August 21

APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT PHASE 2 HAS TROUBLING IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY

Swenson Builder is going full-court press with the Phase 2 Aptos Village Project, but causing some real problems for the Community and the environment.  Although earlier presentations to the public had stated there would be a Phase 2A and 2B, it appears that Swenson got a green light from Santa Cruz County Bank to move ahead with development on both sides of Aptos Village Way.

Swenson has now removed on-street parking on Aptos Village Way between Parade Street and Aptos Creek Road, and allows the construction contractor (Durden) to have their crews park on Aptos Creek Road, rather than within the construction area itself.  The photos below were taken last week.

This is the area adjacent to the hillside that Swenson will dedicate to the County for a new park.  Hmmm…  County Parks staff has stated they have no idea what to do with a hillside like that, but never mind…the County waived all developer park fees ($1000/bedroom in the new subdivision) and granted FREE drainage from this Phase 2 area across Aptos Village County Park for Swenson to dump the storm drain effluent into Aptos Creek.  The light-colored soil you see above in the foreground is capping the actual site of the fuel tank Swenson and SCUP crews unearthed in 2016 and hauled away in the middle of the night with some sort of unidentified petroleum material dripping all the way.  Swenson quickly demolished the foundation of the historic Lam Mattison Apple Dryer that likely relied on the fuel to power the hot air for the dryers.

Last week, I stopped in at County Environmental Health Services and talked with the new Director, Mr. Andrew Strador.  He saw no reason for the County to monitor the soils in this area, and was not troubled that Swenson had lied about the true location of the buried fuel tank their crews hauled out in the night.

Maybe the guy with the white helmet is watching for Native American artifacts begin dug up from this State-registered archaeologic site, but maybe not.  Who knows?  Does the County care?  If you care, please file a Public Records Act request with the County Planning Dept. for the reports submitted as part of the mitigation plan approved in 2012.   You might also ask if the 2010 Parking Study the County approved for this Project has been updated?

This is Aptos Creek Road, the gateway to Nisene Marks State Park, and directly across from Aptos Village Park.  There used to be some wonderful concerts in that Park, but that all went away when Swenson barricaded the dirt parking lot along Aptos Creek Road, removing the necessary staging space for the concert support crews and equipment.  Now the road is barely passable, due to encroachment into the paved road, creating narrowed entry to Nisene with a blind corner so motorists heading into the Park can’t see the walkers and bicyclists coming out until they are nearly on the hood of the vehicles.  Quite a bottleneck for emergency response vehicles and hazard for public safety.  If this bothers you, please contact County Public Works Travis Rieber and ask about the overly-greedy encroachment of pavement that Swenson is gobbling and if that is what was planned (and paid for??) with the County.  If the safety hazard bothers you, please contact Central Fire Marshal Mike DeMars and ask about this hazardous congestion for fire and medical response.

Not only is Swenson barricading Aptos Village Way to prevent any public parking, the construction contractor, Durden, is using Aptos Creek Road as a place to park their mobile office and crews.  Note that the mobile office is parked in a red curb area and in front of the fire hydrant that a fire engine would need to access should there be a fire in Nisene Marks State Park or the luxury homes on Mattison Court, on the hill above the Phase 2 Aptos Village Project construction.

I wanted to verify that the Durden mobile office was associated with Swenson’s construction…yep.  There are the plans and proof on the tailgate of the Durden truck (the one parked in the red curb area).  I happened to be at the site at noon, and witnessed construction crews climb into at least three vehicles parked on Aptos Creek Road.  I wonder why they are not being made to park in the construction area, and use the Swenson construction trailer that is on-site?

If this bothers you… please contact County Planner Randall Adams randall.adams@santacruzcounty.us

and Code Compliance Director Matt Johnston Matt.Johnston@santacruzcounty.us

WHAT WILL UCSC DO TO HOUSE THEIR STUDENTS?

Enrollment is way up at UCSC, according to LookOut Santa Cruz:

From LookOut Santa Cruz;

UC Santa Cruz sent offer letters to more than 43,000 first-year students this year, the largest of any of the nine UC campuses. That number is up nearly 40% from last year, the biggest increase of any UC school. But UCSC is expecting to enroll around just 4,650 first-year students between fall and winter as it juggles a complex confluence of factors that have made it harder to anticipate how many students will ultimately accept admission offers.

Where will all these students live?  I am told by local real estate agents that there are empty rental units in Santa Cruz, but are offered at extremely high rental rates.  The owners are NOT dropping the rent price…I guess they are waiting for the University students to flood in with desperate dollars to crowd the neighborhoods?

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE SELLING EXCESS PROPERTY TO BENEFIT SEABREEZE TAVERN PROPERTY OWNER?

The Board approved, as Item #42 on the Consent Agenda, the sale of what the County now determines is “Excess Property” on the Esplanade in Rio del Mar.  The claim is that it is prone to flooding, due to sea level rise.  It always has been prone to flooding, but the County twisted the arm of the former owner of the SeaBreeze Tavern to take it over.  The Parks Dept. Director Jeff Gaffney claimed to a surprised Parks Commissioner that it was a good place to sell concessions to beach visitors.  That did not pan out too well, as the concessionaire contracted rarely showed up.

Agenda Item
DOC-2023-713; Adopt resolution to sell surplus real property located at 105 Esplanade

So, I have to wonder if the County’s declaration to sell this parcel will benefit the new Bay Area developer of the SeaBreeze Tavern area, Omar Billawala ……maybe remove restrictions for a large luxury hotel?

Remember, the County just declared a large parcel of land above the Santa Cruz Harbor as “excess property”, likely to make way for a luxury hotel, as Swenson proposed a few years ago.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE PURCHASE OF LARGE NEW SOUTH COUNTY PARK THAT IS FAR-REMOVED FROM THOSE LIKELY TO USE IT

The Board of Supervisors approved a $2.3 Million purchase of a 38-acre vacant farm near the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds, far-removed from the area’s youth who might make use of the “temporary soccer fields” planned. The staff report states: 

Background

“The Property is approximately 38.54 gross acres located near Watsonville and zoned Commercial Agriculture (CA).  The Property is envisioned as a recreational/ agricultural mixed-use project.  The recreational use would include multiple non-permanent soccer fields, portable restrooms, a natural surface trail, active farming, and agricultural tourism and demonstration for students.  Additionally, the Property has been strategically targeted to address the County’s future emergency response needs due, in part, to its adjoining property line with the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds.”

The problem is that according to Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds CEO Zeke Fraser, the County is not talking with the Fairgrounds about that idea….or are they?  I wrote to David Reid, Director of the County’s Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience (OR3) that is supposedly planning the County’s emergency response matters what plans the County is making to bridge the ravine between this new Park and the Fairgrounds for accessibility.  He did not respond.  The only Metro Bus service to the Fairgrounds is on Sundays for the Flea Market, and during the County Fair.

Santa Cruz County CA Agenda Item DOC-2023-724

Join the discussion on Community Matters this Friday, 1pm on Santa Cruz Voice.com

WHY ARE KIDS IN CALIFORNIA STRUGGLING TO LEARN TO READ?

This is pretty troubling.  See what you think, and offer to help out as a reading mentor, if only in your own family and neighborhood.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND ONE MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS TO HOLD OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.  HELP A CHILD LEARN TO LOVE TO READ.

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky

PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT LOCAL DISCRETION FOR LAND USE 

You will be shocked when you take a quick look at the Active Building Permit Applications for Significant Projects in the City of Santa Cruz and see the parade of very tall and dense structures planned for downtown:

Active Planning Applications | City of Santa Cruz

Accordingly, an OpEd CalMatters article in Sunday’s Sentinel caught my attention.  A possible Constitutional Amendment on the ballot to restore local land use discretion?  That would be great to push the State’s big stick back, wouldn’t it?

Here is what I learned.

Here is example of what this amendment would provide (see pages 5 and 6)

(2) A county or city shall not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative. 

 (b) (]) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a local law shall prevail over conflicting land use planning and zoning statutes. 

(c) (l) State funding appropriated before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision shall not be modified due to a city or county adopting or enforcing any local law that pre-empts any land use planning and zoning statute pursuant to this section. 

(2) State funding appropriated after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision shall not discriminate in favor of, or give any preference to, a city or county that voluntarily complies with any land use planning and zoning statute. 

Here is CalMatters analysis of the impact of this Initiative, brought about by the State’s mandate to build 2.5 million new housing units by 2030, double the number in the previous 8-year cycle mandate:

How a ballot measure and population revisions complicate California housing war

But here is the rub:

State Demographers have revised the projected growth and housing needs and now reveal that California’s population trend is stagnant, with no real increase through 2060.

After decades of historic growth, California switching to a period of chronic stagnation

So, shouldn’t the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) also revise the Regional Housing Allocation Number (RHNA) mandates that are currently causing our County and Cities to feverishly re-zone to have dense, tall infill that will obliterate the character of our Communities?

Here is the Attorney General’s analysis of the 2021 Constitutional Amendment Initiative proposed for this same matter, but that was not put on the ballot.

If you want to get involved, join  “Our Neighborhood Voices”, the group of movers and shakers behind trying to preserve our local discretion on land use issues: Our Neighborhood Voices – Our Neighborhood Voices

The “Catalysts for Local Control” also has excellent information about this:

ABAG’s Bay Area population projections are way too high | Catalysts for Local Control

Sign up to participate in their District-wide meetings with elected representatives about this issue.  By and large, the representatives are not up to speed with what is really going on.

Recent Santa Cruz Voice online radio interviews with Lira Filippini and  John Hall from “Our Downtown, Our Future”, and Keresha Durham and Frank Barron from “Housing for People” revealed that the State’s housing mandates would actually reduce the number of affordable units overall, because developers would be allowed Density Bonuses to build many more market-rate units if their plans include a small percentage of the baseline number as “affordable”, sometimes increasing the total size of a development by 50%.

Such is the case of the proposed 908 Ocean Street NEW proposal for 389 units with mixed use retail on ground floor.…demolishing eight commercial buildings, 12 residential units, remove 13 heritage trees, requesting a 42.5% density bonus from a base density project of 273 units. 

Does it concern you that in 10 years, our Communities will be gone, in the interests of the greedy developers who have convinced elected officials to allow them to erase the quality of life and character of our communities, and not provide any real increase in affordable housing, not to mention bypassing developer impact fees for infrastructure?  Please get involved with like-minded people in “Catalysts for Local Control”, and “Our Neighborhood Voices”, or contact your elected representatives with your thoughts and solutions

Pencil in October 14 on your calendar now to attend what promises to be a great public discussion at the London Nelson Center with panelists to address the issue of local affordable housing, RHNA mandates, and what we want our Communities to look and feel like decades from now. 

THE CITY’S SURVEY ABOUT WHAT CONCERNS YOU

Last week, the City of Santa Cruz sent a link to a survey, wanting to better understand public concerns about environmental issues.

Oddly, the survey could only be accessed by a cell phone scanning the QR code

However, digging around in the City’s website revealed a link to the actual survey

What’s on your mind?  Take the survey and let the City know, but beware the veiled grab for personal property restrictions.

I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A PARK FOR THE PEOPLE

Recently, I saw tractors parked at the Farm Park area along Soquel Drive near the Quik Stop in Soquel, at Hardin Way.  I thought it must finally be progress being made on the bike jumps that County Parks officials have long promised to get built there.

I was wrong.

In reading the County Parks Commission agenda packet for August 14, 2023, here is what I learned:

An undeveloped portion of The Farm County Park is being leased to Monterey Peninsula Engineering, for the next approximately 15 months to use for staging of construction equipment and materials for the County’s Soquel Drive Buffered Bike Lane and Congestion Mitigation Project. Public Works is the contact for any questions. 

(see page 5)

This view of Farm Park is from Soquel Drive, and was supposed to be a bike jump place for the kids, with work donated by the local cycling clubs.

Here is the view from the small parking lot within the Farm Park entrance on Cunnison Lane.  It seems that MPE is already quite at home, but what about the Park promised to the people, decades ago?

Will this equipment be eventually used to help construct a Farm Park for the people?  The soils may get contaminated with oils that leak (see small puddle in the foreground?)

Meanwhile, this bridge. aka “Bridge to Nowhere”, that County Parks Dept. purchased nearly a decade ago to connect the two areas of the Farm Park is still just across the ravine and part of the Farm Park, rusting and in disrepair.  It is an ugly nuisance and hazard for the Tee Street neighborhood.

Please contact Supervisor Manu Koenig and ask why the County’s Farm Park is such a disgusting eyesore, and why the people still have no recreational park there.  831-454-2200   Manu Koenig manu.koenig@santacruzcounty.us

Public Works Director Matt Machado responded to my query with “I suspect the agreement will generate revenue for Parks, I further suspect the agreement and use does not conflict with Parks plans to develop the park further.  All that said it seems this current use is good for everyone, including the community. New revenue, Soquel Drive improvement.

Win-Win”

What an odd statement from a public servant.

SOUTH COUNTY PARK PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS MOVE FORWARD WHEN COUNTY CANNOT EVEN MAINTAIN WHAT IT HAS BEEN GIFTED?

How can it be that the County Parks Dept. can in good faith move forward to purchase 38 acres at 181 Whiting Road for a new County Park, yet has shuttered the Bert Scott Estate Park for over 20 years, an incredible gift from the founders of Granite Construction Company? Bert Scott Estate Santa Cruz County Park, Corralitos, CA

Take a look at page 7 of the County Parks Commission agenda, and see that:

South County Parkland Acquisition County Parks is negotiating with the owner to purchase the property via owner-provided financing.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA, Aug 14

This proposed new County Park will have no safe access for kids to ride bikes to attend future athletic activities, other than riding or walking on Highway 152.  Is this the best use of Parks Dept. public monies?

STRANGE AND PRE-DETERMINED INTERVIEW OUTCOME FOR SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT NEW BOARD MEMBER

I was able to attend most of the interviews last week that the Soquel Creek Water District Board conducted of the 13 applicants for the vacant Board seat.  There were some excellent applicants that would have brought real professional expertise to the Board.

It was nearly comical to witness the haphazard approach the Board took to decide who the finalists would be, and what questions to ask them.  It was painfully obvious that General Manager Ron Duncan was pulling the strings of the puppet Board.  He handed them the questions to ask, and further suggested the Board ask finalists: “Where were you when you found out about the application process?  How did you feel?”

The answer to that odd and seemingly lame question revealed that Ron Duncan had text-messaged the women who were ultimately chosen as finalists to encourage them to apply initially.  They were given priority over other applicants because they had already been hand-picked to serve on the District’s Standing Committees.  Hmmm…Ron did state at the Board meeting when it was quickly decided to fill the vacancy by appointment rather than election that choosing someone from the Standing Committees would be a real possibility.

It sure was a priority for the Board last week.

The new Board member is Ms. Jennifer Balboni, floating to the top of the Applicant list because of her involvement on the Infrastructure Standing Committee and her abundant energy.  It will be interesting to see how she blends with the establishment.

She will be officially sworn in next Tuesday.

MANY IN THE SECOND DISTRICT WON’T MISS THIS FRIEND

A great Letter to the Editor last Sunday summed up the sentiments of many regarding the announcement  of Supervisor Zach Friend not seeking a fourth term of office.  Rest assured, we have not heard the last of this arrogant politico, bound for climbing the ladder at the expense of constituents.  No one can remember when the last time he held a town hall meeting of any sort…and good luck ever getting a reply to your correspondence.

“The announcement by the 2nd District Supervisor on not seeking reelection has been a long time coming. The irreversible damage to my community in Aptos will last forever while he moves to his next political position. When a politician comes into a community without any historical knowledge of previous agendas and the disdain they caused and then carries one of the most contentious developments in this community’s history, it’s time for him to go.

By the way when is the Army Corps of Engineers going to begin repairing that levee? You helped get the funds but what’s the start date? Before or after the next break?

— Arnold L. Versaw Jr., Aptos”

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.

DO JUST ONE THING THIS WEEK, AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers,

Becky

Three years ago, much of our County’s rural Communities were devastated, instantly rendering nearly 1,000 families homeless.  The journey to rebuild and attempt to recover has been long and painful for many, and the County of Santa Cruz and CAL FIRE have made the permitting process so expensive and tortuous that many gave up.

The rebuilding permit data is shockingly low.

As of July 2023.  CZU fire occurred August 2020, so it’s now three years later.

Houses destroyed:  911

 Houses rebuilt:  32

Permits Issued, Ready to Pick Up: 213

Why is that number so high???   Supervisors Justin Cummings and Bruce McPherson asked that same question, and requested staff report back this month to explain.

Data from page 10 of the August 2023 issue of the Capitola Soquel Times.

Why are the numbers so low?  If you read the article by Mr. Tom Decker in the Aptos Times, you’ll get an idea

From that point it took us:

• two sets of structural engineers
• three hi-tech companies
• one licensed registered environmental engineer
• two California licensed general contractors
• three permitting consultants
• two sets soils engineers
• one topo map placement consultant
• one ancient debris flow advisor
• thirteen months and
• a 166-page plan set

… just to permit our first home.

Is this in alignment with the County Board of Supervisor action to instruct the County Planning Dept. to be “Pro-Housing”?

County Takes Steps to Seek Prohousing Designation — Housing Santa Cruz County

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DESIGINATED PRO-HOUSING

What does that mean for the look and feel of downtown Santa Cruz?  Well, for one thing, it means more money for the cash-strapped City.

California Designates Three More Communities as Prohousing for Strides Made to Accelerate Housing Production | California Governor

But what will it mean for those who live here and the environment Santa Cruz has always said we embrace?

A recent interview with Housing for People leaders Keresha Durham and Frank Baron gave me a new insight as to what is in the planning process for the Laurel Street neighborhood, near the Arena.  The City does not need to build the skyscrapers they have planned there in order to meet the new RHNA   mandates.  The reason the City wants to do that is to bring in revenue to fund the new Warriors Stadium planned for the neighborhood.

It seems the City’s focus is purely on the bottom line.

Help the dedicated Housing for People organizers to get enough qualified signatures on the ballot for November to allow the people of Santa Cruz to vote on building heights, densities and to increase the percentage of affordable inclusionary units in developments of 30 or more units.  Housing For People – Santa Cruz – Housing for People Not unaffordable towers! Take Back your Democratic Right to Vote on Height and Increase Affordable Housing

City of Santa Cruz earns Prohousing Designation to allow accelerated housing production – KION546

STATE AUDIT QUESTIONED ACCURACY OF NEED TO TRIPLE HOUSING MANDATES

There is a great article in the August edition of Capitola-Soquel Times illuminating last year’s  State Auditor report of the Regional Housing Number Allocation (RHNA) mandates whipping cities and counties into feverishly working to get their papers in order to build, build, build.

Capitola Soquel Times: August 2023 — Times Publishing Group, Inc.  (“Why did State Housing Demands Double?)

Take a moment and read over the State Auditor’s Report

The auditors examined the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed for RHNA numbers of three regions and found:

1) “We identified multiple areas in which HCD must improve its process. For example, HCD does not satisfactorily review its needs assessments to ensure that staff accurately enter data when they calculate how much housing local governments must plan to build. 

2)  We also found that HCD could not demonstrate that it adequately considered all of the factors that state law requires, and it could not support its use of healthy housing vacancy rates. This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.

3) HCD’s needs assessments also rely on some projections that the Department of Finance (Finance) provides. While we found that most of Finance’s projections were reasonably accurate, it has not adequately supported the rates its uses to project the number of future households that will require housing units in the State. Although these household projections are a key component in HCD’s needs assessments, Finance has not conducted a proper study or obtained formal recommendations from experts it consulted to support its assumptions in this area. “

Does this mean that HCD sort of made it all up, and now cities and counties are left to scramble their way to get a Housing element approved by HCD to comply?  Never mind the lack of infrastructure and environmental impacts…or quality of life.

Read the State Auditor’s Recommendations to fix this issue on pages 22 and 29 of the Report and start talking with your local representatives to speak up for our quality of life in Santa Cruz County.

LISTEN TO COMMUNITY MATTERS THIS FRIDAY (8/11) TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CITY OF SANTA CRUZ BUILDING ISSUES

Santa Cruz Voice is a new online local radio platform, hosting many programs focusing on local issues.  This week’s “Community Matters” Friday 1pm-3pm program will host John Hall and Lira Filippini with Our Downtown, Our Future.  Listen in and join the discussion: Santa Cruz Voice

WHY WOULD SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE LEADERS REJECT ANNEXING BRANCIFORTE FIRE DISTRICT IF REQUIRED TO TRANSITION TO DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS?

The informal opinion of LAFCO director Joe Serrano when I spoke with him after last Wednesday’s meeting.  The Commissioners did not seem to understand or care that the Happy Valley residents and property owners will absolutely lose all representation when the Branciforte Fire District dissolves upon annexation.  Why doesn’t Mr. Serrano think this is important?  He acknowledged it is a concern, but was adamant that the annexation go forward.

He want to submit the annexation for an award at the upcoming State LAFCO convention in Monterey.  Hmmm…

“We can work on pressuring Scotts Valley after the annexation is complete” he told me.  Really?  What incentive would Scotts Valley ever have?

There is a 30-day Request for Reconsideration in which ANY PERSON can submit a request for the LAFCO to reconsider their approval of the Plan for Service that would cause Happy Valley residents to surrender all of the fire engines, the fire station, and all equipment, all tax monies and the Measure T special Assessment the Branciforte Fire District voters approved in 2016 to fund equipment, the station, and “contingencies, yet will have no say at all as to what happens to those assets.  It would all be up to the SVFD existing Board of Directors to decide.

Hmmm….  That is a very rude and ruthless Board.  Unless there are changes, the people of Happy Valley will not be served equitably.

Kate Anderton was the only member of the public from B40 there, along with Chief Lackey and Director Kuksht.  The new Scotts Valley Fire District Chief Correira and Director Patterson were in the audience.  Kate was the only one who spoke.

She brought up real concerns about the Measure T funds and that the B40 Board alone has governance of those funds. How could Scotts Valley Fire Board legally dictate the use of the Measure T or dissolution of it in the future?  She asked that Item 6(i) in the Resolution be omitted.

6(i) Branciforte Fire Protection District Revenue Source: Upon the effective date of the reorganization, the successor agency will receive the property taxes, benefit assessments, special assessments, special taxes, fees, and charges currently in effect and being collected by BFPD, including Measure T and any new benefit assessments to fund the Branciforte Fire Station. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56886(t), all charges, fees, assessments, or taxes existing within BFPD shall be extended and shall continue to be levied and collected by the successor agency until otherwise determined by the successor agency’s board of directors. The successor agency shall have full authority to impose, administer, and collect said special taxes and fire suppression benefit assessments in the same manner as the existing districts within the applicable portions of the successor agency. 

 page 6

I spoke about the need for better representation with district-based elections.

Director Serrano focused ad nauseum about “Branciforte Fire is a sinking ship”.  He made it sound as if the District will fall apart by the end of the year if the annexation does not happen.  He said the new Type 6 engine is being purchased with Measure T funds, which is not true.

The Commissioners asked a bit about Measure T…how much money is it?  Branciforte Fire Chief Lackey did not even go to the podium when asked. : About $167,000 per year.”  Commissioner Roger Anderson asked about the number of calls that other agencies have responded to (Joe reported 159 calls/year for B40).  Joe did not have the information handy, but estimated Scotts Valley responded to about 50% of them.

Supervisor Koenig asked about the effect of removing Item 6(i) regarding Measure T and asked if the LAFCO could alter the Resolution and Plan for Service?  Director Serrano said Yes, then told him the Advisory Commission would be able to address the issue of keeping Measure T monies in Branciforte District after it dissolved.

The Commission then approved the Resolution with no changes.

Director Serrano later told the Board that he plans to submit the Reorganization to the State LAFCO meeting to get an award.

Individuals or agencies have up to 30 days after adoption of the resolution to submit a written request. The reconsideration period is scheduled for August 3 to September 1.

 BFPD Reorganization Staff Report Page 15 of 16

 Protest Proceeding In accordance with Government Code Section 57000, when the Commission adopts a resolution making determinations regarding a change of organization, affected residents within the proposal area will have an opportunity to voice their opposition during the protest period. The Commission shall specify a timeframe between twenty-one (21) and sixty (60) days for the collection and filing of written protests pursuant to Government Code Section 56886(o), and that timeframe shall be included in the terms and conditions of an approval for a change of organization. Within thirty-five (35) days of the adoption of the Commission’s resolution, the Executive Officer shall notice a protest hearing and, in the notice, set the hearing date as prescribed by the Commission in its terms and conditions. LAFCO staff has set forth a 24-day protest proceeding. The protest period is scheduled for September 4 to September 27, 2023. A protest hearing will be held on September 27 to collect the final petitions and hear any resident feedback. A public notice for the protest hearing will be advertised no later than Friday, September 1, 2023. 

Protest Results Upon determination of the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, the Executive Officer shall take one of the following actions: a) If less than 25% of the affected registered voters or landowners oppose the proposal, then a form of resolution making determinations and ordering the change of organization or reorganization will be adopted without an election; b) If 25% to 50% of the affected registered voters or landowners oppose the proposal, then a form of resolution making determinations and ordering the change of organization or reorganization will be adopted subject to confirmation by the voters; or c) If more than 50% of the affected registered voters or landowners oppose the proposal, then a certificate of termination will be issued, which ends the LAFCO proceedings. For additional transparency, and to clarify the statutory requirements outlined in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the Commission adopted a Protest Proceedings Policy (refer to Attachment 17)

LAFCO Branciforte Fire Protection District Reorganization

What happens in Branciforte Fire District can happen in your neighborhood.  This sets a precedent for Santa Cruz County. Please contact Santa Cruz County LAFCO with your thoughts, and urge anyone you know in the Happy Valley area to get involved while they still have a shred of direct representation.

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABLE. DO ONE THING THIS WEEK, AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Becky

WILL THE TRUSTEES LEAVE THE NAME ALONE?

The Cabrillo Community College District Board of Trustees is scheduled to meet August 7 to decide on a new name for Cabrillo College.  The Board was scheduled to meet at the Watsonville campus, in a very small room, but luckily changed the location to the main campus in the Horticulture Building.  Never mind that it is not easily accessible for those who may be arriving on the bus, and forget ADA accessibility up that long steep hill above the Campus if you are in a wheelchair.  So much for equality.

But check here to see of maybe the Cabrillo Trustee and President leadership will change their minds and relocate the meeting into one of the performance halls on lower Campus that would be easy for people with mobility issues to attend.

Will the Board consider the generous offer of Theresa and Richard Crocker to donate an extra $1 million to the Cabrillo Foundation if the Trustees do not change the name?   The Crockers are significant benefactors of the College and the Crocker Performing Arts Theater’s namesake, and donated $100,000 in 2007 to support the Dental Hygiene program from closing down.

As backlash over Cabrillo College name change grows, some donors weigh whether to keep giving

Will the College Trustees “take a pause” on the name change fever that has caused so much divisiveness in our Community?  Many donors are considering “pausing” their donations to the College, because the Board ignored the survey results dismissing 80% of the people who responded and did not want the name to change.

Please attend the August 7 Board of Trustees meeting at 6pm, high on the hill above the campus, with very limited parking.

GEOTECH WORK ON THE ROAD FOR NEW TRAIL STRUCTURE IN APTOS VILLAGE

There is a lot of construction happening throughout the County’s roadways, but last week, I was surprised to see a drilling rig in the middle of Soquel Drive near Aptos Village.

One-way traffic at the Aptos Creek Bridge snarled the already-congested Aptos Village area.  Ms. Sarah Christensen, Project Director for the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) confirmed the drilling was related to the Segment 12 Rail Trail work that will include a brand new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over this area of Soquel Drive and Aptos Creek.

I am a bit worried about the impacts of the heavy construction traffic on the 1928 Aptos Creek Bridge.  It bothers me now to see bright orange lines spray-painted on the venerable Bridge, resembling graffiti.

Maybe we should report it?

Keep your eyes on this area for other construction issues.

DIGGING IN APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT’S CONTAMINATED SOIL?

Construction has begun in the Aptos Village Project Phase 2 area.  Recently, I traveled through Aptos Village Way in the Phase 2 construction area during non-working hours and noted a smell of diesel.  I am aware that there was an Underground Storage Tank (UST) that Swenson crews removed from the north side of the Phase 2 area in 2016.  I personally saw the incident and know that the location Swenson indicated to the County Environmental Health staff at the time, and that was remediated, was not the actual location of the UST.  

Swenson’s crews hauled the tank out right away in the middle of the night and covered up the trench they had hastily created to contain the foul-smelling contents that poured out when the tank was yanked out of the ground.

The Phase 2 construction crew is now doing some excavation in the area near where the UST was located, and where Swenson crews staged the excavated tank in 2016 before hauling it away during the night.

I have respectfully requested that Santa Cruz County Environmental Health monitor the soil work at the Phase 2 construction site on the north side of Aptos Village Way to ensure the public’s health is protected and that any potentially contaminated soils are remediated appropriately.  I urge you to do the same.

While the diesel odor could be from the equipment, parked and not operating,  I believe it would be appropriate for Santa Cruz County Environmental Health staff to monitor the soil disturbances to ensure the soil is not contaminated in this work area, given the history of Swenson’s activity there.

What does Swenson’s contractor do with the soil excavated from there?

Excavation in the Phase 2 area near the existing three-story structure (not shown, but at the right of the excavator) is the true general location of the buried tank illegally removed in 2016.  Maybe it was the fuel tank for the Lam Pon Apple Dryer adjacent, also in Phase 2 area.  Swenson removed that structure’s foundation in 2016 after the tank incident.

What does Swenson’s contractor do with the soil excavated from there?

Please write Santa Cruz County Environmental Health:  Mr. John Gerbrandt john.gerbrandt@santacruzcounty.us and Ms. Sue Ziebersue.zieber@santacruzcounty.us and ask that their staff monitor the soils to protect public health and safety.

In my opinion, it would be a good idea for Soquel Creek Water District to monitor the groundwater quality at their new Granite Way Well, given it is in the “downstream” flow from the former UST and, according to local hydrologists, groundwater levels are shallow in that area.  I have attempted to alert Soquel Creek Water District Operations staff to this potential contamination, but they are never interested.

WONDERING ABOUT CHROMIUM CONTAMINATION IN YOUR DRINKING WATER?

What is considered “safe levels” of a carcinogen like Hexavalent Chromium in drinking water?  The State of California is about to finalize a lower level than before, and separate Hexavalent Chromium from other variants (Chromium 3) of the metal that are not as harmful to health.  Under the proposed new rule, all public water systems will have to comply with hexavalent chromium maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 micrograms/L, according to a system size-based compliance schedule or submit a plan for coming into compliance.  The regulations do not apply to private wells.

There are many wells in the La Selva Beach area that have high Chromium levels, often a mixture of the forms.  The Santa Cruz County Water Advisory Commission will hear a presentation on this matter during their hybrid meeting at 4pm on August 2, (immediately following the State public hearing in Sacramento, 1pm-4pm). Take a look at page 16 of the Commission packet to see what some of the hexavalent chromium levels are like in the La Selva area wells.

The new proposed lower limits were adopted by the State Waterboard in 2011, but large water companies cried foul because of high treatment costs, and took the State to Court on the grounds that there had been inadequate analysis of costs. In May 2017, the Superior Court of Sacramento County issued a judgment invalidating the previously-established hexavalent chromium MCL and ordered the State Water Board to adopt a new MCL consistent with Health & Safety Code 116365 to consider treatment feasibility issues.(California Manufacturers and Technology Association, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board, Super. Ct., Sacramento County, Case No. 34-2015-80001850.).

This caused some water purveyors, like Soquel Creek Water District, to halt all plans and treatments in process to remove carcinogenic hexavalent chromium from the water they sold to customers until the State could offer the feasibility information the Court required. “Design and installation of a permanent, centralized treatment facility to treat water from Seascape, Bonita and San Andreas wells is placed on hold until the new MCL is established by the State.”

[Soquel Creek Water District: Chromium 6]

Soquel Creek Water District was even charging their customers for a non-existent hexavalent Chromium treatment plant in their tier 4 water rates, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

Many thanks to ratepayer Mr. Jon Cole who, as a self-represented litigant, successfully brought legal challenge to that rate fraud, causing Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick to end the District’s charging for that non-existent treatment plant.  Too bad he did not also require the District to refund the money they had collected, too.  

I wonder how that money go spent???  Maybe one of the many trips the management has taken to Washington, D.C. to personally check in with their paid lobbyist about PureWater Soquel Project?

Hmmmmm…..

There is now thorough analysis of treatment costs, as can be found in the State Waterboard Rule Making Comment documentation,

The balancing act is weighing the health and safety benefits, mandated by the Clean Water Act, with the treatment costs.

“While many benefits of this regulation are difficult to quantify, improved public health is the primary benefit, which may be experienced as a reduction in the number of cancer cases (up to 12.8 per year) and noncancerous cases (not quantifiable). Although the number of noncancerous cases (liver toxicity, which can occur at hexavalent chromium concentrations above 2 mg/L) cannot be quantified, the 5.5 million people who will see hexavalent chromium concentrations reduced by an average of 32.4% are likely to see related health benefits.”

The State Water Board determined that the economic impact of the proposed regulations would likely exceed $50 million in a 12-month period.

 Based on current monitoring data, it is expected that 5.3 million individuals – approximately 14% of California’s population – would experience water cost increases. For the majority of people (84%), the increases will likely be less than $20 per month. Increases will likely be higher for those served by small PWS. As is the case with most increases in household costs, increases will be more burdensome for individuals for whom such expenses are already a higher proportion of total household expenses.

The State cannot reimburse any treatment costs for schools, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Actions to comply with the MCL may include blending, the installation of treatment, drilling a new well, consolidation with another PWS, or not using a specific well at all. 

Here are the current and proposed maximum contaminant levels allowed for hexavalent chromium, as well as other existing regulated contaminants.

What’s the best way to remove hexavalent chromium, found to be toxic at even parts/billion? Take a look here.

Any interested person, or their representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Clerk to the State Water Board. Any written comments pertaining to these proposed regulations, regardless of the method of transmittal, must be received by the Clerk by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on August 4, 2023.

Comments received after this time will not be considered timely.

To facilitate timely identification and review, please identify the action by using the State Water Board regulation package identifier, “SWRCB-DDW-21-003: Hexavalent Chromium MCL” in any written comments.

Written comments may be submitted via any of following methods:

1. By electronic mail to: commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov;
2. By facsimile (“fax”) transmission to: (916) 341-5620;

Do weigh in with your thoughts on the matter.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING AND SPEAK UP FOR WHAT YOU FEEL IS RIGHT.
MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK, AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky

PLEASE COMMENT ON STATE RULE CHANGES TO ALLOW TREATED SEWAGE WATER GO DIRECTLY TO YOUR TAP

Here we go…the State will hold a public hearing on September 7 to take public comment on allowing treated sewage water to be in your tap water directly from the treatment plant.  Known as “Direct Potable Re-Use” or DPR, this will allow municipalities to sell the water directly, despite unknown long-term health impacts of low-dose chronic ingestions of endocrine disruptors and other pharmaceuticals that cannot be removed by the existing treatment processes and are not regulated.

State Water Resources Control Board NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING [pdf]

More on this next week.

SANTA CRUZ CITY WATER COMMISSION MEETING WAS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE

Last Monday (7/17) many people likely were prohibited from participating in the Santa Cruz City Water Commission meeting because it was made nearly impossible to do so. The meeting was in an unorthodox location, not noticed, and the door to the actual meeting room was locked.

These meetings have been in-person only, so I waited in the parking lot at the City Council chambers, where the Commission has been meeting.  No other vehicles arrived.  I looked at the display boards adjacent to the City Council Chambers, but there was NO Notice of the meeting.  I contacted a friend who checked the internet website information…it seemed it was a Zoom only meeting, so I drove home.  I looked up the Zoom access information on my home computer and saw the meeting had been changed to a hybrid format at the last minute.  I called in, but was not admitted to the meeting after waiting 15 minutes..  I hung up, sent an email to Director Menard and Commissioners Engfer and Ryan. and called again.  This time, I could hear Commissioners talking but had no idea where in the agenda they were working.  When public comment time arrived, I simply asked “where on the agenda are you?”  and was informed the Commission was reviewing the new Intertie Project as part of the Santa Cruz City Water Rights Project.

I had missed all presentations and Commissioner discussions.  Ms. Menard informed me the meeting was recorded.  That was good news.

In listening to the last shred of discussion and vote by Commissioners, I learned that on August 8, the City Council meeting will include presentation and approval of this new Intertie Project between City and Scotts Valley.

I also learned that many Commissioners have resigned, leaving the Commission dangerously close to not being able to have a quorum.

I learned the Intertie Project had not received a formally noticed public hearing or a public comment period because the Water Dept. chose to use the faster method of an Addendum, rather than a Subsequent EIR, and all that pesky environmental analysis and public participation was not required.

Commissioner Engfer wanted to know why there was no mitigation stated for the significant number of trees that will be removed?  Staff said that will get worked out.  “I’m not sure what kind of motion we should make here” said Engfer, referencing an apparent earlier comment from Commissioner Tom Burns.  Quickly, Burns moved to approve the Staff Recommendations to accept the Addendum.

Addendum to the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project Final Environmental Impact Report Intertie-1 Project [pdf]

Take a look at the map on page 13.

This will connect the Cities of Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz for sharing surface water supplies in non-emergency as well as emergency times.

The Proposed Intertie-1 Project evaluated in the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project EIR, referred to therein as the City/SVWD intertie, included interconnection of the City’s water supply system to the SVWD’s system through installation of approximately 8,000 linear feet of new 12-inch-diameter intertie piping from Sims Road in the south, along La Madrona Drive to the north to the City of Scotts Valley where a new pump station would be constructed (see Figure 1). A generalized location for the pump station was provided, but the precise location, facility footprint, and equipment characteristics and sizing were not known at the time. Given typical pump stations in Santa Cruz County, this pump station was expected to be a single-story building with an outdoor paved area surrounded by security fencing and low-wattage, shielded outdoor security lighting directed onto the site. Once constructed, the City could deliver water to the SLVWD through the City/SVWD intertie, and the SVWD could then convey the water to the SLVWD through the SVWD’s existing interconnection with the SLVWD. Interconnection of the SVWD and the SLVWD systems (referred to as Intertie2 or IT2) was constructed in 2016 and permitted for 

emergency use as part of the Scotts Valley Multi-Agency Regional Intertie Project. Additional approvals would be required to use the existing intertie between the SVWD and the SLVWD systems for non-emergency use.

The anticipated duration of project construction is 16 months, spanning from approximately March 2024 to July 2025. 

While WSAC recommendations considered only delivering surface water to SqCWD and SVWD, current conceptual-level planning considers delivering surface water to San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Central Water District as well.

The Project has been modified: (see page 12)

The Proposed Intertie-1 Project, as modified, is 20% longer than the previously evaluated project, consisting of approximately 9,600 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter bi-directional intertie pipeline and a pump station between the City and SVWD distribution systems. The intertie pipeline would facilitate transfers of water supply from the City to the SVWD during wet seasons, and from SVWD to the City during dry seasons or drought years. The pipeline would run from the City’s Pasatiempo tanks at the southern extent of the project area along Firehouse Lane to Sims Road, and then north along La Madrona Drive to the City of Scotts Valley where the new pump station would be constructed in a similar, but more specific location. The Proposed Intertie-1 Project would also include installation of appurtenances that are required for pipeline operation, monitoring, and maintenance, including line valves, air release valves, isolation valves, sample stations, and hydrants. Figure 2 shows the modified alignment, pipeline appurtenances, pump station location, and worst-case disturbance buffers.

The pump station would consist of a single-story, approximately 800-square-foot building that would contain three 40- horsepower pumps and their associated VFDs and related electrical equipment and piping. 

The connection between the City and SVWD distribution systems would be provided via pumped flow from the City to the SVWD, and gravity flow from the SVWD to the City

The pumps would be used to provide water to the SVWD distribution system and the SVWD’s Sequoia tank with City water. When SVWD is providing water to the City, the pump station bypass line would operate while the pumps are off, and the SVWD’s Sequoia tank would primarily fill the City’s Pasatiempo tanks. An 8-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) connection to the sanitary sewer in La Madrona Drive would be installed for purposes of flushing sample test water or pipeline potable water during startup and shutdown of the pump station. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) electrical service for the pump station would be provided by installation of a new utility pole near the pump station or by installation of approximately 500 feet of new underground conduit and cable along La Madrona Drive. The pump station would include provisions for connection of a portable backup power generator to provide system operation during power outages—a new feature of the pump station not previously evaluated. 

 Operational agreement terms would include uses for emergency and non-emergency use between the City and SVWD. The operational agreement is expected to include specifications for the duration of the agreement;

 On Firehouse Lane, the City would acquire a 20-foot-wide permanent easement on the parcel along the northern portion (APN 067-202-66), and the City would purchase or otherwise acquire the parcel that comprises the southern portion of Firehouse Lane (APN 067-202-60). On the SVFD property at 6000 La Madrona Drive (APN 021-141-20), the SVWD would acquire an approximately 30,800-square-foot temporary easement for construction staging and 11,000-square-foot permanent easement for the pump station and affiliated appurtenances.

With all the development that all jurisdictions in the County are being required to do by the State’s Mighty Big Stick, will there be enough water, even with the regional sharing?  Attend the Santa Cruz City Council meeting on August 8 and ask.

Also,…next month’s 7pm Santa Cruz City Water Commission meeting on August 21 will again be in an unorthodox place: the Downtown Library upstairs Community Meeting room, whose access is prohibited when the library closes at 6pm.  “People need to arrive early or on time so they don’t get locked out” reminded Ms. Menard.  Hmmmm….it would be nice if the meetings were properly noticed so members of the public can even find out where the meeting is being held, wouldn’t it?

Write the Commission and the Santa Cruz City Council with your thoughts on this as well the Intertie Project.

CityCouncil@cityofsantacruz.com

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT GIFTS FREE WATER FOR 50 YEARS TO TWIN LAKES BAPTIST CHURCH

Part of the sweet deal Soquel Creek Water District has with Twin Lakes Baptist Church is gifting the Church FREE water to irrigate the new athletic field for 50 years.  The Church just completed the new sod lawn last week.  Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to gift that water to Cabrillo Community College, a public agency with large athletic fields just across the road?

One of the three new wells where the District plans to pressure-inject treated sewage water into the aquifer is located on land the District leased from the Church.  That well has been seemingly plagued with problems, and has had to be rehabilitated already…maybe again now, for the second time since it was constructed in 2019.

What an expensive fiasco, especially when one considers the independent report by Haley & Aldrich that was commissioned by Cabrillo College to ensure the injected recycled water would not negatively affect the College’s three private wells.  The analysis determined that harm was unlikely, due to the gradient flow of the groundwater relative to the College’s wells. However, the expert report questioned the wisdom of Soquel Creek Water District for positioning the injection well close to one of their production wells and a handful of private wells “downstream”.  The expert called the placement of the Project’s three injection wells “curious”.

Contact me if you would like to see that Report.  I obtained it in a Public Records Act request with Cabrillo College.  You should also be able to find it on the Soquel Creek Water District website under “Correspondence” for the next Board meeting; I gave the Board a copy at their meeting last Tuesday to review and consider.  By the way, here is a link to Director Bruce Daniels’ letter of resignation

APPLY TO SERVE PRIVATE WATER OWNERS & CUSTOMERS IN THE MIDCOUNTY AREA

Are you a private well owner or get your water from one?  How about a small water system, mutual or other non-municipal water system in the County? If you answered YES, you need to get involved in the management policy related to your water supply.   Apply by 5pm Monday, August 14, to serve on the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board where there are two vacancies for Well Owner Representatives open.

 “The MGA is responsible for groundwater management in the Mid-County Groundwater Basin in the communities of Soquel, Aptos, Capitola, Live Oak, and La Selva Beach. 

To be eligible, an applicant must own, operate, or be served by an individual well, small water system, mutual, or other non-municipal water system within the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. The time commitment is approximately 4 hours per month, including evenings. The position is unpaid.  

An ideal candidate will have a demonstrated ability to work with others in a collaborative setting. They will have the means and motivation to communicate with the community they are representing. They will have knowledge and experience that will benefit the MGA and the implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 

The application is available at www.midcountygroundwater.org. 

BRANCIFORTE PROPERTY OWNERS REJECTED EXPENSIVE ASSESSMENT BURDEN

It was standing room only last Thursday (7/20) when the Branciforte Fire District Board met at Happy Valley School for a final public hearing to call for any remaining Special Benefit Assessment ballots before tallying began by the Election Dept. staff waiting there to begin.  Many people again voiced disagreement that they alone should have to pay to staff the Branciforte Fire Station when Scotts Valley Fire annexes their District, taking control of all the engines, the newly-remodeled fire station, property tax monies, and the Special fees the property owners voted to tax themselves in 2016 (Measure T) to pay for new equipment, and facilities needed.  One man said it would more than double his property taxes, and he actually lives close to the existing Scotts Valley Fire boundary.

I asked if the Board planned to send a courier to the fire station, where the voters were instructed to send or deposit their ballots, just in case some people dropped them off after all the staff had left to set up at the School for the meeting?  Their answer initially was NO, “it’s up to people to read the directions on the ballot and come here” said Board President Larry Pageler, but when residents protested, he grudgingly acquiesced.   A firefighter returned with five ballots in hand from the day’s mail.  One man came into the room minutes after the hearing had closed and asked to deposit his ballot.  “NO”, the hearing was closed and tabulation was under way.

I was grateful for the team of four Election Dept. staff, directed by Elections Manager Ms. Tricia Webber, coming to the School to do the tabulation.  The Fire District Board had initially told residents the ballots would be tallied by the SCI Consultants who had developed the method for how much everyone’s Special Benefit Assessment would be, and boasted of a 94% success rate in getting such measures passed.  In observing the Elections Dept. staff working, I was impressed with their thoroughness and focus on accountability and transparency.

In the end, a total of 434 ballots were returned (of 750 parcels potentially receiving assessments) with 379 NO votes, and 53 YES votes and TWO ballots that were invalid because there was no vote indicated.

These were Prop. 218 weighted votes, with the votes of those property owners assessed the most having proportionally more weight given to their votes.  The weighted NO vote was 875,554.23, with the weighted YES vote being 103,393.05, and the weighted vote of the two invalid ballots was 1868.87.

Most of the people who attended were very happy to see the assessment struck down.

The wonderful Elections Dept. staff, including Manager Ms. Tricia Webber (in orange) opened and sorted the ballots.

Sorting out problems with the SCI Consultant software “black box” and weighted vote tabulation.

Ms. Webber read the Statement of the Vote with Branciforte Fire District Board President Mr. Larry Pageler looking on as the news officially announced the incredibly expensive Special Benefit Assessment failed.

BUT DISTURBING DECISIONS HARMING HAPPY VALLEY RESIDENTS ENSUED

Although Scotts Valley Fire staff has never said directly that failure of that whopping assessment would cause them to close the Branciforte Fire Station, LAFCO Director Joe Serrano, who is pushing the annexation forward full throttle, has, and the Board has obediently repeated the narrative.

So it made no sense that the Branciforte Fire Board moved forward Thursday to purchase a new Type 6 fire engine that they confirmed will be housed in Scotts Valley.  They insisted they had to spend the money because it is from a $500,000 gift of the Barnes Family to the Branciforte Fire District for the benefit of Happy Valley residents.

Also very disturbing was the Board’s rejecting a public member’s request that the Board not move forward with the annexation with Scotts Valley fire without a condition that Scotts Valley Fire Board transition to district-based elections upon completion of the annexation.  “NO!” said Director Marilyn Kuksht. “That would break the deal with Scotts Valley, and we would be back to ground zero in the annexation process.”

Wow.

She feels it is more important to shove the deal forward at the expense of fair representation for the people she represents?  The Plan for Service the Board rubberstamped last month meekly acquiesced to handing over all assets and tax monies to Scotts Valley, and only having an “Advisory Committee” that would meet twice a year to make recommendations about how all that money and resources would be used, but with no obligation at all by Scotts Valley to abide by anything requested.

Keep your eye on this.

HAPPY VALLEY RESIDENTS WILL HAVE NO EFFECTIVE VOICE AFTER ANNEXATION WITH SCOTTS VALLEY IS COMPLETE 

The LAFCO Staff Report for the August 2 public hearing is shocking because it states that after the annexation is complete, the existing Scotts Valley Fire District Board will be in charge of deciding how all assets and monies from the dissolved Branciforte Fire District will be used. More than that, the Scotts Valley Fire Board, NOT the people of Happy Valley, will decide who will serve on the Advisory Commission from the dissolved Branciforte Fire District area to make toothless recommendations a once or twice a year.

Do the people in Happy Valley know this?  NO.

It was extremely disturbing that the Branciforte Fire Board completely failed to alert the room full of residents that on August 2, the LAFCO will meet and consider approving a Resolution that would finalize the annexation of the two Districts.  Approval of that Resolution will set the clock ticking for the people of Branciforte Fire District to protest the annexation.  Many in the room last Thursday wondered why this annexation is necessary, saying they are happy with the level of service that a hybrid paid / volunteer staff arrangement has provided for many, many years.

So why didn’t their Chief or the Board even announce it during their Ad Hoc Committee report during the meeting to a room full of constituents? “We haven’t really met because we’ve been pretty focused on the Special Benefit Assessment ballots.” was all that Chief Nate Lackey stated.  When I announced the August 2 LAFCO meeting and impending resolution, the Board seemed nonplussed.

Yikes.  The people of Branciforte need to know about this important August 2 LAFCO meeting and state their opinions.  Their own Board has failed them.

Please share this information with anyone you know in the Happy Valley area

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

(see page 8 and 9 of the 16-page Staff Report);

Governance 

The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District (post-reorganization) will include all the territory currently within the boundaries of SVFPD and all the territory currently within the boundaries of BFPD. The newly reorganized District will be governed by a 5-member Board of Directors, elected at large from the entire district. The SVFPD Board of Directors, as composed at the time the reorganization is deemed complete, will continue to serve until their individual terms expire, at which time the seats will stand for election. Any registered voter within the reorganized district boundaries (both SVFPD and the former BFPD area) may file and run for an open seat on the Board. To avoid conflict with the California Voting Rights Act, SVFPD may consider transitioning to a system of elections by district in the foreseeable future following additional analysis. 

Branciforte Oversight & Representation 

The SVFPD Board of Directors will establish a Service Zone encompassing the territory of the former Branciforte Fire Protection District, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13950. The purpose of the Service Zone is to provide the community with accountability for the use of taxes, assessments, or fees collected solely within the Service Zone (Health and Safety Code Section 13955). Further, the SVFPD Board of Directors will adopt a policy forming the Branciforte Advisory Commission and will also appoint members of the Branciforte community to said Commission in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13956. The purpose of the Advisory Commission will be to review the finances, operations, and projects that directly benefit and/or affect the Branciforte community. The formation of the Branciforte Advisory Commission will be made as soon as practical after the recordation of the reorganization. Following the reorganization, the SVFPD will continue to be managed by the incumbent SVFPD Fire Chief, along with their staff and officers. 

SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT BOARD PLACING BOND ISSUE ON THIS NOVEMBER’S BALLOT TO FUND NEW FIRE STATION

If you live in Scotts Valley, a new proposed bond tax measure is coming your way to help finance a $22 million new fire station.  The Board approved the bond’s necessity at their July 12 meeting (see page 13, with the Ballot Initiative on page 21).

The following is the abbreviated form of the bond measure: 

FIRE PROTECTION AND SAFETY BOND MEASURE. 

To construct a new strategically located fire operations facility, command center and repair/replace outdated stations, to be fully operational during a disaster, and seismically safe and accessible, thereby maintaining essential safety services including medical emergency lifesaving services, improved 911 response, wildfire protection and disaster response, shall the Scotts Valley Fire
Protection District levy approximately $27.50 per $100,000 of assessed value to repay general obligation bonds through maturity?

The estimated total cost of the Project to be paid from General Obligation Bond proceeds is $22,240,000. 

The maximum rate of interest to be paid on the General Obligation Bonds will not exceed 12% per annum. 

The tax imposed by this Fire Safety Bond Measure is an ad valorem tax levied upon taxable real property in the District. The tax will be used to pay the principal and interest on the General Obligation Bonds.

The location will be on La Madrona, near the Hilton Hotel, and will potentially partner with the Santa Cruz City Water Intertie Project.

IS CALFIRE’S RELIANCE ON AI FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION TACTICALS WISE?

Many thanks to a friend for sending this information, describing CAL FIRE’S increasing reliance on models generated by AI to make decisions about how to use resources available when there are large fires.  Will this make responders and fire bosses by giving them orders reliant on screens and data, rather than paying attention to what is happening in real time and consulting with those having local knowledge?

Drones, Satellites, and AI

Consider what happened here in the CZU Fire, as reported in the July 2023 San Lorenzo Valley Post (page 10) in an article about an art exhibit “Light on Water”  “Veteran Firefighter Shanna Kuempel Celebrates Fine Art Exhibit” by Julie Hoorn.

The article explains how Kuempel, a Battalion Chief with Santa Clara County Fire Protection District at the time and a 30-year veteran of the fire service, was fighting a fire in southern California when she received news that her family home on Summit Drive in Bonny Doon had burned in the CZU Fire.  She was released from her strike team to return home.

“She came back up to join those who had stayed behind to fight the fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. “They were planning to do a burnout operation on all of Smith Grade” she said, “which would have taken occupied homes; people who had either not evacuated yet or had chosen not to leave.  We wondered why are they doing this at this point? The decisions being made weren’t practical decisions.  We had a discussion with CalFire about it, and we got in trouble for it.”

They stayed for days taking 12-hour shifts protecting a 300 acre ranch with tractors, rakes, and makeshift tools.  Even though she was off duty and there were other Santa Clara County firefighters behind Cal Fire lines, Shanna was demoted for her actions.  Still she insists, “They weren’t protecting houses, so people went back.  I think every house that was saved up there was probably saved by a civilian.”  Shanna arbitrated her demotion and was eventually reinstated to her original role. “So many things good and bad have prompted me toward my art,” she said. “I took on the State of California.  It was a David and Goliath situation.  If they hadn’t come after me, I probably would have retired to help my Mom rebuild.  But I’m not going to let this happen to me.  It’s not ethical.  It’s the difference between right and wrong.  We have an oath to protect life and property, and it happened on that mountain.  It was my purpose in life at that moment, that stoicism.”

So, were the CalFire Chiefs issuing orders at the CZU Fire paying attention to models when they ordered the “Stay Behind” crews to leave, stating there were “high winds predicted tonight”?  Those who chose to remain behind the lines and continue to save their neighborhoods monitored the winds…which never materialized.

CalFire has refused to do an After Action Review to analyze what went right and what didn’t…critical information to improve planning for the future.  Wouldn’t that be good information to feed into the AI data banks for modeling fire behavior and response tactics?  Why is CalFire so resistant?

Hmmmm……

NEW COUNTY FIRE DEPT. BATTALION CHIEF SHOULD HAVE COME FROM VOLUNTEER RANKS

The original idea to hire a Santa Cruz County Fire Dept. Battalion Chief to improve the Volunteer trainings and involvement in planning for future emergency response in their Communities originated with the Volunteer Captains.  They were hopeful that those who applied would come from their ranks, many of whom are seasoned Volunteers who worked to protect their neighbors in the 2020 CZU Fire even though ordered by CAL FIRE officials to leave.

However, at last week’s County Fire Dept. Advisory Commission (FDAC) meeting, County Fire/CAL FIRE Chief Nate Armstrong announced that CAL FIRE Chief Sam Filson was selected.  Somehow, it seems like another money grab by CAL FIRE, and another failure to respect the Volunteers and their expertise brought about by many years of responding in their Communities as true public servants.

After the meeting, I congratulated Chief Filson, and asked if he would please make sure an After Action Review for the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire happened right away with County Fire Dept. Volunteers?  He quickly made a note and said he will look into it.

CAL FIRE has refused to conduct such critical analysis that is a standard practice to help better plan for future emergency response.  Write Santa Cruz County Chief Sam Filson and request County Fire Dept. conduct an After Action Review of the CZU Fire immediately.

Sam Filson sam.filson@fire.ca.gov    (nope, not a County government e-mail address).

YET ANOTHER TAX COMING YOUR WAY, THANKS TO THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY LAND TRUST

The Santa Cruz County FireSafe Council met last Thursday and heard a presentation by the Santa Cruz County Land Trust, letting them know there will be a tax on the November 2024 ballot to bring in money, either as a sales tax or parcel tax, to help fund the Land Trust’s vegetation management on the thousands of acres of land the agency has purchased.  Does that seem fair to you?

Keep your eyes open for this one.  There are millions of dollars in State grants already funded by tax payers for this purpose.  Can the property owners hanging on in what is now the most expensive place to live in the Country handle yet another gouge?

TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON LIMITING BUILDING HEIGHT AND INCREASING AFFORDABLE HOUSING!

Housing for People organizer Ms. Keresha Durham will be the Guest on this Friday’s (July 28) “Community Matters” program at 1pm. 

Listen and call in! santacruzvoice.com

Front Street development from across the San Lorenzo River last week.

Preparing for another tall building to create a canyon of buildings in downtown Santa Cruz.

Just last week, this announcement came out:

The City of Santa Cruz has revised the HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development) Submittal Draft (6^th Cycle) Housing Element that was originally submitted to HCD in May 2023, based on preliminary comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Revised HCD Submittal Public Review Draft (6^th Cycle) Housing Element is available for review by the public on the Housing Element webpage. 

The City is accepting public comment on these updates through Tuesday, July 25^th, 2023. Comments can be made by emailing me directly.

Sincerely, 

Clara Stanger

Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development
809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5247
Email: cstanger@santacruzca.gov

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS THAT HOLD OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.  

JUST DO ONE THING THIS WEEK, AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers,

Becky

APPLY FOR SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOARD VACANCY

You can do a great service to your Community by applying to fill a vacancy on the Soquel Creek Water District Board by Monday, July 31, and you need not feel you have to have a PhD in anything, but possess some common sense and critical thinking abilities.

If you are a ratepayer of Soquel Creek Water District, you know your water bill has jumped significantly over the past four years…9%/year in fact.  Well, hang on because the District is ramping up to initiate yet another significant rate increase because customers have done such a good job of conserving.

Someone like you needs to reel-in the Board and staff with some reality checks about the costs of operations and constantly hiring outside consultants to do work the District is actually paying hefty monthly bonuses to for as long as the PureWater Soquel Project construction drags on.  The Board had initially discussed financial “off-ramps” for this Project but never followed through with any real examination of the situation that has now become a runaway financial hemorrhage.

2023 Board Vacancy

Please share this with anyone you know who would consider signing up to fill this job for two years, when the seat officially comes up for re-election.  Ratepayers should have a voice in this, and not be held at the mercy of those Directors who have chosen to rubberstamp staff recommendations without any real questioning.

APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT PHASE 2…THERE WERE NO NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERVERS PRESENT DURING MASSIVE EXCAVATION WORK

Excavation work  has begun in Swenson’s the Phase 2 area of the Aptos Village Project, but there did not appear to be any Native American observers there to monitor the earth disturbances in this State-registered SCF-CA-222/H archaeologic site, even though it is a condition the County required when issuing the permit.

I phoned the Durden subcontractor to ask about whether there was an observer on site.  Durden management familiar with the Project knew nothing of the requirement.  “That’s up to Swenson, we’re just the subcontractor.”  he said.  Uh-oh.

I let the man (“Louie”) know that when Soquel Creek Water District trenched through the archaeologic site in 2018, two Native American observers were at the toe of the excavation at all times.  The only person I had seen last week was a Durden worker spraying water from a tank truck for dust control.    Louie said he would contact Swenson.

The next day when I drove past the construction site, one guy was standing at a table at the edge of the construction site.  Was that Swenson’s archaeologic “observer”?  If so, chances of spotting any sensitive artifacts or remains are null.  He wasn’t even using binoculars….hmmmm…

If this bothers you, please contact Swenson and ask where the Native American or archaeologic observer is stationed during the excavation work at the Phase 2 Aptos Village Project.  831-475-7100 and contact County Code Compliance (the APN for the site is 041-011-58) Code Complaint Form

WILL SWENSON PAY FOR WATER FOR DUST CONTROL IN APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION THIS TIME?

One difference that’s very visible as the Phase 2 Aptos Village Project construction starts up is the presence of a large bulk water tank on site along Aptos Creek Road.   Nothing of the sort was ever seen in Phase 1 construction.

Do you want to know why?

It was because Swenson was getting free water from an illegal unmetered water connection on Granite Way, near the Phase 1 development. An observant resident near the construction site reported the matter to Soquel Creek Water District as soon as he saw Swenson’s construction crew using long  hoses connected to the illegal hookup to spray water for dust control.  (See the Correspondence on page 206 of the August 15, 2017 District Board agenda

You can listen to Mr. Stumbaugh’s effort at the meeting to get answers to his query  at about minute 2:23

I had also reported this “irregular” connection to the District in July, 2017, but the District took no action  (see pages 59-61)

Soquel Creek Water District management did nothing for many months.   The connection got hidden further by concrete and pieces of broken pipe that could have convinced some that the connection had been destroyed, except that the construction crew continued to connect a hose for more free water needed at the Phase 1 construction site.

Staff did acknowledge there was a service connection and that “a customer” had paid a water demand offset fee for service nearby.  That could have been one of the Aptos Village Project developers, Pete Testorff, who demolished an historic house built in 1906 on Granite Way and built two large homes on the site, just across the road from this “irregular” connection that provided the free unmetered water to Swenson’s crews.

Finally, after many, many months, there appeared a large pond of water at the irregular connection that could no longer hide what was happening and was a big waste of water. The District’s General Manager, Ron Duncan, responded to my report of this leak that someone had struck a fire hydrant there, causing the leak.  However, there never was a fire hydrant.  Hmmm….

Well, the question now is this: who is paying to fill up that large yellow water tank for Swenson’s Phase 2 construction in the Aptos Village Project?

LEARN ABOUT LIVING WITH FIRE WITH UPDATED INFORMATION

Here is excellent information for all rural residents in Santa Cruz County to help with fire risk reduction and planning what to do in case a wildland fire happens.

Through recent grants with the California Fire Safe Council and CalFire, the RCD worked with Cal Fire, Fire Safe Council, and a template from the Burn Institute to update our Santa Cruz County Living with Wildfire Guide. It includes a brief overview of wildfire behavior and things individuals; neighborhoods and communities can do to prepare for wildfire.

Here is the link to the web version

Please share this with others.  The next Santa Cruz County FireSafe Council meeting will be July 20, 10am-noon, via Zoom:

www.firesafesantacruz.org

HELP PLANT FLOWERS AT THE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

The Santa Cruz County Fair is just around the corner (September 13-17) and it’s time to plant the flowers there that help make it a beautiful place.  For the first time in many years, the public is being asked to come help with the planting.  Please join the fun on Thursday, July 27 at 4pm.  The Fairgrounds Foundation will provide a hotdog BBQ dinner at 6:30pm Please RSVP

If you are interested in volunteering, contact the Foundation office at (831) 786-9698 or at support@fairgrounds-foundation.org.

OH SAY, CAN YOU SEE?  FREE VISION AND HEARING TESTING IN APTOS

The Cabrillo Host Lions Club will provide free vision and hearing testing on Saturday, August 12 in the brand new A.J. Robinson mobile unit, 8:30am-3pm.  The trailer will be parked at the entrance to Aptos Village Park (100 Aptos Creek Road).  The Lions can provide applications for assistance for those who need glasses but cannot afford them.

The Lions MidSummer Market will also be occurring in the Park, 8:30am-3:30pm, with many vendors selling plants, tools, automobile memorabilia, jewelry and wooden toys.  The Aptos High Leos will be selling BBQ tri-tip sandwiches.  Admission is free.

Vendor space is $35 with limited spaces still available.  For information about the Market, please call Barbara 831-688-3356.

For further information about the free vision and hearing testing, please contact Becky 831-685-2915.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS.

JUST DO SOMETHING THIS WEEK AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers,

Becky

PERSISTENT CARCINOGENS IN OUR WATER?  CALFIRE NEEDS TO CHANGE FIRE SUPPRESSION PRODUCTS

Thanks to my friend, Al, who sent a link to a recent USGS report about water contamination by PFAS nationwide…this includes some significant finds in our local water supplies.

The Report features a map with many data points in Santa Cruz County

A common source of PFAS is fire suppression foam material that CalFire and other firefighting agencies use.

There are already alternatives available, including Komodo Fire System product that is non-toxic and plant-based, and is manufactured here locally.  Komodo Fire System materials has been certified by the EPA as non-toxic to mammals and aquatic life, and is registered for use by the US Forest Service for fire suppression.

komodo-fire.com

So, why does CalFire continue to use the toxic product?  Just because it is what has always been done.  Local CalFire staff who have seen the impressive Komodo product at work urge members of the public to contact local and state representatives, asking them to put pressure on the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CalFire to make the change quickly.

Firefighters have extremely high cancer rates, which could be linked to not only the PFAS suppression foams and other suppressants they use, but also their protective turnout gear containing PFAS.

Other states and countries have banned the use of PFAS containing fire suppression foams, and California needs to do the same.

Please contact your representatives and demand the change to protect our firefighters, our drinking water supplies, and the environment.

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors BoardofSupervisors@santacruzcounty.us

Assemblywoman Pellerin
Assemblywoman Addis
Senator Laird
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection

COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT PRESENTED AT A

FIFTH GRADE READING LEVEL?

Did you notice the interesting explanation of the County Planning Dept. Housing Element update wherein the CivicMakers consultants shepherded a new idea to use random people to make recommendations about where to re-zone areas for ultra-dense multi-story housing?

Take a look at the Project Overview statement in Appendix HE-C “Civic Engagement”:

“We also worked to make the facilitation of the meetings accessible, trauma informed, multi-lingual, and understandable at a 5th grade reading level.”

Public Engagement Results

These were two parallel groups of people, Community Panel of random residents, and a Stakeholder Panel of developers and non-profits, getting what sounds like was a watered-down and condescending presentation of what the County has to do to update the 1994 General Plan in order to build the State-mandated Regional Housing number Allocation (RHNA) housing units and were asked to put sticky notes and dots next to the choices provided by the Consultants.

The Community Panel was supposed to have 20-25 people, but only 14 participated.  Look at page 17-18 to see the composition.  Districts 2 and 4 had hardly any representation.

The list of Stakeholder Committee members is interesting (pages 11-17).  Note that the only developer allowed to participate was Jessie Bristow from Barry Swenson.

Shouldn’t there have been some smaller, locally-owned builders in the room?

Page 40 of the Appendix C has some good information in response to questions posed by the Developer and Non-Profit (Stakeholder Committee) that staff could not answer at the time of the first meeting on April 11.  Here is a good example:

Q: Are these state levels or county levels of income that these go by? 

A: Income levels are set by the state and then adjusted (by the state) to reflect regional differences. 

Q: What proportion of the 5th cycle goals have been met? 
A: 79% overall. Above Moderate = 66%; Moderate = 122%; Low 92%; Very Low = 59% 

Q: What proportion of current RHNA units met is not moderate or above moderate?
A: 656 = moderate and above moderate vs. 377 low and very low

One suggestion the Committees presented was to increase densities around the rail corridor.  That makes sense to me, as it would support the use of the rail corridor for passenger commutes and broader use than tourist excursions.

Appendix HE-E is a 17-page inventory of vacant land in the County that could be developed for dense affordable housing.  The Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and acreage are listed with the possible minimum and maximum housing units that could be built.  

I tried to look up some parcel numbers for the Aptos area, but discovered the County Assessor database is broken.  Upon inquiring at the 701 Ocean Street County Government Building, I learned that the database is undergoing major work that will not be completed until July 10 at the earliest, but more likely July 15, so no information is available.

Public Comment on the Santa Cruz County Housing Element closed July 11, but there will be a flurry of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings that you need to mark on your calendar now, and plan to participate as much as you can.

Get involved

This document, which the County must present to the State Housing and Community Development Dept. by mid-December, will drastically alter the look and feel of our Communities going forward.  The State is wielding a mighty big stick…and in my opinion, we need to push back.

Take a look here at local people doing excellent work by currently circulating a Petition to increase affordable housing to 25% in new development, and grant Santa Cruzans the right to vote on the height and size increases of development above current, reasonable limits: www.housingforpeople.org  They could use your help: 831-471-7822.

Also, on a statewide level, link up with these good folks who are working hard to educate the legislators who seem to be going along with the unreasonable RHNA mandates without regard to local jurisdiction discretion and infrastructure realities:

catalystsca.org/

WHY DID SANTA CRUZ COUNTY RTC REJECT A WHITE PAPER ON REASONABLE PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE HERE?

Last summer, the Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) submitted a Whitepaper to the Santa Cruz County RTC, outlining ways the existing rail could be reconditioned for passenger service at a fraction of the cost stated in recent studies, and recommending proposals for different types of lightweight passenger rail vehicles.

TRAC – Santa Cruz Rail Study 0722 [pdf]

The RTC rejected this proposal.

Want to hear more about all that?  Listen online this Friday to “Community Matters”, 1pm-3pm, on the new online-radio Santa Cruz Voice platform.

Mr. David Schonbrunn, President of TRAC, will discuss efforts to support passenger rail in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, as well as his work fighting the California High-Speed Rail Project.

Meanwhile, the RTC is embarking yet another multi-million dollar study about passenger rail possibilities in Santa Cruz County, citing more information needed regarding easements and bridge repair/maintenance.

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS.  HOLD OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE TO TRANSPARENCY.

DO ONE THING THIS WEEK, AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers, and Happy Summer,

Becky

PUBLIC COMMENT ON COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT ENDS

NEXT TUESDAY July 11

It is critical that the County Planning Dept. hear from  you  about where to place dense infill development in the unincorporated areas of the Community, and your last chance of substance to do so is next Tuesday, July 11.  This is the update to the County General Plan, and will shape the quality of life in our Community for future generations.

The Project documents are in the link below, but first take time to look at what the two Stakeholder Committees recommended in Appendix C

Will the Planning Dept. staff follow these recommendations?

In the meantime, it is important that you read through their Recommendations and make your own by next Tuesday.  E-mail them to:

2023HousingElement@santacruzcounty.us   or click on the yellow button in the Project document website below:

Project Documents

DISAPPOINTING THAT THE GRAND JURY CHOSE NOT TO REVIEW FIRE DEPT. IMPLEMENTATION OF PAST RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the Grand Jury Reports just issued is “Honoring Commitments to the Public”.  I was really hoping the Grand Jury would review the lack of an After Action Analysis by Santa Cruz County Fire Department and CalFire after the 2020 CZU Fire, to interview the Volunteers and determine what worked well and what did not.  This is a crucial aspect of planning for future emergency response.   However, I was disappointed to read this:

“The Grand Jury also reviewed Ready? Aim? Fire!; however, follow-up responses to this
2019-2020 investigation were not pursued, since over the past three years there has
been a major wildfire and three more fire-related Grand Jury investigations.
The value of the Grand Jury’s reports is realized when government agencies apply the recommendations to improve transparency and efficiency for county residents.”

Well, it would be great if the agencies actually did act in a manner improving transparency, wouldn’t it?

GRAND JURY REPORT ON SHERIFF DEPT. USE OF SURVEILLANCE

The Grand Jury did some good investigative work on other issues, namely the issue of Sheriff Dept. use of surveillance equipment, notably in the jails.

Here is the link to the Press Banner’s analysis of the report

Here is the report

Other Reports just released by the Grand Jury are here and are worth reading:

2022-2023 Grand Jury Reports and Responses

WOULD THIS SPEED PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING?

Last Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors Consent Agenda was bursting, numbering —–items.  One Item, #29, proposed requiring the Planning Dept. to return within 90 days to report on the possibility of allowing building permit applicants to opt for having a Third Party Plan Check company review their plans, rather than the Planning Dept. staff.

The Planning Dept. has quite a few vacancies, leading to sluggish permit processing times:

Background

As of June 6th, 2023, the County’s Performance Measurement Dashboard for the Permit Center showed the following median processing times: Single Family Dwellings – 64 days; Remodel – 107 days; Multi-Family Housing – 154 days; ADU – 197 days. On average, 18% of this time is the result of the applicant responding to comments, and 82% is county staff’s review time.

Between March 7, 2023, and June 6, 2023, there was an increase in the median processing time for permits in all categories. Specifically, the processing time for a remodel permit increased 10.31% from a median of 97 days to 107 days.

Agenda Item DOC-2023-556

It will be interesting to see what the Planning Dept. staff reports to the Board on this.  When the Board hired 4Leaf consultants to handle the CZU Fire permitting work, Planning Dept. staff complained, seemingly worried about their job security.

COUNTY COMPOSTING TOILET PILOT PROJECT MOVES TO WATSONVILLE

Another Consent Agenda item last Tuesday included changing the location of the County’s Composting Toilet Pilot Project from Crest Ranch in Bonny Doon to the Watsonville City Wastewater Treatment Plant in order to expedite permitting and avoid CEQA analysis.  Now the bio-solids will be collected at the Ben Lomond Transfer Station, and transported to Watsonville for composting.

The idea was originally meant to help the CZU Fire Survivors rebuild their homes more quickly and to potentially avoid having to install the very expensive Alternative Systems that cost $75,000 or more as well as expensive geotechnical analysis for septic leach fields, now required by the County in many areas.  The Supervisors approved a pilot project to compost waste at Crest Ranch, but permitting has been a problem.

Background

The Santa Cruz County CBS Pilot was brought to the Board and approved in October 2022 to further support the rebuilding efforts of families impacted by the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire. When the item was brought before the Board last year, only 14 of the 911 homes destroyed in the 2020 CZU Fire had been successfully rebuilt. Since then, 28 CZU-impacted households have successfully rebuilt their homes.

Agenda Item
DOC-2023-557

The Pilot Project is being enthusiastically shepherded by Watsonville City Sanitation Engineer, Mr. Ryan Smith. He testified before the County Board of Supervisors multiple times supporting the use of the alternative composting toilets when the County’s septic system ordinance was under State-mandated revision.

As the Chief Plant Operator at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ryan Smith will provide on-site support and supervise the project with GiveLove. The City of Watsonville’s Public Works and Utilities Department has strongly supported this pilot and has agreed to host the Composting site at the treatment plant. Ryan Smith has led efforts on behalf of GiveLove to develop a license agreement between GiveLove & the City of Watsonville. On June 13th, the City of Watsonville’s city council adopted a resolution to execute the license agreement necessary to host the pilot project at the Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant.

So now, the six-month Pilot Project will allow 25 households in the CZU Fire area to get free composting toilet kits (usually costing $400 each).  The company providing the kits, GiveLove, will collect the data necessary to inform the Board next year about the success of the Pilot Project, allowing the Board to consider expanding the effort going forward.

This will be interesting to watch…stay tuned.

FORMER HOTEL SITE NEAR THE HARBOR IS NOW

EXCESS PROPERTY TO SELL

Back in 2017, the County Redevelopment Successor Agency wanted to give Barry Swenson exclusive development rights to a large County-owned parcel at 7th Avenue and Brommer, overlooking the harbor.  Maybe you went to those hearings, too, and heard the oily description of the massive project that would include an upscale hotel, condos and yurts for the “Visitor Accommodation” project. Proposed Development

Thank goodness, the County rescinded the deal with Swenson, however, last Tuesday, the Board officially declared the parcel “Surplus Property” and will offer it for sale. This was slipped through in Consent Agenda Item #35.

Here is what happens next:

Following adoption of a surplus resolution, the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) requires the Redevelopment Successor Agency (RSA) to issue a Notice of Availability for open space and for low-, moderate-income housing purposes to all required entities as provided in Government Code section 54221(f)(2) and 54222(a) and allow 60 days for response.  If a responsive notice of interest is received within the 60-day period, then the RSA is required to negotiate in good faith for at least 90 days to attempt to reach terms of sale. If mutually acceptable terms of sale are not reached within the 90-day negotiation period, then the Property may be sold outside of the requirements of the SLA (except that a limited affordability covenant must be recorded against the Property). 

The Property is surplus to RSA needs and not necessary for RSA’s use. It is therefore recommended to adopt a resolution declaring the Property surplus and stating the RSA’s intent to sell the Property.

Financial Impact

Upon successful negotiation for disposition, sale of the Property will result in proceeds that will be distributed to the various taxing entities consistent with the share of the property tax received following approval of one or more Development and Disposition Agreements (DDAs) or other form of document approved by the RSA Board and the Santa Cruz County Consolidated Redevelopment Oversight Board.

The Project will offer the opportunity for an increase and diversity of housing options on the Site.

The Project will stimulate the economy offering lodging, shopping, dining, and indoor/outdoor gathering places.

Agenda Item DOC-2023-562

What exactly will that mean???  Keep your eye on this and contact your County Supervisor when they all return from vacation on August 1.

831-454-2200

APPROVING A QUESTIONABLE CONTRACT WITH CALFIRE

Another large expensive, potentially controversial Consent Item the Board of Supervisors swept under the rug was #46, approving a one-year $7.3 million contract with CalFire to train the Santa Cruz County Fire Dept. Volunteers.

Agenda Item
DOC-2023-573

Here is why I felt the Board should have rejected the contract:

Dear Board, You need to consider this contract AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, not at the Board of Supervisors. The augmented $899,514 to pay for six additional engineers/drivers was supposed to be paid for by the CSA 48 2020 Special Benefit Assessment action. Property owners were also told the new tax would allow a cost-saving three-year contract with CalFire…this is not the case now. Claiming a large cost saving due to arbitrarily reducing the Amador Agreement time is bogus and only saves money on paper. The Fire Dept. Advisory Commission was not happy with the way CalFire Chief Armstrong manipulated the information when it was presented, and the Commissioners voiced concern that CalFire is becoming more dependent on CSA 48 monies buying new equipment that CalFire then leases on demand. This proposed Contract also eliminates local in-house plan checks, and relies on a contracting agency that is far removed from Santa Cruz County and may know little about the needs of the public and building and fire matters, especially relating to topography. Please do not approve this contract. It does not serve the public safety needs of the people, and promotes the needs of CalFire at the expense of the Santa Cruz County Fire Dept. volunteers who are treated poorly. Do not approve any contract with CalFire until there is an After Action Review of the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire with the Volunteers.

The Board paid no attention, and asked no questions of CalFire Chief Nate Armstrong who was loitering in the hall.

Write your County Supervisors and demand an After Action Review be conducted with the County Fire Dept. Volunteers for the CZU Fire.

NEW COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER REPLACES GAIL NEWEL

One would think, with COVID now in the rearview mirror, that the new County Supervisor action to appoint a new County Public Health Officer would be quite public.  Not so.  Last Tuesday, the Board approved the appointment of Dr. Lisa Hernandez via Consent Agenda Item #54:

Agenda Item DOC-2023-581

COUNTY RECEIVES $2.24 MILLION GRANT TO PROVIDE SEVEN UNITS OF HOUSING?

The County received $2.24 million in state Project Home Key grant monies to fund the 801 River Street transitional project that will provide seven housing units.  That works out to be $320,000/person. Isn’t there a more cost-effective way to help more people with these hard-earned public taxpayer dollars?

That was Consent Agenda Item #67 last Tuesday: DOC-2023-594 Adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $2,240,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Project Homekey; ratify the Standard Agreement and local Project Agreement for the 801 R

COUNTY HIRES CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS FOR $9 MILLION EACH

The County Public Works Director Matt Machado claimed in Consent Agenda Item #83 that the County just does not have the staff to oversee construction projects in the County, so the Board of Supervisors approved extending contracts hiring two consultants for $9 million each.

Analysis

Public Works is continuing to complete repairs to several damaged sites from the 2016-17 and 2022-23 storm events.  Due to these and other on-going projects, the current not-to-exceed amounts for each Independent Contractor Agreement are at their current capacity, yet much more construction management services are needed for the upcoming construction season.  This construction season includes several high value projects such as:

• The Soquel Drive Buffered Bike Lane project awarded at $20,208,885,
• 2023 Pavement Management awarded at $5,443,330,
• Emergency Routes Resurfacing awarded at $2,246,700,
• Highway 152/Holohan Road Intersection with Engineer’s estimate of $2,789,000, and
• Valencia Creek Sewer Relocation with a low bid of $2,364,836. 

These upcoming projects are in addition to this winter’s emergency projects currently in construction and several others being added. 

Overall, there is approximately $54 million worth of Capital Improvement Projects to be constructed this season and currently estimated value of $32 million worth of Emergency Repairs.  Based on approximately $85 million in construction projects, management oversight is estimated at a cost 17% for roughly $14.5 this season. 

Since 2019, MNS Engineers Inc. has performed oversight services on multiple projects at a value to-date of $45 million while Consor has performed services on a value to-date of $33 million.  Rebidding on-call consultant contracts is not possible at this time as emergency repairs needed immediately on critical County infrastructure are necessary to respond to these emergencies.  Inspection and project management of these emergencies does not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation of bids on new on-call consultant contracts.  These contracts will expire in April 2024; at which time, new contracts will be established. 

To continue managing oversight of 2022 construction season started projects in addition to 2023 construction season projects, it is necessary to increase the agreement with MNS Engineers Inc., and Consor North America, Inc.  Approving amendments of $5,000,000 for each consultant for a total increase of $10 million is less than the estimated needed value of $14.5 million in additional oversight services for this season alone.  This approval allows uninterrupted management services to projects currently in construction as well as multiple projects to start.

Financial Impact

The recommended actions would result in a new not-to-exceed amount of $9 million for each contract. 

DOC-2023-610 Approve amendment to agreements with construction management on-call consultants to increase compensation by $5,000,000 each for a total amount of $9,000,000 each, and take related actions, as recommended by the Deputy CAO/Director of Co

EVEN WITH $8 MILLION BUDGET DEFICIT, SUPERVISORS APPROVE LEASING NEW OFFICE FOR $27,552/MONTH FOR FIVE YEARS?

Consent Agenda Item #87 approved a new five-year lease at 150 Westridge Drive in Watsonville, near the huge new campus the County purchased this year for a South County Government Center.  This 13,776SF leased office space will house health care serviced while the buildings at 1430 Freedom Blvd. are demolished and rebuilt, and also include a new 1,350SF office for Fourth District Supervisor Felipe Hernandez.

DOC-2023-614 Approve lease agreement for real property located at 150 Westridge Drive, Watsonville; authorize the Deputy CAO / Director of Community Development and Infrastructure to execute the lease agreement on behalf of the Health Services Agency

Consent Item #93 approved spending $3.3 million for the architects to design the new building to replace the demolished structure at the Freedom Blvd. campus. DOC-2023-620 Approve agreement with Hawley Peterson Snyder (HPS) Architects for the South County Health Campus Project in the amount of $3,356,086; adopt resolutions accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $3,356,086 in Fiscal Year 2022-23;

NEW 10′ WIDE BIKE PATH ON GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN WATSONVILLE MUST BE BUILT IN ONE YEAR

Consent Agenda Item #94 approved funding a bike path on Green Valley Road between Airport Blvd(Holohan Rd.) and Mesa Verde Drive (where the Sheriff Substation is located).

The Engineer’s Estimate for this project, not including design, inspection, overhead, or contingencies, is $4,122,739.  The project is partially funded by multiple sources including $5,000,000 in Clean California Grant Funds, $400,000 in Measure D Funds, and $516,097 in County General Funds.

DOC-2023-621 Approve plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate for the Green Valley Road Multi-Use Trail Improvements Project; set online bid opening for 2:15 p.m. on July 27, 2023; direct Community Development and Infrastructure to return on or

THERE WAS NOT A MEETING OF THE MINDS, SO THE COUNTY TOOK AWAY FLOOD CONTROL MONEY

It was amazing to see that the Board of Supervisors rejected the plea of Pajaro Flood Control Management Director Dr. Mark Strudley to leave the County funding support in place for Pajaro flood control projects for which the money was intended.  He asked the Consent Agenda Item #96 be pulled, in order to have better public discussion.  Chairman Zach Friend refused to do so.

Watsonville City Councilwoman Ari Parker also requested the Board not approve the proposed funding claw-back, but to no avail.  Wow.  Public Works Director Matt Machado dismissively explained to reporters in the hallway who asked why the County was taking back the funding, “It’s just crumbs.”

Agenda Item DOC-2023-623

GOOD LETTERS TO THE SUPS

Make sure you read through the Correspondence of last Tuesday’s County Board of Supervisor meeting.  Mr. Cove Britton wrote a good one regarding the Board’s farce involving the appeal of a Planning Dept. determination requiring expensive studies ad nauseum (Letter #i):

Written Correspondence WC-2023-11

FEDERAL MONEY TO SUPPORT DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ SKYSCRAPER CANYONS?

Russ Brutsche spotted this interesting article on Lookout Santa Cruz, sporting the federal official visit to Santa Cruz.  The City’s proposed new ordinance for all-electric housing seemed charming to Ms. Ariel Marshall from the Dept. of Energy.

As Santa Cruz plots an electric future, U.S. energy officials tour city with offer of federal funds

Why did she come here?  It seems Mayor Fred Keeley and City Economic Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb have grand plans to build a downtown canyon of skyscrapers and want to court federal dollars to help pay for it.

Will they also pay for the cleanup of liquefaction destruction as sea level rise discussions warn?

New Findings on Shallow Groundwater Rise Highlight a Climate Risk Not Addressed by Policy

NEW CHANTICLEER OVERCROSSING WILL OFFER SWEEPING VISTA OF TREATED SEWAGE WATER PLANT

The work on Highway One near the Soquel Drive/Soquel Avenue area is in full swing.  The pedestrian overcrossing that will be juxtaposed to the PureWater Soquel Project treatment plant will have sweeping views of the facility, and likely expose users to loud noise from the reverse osmosis pumps. When I toured a similar facility in Santa Clara, the agency issued ear protection.

Here is the strip of land the Chanticleer Overcrossing will occupy when built.  The County and RTC paid Soquel Creek Water District $740,000 for this strip of land.

Here is the PureWater Soquel Treatment Plant, but what you can’t see here are the multiple large hazardous chemical storage tanks that will be adjacent to the Chanticleer Pedestrian Overcrossing.

If you are interested in learning more about the Highway One and Overcrossing Projects, tune in this Friday at 1pm to “Community Matters” to hear Ms. Sarah Christensen, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Project Engineer, discuss the work happening now and what else is planned.  santacruzvoice.com

REST IN PEACE, ROB EDWARDS

I was saddened to read the obituary of Rob Edwards in Sunday’s Santa Cruz Sentinel.  Although I never had the pleasure of meeting this amazing fellow who worked hard to build a great training platform at Cabrillo College for archaeology students and was highly respected for his work, I have read and appreciated a number of his reports.  The most notable one was his survey of the barn at the Redman-Hirahara Farmstead, detailing the artifacts associated with the Japanese American families who lived there upon the end of the Internment Camps of WWII, having lost all they had while being imprisoned. Thanks to the Hirahara family and the Pajaro Valley neighbors, the apartments in the barn helped those unfortunate families get back on their feet.

Take a look at who Rob Edwards was, and the great legacy he leaves behind

Rob Edwards Obituary

Rest in peace, Rob, and thank you for your good work while you were here.

THE LEE RESOLUTION INITIATED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I recently learned of the Lee Resolution, a document that preceded the Declaration of Independence and shaped the beginning of our Nation.  I had never heard of this piece of history and enjoyed learning more about how the process happened to launch the United States of America into being.   Happy Independence Day!

Lee Resolution (1776)

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A MEETING AND EXPECT ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers and Happy Independence Day,

Becky

BRUCE DANIELS RESIGNED FROM SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Last week, longtime the Soquel Creek Water District Board member Bruce Daniels resigned, effective June 19.  His letter of resignation was not included in the meeting packet, but General Manager Ron Duncan stated that Director Daniels wanted to do other things, such as travel and work on writing computer models for students wanting to study climate change.

Somehow, I think it could be related to the Board’s action last January to dissolve funding for large conservation projects that the District has been collecting for a couple of decades in response to his failed attempt to convince the Board to declare a moratorium on new connections.  He always voted “NO” for any new service requests the Board reviewed, citing critical overdraft problems he felt needed to be addressed.   Staff convinced the Board in January that it was no longer necessary to continue collecting $55,000/acre foot new water demand, meant to fund large water conservation projects that would not otherwise get funded.

 Rubbish. 

The District collected a lot of money, doubled the number of water demand offsets they could sell, and used the money to buy new water meters that staff claimed would save a lot of water.  Shouldn’t that have been a standard operational expense?

Hmmmm……

Well, last Tuesday, the Directors discussed how to fill the Board vacancy. It was quite a dog and pony show. Even though Director Daniels had just submitted his resignation, Ms. Traci Hart, Director of HR, already had researched two plans of action the Board could take: 1) hold an election, or 2) appoint someone to their liking.  No surprise, Director Bruce Jaffe quickly responded that he had no interest at all in discussing an election.

“It’s a lot of work to run,” agreed Chairman Carla Christensen.  Hmmm….do they already know who they want on the Board?  Has Director Daniels made his selection behind the scenes and resigned mid-term to ensure his choice would be a shoe-in?

After some back-and-forth about who on the Board should serve on the Ad Hoc Committee of two to develop an application, they voted to schedule two Board meetings to interview the applicants on August 8 and 9.  Only then did Manager Duncan state that elections are expensive, the last one costing about $60,000.  Really?   Ms. Hart had earlier admitted she had not been able contact the County Elections Director to find out the cost, and whether or not there were an election for other matters on the November 2023 ballot.

Director Rachel Lather remained quite silent, only saying she was too busy to serve on the Ad Hoc, but offered “Well, I remember I worked hard on my application.”

She was appointed to the Board in 2016 when Director Rick Meyer passed away.  I remember how their selection process went, because I attended both of the Board meetings to interview replacement directors.  It was pretty clear to me that the Board had already decided Rachel Lather was their choice because she knew so much about sewage, having worked for the County of Santa Cruz in the sanitation dept.   The District was already gearing up to rubber stamp the PureWater Soquel Project to inject treated sewage water into the groundwater.  Let me tell you, there were some really excellent candidates who were not considered.

Also, I later learned that Rachel Lather was a close friend of Director Carla Christensen, which likely swayed the Board’s selection.

As we all know, an appointee becomes the “Incumbent” on the ballots for the next election….and has a significant advantage over others who may run for the Board.  That is what has helped keep Rachel Lather on the Board.   She refused to vote on the last repressive District rate increases that have raised the cost of water 9% every year for the past five years, admitted that she has lost sleep over the Board’s approval to double the number of new water demand offsets sold, and questioned why the District borrowed 100% of the money needed to fund the new Quail Run tank that benefits the Aptos Village Project but has never built the tank.

According to the District website, the applications are due July 31, but the applications are not yet available. 

2023 Board Vacancy

It will be interesting to see who the Board appoints.  Because of Manager Duncan’s repeated reference to “dedicated people on the Standing Committees” as possible Director appointees, I am guessing the choice will be a fellow who has CONSISTENTLY been their greatest cheerleader for big rate increases.   The District is currently working on a plan to raise their rates again… their project to inject treated sewage water into the groundwater is a lot more expensive than planned.  Stay tuned.

PUMPING LESS GROUNDWATER IS GOOD NEWS

The June 15 MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board meeting featured a presentation by Ms. Georgina King, hydrologist Montgomery & Associates.

“We have seen a steady decrease in groundwater pumping, and expect that to hold.” she said.

However, there are increasing chloride levels in the south area of the Basin, which could be an indicator of an advancing freshwater / saltwater interface.  Mind you, this is NOT where the PureWater Soquel Project is scheduled to pressure inject treated sewage water, ostensibly to push back seawater intrusion.

 2022 Groundwater Annual Report, filed April 1, 2023, using data from last year (even before the big winter rains) 

Look at page 25 of the Report: Overall, 401 acre-feet less groundwater was extracted in WY 2022 compared to WY 2021,

No surface water from the SCWD to SqCWD for in-lieu use was transferred in WY 2022. (That means no water transfers from Santa Cruz to Soquel Creek Water District.  There was plenty of water available, but Soquel Creek Water District just did not ask to activate the agreement that would then allow them to buy excess water from the City and thereby reduce pumping from the aquifer.  Their justification was that the District staff was too busy with the PureWater Soquel Project construction.)

Look at the groundwater extraction amounts in the table on pages 27-28 to see how water use has consistently decreased since 2008.

Look at the encouraging increased groundwater storage maps on pages 35-37, notably in the aquifer areas that Soquel Creek Water District intends to pressure-inject treated sewage water.

The MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board also approved their 2023 budget…how to use $7.6 Million grant money?  The budget includes spending $20,000 for public outreach. “What DOES the agency plan to do for public outreach in the coming year?” I asked.  No reply.

Spending $65,000 for metering on non-diminimus well owners, those pumping more than 2 acre-feet/year, will perhaps help those private well owners pay for the mandated meters that will soon assess them for groundwater extraction

It will be interesting to see the results of State-funded helicopter flights using magnetic resonance data to determine what the saltwater / freshwater interface status is.  The State is really dragging their feet on releasing this information.  However, based on the information, the MidCounty Groundwater Agency has budgeted $150,000 to do this analysis again, with a more refined level of surveying.

Take a look at what is planned that will affect the groundwater level and administration of such in the Midcounty areas.  Here is the link to the MGA website: Recent News | Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency

LOOKING FOR PRIVATE WELL OWNERS TO REPRESENT OTHERS ON THE MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY

In the next few years, there will be increasing pressure to tax private well owners in Santa Cruz County for their groundwater extraction.  The representation of those well owners on the MidCounty Groundwater Agency (MGA) is up for selection.

The application process is underway.  Unlike the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency, which allows the private well owners to select their representative, the MidCounty GSA will have an executive committee from within to decide criteria.    Last week’s Board approved Sierra Ryan (from the County), Jon Kennedy and Curt Abramson (current private well reps) and one other executive member to develop an application process and criteria,

The Executive Committee (Soquel Creek Water District General Manager Ron Duncan, the City of Santa Cruz Water Dept. Manager Rosemary Menard, the Central Water District General Manager Ralph Bracamonte, and Sierra Ryan as County of Santa Cruz Water Resources Director) will decide who represents the private well owners, not the private well owners,

The application for the Private Well Owner representative is not available yet, but watch for it here and consider applying if you are a private well owner:

Private Well Owners | Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOOKS AT INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONTAMINANT LOADS

The City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Dept. held a public hearing on June 14 (as reported last week by Bratton Online contributor Joy Schendledecker) to check off a mandatory box required to renew the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge treated sewage water into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.  The Santa Cruz City Council will review and approve the report on discharge contamination in August.  The County of Santa Cruz is also working on what dumping limits are set, and the contaminant concentrations allows, and the matter will come before the Board of Supervisors for approval.

The City, with the help of Kennedy Jenks Consultants, conducted five sampling events at 19 sampling stations over a period of 16 months of industrial sources as well as at the Wastewater Treatment facility to generally monitor the household waste contaminant levels.  Because of the sampling results, five new pollutants will be monitored.

Ms. Melanie Mow-Schumacher of Soquel Creek Water District talked about the PureWater Soquel Project, stating roughly 25% of the wastewater effluent will be piped from Santa Cruz to the Treatment Plant under construction across from the County Sheriff Headquarters.  Because the District plans to inject that treated sewage water into the aquifer, it is important that the City have a good handle on the levels of contaminants and their sources, so hence, the NPDES permit update is crucial for them.

Will there be real time data sharing between the City and the District’s PureWater Soquel Project to be able to alert each other for unusual contaminant spikes or system failures and thereby ensure treatment system redundancy would effectively prevent irreversible and significant groundwater contamination?  The District’s treatment facility will have real-time monitoring of contaminant levels.

What bothered me is that the treatment “brine” from the PureWater Soquel Project will get dumped directly into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and not treated again, as was stated in the 2018 Project EIR.  There are many carcinogenic contaminants that are a result of the disinfection process that will become one of the City’s industrial pollution sources…hence the inclusion of the District in the public hearing.

One member of the audience commented that it is difficult to find that level of information on the City’s website to see whether there are or have been spikes in wastewater contaminant levels.  She also mentioned the leak in the City’s sewage effluent outfall pipe going out into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.  Ms. Ann Hogan, Director of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Dept., mentioned that the website will be updated soon to connect with a STATE data tool called CRISPR that will soon be integrated with website information.  Ms. Hogan stated that there have been two dye-plume studies conducted recently of the damaged effluent outfall pipeline, and results will be made publicly available soon.

I left the meeting feeling that the City will do its best to monitor the industrial point-source contaminants, but the wild cards will be domestic sewage contamination levels and the PureWater Soquel Project effluent contamination concentrate and elevated temperature fluctuations.  Keep your eye on the City’s website improvements and ask the City Council to repair the damaged sewage effluent pipe that is allowing treated sewage (and PureWater Soquel contaminant “brine”) to be dumped closer to the beaches than is permitted.

Santa Cruz City Council citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com

Here is a link to the EPA Clean Water Act website, detailing what the NPDES permit process involves.

Oddly, in a recent legal action I had regarding the California Coastal Commission’s rubberstamp approval of the PureWater Soquel Project, the First District Court of Appeal opined that “the Clean Water Act is only a suggestion and is not legally binding.”  Isn’t that interesting?

LISTEN AND BE HEARD THIS FRIDAY….CABRILLO COLLEGE NAME AND ON-SITE HOUSING PROJECT

This Friday at a bit after 1pm, Dr. Matt Wetstein, President of Cabrillo Community College, will be the guest on “Community Matters” online radio program.  Listen in:

https://santacruzvoice.com/

You can call in with your thoughts:  831-265-5050.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS.

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers and Happy Belated Summer Solstice,

Becky

BRUCE MCPHERSON IS RETIRING AS COUNTY SUPERVISOR
Last week, County Supervisor Bruce McPherson formally announced he will not seek re-election as Fifth District County Supervisor.  It has been expected by many for a while, dating back to the contentious redistricting line discussions in 2021 submitted at the last minute by Scotts Valley Mayor Derek Timm, and that some felt were meant to redraw lines favorable to his running for Fifth District Supervisor.

One candidate, Monica Martinez, had already thrown her hat in the ring in April.  The public would be wise to scrutinize her actions as CEO of Community Services for Encompass …more to come on that.

It will be interesting to see if Bruce McPherson really retires, or if he will seek another State-level seat?  He did let me know his displeasure with “being termed-out in Sacramento” when I quizzed him about his opposition to the term limit proposal of County District Supervisors, last year by then-Supervisors Greg Caput.

No wonder Supervisor McPherson has been so outspoken recently on CZU Fire issues and Housing Element matters.  He no longer has to “go along to get along” with issues and the pressure to have the Board unanimously approve everything.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BUDGET BURSTS PAST $1.1 MILLION WITH LITTLE TRANSPARENCY OR PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Last Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors and CAO staff fell all over each other thanking each other for passing the 2023-2024 Budget that has an even higher deficit than had been earlier reported, and made no mention at all of the looming CalPERS unfunded pension debt that is skyrocketing.

This all happened a full month earlier than is historically done, with public hearings reduced to half the time and eliminating both evening public hearings that have always been held in Watsonville and chambers in the Santa Cruz County Government building to give working people the opportunity to hear the proposed Budget overview presentations and ask questions / comment.

The information on the website is hard to find, and a link to the public hearings and inherent documents has been broken for weeks.

I have pointed these problems out to the Board more than once, and written the Director of IT for the county.  I wrote a letter asking that the Board Cure and Correct the Brown Act violations inherent.

NO response.

However, what has changed is that the Budget Hearings all have a posted transcript, beginning May 30.   That has never happened before.  Take a look at the abysmal transcript for June 13 Final Budget Hearing: 2023/06/13 01:30 PM Board of Supervisors Cont’d BUDGET HEARINGS – Last Day – Web Outline – Santa Cruz County, CA

When CAO Carlos Palacios initially was handed the reins of running the County by former CAO Susan Mauriello (she actually handed him what she called a “magic wand”), he said he would take a new approach with formulating two-year budgets that would improve long-term planning and cut costs.  Remember that?  Not so now.  In fact, in the instance of County Fire Dept. and CalFire, we have not yet seen a contract for service agreement, yet the County Fire Department vague and confusing budget shows a negative $3 million figure.   Hmmm..

Amazingly, a woman representing California State Association of Counties (CSAC) drove all the way from Sacramento to present two awards to the Board, one being for the Online Interactive Budget Website, and the other for Criminal Justice Council Policy Review.

She said the Online Budget website was really wonderful because it incorporates the County Strategic Plan.  What?  That’s the subjective list of feel-good words at the end of each agenda item that gets tallied up and converted into demonstrating how responsive each item is to problems at hand.  The words are the same ones as were on the list the CAO posted in public hearings and gave everyone a fixed number of colored dots to stick on what they thought most important.  Remember that little meaningless exercise?

Maybe the most amazing thing about that presentation was the photo op. when Chairman Zach Friend left the shelter of the dais and joined the CSAC lady on the public side of the Chambers, removing his mask so we could all see him suddenly smile for the camera.

You can watch it here, at minute 14:00: Video Outline – Santa Cruz County, CA

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING DEPT. REFUSED TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY ON APTOS BEACH ROAD
Last Tuesday, it was shocking to witness the County Planning Dept. twist information to thwart efforts of a property owner wanting to build an engineered retaining wall meant to prevent any further slide action threatening homes below, and the Board of Supervisors refusing to take action to protect lives and property, even though they could.

At issue is whether an engineered retaining wall at the top of a coastal bluff is properly called a shoreline protection element.  The property owners, their civil engineer, and their expert land use professional said “NO”, and argued that at first the County Planning Dept. had agreed when accepting their application.

The Planning Dept. changed their minds months later and said the project had to have an alternatives analysis because of the impacts on the shoreline sand.   The property owner initially rejected that, but finally had to cave in, spending the big dollars to provide such a report to the Planning Dept.  The Planner, Mr. Evan Ditmars, first said the appellant property owner had not provided the Alternatives Analysis, and would be grounds for dismissing the appeal, which brought a gasp of exasperation from the property owner in the audience.

Later, when questioned a bit further by Supervisor Manu Koenig, Mr. Ditmars and Deputy Planning Director Ms. Carolyn Burke (who is apparently leaving the County job for one with another municipality) then admitted that they had received the required Alternatives Analysis but did not have time to review it.

Chairman Zach Friend then opened the floor to the public, violating County procedure as to how an appeal is to held.  The Appellant paid likely over $2000 for the appeal hearing, but Chairman Zach Friend gave them TWO MINUTES for each who wanted to speak, even cutting off the appellant’s civil engineer mid-sentence because his time was up!

Chairman Friend then said the appellants could just start all over again, and re-apply with the now-completed Alternatives Analysis in hand.  Another gasp from the property owner.    Supervisor Bruce McPherson asked how much that would cost the property owner/appellant and could the Planning Dept. just review the Alternatives Analysis to see if the determination that there is no other alternative to building an engineered retaining wall to protect the homes below is valid?

Ms. Burke smiled and said they could do so for an hourly rate.

The topic then went to how much time that might take?  She wanted three to four months. Another gasp from the property owner, who then spoke up and said they really want to get this done before another round of winter storms.  Finally, the Board agreed to allow 30-60 days, and a report back.

It was shocking to hear the Planning Dept. twist things, and to hear the Board of Supervisors refuse to really jump in and try to protect life and property, which is their primary responsibility as elected public servants who have all signed an Oath to uphold such duty, under the California State Constitution Article XIII Section 35(a)(2).

Listening to what transpired at that appeal hearing last Tuesday is worth your time to do, and to write a letter to the Editor with your thoughts, and file a complaint with the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury.

Here is the link to the video.  Click on Item #13 on the agenda and listen carefully to what you hear.

Here are the documents for the June 13 Regular Meeting, item #13 Appeal Hearing

Here is the link to the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury website, where you can file a complaint, as well as read their investigative reports.

HOUSING ELEMENT NEEDS YOUR INVOLVEMENT
The County and all cities are feverishly working on putting together an updated Housing Element of their General Plans that will make the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) smile with approval by January 1, 2024, while incorporating the ridiculously-high mandated building rate without infrastructure to support it.  6th Cycle Housing Element Program

Here is your last chance to weigh in on this process with the County:

Community Open House

Watsonville Civic Plaza Community Room
275 Main Street, Watsonville

Food will be provided

Spanish interpretation available

Wednesday, June 28th

Get Involved

COUNTY PARK DEDICATION FUNDS SEEM CLOUDED
Here is what the County Budget Final Day documents said last week, leaving me to wonder where a seemingly errant $1.5 million in Capital Improvement Projects for Parks may have gone???

Due to the nature of capital projects, budget appropriations often carryover from one fiscal year to the next and remain programmed to a specific project until completion. Any remaining funds after a project is completed can be reprogrammed to support other existing projects or new projects. Park Dedication Funds are capital funds collected via park impact and in-lieu fees imposed on new development. Use of these funds is restricted to acquisition and certain improvements to parklands. Previous action by the Board consolidated 19 separate Park Dedication Funds into a central fund to increase their effectiveness in supporting park capital projects that have been prioritized in the Capital Improvement Plan, Parks Strategic Plan, and other emerging critical needs, all guided by making equitable parks investments throughout the county.

The County Administrative Office is engaged with project teams on year-to-year fund balance amounts in order to further supplement the proposed Capital Projects List using one-time project savings and balances. These proposed uses of additional funds will be presented on June 13, 2023 at the Last Day Budget Hearings to support the existing capital program priorities of the Board.

More details on projects and project changes, budget goals, fiscal sustainability and future considerations for FY 2023-24 will be included in the Capital Projects budget presentation.

Financial Impact

The Capital Projects Proposed Budget includes $20,598,354 in expenditures offset by $15,598,354 in revenues and $5,000,000 in General Fund contribution, reflecting an increase of $3,022,221 or 17.2% from the FY 2023-24 Base budget (the Adopted prior year budget adjusted for known active projects and projects completed in the current fiscal year).

Here is what the Last Day Budget Summary actually stated:

$1,961,996 increase of Capital Projects as detailed in Exhibit 2, that includes $250,000 for prior Board directed capital project initiatives, including neighborhood improvements in areas impacted by vacation rentals in Districts 1 and 2, and $1,711,996 to appropriate one-time Parks District unobligated fund balances per Board Direction on May 31, 2023, from the now consolidated Park Dedication accounts and in alignment with Board capital priorities and in conjunction with County Parks;

BUD-2023-39 Consider approval of the 2023-24 County of Santa Cruz Proposed Budget Concluding Actions; approve the Continuing Agreements List for 2023-24; authorize the Auditor-Controller, with the concurrence of the County Administrative Officer, to

Now I understand the significance of former CAO Susan Mauriello’s gift of a “magic wand” to CAO Carlos Palacios when she retired.

BRANCIFORTE FIRE DISTRICT RESIDENTS WILL HAVE NO REPRESENTATION AFTER ANNEXATION WITH SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE IS COMPLETE THIS FALL
Last week, the Board of Directors for both Scotts Valley fire and Branciforte Fire Districts met, both approving without any amendment, a Plan for Services for Branciforte Reorganization.  Neither Board honored what the people of Branciforte Fire District (“Happy Valley area”) have been told…that there will be redistricting action after the annexation that will ensure equal representation and control of funds, equipment and assets of Branciforte Fire area taxpayers.  Thus, all power will remain with the at-large elected Scotts Valley Fire Board.

Judging by how that Board treated me during my public comment time, I am worried they will pay no heed to any future recommendations the proposed Branciforte Advisory Commission might offer.

Right now, Branciforte Fire District residents are considering a Special Benefit Assessment ballot Prop. 218 action that will decide whether they will pay over $1million in addition to what they already pay in special fire assessments to support their local station.  LAFCO Director Joe Sereno has threatened that if they do not pay this staggering assessment, they will suffer closure of their station.  Scotts Valley Fire has said it would likely be used at critical fire and storm times, and maybe for other emergency uses, too.

Take a trip up Branciforte Drive and see what you think the people have to say.  Stay tuned.  Will the Branciforte Fire Board wake up and amend the Plan for Services to insist on district-based elections for the Scotts Valley Fire Board after annexation before it is too late?  Let’s hope they pay attention to what happened in the Central Fire District annexation of Aptos/La Selva Fire, wherein the agency converted to district-based elections for Board members, providing a more equitable level of representation.

SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE PLANS TO PUT A $21 MILLION BOND ISSUE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT
Chief Ron Whittle, at his final Board meeting before retirement, last Wednesday told the Board the plans for a new fire station are nearing completion, but at a higher cost than had been anticipated.   He said he felt the new administration building associated with the fire station was “kind of big”, and he would like to see whether reducing that would lower the cost, and the dollar level of the impending Bond that will be on the November ballot.

6.14.2023 Board Packet [pdf]

This begs the question….Will the property owners of Branciforte Fire District have to pay for that too once they are annexed, if the Bond passes?  Will they get to vote on that November ballot measure?  Hmmm….

CABRILLO COLLEGE NAME SHOULD STAY
Last Wednesday, the five chosen names for Cabrillo College were unveiled by College President Matt Wetstein and Trustee Cuevas.  I got stuck in traffic, and arrived late, just as people were scurrying about with post-its to “vote” for their favorite of the five names, but I met a lot of people who were leaving the room with frowns.

It turns out I was spared yet another self-congratulatory presentation bordering on condescension, and the blind insistence that Cabrillo College simply must change its name.  People wanted to know the results of the “Survey” asking for new name suggestions, and were told that a total of 383 of the more than 1000 suggestions stated the name should stay as Cabrillo College.

One brave citizen had stood up as the post-it frenzy was about to begin and said “If you think the name should not change, put your notes on that whiteboard over there.”  Several people did.

Well, the arrogant Name Trustees have just launched yet another “Survey” where you can digitally put your post-it and vote for your favorite of the five.

Take note…There is no choice provided for “NONE”.  Local Historian Sandy Lydon was in the audience, and pointed out that technically, Cabrillo College is not in Aptos.  “Folks, we are in Soquel.  Borregas Creek is the dividing line between Soquel and Aptos.  The post office messed up.”

Hmmm…That explains why Cabrillo College was not in the Aptos/La Selva Fire service boundary.

Name Exploration Sub Committee

Write a letter to the Editor of your favorite newspaper and share your thoughts on this matter.

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS AND EXPECT ANSWERS.
DO ONE THING THIS WEEK AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers,

Becky