November 28

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT FOR UPHOLDING THE PUBLIC’S TRUST
I have been troubled to recently learn about an existing active business partnership between Santa Cruz County Supervisor Manu Koenig and Scotts Valley Mayor Derek Timm.  

Nobody made any declaration about this partnership before the County Board of Supervisors took action on November 16 to change District boundaries for Scotts Valley, approving a map submitted by Derek Timm and supported by Supervisor Koenig, who cast the swing vote.  Several members of the public submitted maps, but only Derek Timm’s map received any consideration by the Board at all.  He submitted his map as a private citizen, not representing the Scotts Valley City Council, as the Deputy CAO Elissa Benson confirmed at the November 9 Board hearing on the matter. 

Later, it was brought to my attention that Supervisor Manu Koenig has a real estate sales license and is employed by Derek Timm for such work at Montalvo Homes & Estates. 

This is confirmed by the State Dept. of Real Estate license website

I do not think Supervisor Koenig’s actions met the definition of financial conflict of interest, and I am honestly very glad that the City of Scotts Valley will have united representation.  I just think that on the face of things, transparency would have fortified public trust in our elected representatives, had Supervisor Koenig at least made a statement about his real estate licensing relationship with Derek Timm, who effectively is his employer.

Supervisor Koenig’s earnings from his real estate transaction commissions under Montalvo Homes & Estates (Derek Timm) is active and reported as $10,001 and $100,000 in his 2021 Form 700 Schedule C Income upon assuming office:

click here and enter “Koenig” in the Filer Name search box

To give you an idea of this significance, the “Regular Pay” for Santa Cruz County Supervisors in 2019 was $129,653.83.

Salary, Zachariah Friend 2019

Although the reunification of Scotts Valley’s representation by one County Supervisor is likely a good thing, and supported by the Fair Maps Act, it was odd that the Board of Supervisors granted no other cities the improved benefit they afforded Scotts Valley.  Watsonville City representatives had also protested this schism created in the 2011 redistricting, along with Scotts Valley City representatives at the time.  Watsonville City Councilwoman Rebecca Garcia attended some of the 2021 Redistricting Advisory Commission meetings and raised the question about this, as well as the form in which maps could be submitted.  

The Advisory Commission had wanted to do a better job of uniting areas of Capitola’s Jewel Box neighborhood but ran out of time.  They had hoped the Board of Supervisors would ask their group to reconvene, but Deputy CAO Elissa Benson did not bring up that issue in her staff report to the Board.  Despite my informing the Board of that issue, based on the Commission’s October 15 video recording, they ignored my multiple requests that they do so. 

Many members of the public felt that Derek Timm’s map, submitted under his own personal interest, not representing the Scotts Valley City Council, was to set the stage for him to run for District 5 County Supervisor in 2024.  If swept under the rug now, this issue is bound to haunt Supervisor Koenig, should Derek Timm decide to run for Supervisor. 

Wouldn’t it be far better if Supervisor Koenig made a public declaration that Derek Timm is his employer?  I think so, for the sake of transparency.  

I asked Supervisor Koenig if he plans to make such a declaration at the next Board of Supervisor meeting.  He replied that he is considering it, but feels it unnecessary because the information is publicly available on the state website.  

Well…that is true, but only if one knows to go searching. 

DO OTHER COUNTY SUPERVISORS HAVE POTENTIAL UNDECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
The answer is “YES”.  Do they declare those interests or recuse themselves from making decisions affecting their interests?  The answer is “USUALLY NOT”.

Supervisor Zach Friend is a shareholder (value $10,001 and $100,000) in Yardarm Technologies,/Gunnegate LLC, which relies on cellphone coverage to employ the technology sending signals from the guns of law enforcement to dispatch staff when the gun is unholstered, and again, when fired.  Santa Cruz County law enforcement teams tested this technology free of charge for Yardarm, and Supervisor Friend traveled to Sacramento with then-County Sheriff Phil Wowak to meet with lobbyists to support broader use of the technology.  

Does Supervisor Zach Friend recuse himself from any citizen appeals regarding new cell phone tower construction in their rural neighborhoods?  No. Never.

Previously, Supervisors Ryan Coonerty and Zach Friend owned shares in PredPol (predictive policing software) but never made public declarations about their financial gain with local law enforcement use of this software and never recused themselves on discussions of related Santa Cruz County policy or budgeting.  Both either sold their stock or donated it to the Community Foundation a few years ago.

Only once have I witnessed Supervisor Bruce McPherson recuse himself when the Board was considering action regarding banking and County investments.  His interests in Santa Cruz County Bank and Omni Financial LLC rightfully required that he recuse himself…and he did so.

Enter the last names of other elected officials here.

The results are interesting.

SHOCKING REDISTRICTING MAPS PROPOSED FOR ASSEMBLY WOULD DIVIDE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY INTO THREE DISTRICTS
Why would it make sense to anyone to divide Santa Cruz County, the second-smallest county in the state, into three separate Assembly representational areas?  That is exactly what is proposed.

Here is what Assemblyman Mark Stone’s (District 29) currently looks like: District Map | Official Website – Assembly member Mark Stone Representing the 29th California Assembly District

   Now, take a look at what the State Redistricting Commission has proposed for our area and start pulling your hair: (pages 51- 53)

Note the really odd proposed division of rural MidCounty areas on page 29.   The nearby communities of Day Valley, Larkin Valley, Aptos Hills and Corralitos will be divided, some in Benito map, some in MontCoast map.  (see page 53)

The Gatoscruz map would combine Pescadero, all of the San Lorenzo Valley Santa Cruz with metropolitan areas of Morgan Hill and Campbell, becoming affiliated with the Bay Area map grouping.  (see page 28)

Public feedback can be submitted here, and will be taken for at least 14 days from Nov. 10, the date of public display of the first preliminary statewide draft maps of the Congressional, state Senatorial, Assembly and state Board of Equalization districts. The commission shall not display any other map for public comment during the 14-day period.

Final Redistricting Maps will be completed and certified by December 27.

State redistricting draft maps released for review

Here is more good information….submit your comments right away.

California redistricting 101: What you need to know

GOVERNOR NEWSOM APPOINTS RETIRED COUNTY COUNSEL AS NEW DIRECTOR TO SANTA CRUZ COUNTY FAIR BOARD
Last week, the Governor appointed Ms. Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel, to serve on the Board of the 14th District Agricultural Association (Santa Cruz County Fair).  She had served as Chief of Santa Cruz County Counsel since 1997, retiring in 2019. 

For some strange reason, she stepped in to act as the Santa Cruz County Director of Public Health recently when Mimi Hall resigned to take another job in private health industry.  

The Fair Board Director position does not require Senate confirmation, and she will receive no compensation.  

California Governor Newsom Announces Appointments

Some think that the reason Governor Newsom appointed Ms. McRae is to add a voice of legal direction and authority to the Fair Board, which has been plagued with various legal problems and complaints of late.  These issues caused four upper management staff to make a personal appearance at the Board’s November 9 Special Meeting and discuss various problems and solutions in a three-hour Closed Session. 

STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY SENDS EMERGENCY FIRE SAFE REGULATIONS TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICE, PROVIDING LITTLE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE HOLIDAY
On November 22, the State Board of Forestry officially sent the second-adoption of the Emergency Fire Safe Regulations to the Office of Administrative Law.  It is worrisome that the Regulations give local jurisdictions some discretion, but with conditions that must be approved and certified by the Board of Forestry.

View the 16-page document on the Board of Forestry website: Welcome to Business

On November 24, these Emergency Fire Safe Regulations were posted on the Office of Administrative Law website

Under Emergency Rule Making laws, the public has only five (5) days to submit comment.  If you wish to make comments on a regulation listed here, please send them to the agency contact person and the OAL Reference Attorney at staff@oal.ca.gov.  The agency contact is:

Edith Hannigan
(916) 862-0120
edith.hannigan@bof.ca.gov 

and

publiccomments@BOF.ca.gov 

Office of Administrative Law File No. 2021-1124-02EE

I suggest that you submit comment even if the deadline is technically November 29.  Cite that the Thanksgiving holiday occurred during the five-day comment period, and ask that your comment be considered.

There is confusion and differing interpretations throughout the state regarding the applicability of these regulations to the reconstruction or repair of structures lost after a wildfire.

The fundamental problem is that there is confusion across the state regarding the application and interpretation of the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, reducing the likelihood of the state achieving its goals for increased housing supply and lower housing costs as well as reducing firefighter and civilian safety during mass evacuations. The regulatory mechanism which exists to establish the minimum fire safety standards for development in the SRA is currently not sufficient to address these areas of confusion, potentially creating hazardous housing conditions throughout the state.

See page 12 of the Emergency Fire Safe Regulations.

1270.02(c) Local government officials noted the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations could be interpreted to apply to the reconstruction or repair of buildings in the SRA/VHFHSZ that had been damaged or destroyed by a wildfire. Subsection (c) was added to make it explicit that, at the discretion of and subject to any requirements imposed by the local jurisdiction, these regulations do not apply to the reconstruction or repair of certain buildings, under certain conditions. 

The first condition is that the exemption may only be utilized at the discretion of the local jurisdiction, and that the local jurisdiction may impose requirements to ensure reasonable access even if this exemption is utilized. 

This proposed revision also allows a local jurisdiction to exempt wildfire-related reconstructions or repairs from the specific standards in the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations while giving them the flexibility to impose their own requirements to provide for adequate ingress and egress as is necessary.

The second condition is that this exemption only applies to legally constructed buildings impacted by wildfires. Those who failed to comply with the requirements when their building(s) their buildings were constructed should not be given a second opportunity to avoid compliance with the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, and so this exemption is limited to the reconstruction or repair of legally constructed buildings only. During the scoping phase of this rulemaking, local government officials brought up several hypothetical situations where the applicability of this exemption was not clear. In order to reduce confusion, and to address the specific emergency issue identified above, this exemption is limited only to reconstruction or repair necessitated by a wildfire. 

Property owners in wildfire-damaged areas will not be allowed the exemption if they wish to enlarge their structure, build a new structure that did not exist before the fire, or have a change of use of structures rebuilt that differ from the previous use before the fire.

1270.02(d) Local government officials noted the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations could be interpreted to apply to the creation of ADUs, and that a property owner wishing to create an ADU would be required to make any necessary upgrades to the road network to bring it up to the minimum standards in the SRA Fire Safe Regulations.

The exemption for ADU or JADU construction specified in § 1270.02(d) allows local jurisdictions to place their own restrictions on ADU or JADU construction for fire safety, for example by requiring larger setbacks for ADU construction in FHSZs or not allowing ADUs or JADUs in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. 

• 1270.04(b) and (c) were combined into the new first sentence of a revised § 1270.04(b), for clarity. 

(b) Counties may submit their local ordinances for certification via email to the Board, and the Board may certify them as equaling or exceeding these regulations when they provide the same practical effect. If the Board determines that the local requirements do not equal or exceed these regulations, it shall not certify the local ordinance.

A new sentence, “If the Board determines that the local requirements do not equal or exceed these regulations, it shall not certify the local ordinance.” was added because previously the regulations did not address the conditions under which the Board may decline to certify local ordinances as meeting or exceeding the state minimum standards. 

House Science Committee Approves Wildfire Bill

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a markup for, and subsequently passed by voice vote, the National Wildland Fire Risk Reduction Program Act (H.R. 5781). The bill, sponsored by RCRC delegation representatives Jared Huffman (D- San Rafael), Jim Costa (D- Fresno), and Jimmy Panetta (D- Carmel Valley), “would establish a National Wildland Fire Risk Reduction Program intended to reduce losses of life and property from wildfires by boosting related research activities across various federal agencies.” During the markup, the committee considered a slew of amendments from members in both parties and adopted most of them by voice vote, including proposals to support active land and forest management, promote more resilient buildings and landscapes, and study the interaction between wildfires and climate change. 

CAL FIRE HELPING TO RESTORE FORESTS IN BURNED AREAS
Cal Fire Helping Restore California’s Forests At Seed Bank In Davis.

SANTA CRUZ CITY WATER DEPT. FINAL EIR REVIEW FOR WATER RIGHTS 
The Final EIR includes responses to public comments received on the Draft EIR for the possible sales of water to other water providers outside of the City’s service boundaries.  This would allow the City to sell water from the San Lorenzo River when it is plentiful, to Soquel Creek Water District, thereby allowing the District ot stop or greatly reduce pumping groundwater.

The City Water Commission will review this Final  EIR on December 6 at 7pm..  The City Council will review it December 14 after the hour of 1pm  (virtual meetings only) Here is the link to the document

This is good news for the MidCounty area. 

LEGAL THREAT PROMPTS NEW LOOK AT 831 WATER STREET HOUSING PROPOSAL
The Santa Cruz City Council denied a housing proposal at 831 Water St. in a 6-1 vote on Oct. 12. (Rendering: Novin Development and Lowney Architecture)

1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 23 / Online and by phone

Amid the threat of a lawsuit from housing advocates, the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday (11/30) will consider rescinding its Oct. 12 decision to deny a housing proposal at 831 Water St.

The proposal would build 140 homes on a four- and five-story complex at Branciforte Avenue and Water Street. The corner is now a strip mall with a car wash, convenience store and other shops. The council voted 6-1 to deny the project with Vice Mayor Sonja Brunner as the sole dissenting vote. Members of the council essentially said the project did not conform to its objective design standards because it had market-rate units in one building and income-based affordable units in a separate building. The developer has said the design was needed for the project to be financially feasible. The site is on two parcels and separation is needed “to secure state tax credits and in order to record local and state deed restrictions/regulatory agreements against the affordable parcel,” according to a Nov. 9 letter from the developer’s attorney.

Letters this month from the developer’s attorney and a “credible threat of litigation by YIMBY Law” have prompted the city leaders to reconsider approval of the project by Dec. 16, wrote Santa Cruz Deputy City Attorney Darcelle Pruitt in a city document.

City staff has recommended that the council:

• Consider a public hearing at its Dec. 14 city council meeting
• Direct staff to complete the Senate Bill 35 objective standards consistency review in light of new information from the developer and the attorney 

SANTA CRUZ HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND WINS PRESTIGIOUS AWARD
We all should be proud of the Santa Cruz High School Marching Band, recently awarded “Best Marching Band in Northern California”.  Congratulations!

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  YOU WILL MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE THAN YOU MAY THINK. 
Cheers, Becky

November 21

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT PLANS TO BUILD LARGE TREATMENT PLANT IN SEASCAPE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
A large treatment plant will be going into the Baltrusol Drive residential neighborhood in Seascape, and here is why those folks, and the parents of Rio del Mar Elementary School nearby, need to speak up before the public comment period ends on November 29. 

Hazardous chlorine chemicals will be transported to, used and stored on the site, which is near the School.  What is the emergency plan for handling this and any other possible hazardous chemicals in the school and residential zone?  By law, the District must notify the School in writing 30 days in advance of adopting the Project’s CEQA final action.  Has the District done this???

Sadly, you will not find any announcement of this CEQA action and the 15-day Public Comment Period on the District’s main website home page.

However, if you magically knew to look for it in the November 16 Board agenda public hearing documents, you would see that written comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 2021.  Please address comments to: 

Michael Wilson, P.E., Associate Engineer
5180 Soquel Drive
Soquel, CA 95073  or by email to: michaelw@soquelcreekwater.org  

Country Club Well | Soquel Creek Water District, CA

Soquel Creek Water District will use dynamite to demolish an existing well at 251 Baltrusol Drive in Seascape, but did not disclose this to residents or other public members in the environmental analysis for the new Water Treatment Plant and new well planned for the site.  

What will be the seismic impacts to homes immediately adjacent? How will this affect the nearby residents who have swimming pools?  Will the District be liable for cracks that cause the pools to leak and require expensive repairs?

Drilling the new well will require 24/7 equipment operation, with bright lights and LOTS of noise that will exceed the County’s noise limits day and night, but the District seemingly does not plan to construct sound walls to help block off the very loud noise for the residents directly adjacent. 

The District did this at the insistence of residents on Willowbrook Avenue, and also Monterey Avenue when similar work was done (well, at least the sides visible from the street, but the apartment building residents in the back had no sound buffer!!).  No mention of sound walls buffering noise for the Baltrusol Drive neighborhood.  

People need to demand that sound walls be constructed on all four sides of the site.

The District also offered off-site accommodations for the Monterey Avenue residents, and are offering it (as a hard-to-find mitigation) in the environmental analysis.  However, it remains to be seen if the people actually affected will even know that this mitigation is available.

This project will remove carcinogenic 1,2,3-TCP from the water proposed to be supplied by the new well in the same location as the old existing Country Club Well is located.  The District had for many years pumped water from this site, knowing that the levels of 1-2-3 TCP carcinogen were high.  District Board Chair at the time, Bruce Daniels, wrote me that the District had too much money invested in the well to abandon it, so continued to pump and sell the contaminated water to the Seascape area customers, and simply dilute it.

In March, 2021, the District accepted an undisclosed settlement from Dow Chemical Co., manufacturer of the soil fumigant used in the agricultural area nearby and thought to be the source of the contamination, as part of a class action suit.

Why not abandon the contaminated well site, and develop a new well in a different location NOT PLAGUED by contamination?

Nope, Soquel Creek Water District likes to do things in the most expensive manner possible…drill a new well in the same contaminated place, and build an expensive treatment plant to remove the contaminants (hopefully).  Does this make sense to you???

See page 157 from last December’s $600,000 contract with Rincon to evaluate the proposed project

Rincon, who got the expanded bid award for the Project (of course, they found the Project feasible), will be starting construction next spring, and upon completion of the CEQA Public Comment Period.

Here is the link to the proposed Project.

Take a look at this large building: pages 15 and 26 and imagine a six-foot high metal wrought iron fence all around the perimeter. 

If you look at the massive structure shown on page 26, imagine how the winter sunlight will be blocked for the residents immediately adjacent.  Santa Cruz County Code requires a December 21 shade study be conducted for all multi-story developments, and that winter sunlight for existing residences cannot  be blocked by no more than 10% between the hours of 10am and 2pm.  (Santa Cruz County Code 12.28.050 (B)(4).    However, this analysis was not done.  

Chapter 12.28 SOLAR ACCESS PROTECTION

The 10-year tree screen shown on page 17 is not the oak tree that is planned for the landscape and may not provide that level of screening in 10 years, depending on what size trees are planted.

Page 35 includes discussion that there are two solitary bat species of concern that very likely would be roosting in the heritage trees the District plans to chop down.  If the District begins construction at the time of year proposed, these bats will be in winter torpor, so if disturbed, they will die.

The District needs to do find an alternative site that would not require removal of large heritage trees, and cause lethal disturbance to the bats and nesting song birds that rely on the trees for shelter.

See page 92 about the curious measurement of noise impact.  Why weren’t the two noise measurement sites next to the property lines of the neighbor’s houses and backyards?  Instead, the theoretical readings were taken from the street.  

Page 97: The well drilling that must occur 24/7 and will last for three weeks exceeds both day and night time noise limits.

Page 98: Five large exhaust fans would operate intermittently 7am to 7pm with an individual exhaust fan producing a sound power level of 66 dBA (that is near the County’s noise limit).

page 100: Offer hotel accommodations for all residents within 100 feet of the project site for the duration of 24-hour well drilling activities

Please pass this information along to anyone you know in the Seascape area.  This is a very short public comment window!

COUNTY’S MEASURE J AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR SALE
In 1979, when Santa Cruz County was the second-fastest growing county in the State, voters passed Measure J to limit the growth rate and require 15% of all new development be deed-restricted as affordable housing.  These Measure J units come for sale once in a while…and some are up for sale now:

Units For Sale

Maybe you know of someone who can qualify for these affordable units and be able to live in Santa Cruz County.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER ABOUT THE RAIL TRAIL BETWEEN LIVE OAK AND APTOS?
What are the important environmental concerns you think need to be analyzed for the proposed 4.5-long  Rail Trail between 17th Avenue in Live Oak and State Park Drive in Aptos, known as Segments 10 and 11?

The County of Santa Cruz hosted a public scoping meeting on November 17 to gather input on potential environmental issues and project alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental review process, not the merits of the project itself or the project design. I was unable to participate, but here is better information about the Project.

Responses are due no later than Tuesday, December 7, 2021, 5:00 PM.

Submit Comments to:

County of Santa Cruz Project website                  

or

Rob Tidmore, Project Manager
County of Santa Cruz, Department of Public Works
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, California 95060

RailTrail@santacruzcounty.us

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER PROPOSED WATER RATE INCREASES 
This Tuesday, November 23, the Santa Cruz City Council will consider approving proposed water rate increases that would begin in 2022, with increases of up to 18% in the near future.

The issue in on the 6pm agenda.

Here is a link to the November 10 webinar explaining the proposal.

SOME BAY AREA WATER CUSTOMERS CAN EXPECT A “DROUGHT FEE”
Last week, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a plan allowing San Jose Water Company to impose a “drought surcharge” immediately on single family home customers if their water use is not 15% less than what they used in 2019. A report in the San Jose Mercury News reported all single-family residential customers will be affected immediately.

San Jose Water is a private company that provides drinking water to 1 million people in San Jose, Cupertino, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno.

The Company set a monthly allotment — a water budget — with surcharges for those who use more than their allotted amount.

Residential customers are required to cut water use 15% from 2019 levels or pay $7.13 in surcharges for each unit of water above that amount.

Each unit of water is 100 cubic feet (or 1 CCF), which is 748 gallons — the standard measurement on most water bills.

The company says its rules reward people already conserving by setting a minimum monthly amount. If customers use the minimum amount or less, they won’t be required to cut 15% and won’t face surcharges. The minimum amount varies by month, from 6 CCF in April to 13 CCF in September, reflecting the need for different levels of landscape watering in different seasons. The full table is here.

In September, water use was reduced by only 7%-9% of the 2019 water use levels, so the “drought surcharge” was adopted as a means of enforcing conservation.

CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT ASKS YOUR HELP IN DRAWING DISTRICT LINES FOR REPRESENTATION
Last Thursday (11/18), the Central Fire Protection District Board held the first of four public hearings to begin drawing lines for future district-based elections. Currently, the Board is elected by at-large representation.  The demographics of this large District are interesting, and anyone in the County may participate and submit maps suggesting boundaries.  General locations of residence for existing Board members will be shown on proposed maps that the consultant will present to the Board during future public hearings:

• December 2, 2021 at 1:00 PM, 
• January 13, 2022 at 9:00 AM, and 
• February 10, 2022 at 9:00 AM.

Unlike the County’s Re-Districting rules, Central Fire District is not required by law to hold any evening public hearings.

Here is a link to the November 18 Board meeting wherein Dr. Douglas Johnson, President of National Demographics Corporation presented an overview of districting, and a brief report on the demographics of the District.  

Get involved now, as the preliminary lines are drawn that will determine who represents you in matters of fire and public safety.

YOU’RE INVITED! COMMUNITY MEETINGS 12/1, 12/7, 12/9: TINY HOMES
WHAT: Community meetings to discuss Santa Cruz County Tiny Home regulations

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 6:00-7:30 PM: Special focus on coastal urban area
To participate via computer or mobile app: Click here to join the meeting. To participate via phone: +1 916-318-9542, Phone Conference ID: 772 527 750#
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 6:00-7:30 PM: Special focus on rural concerns
To participate via computer or mobile app: Click here to join the meeting. To participate via phone: +1 916-318-9542, Phone Conference ID: 358 258 277#
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 6:00-7:30 PM: Special focus on south county
To participate via computer or mobile app: Click here to join the meeting. To participate via phone: +1 916-318-9542, Phone Conference ID: 667 185 385#

WHY: The Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Department to begin preparation of regulations to allow and encourage “tiny homes” on wheels or foundations (for more information, please see the January 26 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda item 12 and March 9 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda item 10). Tiny homes present a relatively affordable alternative housing option that has gained in popularity recently, but regulations need to be considered in order to address potential issues. 

KEY TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:

• Are tiny homes appropriate in all areas of Santa Cruz County? 
• Where should tiny homes be located on a property?
• What development standards should be required for tiny homes? 
• What kind of permits are appropriate? 
• What utility hook ups should be required?
• Real property vs. personal property ownership

Stay tuned for additional opportunities to participate in the preparation of tiny homes regulations at Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings as they are scheduled. More information will be posted soon on the Planning Department website: https://www.sccoplanning.com/.

Questions?
For more information about the community meetings or to provide comments via email, contact Daisy Allen, Senior Planner, 831-454-2801, via email at daisy.allen@santacruzcounty.us. 

MAKE ONE CALL OR WRITE ONE LETTER.  YOU CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE!

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving, Becky 

November 14

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BLAZE THROUGH THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS…UNDER PROTEST FROM SUPERVISOR RYAN COONERTY
Strange things happened last Tuesday (11/09) at the County Board of Supervisor’s public hearing on the County Supervisorial Redistricting issues.  In essence, Supervisor Ryan Coonerty protested the incongruous information that County Counsel provided the Board on submitting maps that will re-draw the lines of how people are represented in this County. 

Now, suddenly, there are five options for redrawing the lines, but public communication submitted is not even in the Board agenda packet for what could be the final hearing this Tuesday, November 16.

Last Tuesday’s Board meeting discussion was interesting and yet frustrating.  The Advisory Redistricting Commission (ARC 21) really wanted the Board to reconvene their Commission so that they could do more work, but the Board did not seem to hear that at all when I testified with the request.  The County Administrative Officer, Elissa Benson, who seems to now be running the show, certainly did not let the Board know of the ARC’s requests.

In the end, because the Mayor of Scotts Valley, Derek Timm, had submitted a map to reunite Scotts Valley representation, along with other changes in areas of Santa Cruz near Ocean Street, the Board agreed to include some version of his map in the final hearing next Tuesday.

Supervisor Coonerty was offended that he had in fact tried to submit maps last week that would have addressed areas of UCSC (one area the ARC really wanted to address) but had been persuaded not to do so by County Counsel.  He felt it unfair that Counsel was willing to allow the Board to swiftly adopt the new and somewhat vague map that Derek Timm had submitted, but he had been convinced last week not to submit a map at all. The Board agreed to adopt the maps, and maybe an unknown “Map D” that Supervisor Coonerty said he would work on and submit by the end of the day.  I kept asking that the ARC be reconvened, but was waved aside by Chairman McPherson.

After the meeting, I spoke with Supervisor Caput.  He feels the process is now becoming political.  I again pointed out that if the ARC were asked to reconvene and do the work, it would not appear political.  He agreed, but it obviously went nowhere.

It was disappointing that the Board nor staff even discussed the map that I submitted, and did not ask staff to explain why a Community of Interest comment form I had submitted to staff after the October 26 Special Board meeting was not even in the agenda packet.

This Tuesday’s public hearing agenda packet does not contain my letter of protest, sent November 10 to the Board, stating that maps and documents I submitted were not discussed or considered at all at the November 9 public hearing.

Will the Board schedule another Final Map hearing on November 29 or not?

The sad truth is that the public has had little time or notice to help us understand what this really is about, and how it will affect those whose representational lines may or may not be changed.  None of the Public Libraries have information posted about this process, or any of the “Public Hearings” that have been shoved through under the deadline.

Here is the Redistricting website link…maybe submitting comment through that portal will get it included in the Board agenda packet???

Take a look at the five different maps the Board will consider this Tuesday, November 16. I am glad that Scotts Valley Mayor Derek Timm was able to get the attention of the Board….what happened to the City of Watsonville?

Call your Supervisor 831-454-2200.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE THAN YOU MAY THINK POSSIBLE.

Cheers, Becky

A SIGH OF RELIEF…JUDGE DENIED SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTICT’S MOTION TO IMPOSE $143,439.57 IN MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST ME
I lost a lot of sleep over the chance that the judge would grant Soquel Creek Water District’s attempt to penalize my legal efforts against their PureWater Soquel Project major modifications without Public Hearings. I nearly cried with joy last week when the judge denied their motion for sanctions because he could find no evidence of bad faith actions.

The Water District customers paid attorneys $32,961.50 to file for sanctions because they claimed my action was frivolous and in bad faith to challenge them regarding their 2020 Project modifications that lacked full environmental analysis and provided no Public Comment period in keeping with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Although the District is very quick to dismiss the validity of my Pro Per legal challenge, done solely for the Public Benefit and to protect the environment, there are established case decisions that state: “just because a case loses in court, it does not define the action as unreasonable or without merit. The Court must remember that even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing the suit.” [Christanburg Garmaent Co. vs. EECO (1978) 434 US 412, 421-422]

“The courts should not penalize citizens for taking action in their government, as citizens should be encouraged to do.” [White vs. Lee (2000) 227 F3d 1214, 1227]

NO MORE PARKING FEES IN SOQUEL VILLAGE
At a Public Hearing November 9, the County Board of Supervisors will likely approve Resolution 258-2021 will dissolve the Soquel Village Parking Program and all assets, including parking meters acquired for the Program will be sold.

The Legal Notice in the Sentinel included the explanation that the Program never successfully funded it’s own operation.
Here is the County Code relevant to this soon-to-be-defunct Parking Program.: Chapter 9.42 SOQUEL VILLAGE PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

The reason behind the dissolution is that it was not financially self-sufficient. I think this makes sense, and will be a great improvement for the merchants and customers in Soquel Village, including the park in the Village.

DISAPPOINTING COMMUNITY MEETING ABOUT KAISER MEDICAL PROJECT
The PMB developer held a virtual Community Meeting last week, but failed to really provide meaningful answers to the many excellent questions posed by the public.

How can a project that would include a 730-space parking garage claim to pose no traffic impact on the already-congested Soquel Avenue frontage road? The developer claimed this Project will have no significant CEQA traffic impact because it will actually reduce overall Vehicle Miles Traveled by 20,322 miles per day, because Kaiser patients will no longer have to drive to Gilroy and San Jose for their medical services.

While the developer touted doing Level of Service analysis of many affected intersections that is no longer required for environmental analysis, (but a much more realistic analysis of actual traffic impacts), they never actually discussed what impact the Project would have on the Level of Service to the community (i.e., how much longer will it take to navigate through these intersections with the added traffic?)

They also did not discuss what the Level of Service might be for the NEW TRAFFIC LIGHT they plan to install on Soquel Avenue frontage road, at the entrance to this large Kaiser Medical facility.

The developer confirmed there will be no public transportation to the large medical facility, and feels that elderly and disabled people can just use ParaCruz or LiftLine. That may be helpful for those that qualify, and if those services are even available…it is no simple task to arrange for them and scheduling is limited.

Somehow, the developer plans that most of the customers and staff will ride their bikes to the facility, using the new Chanticleer Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass that is scheduled to be built in the near future. However, the only sidewalks the developer would install would be on the block of Soquel Avenue fronting the medical facility, and would not connect to the Gross Road neighborhood.

Residents of the Gross Road 225-household neighborhood continued to ask how a traffic diversion that would essentially block access to their own community could possibly solve the traffic nightmare, but got no answers from the developer. Somehow, putting overhead signage in the area will solve the existing congestion that would be exacerbated by the Kaiser Medical traffic.

The developer insisted that adding speed bumps to nearby Maciel Avenue would take care of any cut-through traffic on that quiet residential street, yet the image of the speed bumps in the presentation shows the bumps on Mattison.

As the meeting went forward, the answers got even more vague (“We are working with Public Works on that.” and “We recommend you read our report.”)

What about the loss of affordable housing units that the Project’s rezoning would cause? (“We are following the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan.” but the developer failed to acknowledge that the Draft EIR for that Plan has not even been released for public comment.)

Can’t we try a pilot mock-up of that Gross Road diversion now and see if it really works? (“That idea has come up before.”)

Someone asked if Supervisor Manu Koenig were participating in the meeting? If so, he did not make his presence known. However, I was grateful for his help in making sure the developer posted the presentation’s 33 slides on the website before the Community Meeting began, so that those who participated by telephone could also view them. [pdf]

What’s next, now that PMB has checked off the “community meeting” box? The Planning Commission will consider the Project sometime in January, 2022, and the Board of Supervisors will consider approval sometime in the first quarter of next year. Stay tuned, and write your Supervisor.

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR HEARING ON REDISTRICTING THIS TUESDAY

The Board should direct the Advisory Redistricting Commission (ARC 21) to reconvene and continue working on other proposals they felt were important and necessary. The ARC 21 simply had insufficient time after receiving the Census data only on September 20, to complete all recommendations at their October 15, 2021 Special Meeting in order to meet the deadline to send material to the Board of Supervisors for the October 26 public hearing.

These areas include UCSC, the Jewell Box neighborhood in Capitola, and the Beach Road neighborhoods in Watsonville that include Pajaro Dunes. The Commissioners had understood that Assistant County Administrative Officer Elissa Benson would present that sentiment in her staff report to the Board at the Board’s Special Meeting October 26. She didn’t.

The Board merely accepted the recommendations as presented by the CAO, and asked virtually no questions. They instead seemed focused on making no changes.

It was shocking to see that the Commissioner representing District 4 did not feel that the proposed Apple Hill shift recommendation in Watsonville would really benefit the people, but agreed to go along with the other Commissioners to accept it for the sake of moving numbers and getting something done to present to the Board of Supervisors.

It was the Commission’s hope that the Board of Supervisors would direct staff at the October 26 Special Meeting to reconvene the Commission so that they could continue to work on these areas for which they were close to reaching concensus upon, but not quite, given the short amount of time they had been given since officially receiving the Census data on September 20, 2021.

The Commissioners discussed whether or not to include a memorandum outlining the additional work they hoped to continue, but decided not to when the CAO Benson suggested they only include items for which there was concensus, assuring them her report would include the unfinished work and their desires to continue. She did not do this at the October 26 Special Board of Supervisor meeting.

I feel that there has been virtually no public input at the ARC 21 meetings, and that the Board should schedule an additonal meeting for December 7 to adopt final maps, and solicit broader public input.

This option was adopted on June 8 by the Board at staff’s recommendation (Option A: “Two public hearings on November 9th, including one evening public hearing in South County. One public hearing on November 16th. Final public hearing on December 7th to adopt final map”.)

There is absolutely no information at all about the County’s redistricting effort in the Capitola or Downtown public libraries, and the reference librarians could find no information at all in the system.

Finally, I feel the Board needs to understand that the idea to split representation for all four cities was a NEW IDEA presented and adopted only in the 2011 redistricting work, and was not established “two or three decades ago” as staff presented at the October 26 Special Board Meeting.

In 2011, the idea met with significant resistance from City Councils of Scotts Valley and Watsonville, but the plan was adopted anyway. Now the City of Scotts Valley and multiple residents of that city are again requesting that the city’s representation be under one Supervisor. Scotts Valley Mayor Derek Timm submitted a draft map to accomplish that, and Watsonville City representative R. Garcia asked the ARC 21 about this issue at the 9/20/21 Commission meeting.

The Board needs to evaluate whether or not the benefits claimed by splitting these Communities of Interest are really valid, and to seriously review reuniting all four cities such that a city would be represented by a single District Supervisor.

Here is a link to this Tuesday’s November 9 Board hearing, scheduled for 10:45am (Item #11)

Please write your Supervisor with your thoughts.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LIST THEIR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
This Tuesday, the Board is scheduling a Special December 7 meeting with legislators to present their requests for special funding in the coming legislative year.

What are they requesting? Take a look at Item #19 (right after the list of tax-defaulted properties to sell.)

The first request is for $2,600,000 for acquisition of land for a new South County Park that would offer hiking trails, recreational opportunities, and habitat conservation. Hmmmm….

That seems nice, but the problem is that, being adjacent to the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds, the land is not anywhere near the City of Watsonville population center, so kids cannot easily get to this park. There is no bus service to help anyone get there, and if you’ve ever experienced the long HIghway 152 traffic jams on weekends in that area associated with the flea market and church services, you too would question why anyone would think it would be a good idea to add even more traffic or to expect kids to ride their bikes to events at the new South County Park. There are no sidewalks anywhere along this busy and dangerous road.

According to another of the legislative requests, Highway 152 and Holohan is one of the busiest intersections in South County, and requires major safety improvments.

Surely, the County can find a better location for a new South County Park that will truly serve the recreational needs of the youth in a way that is realistic for independent transportation.

Why not the large parcel the County already owns on Freedom Boulevard at Crestview Drive? This was teh site of many FEMA trailers after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, offering homes to about 100 households damaged by the tremblor. The County seems to reject using this parcel for anything similar, choosing instead to house COVID transitional youth in trailers at teh Seventh Day Adventist Camp and later at Cabrillo College parking lots. For years, I have aske dthat the County create a community garden space on the very large vacant lot….no response.

So now, why not a Park for South County, and use the requested $2,600,000 to develop the Park, rather than making a developer richer and having no money left to actually do anything on a remotely-located parcel that would not serve the youth well?

Please write Supervisor Greg Caput with your thoughts: Greg Caput [greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us]

What are some other special funding the Supervisors are asking?

1. SLV WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS $2,000,000 for design and planning services, permitting, site acquisition and other needed services for new wastewater system to serve neighborhoods impacted by the CZU Lightning Complex fire. The project would replace aging septic systems with a new wastewater system serving the Boulder Creek community, with a total project cost estimated at $25 million.
2. SANCTUARY SCENIC TRAIL, SEGMENTS 10-11 $4,000,000 to complete final design for Scenic Trail Segments 10 & 11. Project would include 4.7 miles of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail spine between 17th Avenue and State Park Drive,
3. INPATIENT TREATMENT FACILITY $2,000,000 for design and architectural services, permitting, site preparation and other preconstruction costs for a 16-32 bed inpatient treatment facility for individuals experiencing behavioral health issues. Project development is underway and would be located on County-owned property. Full project cost expected to exceed $11,000,000.
4. DAVENPORT DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $2,500,000 for design and planning services, permitting, site acquisition, and other needed services to develop construction plans for an independent and resilient domestic water system for the town of Davenport. This project would require 100% grant funding.
5. MORAN LAKE RESTORATION $1,607,000 for Moran Lake County Park improvements.
6. HOLOHAN/152 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS $1,708,000 to fund operational and school safety improvements at one of the busiest intersections in South County, located at Holohan Road and Highway 152. Project would improve safety and reduce congestion by adding turn lanes, extending existing lanes and making bicycle and pedestrian improvement. Total project cost is $3,910,000, of which $1,708,000 is unfunded.
7. APTOS STORM REPAIRS $1,700,000 to make storm-related road repairs, restoring mobility and access for residents impacted by storm-related road damage on Valencia Road and White Road.
8. SOQUEL DRIVE BIKE/PED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS $4,700,000 to provide a local match for the Soquel Drive Buffered Bike Lane project, which encourages alternative transportation and healthy lifestyles by making bicycle safety improvements along Soquel Drive, the only major north-south connector in the County other than Highway 1. Project has federal funding and County has identified more than $4 million of an estimated $9 million local match. Total project cost to exceed $20 million.

WRITE ONE LETTER OR MAKE ONE CALL THIS WEEK AND MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE THAN YOU MAY REALIZE.

Cheers,
Becky

THREE-STORY 19-UNIT SEACLIFF HOTEL GETS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION??
The Seacliff Community needs to take a look at this project and weigh in by November 15, because there are some issues worth pounding the table about. County Planner Matt Johnston has declared this project COULD NOT cause ANY adverse environmental impacts at all, and has blessed it with a “Negative Declaration”. This is a green light to move forward without any mitigations for possible impacts, such as traffic, noise, increased water demand to an over drafted aquifer, hazards of soil liquifaction, glare of light at night, blocking ocean views, ugly architecture, etc., etc.  

The developer claims this three-story structure is a Motel, because there are no ancillary facilities included, and therefore would pose no traffic impact.

The project would obtain water from the Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD). Although the project would increase water demand, the SqCWD has indicated that adequate supplies are available to serve the project.  See page 43 for discussion of impacts on critically over drafted aquifer.  Sure, they’ll say that, if the developer gives them enough money.  I applaud Director Bruce Daniels for being the lone vote against extending the new 19-unit hotel service connections.

[CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST]

See the image of this incredibly tasteless proposed three-story with fourth level rooftop areas and elevator towers on page 64

See page 72 to read why no  traffic study is needed for the estimated 83 additional trips generated daily.

See page 87 where the geotechnical engineer states: 

“The most prominent feature of the site is the potential to undergo liquefaction. The medium dense sands and lean silt below the water table are potentially liquefiable.” yet the foundation will be a concrete slab. 

See page 115 to see how Soquel Creek Water District will allow this significant increase in water demand while claiming the aquifer is critically over drafted, but condones it by accepting large amounts of money. 

This property is adjacent to the railroad tracks, but there is no analysis of the project and potential future railroad transportation and /or trail access.  The Seacliff Village Plan cites the pedestrian/bicycle access to the rail trail as mandatory (see page 35 of the Seacliff Village Plan:

“…sufficient land shall be left for vehicular access for site 4-and pedestrian access connecting the railroad right-of-way to Broadway to allow for a potential public trail along the railroad tracks and/or public access to a potential rail transit station/platform. Future proposed development shall not preclude the provision of vehicular and pedestrian access as described.”

[Seacliff Village Plan]  

Take a look at the project area on the County Assessor database GIS to get a better idea of how this all fits together.

What about the already-hazardous intersection at State Park Drive and Searidge Road?  Shouldn’t the developer be required to add improvements there to accommodate the increased traffic to the area? 

Your comments are due by November 15, 2021: Santa Cruz County Planning Dept. planner Randall Adams randall.adams@santacruzcounty.us   (the same guy who shoved the Aptos Village Project through without a full Environmental Impact Report. and allowed traffic mitigations that the County paid for.)

CHANGING COUNTY SUPERVISORIAL BOUNDARIES TO UNITE CITY REPRESENTATION?   NO!!
The Board of Supervisors held a Special Meeting last Tuesday evening and happily accepted recommendations that basically reject multiple requests to unite the City of Scotts Valley in one Supervisorial District to better serve the people, and to reject a proposed map that would do the same for all four cities in the County. 

NO, said the report, because County Staff Ms. Susan Pearlman, who was involved in past redistricting efforts, advised the 2021 Redistricting Advisory Committee that in the past, the 2011 Task Force had decided it would be better to divide all four cities between two different Supervisors, over objections of Councils from the City of Watsonville and City of Scotts Valley.

None of the current Supervisors bothered to ask why the split would be considered beneficial, even though Ms. Pearlman was logged in remotely on the public hearing.  None of the Supervisors bothered to ask if the benefits of this split representation have really manifested over the past ten years, and would warrant ignoring the multiple citizen requests to again unite Scotts Valley.  

All seemed to agree that it would just be too disruptive.

I wrote Ms. Pearlman, who kindly provided the attached 2011 Supervisorial Boundary Report (see below).

I read the report and recommendations and indeed found the statement on page 47 that:

“In addition to consideration of the legal guidelines, the Task Force’s Plan includes dual representation by two Supervisors for all four incorporated cities. Members believe that there is a significant advantage to advocacy by two Supervisors, and to enhanced representation for the Cities on boards, agencies, committee, special districts and commissions that members of the Board of Supervisors serve on.” 

I think it merits consideration by the Board now whether or not this recommendation, as implemented for the past 10 years, has provided any real benefit to the residents of all four incorporated cities.  The Task Force recommendations in 2011 to split all cities was a new idea, and was done so despite the objection of City Council leaders of both Watsonville and Scotts Valley.

What I heard at last Tuesday’s public hearing was that it is better not to make any changes, just because it would be disruptive.  However, I feel this critical issue bears closer examination and consultation with the City leaderships. 

Please write your City Council and ask that they get involved.  The remaining two public hearings before the Board of Supervisors will be November 9 and November 16, both during regular  9am meetings, but perhaps will be scheduled for 10:45am times.    The final boundaries must be approved by December 15, 2021.

Here is the link to the Redistricting Public Participation website.

You can find links to videos of all Commission meetings here: ARC 21 Agendas & Videos

Watch the video of the final Redistricting Advisory Commission Special meeting on October 15 to learn about the discussions, especially regarding UCSC areas (which ultimately were rejected). 

Interestingly, the Commissioner for District 1 argued that dividing Communities of Interest into fragments causes those residents in the fragments to lose their representation because of there being relatively few voters for the Supervisors to concern themselves with.

The website has a spot for submitting public comment, but I found it useless.  It will not allow posting unless you select your community, but there is no option for many of the County’s communities (such as Aptos).  Also, the selection of which item number you want to comment on is confusing because there are no item numbers until a Board hearing is scheduled.  Therefore, you are not allowed to comment much in advance of the meetings, leaving little time for Board members to read what you have submitted.

The mapping software is disturbing because in order to download the software to submit maps to the Supervisors, you have to agree to allow students of educational institutions to access your account data, and multiple students may use a single access portal.  County staff Mr. Paul Garcia answered my question about this issue, stating the software company (ESRI) controls all access issues.  However, the website provides a map of all existing District boundaries, which members of the public can download, print out, mark up, and submit.  I’m just not sure who will review them…

Maps of Existing Supervisorial Districts

But here is one more thought…are the existing five County Supervisor areas too large to lend effective and fair representation to all residents?  Maybe Santa Cruz County needs to have seven Districts.

WILL RETIRING COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR BE IN VIOLATION OF FCC RULES? 
Mimi Hall, Santa Cruz County Health Services Director is quitting, and will instead, beginning next month, work as a Director of the largest non-profit health data network in California.

However, State law prohibits any government worker from moving directly to a non-governmental job when their knowledge and relationships built during taxpayer supported timeframes could allow inside influence benefitting the non-governmental job.

It’s called the One-Year Ban, or “Anti-Revolving Door” law

I recently contacted the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) with a question about whether it would be a violation of this law if retiring County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty were to win the appointment of Santa Cruz City Manager.  The FPPC legal advisor said the One-Year rule only applies if a governmental worker takes a job with a non-governmental agency in a related field of work.  The Rule would not have applied to Ryan Coonerty (he did not get the job…it went to Watsonville City Manager Matt Huffaker).

However, the question is, does it apply to Mimi Hall and her new job at Manifest MedEx now?  Contact the FPPC Advice staff and ask.

Read more about Mimi Hall here  

SOME RESIDENTS IN RURAL AREAS TAKING FIREFIGHTING MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS
Various resident groups around the rural West are organizing to protect their property during wildfires.   This is happening in Santa Cruz County too, given the problems with CAL FIRE’S lack of response during last year’s CZU Lightning Complex Fire.  

Here, those efforts are met with disdain by CAL FIRE.  However, in Oregon rangeland areas, fire district officials are linking arms and providing training and basic equipment, much like the Australian model.

When San Mateo County included the help and local knowledge of County Parks Dept. workers and equipment during the CZU Fire, they kept the town of Pescadero from burning to the ground.  CAL FIRE’S inaction in Santa Cruz County led to disastrous results.

Contact your local fire department and ask their opinion on this matter.  Refer them to the Oregon model…and ask when that type of cooperative work and training can happen in Santa Cruz County.  If you live in the rural areas of the County, write a letter to the County Fire Advisory Commission c/o Melissa Scalia melissa.scalia@ca.fire.gov .  That group meets November 15.

STATE APPROVAL NOW ALLOWS LOCAL CONTROL REGARDING SEPTIC PERMITS IN RURAL AREAS.
Finally, many rural property owners in this County, including the CZU Fire rebuild folks, will no longer have to gain approval from the State level staff for septic approvals to build or rebuild.  Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Dept. has been long-overdue in getting the Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval, causing many problems locally.  

However, the County’s LAMP gained state approval October 25. (see two attachments below). Let’s hope things will begin to go more smoothly for the CZU Fire rebuild folks.

MAKE ONE CALL OR WRITE ONE LETTER THIS WEEK AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers, Becky

October 24

MAJOR WATER STORAGE TANK IN SOQUEL NEARLY RAN DRY, DUE TO RUPTURE AND SENSING EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION
On October 7, at 9:50pm, a major rupture occurred in a water supply line at Soquel Creek Water District’s Maplethorpe and Victory Lane service area in Soquel, gushing at a rate of 4,800 gallons / minute, and nearly draining two large storage tanks in the area.  Staff responded to shut off the main and returned to the office to look at computer radio data reports of the tank levels.  Based on the technological sensor data on the computer screen, they believed there was 4′ of water left in the tanks, so everyone went home.  

However, this was a big mistake.

When a very-responsible worker paid a visit to the tanks the next morning to visually inspect the actual water levels to compare them with the computer data, he discovered the tanks were nearly dry.  Had there been a structure or wildland fire that night, there likely would not have been enough water for suppression.

The ruptured pipeline is the exclusive supply line to the District’s 600,000 gallon Fairway and 115,000 gallon Ironwood storage tanks. The pipeline also serves as a link for the 500,000 gallon Austrian and Fairway tanks to “float” at the same water level.

Apparently, the transducer pipe supplying the radio / computerized Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) data water level input to the District Office computer systems had an air bubble, resulting in an erroneous water level that showed 3 Ft. more water than actual. Lesson learned: Always verify electrical signals, especially when assessing supply quantities.

Read more about this close call and the quick action taken: 

Item 7.5 on October 19 Board agenda (page 160)

This is the same system that the Modified PureWater Soquel Project will rely upon for monitoring contaminants in the treated sewage water to be injected into the aquifer.   Does that concern you?

WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION SUES TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT INTEGRITY
Watsonville Mayor Jimmy Dutra cast the lone “no” vote on August 24 in the face an application to convert a steel fabrication business at 547 Airport Boulevard to a 21-unit condominium development, directly across the street from the Watsonville Airport.  He was heeding the warnings of the Watsonville Pilots Association of impending legal action if the City approved the project, stating that the city could not legally approve projects so close to the airport without thorough environmental and airport-related impact analysis and reports. 

The Watsonville Planning Commission had voted 4-3 to approve the project earlier this year, but the vote failed because it needed a supermajority of five votes. Their concerns stemmed from the project’s one-way-in, one-way-out entrance, limited parking spaces (58, including 16 visitor spots) and potentially toxic soil left from the previous industrial use.

As warned, the Watsonville Pilots Association has recently filed a suit, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), claiming the City did not do adequate analysis of the Project’s impact to the Watsonville Airport.  The attorney for the Watsonville Pilots Association has already asked for and was granted a change of judges to hear the case…out goes Judge Timothy Volkmann, and the case will be instead assigned to Judge Paul Marigonda with initial review on January 24, 2022.

Watsonville Pilots Association sues City over housing project

Here is a link to the County Assessor’s GIS map for the parcel

It is important to protect the Watsonville Airport from development in the flight paths.  History shows that when housing crowds an airport, the residents complain of noise and hazards, and the airport eventually goes away.  Santa Cruz County cannot afford to lose the Watsonville Airport, as it is the life-blood connection for emergency services in disasters.

Consider the critical role the Watsonville Airport and Pilots Association played in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.

“The centerpiece of the disaster relief was Watsonville Municipal Airport, which became the unsung hero of the Loma Prieta response after damaged roads and bridges isolated the county. “For three or four days it was the only way in and out of the county,” former airport manager Don French said, adding that pilots brought in more than 1 million tons of supplies.”

[The Pajaronian: Remebering Loma Prieta]

I am grateful to the Watsonville Pilots Association for continuing to protect the Airport.

REDRAWING THE LINES THAT REPRESENT YOU AND YOUR COMMUNITY
Santa Cruz County Supervisorial District boundaries are changing, due to the 2020 Census data.    This Tuesday evening, you have a chance to tell the Board of Supervisors what you think would be a fair way to draw the five Supervisorial District boundaries to offer better representation.  

Weigh in with your opinion about whether this makes sense this Tuesday, October 26 at 6:30pm with hybrid in-person Special Board of Supervisor meeting and virtual opportunity at the County Building (701 Ocean Street, 5th floor).

Take a look at attachments 3 and 4, to see what people have proposed for re-working the County’s lines for Supervisorial Districts.  Read public comments in Attachment 2.  

One example of re-drawing political lines that people have requested is to make Scotts Valley all in the same District.  Currently, the Highway 17 divides the area between two Supervisorial Districts.  Another idea submitted is to group Districts along more geographical lines, so that rural areas receive better representation.

So far, the Redistricting Advisory Committee has determined these two boundary changes are worth pursuing (note that unifying Scotts Valley is not on the list):

District Boundary Proposal A

The first is a change to the western boundary of District 1 to include portions of the East Harbor neighborhoods currently in District. The Committee recommends that this portion be transferred from the Third to the First District. New district boundaries from north to south are Brommer Street Extension to Twin Lakes State Beach, and west to east from the City of Santa Cruz limits to Ninth Avenue. This proposal transfers 613 persons from District 3 to District 1. Table 2 demonstrates the new configuration to each District.

The second change currently proposed by the Committee recognizes a boundary split that existed in a neighborhood in the Apple Hill district in unincorporated Watsonville, which separates residents of Silver Leaf and Green Meadow Drives into two Districts. This proposal cures the split and transfers a population of 491 from the 2nd to the 4th District.

Written and oral public comments will be accepted on proposed district boundaries until a final map is approved by the Board. However, in order to meet the 7-day publishing requirement for proposed maps to be considered by the Board, staff recommends that the Board establish Tuesday, November 2, 2021, as the final day for which a map from the public may be submitted.

WHAT IS THE LATEST CHANGE WITH THE MASSIVE KAISER MEDICAL PROJECT IN LIVE OAK?
Here is your opportunity to ask questions directly of the Kaiser Medical Facility applicants about why a 730-car parking structure adjacent to the proposed massive four-story clinic would be a good idea, and why no bus service at all is planned to be included. to serve this facility at 5940 Soquel Avenue frontage road in Live Oak.  You can ask about the traffic study that claims the Project will have no impact on traffic.   And what about the existing sewer connection moratorium in effect for that area?  Hmmmm…… 

Make your thoughts known November 3, 6:30pm-8pm at a virtual community meeting.

CAL FIRE CALLED IN THE WORLD TO DEFEND LAST WEEK’S ESTRADA FIRE NEIGHBORHOOD
Last week, I wrote about the Estrada Fire, and how CAL FIRE investigators have in the past assigned blame to outside agencies and individuals in order to add money to clandestine accounts.  I was interested in knowing what resources were assigned to the Estrada Fire, so I wrote to CAL FIRE Chief Ian Larkin (who is retiring in a couple of weeks).  He responded quickly. 

You may be as amazed as I was to learn about the great amount of resources called in to fight that fire:

During the initial response to the Estrada Fire, CAL FIRE had assigned 7 fixed wing aircraft, 1 Air Attack, 6 tankers. In addition we had 4 CAL FIRE helicopter assigned.  On Sunday we had 1 Air Attack, 4 tankers but only two dropped retardant, and we had two CAL FIRE helicopters assigned.  

As for ground resources, at the peak of the resource count we had the following assigned, 

40 engines – 34 of those were type 3 and 4 were type 4. 

14 Crews – 13 type 1 crews and 1 type 2 crew

6 Bull Dozers – 4 CAL FIRE and 2 Private hire. 

5 Local agency water tenders on Friday 10/15 that were released on Saturday 10/16 and replaced with 6 Private Hire water tenders. 

CAL FIRE resources came from different areas of the state as they do in support of growing fires.  The most of current fires burning in California are not in CAL FIRE DPA and have limited CAL FIRE resources commitments, so CAL FIRE resources were available to respond to CZU. Initial attack response is a priority so available resources were sent to CZU for the Estrada Fire to rapidly contain the fire.  We have release the vast majority of the out of area resources and plan to release the remaining resources today and will staff the fire with CZU resource in a patrol status. Our goal is to be at 100% containment today (October 20) 

Will the Estrada family be asked to pay for any of this?  No, thanks to Governor Approval October 6 of SB 332, waiving all liability for any control burn project that gets out of control.

Will there be an After Action Review of this incident?  We all should be asking CAL FIRE for one.  Maybe the burn should have been shut down at noon, when the winds began to increase?  Maybe the fuel moistures were drier than usual, having just experienced a couple of hot, windy days?  Would it have been safer to wait until the fuel moistures rose a bit with a drizzle?  Were the neighbors all informed?

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK.  WRITE ONE LETTER OR MAKE ONE CALL TO EXPRESS YOUR THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS.

Cheers, Becky

October 17
CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT WILL MOVE TO DISTRICT-BASED BOARD ELECTIONS…PUBLIC MEETINGS COMING SOON
If you live within the large Central Fire District area, watch for notices of public meetings to discuss how the new district-based election for the Board of Directors will proceed. Central Fire Chief John Walbridge informed the Board last Thursday that the dates for these public meetings have been delayed due to the late delivery of the Census Data, but hopefully will be scheduled within the next couple of months.  Oddly, the State has shortened the time for getting the job done by one month, and the boundaries for the five new District-based Board seats must be completed and submitted by April 17, 2022.

Generally, the District’s service areas, covering 55 square miles,  include Aptos, Capitola, La Selva Beach, Live Oak, Rio del Mar and Soquel, but encompass large rural areas in Larkin Valley, Day Valley and the Soquel Valley.   For better representation, and in conformance with the California Voting Rights Act, the Central Fire District will transition to a system of elections by “zone” effective with the 2022 General Election.

Governor Newsom just signed into law SB 594 that changes certain requirements for the June, 2022 Primary Elections with regard to residency and re-districting and filing deadlines

Will the rural areas have good representation?  That will be up to you.  Get involved if you live in these areas.  There are possible annexations of other adjacent areas on the horizon, with discussions on the table by August, 2022.

LAFCO COUNTYWIDE FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE REVIEW COMPLETE
Take time to read the excellent review of all 13 Santa Cruz County fire districts, completed by Santa Cruz County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) Director Mr. Joe Serrano. Last Wednesday, the Commissioners reviewed and approved this extensive review report that uses Insurance Service Ratings (ISO) as the common measuring stick of effective service among the 13 different fire protection districts in the County.  (Agenda Item 5a, page 12)

[October 2021 Entire Agenda Packet]

The report recommends consolidation of two County Fire Dept. funding mechanisms (CSA 4 for Pajaro Dunes and CSA 48 for the rest of the rural CAL FIRE areas) and possible annexations by Central Fire District of the Branciforte Fire and County Fire service areas.  Those discussions need to happen by August, 2022.  If those current administrations do not favor annexations, it needs to be made clear why or why not, and by December, 2022, accordingly adjust the effectual sphere of influence lines that were mostly drawn in the 1970’s and 1980’s. 

Mr. Serrano made it clear that his goal is to improve emergency service and financial accountability of all fire districts in the County in order to provide the best possible level of service to the residents.  We are lucky to have him at the LAFCO helm.

Read this critical report and contact your respective fire agency about how any recommendations approved by LAFCO in Resolution 2021-17 will move forward and when.

Page 29 Executive Summary  
Page 53  Aromas Tri-County Fire Protection District 
Page 72  Ben Lomond Fire Protection District
Page 91  Boulder Creek Fire Protection District
Page 109  Branciforte Fire Protection District 
Page 130  Central Fire District 
Page 150 County Service Area 4 (Pajaro Dunes) Santa Cruz County Fire Dept.
Page 166  County Service Area 48  Santa Cruz County Fire Dept.
page 183  Felton Fire Protection District
Page 201  Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District 
Page 219  City of Santa Cruz Fire 
Page 235  Scotts Valley Fire Protection District 
Page 253  City of Watsonville Fire Dept.
Page 269  Zayante Fire Protection District 
Page 354 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-17 adopting all recommendations.

CHANGING INSURANCE FIRE RISK MODELS FOR RURAL CALIFORNIA
On November 10, 10am-1pm, the California Department of Insurance will conduct a virtual public discussion regarding a proposed regulation requiring consideration of property-level and community-level wildfire risk mitigation in rating plans and risk models.  See the two attachments at the end of this Blog for details.

How will this affect the insurance ratings in rural areas?  Will insurance companies be required to consider fire defensible space and home hardening efforts when setting policy premiums or cancellations? 

Register for the webinar here 

LOCAL CAL FIRE/COUNTY FIRE DEPT. CHIEF IAN LARKIN RETIRING

CAL FIRE/County Fire Chief Ian Larkin is retiring November 5 and the Board of Supervisors will issue a proclamation in his honor at their scheduled action of Item this Tuesday during an afternoon Item  #12.

Who will replace him?  Unknown, according to Chief Larkin, but my guess is Chief Nate Armstrong, who has been filling the boots for a while for some various fire-related issues.

JUST IN TIME…SB 332 REMOVES LIABILITY OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY PRESCRIBED BURNS, AND THE STRANGE HISTORY OF CAL FIRE AVOIDING LIABILITY

Historically, when CAL FIRE can place blame on a person or agency for starting a wildland fire, that person or agency has to pay for the cost of fighting the fire.  Imagine what that can cost!!

However, on September 23, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 332 that now does not hold any agency or property owner liable for damages when a controlled prescribed burn escapes and causes damage.  That comes just in time to let CAL FIRE and the Estrada Family off the hook for what happened last Friday in Corralitos. 

A controlled burn on the Estrada Ranch in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains got out of control and burned about 100 acres, and required evacuation orders for nearly 100 homes.   Luckily, it seems at the time of this writing, no one was hurt, and no homes burned.  This was a CAL FIRE controlled burn, and CAL FIRE has issued a public statement that the cause of the fire was the escaped control burn.

But had the fire burned more extensively, destroying the Mt. Madonna Center, homes, and the ridgetop communications towers, neither CAL FIRE nor the Estrada Family would be held liable, thanks to SB 332, freshly autographed by Governor Newsom on September 23.

But who would pay?  The taxpayers, likely, under the parameters of the state budget.  

Governor Newsom Signs CCA-Sponsored SB 332 – California Cattlemen’s Association  

Consider this, juxtaposed with the 2008 Summit Fire, where a property owner’s contractor was charged with causing the fire and being legally liable to pay CAL FIRE $14.85 million for suppression costs of that very large and destructive fire in Corralitos during a large wind event.  During the Santa Clara County law suit hearings, there was testimony and information that perhaps a controlled burn in the area that got out of control nearby may have contributed to the fire. 

Neighbors testified the fire likely had multiple causes, but the judge ruled that the property owner’s contractor was at fault and liable.

Later, in 2013, at the request of the man’s public defender, the Santa Clara County District Attorney immediately dropped all charges, acknowledging that the CAL FIRE investigation of the 2008 Summit Fire’s cause was flawed.

The contractor had to resort to asking for a public defender because he had used up his savings to make bail and pay a series of private lawyers and simply ran out of money.  

In 2015, that defender sought the Court to declare a Statement of Innocence to clear Mr. Verden’s record, an unusual action.

This action was brought about by multiple factors, but mainly the fact that 

no action was taken against a Cal Fire captain who, in 2009, failed to properly douse a burn pile, sparking the Loma Fire, which destroyed two mobile homes, burned 485 acres in Santa Cruz County and cost about $4 million to fight.   

The second factor supporting the public defender’s successful pleading that the charges against the contractor be dropped and his name cleared was that the lead CAL FIRE Investigator, Joshua White, was deemed not credible.

Mr. Joshua White was involved in a secret, illegal money-skimming operation orchestrated by CAL FIRE’s civil cost recovery team, which motivated that agency’s investigator Joshua White to blame wildfires on people and companies with potentially deep pockets rather than to conclude the cause of a blaze was arson or undetermined.

In 2013, the state auditor reported that Cal Fire had indeed diverted $3.7 million from legal settlements into a secret unauthorized bank account, starting in 2005.  Also, in 2014, retired Santa Clara County Judge Leslie Nichols specifically lambasted Joshua White as well as other state employees in a 75-page ruling for hiding evidence and pinning the blame for the massive Moonlight Fire in Plumas and Lassen counties on the Sierra Pacific lumber company, so the agency could reap millions in a civil judgment for its secret account.

The public defender for the contractor charged with causing the Summit Fire pointed out that prosecutors never charged the CAL FIRE captain whose negligence caused the Loma Fire with any crime, despite his arguably similar actions. Prosecutors dropped the charges against the contractor, Mr. Channing Verden, in 2013 because of that and have never closely reviewed CAL FIRE’s investigation conducted by Joshua White since Judge Nichols issued his scathing ruling.

Normally with an innocence bid like Mr. Verden’s, prosecutors would immediately begin weighing whether to oppose it, support it or remain neutral. But in a separate motion, Public Defender Rios contended that the District Attorney’s Office should be removed from the case because CAL FIRE’s secret fund was quietly managed by the California District Attorneys Association, the trade group to which most local prosecutors belong.

CAL FIRE paid the District Attorneys Association $373,624 for its management services between 2005 and 2013, which Rios claims amounts to a conflict of interest because it gave the local office, as well as prosecutors across California, “an improper financial incentive to prosecute those it accused of setting wildfires.” 

Mr. Channing Verden was innocent, but a victim of a defective CAL FIRE investigation.  His life was ruined.  “I’m 56 years old with no Social Security, nothing,” he said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do. But if nothing else, maybe I can prevent the state from trying to extort someone else.”

Meanwhile, Joshua White, the CAL FIRE investigator deemed as being not credible, was transferred to Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit Chief and Tuolumne County Fire Department Chief, and had no further investigative responsibilities.  

He retired last year with a salary and benefits of about $300,000/year, according to Transparent California.

In closing, Governor Newsom’s signing into law SB 332 may now remove liability associated with controlled burn escapes and hopefully prevent legal travesties  such as what befell Mr. Channing Verden.  However, these questions remain:

1. What, if anything, happened to hold CAL FIRE accountable for the discovery of the $3.6 million secret account verified to exist in the 2013 State audit?
2. Why didn’t CAL FIRE prosecute their own captain, whose negligence caused the Loma Fire in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties in 2009?
3. If SB 332 were not in place, would CAL FIRE prosecute anyone for last Friday’s Estrada Fire to recover suppression costs and damages?  

Likely not, as the Estrada Ranch, site of the controlled burn that escaped,  is partially owned by  CAL FIRE Battalion Chief Greg Estrada, who heads up the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District. Grass fire breaks out along Highway 129 near power lines

MANY LEGISLATIVE BILLS SIGNED INTO LAW
Read about some of the recent new laws that will affect everyone.

MAKE ONE CALL OR WRITE ONE LETTER THIS WEEK AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers, Becky

October 10

MORE BIG CHANGES IN PUREWATER SOQUEL PROJECT APPROVED LAST WEEK
Last Tuesday (10/05)  the Soquel Creek Water District Board approved huge new changes to the PureWater Soquel Project to remove all advanced sewage water treatment from the Santa Cruz site, instead consolidating the treatment at Chanticleer and Soquel Avenue, and increase the design-build contract cost by 30%. 

The new name for the treated sewage water supply access at California and Bay in Santa Cruz will be “PureWater Soquel Source Pump Station”, and the former nitrifying Bacterialogic Aeration Facility (nBAF) will not be built, thereby removing hundreds of construction truck trips and nighttime excavation work.  (See Item 7.3, beginning on page 150)

The design-build contract cost is now $87,022,827 and does not include the other eight contracts with other contractors that includes $45,000 annually for a lobbyist.

The treatment at the Chanticleer facility will now use ozone, rather than a series of hazardous chemicals that would have been stored on-site there, across from the County Office of Emergency Services and adjacent to Highway One traffic corridor and a soon-to-be-built bicycle/pedestrian overpass. However, there will still be many large storage tanks on-site containing other hazardous chemicals for sewage water treatment. 
If I understand the analysis correctly, this may be a good thing, a bad thing, and would harbor many unknowns.

The good thing is that it may eliminate the multiple large tanks of hazardous chemicals that had been planned to be stored within 0.25 mile of three schools and in a residential neighborhood on the Westside, but it seems the chloramine-laden effluent that poses a real threat to the aquatic habitats in the eight pipeline stream crossing locations, which include the San Lorenzo River,  is still a threat.  Last Tuesday, I specifically asked the Board in writing to answer whether or not chloramine, which is toxic to all aquatic life, would be in the pressurized effluent piped from Santa Cruz to the Live Oak facility. They refused to answer.  Page 407 indicates chloramine is a residual in the effluent pipeline, and must be monitored and maintained at 4-5 mg. 

The bad thing is that the design has changed to dump all the contaminants and treatment chemicals and their by-products directly into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

“Piping to return MF strainer backwash waste, MF backwash waste and RO concentrate (ROC) and off-specification MF feed, MF feed tank overflow, RO feed tank overflow, off-specification UV-AOP effluent, and purified water tank overflow as well as AWPF plant bypass to the ROC line for discharge via the existing tunnel portal box to the ocean outfall.” 
Page 414 gives parameters of just how dirty this concentrated waste can be.  

This sewage effluent outfall pipe has a known rupture that allows a plume of treated sewage to exit a mere 65 feet from shore.  The State Water board has taken enforcement action against the City of Santa Cruz to repair this rupture, but the status is unknown.

Unknown impacts of this major Modified PureWater Soquel Project’s second round of significant changes without any real EIR update or public comment period include:

1. aesthetic impacts of the new 60′ radio communication pole (3′ diameter at base leading to eventual 18″ diameter at top) at the Chanticleer facility that will be visible from the Highway One corridor and pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing adjacent to the property;
2. potential radio interference from the equipment on this pole that will be aimed directly at the Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services disaster communication center, located just across the street at the County Sheriff Center;
3. an even higher energy increased demand than before, with “approximately 7,797 MWh per year, which is 1,597 MWh per year greater than that described in the Certified EIR and 2020 Addendum.”  (page 172), and
4. a permanent emergency generator (80 kW RO Flush Emergency Generator with a 175- gallon fuel tank), to provide for operational flexibility during power outages, but none of this was included in the original EIR.

The new Design-Build contract with Black & Veatch for treatment facilities alone has increased over 30% to now be $87,883, 805 and is starting eight months later than anticipated.  The State Grant requirement deadline for Project completion looms.  See the Project timeline on page 417.

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT COMMUNITY WATER PLAN SUSPENDS STORMWATER COLLECTION PROJECT
The District Board also approved the Community Water Plan Update, which suspends the pilot project to collect stormwater in Seascape and use it for aquifer recharge near the Seascape Golf Course.  There was no discussion about this sudden change, and it was only due to Director Carla Christensen questioning the announcement of the project’s suspension during the Item 7.2 Board review of the document. 

General Manager Ron Duncan simply stated the District is not moving forward on the project, which has been funded by a State Prop. 1 grant, but provided no explanation at all.  None of the Directors asked for one.

See page 149

PROPOSED MULTI-STORY KAISER MEDICAL FACILITY WOULD HAVE LARGEST PARKING GARAGE IN THE COUNTY BUT CLAIMS NO SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT
Last Wednesday (10/13), Supervisor Manu Koenig held a well-attended hybrid Town Hall meeting about this very large Project at 5940 Soquel Avenue in Live Oak, with another scheduled November 3.  This four-story medical complex and separate four-story 730-car parking garage would be the largest in the County.  Is this really the best place to put it???
Most who attended the meeting felt it is not.  I was happy to be able to join the in-person contingent of about 30 people, with another 60-70 joining via Zoom. 

I was unable to arrive in time to hear Director of Public Works Director Matt Machado speak about the multiple improvements that could be made to mitigate the traffic inherent with the proposed Project.  Later, people referred to the “$3.5 million” the County would receive from the applicant.  People also questioned “four pedestrian bridges” that could be built with the influx of cash to the County, and how there would be improvements to Soquel Drive, not Soquel Avenue…like sidewalks.

The problem is that there is NO Metro bus service currently serving this area and Mr. Machado stated that there are no current plans to bring any Metro bus service to the area.  Instead, the mitigations would focus on connections to existing Soquel Drive fixed bus routes on the other side of Highway One, relying on a new pedestrian/bicycle overpass near the Sheriff Center at Chanticleer, and also the availability of Para-Cruz and LiftLine services, which is quite restrictive. 

Hmmmm….

People who live in the Gross Road area and rely on already-congested Soquel Avenue for their ingress and egress to Highway One expressed concern that adding even more traffic is unacceptable.  Most wanted to know more about what the traffic “diverters” the Draft EIR proposed to limit cut-through traffic would look like, but based on vague descriptions, would be a nightmare.  The people who live in the 40th Avenue and Gross Road neighborhood do not want the barricade removed that currently prevents traffic from Soquel Avenue from cutting through their kid-friendly street to 41st Avenue.

Above all, many questioned why the County would re-zone this parcel from affordable housing R-Zone to commercial, and wipe away an opportunity to provide more affordable housing for the people?

At the very end, I brought up the existing sewer moratorium in that area, and wondered how the County would address Kaiser’s sewage impact?  With hesitation, Supervisor Koenig asked Mr. Machado to answer.  He said the current work happening on Soquel Avenue (related to Soquel Creek Water District’s Modified PureWater Soquel Project treated sewage water) would provide some short-term relief, and the County has other projects planned for the future to address the problem.   He did not really discuss the possibility of Kaiser upgrading the sewage lines and pump stations as a Condition of Approval for the Project.

The Final EIR with Response to Comments is expected to be released this December, “with Board of Supervisor approval in February, 2022.”  The Project would first have to go before the County Planning Commission for comment/recommendation, and the parcel would have to be re-zoned.  

Big changes for big money.  Many people felt this seems “like a done deal.”  One participant pressed Supervisor Koenig for his view…does he support this Project?  After being pressed, he said “Yes, with traffic mitigations.” Mark your calendar for November 3, when the Project Applicant will host a public meeting.  Watch for announcements of that and the video recording of last Wednesday’s meeting here

MORE ALERTWILDFIRE CAMERAS FOR THE COUNTY
Last Tuesday,(10/05) the County Board of Supervisors approved Consent Agenda Item #19 to explore further locations for remote fire-scanning cameras in the County.  CalFire and County Fire staff have identified priority locations for the installation of new cameras that could help quickly alert and update emergency responders and the public to wildfires.   Here is a list of possible sites: Watsonville Fire Station #2 Cell Tower, City of Santa Cruz coastal area (wharf, Dream Inn, Long Marine Lab), Silver Mountain Winery/Summit Area, Davenport Cement Plant, Cabrillo Horticulture/Mid-County, and Mount Madonna Center.

[Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisor October 5 ConsentAgenda Item #19]

It would seem that Loma Prieta Mountain would be another good location.  Can you think of others?  Write your Supervisor with your ideas.  Here is the view possible with existing cameras  

BE GLAD THAT YOU CAN SEE, BE MINDFUL OF THOSE WHO CANNOT
Friday, October 15 is International White Cane Day, an educational day instituted by the International Lions Club to help raise awareness of public etiquette and the blind.
Learn valuable tips for how to regard and protect the safety of those who are visually impaired here   

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY WRITING A LETTER OR MAKING A CALL ABOUT AN ISSUE YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT. 

Cheers, Becky

SENATOR LAIRD’S PRESENTATION TO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPES: “SO MUCH MONEY, WE COULDN’T SPEND IT ALL.”
The State budget this year was the likes of nothing ever seen before…“There was a $75 Billion excess. The legislature spent half of the excess, and ended up giving back the other half!!! ” 

State Senator John Laird gave a legislative update and budget report to the County Board of Supervisors on September 28.  You can listen to his 30-minute presentation on the video here: (Item #7 begins at about minute 57:00)

A lot of money went to homeless support services.  “Per Capita, Santa Cruz homeless numbers are higher than San Francisco or Oakland.”  He and Mark Stone got a bill pushed through that will give the City of Santa Cruz $14.5 million for homeless services.  Wow.

He talked then about various legislation that the Governor has signed or await his signature.  One is a bill to set out a 5-year plan for forest management and wildfire risk reduction….but he did not say it would actually accomplish any projects.  

He talked about SB 9 and SB10 that will take away local control of land use and permitting, and concluded with his discussion that was with a UC Regent about the UCSC Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that just came out, announcing UCSC will increase enrollment to 28,000 by 2040.  He said he tried to convince UC Regents to move the controversial 150 new housing units planned for the big meadow to another location, but they refused.  There are 3,000 other new housing units planned in other areas of the campus.

[UCSC releases campus plan, staking out ambitious vision of growth by 2040]

PRIVATE MONEY FUNDED STUDY THAT WILL AFFECT CZU FIRE REBUILD, REQUIRING 20% REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF STRUCTURES.
The Board of Supervisors heard staff presentation of the “Atkins Study” debris flow model last Tuesday, identifying high-risk debris flow areas and defining the areas CZU Fire survivors will be required to record a Covenant on their deed that their land has “unknown” geological risks.  

This harmful action will devalue property, cause problems with lenders and insurance requirements, and possibly cause brokers of existing mortgages on these properties to call the loan, and likely force the owner into default.

There are problems with this study:  

1. Ms. Katie Webb pointed out that the Atkins Study did not evaluate the debris flow potential of the Scott Creek area in the Swanton Community, yet classified Scott Creek as “high risk”.   (see written comment on Item #12 and minute 3:58:02)
2. The model is based on data from studies in Ventura County from 2005 and the Goodwin Fire near Prescott, Arizona in 2018, not local geologic, or topographical vegetation studies.
3. The model used prediction data for a 500-year storm, which has a 0.2% chance of probability.
4. Based on this modeled data, the Atkins Study would cause a 20% reduction in the number of homes lost in the CZU Fire to rebuild.

Because County leaders claimed earlier this year that they did not have the $200,000 to pay for a debris flow model the State required for grant funding for recovery efforts, they asked a private entity, Community Foundation, to step in and fund a study.   Community Foundation contracted with SNC-Lavalin, based in Montreal, Canada, to do the debris flow modeling.  

How was this company chosen?  Unknown.  And because the Community Foundation is a private entity, one cannot file a Public Records Act request to find out.  However, SNC-Lavalin, with specialty in promoting “sustainable societies”, has a very troubled history involving criminal charges related to bribes paid in exchange for obtaining contract.  

On September 23, 2021, two high-level SNC-Lavalin managers were arrested by the Canadian Mounties on criminal charges.   In 2017, SNC-Lavalin acquired the Atkins group, which seems to specialize in feasibility studies of large international capital improvement projects.  The Atkins group conducted the debris flow model for the Community Foundation.

Last Tuesday, September 28, many CZU Fire Survivors filled the Board chambers to implore them to rescind an earlier decision to force people who can’t afford expensive geological studies to record a Covenant on their deed, stating the property has “unknown risks”, and indemnifying the County. 

While the Board agreed to scale back the recorded Covenant on deed title, and to continue public outreach with CZU Fire Communities to better craft a waiver, the Last Chance Community may not be included, and will have to record a Covenant on deed if they do not pay for expensive geologic tests..  This is because the Last Chance Community is enrolled in a Class K Pilot Program for special discretionary approval process, and the rules are all different. 

To add insult to injury, CAL FIRE is refusing to sign off on permits in the Last Chance Community beyond the first mile of the road.  The people are being held to comply with the yet-to-be-approved new Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations.  Is that legal?

[Santa Cruz County, CA | Agenda Item DOC-2021-827]

Take some time and read the 18 letters sent to the Board of Supervisors re: the CZU Fire Covenant on the October 5 agenda  and listen to the many testimonies of the CZU Fire Survivors following the Item #12 Staff presentation on September 28

GROWTH GOALS FOR THE COUNTY
The Board of Supervisors later reviewed and approved a 0.25% rate of growth as part of the County’s 2022 Growth Goal, as agenda item #8: (begins at about minute 1:47:00) on September 28.

It is troubling to read that the County population as a whole decreased by -3.42% in 2020, similarly down from the previous year’s rate of -0.53%. The state population also decreased by -0.46% in 2020, the first annual decline since state population estimates have been recorded. The Dept. of Finance reported the cause was due the continuing national trend of low birth rates compared to death rates, continuing declines in immigration that have been accelerated by recent federal policy, and increased deaths as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

[Santa Cruz County, CA | Agenda Item DOC-2021-823]

Much of the Growth Goal Report focused on affordable housing projects in the County, and that the State’s required level of Regional Housing Number Allocation (RHNA) will TRIPLE next year.  

Capitola has not had an affordable housing project in 10 years. [Capitola Closes in on First Affordable Housing Project in Nearly a Decade | Good Times Santa Cruz]

CAL FIRE LIFTS BAN ON WARMING FIRES IN WILDLAND AREAS OF SANTA CRUZ & SAN MATEO COUNTIES

I wonder why CAL FIRE would do that?  According to Chief Ian Larkin, the ban was instituted in early September for our area because of the expected high numbers of tourists flooding into the area over Labor Day weekend.  Now that the holiday is over, and we’ve had some foggy mornings to raise coastal fuel moistures, CAL FIRE felt the warming fire ban was no longer necessary.  Hmm….

[2021 Burn Ban lifted]

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY FIRE WILL ADD MORE CAMERAS TO QUICKLY SPOT WILDFIRES
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors likely approved Consent Item #11, moving forward to secure property agreements and utility sources to add more cameras that will help spot wildfires quickly.  These locations include Watsonville Fire Station #2 Cell Tower, City of Santa Cruz coastal area (wharf, Dream Inn, Long Marine Lab), Silver Mountain Winery/Summit Area, Davenport Cement Plant, Cabrillo Horticulture/Mid-County, and Mount Madonna Center.

Currently, there are such cameras at Chalk Mountain Lookout, Mt. Bielawski, Bonny Doon, Brookdale, Loma Prieta, Mt. Madonna, Prunedale, and Fremont Peak that have the capacity to look into and around our County.

This addresses one of the recommendations of the 2020 County Grand Jury Report “Ready? Aim? Fire!  Santa Cruz County in the Hot Seat”

TAKE A SURVEY OF YOUR HOME FOR FIRE DEFENSIBLE SPACE CLEARANCES

Welcome to DSpace

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky