The city announced Wednesday that its planned Wharf Grand Opening event, originally set for Aug. 14, has been rescheduled for a yet-to-be-determined date in September.

Chloé Woodmansee, an assistant to the city manager, wrote in an email to the Sentinel Wednesday that while repair and infrastructure work is still on pace to be finished in June, additional facility-based items such as new benches, trashcans, donor art and an upgraded entry gate are likely not to arrive or be fully installed by the original August celebration date.

RELATED: Capitola Wharf, wrecked in huge winter storms, set to reopen after $10 million upgrade

“Once we have confirmation of certain shipments and installations, we can confirm the event date,” wrote Woodmansee. “The City thought it best to hold the formal celebration once everything that will make the Wharf special for years to come has arrived and been installed for the public to enjoy.”

Woodmansee clarified that the city’s goal is still to have the wharf open to the public before August, though it may need to close during certain periods to finish various installations.

In advance of the grand relaunch, city planners have also been pursuing temporary use permits that will allow food, live music and other entertainment to be available to the public whenever the much-anticipated event occurs.

The 167-year-old structure was wrecked by brutalizing winter storms and a raging tide in early 2023 and it has been closed ever since. Not long after the historic storms rolled through, city officials began planning to incorporate the newly needed repairs into a previously existing project meant to improve the wharf’s public access and bolster its resiliency to future raging tides and heavy storms.

The $10.6 million project includes replacement of all the decking and much of the railings, widening the wharf from 20 feet to 36 feet and the addition of 120 strong, fiberglass pilings that are more resilient to storms in an era of climate change.

This work was complemented by the Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project, a fundraising effort led by a volunteer group of community members that sought to bring in some extra cash through private donations that went to ancillary wharf facility improvements. According to the group’s website, it raised more than $350,000.

The California Public Utilities Commission released a proposal to reject AT&T’s application to remove itself as a carrier of last resort provider after the request sparked an overwhelming public outcry from customers across the state, including many in Santa Cruz County.

The proposal is expected to appear on the commission’s June 20 voting meeting agenda.

According to the release, the proposed rejection appears based in large part on AT&T’s failure to demonstrate sufficient alternatives to the landline option many residents still rely on for critical services.

“The CPUC’s proposal underscores the critical importance of ensuring universal access to essential telecommunications services for all Californians,” reads the release. “Despite AT&T’s contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service – such as VoIP or mobile wireless services – can fill the gap, the CPUC found AT&T did not meet the requirements for COLR withdrawal. Specifically, AT&T failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition.”

AT&T is currently the largest last resort provider in the state, which means that for areas in which it is the default telephone service provider, it has an obligation to provide “traditional telephone service” to any potential customer in its service area, often coming in the form of copper landlines.

Despite assurances from AT&T that it would not cut service in areas without a viable alternative — such as mobile wireless or internet-based options — many customers in the county, particularly in rural or mountainous regions, said they were panicked by the request. Many feared that while they had some cellphone service, it was unreliable and in emergency situations — such as a wildfire — a dropped call can be the difference between life and death. Similarly, while internet-based options are technically available, they frequently go down in wildfire or storm events.

“This is a victory for many in our community that rely on landlines as a lifeline,” 2nd District Santa Cruz County Supervisor Zach Friend, who attended one of the commission’s public forums to speak out against the proposal, told the Sentinel in an email. “It’s clear there is no adequate backup system for many of our rural residents. Until that is the case, requests to abandon the service, which I believe functionally abandons these residents, have no place coming forward.”

In February, Friend voted alongside his four colleagues on the county board to approve sending a letter to the state commission voicing its opposition to the application.

AT&T has argued that the landline technology is obsolete and that it has become a competitive disadvantage and drain on resources better used for exploring new technologies. It also downplayed the pace of the change, saying if the application was approved the withdrawal process could take months or even years.

“We are disappointed by the CPUC’s proposed dismissal of our application for relief from Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) regulation, as we’d hoped the commission would allow us the opportunity to demonstrate why the number of options for voice service available to customers make the COLR obligation unnecessary,” wrote AT&T in a statement to the Sentinel. “Not surprisingly, no providers were interested in bidding on a service with a declining number of customers given the competitive options available in today’s marketplace. We remain committed to keeping our customers connected to voice service and will continue working with state leaders on policies that allow us to bring modern communications to Californians.”

According to the release, more than 5,000 public comments were received by the state commission during its eight public forums which drew in more than 5,800 virtual and in-person attendees.

The proposal also includes an intention by the commission to initiate a new rule-making process that seeks to adapt its regulations to evolving market conditions and technological advancements, according to the release.

“This is a terrific direction, especially for our isolated seniors in the mountains,” said Gine Johnson, an analyst for 5th District Supervisor Bruce McPherson who represents the San Lorenzo Valley. “We definitely will call the (CPUC) and give testimony and send something that says we very much support this direction for sure.”

New chain link fences with plastic green panels were set up Monday and Tuesday on both ends of an almost quarter-mile-long paved area behind a row of homes at Beach Drive in Aptos, close to where it meets the roundabout and brick esplanade.

John Erskine, a partner at the law firm representing the Rio Del Mar Beach Island Homeowners Association, Nossaman LLP, said that new fencing is simply following through on a four-year lawsuit with Santa Cruz County that came out in favor of the homeowners in 2022 and their right to the private patio areas.

RELATED: Coastal Commission slams a group of Santa Cruz County homeowners with $4.7 million in penalties

The county tore down a previous iteration of the fencing in 2018, asserting that it was a public walkway and a vital resource for local beachgoers.

Erskine said filings in recent weeks that stem back to the court’s 2022 decision allowed “that original fencing to be put up and to remain until any final ruling by the court of appeal.”

“We believe that the temporary fencing is authorized by the superior court order and is simply replacing fences that were illegally demolished by a third party, namely by the county of Santa Cruz, and so are exempt from the requirement for any permit from the county,” said Erskine, referring to the new green fencing that replaced large plastic orange barriers established after storms last winter.

Supervisor Zach Friend, who represents Rio Del Mar and has long advocated for the area as a public access point, told the Sentinel Wednesday that, after checking with the county’s Community Development and Infrastructure department, no request or application for a permit with the county had been located.

“Whether it’s trashcans blocking the sidewalk in front of the Beach Drive homes or newly-erected fences blocking the coastal walkway it sure seems like a lot of time, effort and money is being spent to prevent any sort of safe, public access to the area,” wrote Friend in an email.

He said the court’s judgment hasn’t been finalized yet, preventing an option for appeal, but added that “the county will keep all of our options open” after the judgment is finalized.

Coastal Commission continued

The new fencing also comes in the wake of a unanimous decision by the California Coastal Commission to levy its highest fee in Santa Cruz County history against the homeowners in December.

Using enforcement powers of its own, the commission fined the homeowners more than $4.7 million based, in part, on a determination that they had been blocking public access to the coastal walkway with plastic barriers and a seawall. All this was done, it contended, despite issuance in the 1980s of an encroachment permit from the county and coastal development permit from the commission that were based on the preservation of public access to the walkway. The commission’s easements, the enforcement staff said, frequently require public access to both public and private properties, so who owns the walkway was irrelevant.

The Dec. 14 meeting last year also featured an extended rebuttal from the lawyers representing the homeowners association, who claimed that the commission’s staff was rewriting the original text of the development permit and misquoted findings in misleading ways. All this, the attorney said, in the face of a ruling from a superior court judge in their favor.

Despite the defense, all 12 voting members of the Coastal Commission, including 3rd District Santa Cruz County Supervisor Justin Cummings, voted in favor of the penalties with Cummings adding that he thought they were “a little light.”

Just days after, the association filed a lawsuit Dec. 20 against the commission, calling its meeting “hastily scheduled and pre-ordinated.”

The lawsuit stayed the commission’s order and penalties while the court proceedings, which the homeowners association expects will take 12 to 24 months, play out.

A representative from the Coastal Commission, as a matter of policy, declined to comment on the pending litigation but confirmed that the agency had not issued a coastal development permit for the new fence or previous structures.

This story will be updated.

“I do think the penalties are a little light given the intensity of the restriction, of the violations,” said Commissioner Donne Brownsey shortly before the vote after the commissioner had spent more than two hours on the agenda item. “It’s sad, I think, that this particular area – which is (a) very beautiful beachfront – kind of looks like a crime scene now.”

All five enforcement actions from the commission, a combination of cease-and-desist orders and penalties, were agreed to unanimously among its 12 voting members.

The fees were handed to the Rio Del Mar Beach Island Homeowners Association and its 27 members owning a row of properties along Beach Drive as well as Gaurav Singh and Sonal Puri, who own a home at 202 Beach Drive, where the pathway in question begins.

The decision was based on the commission staff’s assertion that Singh and Puri, along with the homeowners association, worked together to block public access to a quarter-mile-long stretch of walkway adjacent to the beach using bright orange makeshift plastic barriers and signs. Other fines stemmed from the homeowners’ failure to maintain native plants along a revetment abutting the walkway and properties.

Late last year Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Timothy Volkmann ruled in favor of the homeowners association in a lawsuit against Santa Cruz County that secured the group’s right to the beachside walkway.

Though the commission maintains that its enforcement actions are entirely separate from this litigation, Annie Vadaugna, a boardmember with the association, said in a statement to the Sentinel late Thursday that “The Coastal Commission refuses to accept Judge Volkmann’s decision against the County and has most recently attacked the homeowners by claiming that a 1980 seawall Coastal Permit issued to the Rio Del Mar HOA required public access across the small patios.”

Vadaugna continued, adding “There is no such condition on the permit and the Commission cannot invent one 43 years later in order to take private land for public use and attempt to extract unconscionable fines and penalties for using the small amount of private space.”

This story will be updated.

Citing violations as far back as 1982, the commission will weigh a staff recommendation to fine the Rio Del Mar Beach Island Homeowners Association – and its estimated 27-home membership, most of which are vacation rentals – more than $4.7 million. Allegations include blocking the public’s access to a 37-foot-wide, almost quarter-mile long stretch of walkway adjacent to the beach and failure to maintain native plants along a revetment abutting the walkway and row of properties.

Lisa Haage, chief of enforcement at the commission, confirmed it is the most costly Coastal Act penalty the agency has recommended in Santa Cruz County history.

“This type of violation particularly affects disabled persons, moms and dads pushing strollers and others who rely on walkways to be able to enjoy the coast,” wrote Haage. “It is also an issue of environmental justice — access to beaches and walkways are essential to providing low cost access to the coast for those who cannot afford to own homes along the coast but who still should be able to access and appreciate our gorgeous coastline.”

Named directly and often in the staff summary are Gaurav Singh and Sonal Puri, the owners of a property at 202 Beach Drive, which sits at the north-most tip of the row of homes and is just a stone’s throw from the roundabout and business center next to Aptos Creek.

Though it is not clear if Singh and Puri are part of homeowners association, the commission contends that the two entities have worked together to block the public’s access to the walkway where it begins at the 202 Beach Drive property by relying on makeshift barriers and signs including non-permitted plastic barriers and a seawall.

Deep history

Ahead of the commission’s meeting, scheduled for 9 a.m. Thursday at the Dream Inn in Santa Cruz, commission staff wrote that “the members of the homeowners association have enjoyed private use of this area, have profited from their privatization of this walkway via vacation rentals, and advertise the area as private patios and a private walkway for their paying guests.”

According to the commission staff report, after a destructive winter storm season in 1980, the homeowners association received approval from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to construct a revetment to protect the coastal homes and replace a walkway it says was available to the public at the time.

Though the commission wrote that the county’s encroachment permit explicitly named the public’s right to use the walkway, access had been effectively negated beginning in 1982 and a series of unfruitful discussions and mediation have failed on numerous occasions in the 40 years since.

Legal proceedings

In late 2018, the county demolished barrier walls that cordoned off the walkway from public access, which prompted a lawsuit from the homeowners association. Ultimately, a Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Timothy Volkmann ruled in favor of the homeowners late last year, securing their right to the beachside walkway.

Annie Vadaugna, a boardmember at the homeowners association, told the Sentinel in an email that Volkmann’s ruling included a “preliminary injunction allowing temporary barriers to be placed where the demolished structures once existed.”

“The Coastal Commission refuses to accept Judge Volkmann’s decision against the County and has most recently attacked the homeowners by claiming that a 1980 seawall Coastal Permit issued to the Rio Del Mar (homeowners association) required public access across the small patios,” wrote Vadaugna. “There is no such condition on the permit and the Commission cannot invent one 43 years later in order to take private land for public use and attempt to extract unconscionable fines and penalties for using the small amount of private space.”

In his ruling last year, Volkmann wrote that despite the county’s claim to hold an interest to the pathway on behalf of the public, “the preponderance of the evidence actually presented at trial made it clear that the County had no desire to maintain this property and took active steps to distance itself from any responsibility for the 37-foot walk, over the span of almost 90 years. At some point, the actual chronology of events that led to this trial must take priority.”

The county has, in turn, voiced an intention to file an appeal and shared a statement with the Sentinel in October pledging it “will continue to fight for the public’s right to access the coast and prevent wealthy landowners and their Southern California lawyers from closing it off for personal use.”

County Supervisor Zach Friend, who represents the Rio Del Mar region, said in a written statement to the Sentinel Friday that “This walkway is an essential public access point and without it, our community, especially those with mobility challenges, have lost a safe way to access our coastline.”

Coastal distinction

The Coastal Commission made clear in its report that its enforcement penalties are unrelated to the litigation between the homeowners and the county. According to the staff report, the commission obtained this authority in 2014, after then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that gave the commission’s public access enforcement mechanism some extra teeth.

In 2021, the Coastal Commission levied a $4.2 million fine, later upheld in court, against a Malibu homeowner it said resisted multiple requests to remove a gate that blocked public access to a nearby beach.

It has also been involved in high-profile litigation with Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla for years after he restricted passage through his 88-acres of property near Half Moon Bay that leads to the popular surf spot, Martins Beach.

The Dream Inn is at 175 W. Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz and the meeting agenda is available online at coastal.ca.gov.

If you go

What: California Coastal Commission meeting.

When: 9 a.m. Thursday

Where: The Dream Inn, 175 W. Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz. To attend via Zoom, fill out a speaker request form for the meeting at coastal.ca.gov.

The store at 1475 41st Ave., the only Lucky in Santa Cruz County, is scheduled to permanently close its doors when the clock strikes 5 p.m. Thursday.

A spokesperson for the Save Mart Cos., which owns the Lucky brand, told the Sentinel the closure comes “as a result of the landlord not renewing the lease.”

“All associates at the Capitola store will continue with The Save Mart Companies at other store locations,” wrote Lucky in a statement. “Lucky has been operating at the location since the late 1970s. We remain committed to the community and are actively exploring other locations.”

New Leaf Community Markets, which has been operating in Capitola since 1993 and hosts its current operation a few blocks down the road at 1210 41st Ave., plans to move into the Lucky building next year.

“We look forward to starting construction on our new Capitola store in just a few months and anticipate opening the store in the late summer or early fall of 2024,” wrote New Leaf Marketing Director Kate Halper in an email to the Sentinel.

According to Halper, New Leaf’s current Capitola home is 14,000 square feet while the new location is 24,000 square feet.

The Sentinel responded to Halper asking if New Leaf will offer positions to the staff currently at Lucky but did not receive a response before its print deadline.

“A bigger store will enable us to serve more customers, create new jobs in the community, give more donations to neighborhood nonprofits, and allow for the development and growth of our current Capitola staff as they continue in their roles at the new location,” New Leaf Brand Manager Lindsay Gizdich told the Sentinel earlier this month.

New Leaf, which first opened its doors on the Westside of Santa Cruz in 1985 now has five locations in Santa Cruz County but sold to the Portland-based grocery powerhouse New Seasons Market in 2013.

Meanwhile, a handful of shoppers perused the silent aisles of the soon defunct Lucky store Tuesday, picking out straggling items peppered onto the empty shelves and looking to fill their bags one last time.

“It’s definitely an affordable option,” said Courtney Black, 25, who temporarily moved to Capitola this summer and plans to stay another few months before moving to a new state. “The people I know that are locals here definitely are a little upset because it is an affordable grocery store option. So, yeah, I can see how if I lived here full time it would be a little more alarming.”

Sherry Ascher, another Capitola resident and consistent shopper at Lucky said the closure won’t impact her shopping habits too dramatically.

“I guess I’ll go to Safeway when I need this kind of stuff,” said Ascher as she inspected the ingredients on a chocolate pudding mix. Ascher splits her time between New Leaf, Whole Foods and now plans to rely more on Safeway for some items. “This just happens to be convenient.”

Save Mart owns about 69 Lucky locations in and around the San Francisco Bay Area and serves about 200 communities in California and Nevada, according to its website. It purchased a 128-store chain in Northern California in 2007 and rebranded them to Lucky.

The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to suspend a natural gas prohibition ordinance it passed in 2020 after an April ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar ordinance in Berkeley that was OK’d in 2019.

The Santa Cruz ordinance, which prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings, was modeled after Berkeley’s. The city’s attorney analyzed the ruling and it was determined that, even with some notable differences between the two prohibitions, there was no way to avoid applicability in Santa Cruz.

“Eventually we’ll come back with another ordinance of some kind for changes to our building code that might try to get at some of the same goals that this natural gas prohibition ordinance was getting at,” said Matt VanHua, principal planner in the city’s Planning and Community Development Department, who helped prepare the staff recommendation. “That’s currently being worked on right now but we really don’t have any specific details about what that’s going to look like.”

RELATED: Berkeley challenges appeals court ruling on natural-gas ban

Berkeley was the first city in the country to adopt a ban of natural gas in new homes when it passed its ordinance in 2019, but it wasn’t the last. In the months and years that followed, similar bans or natural gas curtailing efforts spread to 70 communities in California, including Santa Cruz, and two more states, according to a report from the Associated Press.

However, the California Restaurant Association successfully challenged the ordinance, with the appeals court ruling that it violated federal law that gives the U.S. government authority to set energy-efficiency standards for appliances.

The city of Berkeley filed an appeal to the decision May 31 and VanHua said Santa Cruz staff will be closely following the case as it makes its way through the courts.

A reliance on electric power instead of natural gas, a potent greenhouse gas, is a key component of the city’s Climate Action Program, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 76,000 metric tons or 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

According to Tiffany Wise-West, the city’s climate action manager, the natural gas prohibition ordinance was one of two measures related to building electrification that together could account for reducing emissions by almost 20,000 metric tons.

Still, she called the ruling just “a bump in road” and feels confident that there are alternatives, such as an electric-preferred ordinance, that don’t preempt federal law even as the appeals process plays out.

“We are anticipating that most developers will likely continue to pursue electric-only projects,” said Wise-West, noting that the building division has received some inquiries mostly from smaller developments. “The state building code is making it more and more difficult to use natural gas and this is in fact the direction the state is going as well.”

Wise-West said there are numerous state and federal incentive and rebate programs for building with electric power sources along with options from local providers such as Central Coast Community Energy.

“There are a lot more coming with the Inflation Reduction Act,” said Wise-West. “If people are interested in how they can do their part on the climate crisis, electrifying their home if and when they can is a major way to do so and there are a lot of resources available to do that right now.”

Some on the Santa Cruz City Council were glad to vote for the ordinance suspension.

“I don’t think the state is ready to go all electric. I don’t think the grid can handle it,” said Vice Mayor Renee Golder. “There’s radio advertisements telling us when to flex your power, do this, do that. And so I think it’s shortsighted to try to prohibit natural gas before the infrastructure, including the grid is ready for it.”

Golder did vote to approve the natural gas prohibition during her first meeting as a councilmember in 2020, but said she didn’t want to seem disagreeable at the time, attempted to recuse herself, and claims to have not supported the move from the beginning.

She said if the appeal is reversed, she’ll vote against reinstating the ordinance in Santa Cruz.

In a follow-up email to the Sentinel, Wise-West explained that reliability is a concern only during summer peak cooling times and the cooling demand increase is largely due to higher summer temperatures from climate change.

An analysis from the California Energy Commission indicates that aggressive electrification will result in a 20% additional summer peak load through 2030 with matching winter loads. According to Wise-West, the state commission also affirmed electrification as the lower-cost, lower-risk approach to decarbonization.

She added that during a staff report on this topic from January, Pacific Gas and Electric’s Vice President Robert Kenney is quoted as saying, “PG&E fully expects to meet the needs that all-electric buildings will require.”

After confirming with the city attorney, Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley said it’s difficult to speculate what the appeals timeline looks like, but noted that it is possible the issue could escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the appellate panel’s decision is upheld, he explained, it may be at odds with another federal district court ruling in the state of New York that found local government could dictate energy standards. The nation’s highest court could be called upon to decide the issue.

Santa Cruz County officials are also monitoring the situation. Spokesperson Jason Hoppin said the county continues to enforce an ordinance that went into effect this year requiring electricity as the sole energy source for new residential construction in urban, unincorporated regions. He said the law remains on the books until it is invalidated by a final court ruling.

“I don’t think this is the end of that issue,” said Keeley. “At a minimum, it’s a pause in this particular strategic approach.”

Timelines aside, Keeley doesn’t said he doesn’t believe the ruling is “a fatal blow to the city of Santa Cruz’s climate change efforts.”

As the litigation process plays out, he said there’s a multitude of tactics the city will continue to pursue to achieve overall goals of greenhouse gas reduction and climate change mitigation that include replacing a number of water pipelines to reduce wasteful leaks, replacement of outdated equipment in the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, solar panel incentives, added electric vehicle charging stations and transition to a zero-emission garbage truck fleet.

“There’s an awful lot out there that can be done,” said Keeley. “At least in our community, there’s an awful lot of community participation and support and participation because we live in a community that is very dialed in to climate change.”

And while the scene might appear ordinary by typical restaurant standards, it is a triumphant departure from what has been experienced in the longtime coastal staple for nearly four months straight.

In Capitola, a picturesque seaside village on the Santa Cruz County coastline with a population of 10,000 people, huge waves from atmospheric river storms tore a 40-foot hole in the Capitola Wharf in January and smashed oceanfront restaurants and other businesses.

On Jan. 19, President Biden visited Capitola to survey the damage. He toured the wrecked businesses and visited Seacliff State Beach, where a historic wooden pier and 60 campsites were destroyed after waves breached a sea wall. Biden promised federal aid to counties across California that were battered by the storms, which killed at least 20 people.

A roughly 600-pound log was thrust through the window at Zelda’s along with piles of ocean debris and waves of seawater.

But after months of recovery efforts, the familiar sound of hungry customers has finally returned to Zelda’s and several of its neighbors that have successfully reopened their doors.

“Everybody wants to take pictures of the beam,” said Josh Whitby, the kitchen manager at Zelda’s and husband to Jill Ealy, who co-owns the business with her brother, John.

He said the building’s foundation is solid, but much of the flooring and walls had to be replaced and temporary glass windows have been installed while he waits for permanent replacements.

“The hardest part was every time I touched anything to fix a little thing you found four other things that were wrong behind it,” he said, adding that repairs and replacement of equipment and fixtures have already cost more than $400,000.

He said he has applied for reimbursements with the U.S. Small Business Administration, but the review process has been slow going because of a misidentifying of his paperwork that has since been corrected by the agency.

Still, he’s glad to be open just before the peak season, which typically stretches from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Anthony Guajardo is the president of the Capitola Village Business Improvement Assessment – a coalition of local business owners that promote the village’s many offerings. According to Guajardo, most businesses in the village are able and ready to welcome in customers.

“We want to welcome everybody back for this summer season and see everybody come out in droves so the recovery effort can fully round its way out,” he said.

The massive damage to the coastline had a trickle-down effect for other retailers and hotels, according to Guajardo, as out-of-town visitors hesitated to book a trip thinking the entire village was closed.

“This coming season of visitors and locals showing up is important because this is an aspect of the village surviving,” Guajardo said. “We’ll get through it, but it’s everybody’s livelihoods at stake.”

Capitola Mayor Margaux Keiser also emphasized that the village is open for business.

“It definitely feels more reminiscent of spring break of last year, prior to the storm,” said Keiser. “The village is open and there are places to stay and eat and shop.”

Keiser said spring and summer events typically held in the village are also planning to launch soon, including the Capitola Sip and Stroll in May and the Capitola Rod and Customer Classic Car Show in early June.

My Thai Beach restaurant, located only a few doors down from Zelda’s, held a soft opening recently after it was shuttered by January’s heavy storms.

In addition to the building receiving major damage to its floors, furniture, walls and pipe infrastructure, owner Dominick King says he is also hiring workers as a significant portion of his staff had to depart during the closure period. The restaurant is operating at about 70% capacity for now, but King is just glad to finally fire up the stovetop.

“That was our goal – let’s get up and running at all,” King said. “So we’re pretty happy with it.”

It hasn’t been an easy road. Like Whitby, King said he was constantly finding new problems as he sought to address old ones, and the state and federal processes for securing loans were difficult and unfruitful, forcing him to operate on “a shoestring budget” as he rushed to get the lights back on.

“If we can have a decent summer, I’m pretty sure we’ll survive and then we can start buying the less-necessary things as we go,” he said.

He credited Community Foundation Santa Cruz County and its storm recovery fund for quick assistance along with charity dinners and general support from city officials and the neighborhood as a whole.

He has also kept a sense of solidarity with the businesses that are still working to reopen and said he thinks a larger grand opening celebration should wait until everyone is ready to welcome in customers.

But the friendships and neighborly solidarity aren’t the only things that have been unveiled during the long road to recovery.

A series of old posters and business signage lying beneath decades of plaster and drywall were discovered during the rebuilding process. The well-preserved relics include an advertisement for a jazz vibraphonist concert in Watsonville in 1949 buried in the walls at Zelda’s and three generations of painted business headboards resting above the sidewalk.

As the plaster begins to dry over this latest chapter of village history, city leaders say some remnants of the recovery will remain visible, but the gates are officially open.

“All of these places have been hit really hard and everybody’s excited to be back,” Keiser said. “There might be some construction dust nearby, but it shouldn’t deter people from coming down and having fun.”

— Staff writer Paul Rogers contributed to this report.

“For nearly three weeks, California was hit with storms that brought intense rain and catastrophic flooding. The historic storms caused tremendous damage to thousands of acres of farms and ranches,” wrote Reps. Jimmy Panetta, Salud Carbajal, Zoe Lofgren and Jim Costa.

Panetta and Lofgren represent portions of South County heavily reliant on the agriculture industry, while Panetta’s 19th District extends to most of North County as well.

“We, therefore, request a disaster recovery package be swiftly put together to allow the rebuilding and recovery process to begin. It is imperative Congress provide much-needed aid to California’s agricultural community to allow for a full and timely recovery,” they wrote.

The letter requests aid for areas impacted during a storm window ranging from Dec. 27 of last year to Jan 16. According to a release from Panetta’s office, California was hit with nine atmospheric river storms during that period, dumping roughly 32 trillion gallons of water on the state and causing more than $500 million in estimated damages to agricultural operations in the lawmaker’s regions.

Farmland in Santa Cruz County endured about $26 million in damage during the December to January storm period and an additional $21 million during February and March, according to county spokesperson Jason Hoppin. Hoppin added that these are likely conservative estimates as “they don’t fully reflect mitigation measures by growers” such as soil reconditioning and water pumping.

“While some fields had not yet been planted, saving them from losing an entire crop, that was not the case for many,” wrote the lawmakers. “Fields flooded, lost precious topsoil, are covered in debris or were entirely washed away. Many growers will not have their fields ready to go for the traditional planting season and will need to push their timeline.”

The federal Farm Service Agency has received more than 900 filings for assistance within six California counties with significant farmland including 65 from Santa Cruz and 300 from Monterey.

These figures do not include subsequent storms from late February and March that created a breach in the Pajaro River levee where about 2,250 acres of nearby strawberry fields were impacted and 2,000 residents evacuated from the town of Pajaro.

According to the letter, the representatives have called for farmworker housing to be fully restored and that they receive necessary unemployment benefits, among other things.

According to a letter sent by the control board to the company’s private owners Jim and Shirley Moore in late February, the company has been falling short of its duty to consistently provide safe, potable water to its customers in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

“BBWC (Big Basin Water Company) is not currently satisfying that obligation as it does not have the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to operate a public water system, and it is unresponsive to the rules and orders of the Division,” wrote Office of Enforcement attorney Laura Mooney in the letter.

Mooney concluded the seven-page report by stating: “In our view, a receiver should be appointed to assume possession and operate BBWC’s drinking water system for the purpose of bringing BBWC back into compliance and ensure the public has reliable access to safe drinking water.”

Options on the table

A receiver is someone appointed by a judge to temporarily manage a company and its operations, though ownership does not change. State Water Resources Control Board spokesperson Blair Robertson told the Sentinel this week that the Division of Drinking Water is currently working on the steps it needs to complete before filing a lawsuit that will begin the receivership process.

“The judge will consider arguments for and against the appointment of a receiver,” wrote Robertson in an email. “If the judge agrees that a receiver is needed, one will be appointed on terms decided by the judge.” According to Robertson, the whole process could take “many months.”

The receivership is also being pursued only for the water side of Big Basin’s operations and not for its small wastewater treatment station, which is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

State authorities say they have discussed their plans with Big Basin Water, but the company’s Chief Operator Damian Moore remains skeptical of how useful an appointed receiver could be.

“We would need someone that would be in a hard hat and boots to justify paying them with the staff we have,” said Moore. “That’s what we need is people on the ground not someone in an office sending emails taking more money than any of us make.”

The state’s letter documents efforts to bring the water company into compliance dating back to 2018, when the cost of corrective actions was almost $2.9 million.

That was before the CZU Lightning Complex Fire, which devastated portions of the Big Basin system, leaving it with only one well source for the 547 customers that it now serves.

The Sentinel documented Boulder Creek residents who have endured multiple water outages and boil water orders in the fire’s aftermath, along with reports of black filters and taps that have spewed brown water.

At this point, Moore said the family is actively trying to sell the company, which he called the “best case scenario.”

Alternatively, Big Basin Water has also explored a consolidation with a neighboring public utility company, a move that has been strongly encouraged by local and state leaders. But those negotiations have ended for now.

Rick Rogers, district manager for the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, told the Sentinel that the public utility has explored consolidation with Big Basin Water on several occasions, including in recent months. But the district estimated that it would cost about $40 million to complete Big Basin’s system repairs to bring it back into compliance; a figure it considers untenable without outside funding.

“There were no assurances that if the district did consolidate that we would get funding,” said Rogers. “That would have to put the upgrades and repairs on our existing rate payers and that was just basically unacceptable to our district.”

In the meantime, Rogers said a receivership may help move the process forward in terms of finding a long-term solution, including potential consolidation. But he stressed that a secure funding mechanism through state grants or other sources will be necessary.

“Hopefully that funding will be made available, it has to be. Otherwise that system will fail; that system is failing and it needs a large cash infusion,” said Rogers.

While Santa Cruz County officials have no jurisdiction over the privately owned utility, 5th District Supervisor Bruce McPherson, who represents the Big Basin area, has been working for years with local and state stakeholders to try to facilitate a viable solution.

“I support the state’s efforts to pursue receivership and I hope the process eventually leads to a local public ownership of the system ideally through a consolidation with the San Lorenzo Valley Water District,” said McPherson, who emphasized the the district has already engaged in several mutual aid efforts to support Big Basin customers in the wake of the fires and recent winter storm damage.

“But whatever the future holds for Big Basin (water) customers, there’s going to be a higher cost involved because to repair the system and operate it properly is going to require more revenue,” said McPherson.

Rate increase meeting

Big Basin has set in motion a possible water rate increase for its customers for the first time since 2014 as a means for raising funds to invest in the company’s infrastructure, according to Moore.

“If the rates go up then obviously we’ll be able to create revenue for infrastructure, whether it be to make loan payments or to outright purchase tanks or pay third party contractors to do some projects,” said Moore.

The proposal would cumulatively increase rates by $271,613 or 55.5%, according to the California Public Utilities Commission, which has the authority to approve, partially approve or deny the request.

To explain the rate increase process and receive public input, the commission will be hosting a public meeting Monday night at the Boulder Creek Fire Department. Customers are encouraged to attend the event to ask questions about the process or other issues related to Big Basin Water.

If you go

What: Big Basin Water Co. rate increase public meeting hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission.

When: 6 p.m. Monday.

Where: In person at the Boulder Creek Fire Department 13230 Central Ave. Boulder Creek.