Keep SC harbor hand launches free!

I pay to launch at the main ramp because:
1. Bathroom
2. Safe parking lot
3. Place to buy ice
4. Fish cleaning station

Aldos has nothing and should be free IMHO.

Since walkin's are free and the new fee includes parking, this seems like a no brainer ???Just walk in if you are a frequent user. Or am I missing something???
I have been walking in ever since they raised the parking from $5 to $10 anyhow.
I usually drop my stuff off in the loading zone spaces at the bottom of the hill and wheel to the floating dock, then take my truck up to the street.

Since walkin's are free and the new fee includes parking, this seems like a no brainer ???Just walk in if you are a frequent user. Or am I missing something???
I have been walking in ever since they raised the parking from $5 to $10 anyhow.
I usually drop my stuff off in the loading zone spaces at the bottom of the hill and wheel to the floating dock, then take my truck up to the street.

Per e-mails with the Port Director, if you use the drop-off area, you will have to pay the fee. To be free, you will have to unload/load on the street, and wheel your kayak up and down the hill. Will try to confirm tonight.

I got this E-Mail today WTF

This message is from Craig Stanton who started the petition "Santa Cruz Port Commission: Save Santa Cruz Harbor Access," which you signed on Change.org.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear boaters and paddlers,

Tonight, Tuesday November 7th, is the Port Commission meeting where the public will speak about the new $10 launch fee. It is imperative that you attend this meeting to let the Commission know that the fee is a bad idea.

The meeting begins promptly at 7:00 pm. Public Comment is the first item on the agenda, so please be sure you are there by 7:00 pm or you may miss your chance to speak.

The Commission meeting room is located at 365 A Lake Ave (in the Santa Cruz Harbor). The entrance is at the parking lot level. The building is about halfway between the Harbormaster's Office and Johnny's Harborside Cafe.

We hope to see you tonight at 7:00 PM!

I got this E-Mail today WTF

This message is from Craig Stanton who started the petition "Santa Cruz Port Commission: Save Santa Cruz Harbor Access," which you signed on Change.org.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear boaters and paddlers,

Tonight, Tuesday November 7th, is the Port Commission meeting where the public will speak about the new $10 launch fee. It is imperative that you attend this meeting to let the Commission know that the fee is a bad idea.

The meeting begins promptly at 7:00 pm. Public Comment is the first item on the agenda, so please be sure you are there by 7:00 pm or you may miss your chance to speak.

The Commission meeting room is located at 365 A Lake Ave (in the Santa Cruz Harbor). The entrance is at the parking lot level. The building is about halfway between the Harbormaster's Office and Johnny's Harborside Cafe.

We hope to see you tonight at 7:00 PM!

That's one way to limit the comments....well played port commission, well played!

Anyone who attended have any feedback?

Sara, Quinn and myself went down to see what was happening at the meeting.  There were around 30+ people there, and not enough room in the meeting room to hold all of us, so we volunteered to exit the room and 'listen' from the outside with anther 8-10 people.  With my bad hearing, I only really got to hear about 1/3 or what was said until a couple of the people spoke loudly enough for us to hear.  From what I gathered hearing the public speak, most were on the topic of the 10$ launch fee being unreasonable, and that a reasonable fee would be more acceptable.  One guy I clearly heard comparing this fee hike too "Taxation without representation", and had some other points about the way in which the fee hike was implemented.  But after they closed public comment, all I could hear in the background was a thank you of sorts for the comments, and something about the fee being on the books since the 80's, and I didn't hear much else because of people talking outside, so we left.  Jim was inside, so hopefully he had a better time understanding what transpired after the commentary.

Anyone who attended have any feedback?

Sorry I couldn't make it.  I got slammed with a cold yesterday.

-Allen

Allan,

Better a cold than pneumonia that got me down for over three weeks now. Get better

The tiny room was overflowing, which didn't take much, and the Port Commission's first concern was there wasn't enough time for all the speakers.
Regarding only the new launch fee, the meeting consisted of oral communications to the Port Commission, and was limited 2 minutes max. for the 10 or so speakers. Most were paddle boarders/shop owners/instructors expressing the same concerns as us, 'why this fee now, the fee is too much, safety concerns, interpretation of the ordinances'. A petition to repeal the fee with 500+ signatures was given.
The commission said our voices our being heard, would take them under advisement. No explanations were made, other than to point out that the car-top launch fee has been in effect since the 80's, and it was decided to start collecting launch fees at A/FF docks 18 months ago, but put off collecting them until now. They said the new fees were not due to a safety concern, and were noncommittal on whether this is a revenue issue.
I believe the Port Comm. is misinterpreting the ordinances which refer to launch fees at 'the Ramp', not A/FF docks. These two floating docks were installed initially for the dinghies/lasers/etc. from the yacht club, and fees have never been collected until now. I'm not necessarily opposed to launch fees, but changes should be made with public input.
Please e-mail the Port Comm. and request you be informed on any discussions/decisions made regarding this matter.

Thanks Al and Jim for the report.

 

Sincerely,

Jim

This site has some info/opinions from the SUP users and some communications from the Port Director  about the fees:

http://www.srfnff.blogspot.com/

Thanks!

Time to start playing dirty pool.  According to the Sentinel, Port Director Lisa Ekers owns a 26 foot sloop, Pathfinder, that she berths in Santa Cruz Harbor. 

"An officer or employee of the district shall not ... derive any ... benefit, or advantage, directly or indirectly, from or by reason of any dealings with or service for the district by himself or others, except as lawful compensation as such officer or employee.  The violation of the provisions of this section by an officer or employee works a forfeiture of his office or employment."  Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code § 6275.

Seems like there's an argument to be made that Director Ekers is subject to a non-waivable conflict and should've recused herself, rather than advocating for a certain outcome.  Surely, diminished SUP/yak/small craft traffic could be construed as an indirect benefit in the form of less paddlecraft for her to navigate around. 

Seriously, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ekers has been a party to private conversations with fellow sailers along the lines of "Ahoy, we gotsta do sumteeng bout deez damn small craft, clogging up the harbor mouth n chit.  Aaarrrrr!"  Her apparent bias (even if not actual bias) renders her incompetent on this issue. 

Recuse or resign, I tells ya. 

No explanations were made, other than to point out that the car-top launch fee has been in effect since the 80's, and it was decided to start collecting launch fees at A/FF docks 18 months ago, but put off collecting them until now.

There's also a state law enacted in the late '80's that has specific application here to Santa Cruz. 
Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code 6302.5, provides:

     (a) The Legislature finds and declares that this section is necessary to meet a serious danger to the public safety within the Santa Cruz Port District caused by surfriding activities within the harbor entrance area.

     (b) No person shall swim or surfride, or use any watercraft or device to surfride, on ocean waters within a harbor entrance area, as prescribed by the Santa Cruz Port District by ordinance.

     (c) For the purposes of this section, “surfride” includes traveling to or from a surfriding staging area and activities in the staging area which are preparatory or preliminary to, or connected with, riding the surf.

    (d) Every person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
 
Section 6302.5 was enacted presumably to prevent boater-surfer collision, and could reasonably be construed to prohibit SUP.  I'd like to think the District's counsel is aware of this Santa Cruz-specific law (f'ing idiots if not).  One could argue that SUP is primarily used with flatwater rather than riding waves.  However, 6302.5(c) defines "surfriding" veerrrry broadly, and expressly includes transit.  So, if the District is aware of 6302.5, it follows that the District is selectively choosing not to enforce it, despite the express legislative findings that "traveling to or from a surfriding staging area" within the harbor constitutes a "serious danger to the public safety."

Looks like a case of selective law enforcement.  The District can't prohibit SUP/yakking entirely b/c its a hugely popular  activity that generates a substantial tax base.  Instead, the District tries to curb private, non-rental usage through imposition of fees at the hand launch.  Gets some paddlecraft out of the harbor w/o PO'ing the harbor tenants who are the lifesblood of the area.

Whatever the actual motive, clearly not being done solely in pursuit of public safety.  Only the financial explanation remains.  Ten dolla ten dolla make you holla.