I responded on June 8, asking “Why put ANY of this polluted water in your customer’s drinking water?  Why not eliminate the Country Club Well production completely and improve the safety of the drinking water you sell?”   Within hours, a Board member responded: “If a well is unused for even 12 months, the state DWR declares it abandoned and mandates it be destroyed.  Given how many millions of dollars we have invested in that one well, and therefore how many millions we would need to spend to replace that well, then we cannot risk its loss.”

Wow.  So the District recognizes the water is contaminated with a carcinogen at levels beyond proposed “safe” maximum contaminant level, but continues to add it to the drinking water they sell because it  would be too expensive to drill a new well for water that is not contaminated?  Think about that.

Now, ask yourself this: Can people really trust this agency to be honest in future proposed plans to treat sewage water and inject it into the region’s drinking water supply?  Somehow, I just don’t think so….not when the bottom line of profit seems to be higher priority than public health and safety.

PUREWATER IS REALLY POOP WATER…SCOPING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Mark your calendar for Wednesday, July 12, 6pm-8pm, at the Twin Lakes Church for a meeting that “will include a short presentation followed by an open house with information stations.  Public comments may be provided orally (recorded via court reporter) or in writing.”  This meeting is the result of the District changing the Project description since the last Scoping Meeting  to “include consideration for additional advanced water purification facility sites and to eliminate treatment of raw wastewater.”  This is a direct response to the large and very vocal group of neighborhood residents living near the District offices who do not want a commercial sewage treatment plant in their backyard.  Good work, Soquel!  

The District has published a revised Project description and is accepting comments from June 22 to July 22, 2017.

CARCINOGENIC TREATED SEWAGE WATER INJECTED IN YOUR DRINKING WATER???
Do you think the District should consider the great expense of this proposed system that already has them planning to increase customer rates by 17% next fiscal year to pay for it?  Do you think the District should consider the merits of building such an expensive system that must function perfectly 100% of the time, without any operator error, to ensure that no spikes of unknown contaminants get completely eliminated from the water before getting injected into the region’s drinking water supply without any possible containment once the water is injected?  Do you think, based on the District’s priorities and operating procedures of the Country Club Well and known TCP contamination, that any of us should TRUST them to let the public know if there was a system failure or operator misjudgement?

I attended one of the District’s Supplemental Supply Committee meetings wherein the consultant hired to study the potential contamination problems of injecting treated sewage water into the public drinking water supply issued an initial report.  The report admitted that there were low levels of  N-nitrosdimethylamine (NDMA) that were found in the advanced tertiary treated sewage water.  NDMA is a potent liver carcinogen, but the EPA has not yet set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water.  (Is this sounding like the TCP story?)

Read more about the potent human carcinogen NDMA and decide if you want to drink it.

On the EPA factsheet of January, 2014, NDMA is listed as “an unintended by-product of chlorination highly mobile in soil, with the potential to leach into groundwater.”  “In a 2002 survey conducted by the California Department of Health Services, elevated concentrations of NDMA were detected in locations where wastewater treatment plant effluent was used for aquifer recharge….”  That is certainly worth researching.  

The State Waterboards website also lists NDMA as a contaminant found in Northern California when  treated wastewater was used for groundwater recharge.  Read more >>>

 The EPA site continues:  “As of March 2011, NDMA had been detected in 1,787 samples out of 17,900 samples obtained from public water systems, which were monitored as part of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).  The EPA uses the UCMR to monitor contaminants in drinking water that do not currently have health-based standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Here is the link to read more from the EPA on the issue.

Once again, I ask you….can we trust Soquel Creek Water District to be transparent about contamination problems seemingly inherent with injecting treated sewage water in the region’s drinking water supply?

Transparency award?  How did THAT ever happen?

COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS DRAWING TO A SMOKEY CLOSE
I must compliment the beautiful graphic design of this year’s Santa Cruz County Budget available in a thick binder at the 5th Floor County Clerk of the Board Office.  It is colorful, with photos leading off each Department’s budget section that were taken by a staff member from within the respective Department.  I wonder how much that glossy tome cost?  

I could not attend many of the Budget Hearings last week, due to work.  That is probably a common problem for most people who have to work to survive, and cannot attend any of the County Board of Supervisor meetings at 9am during the weekdays.  I wonder if the new CAO Mr. Carlos Palacios will change any of that?

I did attend the swearing-in of Mr. Palocios.  I felt somewhat like the mean witch who crashed Sleeping Beauty’s birth celebration when I stood up at the Board of Supervisor meeting to speak about the clouded past of Mr. Palacios, as outlined in the 2010-2011 County Grand Jury investigation report of Watsonville City government under the guidance of Mr. Palacios, the City Manager.  That report is about the only information left working on the internet….the Register-Pajaronian articles now all have broken links or are missing entirely.   

I asked Mr. Palacios to be transparent in all County administrative business.  I also asked him to re-instate the Citizen’s Building Code and Fire Code Appeal Board, which Ms. Mauriello disbanded, causing citizens to pay exorbitant appeal fees ($1800) and hire expensive attorneys to get anyone to listen to problems flying out of the Planning Department.

The Budget, complete with the approved $47 million borrowed to enable the CAO to claim a balanced budget, will wrap up Tuesday (6/27) afternoon. Following a glowing ceremonial tribute to outgoing CAO Ms. Mauriello, a consideration of the proposed Measure D 5-Year Transportation Projects, the Aptos Village Project jurisdiction hearing….and the list goes on.  It will be a busy morning, complete with smoke and mirrors in the afternoon.  Stay tuned….

WILL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TAKE LEADERSHIP AT THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT MESS???
Stay tuned for next week when I will report whether the Board agreed to hear the Aptos Village Project appeals and if they will take the opportunity to make the Phase I mess… LESS of a disaster.   I have asked the Board to assist in negotiating a purchase of the Phase II land to rebuild the bike jumps and pump track for the County’s youth, and to secure the existing parking area for the Nisene Marks State Park users who will soon have nowhere to go.  And what about parking for all those future rail passengers?

CARLOS PALACIOS CHOSEN AS NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
Well, well, what a surprise.  Last week, the County Public Information Officer, Mr. Jason Hoppin announced that the Board of Supervisors will anoint Mr. Carlos Palacios as the new County Administrative Officer (CAO) to replace Ms. Susan Mauriello.  That has been a done-deal for a long time, and I think the County Board of Supervisors could have saved the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money by honestly admitting as much.  Taxpayers could have been spared the $20,000 contract price with Peckham & McKenney to supposedly conduct a nationwide search and thousands more dollars for the expensive interviews held for two days at Hotel Paradox.   

This farce reminds me of the “public workshops” commonly held to pretend that the public’s input will be used to shape plans for neighborhood developments.  No governmental transparency here.

People who have had dealings with Mr. Palacios are really quite worried about what taxpayers can expect to see happen in Santa Cruz County government under his leadership.  Although the elected Board of Supervisors is supposed to be the real decision-makers in this picture, in truth, it has been CAO Ms. Mauriello, and will quite likely continue as such under the financial whip of Mr. Palacios.  

He was the Watsonville City Manager for 18 years before being tapped as Santa Cruz County Deputy CAO in 2015.   I have read the 2010-2011 County Grand Jury Reports regarding the very disturbing and serious investigations into the Watsonville City business that leads me to urge all citizens to watch the new CAO closely.  These concerns stem from the City of Watsonville’s attempts to legally bluster through a push to essentially get rid of the airport in order to develop dense mixed-use construction (think Aptos Village Project) and thereby disregard deed agreements made in 1947 when the City bought the airport property for $1, provided it remain an airport in perpetuity.  Under Mr. Palacios’ guidance, the City fought a legal battle to ditch the airport with Resolution 74-05 (April 12, 2005) and ignore orders from the State Department of Transportation (April 21, 2006) to invalidate that Resolution.  The Pilots Association sued the City and won (March 15, 2010), causing the City’s taxpayers to pay about $692,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs and about $442,000 in City attorney fees when the 6th Appellate Court denied the City’s appeal.

Mr. Palacios also refused to address inquiries by the City Council regarding why the City wrote a check for $225,000 for a new fire engine but did not sign a contract for the truck’s delivery.  It took three years to finally get an engine, and it was not the one originally purchased.  And then, there was the $18,000 cash paid to bands to perform at the Strawberry Festival…..

I noticed that many of the internet site searches for Register-Pajaronian articles discussing some of these interesting findings are now not responding to searches.   Hmmmm….

FOLLOW THE MONEY…ATTEND COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS THIS WEEK
The County Board of Supervisors will be approving the proposed 2017-2018 Budget this week.  I wonder how the CAO will present it all as a balanced budget, as claimed in the glossy full-color document available for public view in the County Clerk’s office  (5th Floor)?  Maybe that is why the Board of Supervisors had to recently approve taking out a short-term $46 million bond?  How long can the County taxpayers support this?

A FINE GLASS OF PINOT FIXES EVERYTHING.
Last week, Pleasant Valley rural residents and I brought an appeal before the County Planning Commission regarding approval of a commercial event center at the Lester Winery.  Rural residents in the Pleasant Valley and Hames Road areas really have valid concerns about the negative impacts to County roads and public safety by allowing Lester Winery to hold multiple large commercial events with 200 guests and outdoor amplified sound until 9pm in the neighborhood.  This is not a permitted use under current County Code and was stated as such in the Staff Report.  

So, I was amazed to hear the Planning Commission acknowledge that it is not currently allowed under current Code unless the events support the agricultural use of growing grapes.  It was decided that if the Lester Winery could require all event customers to drink their wine while at the large events, it would then be okay.  Really?  So, how does amplified outdoor sound relate to that?  Well, since there was a report from Edward Pack Acoustic Consultants claiming that no amplified sound could be heard at the property boundaries, there would be NO PROBLEM with allowing outdoor amplified sound.  It seemed that Planner Sheila McDaniel may have “misinterpreted” some of the information, and hence required all speakers to be aimed south, but the consultant quickly said that he had not recommended that and that it really did not matter which way the speakers were aimed.  The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of ……a DJ?

It seemed to me that most things really did not matter in this public hearing.  Not even the fact that County Environmental Health had noted “due to the large number of event guests, porta- potties are not allowed.”  yet that is what was approved.  In the end, the Commissioners had individually visited the site and, I think, already made up their minds about how this would be approved as a test case for large commercial events in the rural areas.  I thought it was telling that the first question asked by Second District Commissioner Ms. Melanie Shaffer-Freitas of staff was “How far off is the EIR for the Code Modernization (that will make this sort of use legal)?”  When Planner Ms. McDaniel replied that staff has not had time to work on it much, and that the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is at least two years away from completion, it was obvious that the Commissioners were going to approve the Commercial Use Permit for the Lester Winery, a rural residential and agricultural area.  The fact that the Lester family has been holding “Family Parties” there for years to raise money for various non-profits probably  helped influence the decision making as well.

Later, a Commissioner assured me that they had not approved a commercial event center.  So, can anyone please explain to me the difference between a Commercial Use Permit for large events (200 guests) with outdoor amplified sound and how it is not the same as a commercial event center?  Maybe it would make more sense to me if I had a glass of good Pinot…..

MAY I HAVE A GLASS OF CLEAN AFFORDABLE WATER, PLEASE?  
Soquel Creek Water District will this week be signing more agreements with the City of Santa Cruz for sewage water to inject in our drinking water supply within the near future.  That is the Pure Water Soquel project rumbling down the pipes, even though the Soquel Creek Water District Board insists publicly they have not made a decision about which supplemental supply they have chosen to solve the critical aquifer overdraft problem in their area.  On July 12, 7pm, they will hold a public hearing at Twin Lakes Baptist Church (next to Cabrillo College) to explain the new Scoping for their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) studies of the issue.  

Essentially, the EIR process has been set back due to the neighborhood outcry regarding the plan to place the industrial use sewage treatment plant at the West Annex location at District Office headquarters, which is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood.  Here we go again…another questionable land use in a residential community.  

So, if the Soquel Creek Water District Board has not decided what their plan is, why does the 2018-2019 budget include a 17% rate increase (to pay for the PureWater Soquel Project), and add in extra administrative, engineering and operations  staff to openly handle the Project?

Why don’t other well owners besides Soquel Creek Water District have any say in what gets dumped into the aquifer that we all depend upon for clean, affordable drinking water?  Over 300 local citizens have signed a petition demanding the matter be put to ballot votes, yet the District Board is unresponsive to that request.   I think I can see a Citizen’s Initiative in the near future….

PRIVATE WELL OWNERS IN SANTA MARGARITA GROUNDWATER BASIN AGENCY WILL GET TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES.
I attended the Board of Directors meeting last week for the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency, a joint power group including San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Scotts Valley Water District, The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz.   Santa Cruz City had not yet chosen their representative, although a member of the audience pointed out that attending Supervisors Bruce McPherson and John Leopold both live within the Santa Cruz City Water service areas, so maybe the City had its representation there after all.

I was glad to learn that this Groundwater Agency has written into its By-Laws that the Private Well Owners are to choose their two representatives themselves.  There were about 12 private well owners at the meeting.  They will meet July 31, 7pm at the Scotts Valley Water District Offices (2 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley) to begin organizing and select their own representatives to help write the plan that is required by the State Water boards by 2022 for a sustainable water scenario healing  current critical overdraft problems.  This is excellent.

That was not how the three Private Well Representatives on the neighboring MidCounty Groundwater Agency were selected.  Those people were chosen by representatives of Soquel Creek Water District, Santa Cruz City Water Department, Central Water District, and Santa Cruz County.  There are no alternates.  Those who were not chosen but were very well qualified perhaps wondered what criteria were used in the selection process?

MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 29 TO EXPLAIN SELECTION REQUIREMENTS AND DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR PLAN COMMITTEE.
The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) will dictate how much water can be pumped out of the ground in the future, who will get to have it, and how much everyone will have to pay to have water.  That’s a big responsibility to take on, and applications are now open for the job.  Applications are available on the website: www.MidCountyGroundwater.org and are due July 20, 2017.  To help explain the process and the requirements necessary for those who want to serve on the GSP, there will be a public meeting on June 29, 7pm at the Congregational Church in Soquel (that quaint white-steepled church in Soquel Village).  The Selection Committee is still working out the details of how they will evaluate and “winnow” the applicants.  I urge anyone interested in working together with others with a similar interest of solving this water dilemma to apply.  

I wonder if anyone on that GSP Committee will talk about a moratorium on new service connections in the area until this critical health and safety problem is corrected?   I wonder if Soquel Creek Water District bookkeepers would be able to justify writing checks on an overdrafted bank account?  Their Board is doing essentially that by continuing to hand out more and more new service connections for increased water use from a critically-overdrafted aquifer, justifying it by using a bogus Water Demand Offset Program with no measurable improvement results.

New CEQA information:

1.  Significant traffic increases that could not have been known since the original 2004 traffic study was conducted, or any of the 2006 or 2009 peak afternoon study updates (all conducted mid-week in late October).  You can see the values that TJKM submitted to the Planning Commission in the documents available online at the Planning Department website for the Aptos Village Project.  You can also see the Regional Transportation Commission 2016 counts for Spreckles Drive and Soquel Creek (higher than the TJKM number projection of traffic AFTER the development).  You can also see the number that County Traffic engineer submitted to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) for a grant to fund the Aptos Village road improvements that will benefit the developers.
2.  Traffic Studies did not evaluate traffic at Rio Del Mar Boulevard or Freedom Boulevard intersections with Soquel Drive. (When I asked County traffic engineer Mr. Sohriakoff why those areas were omitted, his reply was “Well, what’s at the Aptos Village Project that they would want?”)  Wow.
3.  Traffic Studies did not evaluate the effect of phasing the taxpayer-funded road improvements in the area that will benefit the developers.  When the current Phase I traffic light at Trout Gulch Road gets done, and Barry Swenson Builder finishes the Aptos Village Way connector between Trout Gulch Road and Aptos Creek Road, NO LEFT TURNS WILL BE ALLOWED FROM APTOS CREEK ROAD ONTO SOQUEL DRIVE.  Instead, all those folks will have to go through the Project and turn right onto Trout Gulch Road.  (Can you say “congestion”?)
4.  At some undetermined time, all through traffic on Granite Way from Cathedral Drive to Aptos Creek Road, is planned to be cut off, so that will add traffic of the existing 20 or so households onto Cathedral and Trout Gulch, as well as the added 18 new townhouses currently under construction along Granite Way (most of those are 2700-3000 Square Feet, so each will probably be rented to multiple people.)  It is illegal, under Santa Cruz County Fire Code, to create new deadend roads.  Gee, I wonder why Aptos / La Selva Fire Chief Jones did not think this was serious or worth investigating?
5.  Water?  What water?  Since the Project was approved in 2012, California has been in drought.  In 2016, the State Waterboard  declared our area in CRITICAL OVERDRAFT, and the result is an impending threat of sea water moving inland and irreversibly damaging the area’s drinking water supply.  Aptos Village Project will require 38.2 Acrefeet of water each year…all at a time when Soquel Creek Water District is only allowing a total of about 4 Acrefeet/year new hook-ups.
6.  Unremediated soil contamination, as a result of the illegal actions Barry Swenson Builder and SCUP crews took to excavate, transport and destroy a 5,000 buried diesel tank.   The Aptos Village Project site has still not REALLY been remediated (that means not cleaned up completely).  The County Environmental Health Department closed the case prematurely without conducting groundwater “punch tests” to make sure the contaminants that were found 75′ away from the real tank location did not get into the relatively shallow groundwater in the area.  By the way, the groundwater flows toward the new Soquel Creek Water District’s Granite Way well.  Some of the contaminants were gasoline-related, diesel, toluene and other nasty things that disperse freely in water….one would think that Soquel Creek Water District would be testing for those things in their new well, right?  I’m not sure the District has tested the groundwater near the well for this panel of contaminants, either.  They have focused their tests on contaminants related to the former dry cleaining business nearby.

7.  Since the Project was approved in 2012, Native American observers have been on site to observe the earth disturbance during Soquel Creek Water District’s installation of the new water main within the Project.  While the observers did not find human remains, they did find significant items.  This is significant new information because the Aptos Village Project environmental reviews hardly mentioned the CA-SCR-222 archaeologic site that is within the construction site.  Because Barry Swenson Builder and other Aptos Village LLC developers are not ensuring an archaeologic observer is watching the massive amount of earth disturbance for significant artifact deposits, there must be a new mitigation to have a Native American observer at the construction digging.  Contrary to this month’s Aptos Life article, there is NOT always an observer watching.  Take a look at the June 5, 2017 video on the right.

8.  Even less was mentioned regarding the significant Japanese encampments and the Lam-Mattison Apple Dryer and Vinegar Works.  That may explain the “surprise” diesel tank location.  Barry Swenson Builder demolished the Apple Dryer foundation (without permit) in May , 2016, raising concern from Native American observer Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, who was working for Soquel Creek Water District at the time in a nearby location within the Project (thanks, California Public Records Act!)  Maybe it raised some concern with local benefactor and developer Mr. George Ow, Jr as well, because his grandfather was Lam Pon, co-owner of the Apple Dryer and Vinegar Works with Mr. George Mattison.
9.  The Aptos Creek Bridge is realy beginning to crack and be invaded by destructive ivy.  It has not been inspected by a qualified civil engineer for structural integrity since September, 2015 .  The 2013 inspections (CalTrans drops by every two years to do these routine inspections) noted that undetermined levels of scouring at the bridge supports warranted special bridge inspections during major storm events, and that the bridge should be closed, if necessary.

A Public Records Act request from the County Counsel stated no special civil engineer inspection has been made, but did forward photos of severe erosion at the bridge abutments.  

Last Friday, there were concrete trucks rumbling across that 1928 Historic Bridge every 10-15 minutes all day, on their way to the foundations of the Aptos Village Project townhouses along Granite Way.  While CalTrans staff has said that they cannot prohibit such heavy construction traffic because no notatation was made about weight limits on the bridge during the 2015 inspection report, they will definately be looking into the issue this year when their engineers conduct their routine inspection.

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

ATTEND THE JUNE 27 BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETING AND/OR WRITE YOUR REQUESTS TO SUSAN GALLOWAY SUSAN.GALLOWAY@SANTACRUZCOUNTY.US

Most of the people of Aptos affected by the daily traffic jams feel the two traffic lights will only make things worse.  This morning, a young man who grew up in Aptos told me he is moving his family to Watsonville because the development going on in Aptos Village will ruin the community they know and love.  I am stopped daily by various Aptos locals who are so upset with what they now see happening at the Aptos Village Project.  “This was NEVER what we said we wanted in those meetings with Supervisor Pirie,”  they say.  I agree.  What is interesting is one comment that a local business owner made regarding Supervisor Pirie’s statement early-on:  “We have to build SOMETHING there because we took the money from the state.”   Well, well…what could that mean?  Stay tuned…

COUNTY RELEASES REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR 8.3 ACRE SITE NEAR HARBOR AT 7TH & BROMMER

Wait a minute, here it comes again….lots of public input workshops to ask what people want to see happen in their community, people get divided into little groups so no one really knows the greater group sentiments and information, people go away thinking they made a difference, then the County and developers steamroll ahead with a plan that does NOT resemble or reflect what the people said they wanted.  This is happening over and over again in Santa Cruz County and simply must stop.

The latest example is the RFQ for 7th & Brommer.  The people DID NOT WANT A LARGE MULTI-STORY HOTEL ABOVE THE HARBOR, but what is the County presenting for developers to bid on doing there?  A multi-story hotel that encompasses 50% of the 8.3 acres!  If you were unable to attend the public workshop held to take input, search for the Santa Cruz County RFQ for 7th and Brommer.  Take a look at the meeting’s photo’s of each group’s listed concerns and wants….you’ll see frequent “NO HOTEL” written on the pages of most groups.

At last Tuesday’s County Board of Supervisor meeting, there were a number of people who testified against the recommended approval by County Administrative Officer (CAO) to accept the RFQ and put it out to the developers for contract.  One woman eloquently pointed out the dates and succession of public documents that gradually eliminated the original open space preferred use from the parcel and substituted visitor accommodation as the preferred use.  County Supervisors Ryan Coonerty and John Leopold assured the public that this is just the beginning of a long CEQA process, and the public will have plenty of opportunity to voice their concerns and wants.  But really, if the pattern is consistent, why would the public have any reason to trust the County government to pay attention to what we have to say during that CEQA process?  

Indeed, the system is broken, with the CAO, the Department of Economic Development and the greedy developers really making all the decisions, granting lucrative concessions, and making the taxpayers fund the bulk of the infrastructure to support it all.  The only action that seems to make any difference at all is expensive lawsuits that most people cannot afford nor have the expertise and energy to fight themselves.

But wait a minute…I believe in the power of the people to join together and remind the Supervisors and Councilmembers very loudly that they are elected by us.  Write your County Supervisor to protest the stupid, ineffective  process that people are being expected to trust….let them know you are watching how they vote, and how they respond (or not) to your letters and calls.

• Greg Caput greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us
• Ryan Coonerty ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us
• Zach Friend zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us
• John Leopold john.leopold@santacruzcounty.us
• Bruce McPherson bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us

We still do live in a democracy, right?

WHY WOULD THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS ILLEGAL BY ITS OWN CODE?
One really does wonder what is going on at the Planning Department.  Attend the Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday, June 14, 9am in the 5th Floor Board Chambers of the County Monolith (701 Ocean Street, S.C.) and find out how the astute members of that citizen’s group will handle the issue of why the Zoning Administrator approved a large commercial event center in rural Pleasant Valley.  The Commercial Use Permit would allow the owner to eventually hold up to 10 large events with 200 guests adn 16 small events of 50 guests on weekends between May and October, with outdoor amplified music until 9pm.  I wonder why the Planner reported a traffic study stated the large events would only cause 62 additional vehicle trips when the traffic study really said there would be 208?  Hmmm…..  The Planner, Ms. Sheila McDaniel, also said that it will be up to local residents to call the sheriff with any noise complaints about the amplified music echoing throughtout the peaceful Pleasant Valley.  Doesn’t the sheriff have better things to do than to enforce the Planning Department’s ridiculous noise conditions of approval for large commercial event centers in the rural residential agricultural areas?  Neighborhood tension?  Yes, but the Planning Department could care less.   ALL OF THIS WILL BE LEGAL IF THE CODE MODERNIZATION ZONING CHANGES GET APPROVED, ONCE PAST THAT PESKY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS.  Planning Director Previsich stated publicly that “unfortuantely, environmental review slows things down.”  I think we all heard  Donald Trump say something similar recently, didn’t we?  Hmm…..

AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE ABOUT AN EXCELLENT IDEA FOR AFFORDABLE WATER FOR THE FUTURE
There was a good article in the Saturday, June 10 Santa Cruz Sentinel (page A3) about Mr. Jerry Paul’s idea for finding a secondary supplemental water supply for our area, using rainwater collected in Loch Lomond.  This plan would cost much less than the PureWater Soquel plan currently favored by Soquel Creek Water District to pump treated sewage water into the drinking water supply for the entire MidCounty area.  You can find excellent information about other supplemental supply approaches at: www.WaterforSantaCruz.com   These are brilliant people with knowledge, expertise and sincere concern for finding a solution that will provide safe, affordable water sooner rather than later.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HELP DEVELOP THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER PLAN FOR THE MIDCOUNTY AREA?
The MidCounty Groundwater Agency is now accepting applications for volunteers to help develop the State-mandated plan for healing an aquifer that is currently in BIG trouble.  Attend the June 29 stakeholder meeting at the First Congregational Church in Soquel (4951 Soquel Drive), 7pm-9pm to learn more about what the job entails and maybe even what the Committee who will decide who gets chosen is looking for in a candidate.  You can find more information and an application at www.MidCountyGroundwater.org  Applications are due by July 20, 2017.

LEARN MORE ABOUT A SECONDARY SUPPLY FOR SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT
The Supplemental Supply Standing Committee (nice alliteration, huh?) meets monthly and will convene on June 14 at the District Headquarters  (5180 Soquel Drive), 4pm-5pm.  That group often receives wave-breaking news about pilot studies for river water transfer chemistry, contaminant study models for the expensive recycled sewage water treatment project, and maybe even results of the recent helicopter fly-overs of a Danish company to determine just where the salt water /fresh water interface is  in the overdrafted  Purisima Aquifer.  It’s always good, you know, to keep on top of this information….it is, afterall, the drinking water source for the entire Mid-County area.

If you still have questions, attend the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Drop-In hours the next day, June 15, 10am-noon, at the Community Foundation Building in Aptos (7807 Soquel Drive).  This is a good way to ask questions and really have a meaningful discussion about issues that last longer than the standard 3-minute public comment time allowed at public meetings.   If there is someone there from Soquel Creek Water District, I hope to ask why Barry Swenson Builder is paying the District $600,000 this year, and why the District anticipates 2018-19 service rates will INCREASE 17%.  I asked the Board about those issues last week, but they did not respond.

JUST LET THAT SOAK IN…..
Capturing stormwater and letting it percolate back into the ground instead of rushing out to sea is a good idea that can make a big difference in aquifer recharge and overdraft problems.   I was happy to hear the Soquel Creek Water District Board discussing different potential sites to try this out.  I was, however, puzzled that NONE of those favored would be in the Purisima Aquifer.  Instead, the committee that chose potential recharge areas decided to focus recharge efforts on the Aromas Aquifer.  That is odd, since very little of the Soquel Creek Water District’s pumping service area lies within the boundaries of the Aromas Aquifer.  Staff explained they thought the Deistrict could “get more bang for the buck” with recharge efforts in the Aromas Aquifer, and also added that injection wells in the Purisima Aquifer for this effort would have to be very deep, due to the multiple layers that slope down into the Monterey Bay.  Chairman Tom LaHue stated he was not in favor of supporting such projects that would not directly benefit the District’s wells….that makes fiscal sense.  So, might the District staff have in mind a plan to ask the MidCounty Groundwater Agency to support the project in order to allow the District to continue to hand out new service connections within it’s boundaries (sort of like a carbon trade arrangement)?  We shall see….

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved sending the Proposed 5-Year Public Works’ Capital Improvement Program to the Planning Commission for a Study Session this Wednesday, June 14, and returning it to the Board for another Study Session on June 20 during budget hearings.  You can look at the document on the June 6 Board Consent Agenda Item #63  “The document is an outgrowth of complementary planning, programming, and financing efforts by land use oriented departments in County government, including the County Administrative Office, Planning, Public Works, and Parks.”  Gee, that sounds good, doesn’t it?  I wonder if there will be General Fund money available for any of these projects?  The Mid-Year Budget Report stated there might not be any.

“There are currently 230 Disaster Recovery Projects from the 2016-17 storms, with an esttimated total cost of $103 million.  Of this total cost, $18 million is designated for the 2017-18 disaster related projects.”  The report rolls in other disaster projects from 2009 and 2011 as well for $20,529,060 total.

Programmed (planned) Projects include bridges (not Aptos Creek Bridge), drainage improvements, guardrail projects,  pedestrian safety improvements, County road improvements (that includes State Park Drive…probably to handle the Aptos Village Project mess for Barry Swenson Builder), and other projects….which includes the Aptos Village Improvements.   

Well, well….Phase I and II have a final cost estimate of $5,800,000 and a recommended funding level of $685,000 (CIP Number R0052) for Construction in 2018-19.  Phase I is already underway, largely thanks to about $1.3 million in grants from the Regional Transsportation Commission (RTC) and taxpayers.  Phase II includes “Construct road and roadside improvements on Soquel Drive from Trout Gulch Road to Aptos Creek Bridge to include: new traffic signal at Soquel Drive/Aptos Creek Road, new railroad crossing over Aptos Creek Road, sidewalk and bike lanes on Soquel Drive, new railroad crossing at new Parade Street.”   Funding Sources include “Aptos Road Improvement Fund, Aptos Transportation Improvement, Highway safety & Lighting CSA 9, and Regional Surface Transportation Program” (that’s the RTC again).  Notice how much public money is being used to pay for these improvements to support the Aptos Village Project developers?  

I think it is in sharp contrast to what the developer of the proposed Nissan auto dealership in Soquel told the public at the community meeting recently….that he has to pay for 100% of the street improvements to accommodate traffic effects associated with what he wants to build there.  Why is it so different for Barry Swenson Builder, Joe Appenrodt, Pete Testorff, and the other faceless developers of the Aptos Village Project mess?   Hmmmmm……….

Contact your Supervisor and ask, and let them know you would rather your tax dollars support something other than the developers who are already getting BIG concessions from the County, such as a waiver of the $1000/bedroom developer park fee.  Aptos Village Park could sure use some play equipment again for the kids, but Park staff says there is just not money for that.  Hmmmm……

YOU HAD TO ASK TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS TO APTOS/LA SELVA FIRE DISTRICT “PUBLIC“
A member of the public illuminated the fact that the comments people have been sending to Board members have NOT been being published in agenda packets and made part of the public record.  This was news to me and several others who stayed late into the evening for this item to come up for discussion.  The Administrative Assistant, Ms. New, pledged to get that problem worked out soon by creating a more transparent process for the public.   I asked that the Board e-mail address be included on the Agendas for the public to see.   People just did not know that you had to ask that comments be made public…

I was encouraged to see that Chairman Spisak brought up the creation of a standing committee to improve communication between the Board, Firefighter Local 3535, and the public.  I agree with him that it is unfortuante that now communication has broken down and legal action abounds.  Why would Chief Jones ask to stay for another two years when the Local 3535 and Chiefs have issued a UNANIMOUS VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE REGARDING CHIEF JONES?  One member of the audience pointedly asked Chief Jones if he intends to ask for a two-year contract extension before it expires this October?  “I don’t know”, he answered.  The lady then read the Sentinel interview from April, 2017 when the reporter asked Chief Jones about requesting an extension.  “Yes,” he said,  ” Why would I not?”

KERCHIIINGGGG, KERCHIIIIIINGGGG….
Heads up and quarters ready….parking meters are coming to sleepy little Soquel Village soon.  The Public Works Department will generously provide $100,000 to get the meters rolling.  Gee, that would fill some nice potholes, wouldn’t it?  Well, no more leisurely conversations over coffee at the Ugly Mug..the meter warden will be watching closely and ready to spring into action to issue expensive violation tickets should you tarry and allow the meter to run out of time.  Is this really progress?

THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGIC OR NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERVER WATCHING.  I am disgusted. This area is within the Phase II area of the development, for which NO FINAL MAP has been approved.  Grading permit?  

Please contact …

County Supervisor Zach Friend <zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us> 831-454-2160
County Code Compliance Officer Ms. Robin Bolster-Grant <Robin.Bolster-Grant@santacruzcounty.us>
Environmental Planner (mitigation enforcement) Todd Sexauer 831-454-3511 <todd.sexauer@co.santa-cruz.ca.us>
County Construction Manager Mr. Geoffery Padgett  831-454-3954
Assistant Planning Director, Ms. Wanda Williams 831-454-3183  <Wanda.Williams@santacruzcounty.us>
Historic Resources Commission c/o Planner Ms. Annie Murphy 831-454-3111 <Annie.Murphy@santacruzcounty.us>

Local Native American observer, Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, is not able to visit the site  immediately due to health issues.  You and I must be a voice to speak out against this intolerable violation of mitigations required of the Project (CUL-2, CUL-3).

YOU WILL TOLERATE A NISSAN CAR DEALERSHIP IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
Well, that was pretty much the sentiment of the Nissan Dealership owner last Wednesday during the community meeting at the Fairfield Suites, despite the public resistance..  The meeting was well-attended, but unfortunately, no one from the Planning Department was there (as had been mandated by the Planning Commission).  I wonder what a “Focused Environmental Impact Report” involves?  I was glad we did not get separated into small fractioned groups.   Allowing everyone to hear what other members of the public have to say is a good community-bonding experience.

APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL TO BE HEARD ON AUGUST 8.
The County Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday, June 6, to assume the jurisdictional power to hear the appeal of the people against the Aptos Village Project.  Mark “August 8” on your calendar and plan to attend.  I wonder if it will be an evening meeting so that people who work can participate?

NO MORE QUIET COUNTRY LIVING FOR PLEASANT VALLEY AREA.
That “quiet country living” seems what the Planning Department is set on wiping out with the approval of the Lester Winery Commercial Event Center.  How can the Zoning Administrator, (Assistant Director) Ms. Wanda Williams approve this use when it is not allowed by County Code?  Amplified outdoor music until 9pm? Planner Sheila McDaniel wrote the condition that if no one complains within six months after the large events (200 guests) get started, the event center owner can apply for and get approval to have even more large events.  Pleasant Valley is a narrow country road that is popular with local cyclists…but the event center traffic will most likely make it no fun to ride a bicycle in that area.

Attend the June 14 Planning Commission Public Hearing, 9am, 5th Floor at 701 Ocean Street.  Take a look at the flawed documents on the Planning Commission website, Item #7.

1400 PAGES AND WHAT WILL WE GET?
This week’s County Board of Supervisor meeting agenda packet is a whopping 1400+ pages!  Wow.  I am glad the online agenda will once again accommodate written comment by clicking on the icon next to the item number.

Here are some of the highlights on the Consent Agenda (who said they meet the definition of “non-controversial”?)  The public gets a total of three minutes to talk about all of the Consent Agenda…get ready, get set, go!

1)  Item #18  Calling all developers!  Who wants to build a big three-story “visitor-serving” hotel at 7th & Brommer that will cover 50% of the acreage?

But wait a minute, that is NOT what the 140+ residents said they wanted to have happen on that 8.3 acre site next to the harbor.  Here we go again, folks.  The Planning Department hires an outside contractor to conduct public workshops to gather public input, then along with the Economic Development Department and CAO (and developers) decide what will maximize revenues for the County machine.  I was at the April 27 public workshop for this project…most groups (except the one where developers congregated) were clear: the land should be used to best benefit the local residents, not handed over for tourist dollars and traffic jams.  The people wanted priority given to the harbor needs, and affordable housing and natural open space.  Well, the developer will be chosen August 28…and the EIR process begins.  I’ll just bet it will be awarded a Negative Declaration, with no significant impacts on the environment, right?  Well, 2/3 of the property sale amount has to go to the local schools….

2)  Item #14:  County taxpayers will loan school districts millions $$$$$.

Apparently, when local schools do not have enough money to meet current maintenance costs, the County Board of Supervisors approves a loan.  But I do not understand why the schools need to annually borrow millions rather than budgeting in maintenance costs themselves.  

This year, the total loan amount awarded by the County is $18.5 million. I do not understand why Santa Cruz City School District is asking for $10.3 million (up nearly $2 million from last year) considering that the voters passed two bond measures that give millions more to that school district for capital improvements?  Hmmm….

Here are other loans: Pajaro Valley Unified School District: $5 million (they did not make a request in 2014-15); Soquel Elementary: $1million; Live Oak School District: $1 million; Scotts Valley School District: $1 million; Pacific Elementary (their first time to request funds): $200,000.

3) Item #81: Award (without bid) $231,331.34 to Anderson Pacific to do extra work at the Boulder Creek School as a change order for the contract awarded last year.  The original low-bid submitted by Anderson Pacific was $514,324.  Should a change order for about 50% of the total awarded low-bid contract really  be approved without going back out to bid?  Somehow that just does not seem fair or frugal.

4) Item # 56: Approve a draft Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Incentive Program:  The Planning staff is proposing to waive the $3,000 sanitation system connector fee, reduce permit fees for new construction by 50% , with anywhere between 10%-50% reductions for conversions of existing structures. Waive soils report requirements. No parking? No problem…that will be waived.  Want more height? No problem…22 feet tall and a limit of 19 feet for units on a garage, but staff will “tweak things” and let the Board know what to do in the final Report.  Stay tuned for the Final Version on August 22.

5)  Item #80: Department of Public Works will pay $75,000 to hire an outside consultant to handle the Green Business Program.  At $90/hour, newly-hired staff will work to update the County database and assist up to 5 businesses to “green their operation”.  Wow.  $75,000 is a lot of green.  According to Department of Public Works Director Mr. John Presleigh, “There are sufficient funds in the various sections within the Dept. Of Public Works.”   Wait a minute, that is not what we were told during the Measure T campaign last fall, was it?  Hmmm…

6)  Item #77: The Department of Public Works will award $17,000 to the O’Neill Sea Odyssey for environmental education.  That’s nice, but shouldn’t that taxpayer money be used to fill potholes and fix washed-out roads instead?  I’ll bet the students and staff at Valencia Elementary School who have been scattered since the School closed in February due to unsafe road access would love to explore their school again.  (But that’s been preempted to help Barry Swenson Builder’s Aptos Village Project work go more smoothly.)

7) Item #28:  The FBI will add new additional equipment to County antenna site facilities on Mt. Bielawski.  Sure, why not…no charge.  I wonder what the new stuff will enable the FBI to do?  Hmmm….  You can try calling Mr. Jeremy Parks and ask: 703-985-6322…maybe he’s listening now…

And on the regular Agenda (you get three minutes each for comment on these):

1)  Item #84: County Fire contracting with CalFire for a 3-year contract.  The cost is reduced because of eliminating a heavy equipment mechanic job.  Who needs a working bulldozer to cut fire lines anyway?  Hmmm..

     Item #25: Thank goodness, the Loma Prieta Volunteer Fire Station will finally get their new equipment.  The community raised most of the money themselves to buy it while CAO Mariello refused to give any money from the Proposition 172 Public Safety sales tax coffers (that was $17,000 last year) to fund County Fire volunteers and equipment.

2) Item #89: Department of Public Works evidently passed “go” and has collected $50,000 in unanticipated funds…just in time for loaning $100,000+ to buy parking meters for Soquel Village.  The item reads: “On May 10, 2016, your Board created County Service Area (CSA) 9F, Soquel Village, with the intent to fund operation of the Soquel Village public parking lots via a benefit assessment of property owners.  Public Works conducted a ballot proceeding, which FAILED, with 16 percent in favor and 84 percent opposed to the proposed benefit assessment.”  Well….it seems that the action is moving forward anyway, just in a more creative form….

Well, this is all just a prelude to the 2017-2018 County Budget hearings scheduled to begin June 19.  Go see the glossy, full-color version of the budget at the 5th Floor Clerk of the Board office….I wonder how much that cost?  I think we need a consultant to figure that out…..

John Maltbie retired in 2008 as San Mateo County CAO but returned in 2012 when his successor, David Boesch, abruptly resigned.  His four-year contract was recently extended to 2018, with a salary of $325,000/year.  Wow.  His goal is to end homelessness by 2020. (I wonder how he plans to do that?)

Matthew Hymel, recently made news in Marin County for refusing to license any medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county.  The Board of Supervisors had passed an ordinance to allow four and directed Mr. Hymel to select them.  After three community meetings, he chose not to license any of the 10 dispensaries who applied because of concerns the community raised regarding dispensaries in their neighborhoods.  He wants to have a delivery-only system instead.

Well, please do show up this Friday and Saturday, 8am at the Hotel Paradox, just next door to the County Building.  I wonder how much money it will be costing us taxpayers to rent these three rooms and have catered food?  I wonder why the interviews cannot be held at the County Building instead?  Will the general public get to have coffee and donuts, too?  Gee, I hope so.

COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS COMING YOUR WAY…
Find out how this year’s Smoke and Mirrors presentation will lead the public to believe the budget is balanced.  How can a $8.1 million deficit be considered “balanced”?

The Board approved the dates for the 2017-2018 County Budget hearings: (on the website calendar)

• June 19: Parks, Land Use/Community Services, Captial Projects (supplemental budget TBD), Planning Department, Dept. Of Public Works.
• June 20: Health & Human Services
• June 21: Superior Court, Emergency Services, Grand Jury, County Fire, Probation, District   Attorney, Sheriff
• June 22: 9am is a regular meeting, 1:30pm is Unified Fee Schedule and Redevelopment Successor Agency

Special Evening Meetings June 19, 7:30pm Watsonville Civic Center and June 20, 7pm County Building (701 Ocean Street)

GEE…WOULDN’T IT BE NICE TO HAVE MORE EVENING MEETINGS FOR THE PUBLIC’S PARTICIPATION?

OTHER INTERESTING HIGHLIGHTS OF LAST WEEK’S COUNTY BOARD OF SUPES:
Consent Agenda

#14:  Approved $1.5 million to remodel the Animal Shelter.  Wow.

#15.  Approved an agreement crafted to attract qualified and expert developers to enter into a deal with  the County for an exclusive negotiation agreement on the Capitola Road & 16th mixed-use development.  This will be three stories tall, with an exception to allow 40′ tall structures.  APN 026-741-12,-13,-14,-15 on 3.7 acres.  Written questions due by June 16, 2017.  Watch out.

#20  Paid $77,600 for parking lot repair at County Building (I am glad the trees were spared this time!)

#21 Decommissioned the compressed natural gas fueling station at 691 Ocean Street. (Big waste of $$)

#28  Authorized formation of the Santa Margarita Gourndwater Management Agency, and also two other smaller basins. (Watch out, all you private well owners.)

Regular Agenda…here is a big one…#43 Authorized the County to go into debt $47,000,000 by selling Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, and also hired bond consultants for $67,000.  Smoke and mirrors in action?  Maybe that “anticipated revenue” is the reason behind the County making deals with developers like Barry Swenson Builder at the Aptos Village Project?

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT
Thanks to some very generous donors, I was able to scrape together the $1800 to appeal the Aptos Village Project amended Historic Preservation Plan approval by the Historic Resources Commission.  Now it will go before the Board of Supervisors, with a CEQA consideration to evaluate significant new information and significant changes in circumstances that impact the Project.  I asked for an evening hearing….do you suppose that will happen?  

Maybe on a Saturday morning at the Hotel Paradox?  Hmm,……

A COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTER IN RURAL PLEASANT VALLEY?
Well, once again, the County Planning Department is shoving through something that is not legal by their own Code definition.  If you have ever traveled on the rural, narrow country lane of Pleasant Valley in Corralitos, you might wonder how the County could approve a large commercial event center to operate there that would allow 6 large events of 200 people and 16 small events of 50 people (who would be counting them?).  Many of the people who live there could not believe it…if they were at all aware of the matter when it came before the Zoning Administrator last month.  

The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission will be June 14, 9 am in the Board Chambers (5th Floor).  Maybe Planner Sheila McDaniel will explain why she reported the total traffic count for those approved large events of 200 guests was actually the number of cars for just the peak hour on the day of each event?  Maybe she will explain why the number of parking spaces required for large events is based on that incorrect traffic count number?  Maybe she will explain why the use by a large commercial event center that is not currently permitted in rural residential areas was approved?

Hopefully, the Planning Commission will just say “No’ and the residents of Pleasant Valley will not have to constantly file complaints with the Sheriff in order to prevent EVEN MORE large events from being allowed at the event center within six months after start-up.   We can only hope.  Attend June 14 if you can….the local government needs to know that people are watching.

IS THE SANTA CRUZ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE?
Last week, about 100 people filled the Santa Cruz City Council Chambers to testify before the Planning Commission regarding the “Corridor Plan” for dense, very high buildings along Mission, Ocean and Water Streets and Soquel Aveune.  This means 5-7 story buildings.  Nearly all those who spoke were against this type of development.  

An interesting article from almost 9 YEARS ago, in the Santa Cruz Metro Newspaper discussed similarly the public outcry against such dense, multi-story development during the General Plan update.  “Last Thursday (7/24/2008) wasn’t the first time this tension had come up.  Planner Ken Thomas explained that at the outset of the general plan process, more areas were actually considered for high-density development.  After numerous meetings and vigorous debate, the areas were scaled back to major transit corridors, such as Soquel Avenue and Mission Street, explained Thomas.  “Our goal is to preserve neighborhoods and enhance corridors.” he said.

The Planning Commission back then was quick to assure concerned residents “that the city’s history as a cozy beachside town wouldn’t be forgotten.  Commissioner Mari Tustin promised to keep the character of each individual neighborhood in mind while finding ways to use scarce land wisely.  “The city is made up of all these small areas,” she said. “So we have to be careful that we don’t forget those little neighborhoods, EVEN AS WE DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.” (Caps added for emphasis.)  Santa Cruz Metro, July 30-August 6, 2008, Page 7.

Well, it seems the current Planning Commission has forgotten those neighborhoods and promises, and just continue to have more “Community Input Workshops” where people are divided up into small groups, their ideas dutifully written on white boards and large tablets, and made to feel that their concerns and ideas will be honored.  In reality, that is NOT how the plans get made….developments, such as the Aptos Village Project, the Pleasure Point development, the area near the Harbor, the Capitola Road & 16th development, the downtown Santa Cruz area and others get developed in a manner that is decided primarily by the DEVELOPERS to maximize their profits, while the local governments get density bonuses from AMBAG and the State.  

The local governments have community input workshops only to be able to “check off the box” that the process was followed and to claim there is community support for the projects.  The local governments often hire expensive consultants and facilitators, such as MIG, to bring in people who are skilled at manipulating comment and neutralizing those who vocally question the real intentions of the process and the real outcomes.

And sadly, it seems the only way the people have a true voice is via expensive appeals and lawsuits.

At last week’s Santa Cruz City Planning Commission meeting about the Corridor Plan, a local group announced the formation of “Save Santa Cruz” to fight back this type of dense, very tall development that seems to be steamrolling pervasively throughout this County (and beyond).  Good work!  It will be helpful that the effort is being initiated by two lawyers, Gary Patton and Jerry Christensen.   It will be a worthwhile fight for anyone interested in preserving the quality of life in Santa Cruz County.

RANCHO DEL MAR CENTER WORK TO BEGIN…THE REDWOOD TREE WILL LIVE ON
Many thanks to those of you who contacted Bruce Walton and TRC Retail developers about the plan to remove all existing vegetation at the Rancho del Mar Center in Aptos.  Mr. Walton stated that, pending an arborist evaluation, the large redwood tree near Ace Hardware will remain.  Other trees will be removed “because they are diseased and require too much water,” he said.  I was happy to hear there will be some areas of pavement replaced by pervious surface that will allow some groundwater recharge, and bio-swales will be included wherever possible.  I encouraged Mr. Walton to contact the Resource Conservation District and County Environmental Health Department about getting grant money for groundwater recharge projects in the area.  The State is giving away lots of money for these types of projects and we should not allow it all to go to Southern California interests. Let’s hope this project goes well for the Community…..keep asking for the theater/events center to be re-established.   No construction timeline is yet available.

CELEBRATE VILLA DE BRANCIFORTE DAYS ON JULY 22!
Saturday, July 22 will mark the 220th  year anniversary of the Villa de Branciforte establishment.  Citizens are working with the Villa de Branciforte Preservation Society to honor the date with a public celebration at the Branciforte Small Schools Campus, on the corner of Branciforte and Water Street.  A student at the Campus, Ms. Bria Steinbruner, is leading a student landscape project to beautify and highlight the significance of the location, which is currently marked by a plaque set in a stone monument.   

Join us for a Villa de Branciforte Fandango on July 22, 11am-3pm that will feature live music, dancers, food, educational talks and a walking tour of the area.  Plan to enjoy this free family event to learn more about and honor California’s most significant coastal settlement.

MIRACLES DO HAPPEN…..
Last week’s San Jose Mercury News reported (5/24/2017, pg. B1) that in San Mateo, “A years long battle to save the beloved ice rink at Bridgepointe Shopping Center is finally over.  Instead of pursuing plans to replace the facility with retail stores, SPR Holdings LLC, the owner of the shopping center, has signed a lease with San Mateo-based real estate developer Nazareth Enerprises to reopen the rink on Sept. 1.  This is a dream come true not only for us but for thousands of kids and skaters who will be able to skate once again very soon,” said Save the Bridgepointe Rink Citizens Group leader Dina Artzt.” leader of the grass-roots effort.  

“In March, SPI had a change of heart just before the San Mateo City Council was set to consider its latest $8 million offer, which the Planning Commission had already voted to reject.  The firm needed the council’s approval to replace the rink with retail stores.”

“It’s not clear and it really doesn’t matter anymore as to why the developer changed his mind at the last minute, but the fact is we’re going to have a beautiful rink operating for the members of our community in the very near future,” said Artzt, whose son played hockey there. “We can forget the struggles of the past four years and just celebrate instead.”

My personal vision is to see this sort of miracle happen in the Aptos Village Project for the bike jump kids and professional bike community.  Think about it….the Phase II area of the Aptos Village Project being established for world-class bike jumps for all ages, and preserve parking for the hundreds of Nisene Marks State Park runners, walkers and cyclists who daily use the existing dirt parking area along Aptos Creek Road to meet friends and groups going into the Park.  State Parks approves of the idea…there is not really any room inside the Park to accommodate more parking space.  Rebuilding the world-class bike jumps would better satisfy the required active recreational space of the Aptos Village Project than will the vertical hillside that the County has accepted but has absolutely no idea what to do with.

Think about it…do you think it could ever be possible that Barry Swenson Builders could have a change of heart and honor the community wishes and concerns?

CALL the Santa Cruz County District Attorney 454-2400 and demand an investigation into the travesty that the Aptos Village Project developers are showing nothing but disrespect for the significant Native American archaeological site CA-SCR-222 and the people of Aptos.

What does County Supervisor Zach Friend have to say?  When I asked him, he replied “Well, you know that the State has declared that (archaeologic) site as insignificant, don’t you?”  When I fact-checked that statement with Native American observer Ms. Anne Marie Sayers, she wondered where Mr. Friend got his information because CA-SCR-222 is considered significant.  

I wrote Supervisor Friend to ask for his sources….stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath because he rarely responds.  As for the Planning Department,  Historic Resources Commisision staffperson, Ms. Annie Murphy, still has not answered any questions directed to her at the May 12 Aptos Village Project public hearing on the matter.  Are you surprised?  I’m not.

You can research the issues yourself at: http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial?Historic/agendas/2009/20090409/006.pdf

And  http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/Historic/agendas/2009/20090813/006.pdf

You can learn more about Native American Notification Law SB18 at:

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_localandtribalintergovernmentalconsultation.php

And remember, the Historic Resources Preservation Plan for the Aptos Village Project expired on January 19, 2014.  Under Santa Cruz County Code, that means that NONE of the construction activity there is legal.  Think about that for a moment, and decide what you want to do about it.

APTOS VILLAGE WAS A DUST BOWL LAST WEEK.
My neighbor, a compliance officer for a large construction company, stopped by my house last week to show me a video he took of Collier Co. Workers grinding pavement in the Aptos Village road construction area.  There was no dust control…and I could barely see the traffic control worker in the enormous dust cloud issuing forth.  “See that!” my neighbor exclaimed, “OSHA needs to see that because those guys have no dust control measures and are not wearing any masks to protect their lungs!”  Apparently, the silica and contaminants in the dust are quite carcinogenic.   Now, isn’t that lovely?

So when the Collier workers started mechanically sweeping, and ultimately leaf-blowing the dust toward the group of protesters in the area the next day, we wanted Collier to stop and improve their dust control measures.  No luck.  The Collier  foreman told me he did not want to talk with me.  The main contractor (John Madonna Construction) foreman told me to “get out of here” and “go away”, then called the sheriff.  

The Collier foreman told Deputy Solano that “leaf blowers and brooms are a form of dust contol”.  How can that be?  I am glad I video-recorded the dense cloud wafting over the man waiting at the bus stop.  I think OSHA will be interested.

WORK ON VALENCIA ROAD REPAIR BEGAN THIS WEEK.
There still is no temporary bridge being installed over Valencia Creek, as Supervisor Zach Friend told the Valencia Elementary School staff and students, as well as adjacent Folling Green Estates residents, would happen once repair work got started.

My suspicions that the Valencia Road repair is being stalled in order to make life easier for the Barry Swenson Builder crews and the County project to upgrade things on Soquel Drive and Trout Gulch Road were given evidence this week.  While John Madonna Construction was working on demolishing the sidewalk along the Trout Gulch Crossing structures to benefit the Aptos Village Project developers, Barry Swenson Builder crews were tearing up Trout Gulch Road to install the new storm sewer pipeline from the development to Valencia Creek.  All of this work is so much easier without the Valencia Elementary School and local rural through-traffic.

I just think it is interesting that Supervisor Friend has stated that the temporary bridge will not go in until mid-July….just as the Aptos Village road project ends.  Handy, don’t you think?  Remember that the Fish & Wildlife rep. Said she was puzzled as to why no work had begun on Valencia earlier….the project had the okay from her agency a long time ago.  Hmmmm…..

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OKAY EMBATTLED APTOS/LA SELVA FIRE CHIEF JONES TO OVERSEE THE COUNTY BUDGET AND TREASURY.
Second District Supervisor Zach Friend said he felt okay approving Chief Jones to continue as an alternate representing Special Districts as part of the County Budget and Treasury Oversight Commission because, as alternate, Chief Jones cannot vote.  I had once again asked the Board to NOT APPROVE Chief Jones’ appointment to this important Commission.  We all know, after all, that knowledge about the internal financial workings of the great concrete monolith is probably good insider information.

Ms. Driscoll, the County Auditor, Controller and Tax Collector, insisted that she had sent out a letter to all Special Districts to ask for nominees and that no one responded.  I asked what the definition of a Special District might be?  When did her letter go out?  How many Special Districts are there? She did not answer any of my questions.  The Board followed Supervisor Friend’s direction and approved Chief Jones even though I pointed out that the Local 3535 and Chief’s Association unanimously voted “NO CONFIDENCE” regarding Chief Jones and hopefully, he will resign soon.  

I looked into what constitutes a Special District within the County.  I was surprised that all of the County Service Areas (CSA) are considered a Special District.  That means any resident of Santa Cruz County could serve in the capacity that Chief Jones’ appointment covers, because several CSA’s cover countywide areas for septic tank inspections, freeway lighting, road repair, and fire protection.   I wonder to whom Ms. Driscoll addressed her letter for those Special Districts?  Hmmmm……..

PUBLIC HEARING FOR CSA 48 FOR FUNDING COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Board of Supervisors approved a June 6 Public Hearing for discussing the CSA 48 funding for next fiscal year.  I asked for a full accounting of Proposition 172 Public Safety Funding that the County gets every year from a 1/2 cent statewide sales tax.  Currently, the Board agrees with County Administrative Officer (CAO) Ms. Susan Mauriello that County Fire should get none of this $17 million pot.  Instead, 99.5% goes to law enforcement, with the County Fire Chiefs Association getting the 0.5% crumb.

This needs to change… and here is why.  County Fire Department’s well-trained volunteers cover the County’s emergency response to the unincorporated areas well.  What’s more, when CalFire engines and staff all leave the County to fight fires in other areas of California (and beyond), County Fire Department is the main emergency response agency.  

So, why won’t  the Board of Supervisors take responsible leadership action and divide the $17 million Proposition 172 money more equitably, as other county jurisdictions do?  Why has the County Board of Supervisors starved County Fire Department of funding such that now, the reserve balance in the Dept. Budget is ZERO???

Because Old Soquel/San Jose Road is closed due to storm damage, the CalFire Soquel station is unable to respond to any emergency in the Summit area.  This places the burden on County Fire Department’s Loma Prieta Station.  Don’t you think that needs our financial support?  I sure do.  Contact your Supervisor and demand that County Fire Department receive 50% of the Proposition 172 money.  Attend the public hearing on June 6 if you can, or write a letter.

• Greg Caput greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us
• Ryan Coonerty ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us
• Zach Friend zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us
• John Leopold john.leopold@santacruzcounty.us
• Bruce McPherson bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT’S DRAFT BUDGET IS REVEALING.

It was sort of an accident that I attended the Soquel Creek Water District Draft Budget meeting last week, but I’m glad I did because the information very interesting.  

I learned that, even though the District’s Board insists that they have made no decisions regarding whether the proposed PureWater Soquel Project to pump treated sewage water into the area’s drinking water supply, the 2017-18 budget adds in staff and supplies to support the Project.  This will increase the overall base operating expenses by 30.46% over last year.

I learned that the District borrowed the full amount of the Quail Run Tank Project construction funds in 2013, thinking that the Project would get done quickly, but the tank is still not constructed.   The Board lamented that community opposition to projects often sets them back.  Director Lather recommended the District consider making use of the State Revolving Fund Loans that would allow borrowing for major projects but extracting lump sums as the project progresses.  This would save a great amount of money in debt service, which is $2,488,800 in the proposed budget.  Good idea, huh?

I learned that the District expects the Water Demand Offset program to remain in place for another 5-10 years.  The District installed the program in 2003 as a short-term solution to the critical overdraft problem.  The problem is worse now, in spite of the offsets that developers are supposed to do to conserve water to off-set the demand that their new development will cause.   Sometimes, the developers just pay a lot of money to accomplish that (but you can’t drink money, can you?).

***I learned that Soquel Creek Water District’s 2017-18 Budget includes $600,000 from Barry Swenson Builder for the Aptos Village Project Water Capacity Fees (I wonder what that means?).

***I also learned that the District’s water rates are second-highest in the State for similar-sized agencies.  (Santa Cruz City is third.)  THE PROPOSED PUREWATER SOQUEL PROJECT WILL NECESSITATE A 10%-15% RATE INCREASE.

If you are a Soquel Creek Water District customer, you might want to attend the June 6 Board meeting to register your comments when the Board is set to adopt the Final 2017-18 Budget.  If I were you, I would be concerned.

Given all this, the Board agreed to seek applicants for a Federal Legislative Assistance and Support Staff Person.  The Board is considering adding this position to lobby for federal grant awards, and paying someone $4,000/month to do that.  Wow.

The Board also approved the Water Demand Offset Program option that would allow large developers to devise their own water-saving projects in order to push through their project proposals faster.  Currently, the new Water Demand Offset program only allows for a total of 4 Acre feet of new demand/year, with a maximum of .5Acrefeet allowed per applicant.  That means that if there is a large development, it may take a few years to satisfy the total offset requirement.  The Aptos Village Project, for example, will require 38.2 Acrefeet/year.

Well, the Board made that easier on big developers, like Barry Swenson Builder.  Now, they can just make up their own offset project, in addition to paying lots of money, and scoot on through the bothersome process that everybody else has to go through.  The Board even REDUCED the required deposit fee to review the proposal from $1,000 to $600.   

There will be no requirement for applicants to have their proposal prepared by or signed by a professional engineer or certified landscape architect unless District staff deems it necessary.  Wow.

This all worries me, especially when staff has publicly stated that verification of Water Demand Offset projects has been a problem in the past.  

Why not do the responsible thing and declare a moratorium on new connections until a secondary supply is in place?  The Water Demand Offset program is bogus, in my opinion.  The overdraft problem continues to mount, with seawater moving inland within the groundwater aquifer and threatening the stability of fresh potable water for the region.  The Board was close to declaring a moratorium in 2014, but a large new development at Twin Lakes Church shouted it down.  Too bad.  Instead, Soquel Creek Water District…and Santa Cruz County…continue to bend over backwards for developers, when there is not enough fresh water to supply the increased demand.

There is a real disconnect between this reality and the impending land use changes locally.  Write your Supervisor or Councilmember.  The salt water clock is ticking away…..

WATCH FOR THE HELICOPTER AND MAGNETIC LOOP FLYING NEAR THE BEACHES THIS WEEK.
In an effort to find out where the fresh water/salt water interface is within the aquifer areas beneath the Monterey Bay, the Mid County Groundwater Agency is paying $100,000 for a company from Denmark to do a study.  The helicopter that we may see soon flying at low altitude near the beaches will begin in Marina and move along the coastline to the Santa Cruz harbor.  The crews and equipment will stage at Seascape Park, Aptos.  

The idea works on electrical resistivity, and the study will hopefully generate a snapshot map of areas where salt water  intrusion inland is most imminent.  

I appreciate the volunteers from the Sierra Club that will be monitoring the study for effects on bird populations and sea life.

EENEY, MEENEY, MINEY, MOE….
The Mid County Groundwater Agency Board met last week to approve the application process for deciding who will be on the Plan Committee to design a sustainability plan for the Purissima Aquifer users that will reverse the overdraft problem and heal the aquifer by 2040.  I found the discussion and subcommittee proposal very confusing.  The application is vague, but the Board obviously has clear ideas amongst themselves as to qualities they will be looking for in those who apply.  Does that seem transparent to you?  I don’t think so.

The Board discussed the merits of approaching various organizations to submit a nominee from their group.  The criteria for selection was not discussed.  The process of selection and interview was not discussed.

Board Chairman Mr. Bruce Jaffe, who represents Soquel Creek Water District, had to be reminded several times to include public comment throughout the meeting.  When I asked to speak about the application for the Plan Committee, he agreed, after a motion had already been quickly made to adopt the application proposal. I asked that the Board create a job description for the Plan Committee applicants, and clearly state what the criteria for selection would be.  I urged this in the spirit of fairness and clarity to all applicants.

“Uh-huh,” said Chairman Jaffee when I finished, and without a breath, asked for a vote on the proposed application.  The approval was unanimous, and without any discussion of the issues that I raised.

Gee…the Board wonders how they can design outreach efforts to get more people to attend their meetings?   I suggest they respect the comments and opinions of those who attend.   As things run now, there is little respect and no consideration for the public’s opinions as the Board creates policy that will affect who gets how much water, and how high the taxes will be on that water. Look for your chance to be on the Plan Committee hopefully any day now:  www.MidCountyGroundwater.org

WHAT’S THE PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL MAR CENTER?
Stay tuned next week, when a current game of phone tag will probably produce some answers.  I really hope the redwood tree by Ace Hardware can be saved. Bruce Walton BWalton@trcretail.com  858-442-9960

SPEAKING OF SAVING A VENERABLE TREE…
Remember when there were THREE large Cypress trees lining Soquel Drive in Aptos, across from Rancho del Mar Center?  And remember when the Aptos Rancho Road, also across from Rancho del Mar Center, was lined by large Monterey Pine trees?  And remember when there was a meadow and apple orchard across from Rancho del Mar Center?  I do…but I have lived in Aptos for 32 years.  Now, all that remains of those majestic trees is ONE Cypress tree.  A couple of weeks ago, I saw a survey marker against it’s trunk…  Oh, oh.  Does anyone know about a Heritage Tree Ordinance in our County and cities?  Let me know if you do.   I’ll be researching the matter for next week.

Commissioner Carolyn Swift admitted that she knew all along about the significant pre-history site but seemed at the hearing to just begin caring.  When multiple citizens asked for Native American observers to be added as a mitigation to the Historic Preservation Plan for the Project, she refused.   Indeed, the Commissioners would  not take any action to protect the artifacts of this significant Ohlone site.  

What about the Chinese cultural and historic deposits that are also in the area?  That does not even enter into their discussion.  That amazes me, since the historic Lam-Mattison Apple Dryer and Vinegar Works was there, along with a small Chinese settlement.  Mr. Lam was the grandfather of Santa Cruz businessman and benefactor Mr. George Ow.  None of the interpretive panels within the Project will apparently  feature information about this aspect of Aptos Village history.

Something is really wrong here.

JOIN THE CITIZEN PROTEST AT TROUT GULCH ROAD AND SOQUEL DRIVE THIS WEEK…every morning 7:00am-9:30am.  A group of Aptos citizens will be appealing the Historic Resources Commission decisions.  Stay tuned.

“CAN WE JUST REMAIN SILENT ON THIS?”
Those were the words in an e-mail from County Assistant Planning Director Ms. Wanda Williams, to Mr. David Nefouse, County Counsel, regarding the issue I raised via pre-hearing written communication about the Aptos Village Project Historic Preservation Plan being EXPIRED as of January, 2014.  By accident, I was included in that e-mail recipient list.

When I again raised the issue during the public hearing, the Commissioners again looked blankly to Ms. Murphy.  Again, she nervously shuffled papers and said that the Historic Preservation Plan is good for two years and as long as there is activity on the permit applications, everything is okay.  When one Commissioner, at the behest of a member of the audience, asked if there had been activity,  Ms. Murphy said “I do not have that information.”  Wow.

Well, there was no activity on the Project until after Barry Swenson Builder bulldozed the world-famous Post Office Bike Jumps on February 17, 2015…a full year after the Historic Preservation Plan had expired.  The Plan approval is valid for two years and can only be extended by the County Historic Resources Commission during a public meeting.  I have checked all agendas for the Commission since the Plan was modified and approved in January 19, 2012,  and the issue was never on the public agenda.

Santa Cruz County Code 16.42.060, which outlines development procedures for designated historic resources, states “When an Historic Resource Preservation Plan is required by this section, NO FINAL APPOVAL SHALL BE GIVEN to a land division, development permit, building permit, demolition permit, land clearing permit or grading permit for a project affecting an historical structure, object, propery, site or district, UNLESS AN HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION…” (Caps added for emphasis.)

So, that means that since the Historic Resources Preservation Plan expired on January 19, 2014,  NONE, I repeat, NONE of the approvals or permits that the County Planning Department has issued is valid.  What’s more, that means that the Phase I Final Map approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2015 IS NOT VALID.

At last Friday’s CEQA public hearing, I explained all this to the Historic Resources Commissioners at least three times.  They sure were not going to hear it from Ms. Murphy.

When Commissioner Swift asked Planners Ms. Annie Murphy and Ms. Paia Levine why the Commission had not been notified earlier about this and could the Commission make any approvals today?”  Ms. Levine replied “Well, you can just go ahead and approve all this and we can talk about the rest later.”  Well, that certainly is transparent and accountable government working for you, isn’t it?…. Take a moment and think about this.  

I wonder why Mr. Bill Parkin, the attorney from Wittwer & Parkin who represented the citizen group We Are Aptos in a Petition for Writ of Mandate last year, (basically a demand that County government officials follow County laws and requirements of the Aptos Village Project developers), did not point out the above information to Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick?  I tried to do just that in an Ex Parte document, but Mr. Parkin tried to block my action, and Judge Burdick denied my request that he consider my information. Again, something is really wrong here.

Further, not only is the Aptos Village Project Historic Preservation Plan expired, but the Project Subdivision Master Appliction 101027 IS ALSO EXPIRED, as of September 25, 2016.  

Well, the County Historic Resources Commission refused to acknowledge that last Friday’s public hearing was a discretionary approval action and, under CEQA law 15162(c) and 15088.5, that action provided a legal opportunity for new information and/or issues regarding substantial changes in circumstances to trigger a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be done, with possible new mitigations required.  

Those would be New mitigations, such as Native American observers on site at all times of earth disturbance in the CA-SCR-222 archaeological site.  New mitigations, such as a new traffic study conducted to update the 2004 study because that study did not consider any traffic analysis of intersections south (Rio del Mar and Freedom Blvd.) of the development (it did consider State Park Drive and Aptos Rancho Road however). It did not consider the impacts on Trout Gulch Road relative to the County Department of Public Works phasing the local road improvements and dumping most of the Nisene Marks State Park traffic onto Trout Gulch via the new Aptos Village Way connector road.  There are no plans to widen Trout Gulch Road to safely handle this burden.  New mitigations, such as valid civil engineer inspections of the 1928 Aptos Creek Bridge to make sure it will be able to safely handle the increased truck traffic.

Oddly, during the CEQA public hearing last Friday, Planner Ms. Annie Murphy kept advising the Commissioners that they could only address issues restricted to the addition of a skylight, adding a modern commercial steel roll-up door and modern steel employee entrance door, and removing a ramp to expand usable deck seating space.  New Leaf Market pushed this all through because “it is too challenging to adapt a modern use into an historic building.”  Besides, the New Leaf Market architect said at the April 10 public hearing “nobody will notice because the doors will be hidden from public view by a 15′ high retaining wall.”

Through Public Records Act requests, I have copies of communication from 2011 between then-County Supervisor  Ellen Pirie and current Assistant Planning Department Director Ms. Wanda Williams.  Ms. Pirie stated that “The Swenson team has stated that an EIR requirement would break the deal.”  Gee, I wonder what she meant by that?  Hmmmm……..

Sadly, this all means that in order to force the County and the Aptos Village Project developers to follow the law, a group of citizens who truly care about the Aptos community (not just the future tax income to County coffers), will be forced to again take legal action.  But this time, it won’t be Bill Parkin representing us.

NISSAN CAR DEALERSHIP ISSUE REMOVED FROM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA LAST WEDNESDAY (5/10)
The proposal to change the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan to allow a car dealership at Soquel Drive and 41st Avenue instead of mixed-use housing was removed from the County Planning Commission’s agenda last week.  This may have been due in part to the high volume of public communication regarding the issue, but most likely it was due to the developer purchasing the adjacent corner parcel (King’s Paint & Paper) which would offer a different possible traffic circulation scenario…. Stay tuned on this issue…it will be back before you know about it.

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER APPEAL OF APPROVAL FOR A LARGE COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTER ON RURAL PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD
Why would the County Zoning Administrator, Ms. Wanda Williams, think that it is acceptable to approve a large commercial event center for a rural Aptos /Corralitos Pleasant Valley Road area when that use is against current County Code? Why would the Project Planner, Ms. Sheila McDaniel, report the associated traffic volumes at roughly HALF of what the traffic study reported they would be during events?  One does wonder about what is going on at the County government when approvals like this come flying out in the face of County Code.  That is why I filed an appeal.  

The appeal hearing before the County Planning Commission is scheduled for June 14. Stay tuned.

WILL THE REDWOOD TREE BE SAVED?
Stay tuned for an update next week on the Rancho del Mar Center remodel.   Mr. Bruce Walton, TRC Retail representative, mentioned several people had contacted him about the remodel proposal….good work!

APTOS /LA SELVA FIRE CHIEF JON JONES MOVES FORWARD TO GET A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION
I was unable to attend the May 11 Aptos / La Selva Fire District Board meeting, but was told by reputable sources that once again, the public showed up in masses to testify in support of the Firefighter Local 3535 and ask the Board to NOT extend Chief Jones’ contract.

Articles in the local newspapers quoted past co-workers of Chief Jones in his support.   Meanwhile, the fire chiefs within the District unanimously issued a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE regarding Chief Jones.

Is the Board listening to the public and the firefighters?  

Meanwhile, on May 16, the County Board of Supervisors will vote to “Approve the appointment of Chief Jon Jones to continue as the alternate member representing Special Districts on the Treasury Oversight Commission for a term expiring March 31, 2021, as recommended by the Auditor-Controller-Tax Collector.”  (Consent Item #12)

The Board had removed Chief Jones’ name from that job last month when I pointed out the problems occurring within the District and that Local 3535 voted unanimously “NO CONFIDENCE” against Chief Jones.   The Board subsequently approved Supervisor Caput to take the job of alternate member on the Treasury Oversight Commission instead. I wonder what is going on in that great concrete monolith at 701 Ocean Street?

APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THE NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CLOSED LAST MONDAY…..
May 8 was the deadline for applicants interested in the job of CAO for Santa Cruz County government to toss their name in the hat for consideration.  I wonder how many people did that?

I wrote to Peckham and McKenney, the consultants that we are paying $20,000 to conduct the search, to find out.  The firm responded that I must contact Mr. Michael McDougal, Director of County Personnel.  

I wrote him, asking about the number of applicants.  He responded that I must make the request to County Counsel.  Well, I did that…stay tuned for the answer next week.  Do you think anybody wanted the job after they learned that the County Budget is $8.1 million in deficit?Well, the County Board of Supervisors is discussing the CAO appointment process in Closed Session during their May 16 meeting.

COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS TO BEGIN JUNE 19
Also on the May 16 Consent Agenda is Item #15: “Accept the 2017-18 Proposed Budget and appendices as those that constitute the 2017-18 County Proposed Budget, order publication of the required notices, and set June 19, 2017 as the date for public hearings on the 2017-18 Proposed Budget to begin, as recommended by the County Administrative Officer.”

The hefty binder that holds the 2017-18 Proposed County Budget is already available to the public at the Clerk of the Board’s office (5th Floor).  It is a very expensive-looking document, with glossy, full-color graphics and thick cardstock paper.  Maybe some unanticipated revenue appeared to fund that?  Hmmmm…

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO ACCEPT UNANTICIPATED $7.9 MILLION DOLLAR REVENUE.
Also on the May 16 County Board of Supervisor Consent Agenda is Item #48, “Accept unanticipated revenue of $7.9 million to pay emergency contracts for storm damage, approve emergency contract with Joseph J. Albanese for storm related damages on Valencia Road for $3.1 million, and take related actions, as recommended by the Director of Public Works.”  

Well, I am glad the repair finally got started last week to fix the failed culvert under Valencia Road that lead to closing Valencia Elementary School due to unsafe access.  According to Supervisor Zach Friend, there is no plan to get a temporary bridge in place before the end of the school year, even though he earlier told parents of students and residents of adjacent Rolling Green Estates that the temporary bridge would go in as soon as repairs started.

I think the project process has hardly followed an “Emergency” schedule.  Remember the Fish & Game official who stated that the County’s request for approval seemed to take a long time to get submitted to their agency, but was granted right away in early March?  But I suppose that continuing to call the process and “Emergency Repair” allows the County to waive the requirement for putting the project out to bid.   Hmmmm……     It’s too bad the work is being handed to a company from San Jose, and not providing jobs for local people.

Meanwhile, the County’s road construction project to benefit Aptos Village Project developers is moving along without having to deal with the pesky school traffic.   I am glad the Department of Public Works finally moved the traffic obstruction on Soquel Drive in front of Rancho del Mar Center…that was quite a hazard.   John Madonna Construction, the company doing the Aptos Village work, is from San Luis Obispo.  Once again, not employing local people.   Hmmm……

4.  The Staff Report failed to address these commercial development impacts on a public road and seemingly did not require or discuss any Transportation Improvement Assessment (TIA) fees that are required in other commercial development approvals.  The ordinance reads that a commercial developer must pay for all improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of the development.  The County has no money to improve Pleasant Valley Road to handle the traffic caused by this large event center…nor should we pay for such upgrades to serve a development.

5.  The Staff Report did not discuss the cumulative effects of approving the large commercial event center with respect to traffic and noise impacts on the Pleasant Valley rural community, in consideration of two other large wineries in the area (Nicholson Winery and Storrs Winery).  Ms. Williams approved outdoor amplified music to be allowed 4pm-9pm for the large events.  Ms. McDaniel stated that a noise study indicated that no sound would be heard beyond the Lester Winery property line.

If you have ever spent any time in a rural valley, you know that amplified outdoor music would echo throughout Pleasant Valley.  Ms. McDaniel stated that if enough neighbors file complaints with the County Sheriff, the permitted hours of amplified music could be reviewed.  That sets up tension in the neighborhood, doesn’t it?

6.  Ms. McDaniel reported that the development’s driveway will meet all standards for Aptos / La Selva Fire Protection District.  She made an error, however, in that Pleasant Valley is not within the boundaries of that fire agency….County Fire and CalFire respond there from Corralitos.  Has the developer met fire defensible space requirements with respect to areas classed as high fire risk?  What about an evacuation plan for 200 guests should there be a wildland fire in the area?  This critical public safety problem was not discussed in the Staff Report or at the public hearing.
7.  The Staff Report made an error in reporting the commercial development’s water supply.  Ms. McDaniel reported that Central Water District would supply the proposed large event center with water but did not report that the service connection is insufficient to provide the volume of water necessary for a large event center.

What Ms. McDaniel did not report is that the water will come from the private well on the site.  This area is part of the Mid County Groundwater Basin, which is in critical overdraft.  According to State law, all new commercial developments must provide proof that there exists sufficient water supplies to support the development’s sustainable long-term use.  There was no discussion of this problem.

The Planning Department also violated the Ralph M. Brown Act during the April 21 public hearing because not all of the materials viewed by Ms. Williams  and Ms. McDaniel were made available to the public.  The public was only provided with copies of the “Revised Conditions of Approval”  (Exhibit C) for the application, but not Exhibit A, a program statement and revision letter submitted by Swift Consulting Services to County Planning staff.  This document became the key to what Ms. Williams ultimately approved….she essentially gave the developer everything asked for in this document, which was not shared with the public at the hearing.  Mr. Swift’s requests were far and above what even Ms. McDaniels had recommended.

According to Government Codes 54957.5 and 54952(b): “Information given to a majority of the members of the legislative body in connection with an open meeting must be equally available to members of the public.”  Some public meetings have information like this available in a binder at the back of the room, but this was not the case at the Zoning Administrator’s public hearing on this matter.

There were two Pleasant Valley residents who found out about the public hearing and were able to attend the Friday, 9am hearing.  They felt their neighbors were not aware of the hearing.  The County only requires properties within a 300′ radius be notified.  In rural areas, that means very poor notification.

SO, EVEN WITH ALL THESE ERRORS, DID THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, MS. PREVISICH, GRANT A WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF THE $1800 APPEAL FEE?   No.

Is this obstruction of justice through unreasonable fees?  I think so.  Under economic duress, (and the financial assistance of some good friends who also care about preserving the rural quality of life and holding the County accountable), I am filing the appeal.  Ms. Williams told me that she would not even consider the points I raised in a six-page document until I paid the full $1800 appeal fee.   Wow.

By the way, the developer disclosed to Ms. McDaniel during a break in the public hearing that there are already one large and one small event scheduled at the winery event center and will occur before the Commercial Development Permit is in effect.  When Ms. Williams was made aware of this while granting approval, she paused, and said “Well, that’s okay, we’ll just call those ‘Family Parties’.”

Stay tuned.

IS A CAR SALES LOT THE SAME AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
Maybe the Planning Department is thinking people can sleep in their cars at the proposed area near 41st Avenue and Soquel Drive?  The area is designated as dense, three-story mixed-use on the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan, but the Planning Commission will consider the application for a car sales lot proposed there instead.

The public hearing is Wednesday, May 10, 9am, in the 5th Floor Supervisor Chambers (701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz).   Sometimes, these large issues get continued, so check with the Planning Commission website. (www.sccoplanning.com and look at the agendas link)  Contact Planner Nathan McBeth 454-3118.

WHAT DOES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DO WITH PUBLIC COMMENT?
I have often wondered what the County Planning Department did with the comments recorded at the Aptos Village Plan community meetings years ago.  The current Aptos Village Project certainly does not reflect the nature of the comments at the many meetings I attended.

That concern was voiced by a Live Oak resident who attended the community meeting to discuss what could be done with the acreage at 7th Avenue and Brommer.  The County purchased the land for redevelopment, but now intends to sell it, with a caveat of how the land can be developed.  

Affordable housing would be nice, don’t you think?  Well, somehow the County thinks a hotel would be better.  About 80 people attended the community workshop at Live Oak Elementary School.  The facilitator showed slides of various possible scenarios….some of which the crowd quite vocally rejected.  What about affordable housing, some in the crowd kept asking…but there was no real answer.

Then, as these well-controlled events tend to go, we were divided into ‘work groups’ with a facilitator or two to write down our ideas and concerns.  The room was a buzz of discussion, making it difficult for some to hear.  

I was glad that Mr. John Ricker, the County’s water advisor from Environmental Health, was there to answer questions about the availability of water.  It would have helped discussions on the matter had Mr. Ricker been introduced so that people knew who he was and could find him to ask those critical questions.

At the end, a spokesperson from each group took a microphone and reviewed their group’s notes.  It was interesting to see that groups led by County Planning staff and, in the case of Ms. Diedre Hamilton, former Planning staffer and now a developer consultant, the group wanted a hotel (with bocci ball courts).  Those led by the youthful staff of the consultant tended to bring up uses that support the resident population…and bocci ball.

My group was the last to present.  I thought it was interesting that the consultant facilitator quickly removed the “Concerns” page from the easel and encouraged our representative to speed things up.  Had the concerns been read, they would have included that there is not enough affordable housing, that there might not be adequate environmental review (not EIR), that the public should get to vote on the ultimate plan, that there might be a negative impact on the harbor overflow parking, that traffic will become even worse, that there might not be enough water to support a hotel, that the local people will get ignored.

We were assured all comments will be carefully recorded and considered in formulating a use plan. But after the meeting was adjourned, a number of the participants talked with the consultant facilitator to voice their concern: “Will the energy, ideas and concerns expressed at the meeting really be used to develop the plan for what will be done with the land?”  

Many had the same thought as I did…from past experience, the answer will most likely be “NO”.  But the minutes will declare a vibrant public meeting was held…and the public wanted what the Planning Department said they wanted.  Check off the box.

I think I hear the shredders working overtime at 701 Ocean Street…….

YET ANOTHER WELL-CONTROLLED PUBLIC WORKSHOP.
I attended the May 6 County Parks Strategic Planning Workshop at Aptos Village Park, along with about 50 other residents.  The pattern was repeated…a facilitator told us we would break into groups, but not until we agreed on group etiquette.  I was taken back to grammar school days…

Share the mic, listen well, don’t judge, don’t get on your soapbox, behave, raise your hand and wait to be called on by your facilitator to ask for clarification.  Did we all agree?  I raised my hand.  “I’ll call on you in just a minute.”  Any other points of agreement?  One man suggested everyone turn off their cell phones.  

I raised my hand again.   “I’ll call on you in just a minute,” the facilitator said, then dispersed the group.  What I wanted to ask was that we NOT disperse, because a large group is, in my experience, more dynamic and focused.  

A young man from the County Parks Department came up to ask what I needed.  I presented my thoughts about dividing the group.  He just walked away without discussing anything.  I felt like bleating, but did not, and instead joined my appointed sub-group.  

Each of the four stations was allowed 17 minutes.  The first station was confusing.  We were told to vote on what mattered most to us by placing a colored dot next to the concept.  The concepts were vague.  “Exactly what does preserve and enhance natural resources involve?”  I asked.  The facilitator told me to just vote and we would discuss what things meant after that.  

“But how can I vote if I don’t understand what these things mean?”  I asked.  “Just vote,”  she replied.

I never did get an explanation of anything.  I guess I didn’t raise my hand high enough.  Maybe it was just too noisy to hear anything.  The facilitator rang the bell, and we all had to relocate to a different station.  I felt like I was part of a small herd of livestock.

When the main herd re-convened, the facilitator did a selective re-cap of four or five ‘unique’ ideas she had noted during the sessions, then we were excused.  When I asked when the comments would be made publicly available, one of the facilitators from the County Administrator Office said there was still one more public meeting at another area of the County, but the comments of all four meetings would be ready in two or three weeks.  Wow…not much time to assimilate all those colored dots and post-it notes into a County Park Strategic Plan that will reflect the thoughts and concerns of the public.

Yup, now I’m sure the shredders are working overtime at County government…..

NOT A SHRED OF NATIVE AMERICAN OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSERVATION AT APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT.
The massive amounts of trenching and excavation work happening at the Aptos Village Project has been notable.  What has been missing is a qualified archaeological and Native American observer while all that digging is happening.  

Last year, Soquel Creek Water District did the right thing and paid such observers to stand guard monitoring the digging.  I recently read their report and noted significant historic and pre-historic items were found.  The report stated that the observers were required due to the existence of a significant archaeological site on the southern premises.  

The documentation for the Aptos Village Project makes no mention of this site.  The County’s Negative Declaration does not mention it, nor does it require any Native American observers.  Once again, the County relegates the critical task of determining if there are significant archaeologic deposits found during digging to the excavator operator.  That gives me no confidence that important artifacts will be noted or preserved.

Last Friday, I happened to be watching one of the many excavation crews through the chainlink fence when I saw the digger unearth a round stone object.  When I yelled at the operator to stop, he did, got out, picked up the object, and threw it back down.  

“I’m not an archaeologist, but I think that could be something significant,”  I said.  “Where is your archaeologist?”  The operator said he would go look.  The other workman let me know “they found LOTS of stuff over on the other side yesterday.  LOTS of stuff.”  

The operator did not return.  I went to the other side of the development….more digging….no observers.  I returned to the original spot….digging had continued.  The artifact was tossed up on the side….it looked like a stone mortar.

I left and made a call to a Native American observer.  She said she was supposed to be notified when excavation work began, but did not get a call.  She was concerned about no one being there to watch.

INDEED, WHO IS WATCHING BARRY SWENSON BUILDER AND THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION?
One wonders if the County cares at all about anything other than what the CAO envisions as future income?  

ATTEND THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT APPLE BARN PUBLIC HEARING
This Friday, May 12, 9:30am in the 5th Floor Supervisor Chambers….

Write your thoughts about the environmental problems at this development and demand further environmental review.  Under CEQA process, new information may be presented with a request for further environmental review….please contact me for this information.  

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  MAKE A MONETARY DONATION.
MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE…..BUT DO SOMETHING THIS WEEK.

Cheers,

Well, now that we know the delay for beginning the Valencia Road repair was not due to staff at State Fish & Game (as was stated at a couple of  neighborhood meetings by Supervisor Friend and other County staff), the blame now goes to delaying so that a two-lane  temporary bridge can be installed, rather than a one-lane  temporary bridge.  That extra work will, according to Supervisor Friend, cause the temporary bridge installation to be delayed until early to mid JULY. Coincidentally, that is the same time the County’s $2 million-dollar Phase I road work and Trout Gulch traffic light project will finish up.  Handy, don’t you think?  One cannot deny that having the Valencia Elementary School traffic out of the way makes the road work benefiting Aptos Village Project much easier,  especially when the railroad crossing has to be closed down  for excavation and track replacement.

The Pajaro Valley Unified School District leadership  and Valencia Elementary School families (600+ students) need to press the County Public  Works Department to move on the temporary bridge faster, to allow the students and staff back before the end of the year.  The front page article in last Wednesday’s Santa Cruz Sentinel (4/26) interviewed Valencia Elementary teachers who must arrive daily at their temporary classrooms in Mar Vista  Elementary by 6:30am to set up, and by 2pm, take everything  down because the space is shared with other uses.  The article also stated that routine facility maintenance at Valencia Elementary stopped when the school closed on  January 23. 

A temporary one-lane bridge was installed in three weeks for residents on Nelson Road in Scotts Valley…why is the County dragging its feet on the Valencia temporary bridge? 

Assistant Public Works Director, Mr.  Steve Wiesner assured me that staff is working as quickly as they are able to on this project, but that there are other  projects to work on in the County.  There are 22 civil  engineers on County payroll (according to Transparent  California website), and the Board of Supervisors recently  approved contracting with outside engineers for the next 3-5  years, at a cost of $15-$25 million to the taxpayers.  Mr. Wiesner did not appreciate my reminding him that the Valencia problem is the only road problem that has caused a public school to be closed.  He did not like my explaining that people I know who have installed similar emergency bridges in the military are, like many people in the Aptos community (as well as Fish & Game) wondering why no work is taking place.  He invited anyone with plans to visit him…maybe you know someone, too.

Steve Wiesner Steve.Wiesner@santacruzcounty.us, 831-454-2160 Dept. Of Public Works
Tim Bailey Timothy.Bailey@santacruzcounty.us, 831-454-2160

In the meantime, Supervisor Friend sent a message to Valencia Elementary School families and Rolling Green Estates residents that PG&E and Trout Gulch Water Mutual Company will begin moving utilities this week or  next….three full months after the closure.   Hmmm….

COUNTY ROAD WORK BLOG RARELY UPDATED FOR CITIZEN INFORMATION
Before the County’s roadwork in Aptos Village to benefit the developers began, Supervisor Zach Friend assured the community that their source of current information regarding traffic delays and road construction timelines would all be available on a project website. 

Well, here is the website.

Because I must travel through the construction zone daily, I check the website frequently for updates.  There are none.  The site is merely a documentation of what work has occured in the past, and is rarely updated.  I suppose it really doesn’t matter  because very few people even know the website information  exists.  The two orange construction project information signs that are required to be positioned at each  end of the road construction zone are both located facing  sparsely-traveled Aptos Street, and are difficult to read through the orange plastic netting.   

I have asked more than once that Public  Works staff re-position the signs.  No response. 

Maybe you will have better results:  Traffic Engineer  Jack Sohriakoff Jack.Sohriakoff@santacruzcounty.us

And…

County Supervisor Zach Friend Zach.Friend@santacruzcounty.us (he says he loves to hear from us)

SPEAK OUT AND WRITE FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT AT MAY 12 PUBLIC HEARING. Friday, May 12, 9:30am  5th Floor Board of Supervisors Chambers, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz.

Due to several Brown Act violations, the County Planning Department has scheduled a re-do of the  public hearing for the Aptos Village Project Apple Barn  proposed changes to the Historic Resources Preservation Plan.  This is a discretionary approval by the County Historic Resources Commission, and therefore is a legal time for members of the public to bring forth new information  that warrants the County to require the developers to  conduct further environmental review.  

The case can be made for this demand on several issues.  Contact me for this information:

Becky Steinbruner ki6tkb@yahoo.com or 831-685-2915.

The letters must be submitted before the close of the public hearing on May 12.  Address them to the County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Cruz County Planning Dept., and the County Historic Resources Commission.

C/o Ms. Annie Murphy Annie.Murphy@santacruzcounty.us,
Ms. Wanda Williams Wanda.Williams@santacruzcounty.us, 
Chairman John Leopold John.Leopold@santacruzcounty.us

MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY BOARD WILL MAKE BIG DECISION: WHO WILL CREATE THE WATER PLAN & POLICY?
The MidCounty Groundwater Agency, a joint power required by the State to develop and implement  a sustainable groundwater management plan for the overdrafted aquifers in the area  will meet Thursday, May 18, 7pm at the Simpkins Swim Center.  There will be representatives of Soquel Creek Water District, Central Water District, Santa Cruz County, small water companies and private well owners available at 6pm to discuss related issues and answer your questions.

One of the items on the agenda (I have been told) will be deciding who will be able to participate on the Advisory Committee that will help MidCounty Groundwater Agency Water Planner, Ms. Darcy Pruitt, develop THE PLAN and how it will be implemented. I have been told that members of the general public can and should ask to be on that committee.  The Board will be discussing how to choose just who will be included on that Committee. Private well owners and customers/owners of small water companies in particular need to be involved.  The Board has repeatedly stated that there is no need to make an effort to notify these water users “until we have something to tell them.”  I think it is better, for transparency, to have those parties at the table BEFORE decisions are made, rather than AFTER the decisions have been made.This is critical.  I hope that you will attend the Board meeting Thursday, May 18, 7pm at Simpkins Center.

www.midcountygroundwater.org

SUPPORT THE APTOS/LA SELVA FIREFIGHTERS AT MAY 11 BOARD MEETING
Since last month’s action by Aptos / La Selva Firefighters Local 3535 to vote UNANIMOUS NO CONFIDENCE  against Chief Jon Jones, and a massive show of community support at the April 13 Board meeting, there has been no action from the Board.  Many citizens requested Chief Jones submit his resignation, and that the  Board demand it.

The firefighters have sounded the alarm bell for the public to take action to protect the level of community service that the District is known and trusted to provide.  Chief Jones has taken actions to cut funding and staffing such that critical services such as child car seat programs to educate new parents and fire protection inspections are gone.  The surf rescue program, which saves lives, is under duress due to slashed funding for training.  The busiest fire engine is routinely taken out of service to staff a small medical response unit as part of an agreement with the ambulance company (American Medical Response or AMR) that Chief Jones neglected to re-negotiate and now cannot for another 18 months.  Dedicated seasoned high-level staff resigned early due to poor conditions and disrespect from Chief Jones.

The firefighters need your support.  Attend the May 11 meeting, 7pm at the Aptos/La Selva firestation near Cabrillo College.

‘DO NOT RESIST’ FILM  SCREENING LAST SUNDAY (4/30)  AND DISCUSSION WITH  MR. NORM STAMPER WAS A REAL EYE-OPENER.
Last weekend, the local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Veterans for Peace, and the Resource Center for Non-violence teamed up to host Mr. Norm Stamper, former Seattle Chief of Police, and present the movie “Do Not Resist” documentary about this country’s police militarization.  There was also a panel discussion that included Chief Stamper, Santa Cruz Councilmember Ms. Sandy Brown, journalist/broadcaster John Malkin, and attorney Ms. Samora Marion from the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability.

Chief Stamper resigned from his post in 2000 after his department pepper-sprayed a crowd of 50,000-60,000 non-violent protesters at the World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle. He apologized to the audience Sunday after the documentary “Do Not Resist” ended.   

He explained that at the time he authorized the pepper spray, the importance of clearing the crowded intersection was paramount.  “We did what we thought we had to do,” he said.   It was not until later that he realized the action quickly turned a peaceful protest into a perilous riot. 

The documentary focused on SWAT teams and the “pumped-up” tactics used during raids that often occur in the middle of the night.  It discussed the danger of local law enforcement juridictions accepting the free “surplus” military equipment (BearCats, etc) just because it is offered by Homeland Security.  It showed excerpts of Congressional inquiries bearing the fact that 36% of the “surplus” equipment is actually brand new. It discussed the lack of oversight by the federal government regarding how the equipment is used, even though there is a stipulation that the equipment CANNOT be used to control unruly crowds.

Other information in the documentary  showed a disturbing use of blanket area facial recognition software that allows local law enforcement to identify any and all people in public and to track their movements.  The company Persistent Surveillance Systems CEO stated that there would be mistakes but it didn’t really matter.  Use of racial information to bolster Predatory Policing (PredPol) models is arguably unnecessary, said the CEO, but practiced any way.   A Los Angeles police officer demonstrated the license plate reading and tracking technology already in use in patrol cars.  It disturbed me to see law enforcement’s use of artificially-intelligent observation drones in public places  being tested, with independent AI “decision-making” regarding use of lethal force if a “person of interest” is detected.  These drones can fly over large areas in formation, and can communicate with one another for decision-making.  “When people are in public places, they no longer have privacy rights” stated the officer explaining the technology.

Well, that was enough to tie my stomach in knots, but the movie’s end with a clip of Dave Grossman, the nation’s number one trainer for law enforcement, pumping up the conference crowd by referring to citizens speaking out against police use of lethal force as “slimey little things that must be squashed and crushed back into their holes and kept out of sight”  threw me and half the theater audience over the edge.  In the film, Mr. Grossman’s students stood and applauded.

Mr. Stamper’s ensuing discussion was rich.  He advocates for citizens to demand change of the broken system that seems to have forgotten the motto “Protect and Serve”.  He points out that it is unconstitutional for American military troops to use force against citizens on American soil, so the Department of Homeland Security offers free military equipment to local law enforcement jurisdictions and calls upon their SWAT  to conduct initial drug raids and crowd control.  The federal agents then move in for further action.  Over 40% of America’s SWAT are freshly from active military duty.

“80% of the SWAT raids in this country are against nonviolent drug offenders,”  he said.  The film showed a SWAT team nearly raiding the wrong address, and then being angry because they could not find the weed listed in the warrant.

Mr. Stamper stated that there are …

THREE THINGS CITIZENS MUST DO TO CHANGE THE BROKEN SYSTEM:

1. Demand an end to the “Drug War“.  When President Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971, it was really declaring a War on citizens.  The U.S. government has spent $1.5 trillion in prosecution of mostly low-level drug offenses (chiefly cannabis).  Mr. Stamper insists that this money would be better spent on treatments for addiction and mental illnesses.
2. Set and enforce NATIONAL STANDARDS for law enforcement procedural standards regarding use of force, requiring self discipline to refrain from weapons use at all.  The National Standards will be used in conjunction with local jurisdictional additional restrictions crafted by grassroots efforts.
3. Put the Community back in a people’s police force, create a definition of community policing with the use of census tracks, election models, and include a citizen panel for making hiring policies, crisis management policies and civil demonstration policies.  Create a partnership between the public and law enforcement that gives meaning to transparency and rebuilds trust.

Mr. Stamper encouraged the audience to become familiar with local law enforcement personnel by volunteering for ride-alongs.  He said that law enforcement leaders need to begin each shift with the words “Nobody is going to die today” and actively work to change the police mentality that “I never back away from a fight” and “I always win”.  David Grossman, the country’s #1 law enforcement trainer said however, “You are men and women of violence, and you will win  by using superior violence.”   

Before he returns to the peaceful San Juan Islands, Mr. Stamper will meet with Chiefs of Police and the County Sheriff to advocate for re-instatement of citizen police review commissions in the local law enforcement jurisdictions.    What will you do?

“Sheriff Jim Hart” Jim.Hart@santacruzcounty.us
Kevin Vogel – Santa Cruz Chief of Police  Contact: (831) 420-5810
Steve Walpole, Jr. – Scotts Valley Chief of Police Contact: (831) 440-5670
Terry McManus – Capitola Chief of Police  Contact: (831) 475-4242 policechief@ci.capitola.ca.us
David Honda – Watsonville Chief of  Police  Contact:  (831) 471-1151

Here are the violations committed that must be cured and corrected with a re-hearing:

1. Improper notification: the agenda for the public hearing was not made available at least 72 hours in advance of the hearing.

2. The agenda, once made available to the public, did not include any of the information in the attachments referenced in the agenda.  The public was therefore given no information regarding the specifics of the proposed amendment changes.  Members of the public unable to attend the 9:30am Monday public hearing could not have responded in writing to issues reviewed by the Commission due to improper notification procedures.

3. The agenda, when first made available to the public, had the incorrect time for the public hearing, listing it as occurring at 9:30pm.  This was corrected when an observant member of the public questioned Planning staff member, Ms. Murphy, 24 hours before the public hearing.  Members of the public who viewed the agenda before it was corrected were improperly notified and improperly informed.

4. The agenda was very vague and was not written in such a way as to pique the public’s interest to further investigate critical issues not available in the agenda.  For example, the agenda stated the proposed amendment reduced the number of doors.  In reality, the two doors remaining are proposed to be a modern industrial steel roll-up door and a steel door for employee entrance.  This diverges greatly from the historic preservation of the character of the structure, which is eligible for the National Historic Registry.

5. Members of the public attending the public hearing were given incomplete packets of information, devoid of many Exhibits purported to be in the agenda packets of Commissioners.

6. There was an insufficient number of complete information packets available for all members of the audience at the public hearing.  Because no advance information was available, even the members of the public who attended the public hearing were not properly or fully informed of all of the critical issues being considered.

7. There was insufficient room for all attendees to be comfortably seated.  Even though Ms. Murphy was notified in advance that a sizeable number of people were planning to attend and that she needed to consider a larger room for the public hearing, attendees were crowded into the small Planning Department Conference Room.  The chairs were uncomfortably close together, making access difficult, and some members of the public were forced to stand the entire duration of the hearing.

8. The County Historic Resources Commission website was not updated with any current information before the public hearing.

9. During the public hearing, it became clear that three of the five Commissioners had privately toured the Hihn Apple Barn and the Aptos Village Project with Barry Swenson Builder foreman Mr. Keith Henderson at some point before the public hearing.  This constitutes a serial meeting and as such violated the Ralph M. Brown Act.

REQUEST NOW THAT COUNTY PLANNER MS. ANNIE MURPHY NOTIFY YOU OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL ASSOCIATED INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED:

Annie Murphy Annie.Murphy@santacruzcounty.us  or phone 831-454-3111.

Mark your calendar for Friday, May 12 at 9:30am for the second public hearing to consider these vendor-driven changes to the Historic Preservation Plan for the Hihn Apple Barn.  Remember, the New Leaf Market architect said at the last hearing that adding modern changes to this 125-year old historic treasure of the Project “won’t really matter because no one will be able to see them due to the 15-foot high retaining wall nearby.” 

Is that the attitude our community wants to support when we were promised the historic character of the Barn would be preserved?

THIS HEARING IS ALSO THE LEGAL TIME TO PRESENT NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT’S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.   
I wonder why work on the foundation for the three-story building next to the Apple Barn has stalled after it was pointed out to Assistant Planning Director Ms. Wanda Williams and Chief Building Official Mr. Martin Heaney that there was no permit issued for the work?  Hmmmm…..

Maybe someone took a closer look at the second soil report that stated liquefaction risk was low, when the first report stated liquefaction risk was high?  Hmmm…….

COUNTY ROAD WORK BENEFITING THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT SLOWED THIS WEEK
For unknown reasons, the bulk of the construction equipment brought in by John Madonna Construction of San Luis Obispo has been idle on the railroad tracks at Trout Gulch Road and Soquel Drive this past week.  Maybe it was the rain?  Maybe it was the lack of archaeological observers on site during previous excavation work (and a significant historic artifact was discovered)? 

Maybe it was the potentially-contaminated soils under the 200′ of railroad track bed to be excavated 31″ deep that must be sampled, tested and remediated?  That will be especially important now that the disturbed soils from Pete Testorff’s and Joe Appenrodt’s parcels (known to have high lead and arsenic levels, and possibly petroleum compounds) have discharged stormwater runoff that collected at the railroad tracks.  An independent analysis of the sediment-laden stormwater is forthcoming.

There are many potential soil contamination problems at the Aptos Village Project.  But what else would one expect, given the extensive historic railroad and lumber yard use, along with the apple dryers, which often contribute to elevated arsenic levels in soils?

THE GOOD NEWS IS THE VALENCIA ROAD REPAIR WILL BEGIN IN TWO WEEKS
It was interesting to discover last week that officials from State Fish and Wildlife have also been puzzled why no work has occurred on the Valencia Road repair.  “We assumed that the Valencia Road site would receive a temporary bridge to resume service, as was done on Nelson Road in Scotts Valley.” the official wrote.  That official thanked the members of the public who sent information that Valencia Elementary School has been closed due to unsafe access and await the Valencia Road repair.  That person contacted the County Department of Public Works, and reported back that the County representative, Mr. Tim Bailey, stated the work will begin in two weeks.

Contact Mr. Tim Bailey or phone 831-454-2160 and ask when the work will begin. 

The 600+ students at Valencia Elementary School will thank you and so will the 130 households in adjacent Rolling Green Estates. I wonder why the work was stalled?  Do you think it was to make the road construction project at Trout Gulch Road and Soquel Drive easier without the school traffic?  I do.

WHY IS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PARKS SPENDING $35,000 TO PAVE APTOS VILLAGE PARK ROAD?
I wondered that when I read over last weeks’ County Board of Supervisor Consent Agenda.  The binder of information available for the public in the County Clerk of the Board’s window did not have the plans included in the documentation.  There was no notation that the plans were available at any other source or that they were missing from the binder. 

The documentation stated that all information would be available in the County General Services Dept. at 701 Ocean Street (that’s room 330).  I went there Tuesday morning and asked to see the information.  I was told it was not available to the public until after it was approved by the Board.  Transparent government? For that reason, I asked the Board to remove the item from the Consent Agenda and place it on the regular agenda.  That means I had to wait until the very end of the meeting. 

I was informed by the Board that there are public computers available at  Clerk of the Board’s office.  I did not know that because there are no notices posted at the two computers in the lobby, which were placed there last fall for the Cannabis licensing program.

Well, I had a commitment to honor that required me to leave the County Building for over an hour.  I returned to find the Board meeting seemingly near the end of the item preceding the Aptos Village Park Road work issue.  I dashed to the public computer to look at the plans.  One computer was only for Cannabis licensing and the other was not operational.

The kind lady at the office got the second computer to work, but the plans were very large and took a long time to become available.  I dashed back to the Board meeting…it seemed like the hearing about spending $1million for serial inebriates was closing…I dashed back to the computer to see a plan for the parking lot work that County Parks staff had drawn for the bid work but there were no less than THREE large volumes describing the actual scope of the work going out to bid.  Frantic,  I dashed back to the Board  meeting.  Again, it seemed close to the end, so I sat to listen. 

My item for discussion came up.  I explained that I had great difficulty accessing the information but saw that the Aptos Village Park parking lot was to be repaved and work done at the entrance adjacent to Aptos Creek Road. 

Why do this work now when the County’s Phase II of the road construction work on Aptos Creek Road is forthcoming, and would most likely damage the Park’s road entrance?  Why do this work at all when the Park road is in better shape than most of the County roads?  Why not slurry seal the parking lot, rather than use expensive paving?  LEO’s Haven, the All-Inclusive Park for kids with mobility challenges could really use that $35,000 instead.

Chairman John Leopold did not ask any County staff to address my questions. “I am surprised, Ms. Steinbruner, that you would ask that Parks spend money for engineered plans for this project.”  I did not say I wanted that, but rather that I had become interested because the paving project drawings had not been drawn by engineers.  I live on a privately-maintained road and as such, know that the County will not accept from my neighborhood any drawings for paving projects unless they are from a licensed engineer. 

“Your opinion about the Aptos Village Project is widely known, Ms. Steinbruner.”  and Leopold looked to Second District Supervisor Zach Friend.  “The answers to your questions are all available in the material, if you would have only taken the time to read it.”  he said.  At that, the Board voted unanimously to approve spending $35,000 on the road into Aptos Village Park that is in excellent condition. Well, well, well.  I just have to wonder if there is more to this project than meets the public eye?  Stay tuned…..

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST DOW AND SHELL CHEMICAL CORPORATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
Kudos to Ms. Melissa Dennis for her excellent Op-Ed piece in the Santa Cruz Sentinel (Sunday, April 23, page C9).  Ms. Dennis clearly described the problem with the 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) contamination in one of the production wells currently serving water to Soquel Creek Water District’s customers in the Seascape/Aptos areas.

TCP is a carcinogen that was an unnecessary byproduct of an old formula for the fumigant Telone.  Dow removed TCP from the fumigant 30 years ago, after knowingly contaminating water supplies of millions of Californians but not publicly disclosing the hazard.

According to Ms. Dennis’ article, “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) says five parts TCP per trillion is too much. The levels in the Balustrol Drive well have been as high as 15 parts per trillion, despite the fact that TCP hasn’t been applied in over 30 years.”

At last Tuesday’s Soquel Creek Water District Board meeting, Item 5.4 discussed System Water Production Reports.  The issue of TCP at the Country Club Well is outlined on page 263:  “Country Club Well was drilled in 1953.  Chromium 6 is present at an average of 6.8micrograms/liter (the MCL, or Maximum Contaminant Level, is 10 micrograms/liter).  Country Club water also contains 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) at concentrations EXCEEDING (bold type added for emphasis) the draft MCL of 5 nanograms per liter (ng.L).  TCP levels at Country Club range from less than 5 ng/L to 15ng/L.  The MCL is expected to be finalized later this year.”  

“In addition to commissioning a feasibility study for treatment options and costs, District staff is also investigating the feasibility of temporarily reducing or stopping the use of the Country {Club} Well pending installation of treatment in order to minimize exposure to TCP.”

****When I asked the Board if they would take the well off-line NOW, the answer was NO, because the State has not yet officially set the maximum contaminant level that would require that action.****

So, those who drink Soquel Creek Water District’s water in the Seascape/Aptos area are getting a daily dose of TCP carcinogen, as it is blended with the water from other wells.  Does that bother you?  I am not one of those customers, but it bothers me that the Board does not see value in immediately removing a known carcinogen from the water they sell.  

Soquel Creek Water District has been required to report the TCP levels to the County Board of Supervisors, but no one has taken any action to ask that the contaminated well be taken off-line as a public health precaution.  Supervisor Zach Friend recently told a citizen that he buys bottled water for his toddler to drink, due to concerns about possible contaminants in Soquel Creek Water District supplies.  Hmmm…

CALL the District 475-8500 or WRITE the Board and ask why the Country Club Well continues to remain in production when TCP levels are a potential health hazard (enough that the District is suing Dow and Shell Corporations for the problem)?

Tom LaHue toml@soquelcreekwater.org (current President)
Bruce Daniels bruced@soquelcreekwater.org  (Vice-President)
Carla Christensen carlac@soquelcreekwater.org
Bruce Jaffe brucej@soquelcreekwater.org
Rachel Lather rachell@soquelcreekwater.org
Ron Duncan rond@soquelcreekwater.org (General Manager)

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT APPROVED A SPECIAL RATE FOR TWIN LAKES BAPTIST CHURCH FUTURE ADDITIONS
The Twin Lakes Baptist Church wants to add a 330-person-capacity wedding chapel, a new coffee house, and a new outreach center to their campus.  The organization requested a MUCH-REDUCED water demand offset figure than the District would normally consider.  However, because of the good record keeping the Church could provide regarding current water use, the Board agreed to approve the reduction.  It seems the water demand offset rules can always be bent to suit certain interests.  I wonder if this Board action will set a precedent for other applicants to now make claims for reductions?   

Remember, this is the same group that in 2014 filled the Board meeting beyond capacity at Seascape Resort to protest when some Board members were recommending a moratorium due to the critical groundwater overdraft and sea water intrusion problem.  Back then, the Church wanted to expand their school campus and needed the water service approval to get building permits.

The Board instead voted to declare a Groundwater Emergency, and granted the service agreement.  They also went on to grant the approval for the Aptos Village Project, which will use 38+ AcreFeet of water every year…..that’s a lot.

Keep in mind the District now only allows a total of about 4AcreFeet/year new water use, because the seawater intrusion problem continues to cause irreversible damage to the region’s water supply.

MEANWHILE, THE NEW O’NEILL RANCH WELL IS STILL OFFLINE due to unexplained increasingly high levels of ammonia in the water.  The new Granite Way Well, constructed next to the Aptos Village Project, is a relatively low-producer due to the deep non-water-bearing clay layers.  Engineer Mr. Taj Dufour stated that the well is still due to come online this summer,…even though no work seems to be happening to develop the well. 
I wonder if there were any of those Barry Swenson Builder illegal diesel tank contaminants found in the water tests?  Hmmm……

WONDERING WHAT SANTA CRUZ CITY WATER THINKS ABOUT COOPERATIVE TREATED SEWAGE WATER PROJECTS?
Ms. Rosemary Menard will speak about this at the next Soquel Creek Water District meeting on May 2, at the Capitola City Council Chambers, 6pm.

WONDERING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE DEEP WATER DESAL PLANT IN MOSS LANDING?
Representatives of that group will give a presentation at the May 16 Soquel Creek Water District meeting, same place, same time.  Former District General Manager Ms. Kim Adamson now shepherds the massive Project.

WANT TO TOUR SANTA CRUZ CITY’S NEW BELTZ WELL & TREATMENT PLANT?
Sign up for the May 1 tour (11am) by calling 420-5213.

LACK OF TRANSPARENT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTER ON RURAL PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.
A Pleasant Valley resident who found out at the last minute about a public hearing to consider approval for a large event center in his neighborhood told me many other neighbors with concerns just did not know about the hearing last Friday.  Maybe that’s because the County is only required to notify residents up to 300′ from the project…maybe the cows in the pasture next door got the notice?  

The Zoning Administrator, Ms. Wanda Williams, had not visited the site to see how narrow Pleasant Valley Road is before she approved more events to be held than what Planner Ms. Sheila McDaniels recommended, due to neighborhood comments.  The applicant’s traffic study (Hamilton & Swift is the lead on this) indicated there would be no impact on the traffic caused by 10 large events (200 guests) and 16 small events (50 guests) every year, in addition to the regular weekend wine tasting events.

What amazed me was that Ms. Williams was prepared to approve the zoning change to Commercial use in this rural residential and agricultural community, but was not exactly sure how she wanted the conditions of approval declared.  “We’ll just have to tweak it and put up on the website what we decide to approve,”  she said. 

I pointed out that doing so is not transparent government.  She declared a five-minute break, returned, and approved more events than what had been recommended, with the option to request even more large events (200 guests) with amplified music lasting until 9pm within six months, at a level of discretionary approval NOT requiring any public notice at all.  Wow.

I guess it did not matter to Ms. Williams that she approved something that is being considered under the Planning Department’s Environmental Review policy, but has not been vetted by the public or the Board of Supervisors.  Maybe the Pleasant Valley community who value their quiet rural quality of life will have to pay $1800 to appeal the decision…and hire a lawyer.  Here we go again…..