Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Geological Hazard Abatement Districts Report
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 8 findings
F1
There are three Geological Hazard Abatement Districts in Santa Cruz County. The County manages one GHAD and private property owners manage the other two. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES There are three County districts: Corralitos, Mid-County, and Heartwood Hill. There are two private districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The County managed GHAD is composed of ten separate properties in Aptos, Boulder Creek, and Watsonville. The properties were severely damaged by landslides and are now uninhabitable or remain at risk of further landslide activity. The County of Santa Cruz acquired the properties through FEMA’s Hazard Grant Mitigation Program. The property owners were compensated $1,941,000, which was 75% of the assessed value of the properties ($2,588,000). The remaining dwellings on the properties were demolished; the County maintains and holds the land as open space. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The demolition and maintenance of the county properties as open space is intended to contribute to public safety.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The GHADs located in Santa Cruz County that are managed by private property owners are Pajaro Dunes in Watsonville and Depot Hill in Capitola. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County has no jurisdiction over privately managed GHADs and cannot comment on the accuracy of this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The success or failure of a GHAD plan managed by private property owners is contingent on those involved within the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Liability protection and the ability to levy assessments through property taxes are two features that make a GHAD attractive. GHADs offer guarantees with respect to the security of property values, because the GHAD is sued (rather than individual property owners) and the property thus becomes more marketable.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
There are some disadvantages to GHADs. For example GHADs: • cannot be easily dissolved • can be added to by a vote of 51% of the adjacent property owners, forcing some reticent parties to be a part • cannot compensate members for “soft” losses, such as emotional distress or diminution in value • can be enjoined in legal action by disgruntled members or adjacent parcel owners, increasing operating costs
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Property owners can evaluate if the geological hazard is worth the disadvantages of possible lawsuits or infighting prior to creating a GHAD. Conclusions
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 3The County has helped to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community by creating GHADs in high-risk landslide areas.
-
CL2 Page 3Creation of a GHAD provides private property owners with a means of preserving their property values by the successful implementation and maintenance of the Plan of Control.