STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ADVISES 132 PROPERTY OWNERS NEAR 1500 CAPITOLA ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO THEIR OWN TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION
If you live or work near the affordable housing project at 1500 Capitola Road, which will include a low-cost medical clinic and Dientes clinic, beware of possible soil and groundwater contamination problems.  The State is asking that people pay “out of pocket” to do their own testing so the State can get better data???  Strange but true, and the State mailed notices to advise such

Those impacted should receive a physical notice in the mail, which was sent out Tuesday, according to the state board.
To check if your home or workplace may be impacted, review the water board notices at bit.ly/3d9cBgD and navigate to site maps/documents. If a resident’s home or business is located within the notice’s “Site Location & Investigation Area” map, its possible dry cleaning solvent contamination could be present.

The notices, in total, were sent to 132 entities, including landlords, tenants and residents, as well as homeowner’s associations, according to Dan Niles an engineering geologist with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, who’s overseeing the investigation.

Contact Supervisor Manu Koenig with your thoughts: Manu.Koenig@santacruzcounty.us

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER LIVE OAK LIBRARY ANNEX, PAID FOR BY MEASURE S LIBRARY MONIES TO FUND NEW RECREATION DEPT. ADDITION
When voters approved Measure S to fund libraries, we thought it would fund libraries, but that is not proving to be the case!  Consider the current plan to dump $5,750,600 in Measure S monies to remodel the Parks Dept. space at Simpkins Swim Center.

Make sure you weigh in on this matter when it is considered by the County Planning Commission this Wednesday, July 14

Consider this…..

From the Parks Dept. website: Park Projects

From the Board of Supervisor Agenda Packet of December 10, 2019   which included  excellent public correspondence re: Measure S funding most  of the Project, with vague disclosures, no library staff planned, and poor attendance at community meetings.

“Financial Impact
This action will add $591,625 to the existing agreement for professional services. The source of funding for the Live Oak Library Annex Project is the Santa Cruz Libraries Facilities Financing Authority, Measure S for Libraries ($5,750,600) and the County Library Fund ($302,340) with sufficient funds available in GL Key 191405. The project funding total is $6,052,940.”  Elsewhere it is stated the total project cost would be $7,050,000.

Indeed, why are Measure S funds being used to seemingly remodel the Parks facility?

“The proposed library annex would be added to the existing recreation facility and community center as part of the Simpkins Swim Center facilities.”

Also, it will remove handicap parking that I see used heavily during swim hours and community meetings that happen at the Swim Center.  It will remove 11 trees, but only replace 8.

“Grading of approximately 570 cubic yards (cut) and 420 cubic yards (fill) is proposed to prepare the site for the project. The existing circular driveway is proposed to be modified to remove the circular component and seven adjacent parking spaces to accommodate the proposed addition and hardscape improvements at the new front entry to the swim center building. Adequate parking will remain in the main parking area, with sufficient parking for the swim center, library annex, administrative offices, and the adjacent Schwan Lake trails.”

Here are the plans for the proposed Live Oak Library Annex at Simpkins Swim Center

COMMENT ON SEPTIC SYSTEM RULES THAT WILL MAKE RURAL LIVING OUT OF REACH FOR MOST
Here is a summary of the significant changes to the County’s septic system rules.  Many areas would become unbuildable…isn’t that called “a taking”?

Write Environmentalhealth@santacruzcounty.us with “LAMP COMMENT” in the subject line right away.

COMMENT ON COUNTY LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN BY JULY 23

WHAT IS A VENDORLESS VENDOR?
This term appears many, many times in the County’s Budget, and often involves hundreds of thousands of dollars.  This seems incredibly vague to me, and makes the County Budget lack public transparency.  Here is the reply I received from County Auditor-Controller Ms. Edith Driscoll, when I inquired about the matter: 

Ms. Steinbruner,

A vendorless vendor is listed for contracts that require multiple vendors to fill the needs of the contract. So, one larger amount can be encumbered for the contract with multiple contractors/vendors. When the various contractors submit their invoice, the dollar amount is extracted from the contract and then the vendor number is changed to pay against that vendor.

Best Regards, Edith Driscoll

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXTEND LOCAL STATE OF EMERGENCY ONE LAST TIME

Keep that money flowing in…..

DOC-2021-563 Adopt resolution extending for thirty (30) days the proclamation of a Local Emergency by the County Administrative Officer and declaration of a Local Health Emergency by the County Health Officer related to the CZU August Lightning Compl

On the Consent Agenda Item #29 on June 29, 2021

Debris removal under the Government Program began in late 2020. As of June 24, 2021, CalOES and their contractors have removed debris from 652 parcels. Soil sampling has been approved at 648 of these parcels and erosion control has been implemented at 638 parcels. A small number of the remaining parcels were deemed ineligible for participation because they did not have a qualifying structure or qualifying trees, etc.

As of June 24, 2021, EH has certified the clearance of 594 parcels under the Government Program and 166 parcels under the Private Contractor Program, for a total number of 760 cleared properties to date.

This will be the last extension necessary for the local emergency and local health emergency, as Phase II work is nearly completed and CalOES will be concluding their work at the end of June. Progress on Phase II cleanup conducted by CalOES can be found here.

COUNTY GETS EVEN MORE MONEY THAN ANTICIPATED

Background

On April 13, 2021, the Board approved the County of Santa Cruz ARPA Recovery Plan using an estimated $52.99 million of ARPA funds to recover $28.4 million in lost revenues and $24.6 million in COVID-19 related costs associated with the COVID-19 emergency. The Board also directed the County Administrative Office to return to the Board with an update on the ARPA Recovery Plan each month from May through December 2021.

Additional direction was given by the Board to increase the ‘Board Directed COVID Response’ line item within the ARPA Recovery Plan from $1.0 million to $1.2 million and to develop a framework to use this line item for three uses: $500,000 for expanding broadband access, $300,000 for supporting local apprenticeship programs, and $400,000 for local business support for woman and minority-owned businesses.

Update on FEMA Claims and Reimbursements

Staff estimates roughly $55 million of FEMA eligible costs have been or will be incurred since the inception of the public health emergency through September 2021. However, in reviewing the nature of these costs, staff has concluded that about 20% or about $11 million is at risk of being disallowed by FEMA. Should this occur, disaster operations may need to be reduced or ARPA funds would be needed to support continued County disaster operations.

Since the last update, no changes in the FEMA claims process have been made. Through May 2021, the County has submitted to FEMA approximately $25 million in eligible claims, of which $5.08 million has been approved. Of that $5.08 million, $2.2 million has been received by the County. 

A key component of the County’s ARPA Recovery Plan is the reinvestment into operating reserves. However, U.S. Treasury interim final rules now forbid the use of ARPA funds to be directly used to replenish reserves. In Attachment A, staff is proposing to eliminate the use of ARPA funds for reserves and instead use ARPA funds to offset the full cost of eliminating the County furlough.

AND QUICKLY……

WILL GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S $1 BILLION HELP COMMUNITIES REDUCE FIRE RISK?

It is looking more and more problematic for those who have lost homes in wildland fires will face mounting difficulty and opposition from the State Board of Forestry:  

Rural areas ask for help as California fire season heats up

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

Cheers, Becky

STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DENIED SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR PIPES TO CROSS UNDER THE SAN LORENZO RIVER
Because the Soquel Creek Water District Board is not transparent with the public regarding their expensive and potentially-risky PureWater Soquel Project, changes to and the status of the Project are always very murky.  Because of that problem and my great concern about the toxic nature of the effluent the Modified Project would send under the San Lorenzo River, I asked the State Water Quality Control Board staff the status of the District’s application to do so, submitted last August.  Here is his reply:

“I asked staff for an update on this project and learned that we issued a denial without prejudice on Sept. 11, 2020, because supplemental information we requested was not forthcoming. The District then withdrew its application because they changed their stream crossing methods enough so that they are not taking action in waters of the state. They are trenching either above a culvert through a roadway cover, hand mining below a culvert that is through a road, or are mounting the pipeline onto a pipe bridge. So the Water Board will not be involved in the permitting of the pipeline project.”

So, will the Water Board be examining any potential mitigations to prevent toxic effluent leaks from those pipelines crossing over the San Lorenzo River and the other multiple streams they will cross between the City’s Sewage Treatment Plant on California Avenue and Live Oak’s Treatment Plant?  

I asked, but no one responded.  The State Water Board staff was also unresponsive regarding my query as to what information the District failed to provide, hence compelling the denial of their permit application.

Maybe they will answer your letter.  Write Matthew Keeling: matt.keeling@waterboards.ca.gov  

THIS TREATED SEWAGE WATER INJECTION PROJECT HAS CHANGED, WITHOUT MITIGATIONS APPROVED BY DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE
Soquel Creek Water District is now regularly changing the Project to inject treated sewage water into the aquifer that supplies drinking water for the entire MidCounty area, including Cabrillo College and several other private well owners and small water systems.  But they keep those changes quiet…for a bad reason.

Unless you know to watch the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document Clearinghouse website, you would never know that Soquel Creek Water District has significantly changed the PureWater Soquel Project.  

[Public Portal to View Changes to EIR]

The real problem is that the District Board fails to let the public know that they are filing Notices of Determination to acknowledge significant changes to the expensive Project that will potentially cause significant and adverse environmental impacts, and often fail to clearly describe the full extent of the changes or analysis of their impacts.

One would never know by reading the multiple Resolutions the Board rubberstamps as agenda items that generally appear near the end of the meetings, and make no mention of posting further Determinations on the Project scope and impacts.  Doing so with transparency might alert people to legal opportunities to appeal the changes…the only action the general public has available.  

One would hope that the Board would be responsive to public comment and requests at the time of their meetings’ discussions, but sadly, they are an arrogant lot, and abuse and dismiss the concerns of the public.  

If you care about transparency to the public regarding the significant and adverse environmental impacts of the Modified PureWater Soquel Project changes, please write the Board<bod@soquelcreekwater.org> and ask that they improve public process.  Why didn’t the District’s glossy “What’s On Tap” newsletter to ratepayers mention any Project modifications?

PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE THIS WEEK ON THE PROPOSED NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL FORCE MANY TO PAY $50,000 – $80,000 TO INSTALL AND WILL AFFECT THE CZU REBUILD PERMITS
You have until July 11 to send your thoughts in writing regarding the County’s Draft Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) that will affect many who own rural property and/or want to rebuild after the CZU Fire.

Are there any exceptions to the LAMP standards for CZU properties? 

“Under current code and the LAMP, rebuilt properties must meet repair standards, or upgrade standards if they are adding more bedrooms. This allows for rebuilding even if a lot is substandard, but septic systems are required to meet repair standards for setbacks from streams, groundwater, etc. Most insurance policies provide funding for meeting new code requirements and that could be applied to the septic improvements. 

It is expected that the LAMP standards will go into effect upon adoption by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, anticipated for October 15, 2021. Presently the State Tier 1 standards are in effect, which are similar or more stringent than the proposed LAMP standards. 

• The LAMP is expected to take effect on October 15, 2021. The related code upgrades will be completed in 2022.”

Local Area Management Plan (LAMP)

PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS IN RIGHT AWAY.

ATTEND THE VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EIR TO ALLOW SANTA CRUZ CITY TO EXPAND WATER SHARING RIGHTS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project has been released for a 45 day public review period from June 10, 2021 – July 26, 2021. Please visit the project’s environmental documents webpage to view the document and for information on how to comment on the Draft EIR.

Two public information meetings regarding the Proposed Project and Draft EIR will be held, and the content provided at both meetings will be the same.

• Wednesday, July 14, 2021 from 5:00 – 6:00 PM.
• Tuesday, July 20, 2021 from 6:00 – 7:00 PM.

Meeting log-in information will be made available on this webpage before the meeting.

Water rights control how the Santa Cruz Water Department operates. Because they were granted more than 50 years ago, they are out-of-date with current needs and lack flexibility that would ensure the Water Department can provide supply reliability, protect fish populations and partner with neighboring water agencies to improve regional water supply reliability. 

New!Guide to the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project (SCWRP)

Learn more…  

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

Cheers, Becky 

HOLDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CZU FIRE RESPONSE…READ THIS GRAND JURY REPORT

Last week, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury released this report that is a must read: 

“The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn…or Burn? Board Oversight – An Obligation to our Community”

“Nothing is yet published about the performance of our government leadership in holding Cal Fire accountable for past actions and ensuring readiness for the next event. 

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. Many are afraid that the county is unprepared for the next event.”

[AFTER CZU REPORT]

Why didn’t CAL FIRE conduct an After Action Review of the CZU Lightning Complex Fire, as is standard procedure for assessing what went right, and what needs to be done for future events?  CAL FIRE/ County Fire Chief Ian Larkin assured me that “no such document exists” when I submitted a Public Records Act request for it.

Why did the Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer Carlos Palacios recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the full-time position of County Office of Emergency Services Manager, held by the incredibly competent Ms. Rosemary Anderson at the time, be erased, instead delegating the critical work of planning emergency responses to whichever CAO staff might have time at the moment???  Why did the Board of Supervisors even accept such a ridiculous idea?  Supervisor Zach Friend stated he felt that other jurisdictions should help pay for funding the re-instatement of the job, but nothing ever happened to follow up on that further-ridiculous notion.

Everyone in this County needs to read this Grand Jury Report, and contact the Board of Supervisors.   We all have seen that, given the devastating fire in Santa Rosa, even those living in the suburban areas are at risk of wildland fire if the conditions are just so.  The Grand Jury has released a report this year regarding that risk for the City of Santa Cruz: City Wildfire Report

Write CAL FIRE and ask why there has been no After Action Review for the CZU Lightning Complex Fire.  Here is a sample of other major Fire After Action Reviews, to give you an idea of what our County is missing:

[TUBBS NUNS FIRE AFTER ACTION REVIEW]
[THOMAS FIRE AFTER ACTION REVIEW]
[CARR FIRE AFTER ACTION REVIEW]
[PGE THE CAMP FIRE PUBLIC REPORT]

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

Cheers, Becky 

June 21

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVES 7.9% SALARY AND BENEFIT INCREASE FOR THEMSELVES
Somehow, when so many in our County have lost their jobs and businesses in the past year, the Board of Supervisors would have taken a cut themselves.  I thought this might happen, considering recent County Code changes to tie Supervisor salary increases to that of Superior Court judges.   NOPE!!!

This week, the Board approved a 7.9% salary and benefit package increase for the 17 full time Board staff.  It averages $13,296/person.  

Approve the 2021-22 Proposed Budget for the Board of Supervisors, including any supplemental materials, and take related actions, as outlined in the referenced budget documents, and as recommended by the County Administrative Officer

[Board of Supervisor Budget Increase]   June 21 agenda, Item #15

“The Board of Supervisors Proposed Budget includes $3,103,325 in expenditures, no revenues and $3,103,325 in General Fund contribution, reflecting a total increase of $226,036 or 7.9 percent from the fiscal year 2020-21 budget.”

COUNTY FIRE TO PURCHASE 10 NEW THERMAL IMAGING CAMERAS AND NEW CHIPPER
On the backs of the CZU Fire property owners and others in the rural County areas, it seems large purchases are in store.  The County Fire Proposed Fixed Asset Purchases for the coming year total $1.536, 710, and include 10 new thermal imaging cameras ($90,000) and a new chipper ($70,000).  Where will these cameras be positioned and who will monitor them?  Who will run the chipper to best help the rural property owners who need help clearing fire defensible space?

Also planned is $75,000 for a pod runner (cell on wheels)???  The budget also states two Type 3 engines will be purchased at $1.1million.  At the last County Fire Dept. Advisory Commission meeting, County Fire Chief Larkin announced he had ordered two Type 1 engines…not Type 3 engines, for Davenport and Corralitos stations.  Type 3 engines are excellent for wildland fire response on mountain roads, but Type 1 fire engines are for urban fire response, and are known as “pavement queens”.  What did Chief Larkin really do and how will the rural people be best served?  

See page 474 of the County Budget Fixed Assets

PUSHING PEOPLE OUT OF THE RURAL AREAS OF CALIFORNIA
It is shocking to read reports such as that just published by Next 10. The State’s efforts to push people out of rural areas is now palpable.  Consider the recent “Rebuilding for Resilient Recovery” report that concludes it is just too risky and expensive to continue to allow people to live in rural areas of California.  

Next 10

“Researchers analyzed three rebuilding scenarios in line with each community’s physical and socioeconomic characteristics and identified the economic, climate, workforce, future fire risk, and resident displacement impacts each of those scenarios were likely to have. The scenarios included:

• Rebuilding as usual, in which existing recovery plan and historical growth trends guide the anticipated development patterns;
• Managed retreat and urban density, in which disaster survivors are incentivized to move to lower-risk locations, while land use planning and incentives promote infill development in existing urban nodes; and
• Resilience Nodes, in which communities rebuild some housing in high-risk areas but incorporate robust wildfire mitigation features, including development clusters surrounded by defensible space.

The report finds that pursuing either the “Managed Retreat” or “Resilience Nodes” pathways can reduce fire risk and household costs for residents, when compared with the “rebuilding as usual” scenario, while also helping to meet housing and climate goals. While the “Managed Retreat” scenario provides the largest safety and climate benefits, it presents new displacement risks for residents. The “Resilience Nodes” scenario offers the most potential for economic growth, with fewer social equity impacts, but also delivers less of a guarantee of lower future fire risks.”

Fire rebuilds look more dismal everyday, due to Board of Forestry new Rules (public hearing June 22), the State’s onerous new septic requirements (public hearing June 23), and denial of insurance to areas the State deems “too risky”.  If you care about being able to live in the rural areas in the future, and help take care of them, join in these hearings if you can.  

NO PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS?
If AB 1401 legislation is approved, no city or county could require new developments to provide any minimum number of parking spaces in most cases.  Introduced by Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, here is the hammer to Government Code for local control over developers:

“65863.3.
 (a) A local government shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.”

Think about what that could mean in downtown Santa Cruz and the unincorporated County neighborhood areas.

And quickly,….

Slavery continued after Juneteenth…maybe changing the date of our Country’s celebration of the end of slavery is worth examining?

Tracing Center | Where in the U.S. did slavery still exist after Juneteenth?

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOOM.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Happy Summer Solstice! Becky

June 14

COUNTY PARKS …ANY MONEY IS GOOD MONEY, EVEN IF IT MAKES NO SENSE AND VIOLATES COUNTY CODE PROTECTING COASTAL PRAIRIE HABITAT?
Sadly, the County Parks Commission was not allowed to vote on the proposed Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) off-site mitigation tree planting at the Anna Jean Cummings Park that would convert precious Coastal Prairie habitat (protected by County Code) into a riparian area that will require irrigation.  The item was before the Parks Commissioners at the request of Supervisor Manu Koenig, but Parks Director Gaffney made it an informational item, not an action item.  When Commissioners and the public expressed concern and frustration that the deal had all been made without their knowledge, Mr. Gaffney explained that former Supervisor John Leopold and his Parks Commissioner Mariah Roberts had known about it all along. 

Ms. Roberts, now leading the Friends of Santa Cruz County Parks, spoke that any money for parks is good money and was grateful for the $40,000 annual payments that the RTC will make for five years to the Parks Dept. as part of the Highway 1 mitigation of widening in the Arana Rodeo Gulch riparian area.  

Contact Supervisor Manu Koenig with your thoughts.  manu.koenig@santacruzcounty.us,  831-454-2200

PUBLIC COMMENT NOW OPEN FOR NEW LARGE KAISER MEDICAL COMPLEX AND FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE IN LIVE OAK
How will a four-story medical facility that will be open 8am-8pm but with certain services offered during longer hours affect the traffic on the Soquel Avenue Frontage Road, which is already heavily congested during commute hours with Live Oak residents and businesses trying to avoid 41st Avenue snarls?  

Take a look at the Draft EIR, now available for public comment until August 9, and weigh in with your thoughts.

CEQA Documents Open for Public Review

Start with the Executive Summary, which lists Impacts and Mitigations; (my comments are bolded)

Page ES-18 and ES-19: 
Impact GEO-7. The project site overlies Pleistocene-era marine terrace deposits, a geologic unit with high paleontological sensitivity. Ground disturbance has the potential to disturb intact fossils. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation to identify and preserve potential fossil resources.  

Paleontological Monitoring. All grading and excavation that would involve disturbance below the existing grade, in areas where native soils would be encountered, shall be monitored on a full-time basis by a qualified paleontological monitor. Should no fossils be observed during the first 50 percent of such excavations, paleontological monitoring could be reduced to weekly spot-checking under the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources.

This is good news, if the paleontological monitor pays attention, rather than staring at a cell phone all the time at a distance…think Aptos Village Project and Swenson’s mess.

PAGE ES-20:
Impact GHG-1. The project would not generate new, ongoing sources of GHG emissions that would have a direct or indirect significant impact on the environment. This impact would be less than significant.  Not mitigation required.

What??? How can installing a four-story 700+ parking garage not be anticipating any increase to Greenhouse Gas Emission???  Wouldn’t adding in local bus service to the new medical facility be a good idea, and a reasonable mitigation??? Dig into the EIR further at page 341 to see the bad news that does not appear to get any better with mitigations.

Page ES-20:  
Impact HAZ-2. Construction and operations on the project site could cause exposure to existing contamination on site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporate

HAZ-2 Mitigations: 
HAZ-2c Site Remediation. Prior to construction of the project, additional hazardous material site evaluations shall be implemented, per the recommendations included in the Phase II ESA dated October 25, 2018, by Terracon, following removal of existing barriers to full site access: Conduct further evaluation of the location and conditions of the suspected drain and sump. Access the interior portions of the site with hand sampling / limited access equipment to facilitate soil sampling of TPH, VOC, and lead within the site tenant operation areas. Conduct additional surface soil sampling in the vicinity of boring SV10 and inaccessible portions of the site, including tenants who perform landscaping operations, to evaluate the presence or absence of organochlorine pesticides. Evaluate groundwater for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents. Advance a minimum of two deep soil borings using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment to a depth of 75 feet below ground surface. Investigate soil vapor in the interior of the tenant operation areas. 

I am glad Kaiser is paying attention.  Soquel Creek Water District Board member Lather raised this concern about PureWater Soquel Project’s wastewater treatment facility that will be a couple of blocks away from the medical facility…she was ignored, and the EIR lacked any attention to it.

Page ES-22:
Impact HAZ-3. The project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing school, and demolition of existing uses could emit airborne asbestos or lead. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.  

Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-2a, below, is required. 

HAZ-2a Asbestos and Lead. Pursuant to Cal/OSHA regulations, each structure constructed before 1978 within the project site shall inspected by a qualified environmental specialist for the presence of ACMs and LBPs prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the County of Santa Cruz Planning Department.

I am glad Kaiser cares about following the law regarding notification of nearby schools…Soquel Creek Water District’s PureWater Soquel Project a couple of blocks away arrogantly did not notify any such school, and will have multiple large storage tanks of hazardous chemicals on site.

Page ES-23:
Impact HWQ-1. Project operation could result in polluted runoff and contamination of downstream waterbodies and thus violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 

HWQ-1 Operations and Maintenance Agreement. Prior to completion and issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, an Operational and Maintenance Agreement with the County of Santa Cruz shall be prepared. This agreement shall be recorded against the property with the County Recorder’s Office and shall be binding on all subsequent owners of the property. This Maintenance Agreement shall remain in place for the life of the project. The maintenance agreement shall set forth a schedule of maintenance tasks, to be performed by the medical building maintenance staff, which are required for safe and efficient function of the on-site stormwater treatment and detention facilities. It shall also specify procedures for yearly inspections and record keeping of inspections, maintenance and repairs performed. Operation and Maintenance Agreement shall conform to all the requirements outlined in the County of Santa Cruz Design Criteria.

Page ES-24:
Impact LU-2. Based on the current project, if approved by the County the proposed project would be substantially consistent with applicable land use policies of the County of Santa Cruz 1994 General Plan, and would not conflict with land use policies that are in effect to avoid or mitigate environmental effects on environment and natural resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Really?  What about the impact of erasing a previous Affordable Housing Overlay District on the site that was supposed to provide 102 affordable residential units?  Where will those be built now?  Shouldn’t that be discussed in Mitigations??

Page ES-29:
Impact UTIL-4. The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, including the Buena Vista Landfill. The proposed project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.  No mitigation required.

Really??? What about all the medical waste???

Page ES-29:
Cumulative Impacts. Collectively, reasonably foreseeable future development and growth in the water service area would generate demand that exceeds supply such that the City would need to develop new or additional water supplies. The development and timing of new or additional water supplies are unknown at this time. Development of water supplies could result in significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the cumulative impact would be potentially significant and unavoidable. The proposed project would contribute to total water demand, and thus potential water shortages in the future alongside other development and growth in the service area. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

No mitigation is available or feasible to implement.  Impact is significant and unavoidable.

Really?? What about double-plumbing to recycle water internally, or rainwater catchment for landscaping?

NOW ABOUT THOSE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS???

Take a look at the study in Section 4.14, and begin on page 4.14.24 of the document (page 341):

No study intersections would degrade from acceptable LOS to unacceptable LOS under the Existing Plus Project conditions. 

However, as shown in Table 4.14-6, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on applicable standards under Existing Plus Project conditions:

• Soquel Drive & Paul Sweet Road/Highway 1 On-Off Ramps (AM & PM Peaks) 
• Soquel Avenue/40th Avenue & Gross Road (PM Peak) 
• 41st Avenue & Gross Road (AM & PM Peaks) 
• Brommer Street & 30th Avenue (PM Peak)

As previously noted, the Existing Plus Project conditions presented in Table 4.14-6 do not account for proposed roadway and intersection modifications. The conditions in Table 4.14-6 also do not account for other future planned roadway improvements and modifications that are separate and not associated with the proposed project. 

As described in Section 2.5.7, Roadway and Road Frontage Improvements, the proposed project includes installing a diagonal diverter at the intersection of Soquel Avenue/40th Avenue & Gross Road. The diverter would extend from the northwest corner of the intersection to the southeast corner. The diverter would be designed to prevent cut-through traffic on Gross Road through the residential neighborhood to the east along Gross Road. The diverter would also eliminate the congestion caused by the four-way stop currently in place at the intersection. With the diverter, all movements at the intersection would be uncontrolled; therefore, no delay would be attributed to this intersection. 

According to the Transportation Impact and Operational Analysis, with the proposed intersection improvement, traffic deficiencies at the intersection resulting from the proposed project trips would be eliminated.  (Really?? You can make anything work on paper, right?)

Additionally, according to the Transportation Impact and Operational Analysis, with the proposed intersection improvement, the travel time from Soquel Drive and Rodeo Gulch Road to the southbound Highway 1 on-ramp would decrease by approximately 44 percent. (Huh?? That intersection is on the other side of Highway 1 and would seemingly not apply to the Kaiser Medical traffic.)

As described in Section 2.5.7, Roadway and Road Frontage Improvements, the proposed project includes installing overhead signs and roadway markings at the intersection of 41st Avenue & Gross Road. The signs and markings would improve lane selection and use on the eastbound approach of Gross Road. The lane selection would be for southbound Highway 1 and northbound Highway 1 movements. A physical barrier would be installed between the limit line, which is the white line that appears across the street before an intersection or crosswalk, and the divergence of the Highway 1 southbound on-ramp on 41st Avenue to prevent vehicles from jumping the queue for southbound on-ramp traffic. 

In addition, the City of Capitola received a grant to install an adaptive signal system along 41st Avenue and this intersection is included in its implementation plan. The adaptive signal system would provide better coordination of traffic flow along the corridor because it measures real time vehicular demand and proportions/adjusts signal timing. (But what will the developer do to mitigate those 700+ cars and supply trucks associated with this massive development?)

Read this important EIR and submit your comments and concerns

PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 23 RE: NEW COUNTY SEPTIC SYSTEM PLANS AND EXPENSIVE NEW REQUIREMENTS 
The second draft of the Santa Cruz County Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems is available for public comment. This matters tremendously to rural dwellers on septic systems, especially those rebuilding in the CZU Fire area.  Nearly all new building would require alternative mound systems costing $50,000 – $85,000 and annual County inspections and large fees.

A virtual public meeting will be held Wednesday, June 23, 5:30 – 7:00 pm. This meeting will be conducted as a video conference with a call-in option. A link and call-in information will be posted on this web site

Comments are due on July 11, 2021. 

CRANE ACCIDENT AT SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT’S PUREWATER SOQUEL PROJECT SITE CLOSED THE ROAD BUT WENT UNREPORTED
Last Friday, June 11, Soquel Creek Water District’s construction contractor building a new sewage lift station on Soquel Avenue Frontage Road tipped a crane over and blocked the road.  I was shocked to learn that neither the construction crew nor the Water District reported the accident, failing to address a fuel spill at the site or to provide traffic control for those who had to detour at the closure points of 17th Avenue and also Chanticleer Avenue.  Take a look at the attached photos.  

How can the public trust that Soquel Creek Water District will be transparent and accountable about other problems that arise as this three-year Modified PureWater Soquel Project progresses?  The District itself is in charge of making sure that the mitigations are met, monitored and enforced.  What could go wrong?  

The problem is that none of the mitigations regard the actual operation of the disgusting project that will cause multiple large tanks of hazardous chemicals to be transported, stored and used near three schools (but the District  failed to notify them), and will send effluent containing toxic chloramine that would likely kill all aquatic life if it leaks into the San Lorenzo River and multiple other stream crossings between the four-mile pressurized pipe journey to the Chanticleer wastewater treatment plant.

How can anyone trust Soquel Creek Water District or their contractors to do the right thing?

Contact the Board with your thoughts: <bod@soquelcreekwater.org> and copy Emma Olin <emmao@soquelcreekwater.org>

No traffic control here…

AND QUICKLY…..

What will these local Mayors discuss???  Will it be Woke?

Four Mayors Joint Town Hall Meeting

Thursday, June 17, 2021 – 6:00pm

(link is external)

Join Capitola’s Mayor Brooks, along with Santa Cruz Mayor Donna Meyers, Watsonville Mayor Jimmy Dutra, and Scotts Valley Mayor Derek Timm for a virtual town hall meeting and regional community update! We are pleased to announce that this event is hosted by Thomas Sage Pedersen of the Speak for Change (link is external) podcast. 

Watch on FaceBook Live *you do not need a Facebook account for this option*

To Join Zoom: 

follow this link.
Meeting ID: 837 3683 5797
Passcode: 846437
-OR-
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 837 3683 5797
Passcode: 846437

MAKE ONE CALL. WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A VIRTUAL MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS (NO, IT’S NOT COMPLAINING…IT’S HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE).

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE BY JUST DOING SOMETHING.

Cheers, Becky

WHY CAN’T SANTA CRUZ FOLLOW THE GOOD EXAMPLE OF DAVIS AND YOLO COUNTY?
Leaders in Santa Cruz County and City need to do what Yolo County and City of Davis leaders did a few years ago when tensions mounted over planned University of California enrollment expansion…gather together and negotiate a workable agreement that addresses the inherent problems, not launch lawsuits.

The sabers are clattering regarding the UCSC Draft Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) as lawsuits spring to action.  This makes lawyers very happy, but what positive outcome can we expect?  

Will more students get housed on campus or will they continue to have to scramble for expensive shared housing (like a couch in a closet) in our residential neighborhoods and rely on the areas clogged infrastructure to get to classes…whenever that happens? 

Congressman Jimmy Panetta publicly cautioned County Supervisors during a Special Board Meeting On December 2, 2019 about mounting harsh resistance to UCSC enrollment expansion itself because the State is mandating that all who want higher education should be able to do so.  That means more students. [Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting with Legislators] 

Take a look at what the City of Davis and Yolo County leaders did.  In my telephone conversations with the government leaders there now, it is heartening to hear that they have achieved a positive outcome in a partnership that benefits the community without the tension and anger of lawsuits.

The Davis town-gown relationship: from deep division to national acclaim – Davis Enterprise

Remember that, like the UC Davis partnership, UCSC helped our County develop rapid COVID testing and supplies to meet state requirements in the early stages of the pandemic shutdown.

UC Santa Cruz Lab Increases COVID-19 Testing For Santa Cruz County

Maybe the Santa Cruz County and Santa Cruz City leaders need to take a field trip to Davis and see what is possible, rather than fomenting tension and spending money that could be better used improving the situation.

It will be interesting to watch how the Santa Cruz County LAFCO annexation proceedings move forward for any UCSC campus water and sewer service expansion.  Read Director Joe Serrano’s Comment Letter to the Regents:

[LAFCO comment letter to UC Regents re: Draft LRDP] 

WILL THE STATE DECIDE WHERE PEOPLE CAN AND CANNOT BUILD, BASED ON FIRE RISK?
State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara recently supported shocking proposals to the State legislature that would prevent rebuilding and new development in areas the State deems too risky for fire protection.  Here is why all who own property in rural areas should speed-dial legislators now to oppose the recommendations in the Draft California Climate Insurance Recommendations Report, referenced in the New York Times article below.

As Disasters Worsen, California Looks at Curbing Construction in Risky Areas

“And if local officials insist on building in places exposed to wildfires, the recommendations call for preventing those homes from getting insurance through the state’s FAIR Plan. That state-mandated plan is California’s insurer of last resort; it offers coverage to homeowners who have been denied traditional coverage. Without access to the FAIR Plan, homeowners would run the risk of having no insurance at all.”

The Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents the industry and was represented on the working group, said it supported the recommendations.

State Senator Bill Dodd, a Democrat whose district includes Napa, Sonoma and other areas hit hard by recent wildfires, said he was open to many of the recommendations, including stopping access to the FAIR Plan for new homes in high-risk areas, halting infrastructure spending and expanding building codes. “We’ve got to rethink how we are developing” in those places, he said.

He said he thought those ideas could find backing from other lawmakers in Sacramento, too. “A lot of my colleagues are having the same problems with their constituents not being able to get insurance,” Mr. Dodd said. “They’re open to listening.”

In an interview, Mr. Lara said the state was hurting homeowners by allowing construction to continue in those places.

“Owning a home that loses value because it’s uninsurable is really not affordable — it is a false promise that we’re making to future homeowners,” Mr. Lara said. 

The hyperlink within this article provides the State Climate Risk Working Group’s 67-page report to the legislature.  The Report recommends not allowing people to rebuild in areas the state determines to be too risky to insure.

“Solving these problems will require lasting partnerships across the public and private sectors and require multiple tools. We need stronger building codes for new construction, in moderate and high-risk areas. In addition, each time a home or community is rebuilt after disaster, there is an opportunity to design and build a more insurable property and in aggregate, a more climate-resilient community. When disasters are severe, local governments have substantial unmet costs and uncertainty in future tax revenues. 

Given the magnitude of this challenge, risk reduction should be incentivized by the state through an overarching state resilience strategy, by local governments through adoption of a broader and stronger building code—including through the incorporation of risk reduction measures in permitting and planning of developments and programs for relocation post-disaster—and by insurance companies through insurance pricing systems that reflect risk reduction measures. The state’s role is vital, since deferring decisions to local governments when the risks are statewide creates patchworks of risk mitigation and local building practices that increase exposure to adjoining communities, as well as volatility in emergency response costs, which wreaks havoc with budgeting. This report recommends actions that the state can take to achieve better land use decision-making, including actions to require more effective recovery planning and risk reduction moving forward.”

Please contact local and state elected representatives with your thoughts:

Senator John Laird Contact

Assemblyman Mark Stone  Official Website – Assemblymember Mark Stone Representing the 29th California Assembly District

State Legislative Map: California State Legislature—Your Legislator

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors:

Click on the photo of your Supervisor

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY GRAND JURY RELEASES FIRST REPORTS OF THE YEAR
Two Grand Jury reports are now out: 

Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz – Promote Policies to Prevent and Protect

Chasing the Pandemic – Role of Testing and Contact Tracing

2020-2021 Grand Jury Reports and Responses

This is good work, and merits much public discussion. 

 Wildfire Threat to the City:

It is heartening to read that the Grand Jury recognized the value of grassroots organization and neighborhood volunteer efforts in FireWise Communities in the City’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas, and recommends the City support more.

 Chasing the Pandemic:

The Report highlights the important partnership between County Health Services and the UCSC DNA Research Lab.  Also, “More Publicity and Visibility The Grand Jury spent many hours doing searches for information to develop this report. More transparency on the part of Santa Cruz County would have been very helpful. For example, the PHD became a conduit to bring federal CARES money to the county to buy equipment and supplies. We found no publicity about this and believe that county residents would be happy to hear of some of their federal income taxes returning to the county. A significant example that lacks that kind of publicity is the establishment of the COVID-19 testing laboratory at UCSC [85] [35] where PHD directed over $1.5M from the CARES funding.” (page 16)

MORE ON THE EXPENSIVE MITIGATION FOR HIGHWAY ONE 
Many thoughtful community members continue to question the proposed off-site mitigation in Anna Jean Cummings Park for the damages in the Arana Gulch/ Rodeo watershed riparian areas that will be affected by the proposed new Highway One Auxiliary Lanes.  

The County Parks & Recreation Commission will review and discuss the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) plan to hand over $200,000 to the County Parks Dept. to manage the 168 new trees proposed to be planted behind Soquel High School in an area that is a sensitive Coastal Prairie grassland habitat. 

[Full Agenda]

This ecosystem supports certain bird species that are found only in open grassland areas.  The area proposed is not even in the Arana Gulch/ Rodeo watershed, the area that the project will affect.

Here is a description of that watershed:

Arana Gulch-Rodeo

The Arana Gulch-Rodeo watershed drains a 3.5 square-mile area at the outer (eastern) edges of the City of Santa Cruz. Major waterways and water bodies in this watershed include Arana Gulch, Leona Creek, Schwann Lake, Rodeo Creek Gulch, and several unnamed waterways. Principal land uses in the watershed are urban, primarily residential, commercial, and light industrial, plus institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, and cemeteries. Habitat types present in the watershed include wetlands and freshwater marsh, streambank vegetation, mixed evergreen/mixed broadleaf forest, and a few patchy areas of chaparral habitat. High sediment loads threaten the quality of habitat for the steelhead and other aquatic species in Arana Gulch. Reducing the delivery of sand and sediments to Arana Gulch, its tributaries, and the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor and providing passage for migrating adult steelhead to the eastern and central branches of Arana Gulch are identified as principal goals for the Arana Gulch watershed.

[Santa Cruz County Watersheds] 

Contact the Board of Supervisors and Santa Cruz County RTC Director Guy Preston with your thoughts:

Board of Supervisors:  831-454-2200 or Board of Supervisors

Santa Cruz County RTC Director Guy Preston gpreston@sccrtc.org 

WILL SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT’S MONITORING WELLS ACTUALLY WORK?
Last week, the Board of Directors for Soquel Creek Water District approved spending $1,338,377 to construct eight monitoring wells that would detect any contamination in the drinking water supply for MidCounty residents, due to the PureWater Soquel Project injecting treated sewage water into the aquifer. 

[Soquel Creek Water District Board 6/1/2021 Agenda] See page 30.

What bothers me is that, given the subsurface directional flow of the groundwater toward Monterey Bay, most of the monitoring wells would be upstream of the injection wells.

How effective is it to sample upstream of the contamination source?

I wrote to the State Water Quality Control Board with my concerns.  In a nutshell, here is the reply:

“The well locations were chosen in part by the availability of accessible land available for the development and ongoing monitoring of these wells.

Regarding your concern that only two of the monitoring wells are located “upstream” of the injection wells, this is inconsistent with modeling results. Modeling results indicate that monitoring wells are appropriately located such that they will be completed within the recycled water injection plume and located appropriate distances away to comply with the travel time requirements. Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 of the attached technical memorandum provide a visualization of the injection wells, modeled injection plume, modeled travel times, monitoring wells, and private domestic wells.  

Regarding your concerns about the private wells located near the Twin Lakes Church injection well, these private wells were identified and considered as part of the evaluation of monitoring well placement. The monitoring wells are located such that they provide adequate response retention time for the Pine Tree Lane private wells, per the requirements of Title 22.

Regarding your request to require that SCWD provide funding for private domestic wells to monitor production water quality, this additional monitoring is not required because the monitoring wells will serve this purpose. Monitoring wells are located such that they are downgradient from the injection wells and upgradient from the private domestic wells. Any water injected into the aquifer will arrive at the monitoring wells before it arrives at private domestic wells. In addition, the monitoring wells are located an appropriate distance upgradient that, in the event that off specification water is injected into the aquifer, SCWD will have adequate time to identify the presence of this off specification water in the two downgradient monitoring wells, notify potentially impacted private domestic wells, and provide replacement water prior to the arrival of the off specification water at the downgradient private supply wells.”

I do not find this comforting at all….it is all based on hypothetical models, and offers nothing more that when the contamination happens, private well owners affected (about 100 households) will be offered bottled water.  

If the “plume” of injected treated sewage water would be detected upstream of the pressure-injection site, how much further upstream would a contamination plume travel in drought years when there is less downstream flow to the Bay and how would that affect future health and safety of the aquifer?  Could this affect Cabrillo College private wells nearby the Twin Lakes Church injection well?

Please write the Soquel Creek Water District Board with your thoughts. 

Board of Directors bod@soquelcreekwater.org  and copy the Clerk of the Board Emma Olin emmao@soquelcreekwater.org   

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT WASTING WATER IN CAPITOLA
One of the three treated sewage water injection well sites is in Capitola’s Monterey Avenue neighborhood.  Last week, a large pipe running from the new injection well to the storm drain on Monterey Avenue spurted water 24/7, with water flowing along the gutters.  See the photos below:

And yet those residents are warned ad nauseam about wasting water, and many have let their landscapes die because the cost of irrigation is prohibitive.  Why didn’t the District capture all that water and offer it for free to the residents who have had to live with construction noise night and day for the past three months????

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

Cheers, Becky

PLANS FOR A NEW SIX-STORY “CRUZ HOTEL” IN DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
Hold on…here comes yet another “significant project” for downtown Santa Cruz…the 228-room Cruz Hotel at 324 Front Street, at the corner of Laurel.  This would be next to the seven-story Riverfront Project, recently approved and demolition in progress.  The Cruz Hotel would feature only 41 valet parking spaces to serve all those 228 room occupants, in addition to those who might use the  two large ballrooms, five meeting rooms, bar and restaurant (all on the second floor), with the retail spaces on the ground floor.  Hmmm…I wonder why the City Commerce and Council desperately want a large multi-story parking garage nearby (oh, yeah, don’t forget to bury a library in there so Measure S taxpayer money can get slurped in to make it all happen)???

324 Front Street: Cruz Hotel | City of Santa Cruz  [324 FRONT STREET PROJECT STATUS]

Take a look at the plans

Contact Information: 
Senior Planner: Ryan Bane
(831) 420-5141; rbane@cityofsantacruz.com

What indeed will our beloved downtown Santa Cruz become?  Will tourists even want to come anymore if it looks and feels like where they live in Silicon Valley or LA?? 

WILL DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ COMMERCIAL TAX MAKE INDEPENDENTLY OWNED SMALL BUSINESS MORE CHALLENGING?
If you own a business in Downtown Santa Cruz, you need to weigh in at the public hearing June 8, sometime after 12:30pm regarding two Resolutions that will come before the Santa Cruz City Council intends to levy new rates on downtown business frontage.  The Santa Cruz Sentinel Legal Notices is a good place to find things like this, and Resolution NS-29,824 spells out $6.25/linear foot of Pacific Avenue frontage, plus $.07/lot Square Footage and $.05/building Square Footage.  If the business is on a side street (between Cedar and Front streets and located on Soquel Avenue, Locust, Cooper, Church, Walnut, Lincoln, Cathcart, Elm and Maple, Plaza, Locust, commerce, Birch, Peal Alley),  owners can expect $4.75/ linear foot  frontage , $.07/lot square foot and $.05/building square footage.  Rental residential property is assessed at a discounted rate of $0.25 /building square feet.  

I found this in the Santa Cruz Sentinel Legal Notices, Page B5, May 31, 2021.  I find the Legal Notices are always interesting to read.

Protests must meet Prop. 218 guidelines. This tax apparently funds the Downtown Management Corporation and the Cooperative Retail Management Business Real Property Improvement District.  Formed in 1994 for crime prevention, the District posted increased revenues of $245,300, and has decreased expenditures by 46% to $131,500.

Downtown Management Corp of Santa Cruz

I think I would ask what the tax money really accomplishes to support the downtown vitality of existing small businesses, many of whom have had to close due to COVID or are just plain struggling with the problems on every street corner.  

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT PROJECT FALLS SHORT ON PROVIDING SAFE WATER SUPPLY BACK-UP
The traffic jams were long and brutal this week on Soquel Avenue where a new sewer connection to serve the PureWater Soquel Project Treatment Plant is set to be built.  This is only the beginning, if the ridiculously expensive and risky plan to inject treated sewage water into the aquifer that supplies the potable water for Mid County area, and is known as Indirect Potable Re-Use or IPR.  

The State is working toward legalizing and regulating Direct Potable Re-Use or DPR (the stuff would come right out of your tap rather than be injected into the aquifer).  Below are some of the highlights of the draft regulation being considered.  Note that for IPR, an alternative water supply is required, just in case things get contaminated.   What is Soquel Creek Water District’s plan for that???  What will the small mutual water systems and private well owners who are adjacent to and downstream of the Twin Lakes Injection Well do if their water source is fouled by the mistakes of Soquel Creek Water District?

“The use of recycled water for DPR has great potential but it presents very real scientific and technical challenges that must be addressed to ensure the public’s health is reliably protected at all times.” [2016 Report to Legislature on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse, State Water Board]

See page 35:
7.20. Alternative Water Supply IPR regulations require that an alternative water supply be available, should there be problems in the IPR project that would result in an inability to provide drinking water that is protective of public health. Similar requirements are anticipated for DPR.

See page 41:
8.2. Treatment System Resilience The State Water Board continues to consider other circumstances that may lead to the delivery of inadequately treated water, including low probability high consequence events. The analysis of risks due to natural or man-made perils, the mitigation of these risks, and the planning for emergency response should be implemented for any DPR project. Because the safety of DPR relies so heavily on on-line monitoring and control systems that are electronic- and computer-based, the reliability and resilience of treatment monitoring and control systems should be assessed and tested. In addition, such systems should be protected from cyber threats.

See page 42:
8.3. Operations Quality Control The State Water Board is also considering strategies for DPR that could help minimize the potential for human error and minimize the impact of the threats due to human factors, and how such strategies should be incorporated into DPR criteria. The risk due to human errors increases from IPR to DPR. Operations quality control also depends on a reliable resilient monitoring and control system, and highly competent human-machine interactions.

See Page 43:
8.6. Aesthetic Issues

Typically, the water from a DPR treatment facility will be of lower mineral content and somewhat warmer than other sources of water. 

See page 44:
Research Status:

In the Report to Legislature, the State Water Board determined that the research recommended by the SB 918 Expert Panel should be conducted concurrently with the development of DPR criteria. 

The five research projects are summarized as follows: 

1. Implement a probabilistic method (Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment) to confirm the necessary removal values for pathogens, and apply this method to evaluate the performance and reliability of DPR treatment trains; 
2. Monitor pathogens in raw wastewater to develop better empirical data on concentrations and variability; 
3. Investigate the feasibility of collecting raw wastewater pathogen concentration data associated with community outbreaks of disease; 
4. Identify suitable options for final treatment processes that can provide some “averaging” with respect to potential chemical peaks, particularly for chemicals that have the potential to persist through advanced water treatment; 
5. Develop more comprehensive analytical methods to identify unknown contaminants, particularly low molecular weight compounds potentially in wastewater that may not be removed by advanced treatment and is not presently detectable by current regulatory monitoring approaches.

WHAT WILL THIS $678,768 TREE-PLANTING MITIGATION ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH?
County Board of Supervisor’s approval on May 25, 2021 (Item #30) to plant 168 trees at Anna Jean Cummings Park as off-site remediation for the Highway One Auxiliary Lanes.  Supervisor Koenig made a change to request this issue be on the June 7 County Parks Commission agenda for public input and scientific analysis.

The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission is preparing for construction of the Highway 1, 41st Avenue to Soquel Auxiliary Lanes project. The attached Agreement for completion of off-site mitigation plantings will enable the County Parks Department to support the project by implementing compensatory mitigation requirements for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

Agenda Item DOC-2021-466   

The agreement achieves this second goal through a new partnership and funds that will allow protection and enhancement of one identified riparian corridor at Anna Jean Cummings Park, and through a five-year annual fixed fee from the SCCRTC to County Parks that will be used for natural resource management.

This revenue agreement for an amount not to exceed $678,768 will reimburse the County Parks Department for all costs associated with implementing the mitigation requirements, as well as provide $200,000 over five years for natural resource management.

I have reviewed the documents for this Project and have the following questions:

1. How will this planting at Anna Jean Cummings Park actually mitigate damages to the Rodeo Gulch riparian areas that the RTC project would cause??  Shouldn’t the work be done in that watershed, not the Soquel Creek watershed?
2. How will this new planting area that would include 168 new trees be irrigated and maintained?  All trees and shrubs are only one-gallon and will require regular irrigation for the first few years.
3. Currently, Parks staff mows the meadow areas but would this still be possible with the planned 168 trees, or would staff have to weed out the dry grass for fire risk reduction?  The documents state trees will be planted on 16′ centers.

If you are interested in this, please participate in the June 7 County Parks Commission meeting.

Parks & Recreation Commission

RIO DEL MAR FLOOD CONTROL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BALLOTS COMING SOON
The chronic risk of winter flooding in the Rio del Mar Flats may soon fade, thanks to a large new drainage and storm water pumping project being put forth by the great work of many at County Public Works.  The price tag requires those who live in the area to help pay for the benefit of perhaps not having to sand bag their doorways when it rains a lot, and could range from $125 to $1,125/year. 

A public meeting held last week showcased the plan to move forward: 

June 29: Board of Supervisors will approve initiating the Rio del Mar Flats Special Benefit Assessment ballot procedure;
July 9: Ballots mailed to all affected property owners;
August 24: Board of Supervisors will approve ballot tabulation 

Rio Del Mar Flats Meeting Slides  check these photos.

The County of Santa Cruz has proposed the construction and operation of a storm water pump station to reduce water ponding in the Rio Del Mar Flats community.  The County has secured funding for the construction of the pump station but must also secure funding for ongoing operation and maintenance before construction can commence.  The County has proposed the formation of the Rio Del Mar Flats Assessment District as an ongoing source of funding for operation and maintenance.

Rio Del Mar Flats Assessment: Benefit Assessment Districts

AND QUICKLY….

1) Electric Cars Not So Green…destroying the groundwater and Salton Sea ecology to mine lithium for batteries

The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles

The Lithium Americas mine, constructed on leased federal land and given final approval in the last days of the Trump administration, would require blowing up a mountain for a large pit mine in Nevada would potentially contaminate groundwater supply for the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes in the area for 300 years.  

How does this fit with the push by California and other states to ban gas-powered vehicles to address climate change?  Wouldn’t it be better to develop other cleaner, greener technology to power transportation?

But wait, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have already invested in lithium extraction technology at the Salton Sea that would extract groundwater from 4000′ and connect to geothermal power plants generating electricity, and maybe improve the quality of the Salton Sea.

Even though the United States has some of the world’s largest reserves, the country today has only one large-scale lithium mine, Silver peak in Nevada, which first opened in the 1960’s and is producing 5,000 tons annually, less than 2% of the world’s annual supply.  Most of the raw lithium used domestically comes from Latin America or Australia, and most is processed in China or Asia.

California’s White Gold Rush

Why not use domestic lithium supplies to support our domestic demand?  Hmmmm….think about that.

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

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE INCREASING DEBT BY $121.5 MILLION TO PAY FOR COUNTY’S PENSION DEBT
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved sending us all $121.5 million into further debt. Why? Because the unfunded CalPERS pension debt is looming like a tsunami at 7% interest. To address the problem, the Board agreed to selling bonds that will plunge the budget affecting future generations further into an abyss. Granted, the variable interest rate these bonds will cost (estimated 3%) will save County taxpayers some money, the financial grief regarding the bloated pensions of many such as former County Administrative Officer Susan Mauriello and other top management department retirees, will overburden us and future generations, with no real action being taken to address the root cause.

Take a look at Item 9 on the May 11, 2021 agenda: DOC-2021-414 Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds to refinance the outstanding obligations of the County to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System with respect to the Board Resolution and Supporting Documents.

What was shocking was how little the Board seemed to care, and questioned nothing. Supervisor Coonerty asked if perhaps this County could combine such efforts with other neighboring Counties? The answer was “NO”, it would be too complicated.

I had many questions, but had only two minutes to ask them, and requested answers. Why does the Superior Court have to validate the Board’s action?? Is the debt $121.5 million or $167.25 million because the staff report numbers conflicted? What about foreign investors associated with unsavory activities, like human trafficking, investing in the County’s debt?

Did the Board ask that staff answer them? NO. Did the Board seem to care? NO.

I was so disgusted, I wrote my questions in the public comment bubble for the item and included my sentiments about the Board. Amazingly, a staff member was kind enough to respond:

Dear Mr. Pimental, Thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions! Sincerely, Becky Steinbruner

Posted by Becky Steinbruner 12 days ago  

Thank you for your questions following our staff presentation this morning. 1) The principal amount of the bonds is expected to be $121.5 million and the total principal plus interest payments over the life of the bonds is projected to be $167.3 million. 2) The $250,000 amount you asked about is the total estimated costs over the life of the bonds for annual admin costs, not an annual cost. These are costs for 3rd parties like bond trustees. 3) The validation action will take place through our local Santa Cruz Superior Courts. 4) We will return to the Board of Supervisors on August 24, 2021 and the validation action will be published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel over a three week period. 5) The bonds are bought generally by large money managers based in the US.

Posted by Marcus Pimentel 13 days ago

Dear Supervisors, I am disappointed that no one bothered to answer my questions posed in my 2-minute testimony. As I stated, the actual principal of the Pension Obligation Bonds to be sold is very difficult to find, only shown in Exhibit A of the Resolution to approve the action, however, is the Principal amount going to be $121,500,000 or $167,250,000??? Who will receive the $250,000 annual administrative fee associated with the POB? Will the Judicial Verification process occur in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, or another Court, and when?? Can the public please be kept apprised of that action so as to attend any proceedings??? Finally, what level of assurance will the County taxpayers have of the integrity of investors who purchase these POB? What if it is funded by Communist Chinese investors, or others who have horrible human rights violations and support human trafficking? It would have been so simple for any member of the Board to have asked that the experts available to answer your questions also address mine. But no Supervisor did so. I felt I was not even heard, even though I verified at the beginning of my testimony that I could be heard. Please answer my questions in a written response…which takes more staff time and costs more money to do than a simple and respectful verbal answer would have provided today. Sincerely, Becky Steinbruner

Posted by Becky Steinbruner 13 days ago  

So, folks, the good news is that there are people working in the County (not always those who are elected) that still want to help the general public and remember that government jobs are public service jobs.

Keep writing and calling local government agencies and hold them accountable.

CONTAMINATED DUST FLYING IN LIVE OAK AT 1500 CAPITOLA ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Last Friday, I stopped by the Live Oak construction site at 1500 Capitola Road and got a mouthful of contaminated grit because of the uncontrolled dust the heavy equipment that was working at a feverish speed was kicking up and being blown about.  There was NO dust control! 

I started taking photos and quickly heard whistles and shouts of alarm from the workers.  Immediately, the heavy equipment slowed down, reducing the dust somewhat.  Coincidentally, a team from County Environmental Health Services arrived, further slowing the equipment speeds and miraculously, a water truck started spraying the piles of soil, likely contaminated.  

Upon quizzing the team, I learned they were investigating a complaint of there being unidentified “Blue Barrels” of chemicals stored, unsecured, on the site and next to an adjacent resident’s fence.  

This site is so contaminated, yet neither the County nor the developers (MidPen Housing and Dientes) seem to be concerned with attempting any remediation at all. Here is the link to the latest contaminant survey and analysis. (Many thanks to Steven for digging through the impossible GeoTracker website to find it!)

Note the shockingly-high contaminant levels found near the old Fairway Dry Cleaner, now laundromat, and in the area of the proposed Dientes low-cost dental clinic.  Note that all groundwater samples exceeded the acceptable levels of the carcinogen PCE, and that other contaminants were found.

And what about all those Blue Barrels that the resident reported? County Environmental Health staff reported later it is the chemical resin sealant (Liquid-Boot® 50 ) that will be poured onto the ground under the building foundations in an effort to keep the volatile carcinogen from wafting up into the offices and homes being built for all to breathe. 

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOARD GRANTS BIG MONTHLY BONUSES TO TOP MANAGEMENT AS CUSTOMERS STRUGGLE TO PAY THEIR EXHORBITANT BILLS
Never mind that the poor customers of Soquel Creek Water District are struggling to pay their skyrocketing rates while conserving all that they can, the Board approved hefty bonuses for three top-level management staff to reward them for crowing about the incredibly-expensive project that would inject treated sewage water into the drinking water supply for all of MidCounty. Money seems to be no object to this Board, so, following on the heels of giving General Manager Ron Duncan an 8.12% salary raise, retroactive to January 1, 2021, the Board likewise granted huge monthly bonuses to three who are really just doing their jobs. Never mind that the District has hired NINE separate consultants who are actually doing the work…these three top level people were awarded the bonuses because of “their dedication to the Project”. Wow.

The identified management classifications and specific monthly adjustments are shown below. 

• Special Projects/Outreach Manager – $1,600 per month 
• Engineering Manager – $1,000 per month 
• Finance and Business Services Manager – $1,000 per month 

The temporary adjustment would be terminated when the project is recognized as substantially complete per Division of Drinking Water (anticipated in 2023) or before if the General Manager determines that the extraordinary duties have subsided and no longer warrant additional pay (subject to annual Board approval). Since this expanded effort has being going on since at least January of 2021, the specific adjustments are recommended to be retroactive to January 1, 2021.

[Approve Temporary Salary Adjustments] (Item 7.3, page 214 of the packet)

Please write the Board and let them know your thoughts!

Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors bod@soquelcreekwater.org

Are they asking that their poor ratepayers eat cake???

GIFTING FREE WATER TO TWIN LAKES CHURCH FOR 50 YEARS AND WAIVING WATER DEMAND OFFSETS 
The Soquel Creek Water District Board also signed off on three land use agreements to support the outrageously-expensive and questionable PureWater Soquel Project, including gifting free irrigation water to the Twin Lakes Baptist Church for 50 years, and waiving the $55,000/Acre Foot new water demand offset that all other customers have to pay up front in order to build.  Take a look at item #7.2 on the Board’s latest agenda…

Since this is partially funded with State Water Dept. grants, doesn’t this seem like a gift of public funds to a private religious entity, especially when the injection well that this concerns could have easily been constructed just across the street on Cabrillo College property.  The free irrigation water could have gone to irrigating THOSE athletic fields instead, and Cabrillo College would not have to pump water from their three private wells in the area to keep the playing fields green.  

Instead, the District will only install monitoring wells on Cabrillo’s land…to see how quickly the contaminants injected hundreds of feet deep into the Purisima Aquifer at Twin Lakes Baptist Church travel in our drinking water supply.  

How disgusting.

And quickly……

FREE WEBINARS ABOUT DRINKING RECYCLED WATER

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Water Research Foundation is hosting a two-part webinar series that will highlight the findings from DPR research described in A Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California and Report to Legislature on Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. The research was recommended in 2016 by an expert panel convened by the State Water Board to advise on public health issues and scientific and technical matters regarding the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for Direct Potable Reuse, as required by Water Code section 13565.

For more information and to register for the webcasts, please visit the WRF webpage, links available below:

 Liquid-Boot® 500 

SWB DPR Research Webcast Part 1: Pathogens | The Water Research Foundation (waterrf.org)

This webcast will focus on two of the projects funded under the grant: Pathogen Monitoring in Untreated Wastewater (4989) and Tools to Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk and Plant Performance/Reliability (4951).

SWB DPR Research Webcast Part 2: Chemicals | The Water Research Foundation (waterrf.org)

This webcast will present findings from another project funded under the grant: Defining Potential Chemical Peaks and Management Options (4991). This research evaluated the potential for certain chemicals to persist through advanced water treatment systems and options for the detection of chemical peaks.

**************************************************

Direct potable reuse is the planned introduction of recycled water either directly into a public water system or into a raw water supply immediately upstream of a water treatment plant. Please visit our website for additional information: Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California | California State Water Resources Control Board

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS THAT REALLY HAVE TO BE ANSWERED.  LET PEOPLE KNOW HOW MUCH YOU APPRECIATE THEIR GOOD WORK WHENEVER IT HAPPENS.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK, AND JUST DO SOMETHING, AND ENJOY EACH DAY… Cheers, Becky

REVISION OF SUPERVISOR SALARIES TIED TO JUDGES SALARY
I had not found the information presented to the Board in April when this was initially discussed.  Judges salaries are higher than information I had found (not on Transparent California) so in reality, the Supervisors will not take a significant salary decrease, as I had reported last week. My apologies.  The good news is that the Supervisors will no longer be voting on their own salary increases.  Thanks again to Supervisor Greg Caput.

Below is the information from an earlier Board agenda that I had not found last week:

BACKGROUND:
Historically, the Board of Supervisors’ salary increases were linked to the salary of judges based on Government Code 68203 which in turn ties judicial increases to the average percentage salary increase for California state employees.  Specifically, the County Code articulated that board members would receive 45% of judicial increases when effectuated.  In December of 1997, this linkage was eliminated by the Board of Supervisors when deep budget constraints were looming. Additionally, language was incorporated to permit a board member to waive salary increases and divert funds back to the County or a charitable organization. Although the Board’s actions were well intended, the ordinance struck out language that provided an objective external standard and replaced it with what can be perceived as the power to decide one’s own salary. 

With the elimination of the tie to judicial increases in 1997, Board salaries are predicated on salary recommendations based on the consumer price index, comparisons with other public agencies, or internal alignment based off of negotiations with bargaining units. Board salaries are considered at the conclusion of the Middle Management and Executive Management negotiations cycle, which occur every 2-3 years depending on the length of multi-year agreements, which are common for the managerial groups. Many Counties throughout the state link their Board compensation to that of Superior Court Judges. Some do it as a fixed percentage (such as 75 percent) of what Superior Court Judges make and others simply connect it directly (meaning they receive 100 percent of the Superior Court Judge salary).

ANALYSIS:
Each year the Judicial Council addresses pay adjustments in or around July resulting in a percentage increase to the existing judicial salary scales.  This item proposes modifications to County Code Section 2.02.060 that reestablishes linkage to judicial salary increases by incorporating language that maintains the Board of Supervisors’ salary at 62% of the salary for Superior Court Judges.  Currently the Superior Court Judge salary is $214,601 compared to the Board of Supervisors’ salary of $134,698 which is 62% of the judges published salary.  Traditionally the Judicial Council releases salary information annually, but the actual date may vary year to year.  In order to establish a consistent process for the salary review, we propose that the Board of Supervisors consider an annual review during budget hearings to consider salary changes based on the available pay information at that time from the Judicial Council.

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE $53 MILLION FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WINDFALL
A pile of money has descended upon the County, but how will it be spent?  Claims re-imbursing the County tax assessor for $5,200 postage costs; $30,000 in unspecified “special services”, $1,036,642 to the CAO for sick leave; $1,142,537 for Parks Dept. COVID issues; $105,830 to the Sheriff Dept. for unspecified janitorial services….it goes on and on in the 11 Resolutions that the Board will dole out at the feeding trough on Tuesday, May 18, as Item #17 on the Consent Agenda!

How will our society ever pay this trillion-dollar debt the federal government has created?
[ Agenda Item DOC-2021-420]

Consider this staff report:

The County of Santa Cruz will receive $53,068,442 in ARPA funding with half in May 2021 and the second half no earlier than May 2022. Based on the legislation, the County can recover an estimated 28.4 million in revenue losses, $21.9 million of which would remain in the General Fund, $5.3 million would cover Health Services Agency clinic losses, and $1.2 million would cover Highway Gas Tax revenue losses. The remaining amount will fund $24.7 million in recommended COVID-19 related expenditures. Of this set of expenditure programs, $10,110,030 is being recommended to accept and appropriate in the FY 2020-21 Budget. In anticipation of FEMA funding being obligated to the County’s various emergency claims, the recommended resolutions outline $9,768,587 in FEMA funding to HSA for the ongoing public health response and $20,386,351 for shelter and care operations to HSD related to COVID-19. Additionally, the resolutions outline $3,593,772 in funding from Cal OES and $53,450 in Park and Recreation Fees. Therefore, the recommended actions accept and appropriate a total of $43,912,190 from ARPA, FEMA, Cal OES, and Park and Recreation Fees in the FY 2020-21 Budget.

THREE-STORY PARKING GARAGE AND EXPANSION COMING FOR DOMINICAN HOSPITAL
There will be a public hearing on June 8 before the County Board of Supervisors to consider a revision to the Dominican Hospital District to include 85,000 sq.f. expansion and a new three-story parking garage bordering Soquel Drive.  (see Consent Agenda Item #37)
[ Agenda Item DOC-2021-437]

Think about that, along with the proposed new four-story Kaiser Medical Facility across the freeway in the same area, and the attendant 700 car four-story parking garage.  It seems a big market for sick people is on the horizon.  Wouldn’t it be nice to get a local Trauma Center so people don’t have to pay for expensive helicopter rides to the Santa Clara Valley?  

NEW DATA FOR 1500 CAPITOLA ROAD CONTAMINATION …WHERE?
I received this notice for new information regarding the contamination of the 1500 Capitola Road MidPen Housing, Dientes and low-cost Medical Clinic development.  But I could not find the report…maybe you can. I wrote the two officials who are overseeing the soil and groundwater contamination issues, which will NOT be cleaned up, as the development goes forward.  No news yet.

(Brattonote…1500 Capitola Road is/was the site of the historic Robert Merriman House).

Development at Capitola Road (T10000014098) – Capitola Road, SANTA CRUZ –  GeoTracker   

• Site Assessment Report – Data Submittal Package: Soil Vapor, Groundwater and Soil Sample Results – Expedited Site Characterization for an Imminent Multi-Use Development– Date Activity Completed: 4/16/2020 

APTOS LIBRARY WILL CLOSE JUNE 11 FOR DEMOLITION…WILL THOSE LARGE WOODEN BEAMS BE SALVAGED?
According to a recent message from Santa Cruz Libraries Director Susan Nemitz, the many massive wooden beams in the Aptos Library will be salvaged.  That is good news. It would be a good idea if others contact Ms. Nemitz to ensure this happens. 

Susan Nemitz: nemitzs@santacruzpl.org (831) 427-7700 x 7611
The new Capitola library is due to open June 15. 

AND QUICKLY……

1) June 8 Public Hearing set for County Board of Supervisor to hear updates regarding developers paying in-lieu fees for park development.  Remember that this is how the County waived Swenson’s Park Development Fees ($1000/bedroom) in the Aptos Village Project and provided FREE storm water drainage easement across the Aptos Village County Park land to dump the parking lot water on the bank above Aptos Creek.  The money the County would have received, had the CAO, Assistant Planning Director and Supervisor Ellen Pirie not cut a backroom deal, would have paid for renovations to the County Park and maybe even some improved trails that local residents are working hard to beg for funding now to do.  What made the deal happen?  Swenson donated a 0.71 acre steep hillside to the County as an “active recreation park parcel”.  The County Parks staff who visited the site a few years ago said they had no idea how it could be used for such a use, but it is up to the County to figure it out and fund it 100%.  (Consent Agenda Item #36):

Schedule a public hearing on Tuesday, June 8, 2021, beginning at 9:00 AM or thereafter, to consider: changes to Santa Cruz County Code sections 15.01 and 13.03.050 regarding Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees, additions of section 15.03 regarding P

2) THEY KNOW HOW TO STOP MEGAFIRES…WHY WON’T ANYONE LISTEN?
If you are concerned about the future of California’s rural and suburban areas burning, I think you will find this article of interest

PLEASURE POINT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR POP-UP 
Pop-up demonstration coming to Portola Drive!

Dear Community Member,  

Today we are reaching out to those of you on the Pleasure Point Community Meetings list with an update on implementing the Pleasure Point Commercial Corridor Study (“Study”), and to let you know about an upcoming temporary pop-up demonstration project on Portola Drive to try out key streetscape concepts for the Corridor!

As directed by the Board of Supervisors, County Planning staff is incorporating the Pleasure Point Commercial Corridor Study (“Study”) into the Sustainability Update. The purpose of the Sustainability Update is to implement new General Plan policies and update the County Code to support more sustainable communities, including the community of Pleasure Point. We anticipate releasing draft Sustainability Update documents and the Draft EIR this fall, and holding community meetings beginning in the late fall/winter. We will notify all those on the Pleasure Point Commercial Corridor meeting list of these meetings. You can visit the Sustainability Update Webpage for more information. Meanwhile, Planning staff continues to apply the Guiding Design Principles in the Study to all new commercial projects in the Commercial Corridor.

The streetscape concepts are also an important part of the Community Vision for the Pleasure Point Commercial Corridor. Key concepts include redesigning the portion of Portola Drive in the Corridor to improve safety and convenience for all users, with one driving lane in each direction and a center turn lane, more street trees, wider sidewalks, improved pedestrian crossings, and safer bike lanes. The key streetscape concepts will be moving forward as part of the Santa Cruz County Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

From June 25 to July 21, the County will be trying out key streetscape concepts for the Corridor in a temporary pop-up installation on Portola Drive between 36th and 41st Avenues. The pop-up demonstration introduces protected bike lanes, and includes some other minor variations from the detailed Streetscape Concepts presented in the Study which are identified in the Pop-up infrastructure FAQs. The pop-up provides an opportunity for the community to try out key concepts for the streetscape and provide feedback to the County. The pop-up will help to position the County for future funding, to help ensure that the Community Vision for the Corridor becomes a reality. Stay tuned for an email from Ecology Action with more information. 

For questions regarding the Pleasure Point Study implementation, contact Annie Murphy at Annie.Murphy@santacruzcounty.us.

For additional information on the Pop-up installation or the Active Transportation Plan, contact Amelia Conlen with Ecology Action: aconlen@ecoact.org
 
Thank you for your active participation in Community Planning!
 
Sincerely, Annie Murphy
Senior Planner, Sustainability and Special Projects
Santa Cruz County Planning Department

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A VIRUAL PUBLIC HEARING IN YOUR PAJAMAS.  JUST DO SOMETHING…YOU CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE!

Cheers, Becky 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ SALARIES NOW LINKED TO JUDGES’ SALARIES
County Supervisors have historically approved their own pay increases, and have authorized four-year annual increases significantly higher than the Cost of Living basis for the Bay Area.  That will now change, provided the Supervisors approve Consent agenda item #16 this week.

2.02.060 Compensation.

 (A) The biweekly compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors shall be $4,846.58 effective January 7, 2018; $4,955.63 effective September 22, 2018; $5,067.13 effective September 21, 2019; and $5,181.14 effective September 20, 2020. 

Beginning January 1, 2022, any increase to the salary of members of the Board of Supervisors shall be linked to salary increases for Superior Court Judges. Annually, each June, the Board of Supervisors may adopt an ordinance to increase the salaries of Board members. Any increase shall be in an amount designed to maintain an annual salary no greater than 62% of the salary for Superior Court Judges as of the date of ordinance adoption. The application of any salary increases shall be prospective and shall take effect on the 61st day after the date of final adoption of the ordinance establishing the salary increase. 

Adopt ordinance amending Subdivision (A) of Section 2.02.060 of the Santa Cruz County Code, relating to compensation of the Board of Supervisors (approved in concept on April 27, 2021) – Santa Cruz County, CA

The Transparent California website did not seem to have information about, but another source indicated Superior Court Judge John Gallagher’s salary is $178,788.  Sixty-two percent of that would set County Supervisor salary at $110,848.56.  Consider County Supervisors’ salaries are $134,515 – $134,587, this means these elected public servants will accept about $20,000 less annually.

In my opinion, this is good news, and I am grateful to Supervisor Greg Caput, who has always protested the fact that the Supervisors voted on their own pay increases, and has subsequently donated thousands of dollars to charities to compensate for what he felt was an unjustly-high salary for his public service job.   Supervisor Zach Friend helped move this action forward by co-sponsoring this change.

Now, if we can adjust the CAO salary as well, that will be a great economic improvement!  Consider the number of people taxpayers fund who make over $300,000/year….2019 salaries for Santa Cruz County | Transparent California

None has been bothered by the COVID restrictions imposed upon the rest of the work force.

PILOT PERMITTING PROGRAM FOR LAST CHANCE COMMUNITY
The unfortunate folks in Last Chance Community ( Swanton Road) who lost their homes in the CZU Fire may get some help this week with the Board of Supervisors approval of Consent Agenda Item #17, codifying a special permitting consideration of the unique community.

The general requirements allow owners to rebuild their own homes and remain off the power grid.

Consider this enlightened and encouraging language:

12.32.210 General requirements. 

(A) Each structure shall be maintained in a sound structural condition to be safe, sanitary, and to shelter the occupants from the elements.

12.32.220 Technical codes to be a basis of approval. 

Except as otherwise required by this chapter, dwellings and appurtenant structures constructed pursuant to this chapter need not conform with the construction requirements prescribed by the latest adopted editions of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Codes, or other applicable technical codes; however, it is not the intent of this section to disregard nationally accepted technical and scientific principles relating to design, materials, methods of construction, and structural requirements for the erection and construction of dwelling and appurtenant structures. Such codes shall be a basis for approval.

In my opinion, this is a real step in the right direction, and will help the people there rebuild in a manner that is in keeping with their independent spirit and that respects their unique Community.

STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY EMERGENCY FIRE SAFE RULES STILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
These new rules could severely restrict building and rebuilding in all rural areas of California, but especially areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains.  Try to read over it and submit comment by June 22.

SEA BREEZE TAVERN GONE
Many locals watched the Sea Breeze Tavern demolition last Tuesday morning and expressed the sadness of losing an icon of a different era.  The building had been altered in recent history, but the Aptos History Museum’s description and photo give one an idea of the original design.  It also shows the light fixtures that were identical to the ones smashed by demolition crews, with the foreman claiming they were “plastic and not historic” when members of the public asked that they be salvaged.

Let’s hope that the new developer will hold town hall meetings to include the community in design input, much as Swenson developers did for the City of Capitola esplanade’s hotel development project.  

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

Cheers, Becky