staff:  Sidd (1)

AB 429   (Bennett)   Groundwater wells: permits.   If 1% of domestic wells were to go dry in a critically overdrafted basin, this bill would prohibit a county, city, or any other water well permitting agency from approving a permit for a new groundwater well or for an alteration to an existing well in a basin subject to the act and classified as a critically overdrafted basin unless the city county or well permitting agency obtains written verification from a groundwater sustainability agency that the proposed well would not be inconsistent with any sustainable groundwater management program AND the proposed well would not decrease the likelihood of achieving a sustainability goal for the basin covered by the plan.   Location: Assembly Dead   Status: 2/1/2024-From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.   Position:   Oppose   Staff:  Sidd (1)

AB 460   (Bauer-Kahan)   State Water Resources Control Board: water rights and usage: civil penalties.   This bill would authorize CA State Water Board to issue, on its own motion or upon the petition of an interested party, an interim relief order in appropriate circumstances to implement or enforce these and related provisions of law. The bill would provide that a person or entity that violates any interim relief order issued by the board would be liable to the board for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the sum of $10,000 for each day in which a violation occurs and $5,000 for each acre-foot of water diverted in violation of the interim relief order.   Location: Assembly Chaptered   Status: 9/22/2024-Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 342, Statutes of 2024   Position:   Watch   Staff:  Sidd (1)
AB 1168   (Bennett)   Emergency medical services (EMS): prehospital EMS.   Would overturn an extensive statutory and case law record that has repeatedly affirmed county responsibility for the administration of emergency medical services and with that, the flexibility to design systems to equitably serve residents throughout their jurisdiction.   Location: Assembly Vetoed   Status: 9/28/2024-Vetoed by Governor.   Position:   Oppose   Staff:  Sarah (1)
AB 1785   (Pacheco)   California Public Records Act.   Would prohibit local agencies from posting an assessor’s parcel number associated with an elected or appointed official on the internet without their written permission.   Location: Assembly Chaptered   Status: 9/25/2024-Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 551, Statutes of 2024   Position:   Concerns   Staff:  Sarah (1)
AB 2199   (Berman)   California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: residential or mixed-use housing projects.   Extends an existing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for infill residential and mixed-use housing projects in unincorporated areas.   Location: Assembly Chaptered   Status: 9/19/2024-Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 271, Statutes of 2024   Position:   Support   Staff:  John (1)
AB 2561   (McKinnor)   Local public employees: vacant positions.   This measure requires local agencies with vacancy rates exceeding 15% for permanent full-time positions for more than 180 days (approximately 6 months) within a bargaining unit to, at the request of the bargaining unit, meet with the bargaining unit within 21 days and hold a public hearing within 90 days to discuss, among other specified items, the public agency’s strategy to fill the vacancies. If the true intent of AB 2561 is to provide a path for public agencies to reduce staff vacancies, diverting staff away from core service delivery and mandating they spend time preparing for additional meet and confer requirements and public hearings on their vacancy rates will not achieve that goal. Adding another unfunded mandate on public agencies will not solve the problem this bill has identified. It is just as likely to create even more burn-out from employees tasked with producing the very report the bill mandates.   Location: Assembly Chaptered   Status: 9/22/2024-Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 409, Statutes of 2024   Position:   Oppose   Staff:  Sarah (1)

ICONIC BAYVIEW HOTEL FOR SALE
Current owner, Ms. Cristina Locke, has declared bankruptcy and now the Bayview Hotel is for sale.  Let’s all hope for a buyer that will restore and revitalize this gem in the Aptos Village.

UNDERSTANDING THE STATE PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT
I hope you will vote NO on Prop. 5 that would immediately lower all bond approval thresholds statewide to 55% rather than 67%.  This would be a financial disaster for many already struggling to make ends meet on fixed incomes statewide, but especially here in Santa Cruz County, deemed the most expensive place to live in the nation.

Read the voter pamphlet information thoroughly before voting on all measures and candidates, and consider attending this public informational event at the Downtown library:

League of Women Voters November 2024 state ballot measures
Community Forum on State Ballot Propositions
Sponsored by LWVSCC
SATURDAY October 19, 2024 10:00am – 12:00pm
Downtown Library 224 Church St. Community Room

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  READ YOUR VOTER GUIDES CAREFULLY AND VOTE!
MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers!
Becky