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

September 27

1) County Board of Supervisor actions requiring CZU Fire survivors trying to get rebuild permits to record a Covenant on their deed that their property may be on a hazardous geological zone if the property owners do not conduct and pay for very expensive soil testing.  The hearing on Sept. 14 brought many of those survivors to the County Building to testify about having done soils testing, but the Planning Dept. rejected them.  Their insurance coverage is time-sensitive, and time is running out as the Planning Dept. and CAL FIRE continue to put up ever-changing requirements.

 I could not attend the hearing (same day as my County Fair work) but was able to watch the video.  See Minute 3:30, Item #12, scheduled 1:30pm hearing.   

It was shocking. The Board completely ignored the reasonable requests of the people, only answered one of the many questions, and proceeded to unanimously vote to require the recorded Covenant for those who refuse or cannot afford the expensive soil tests, even though these people said it will lower their property values and that those who were lucky to keep their homes will not suffer.   Supervisor Manu Koenig callously instructed the people to come back on September 28 with some real estate professionals to prove to the Board that the required Covenant will adversely affect property values…placing the burden of proof on the property owners, rather than asking staff for an economic analysis. 

Here is the link to this Tuesday’s 1:30pm scheduled hearing when the Board will review the results of the Atkins Debris Flow and Geologic Hazard Survey of the CZU Fire  areas.  The Community  Foundation funded this private study:  
Several of the people who testified before the Board on Sept. 14 asked that action regarding any Covenant deed requirements be postponed until this report was made public because the results could affect the need for expensive geologic studies in order to get permits to rebuild.

2)   A good article in the Sentinel’s front page about Sierra Ryan officially assuming the job of County Water Resources Manager. She serves on many local water agency commissions, including being the current Chair of the Santa Cruz City Water Commission and the lead manager of the MidCounty Groundwater Agency.

3)  Also on the front page is a photo of the PureWater Soquel Project construction traffic on Soquel Avenue frontage road.  Please notice that photo, and note that the Soquel Creek Water District Board is planning to discuss major changes to the Project at their October 5 meeting that will require additional environmental review and  CEQA Notice of Determination.   This action will likely not be in a public hearing with notice.

4) A wonderful article about Janet Webb and Big Creek Lumber in the Mercury News.  Janet also serves on the Santa Cruz County Fire Dept. Advisory Commission, and is a clear advocate of the people.  She has recommended the County partner with CAL FIRE to train civilian hand crews to help provide much-needed resources when there are wildfires here but CAL FIRE is basically gone because of strike teams sent to other areas of the state.  It was precisely this type of action that kept fires in San Mateo County from burning the town of Pescadero.

5) The Countywide Fire Protection District Service and Sphere Review from LAFCO will be publicly discussed at the October 13 virtual meeting.  It is a very well-done and comprehensive review.  LAFCO will consider a recommendation to annex many areas to other fire agencies, and to dissolve the County Service Area (CSA) 4 for Pajaro Dunes, combining it with the broader CSA 48 County Fire Dept. That is sure to set off some interesting discussion in the South County.   It also recommends that Branciforte Fire District merge with Scotts Valley Fire.  That will definitely ignite revolt in the Branciforte area, based on what happened at a recent community meeting for FireWise application and organization. [October 2021 Agenda]

6) Tension in Watsonville City Council, now that District 1 Councilman Aurelio Gonzalez abruptly resigned for family reasons.  The Council now stalls at 3:3 votes on issues, including a recent heated discussion over whether the City would sponsor Mayor Dutra to attend the California Contract Cities Association meeting, which encourages cities to issue private contracts for fire and law enforcement services rather than fund their own.  See Consent Item 8c

Watsonville City will hold a Special Election on December 7 for candidates running to replace the District 1 Council member. There are two. 

This matters to all County residents because this Councilmember will serve on many commissions, such as the RTC, Metro, LAFCO, and others, whose decisions have broad implications. 

7) An investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency corruption that affects everyone, because evidence is clear there are human health hazards inherent to certain chemicals that the EPA has knowingly ignored. [Article from The Intercept]

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK AND JUST DO SOMETHING!

Cheers, Becky

SOIL CONTAMINATION AT PROPOSED RANPORT LUMBERMILL IN WATSONVILLE IS CONCERNING 
The more I read the documentation about soil contamination problems and the potentially associated Watsonville Slough impacts, the more I am concerned. This proposed lumbermill is not a problem in itself, but the construction disturbance of soils that are heavily contaminated, if not properly handled, could cause the toxic pollutants to drain into the Sloughs and eventually, the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.

Comment on this project is due September 20.  Here is the link to the Planning Dept. website.  Note, there has been no hearing about this before the Zoning Administrator, which is the first public step to approval. [CEQA DOCUMENTS FOR APPLICATION RE: RANPORT SPECIALTY LUMBERMILL] 

See discussion of major soil contamination problems and deed restrictions resulting (page 134)

“The Site has housed various operations since the 1960s. The Site was purchased in 1978 by WFS, a Shell Chemical subsidiary, and was used to store and distribute pesticides and fertilizers for use on area farms, including the liquid pesticide fumigants dichloropropane-dichloropropene (D-D®) and Telone II. DD® consisted entirely of various chlorinated hydrocarbons, including 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP) and 1,3-dichloropropene and the composition of Telone II was 97.5% 1,3-dichloropropene. 

At this time, Shell has not conducted their re-evaluation of the potential indoor air inhalation pathway risks for the Office/Maintenance Building.”

AND THEN THERE IS THE OPERATIONAL NOISE FOR THE LARKIN VALLEY / BUENA VISTA DRIVE AREA……
Sound travels in the valleys, and this lumbermill would be near the Larkin Valley / Buena Vista Drive residential areas to the north, near the Watsonville Airport.  Does this CEQA evaluation examine the noise receptors for the Project?  It is unknown what the hours of operation might be, because the proposed mill has not yet received Zoning Administrative review for a Permit to Operate, 

You can see the topo map of the Project in relation to your neighborhood on page #21 here.

There are biotic and hazardous soil contamination issues that were partially addressed in mitigations, but nothing at all for the significant noise the mill would generate when in operation.  (See pages 235-238 in the same document)

Caveat 

“Noise levels add logarithmically with multiple machines and operations occurring at the same time, plus noise levels also increase when placed near vertical surfaces or partitions. This must be taken into account when predicting the maximum property line noise level.”

Many of the pieces of equipment were significantly over the 70db levels allowed by Santa Cruz County Code.

Sound travels in valleys, and with the wind.  I think the Buena Vista / Larkin Valley neighborhood needs to know about this Project, and contact the Planner about the operational noise mitigation as well as contaminated dust mitigation during construction. 

All written comment must be received by September 20.

Project: Ranport Lumbermill 

APPLICATION #: 161014 
APNs: 052-511-06, -08 and 052-011-61
Owner: Richard M. Henry 
Applicant: Brian Spector of Spector Corbett Architects 

Staff Planner: Annette Olson, (831) 454-3134    Email: Annette.Olson@santacruzcounty.us 

This project will be considered at a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The time, date and location have not been set. When scheduling does occur, these items will be included in all public hearing notices for the project.

WHO WILL PROTECT THE RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT TO PREVENT SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT’S TOXIC EFFLUENT LEAKS?
There appears to be ZERO collaboration occurring between Soquel Creek Water District staff or their agents with the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to develop meaningful, effective or enforceable mitigations for the Modified Pure Water Soquel Project, per a Public Records Act request.

On August 17, 2021, I submitted a Public Records Act request to CDFW for correspondence with Soquel Creek Water District and/or the City of Santa Cruz regarding the Project.  I  am alarmed by the CDFW response of August 30, 2021 that “No Records Exist”.

I am very concerned that Soquel Creek Water District has not been consulting CDFW to develop an effective and enforceable Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, as the public was assured of when the District certified the Project EIR in 2018.

Under CEQA, a project that affects the habitat of an endangered, rare or threatened species is considered to be a project of statewide significance that requires state agency review of the project’s EIR (14 Cal Code Regs 15206(b)(5).   

Soquel Creek Water District, as the lead agency, is required to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and obtain written findings on the impact of the project on the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, in compliance with Public Resources Code 21104.2.

This has not happened.

Please contact California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife to urge their environmental scientist group, whose job it is to work with lead agencies on projects like this, to insist that Soquel Creek Water District follow the CEQA laws and collaborate to develop meaningful and enforceable mitigations for the Modified PureWater Soquel Project.

Wesley Stokes wesley.stokes@wildlife.ca.gov and Serena Stumpf serena.stumpf@wildlife.ca.gov and copy State Senator John Laird john.laird@sen.ca.gov

YET ANOTHER BIG CHANGE TO PROJECT TO INJECT TREATED SEWAGE WATER INTO OUR AQUIFER
If you care about the future health of the local aquifer in the MidCounty area, and the potential contamination of many local riparian habitats between Santa Cruz and Live Oak, you need to call and write the Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors right away and demand any and all modifications to the PureWater Soquel Project be considered during a PUBLIC HEARING process.  Here is why:

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK AND JUST DO SOMETHING!

Cheers, Becky

PG&E WILDFIRE FIRE ALERT CAMERA SYSTEM IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
I am glad PG&E and CAL FIRE have added these ALERTWildfire webcams in the South and East Bay for emergency responders and the public to monitor any fire activity.  Take a look:

ALERTWildfire | South-East Bay

This system is a consortium of three universities: The University of Nevada at Reno, the University of California at San Diego, and the University of Oregon (Eugene).  The cameras provide access to state-of-the-art Pan-Tilt-Zoom fire cameras and associated tools to help first responders and the public to (1) discover, locate and confirm fire ignition, (2) quickly scale fire resources appropriately, (3) monitor fire behavior, (4) assist in evacuation decisions in fire storms, and (5) monitor burned areas for flare-up activity.

The idea for this early wildfire detection system was initiated in 2009 by a group of youth from Meadow Vista, California, calling their group the Forest Guards, who won international recognition for their collaborative work with the Nevada Seismological Laboratory. 

The first network was the pilot project in the Lake Tahoe area.  Take a look at the situation there at this moment: ALERTWildfire | Tahoe

After the Camp Fire in 2018, the system was expanded, with an additional 300 cameras added in 2020.  Counties, utilities and fire districts throughout the western states continue to add more cameras, with an estimated 175 more for this year. 

Interested in adding an ALERTwildfire camera to your area?  Contact Dr. Graham M. Kent, University of Nevada, Reno at: or call 775-527-1574.  “The ALERTWildfire team, (universities and partners) can assist in building fire camera infrastructure from the ground up, and/or use existing infrastructure to rapidly deploy a system within a region in just a few months.”

Contact your County Supervisors, and State Park officials to ask that more of these cameras be added to areas such as the Soquel Valley, Branciforte area, Summit area, Davenport, and Corralitos.

The lack of this helpful information for Santa Cruz County fire protection was pointed out in the 2020 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report, “Ready? Aim? Fire!”  (Note the County Fire Dept. and the Watsonville City Manager did not provide requested responses, and the Watsonville City Council did not provide required responses)

Here is the vague and rather stupid response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors regarding the ALERTWildfire problem:

F4. Most of Santa Cruz County in addition to the City of Santa Cruz with its large eucalyptus groves are not being monitored by the ALERTWildfire Imaging Surveillance system and would be well served by the installation of cameras capable of monitoring coastal areas occupied by eucalyptus groves in areas harboring potential sources of ignition. 

X PARTIALLY DISAGREE –  Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 

Eucalyptus groves are a problem in general due to the abundant fuel loading they provide, but one fuel type in the county should not be singled out. Fires occur in areas of redwood forest as well, example, the Rincon Fire in 2018. The use of the ALERTWildfire camera system is a great way to provide for early confirmation of wildfire in the county. CAL FIRE/County Fire is working with ALERTWildfire and PG&E to determine locations to install cameras to provide a system for early confirmation of wildfires. 

Hold our elected officials accountable and insist more of these ALERTWildfire webcams be added to our area’s fire observation system.

FOUR-STORY KAISER MEDICAL CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY CLAIMS IT WOULD REDUCE 2,000 VEHICLE TRIPS???  ANYTHING CAN WORK ON PAPER!
Public comment on the proposed large new Kaiser Medical Center on Soquel Frontage Road closed last month, and now changes to the Project will supposedly be made to address input.  Hmmm…I wonder what that might include?

Traffic and water are the big issues. 

“…a four-year traffic study conducted by Kimley-Horn concluded that the project will eliminate about 20,000 miles of vehicular traffic due to rerouted health care trips.”

AND QUICKLY…..
1) CAP AND TRADE AUGUST MARKET AT RECORD HIGH…SHOULD THE $203 MILLION GO TO WILDFIRE PREVENTION?
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE

RCRC Urges Legislature to Allocate Entire Cap-and-Trade Windfall to Wildfire Prevention

RCRC (Rural County Representatives of California) has urged the Legislature to allocate an additional $203 million to wildfire prevention and forest resilience programs from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), the full estimated amount available for such programs from the August Cap-and-Trade auction. The current 2021-22 State Budget Package has less than $500 million dedicated to wildfire mitigation and forest management projects, with another $500 million to be made available “if needed” during the fiscal year. RCRC has urged the Legislature to demonstrate the necessary sense of urgency around protecting California’s residents from future catastrophic wildfires by increasing the current allocations from the GGRF. 

The August quarterly carbon Cap-and-Trade auction netted the highest proceeds in the program’s history, earning an unprecedented $1.14 billion for California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Included in the auction windfall is an estimated $203 million available for programs that aren’t already subject to continuous appropriations by the Legislature from the GGRF. As the state experiences another record-breaking wildfire season, RCRC sent a letter to Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins and Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon on August 27, 2021 strongly urging the Legislature to allocate the entirety of the available August GGRF funds to fire prevention and forest health projects.

RCRC’s letter to Senate Pro Tem Atkins and Speaker Rendon can be viewed here. 

2)  STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FINES MONTEREY WATER ONE FOR RAW SEWAGE RELEASE INTO MONTEREY BAY
Monterey One Water to pay $800,000 for discharges of untreated wastewater into Monterey Bay

3)  MISSION BELLS GONE. HISTORY TEACHING MOMENTS, TOO?
Where Santa Cruz’s final mission bell now tolls not the question — just its tragic history, what it stood for – article in Lookout Santa Cruz. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill

4) AB 1401 WOULD PROHIBIT REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS
What do you think this will bring about?  

5) SENTINEL REPORTER SMEARED MY NAME WITH INACCURATE MISINFORMATION
Sadly, Sentinel reporter Melissa Hartman erroneously reported a quote and action attributed to me in an article regarding the August 24 County Board of Supervisors hearing on mandating COVID vaccination of all County employees, even though I was not even present or participating in the hearing. 

She retracted the mistake only online, and to date, the editors have failed to print any retraction of the mistake and libel.

SANTA CRUZ — The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Tuesday afternoon chose what was described by staff in its report as the “middle approach” when it comes to an employee vaccine policy — the option to either get vaccinated or be tested weekly. “This is an issue that isn’t (going to) please them all, no matter what we choose,” Board Chair Bruce McPherson said of the decision. “This gives encouragement as well as an option, a fair offer so to speak.”

The unanimous vote launches a 30-day period during which unvaccinated individuals are given the option to get their shots or seek accommodations through authorities such as doctors. After that period, non-compliant employees will face a leave without pay or termination. County Personnel Director Ajita Patel said that her department has reviewed preliminary contracts for a mobile vendor used by the cities of Capitola and Santa Cruz use that could come to the county sites and bill health insurance companies accordingly.

During his presentation, County Administrative Officer Carlos Palacios estimated that 85% of county staff members are already vaccinated based on data from mid-August. He said he hopes in the next survey to be up to around 90%, but without taking any action that would leave 10% of the county’s workforce unvaccinated — a risk in the time of the Delta variant.

Palacios offered three options — maintaining the status quo, or doing nothing, mandating vaccination without exception and mandating vaccination with the exception of those with religious or medical exemptions that allow for once-weekly testing.

“Staff recommends (the third) option at this time … due to operational and legal issues in requiring vaccination without an alternative. Given the laws employees are subject to and due process rights that they have, entering into discipline over someone who refuses to get vaccinated could be a lengthy, difficult process.”

County Counsel Jason Heath did clarify later in the meeting that the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would make the second option, vaccination or a firing, legally viable. However, there haven’t been cases yet that really display the due process rights of this kind of situation in public employment.

Doubting exceptions

Though McPherson was the first to vote his support for staff’s recommendation, colleagues Zach Friend and Ryan Coonerty expressed their concerns around selecting an option that allows anti-vaxxers leeway. After all, as Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel voiced during the call, unvaccinated people are seven times more likely to contract the virus. A mandate may encourage other cities in the area to adopt a similar policy, limiting community spread, Coonerty said.

“In this highly polarized political environment, there are people who historically would have been fine with mandates that are for some reason now disproportionately not,” Friend said. “…Those who are unfortunately going to hospitals are all of a sudden finding religion, trusting doctors, nurses and any kind of experimental medication that will come their way so I do think that realistically we need to just make sure that everybody is vaccinated and if that requires a mandate for our employees to start we should consider that.”

Those who do not trust the science behind the vaccines protested the action, calling it “immoral,” “experimental” and “medical apartheid.”

“Blind trust is not a virtue. You will only have yourself to blame for the adverse reactions,” former supervisorial candidate Becky Steinbruner said before playing audio of a Catholic friar alleging that epidemiologists and their supporters created the vaccine to exterminate part of the human population.

In early October, staff will return to the board to provide an update on lessons learned through the process, including elements such as costs to test employees and the number of people who chose to get vaccinated after the supervisors’ actions. At that time, the board will decide to keep their policy or change it back to the status quo or forward to mandatory vaccination without any exception.

Let me repeat….I was not even attending or participating in this hearing!  Please contact Ms. Hartman with your thoughts:  mhartman@santacruzsentinel.com and Editor Melissa Murphymmurphy@santacruzsentinel.com

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A ZOOM MEETING FROM YOUR COUCH.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK, AND JUST DO SOMETHING!

Cheers,

Becky  831-685-2915

READ THIS AGAIN…COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO CZU FIRE LEAVES MANY QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED
One year ago, as 70,000 County residents were displaced and everyone was choking on the smoke of the horrible CZU Lightning Complex Fire.  CAL FIRE and the County administrators were scrambling…or were they?  Why did the Board fire the County’s incredibly capable full-time Emergency Response Manager, Rosemary Anderson, just as the CZU Fire began, claiming Budget cut needs?

The County Grand Jury brought many unanswered questions to light in this year’s investigative report. It is worth reading again and holding our local officials accountable.  

“The Grand Jury received complaints from residents angry over not fully understanding how everything went so wrong, and frustrated about feeling unheard by their local government leaders.[12] [13] Many are afraid that the county is unprepared for the next event.[14] This disaster began in mid-August, was contained by late September, yet it took until mid-March 2021 before Cal Fire held two information sessions via Zoom.[1] [15] This delay, per Cal Fire, was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges created by the stay-in-place order. [1] Yet, the use of virtual meetings such as Zoom, was a common practice months prior to these presentations.”

[Grand Jury After CZU Report]

“These were Cal Fire presentations, but it was announced that the Board Supervisor for that particular district was online and listening, as well as some other county personnel. Neither district’s supervisor commented during the presentations, nor spoke at the Q&A’s that followed.”

These public meetings failed to provide meaningful answers, discussion or analysis of what went wrong.  CAL FIRE and the County normally conduct this type of analysis soon after large incidents, for the benefit of more effective future planning, and release it as an After Action Review.

When I filed a Public Records Act request with Santa Cruz County Fire Chief / CAL FIRE CHIEF Ian Larkin, he replied that the document does not exist.

Here is what CAL FIRE state office sent in response to my Public Records Act request for the After Action Review of the CZU Lightning Complex Fire

Pages 54-57 give a broad description of resources used, and very general description of the fire.    It is NOT an After Action Review.

Of note, however, is this tidbit, tucked in under the vague description of what happened August 18 (page 56 of the Seige Report):

The fire began spotting well ahead of itself, with long-range spotting observed six miles from the fire area. The north wind and general topography aligned creating significant crown runs into Santa Cruz County. 

With operational priorities focused on life safety and evacuations, perimeter control was deferred until life safety-threats were mitigated. Additional evacuation orders for the communities of South Skyline, Russian Ridge, Middleton Tract, and Portola Redwoods were initiated. 

The fire expanded by over 43,000 acres on the night of the 18th, impacting communities along Empire Grade and the San Lorenzo Valley. 

In other words, CAL FIRE brought in logistics and strategizers, but no crews, and did little to stop the fire before it exploded, and even discouraged those who stayed behind to fight spot fires from doing so.

Take a look at an example of an After Action Review that should have taken place, but the local CAL FIRE administration has been negligent in providing:

Camp Fire After Action Review:

After Action Review released for the Carr Fire – Wildfire Today

While some have understood that the National Fire Institute (NITS) is conducting an investigation into the CZU Fire that is not the case (see excerpts of correspondence below).  Even if that agency were investigating the CZU Fire, it would be to determine why structures burned and to make recommendations for building code policy modifications.

Maranghides, Alexander (Fed) alexander.maranghides@nist.gov

To: Becky Steinbruner
Thu, Aug 19 at 4:24 AM
Ms. Steinbruner,

Thank you for reaching out regarding our Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) case studies. We are currently in the middle of the Camp Fire case study. The Camp Fire is our fourth in depth NIST WUI fire reconstruction. Our previous three case studies have taken about 3 years each to complete, however, given the scale of the Camp Fire we are anticipating approximately 4+ years for the completion of the ongoing study. 

These in depth reconstructions occupy all our resident WUI expertise and for that reason we cannot start a new case study until we have completed the ongoing reconstruction. Additionally, our case studies require us to be on location to collect the relevant perishable information very soon after ignition and therefore cannot be initiated months of years after a fire. We typically have a team of 4 to six persons in the field for about 6 months to collect the necessary data and we get on location within hours or days of ignition. 

At this point we are planning our next reconstruction in 2024. 

I am including below the link to our Camp Fire website where you can find all three of our reports to date along with presentations of our Camp Fire – Fire Progression Timeline Report and fire spread visualizations of the ongoing study.  

Thank you again for contacting us. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions about our Camp Fire Case Study to date or any of previous reconstructions. 

All the best,

Alexander Maranghides
Lead, Camp Fire Case Study. 
NIST Camp Fire Website

NIST Investigation of the California Camp Fire

So, the big question is this: WHO HOLDS CAL FIRE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE for what happened and did not happen in Santa Cruz County last year???

Contact State Senator Laird and ask

Contact County Supervisors Ryan Coonerty (who is jumping ship) and Bruce McPherson (will he jump ship in the next re-election, too?)  (831) 454-2200 or Ryan Coonerty ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us  and Bruce McPherson bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us 

Maybe it will ultimately be the people who force Chief Ian Larkin to be accountable.  Will he protect the County and be better-prepared in the future?  Why no After Action Review for the CZU Fire???

Chief Ian Larkin ian.larkin@fire.ca.gov 

WILL SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT FIX THIS MESS ON CALIFORNIA STREET?

These are photos of the trenches filled in by recent Soquel Creek Water District.  Note that the mess is in front of Spring Hill School, but the Soquel Creek Water District’s EIR for the PureWater Soquel Project claimed, and staff continues to claim, that there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project where multiple large above-ground tanks of hazardous chemicals will be stored and used, requiring transport of these hazardous chemicals through the school and residential district.  The District has repeatedly FAILED to notify this school or the two others (Santa Cruz High and Bayview Elementary) in writing of this hazard, 30 days in advance of certifying the Project EIR.

Disgusting.

Write the Board of Directors, who is supposed to be accountable and responsible but, in my opinion, is asleep and likely failed to thoroughly read the Project modifications they recently approved. 

Soquel Creek Water District Board bod@soquelcreekwater.org  and Emma Olin emmao@soquelcreekwater.org 

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT HAS NO RIGHT TO OVERPUMP THE AREA’S AQUIFER
A friend recently researched the State Water board website for local water rights.  He found that Soquel Creek Water District has no right to pump water for beneficial uses (selling at exorbitantly-high rates) when the Purisima Aquifer and MidCounty Basin are in “Critical Overdraft”.

So, why does the State continue to allow the District to do so?

Do I need a water right?

If you take water from a lake, river, stream, or creek, or from underground supplies for a beneficial use, the California Water Code (Division 2) requires that you have a water right. Because California water right law is complicated, you may have a water right (such as a riparian or pre-1914 appropriative) even if you do not have a water right permit or other type of water right issued by the state.

Even if you take and use a small amount of water only for domestic purposes or use a small amount of water for commercial livestock watering purposes, you need a water right of some type. If you do not have another basis of right to rely on, you can acquire a water right for certain small diversions by registering your use with the Division of Water Rights, notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and agree to follow conditions the Department of Fish and Wildlife may set to protect fish and wildlife. The maximum use allowed under such a registration is 4,500 gallons per day for immediate use or 10 acre-feet per year for storage in a pond or reservoir. You cannot register to divert water from a stream if the Water Board has declared the stream to befully appropriated. If you use more water than is allowed under a registration, or if you use a portion of the water for a purpose other than domestic purposes or livestock watering, and you do not already have a water right, you must apply for and receive a permit from the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights before you can use water.

[Frequently Asked Questions about California water right laws]

You should not assume that you have a water right just because you have a water diversion or a dam on your property. You can check with the Division of Water Rights to determine if you have a water right permit, license, certificate or registration, or if someone has claimed a water right for your water project.

Why does the State require water users to have a water right?

Water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. California’s waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water.

Soquel Creek Water District has JUNIOR OR APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHTS, which means that when supply is low, those with Senior or Overlying Water Rights have priority.  While this is often applies to surface stream water diversions, the California Water Rights laws also apply to groundwater pumping.  The State declared the MidCounty Basin (called the Soquel Valley Basin at the time) to be in critical overdraft in 1980, “at the request of the City of Santa Cruz and a Santa Cruz County Supervisor.”  

[A PRIMER ON CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS]

Appropriative Rights. Any party who does not own land overlying the basin, who owns overlying land but uses the water on non overlying land, or who sells the water to the public generally is an “appropriator” and not an overlying user. The courts generally acknowledge the right of an appropriator to take the available surplus from a groundwater basin and apply it to beneficial use inside or outside the basin. For this purpose, “surplus” means available water (that is, water the use of which will not create an overdraft condition) not needed to provide for the needs of all overlying users. (Overdraft is discussed more fully below.) There is no restriction as to where the water may be used, and no requirement that the appropriator be a landowner. The water may generally be used for private or public uses without restriction, subject to the requirement that the use of the water must be reasonable and beneficial.

Among appropriators, the priority of each appropriator’s right is determined by the relative timing of the commencement of use, i.e., first in time is first in right.

Prescriptive Rights.

There is some question in California as to whether prescriptive rights to groundwater can be asserted. At least one case suggests that the doctrine of prescription (or at least the doctrine of “mutual prescription” pursuant to which all users of a basin prescript as against each other) no longer has a place in California. However, the better view seems to be that prescription can occur relative to groundwater, just as it can with respect to surface water. Prescriptive rights do not begin to accrue until a condition of overdraft begins. Therefore, it is first necessary to determine when a condition of surplus ends and overdraft begins. The definition of overdraft was articulated by the California Supreme Court in 1975. There, the court held that overdraft begins when extractions exceed the safe yield of a basin plus any temporary surplus. Safe yield is defined as the maximum quantity of water which can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply under a given set of conditions without causing a gradual lowering of the groundwater levels resulting, in turn, in the eventual depletion of the supply. “Temporary surplus” is the amount of water which can be pumped from a basin to provide storage space for surface water which would be wasted during wet years if it could not be stored in the basin. Once a groundwater basin reaches a condition of overdraft, no new appropriative uses may be lawfully made. If overlying users (who, as discussed below, have priority over appropriative users) begin to consume a greater share of the safe yield, the existing appropriators must cease pumping in reverse order of their priority as against other appropriators

To date, Soquel Creek Water District has failed to apply for Temporary Prescriptive Rights, even though advised to do so by Best, Best and Krieger law firm in 2013, as an emergency measure to secure a supplemental water supply when the desalination project with the City failed. (See attached recommendation and legal analysis of options the District has had available all this time, but has failed to pursue.)

Instead, the District wants to pollute the aquifer with treated sewage water containing unregulated pharmaceuticals and hormones the treatment process cannot remove, make us all drink it, regardless of whether we are their customers or not, and make the area dependent on energy-hog technology.

What are they thinking???

Write the Board of Soquel Creek Water District bod@soquelcreekwater.org and let them know your thoughts.

AND QUICKLY…
1) Santa Cruz County will dive into real debt to fund the unpaid CalPERS employee pensions.  This is on the August 24 Board agenda as regular agenda item #7 2021/08/24 09:00 AM Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting – Web Outline – Santa Cruz County, CA

The County will continue to experience significant increases in its debt service payments to California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to fund accumulated pension liabilities, largely from shortfalls in CalPERS investment earnings and reductions in their discount rate. The issuance of approximately $124.2 million in Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) to fund 90% of the unfunded liability for the County’s two safety plans are the most prudent solution now to stabilize future debt service payments and substantially lower the County’s debt service interest rate. Following the Board’s authorization for the issuance of POBs on May 11, 2021, approval of a Pension Liability Management Policy is recommended, and adoption of a final resolution is required to approve the POBs financing documents.

2) Will a new Rio Del Mar Flats Assessment District pay for storm water improvements to reduce flooding?

The Flood Control District will hear final public comment this Tuesday, August 24, and tabulate votes on the matter.  Will the new storm water system work in the event of sea level rise?? Will the Coastal Commission agree with dumping all this storm water on the beach near homes?  What does Fish and Wildlife think?  Could that water be pumped somewhere nearby for aquifer recharge instead?

If formation of the RDM Assessment District is approved, annual revenues for Fiscal Year 2022-23 in the amount of $121,037 will be generated to fund the operation, servicing and maintenance of storm water improvements serving the Rio Del Mar Flats neighborhood.  Future assessments will be increased by the lesser of the Consumer Price Index or 2.5 percent.  The improvements consist of a new pump station and appurtenant facilities that will isolate and deliver neighborhood storm water flows to a new outfall structure on County right of way immediately adjacent to the Rio Del Mar State Beach.  The services shall include the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials for the operation and maintenance of the storm water improvements including:

1. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any storm water improvements.
2. Electrical power, water supply and communication.
3. Any required reserve funds.
4. All administrative costs.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK, AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky