Q&A Sessions

The consumption of "throw-away" materials is not sustainable. At some point, it will have to stop. In the mean time, a combination of education and fees can change the consumption habits of our community.

One promising idea that has been discussed in Santa Cruz but not yet implemented is a "per pickup" or "by the pound" fee on general waste that goes into the landfill This is relatively easily accomplished with identifying barcodes on refuse carts and weight sensors in the pickup arms.

I myself have reduced the frequency of putting out a garbage container to only once every three or four weeks while I put out the recycling container nearly full every week. If everyone in Santa Cruz was able to accomplish this, our 50% reduction that we have already accomplished would seem small and we could hope to reach a 75% to 80% reduction in landfill waste.

Cities need to watch carefully what other cities are trying. For example, in the Napa-Sonoma area, a most promising recycling program for food waste is providing highly desirable compost for grape vineyards. The rapid growth of newly planted grape vines as a result of the use of this compost is remarkable. Santa Cruz is in the midst of agriculture areas that could use compost products such as this. You could say we are ripe for such a program here.

There are numerous materials that we do not currently recycle. Space does not permit enumerating them all in this questionnaire. However, the opportunities for additional recycling are equally numerous. If we educate our community to expect to reduce use of non-recyclable materials, to reuse materials whenever possible, to give away or sell items we no longer need, and to recycle everything else, the landfill problem could can be solved and we will be a far smarter society as a result.

It’s certainly a landmark in Santa Cruz that a full LEEDS scoring matrix has been prepared for the proposed project. This may be the first of its kind in this City. However, instead of the proposed "LEEDS equivalent" project that is proposed, it should be LEEDS certified at a minimum.

While I am not an expert in green building techniques, I know that there are numerous possibilities for this project. To begin, in demolition, much of the material can be recycled. Fixtures and wiring can first be removed and taken to recycled construction centers. Similarly, windows and wood can be removed before demolition. The old building materials such as concrete can be processed on the site and used in the new construction.

The architectural planning of the new building offers numerous opportunities for green materials and design. In general we want all new buildings to be energy conserving buildings. This requires that energy-efficient materials should be used. Coated glass can be used to retain light while blocking excess heat. Photovoltaic cells in the building’s skin and on the roof can generate electricity from sunlight. Motion Sensors can control hallway lighting and, in rooms, both lighting and heating. Digital thermostats will allow only the heating that is needed. A water recycling system should collect wastewater, treat it, and returns it to the buildings toilets, cooling system, and/or to an outdoor irrigation system.

There are dozens of other opportunities to employ green building techniques in this and other building projects. Santa Cruz is on the verge of having legislation to require such standards and practices. As a result, new buildings will be sustainable buildings.

I'm proud to say that I played a leading role in creating the taskforce that is bringing this program forward and strongly support it. A few years ago when budget cuts were reducing number of advisory body meetings, I innovated a definition of a volunteer taskforce in such a way that it was able to begin its work in spite of commission cuts. The result is exciting!

One of the most disturbing aspects of this proposal is that 72% of its auto traffic has been slated to travel on Bay Street between Mission Street and West Cliff Drive. I think this is completely unacceptable. There is presently no explanation about reasons why this route was selected. Beach and boardwalk traffic comes to the beach area via Ocean Street. There is no reason why the majority of new Hotel traffic cannot use such a route.

The applicant and City staff seem to have agreed on a combination of dedicated turn lanes, signalization of the Bay and West Cliff intersection, additional turn lanes at Bay and Mission, and roundabouts at Bay and California street with the likelihood of later signalization there too.

I find all of this seriously problematic. This is simply commercialization of a neighborhood area. The money planned for those intersection improvements should be used to improve a route from Ocean Street via Soquel and Front Street and improve the throughput of that route. Particularly, Front Street needs improvement. Published routes to go to the new complex should specify this route and not the Bay Street route.

It’s worthy of note that there are other serious problems with the proposed complex. Most notable is the fifty-one foot wall right next to Clearview Court. It’s unprecedented that such a thing would be build directly adjacent to a residential area. For this project to be approved, that wall must be tastefully stepped back at each level. It’s possible that the top level should be removed altogether. Some of the effort already made to make the hotel attractive needs to be directed to the design of the back of the convention center and parking building. If these changes are not made, I don't believe this community will accept the current plans.

I have advocated recycling water for many years. At present, this is not the most likely project the City will entertain next but I think recycling is definitely in the City's future.

If the University grows to projected levels, it will take half of our remaining water that is presently over and above our annual demand. This would put the City in a near drought situation during many more seasons unless something is done to compensate for the Universities new consumption levels. This must be seriously addressed in the LRDP revision and the City must REQUIRE strict green standards at the University and an aggressive conservation program.

Presently, the City is exploring the possibility of a desal plant to provide water in times of drought I will insist on the following conditions before voting to support any such project:

1. The intake must be sufficiently large that the flow is very slow and does not entrap marine creatures. This is a simple mathematical and engineering determination.
2. The outflow will be mixed with the wastewater discharge such that the salinity of the total discharge is approximately equal to that of the surrounding bay water.
3. The outflow will be Ph controlled such that the discharge Ph is not significantly different from that of the surrounding bay water.
4. There is some maximum amount of water that can be taken into desal plants and power plant cooling intakes. Beyond that amount, degradation of the marine life balance will occur. EIRs for EVERY proposed desal and power plant on Monterey Bay must calculate the cumulative water intake of ALL the plants on the Bay. The point of measurable degradation in levels of marine microorganisms must NOT be approached.

These and other factors will have to be weighed in making a decision about whether or not to proceed with any desal plant. Overall BOTH the water produced for human consumption and the water discharged back into the bay must meet strict water quality standards.

This project came to the City Council already. I voted against it because I DID NOT think it should have been approved. However, it was approved on a 4 - 3 vote. It is now the subject of a lawsuit. I'm disappointed that the developer and the neighborhood did not reach a mutually satisfactory proposal. That was done on Reed Way recently and there was NO opposition to the proposed project.

I am opposed to that sales tax measure because this would be an unwise project. Nationwide experience has proven that a widened highway will return to the current congested condition within just a few years. In the meantime it would induce even more unmanaged growth in mid-county. Additional cars on a widened highway will inevitably cause more gridlock on neighboring streets. The cost of the proposed project is beyond belief. It has all the appearances of an artificially inflated highway boondoggle.

No. It’s an embarrassment that a simple bike route I proposed in 1990 from Frederick Street Park down to the Harbor has turned into this! The Frederick Street Park route would take only 100 seconds more travel time than the bridge plan, have exactly the SAME changes in elevation, and probably cost a tiny fraction of the current plan. I support the Frederick Street Park route along with completion of the Soquel bike paths and use of the rail corridor for bike travel. This would provide three significant and good bike routes. It would be revolutionary!

"Open space" areas, including Lighthouse Field, the "San Lorenzo River Pathway", Neary Lagoon, Jessie Street Marsh, the 4 designated "greenbelt" parcels and all of Delaveaga Park, excluding the golf course and the day use area adjacent to Branciforte Creek, are extremely popular with residents and visitors; however, these 1100+ acres require different management skills than do the programs and urban properties. At present, no qualified management personnel are on staff and enforcement staff is a fraction of what is needed.

Would you support separating the "natural", open space properties from the rest and have them be the focus of a small department staffed by appropriate specialists? If so, would you support a permanent dedicated % of sales tax or TOT to provide adequate, reliable funding to manage these lands? Can you suggest other possible sources?

Yes, I would support such a management system. I would like to consider management methods used in other communities such as that of the East Bay Regional Park District. Our greenbelt lands have a radius of neighbors outside the City Limits. It makes sense to use a regional approach to fund and manage them. I agree that a permanent dedicated revenues source must be earmarked and dedicated to this purpose.