1. CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION CONSISTING SOLELY OF DISSOLUTIONS, DISINCORPORATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF A SUBSIDIARY DISTRICT, CONSOLIDATION OR MERGER 

 For changes of organization consisting solely of dissolutions, disincorporations, establishment of a subsidiary district, consolidation or merger, the protest provisions are set out in Section 57077, which requires the Commission to do one of the following: (a)(1) Order the change of organization subject to confirmation of the voters, or in the case of a landowner-voter district, subject to confirmation by the landowners, unless otherwise stated in the formation provisions of the enabling statute of the district or otherwise authorized pursuant to Section 56854. (2) Order the change of organization without election if it is a change of organization that meets the requirements of Section 56854, 57081, 57102, or 57107; otherwise, the commission shall take the action specified in paragraph (1). 

…Additionally, for mergers or establishment of a subsidiary district only, the Commission is required to order the change subject to an election unless the legislative body of the city and the board of directors of the subject district have consented to the change by resolution. (Gov. Code § 57107.)”

Therefore, I would appreciate a public discussion by LAFCO members on this matter, because it is confusing, and seems that voter confirmation, rather than protest proceeding is possible.  Again, I feel that holding voter confirmation for consolidations is a preferred action because it fosters better public participation and trust in government transparency.

Additionally, I am requesting that the proposed Protest Proceedings revision also include information in Section 2.5(c) defining whether the vote would be a weighted vote and in Section 2.6, to define what is meant by the “value of written protest”.

Finally, I would like clarification on Section 4.1(b) regarding the meaning of “uninhibited district”.

ITEM 6B   LAFCO RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT

1. Response to F23

   The Santa Cruz County Planning Department is working with Dudek Consultants to update the 1994 County General Plan and incorporate a Sustainability Plan.  That CEQA process is currently in the Scoping stage, with an extended public comment period closing September 4.  LAFCO should submit comment requesting thorough Wildfire Risk analysis be included in the EIR.  

   On March 10, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved portions of the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Item 14(i)) but the Public Safety Element did not include any language related to Fire Risk Management.

   The Board of Supervisors recently approved major Santa Cruz County Code updates that were deemed “CEQA Exempt” and followed the 2015 County Planning Department ‘Code Modernization Updates’.  Many of these changes will, in my opinion, increase the fire risks and evacuation problems in the rural areas of the County.  These issues could possibly be mitigated with careful evaluation by a comprehensive public group, such as the  Emergency Management Council, as is recommended by the Grand Jury.  The County Fire Chiefs Association has no taken an active role at all in this matter, but could be a good partner with the Emergency Management Council. 

   The Board of Supervisors also recently approved a new full-time position for Ms. Morgan Bostic, Climate Action Plan Manager.  The County pays Ms. Bostic $60,000 and the City of Santa Cruz pays an additional $60,000 to fund her position.  It seems that including Ms. Bostic in developing a Countywide Fire Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses climate change models for the area is prudent.

   Clearly, as the Grand Jury recommends in R1, LAFCO needs to assist in this matter, especially given the horrible devastation now in Santa Cruz County.  The County has applied for a $125,000 grant to help update and implement such a hazard mitigation plan (Board approved application on January 28, 2020), but unless there is one focused effort to make the actual evaluation and implementation work happen, there will be no progress.  

   I am encouraged that the County Public Works Dept. recently shifted the County’s use of the PG&E surcharge for utility undergrounding funds ($17 million) from aesthetics to fire hazard mitigation along rural County roadways.  I hope that LAFCO can broadly support these types of actions throughout the County and the cities.

2. Response to F26 and F28

   I am glad that the future LAFCO Service and Sphere Review Reports will be more comprehensive than in the past, and will incorporate the recommendations of the 2020 Grand Jury Report into the LAFCO recommendations.

3. Recommendations R13 and R14

Will LAFCO staff be able to meet the June 2021 deadline that the Grand Jury recommends for reviewing all fire districts’ risk reduction plans and achievements?  It should be a priority, and may possibly be eligible for funding by FEMA and State funds, given the Local and State declarations of Emergency.  

Please prioritize this work and investigate funding opportunity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Becky Steinbruner

HOW IS THE AIR QUALITY IN YOUR AREA OF THE COUNTY?
The smoke and ash of last week’s horrible fires made it difficult to breathe.  Here is an interesting source of information a friend sent me to help monitor conditions in the County: Aptos, CA Air Quality & Pollen | Weather Underground  

PAJARO VALLEY AD HOC GROUNDWATER COMMITTEE
Ad Hoc Sustainable Groundwater Committee

PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEVEN-STORY MIXED USE MONOLITHS ON FRONT STREET 
This Thursday, Sept. 3, the Santa Cruz City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to for three monolithic seven-story buildings on Front Street near the Metro Station.  It includes certifying the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Consideration…meaning there will be bad things that happen as a result of the project, but it’s okay because of a couple of things that have been decided to be good. 

Never mind a few heritage trees will be buzzed down, or that the developer claims the tough economic times make it impossible to afford a method of historic preservation they had agreed to do in the EIR. 

Here is the link to the information: View Meeting – OnBase Agenda Online 

Here are my comments:

Dear Planning Commission,

Please consider the following during the public hearing for Item #1, File CP18-0153  for 418, 428, 440, 504, and 508 Front Street.

1. I am concerned that the seven-story building proposed for the Front Street development will cause significant and adverse aesthetic changes to the City’s downtown area.  The Project should not be approved for seven stories.

   “The project is not consistent with the Performance Criteria for Skyline Architectural Variation in the Additional Height Zone B as described below: • Skyline Architectural Variation: To promote skyline variation, the top floor of the building shall not exceed 60 percent of the floor area below or 60 percent of the building length as measured along Front Street or the Riverwalk.”  (page 14 of Staff Summary report)

2. This project would cause a severe and adverse obstacle for bicyclists to access the Riverwalk areas from Maple and Elm Streets because there is no bicycle access provided other than a bike rail that would require cyclists to dismount and would not be feasible for bicycles loaded with shopping cargo.  This effectively creates an obstacle for bicyclists.  This violates the Significant Riverfront Area (SRFA) tenants that the City adopted to encourage active transportation and health.
   • ” SRFA-2: Require new development projects to incorporate pedestrian and/or bicycle connections between Front Street and the Riverwalkat appropriate locations such as the extensions from Maple Street and near Elm Street.” (page 10 of Staff Summary report)

   “…bicycle access shall be provided at the extension of Elm Street, which will serve as the primary bicycle access to the Riverwalk between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street. …

   As noted in the requirement above, the southernmost passageway is intended to provide a future extension of Elm Street and is therefore required to be within 50 feet of the future extension of Elm Street.” (page 18 of Staff Summary report)

   “… however, bike access is provided with a bike rail and alternative public access to the Riverwalk is provided in an adjacent elevator at the interior of the building. If both the bike rail and elevator do not provide feasible access, the Riverwalk is also accessible at the Laurel Street bridge and the Soquel Avenue bridge, which are located at either end of the block.” (page 23 Staff Summary report) 

3. The fill adjacent to the San Lorenzo River Levee has potential to disturb the levee integrity during construction, and cause public safety risk to other local properties.

   “The project includes fill between the building wall and the levee to expand the area at the top of the levee and adjacent to the Riverwalk to create more usable open space overlooking the river. ” (page 10 of Staff Summary report)

   “Additional public improvement requirements include the improvement of the Riverwalk from Soquel Ave. through the project site and would include a new substantial asphalt concrete pathway section, widening of the Riverwalk pathway to 12 feet, a concrete parking pad for the service truck that will maintain the on-site private storm water system, and improved green bike lane striping across the two driveways.” (page 22 of Staff Summary report) 

4. These three expansive structures will disrupt riparian bird habitat with the addition of vast areas of glass and air movement obstacles.

   “The general notions of bird-friendly design indicate that the most common bird-impact areas occur in the first 40 feet of building height where there are large expanses of glass, particularly that reflect trees or other landscaping. Uplighting/spotlighting at landscaped areas are also known features that encourage bird strikes. The building will have frontage on the river and the proposed windows on the east wall could potentially reflect the riparian vegetation or the open space of the river area. Conditions of approval are included that require the use of bird-safe, ultraviolet, and/or patterned glass, or other material or method proven to discourage bird strikes, at the windows and balcony railings on the east wall of the building up to 40 feet in height with the exception of ground floor glass.  

   Fritting, patterns, or other bird-safe designs may not be compatible for the first-floor given that visibility into the building is key to provide pedestrian interest and/or commercial viability. Furthermore, at this location, the first floor is unlikely to reflect open space or riparian vegetation, certainly to a much lesser extent than upper floors. Conditions of approval are also recommended that prohibit the use of uplighting or spotlights in the landscaped areas and adjacent to the Riverwalk. ”

5. The proposed waiver to ignore required 10′  stepback for buildings over 50′ tall and instead have a 77’9″ building with perhaps no step back at all will create an aesthetically massive and imposing tower that is not in compliance with the downtown plan.

   “• Waiver of stepback requirements to reduce required 10-foot stepback above 50 feet on the Riverfront frontage to between 0 and 10 feet. 

   • Waiver of building height standards in Additional Height Zone B to increase maximum building height from 70 feet and 5 stories above ground floor commercial to approximately 77’9″ feet and 6 stories above ground floor commercial

   .” (page 20 of Staff Summary report)

6. There will not be sufficient parking to accommodate 175 residential units, of which 33 are 2-bedroom and would seemingly need to accommodate families, as well as multiple commercial spaces, some of which are restaurants with higher parking-needs than shops or offices.

   “Parking provided: 142 residential, 45 commercial” (page 21 of Staff Summary report)

7. The public improvements listed are not additional or new improvements, but merely replacing the sidewalks and multiple heritage trees the construction would destroy.

   “Public improvements are required as a part of the project to achieve the goals of the Downtown Plan, to meet the requirements in the Municipal Code, and to mitigate the impacts of the project per the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. The project shall provide sidewalks, street trees, and light standards along the parcel frontage.” (page 22 of Staff Summary report)

8. I support the requirement that the applicant must provide free Metro passes to all tenants.  Please require that this language is incorporated into the deed of all units so that it is not lost or forgotten by property owners/managers in the future.

   “• Enter in to a contract agreement with METRO to provide reimbursable transit passes to all residents. For this option, the applicant is required to work with the Santa Cruz METRO to develop a reimbursable pass program. Desired program parameters include distribution of transit passes to all residents of the project, where project will reimburse METRO on a monthly/quarterly basis for all rides used. Final agreement will be between project sponsor and METRO and the city would receive annual reports of total ridership.” (page 22 Staff Summary report)

9. The Project will will not be able to accommodate stormwater retention on-site due to the extremely high water levels adjacent to the San Lorenzo River levee and would promote risk of liquefaction.

   “The project is consistent with several policies listed in the General Plan/Local Coastal Program 1990-2005: 

   • GOAL EQ 2: Protect water quality of ocean, watershed lands, surface waters and ground water recharge areas from sedimentation, pollution, and salt-water intrusion. The project is required to comply with the California Water Board Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements (PCR’s) for the management of runoff and erosion control. The project will utilize a filter treatment unit and a bio-retention basin area to satisfy water quality and runoff treatment requirements.” (page 24 Staff Summary report)
10. The proposed Project is in a flood zone.  Models of the downtown area reflecting sea level rise due to climate change show the Project area is likely to flood.  However, the Staff report states the structures are NOT required to meet FEMA flood construction requirements.  This seems irresponsible.  In 2002, there was little thought to climate change, and no modeling for flooding due to sea level rise.  Please address this issue and require attention to how the basement parking garage would be sealed off in a flood to prevent pollutants from entering the riparian area and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary waters.

     “In 2002, FEMA re-designated much of the downtown and beach area from A-11 to the A-99 Flood Zone designation in recognition of the significant flood improvements resulting from the San Lorenzo River Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project. As reported in the General Plan EIR, the project increased the height of the river levees and rehabilitated the three downtown bridges (over the San Lorenzo River) to increase flood flow capacity. Under the A-99 designation, new buildings and improvements are not mandated to meet FEMA flood construction requirements.” (page 26 Staff Summary report)

11. The proposed Project seems to have significant financial risk that could cause the applicant to cut corners in construction to save money, such as is demonstrated in the half-hearted attempt to address the City’s mandate to respect historic preservation.  The applicant could likely, for example, claim they cannot support special window glass to prevent bird strikes, to offer as many housing units to very low income buyers, or to pay for 23 electric vehicle charging stations.  

    “However, since March 2020, the COVID 19 pandemic has resulted in a very substantial disruption of the economy and financial markets, and this economic disruption and ongoing uncertainty regarding the criteria for and availability of construction financing seem likely to persist for some time into the future.” (page 29 Staff Summary report)

12. There is no discussion of the real risk of liquefaction.  
13. There is no discussion of the loss of carbon sequestration and adverse impacts on urban cooling by removing multiple heritage trees from the site.
14. There is no discussion regarding the increased ambient noise the proposed project would cause.
15. There is no discussion regarding the increase of light pollution the project would cause, or mitigations thereof.

Thank you for considering my concerns.  Please do not approve this proposed seven-story project.  A five or six-story project that would provide easily-usable bicycle access to the Riverwalk, while preserving all heritage trees on site would better-serve the character of the City and all who live and work there, as well as the rich riparian area of the San Lorenzo River habitat.