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

BREAKING NEWS: I watched the demolition of the Seabreeze Tavern this morning. It did not take long. Historic lathe and plaster fell in big chunks as the massive jaws of the demolition machine grabbed and tore away ….the end of an era. I took binoculars, hoping to see if there were any buried treasures, but it was a mass of splintered wood and plaster.

SEABREEZE TAVERN DECLARED UNSAFE FOR EMERGENCY DEMOLITION, BUT ENGINEER WAS NOT LICENSED?
I visited the Seabreeze Tavern site on Monday morning because I had unconfirmed information that it was going to be demolished.  There was Ms. Annie Murphy, County Planner who wrangles from the Historic Resources Commission the important approvals the County Planning Dept. needs to push through projects desired by developers.  She was pleading with the developer’s demolition rep. to try to save the historic windows and wrought iron railings.  The guy had many excuses as to why it likely would not happen. 

The Seabreeze Tavern is scheduled for demolition Tuesday, May 4.  Another death knell for historic preservation of a key link to the past…the Seabreeze Tavern being the final remaining element of the Rafael Castro hotel and Aptos Land Company era of building Rio del Mar. 

Why did the County accept an “engineering analysis” from a Bay Area developer who claimed to be  a licensed engineer, but gave no license number or real business name on his report?

The County Planning Dept. staff convinced the Historic Resources Commission on April 5 that the historic Seabreeze Tavern on the Rio del Mar Esplanade is structurally unsafe and merited, based on the developer’s vague half-page “engineer analysis” , an emergency demolition permit.  Planners and the County Building Official claimed, that preservation is not possible. 

Here are the serious questions that neither County Planning Director Kathy Molloy nor Building Official Martin Heaney have answered:

I) The Engineer’s Report

a) There is minimal information shown to substantiate the claims that the building is unstable.  Photos claiming lack of a roof, but that show some roof rafters still intact, are vague and provide little information.  The report describes the stucco separating, but there is no photo to document the claim.

b) Mr. Voong, the engineer who submitted the analysis to the County, does not seem to be a licensed engineer, and does not provide any professional license number in his report. Internet searches for his company yield only that he is an unlicensed developer in the San Francisco area.   

c) The report has many vague and poorly-worded statements.  Such highly-educated professionals are expected to submit professional-quality reports, but this report is unacceptable.

The Staff report states (page 2): “Based upon the findings and analysis from the engineer and several site inspections….”  however, there were  no substantiated findings or valid analysis submitted. 

II) Claims of preservation/ repair being infeasible are not substantiated and the Staff Report failed to include a Special Inspections Report, as required by County Code 16.42.060.

16.42.060 Development procedures for designated historic resources.

(A)    Applications for Historic Review. Applications for historic resource preservation plan approval or sign review shall be filed with the Planning Department in accordance with the procedures of SCCC 18.10.223, and the administrative application requirements as established by the Historic Resources Commission.

(B)    Demolition and Relocation.

(1)    Application Requirements. For projects involving demolition of the historic structure, or involving relocation of an historical structure, the application submittal shall also include:

(a)    A special inspections report from the County Planning Department on the condition of the structure; and

(b)    An historical documentation report prepared according to guidelines established by the Historic Resources Commission. The report shall contain the following:

(i)    Information which supports the claim that preservation is not feasible due to the deteriorated condition of the structure or object, or would create exceptional hardship, or is necessary to alleviate a dangerous condition.

(ii)    Provisions to preserve the historic values of the structure or object by documentation and/or preservation of artifacts and building materials.

(c)    Provisions to offer the structure to the general public for removal or dismantling for salvage at no cost or remuneration to the applicant. The availability of the structure shall be advertised by means of an one-eighth-page display ad in a paper of general circulation in the County of Santa Cruz, at least twice during a 30-day period. The advertisement shall include the address at which the structure proposed for demolition is located, information as to how arrangements can be made for relocation (through moving or dismantling) of the structure proposed for demolition, and the date after which a demolition permit may be issued. Evidence of this publication must be submitted prior to issuance of a demolition permit. This is not applicable to projects involving the relocation of the historic resource on the same site.

(2)    Processing. Demolition applications shall be processed as follows:

(a)    The complete demolition of the entirety of a landmark or contributing resource shall require a public hearing and recommendation by the Historic Resources Commission and a public hearing and final action by the Board of Supervisors.

III.  There has been no public hearing and final action by the Board of Supervisors, as is required by County Code 16.42.060(B)(2)(a)

Santa Cruz County, CA

Even though the historic Seabreeze Tavern may be rubble in the landfill by the time you are reading this, please write the Planning Dept. Director and the County Building Official and ask for their explanation of the suspicious fire that began in the back ally of the Seabreeze Tavern, leading to the acceptance of a questionable report claiming nothing could be preserved.  

And also ask if the County is planning to sell the “surplus property” adjacent to this developer.  It is important to remember that the County seized this lot from the former Seabreeze Tavern owner, used taxpayer money from the Parks Dept. budget to make substantial improvements and have a contractor show up once in a while to sell hot dogs, and then quickly declared it “surplus property” immediately after the suspicious Seabreeze Tavern fire. 

Ask for the following information that should have been required for an emergency demolition permit but was missing:

1. a) Mr. Voong’s P.E. license number, 
2. b) Professional analysis and data of testing to determine structural instability, 
3. c) Special Inspections Report to verify that repair and restoration are infeasible, 
4. d) Special Inspections Report of Planning Dept. detailing the condition of the structure, and 
5. e) The proposed date of the public hearing and final action by the Board of Supervisors.

Kathy Molloy <kathy.molloy@santacruzcounty.us>
Martin Heaney <martin.heaney@santacruzcounty.us>
Santa Cruz County Historic Resources Commission c/o Annie Murphy <annie.murphy@santacruzcounty.us> 

The whole deal smells really rotten…..

AND QUICKLY…..

1. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS AB 339
   This bill recognizes the value of maintaining virtual public meetings, but would require the agency to provide in-person comment ability.  It would also ensure that the public could comment on agenda items until the item is closed.  That would hopefully require Soquel Creek Water District to stop requiring people who want to testify to have to ask permission to do so  hours in advance of any meeting.

2. OAKLAND HOMELESS BUILD COB HOUSES
   Here is a great idea that the people themselves have instituted…COB houses, made of clay, straw and bits of wire or old nails for rebar-like strength, Santa Cruz County could use this type of resourceful grassroots leadership.  Please write the City Councils and County Board of Supervisors and ask them to support and fund a COB village.

   Homeless Oaklanders bring hot showers, medical care and a pizza oven to their encampment

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A VIRTUAL MEETING WITH YOUR CAT SLEEPING ON YOUR LAP. 

MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK AND JUST DO SOMETHING. 

Cheers, Becky

April 26

STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY’S NEW FIRE SAFE RESTRICTIONS NEED YOUR COMMENT BY JUNE 22
The Board of Forestry released the new proposed restrictions last Friday, April 23, for a 45-day public comment period, ending June 22 with a virtual public hearing.  These new rules will have great impacts on all rural property owners, both existing as well as those who want to rebuild after fires.  You need to read this because it sets up a possible economic “taking” of some properties, with unknown abilities for the local jurisdictions to have discretion, due to potentially cumbersome process.

Here is the link to the Proposed Rule Makings  

Register for the June 22, 9:30am Public Hearing Webinar here 

More to come on this issue later…

VIRTUAL TOWN HALL WITH STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND WILDFIRE RESOURCES THIS THURSDAY, HOSTED BY SENATOR LAIRD 
Please join Senator John Laird with Special Guest, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara for an Emergency Preparedness and Wildfire virtual town hall. It is imperative for you to have up to date information on services and resources. The event will be held on:

Thursday, April 29, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Register in advance for this webinar.

Please email your questions in advance and no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 29th. We will do our best to answer all emailed questions during the virtual town hall. For questions not addressed during the meeting, you will receive contact information for specialists who may be able to assist you directly. 

Please submit your questions to crb@insurance.ca.gov with Senator John Laird in the subject line. Virtual Town Hall on Emergency Preparedness and Wildfire Resources; Hosted by Senator John Laird

Insurance policy cancellation is a common topic among all County residents, both rural and urban.   Contact the State Dept. of Insurance if you have received such notice, as Commissioner Ricardo Lara strives to collect this data in order to address the problem. Mandatory One Year Moratorium Non Renewals

THREE DOZEN CALIFORNIA BILLS FOCUS ON WILDFIRE, OTHERS CONCERNING INSURANCE INDUSTRY
In a flurry of show to constituents that something is being done, state lawmakers are jumping in with a dizzying amount of proposed legislation with unknown outcomes. 

Three Dozen California Bills Focus on Wildfire, Others Are Concerning for Insurance Industry

The good news is that, according to the Rural Counties Representatives of California (RCRC), Senator Stern has stated he will not pursue his proposed SB 55, which would prohibit all construction in many rural areas.

Senate Bill 55, authored by Senator Henry Stern (D-Calabasas), which would have prohibited all commercial and residential development in Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones (VHFHSZ)  and State Responsibility Areas (SRA), is not being pursued this year. During presentation of the bill in Senate Governance and Finance Committee last week, Senator Stern confirmed that he did not intend to move the bill forward this legislative session.

RCRC voiced its opposition to SB 55, and the predecessor measure SB 474 from last year. Banning all housing production in VHFHSZ is an unnecessarily broad approach to development in high fire prone areas and will certainly have immediate dire consequences on rural communities. Policies for housing construction in the State’s VHFHSZ must balance the need for new homes while mitigating the risk of loss of life and property from wildfire.

RCRC’s letter can be accessed here. For more information, contact Tracy Rhine, RCRC Senior Legislative Advocate by email or call (916) 447-4806 Website: rcrcnet.org

On the latest episode of Hometown California, our host, Paul A. Smith, speaks with Staci Heaton, RCRC’s Acting Vice President of Governmental Relations, about California’s perennial wildfires. As an RCRC advocate for more than 15 years, Staci’s focus has primarily been wildfire response and forest management, along with climate change and related state and federal natural resources policy.

Together, Paul and Staci discuss factors contributing to the ferocity of the fires, and potential solutions to address this growing problem. RCRC has worked tirelessly on the issue of forest management and wildfire prevention for decades. This year, RCRC’s Board of Directors adopted a Wildfire Package, a multipronged collection of legislative advocacy strategies, to address the systemic needs forest management and wildfire prevention in the State. Listen in to hear why more state leaders seem to be taking notice, how short-term needs are being addressed, and what more remains to be done. Download the episode now.

HOUSING AND WATER?  MONTEREY BAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP PUBLISHED THIS INTERESTING BLUE PAPER
The Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) published a Blue Paper recently, examining the effect of water problems on the Monterey Peninsula and affordable housing.

The report analyzes the issue, even citing the example of Soquel Creek Water District’s over pumping in aquifer areas of Santa Cruz County (page 20).  The Recommendations are interesting, and will likely be in the news as local Peninsula water jurisdictions take note and actions of this influential group. (pages 23-26)

I was interested in the term “Blue Paper”…technical memos are usually termed “White Paper”.

The term “blue paper” is a currently seldom used phrase that is slowly catching on around the world. First used in Germany, the term is used as a means of distinguishing between policy and procedure papers (white papers) and those papers outlining only technical specifications and descriptions of new technologies or particular pieces of equipment.

Preparation of a Blue Paper

To prepare a blue paper, one must first collect every technical aspect of a new technology (what it is, how it is useful, what its potential implications are, etc.) or the technical specifications of a new piece of equipment (components, features, uses, etc.). 

Not all white papers or blue papers are “technical”. A blue paper could for example be presented to a peer group in a meeting convened to establish a company policy. In that sense the blue paper forms the basis of discussion but is to be put to the group as a discussion guide to be reviewed, refined, and eventually (hopefully) ratified. A policy statement (White Paper) would then emerge and be adopted as the policy.

AND QUICKLY….

1. It is important that this information is not forgotten:
   The Great Barrington Report: Great Barrington Declaration and Petition

2. Thank you State Parks for the recent paving on Aptos Creek Road to improve safety access to Nisene Marks State Park
   Nisene Marks: Applause for Paved Road — Times Publishing Group, Inc.

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

Cheers, Becky Steinbruner

Becky’s on a break and doing some legal research, she’ll be back next week.

April 12

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT PROMISES HIGH-TECH MONITORING WOULD NOT ALLOW CONTAMINATED WATER TO BE INJECTED INTO OUR AQUIFER…CAN WE TRUST THAT?
Soquel Creek Water District is moving at great speed to shove through their expensive PureWater Soquel Project to inject treated sewage water in to the precious aquifer supplying drinking water for the MidCounty areas.  Repeatedly, staff assures this system would be state-of-the-art, high-tech and have built-in redundancy to halt any problems affecting water quality injected into the groundwater.  

Should we trust them?  It always works on paper, but note local failures at other high-tech facilities that failed grossly yet went un-noticed and un-reported. 

Sunnyvale fined $187,000 after spilling nearly 300,000 gallons of wastewater into San Francisco Bay

Sewage spill closes eight Monterey beaches

Can we trust a District whose Board President assured members of the public, concerned about the PureWater Soquel Project injection well at Twin Lakes Church, that the well would be gravity-fed, not pressure-injected???  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Oddly, however, the sections of this video (available on the District website) that used to provide the public testimonies against the Twin Lakes Church Injection Well and Director Daniels’ ludicrous claim it would all be gravity-fed have been removed.  Hmmmmm……

Luckily, a citizen video recorded that same meeting, which captured Bruce Daniels’ misinformation to the public: See minute 1:41:35 “This is not injection, it is gravity feed”.

Now, why do you suppose Soquel Creek Water District would want to censor such valuable public comment and Director response?  Can we trust Soquel Creek Water District to ever be honest with the public if there is a problem with the PureWater Soquel Project???  I just don’t think so.

YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON DRINKING TREATED SEWAGE WATER DIRECTLY FROM THE TAP
Right now, California does not allow water municipalities to sell you treated sewage water directly, but that will likely change soon.  Here is your chance to read and comment on the State’s plan to allow Direct Potable Re-Use

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) will accept public comments on the Addendum to A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) in California, 2nd Edition. The Addendum is an early draft of the anticipated criteria for direct potable reuse. 

PUBLIC WORKSHOP April 22, 2021 – 9:30 a.m. 
As a result of the COVID-19 emergency and the Governor’s Executive Orders to protect public health by limiting public gatherings and requiring social distancing, this meeting will occur solely via remote presence. If you wish to watch the meeting: A webcast will be available here and should be used unless you intend to provide oral comments. If you wish to make an oral comment: additional information about participating telephonically or via the remote meeting solution is  available here.

SUBJECT OF WORKSHOP 
The State Water Board has prepared an Addendum to A Proposed Framework for Regulating DPR in California, 2nd Edition. The Addendum is an early draft of the anticipated criteria for direct potable reuse for stakeholder review and input. State Water Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) staff will present an overview of the early draft of the anticipated criteria for DPR and invite the public and interested parties to present oral comments. A quorum of the State Water Board members may attend this workshop and may provide input, pose questions, or provide direction to staff, but no action will be taken. 

The public may review and comment on the Addendum. Written comments on the Addendum are due by 12:00 noon on Friday, June 25, 2021.

COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS CONVINCED THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO JUST TAKE THE BAYVIEW HOTEL CROSSING LAND WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION…OR NOTICE TO THE HOTEL OWNER.
Arm-in-arm, the County Public Works Director, Matt Machado, and Barry Swenson Builder reps convinced the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to authorize an illegal taking of the historic Bayview Hotel private crossing….as a Consent Agenda Item on April 1, 2021 meeting.  The RTC and County failed to provide the owner of the Bayview Hotel any advance notice at all that the Resolution approving the taking was on the agenda.  

Matt Machado insists “This is not a taking…we are simply moving the entrance to the Hotel to Parade Street.”  That move will effectively isolate the Bayview Hotel property between the two businesses on either side, decreasing the commercial value and ignoring the 1876 Deed wherein Hotel owner Jose Arano specified the crossing to the Hotel must be kept open in perpetuity. 

This was all made possible by the secret meetings held between Swenson, the County, and the property owner adjacent to the Bayview Hotel, who owns 50% of the crossing.  She sold out to Swenson, and even made agreements to have Swenson pay to pave the driveway portion of the parking lot in front of the Bayview to be more pleasing for her own customers….but all without consent or involvement of the Bayview Hotel owner!

What egregious arrogance by all…and the RTC approved it with Second District Supervisor Zach Friend leading the charge to wave it through on the Consent Agenda to help the Aptos Village Project developers.  Disgusting.

Contact the RTC members with your thoughts! This page has all of their email addresses: Commission Members

STATE FARM INSURANCE WILL SEND PRIVATE FIREFIGHTERS TO PROTECT RURAL POLICYHOLDERS STRUCTURES IN A WILDFIRE
Many insurance companies are cancelling policies in rural areas, but State Farm is stepping up to help protect the rural properties instead.  

Local State Farm agent informed me that the contract with a professional private firefighter firm will, at no extra cost to policy holders, provide service to remove combustibles away from structures, clean roof and gutters, seal all vents where embers could lodge and catch the structure on fire, install temporary exterior sprinkler systems, apply fire retardant foam to cover the structure, and patrol the area for spot fires and flare-ups.  

This is good news for rural property owners throughout the nation’s rural areas!

Private wildland firefighting firm contracted to protect State Farm-insured-homes

WHY IS THE CITY SHOVING SO MANY HIGH, DENSE DEVELOPMENTS WHEN THE COUNTY POPULATION IS DECLINING?
Santa Cruz County population statistics show a steady decline since 2018: Santa Cruz County, California Population 2021 

So, why is the City of Santa Cruz moving so quickly to erase the character of communities with multiple high-rise behemoths at a time when infrastructure is broken and local officials fret about water shortages?

Take a look at just a few of the most jaw-dropping active projects in the City: Active Planning Applications | City of Santa Cruz. That slide show is incomplete, by the way…click on “W” to see two large projects on Water Street and West Cliff Drive.  

What are these people thinking?  Contact the City Council and ask! Call Santa Cruz City Council: 831-420-5020 . Email submitted to citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com is public record. All City Council email that is general correspondence will be forwarded to individual Councilmembers, City departments as appropriate, and placed in the Central Branch Library Reference Desk for 3 months for public review. All City Council email that pertains to an agenda item will be placed with that agenda item and distributed with the agenda packet, which includes public review at the Central Branch Library. 

AND QUICKLY….

1. STATE PARKS SOMEHOW FOUND MONEY TO PAVE A HAZARDOUS PORTION OF NISENE MARKS STATE PARK ACCESS
   Last week, Nisene Marks State Park entrance on Aptos Creek Road was closed for half a day while paving work happened.  The improvement is wonderful, especially since it occurred in the most hazardous area of the access route.

   Here is a photo: 

   
2. APTOS  VILLAGE PROJECT PARKING PROBLEMS CONTINUE
   The developers have now posted signs throughout the subdivision to prohibit public parking throughout.  This is only Phase 1…take a look at this photo:
   
3. ARE THESE TREES IN APTOS VILLAGE COUNTY PARK DESTINED FOR THE CHAINSAW OR TO BE PRESERVED?
   No one from County Parks seems to know anything about the new metal tree survey tags at the entrance to Aptos Village County Park.  Will they be chopped down by the Swenson developers for the 10′-wide trench the County is providing free of charge to allow parking lot stormwater  effluent to be dumped into Aptos Creek via County Park land?
   
4. IS THIS FASCISM IN ACTION?

   How the corporate backlash to Georgia’s new voting law is shaping other fights around the country over access to the polls

   Since when do large corporations get to call the shots on how our country’s population votes?

MAKE ONE CALL.  WRITE ONE LETTER.  ATTEND A ZOOM MEETING FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME.  JUST DO SOMETHING THIS WEEK, AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers, Becky

April 5

WILL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAKE RESIDENTS PAY TO PARK ON STREETS IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES IN COASTAL AREAS?
Heads up if you live in the coastal zones of the County…you may be required to pay $—–/year to be able to park on the street near your home.  The Board of Supervisors will consider this financial hammer on April 13.  Let Supervisor Koenig know your thoughts, as he seems to be the one that Public Works has convinced to shepherd what many feel is just a money grab.

Here is a link to join the April 12 pre-Board meeting discussion: District 1

Here is a link to a survey available from Supervisor Koenig

Live Oak Parking Program: Fix it or Scrap it?
Problems
The Live Oak Parking Program faces several problems today.

1) Quality of Service. New public coastal access points like Privates Beach  have expanded parking impact to Opal Cliffs and other areas currently outside of the parking program boundaries. A warming climate means that beach season is starting earlier and going later. Enforcement has not kept up with this increased demand. 

2) Budget Shortfalls. The Program has consistently lost money. It was in the red $42,605 in 2019 and $87,018 in 2020. Funding from the program is currently coming from the County’s General Fund paid for by all county residents. 

3) Potential Coastal Act Violations. Coastal Commission staff  have notified the County that the current program is interfering with the public’s ability to access the sea and coastal beaches. This is because it provides free parking passes to residents in the program area but akes everyone else pay. This makes the program vulnerable to repeal by the Coastal Commission. 

Proposal
Going forward, the program could be ended entirely. This would let everyone park for free in the area with minimal regulation except by California Highway Patrol. This would eliminate the problems of patchwork enforcement between neighborhoods but lead to greater demand for parking and longer times idling and searching for parking.  Alternatively, the Department of Public Works has proposed an updated program as follows:

Program Dates, Days and Hours of Operation

• For the 2021 Season: May 1st – October 31st
• Starting the 2022 Season: March 15th – October 31st
• Program hours of operation will be 11:00am – 5:00pm on weekends and holidays.

Program Area

• A phased expansion of the program to first fill gaps and then expand to Opal Cliffs. See map below.

Fee Structure

• Permits would be $75.00 per season (Public Works has determined this is the minimum cost for the program to meet its goals).
• Hourly rates of $2.00 per hour.
• Digital App to purchase permits and pay for hourly parking.
• There would be no more free permits for residents and vacation rentals.
• Permits would act as digital “hangtags” that can be applied to multiple vehicles as long as only one is on the street at a time.

Use of Revenues

• All citation revenue would stay within the Parking Program for reinvestment in the program and coastal access projects including but not limited to: improved parking conditions, way finding signage, coastal access improvements, maintenance and repair, bike and pedestrian infrastructure along the coastline.

Additional information about the proposal, including recordings of the neighborhood meetings and Q&A are available here: Live Oak Parking Program

To email all five members of the Board of Supervisors at once, you may use boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us . Please note, emails that are sent to this address will be added to our Written Correspondence listing or included as comments on appropriate agenda items. Links to email individual supervisors can be found on each supervisor’s webpage. 

FREE WEBINARS FOR FIRE SAFETY AND CZU LESSONS LEARNED
Fire Season is around the corner..learn more now about what you can do to protect your home and family.  Don’t miss the third session….lessons learned from the CZU Fire.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  PARTICIPATE IN A VIRTUAL MEETING IN YOUR PAJAMAS.  JUST DO SOMETHING AND MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Cheers,

Becky