STN
STRAIGHT TALK NEWS

         





Alliance for Change

Alliance for Change

Date: November 25, 2008

From: Gordon Stewart, Jr.

To: Board of Supervisors County of Santa Cruz

Re: Compliance with State Building Standards

California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (California Building Standards Code)
adopts, by amendment, the International Building Code (IBC) with California
amendments. The IBC is not the law in California the California Building
Standards Code is the law.
Amendments to the California Codes must meet certain criteria before they can be
enforced. The PREFACE to the CBSC (Part 2, page III, 2006 Ed.) illiterates an overview
of these criteria:
First, all regulations and standards take effect after 180 days past publication of
of the latest triennial publication of the CBC except where amended through
special interim processes.
Second, all amendments must by filed with the California Building Standards Commission for processing and do not become effective sooner than the effective date of CBSC’s publication.
Third, no local standards previously adopted or otherwise shall take effect without
appropriate adoption and the required filing.
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have and are in
violation of California statutes by passing various local modifications to the CBC and
enforcing those changes under local ordinances.
Currently, the Board and Commission are attempting to continue an unlawful
scheme in complete disregard of the Appeals Board requirements. Not only is this
in contempt of due processes, but it is also in violation of the CBSC and the laws
of this State by undermining it’s legislatorial powers.
This County is also in violation of the California Penal Code by instituting fines
and penalties that have not met appropriate protocols for adoption. Those fines and
penalties must be approved by the legislative processes before implementation.
Punishments for infractions, misdemeanors and felonies must all be in conformity
with the Bill of Rights and California laws. This is not the current situation in
Santa Cruz County. When will Santa Cruz County obey the law?



Alliance for Change

 

 

Board of Directors:
David Smith
Gordon Stewart
Thomas Quinn
Lowell Webb
Claire Machado

June 9, 2008

Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor
Santa Cruz, CA  95060

Re:  Agenda Item #65 Design Brochure No. 2

Members of the Board:

Although Mr. Burns has repeatedly stated’ “we have the authority”, it has not been shown that there is  evidence or legal standing for that  statement. If there exists legal standing for presuming that the Planning Department truly has  authority to write the law, interpret the law, and to prosecute the law, then this Board has the duty to prove such powers exist.

In previous cases that went forward to the Superior Court, a rare occurrence since the construction of the kangaroo court, the Court and Grand Jury  found the Planning Department and Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to create any regulations restricting the ability of property owners to provide for the well-documented housing needs of the citizens within the County of Santa Cruz. The primary reason for this decision was that the County did not get their housing plan certified by the State of California as required by State law. In spite of the Courts and Grand Jury, the County continues to this day to deny basic needs of the people choosing to enforce their agenda despite repeated cries of outrage from the public.

We have heard on many occasions that the Board is only acting “for the common good”. This is what every tyrant in history has claimed. I must point out to the Board that although you have heard an alleged 900 complaints from residents, not all complaints are the business of the Planning Department. Furthermore, On May 20, 2008, you dismissed all the complaints of several dozen citizens about your behavior. Assuming the worst case scenario, if during  a period of one year the County did receive that volume of complaints and felt it must act, then why does not it act when on one day it receives  more than 47 written complaints about misbehavior of the agents supposedly acting in their interests. After all, if you received on an average of two to three complaints per calendar day from one group, and 47 per day from another (over fifteen times as many), why do you continue to ignore us and our issues?

Continuing to add more restrictions such as “Design Codes” tells the citizens you are more concerned about further expansion of power and tyranny for your agenda and are out of touch with an ever-increasing population who sees through the façades.

Recently, although this Board had been well informed about the catastrophic situation created by taking away the rights of property owners to manage and mitigate fire dangers, and by not repairing the Northern access to the Eureka Canyon area for 19 years; the inevitable happened. It was not the Board or Planning department that provided aid to those victims, it was the citizens and NGO’s who helped after being damaged by this County. This Board and Planning Department does not care at all for the welfare of its Citizens. You have proven that in so many ways.

In this most recent election, 35% of the voters disapproved of the current actions of our elected officials. Are you going to ignore them too?

Gordon Stewart, Jr. 
P.O. Box 1476
Boulder Creek, CA 95006

Web Hosting Companies