“Los Angeles County just reported a 12.7 percent increase from 2019 to 2020, based on a one-time count conducted months before the pandemic hit. Researchers have projected that the COVID-19 outbreak could push another 250,000 Americans out of their homes, increasing the nation’s homeless population by 40 to 45 percent.

“A crisis like this, where people are gonna lose income and really struggle, will result in people becoming homeless at a rate we haven’t seen before,” Housing California’s Chris Martin said, noting that the majority of newly homeless in Los Angeles in 2019 cited economic hardship as the driving force.”

Take a look at the Board of Supervisors meeting August 4, Regular Agenda Item #8, which includes the following, and is full of mostly-undefined alphabet soup:

2020/08/04 09:00 AM Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting – Web Outline – Santa Cruz County, CA

page 6:

Strategy 3.2 Acquire hotels or other buildings to create permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness Objective/Activity Assigned Lead Target Completion Date 

3.2.a Inventory available funding sources, including new State resources Rayne Perez  3.2.b Identify hotels/other buildings and assess interest in acquisition Elissa Benson Strategy 3.3 Create program or approach to conduct 

Strategy 6.1 Create charter and legal structure for new homeless system governance entity Objective/Activity Assigned Lead Target Completion Date 

6.1.a. Define legal structure for Homelessness Commission County Counsel/Elissa Benson/Randy Morris October 2020 

6.1.b Determine opportunities for alignment between new legal structure and existing HAP and identify change management/transition path for HAP to new CoC structure Randy Morris/Rayne Perez/Focus Strategies October 2020 

6.1.c Determine CTAC legal status and structure; decide on work group areas; ensure there is a plan for how CTAC/work groups would make recommendations re: funding sources (CoC, ESG, HEAP, HHAP) Randy Morris/Rayne Perez/Focus Strategies October 2020 Strategy 

6.2 Create new homelessness response division within HSD 

What I wonder is: Will this all get funded in perpetuity by the State and Federal Government public monies?  If not, what will happen to the County-owned hotels now taken out of visitor accommodation use and no longer bring in much-needed Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) that directly go dollar for dollar to the County and City General Funds?  Here is information on Governor Newsom’s Project Home Key: Newsom Administration Renames Project Roomkey to Homekey – CHEAC

Please contact your County Supervisors with your thoughts on this:

Chairman Greg Caput greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us
Ryan Coonertyryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us
Zach Friend zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us
John Leopold john.leopold@santacruzcounty.us
Bruce McPhersonbruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us

Board of Supervisors   831-454-2200 

AS MORE RURAL PROPERTY OWNERS GET INSURANCE CANCELLATION NOTICES, LEGISLATORS SCHEME TO INCREASE INSURANCE RATES
Why are State legislators linking arms with insurance companies to repeal protections for property owners suffering unjustified premium hikes but able to request insurance company transparency and protection for poor communities?   AB 2167, authored by Tom Daly, D-Anaheim, would remove these consumer protections and unless you contact State Senators and get them to stop it, insurance cancellations and premiums in Santa Cruz County will skyrocket.

The State Insurance Commissioner issued an excellent report in 2018 analyzing and documenting this growing critical problem, citing the insurance industry’s unwillingness to share justification for policy cancellation or sky-high rates to those who are desperate for coverage.

In 2019, the Appendix D of the report was updated to include a staggering increase in policy cancellations.  

The report outlined several additional legislative actions needed to protect the public.  However, this is not what AB2167 does.  Read this analysis:

Opinion: Legislators scheming with insurance companies to raise rates 

Assemblyman Stone was one of three to vote against AB 2167 on June 8, 2020.

Consider this:

“Members of the California State Senate have taken $2,353,000 in campaign contributions from insurance companies and insurance industry trade associations in the last two election cycles, according to data reported to the California Secretary of State. Of that total, $1.1 million was given to the thirteen Senators who sit on the Insurance Committee that will soon vote on the insurance industry’s top priority in Sacramento this year. In the last decade, property-casualty insurers have given $32.5 million to candidates for the Legislature and statewide office and spent an additional $34 million on ballot measures.”

AB 2167 is currently before the State Senate Insurance Committee to be heard on August 4, and was modified on July 30, 2020 by the Senate. Once out of that Committee, it will go to the Senate Appropriations Committee some time before August 21. 

 It is contingent upon passage of SB 292 “Wildfire Risk Modeling and Mitigation”.  Acting together, these two bills would removed safeguards approved by voters in 1988.

The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. The act requires an insurer that wishes to change a rate to file a complete rate application with the Insurance Commissioner and deems the application approved 60 days after public notice of the application unless certain events occur, including that a consumer requests a hearing, or the commissioner determines to hold a hearing. The act requires hearings to be conducted pursuant to specified provisions of law governing administrative hearings.

Under existing law, the California FAIR Plan Association is a joint reinsurance association in which all insurers licensed to write basic property insurance participate in administering a program for the equitable apportionment of basic property insurance for persons who are unable to obtain that coverage through normal channels.

This bill would require the association, on or before January 31 and July 31 of each year, to submit a report to the commissioner that lists certain counties, according to specified population thresholds, in which the number of new residential property insurance policies issued by the FAIR Plan during the prior 6 months equals a certain percentage of the number of single family residences in that county. The bill would require a county listed on the report to be designated by the department as an insurance market protection (IMAP) eligible county under the IMAP program that would be established if AB 2167 of the 2019–20 Regular Session is enacted. The bill would authorize an insurer to submit an IMAP filing to the department for residential property insurance policies issued in an IMAP eligible county and would require the IMAP filing to set forth specified mitigation standards. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, on or before, January 1, 2023, to issue a report outlining the effectiveness of the IMAP program.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to establish a commission in state government consisting of the Insurance Commissioner, the State Fire Marshall, the Executive Director of the California Building Standards, and the Director of Emergency Services to, among other things, convene stakeholders to develop regionally specific community hardening standards that have the propensity for reducing loss due to wildfires. The bill would create the Catastrophic Modeling Advisory Committee to be chaired jointly by the Insurance Commissioner and the Director of Emergency Services, or their designees. The bill would prescribe the membership of the advisory committee and would require the advisory committee to, among other things, deliver to the Office of Emergency Services, on or before July 1, 2024, a comprehensive report detailing a plan for the Office of Emergency Services to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish and operate a public catastrophic loss model.

The bill would provide that its provisions are not severable.

The bill would make its operation contingent on the enactment of AB 2167 of the 2019–20 Regular Session.

Bill text

Both Senator Monning and Assemblyman Stone voted for this in 2019. It has languished until now but will go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee by August 11.

Both Bills could go before the Governor to sign or reject next month.

WHAT DOES THE STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER THINK OF THIS END-RUN TO REMOVE PUBLIC INSURANCE SAFEGUARDS?

Ask Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara this Wednesday at a town hall meeting hosted by two County Supervisors.  Zoom format only allows questions to be submitted in writing to the Supervisors, and hope that they are read. 

Supervisor Leopold and Supervisor McPherson will be co-hosting a town hall meeting 5:30-6:30 p.m. Wednesday to discuss non-renewal of fire insurance policies in the county and what the State is doing to further support residents at risk for wildfires. They will be joined by Assembly Member Mark Stone and State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to address this critical issue. In addition to Zoom, this meeting can be viewed on Supervisor Leopold’s Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/supervisorjohnleopold. No account is necessary to view on Facebook.

Use link:  Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

Or Telephone: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592

Webinar ID: 948 2128 6249

READY? AIM? FIRE!  SANTA CRUZ COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORTS PROBLEMS WITH LOCAL FIRE JURISDICTIONS AND QUESTIONS BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ACTIONS

I am very grateful to the Santa Cruz Grand Jury for their good investigations and reports.  This one is especially good. 

https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2020_final/FireRisks_Report.pdf 

It is interesting, especially the point about Santa Cruz LAFCO not publishing the ISO ratings for unincorporated areas in the County Fire jurisdiction (CSA 48) or other fire agencies publishing the ISO rating for their jurisdictions.

“One approach for determining the risk level of homes in your community is the use of one of the risk metrics developed by experts in risk assessment, the insurance industry. A company called the ISO (Insurance Services Office) creates ratings for fire departments and their surrounding communities. 

The ISO provides the information for free to any fire department it inspects but does not provide the information directly to homeowners. Homeowners are advised that if your department has a poor score, it is a good idea to take extra steps in fireproofing your home. However the Grand Jury found no evidence that any of the fire agencies in the County broadly publish their ISO scores. It is evident that many of these agencies know Published July 3, 2020 12 of 97 what the scores are from references in minutes, announcements, and newspaper articles.

 The 2007 and the 2016 LAFCO Municipal Service Reviews for Stanislaus County published the ISO scores for nearly every fire agency reviewed. Santa Cruz County LAFCO has not.

All County residents would benefit if their fire agency not only published their current ISO score but previous scores. This would not only help them understand the cost of their homeowners insurance relative to others in the County, but it would help them decide the amount of energy to apply to help offset that risk. In addition it would allow residents to monitor the efforts applied by their fire agency to improve service, and reduce the impact of fire.” 

Wednesday, August 5 is the LAFCO meeting at 9:30am…another virtual meeting.  Write the Commission and ask about the ISO issue. 

Joe Serrano  joe.serrano@santacruzcounty.us 

Contact your local fire agency and ask that they publish the ISO ratings for your area to help  you better assess your neighborhood’s fire risk.

The Report includes this critical note on page 16:

“The Grand Jury asks, “Why does a county that has the largest population in the state living in high risk wildfire areas only update its hazard plan once every five years?” Our conclusion is that the timing is driven by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirement to update plans at least every five years to qualify for mitigation planning grants. This requirement does not prohibit plans from being updated more frequently when necessary and appropriate. County residents, especially those living in high risk areas, would benefit if the County updated the wildfire section of its Hazard Mitigation Plan, or created lower level, detailed and actionable plans yearly to account for the constant changing conditions referenced above.”

Page 17 is shocking:

 “Furthermore, nowhere in the County’s contract with CAL FIRE does it provide a basis of needs.[90] Nowhere in County Fire’s annual presentation to the County Board of Supervisors are the needs of the County or “basis” of proposed resource level specified, either for fire suppression or prevention.[91] The Grand Jury thinks that if these needs are not specifically delineated, the risk of understaffing and inadequate planning can neither be measured nor addressed. It was concluded that the risk to County residents is extremely high, because leadership does not know what they need to be doing to address staffing and planning needs in order to be “adequately” safe.” 

And page 50:

“With respect to reporting accountability, the Grand Jury discovered: 1. The County Board of Supervisors does not receive, in its annual report from CAL FIRE, data and analysis to reflect the gaps that exist between current performance and what the community needs, so that informed budget decisions can be made. 2. The County Board of Supervisors and the CAO do not fully hold CAL FIRE accountable for its contract with the County. 3. LAFCO reviews fire districts only once every ten years and does not adequately address fire prevention performance such as inspections and fuel abatement.” 

Finding on page 58:

F24. “The annual report to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office by County Fire/CAL FIRE does not provide data or analysis of resources, response times, code enforcement, inspection, or education. This information is necessary to show what gaps exist between current performance and community needs in order for informed budget decisions to be made. Without adequate background information, the Board of Supervisors is unable to hold CAL FIRE accountable for the specific responsibilities specified in their contract.”

Findings on page 59:

“F29. The Grand Jury finds that formally specified baseline and target performance statements, in alignment with the Center for Public Safety Excellence Assessment Process, neither currently exist nor are they reported by fire departments in the County as required by best practice standards. There are no goals set or measures made of progress for review by the Board of Supervisors regarding County Fire/CAL FIRE performance. Other fire districts in the County are similarly remiss in reporting to their governing bodies. Appropriate goals would include progress on response times, vegetation management, and code inspection progress, all of which are necessary to properly quantify the budget and resources required for full-time, volunteer, and prison inmate workforces, in appropriate, affordable proportions.

 F30. Due to the inconsistent reporting of response times provided by CAL FIRE in Proposition 218, conflict with information supplied by document request to the Grand Jury, and due to lack of performance standards for response times, voters may have been ill-informed when voting on the proposition.” 

And Recommendations on page 60:

“R7. County Fire should provide a plan to the County Board of Supervisors by September 30, 2020 identifying how and when the new CSA 48 tax revenue will result in the addition of six more firefighters to the response team, enabling the required “two in, two out” in a fire emergency. (F8)

R8. The County Board of Supervisors should set an objective for County Fire to increase the number of volunteer firefighters by July 1, 2022, as well as a plan for use of the prison workforce or an alternative.This needs to be done in concert with a comprehensive resource plan for County Fire. (F9) 

R9. Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29)

R25. The County Board of Supervisors should explain to the public why the Proposition 218 information on response times is inconsistent with the response time data available from County Fire by December 31, 2020. (F6, F8, F30) 

Many thanks to the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury for this excellent work.  Ask your representatives and fire officials to respond publicly. 

THE PUBLIC PAYS FOR APTOS VILLAGE SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS

There is no money left in the County Service Area (CSA) 9 account to fund any  projects in 2020-2024, because all has been spent on projects to benefit developers in Aptos and Soquel.  How were those decisions made? 

The August 5 Santa Cruz County LAFCO agenda includes a public hearing for County Service Area (CSA) 9 Service and Sphere Review.  This includes money collected on properties throughout the County with annual property taxes, and is used for a wide range of Public Works uses under different CSA 9 “Zones”, including street lighting, paving, crossing guards at Live Oak Schools, and the County Landfill.  However, the countywide general CSA 9 account will be able to fund only two projects. 

 There is no fiscal CSA 9 oversight or transparency.  

This is apparent in reviewing how the funds are spent with favoritism to improving areas in Soquel and Aptos where two very large projects that benefit large developers have been prioritized but other areas of the County are neglected. (See page 17-18) There will be no new CSA 9 Projects in 2020-2025 because the money was all spent disproportionately on these two projects for the benefit of developers.

Project #1 in Aptos Village has gifted $7,392,194 to improve the area in order to support the Aptos Village Project subdivision developers.  Phase 1 of this work paid to move the bus stop on Soquel Drive to a less-convenient location for the public so that the developers can create a new connector gateway entrance from Soquel Drive.  There were no new bike lanes added to Trout Gulch in this project.  

Phase 2 of the work, which has just begun, will erase the existing bike lane on a critical portion of westbound Soquel Drive, remove a significant amount of necessary on-street parking for existing businesses, and remove seven parking places from the parking lot owned by Parish Publick House, a popular existing restaurant, in order to create a turn lane from Soquel Drive to Aptos Creek Road.  This publicly-funded improvement is in fact a mitigation for the Aptos Village Project’s phase 2 subdivision.  

It is difficult to understand why the County Public Works Department has prioritized such an unbalanced allocation of CSA 9 funding to this area, at the expense of funding critical projects in other areas of the CSA 9 sphere of taxpayers.  Why is there no similar relief for residents in Seacliff whose safety would be greatly improved with a dedicated center turn lane on State Park Drive and Seacliff Drive, where many accidents have occurred?  If CSA 9 has a countywide sphere, why are there no projects in the unincorporated areas near Watsonville or Davenport?  Why isn’t any CSA 9 revenue being used for the Rio del Mar drainage improvement project, or to create bike lanes and sidewalks along Spreckles Drive, leading from the Aptos Village to Rio del Mar ? 

Project #2 similarly is a large CSA 9 expenditure of $1,094,113 to install a traffic light at Robertson and Soquel Drive in Soquel Village.  This traffic light is a traffic mitigation for the Nissan Dealership Project developer at Soquel Drive and 41st Avenue and is yet another gift of public money to support a large developer.  Although not described in the narrative, Project #2 most likely also includes removing on-street parking on eastbound Soquel Drive for existing Soquel Village businesses and remove the existing bike lane in order to create a new traffic turn lane onto Porter Street as yet another traffic mitigation for the Nissan Dealership Project developer. 

The LAFCO CSA 9 Service and Sphere Review also stated that it is difficult to obtain documents and information from the Dept. of Public Works, and opines that it would be a good idea to feature the information on the website.  While Director of LAFCO states it is not the job of LAFCO to formally make any  recommendations to the Commissioners other than to accept and file the Review, it seems that the Director of Public Works would be eager to improve transparency.  By and large, Mr. Matt Machado, Director of DPW, is responsive to recommendations from the public.  

Write Matt Machado matt.machado@santacruzcounty.us 

Maybe he can also explain why the CSA 9 money is all going to help large developers.

The City response to individual items is:

1. Perform a visual underwater inspection of the leak section of the outfall structure by SCUBA divers and/or remotely operated vehicle (ROV) that is sufficient to determine the location, size, and magnitude of the leak.

Response: The City’s previous submarine inspection located the general area of the leak location. Further diver or ROV inspection would not locate the leak more precisely since the leak filters through a thick layer of backfill rock and naturally occurring sand and sediment. That layer serves to spread the leaked effluent, preventing more precise leak location. Subsequent aerial observations for dye releases indicate that the leak continues to occur in the same location. The KLI work showed the leak is highly diluted. Bacterial monitoring shows no public health and safety risk from the leak. The fact that the dilution at the leak exceeds the dilution credit in the City’s discharge permit by more than a factor of seven shows the highly diluted trace constituents in the leak would pose no increased risk to the environment. Hence, the City’s position is that further expensive field work to quantify the leak more precisely would not be justified.

2. Provide a detailed description of the results of the inspection. Include underwater inspection footage of the outfall section with the leak.

Response: The previous City-sponsored submarine inspection showed the dispersed nature of the leak. The City’s position is that repeating such work would provide no expanded information and hence is unwarranted.

3. Provide an assessment of the rate of discharge from the leak. Describe the methods used to make this assessment.

Response: The City has identified that it could contract to measure the leakage rate with some precision. The responses presented above summarize the City argument that owing to the high dilution of the leak, which supports the City’s contention that the leak is small and causes neither public health and safety nor environmental risk, leak quantification at high cost is unwarranted.

4. Identify corrective actions the City will implement to fix the outfall structure and stop the leak. Describe all methods and options for fixing the outfall structure that were assessed. Explain why the City chose the actions it will implement.

Response: Based on experience of other agencies, the City knows that a contractor could repair the leak either from the exterior (remove the ballast rock and other backfill over the pipe to expose the leak and apply an external seal, an activity that could cause exterior damage to the pipe) or from the interior (use an ROV to locate the leakage point and have divers install internal repair clamps). However, the City maintains that such expense is unwarranted based on the small leak size and the very high dilution that occurs rapidly for leaked effluent.

5. Provide a detailed schedule for implementation of identified corrective actions.

Response: The City proposes to continue its ongoing leak monitoring and reporting—regular bacteriological sampling over the leak and annual dye releases monitored from an airplane. Therefore, the City proposes no further scheduled activities.

Please contact us with any additional questions. 

Very truly yours, 

Anne Hogan, PE

Wastewater System Manager
City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility
110 California Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 / (831) 420-5425

Enclosure

cc/enc: A. Babatola, City of Santa Cruz

1. Wolfman, City of Santa Cruz
2. Dettle, City of Santa Cruz
3. Faisst, Brown and Caldwell
4. Yamauchi, Brown and Caldwell
5. Yu, State Water Board

Stanley, Central Coast Water Board

1. Hammer, Central Coast Water Board
2. Packard, Central Coast Water Board
3. von Langen, Central Coast Water Board
4. Grimmer, MBNMS
5. De Beukelaer, MBNMS
6. Hoover, MBNMS
7. Ricker, Santa Cruz County

So, if you would like to see the City of Santa Cruz improve the water quality for surfers and all who enjoy visiting the City’s beach areas, please write the Santa Cruz City Council and also the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and demand the City repair the ruptured sewage effluent pipe now.

Santa Cruz City Council citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com

State Regional Water Quality Control Board:

Peter VonLongenpeter.vonlangen@waterboards.ca.gov
Phillip Hammerphillip.hammer@waterboards.ca.gov
Harvey Packardharvey.packard@waterboards.ca.gov
Matt Keelingmatt.keeling@waterboards.ca.gov

Santa Cruz Surfrider Foundation:
Alli Webster chair@santacruz.surfrider.org

Even though Cowell’s Beach was not on this year’s Beach Bummer List, the water quality problems due to this sewage outfall pipe rupture remain a health concern.

SANTA CRUZ CITY WATER COMMISSION LEARNS ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES TO PLAN FOR INJECTING MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF TREATED SEWAGE WATER BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS

The City Water Commission hear a report on June 6 from Water Department staff regarding a progress report on the water supply work plan.  New information is that the City wastewater has high levels of contaminants nitrite, ammonia and total organic carbon that will require a change in Project plans.  The plan for the city using any of the water for irrigation from Soquel Creek WAter District’s expensive and risky PureWAter Soquel Project will have to now route the irrigation water back to the City from the treatment plant planned for the Live Oak Community, rather than taking it from the treatment plant at the wastewater treatment plant in Santa Cruz.

See page 27:

At this time the study is focused on non-potable reuse for irrigation and indirect-potable reuse for groundwater injection. A notable difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the ongoing work by Soquel Creek Water District on their Pure Water Soquel (PWS) Program. 

The PWS Program includes a bifurcated treatment system with tertiary pretreatment occurring at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) and advanced purification occurring at their Chanticleer site. During Phase 1 of the recycled water study, an assumption was made that the tertiary pretreatment occurring at the WWTF would produce up to 1,800 acre-feet per year (afy) of Title 22-quality water, permittable through the state as disinfected for purposes such as outdoor irrigation and as high-quality source water to the PWS advanced purification system. 

Due to source water quality issues related to the secondary-treated wastewater from the WWTF, specifically nitrite, ammonia and TOC, the PWS treatment facility at the WWTF will produce Title 22, disinfected tertiary recycled water for 300 afy for City uses and 1,500 afy of tertiary treated, non-disinfected recycled water that will be treated further at the Chanticleer to purified standards for the PWS Program with microfiltration, reverse osmosis, UV light and advanced oxidation. 

The tertiary pretreatment for the 300 afy stream and the 1,500 afy will be different. Nitrite, ammonia and TOC will impact the downstream advanced purification processes. To address these water quality issues, the PWS Program is pursuing nitrifying Biological Aerated Filter (nBAF) to reduce nitrite, ammonia and TOC, meet regulated target discharge levels and eliminate the need for a costly Ozone system. The nBAF would be located at the Santa Cruz WWTF (see schematic below) and would receive secondary effluent as the source water supply. A chlorine residual will be maintained after the nBAF to help mitigate biological growth in the PWS pipeline. 

(see page 28):

The implications for Santa Cruz’s use of recycled water include the following: • Recycled Water Direct from Santa Cruz WWTF: 

The PWS is planning to construct a separate 300afy tertiary treatment and disinfection system (e.g. granular media filter and ultraviolet (UV) light) at the Santa Cruz WWTF to serve recycled water to La Barranca Park, a truck fill station and for in-plant uses. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increasing the capacity of this system to serve other non-potable customers directly from the Santa Cruz WWTF. 

• Tertiary Water from the PWS Pipeline: 

The tertiary water in the PWS pipeline would not meet Title 22 disinfected requirements for non-potable reuse because nBAF is not an approved Title 22 tertiary treatment process and the chlorine residual would not meet Title 22 disinfection requirements. The RWFS will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a turnout along the PWS pipeline to send tertiary water to Pasatiempo, where their existing satellite treatment facilities could be used to produce recycled water for golf course irrigation. No other users are identified along the PWS pipeline because of the need for costly satellite treatment systems, and Pasatiempo currently receives source water from the City of Scotts Valley. This alternative would be practical only with regional partnerships in North Santa Cruz County.

• Recycled Water Direct from Chanticleer Site: 

The microfiltration system at the PWS’s advanced water treatment plant at the Chanticleer site could be expanded to produce tertiary Title 22 disinfected water for non-potable reuse or purified water for indirect potable reuse. The RWFS is evaluating options to serve nearby customers or recharge the groundwater basin in the Beltz Wellfield.

 See page 29:

Based on preliminary estimates, the current cost of potable water for Pasatiempo Golf Course and DeLaveaga Golf Course is greater than the estimated life cycle unit cost for recycled water. Serving recycled water to these golf courses would offset approximately 335 afy of potable water with a local, drought-resistant supply. Depending on the future rates for recycled water, these customers may realize cost savings over time if connected to recycled water. Pasatiempo could utilize its existing satellite facility to store and treat tertiary water from the PWS pipeline. DeLaveaga could be served by a new pipeline from the Chanticleer site, assuming expansion of the PWS MF system with the addition of disinfection (e.g. UV). In addition to using recycled water for irrigation, the project team is currently evaluating three alternatives that would build on the PWS Program by constructing additional groundwater injection wells with, or without, an ASR project.  Take a look at pages 33 and 34 to see where the new pipeline routes and injection well sites for the Soquel Creek Water District and City venture 

Doesn’t this seem like a significant change to the PureWater Soquel Project?  Please write the California Coastal Commission and ask that they rescind the Consolidated Coastal Development Permit 3-20-0014 approved on March 11, 2020 for the PureWater Soquel Project because the Project has now been significantly altered and requires additional environmental review. 

SANTA CRUZ CITY’S “SOU” CODE SPELLS TROUBLE 
Last week’s discussion of the massive 908 Ocean Street project  caused some readers to contact me with further information.  I would like to correct my error in defining what “SOU” means.  It stands for “Small Occupancy Units”, not “Single Occupancy Units”.  My apologies. 

What SOU really means, however, is troubling.  The City Planner in charge of this massive Project, ms. Clara Stanger, has not yet answered my letter and questions.   However, an anonymous source kindly sent me a copy of the City Code describing SOU Ordinances that were sent to her last year from City Senior Planner Mike Ferry.

According to the reputable source, 

24.12.1500 PURPOSE. The purpose of these regulations is to provide additional options for affordable ownership housing by providing incentives for the development of reduced-size ownership dwelling units, defined as small ownership units (SOU).

(Ord. 2006-18 § 1 (part), 2006).

24.12.1510 DEFINITION. 

“Small ownership unit” or “SOU” is a dwelling unit containing no more than one bedroom and floor area ranging from four hundred to six hundred fifty square feet, located on a separate subdivided parcel and included in a residential development where all dwelling units are SOU units and are offered for sale to the general public.

(Ord. 2006-18 § 1 (part), 2006).

24.12.1520 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

1. Density. SOU units shall comply with the underlying development standards of the zoning district in which they are located, except that requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not apply to SOU units.
2. Unit Size. The floor area of SOU units may range from a minimum of four hundred square feet to a maximum of six hundred fifty square feet.
3. Unit Configuration. SOU units may have a maximum of one bedroom. No additional separate enclosed rooms with doors, except for bathrooms, shall be allowed in SOU units.
4. Open Space. A residential project comprised of SOU units shall contain at least one hundred fifty square feet of usable open space per SOU unit. This requirement may be met by any combination of private and/or common open space. Common landscaped areas less than ten feet wide shall not be included in usable open space.
5. Storage Facilities. All SOU units shall have access to private usable storage space containing a minimum of two hundred cubic feet. The required storage space may be incorporated into private garages or carports; provided, that the garage or carport has adequate space for a vehicle, as required by Part 3, Chapter 24.12.
6. Bicycle Parking. One Class 1 bicycle storage facility shall be provided for each SOU unit. The required private usable storage space provided for each SOU unit may be utilized to meet this requirement.
7. Covered Parking. Covered parking is not required.

(Ord. 2007-21 § 1, 2007: Ord. 2006-18 § 1 (part), 2006).

24.12.1530 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS. 

1. All projects comprised of SOU units shall be common interest developments as defined by Section 1351of the California Civil Code.
2. Prior to approval of a final map for a residential project comprised of SOU units, the city attorney and director of planning and community development shall review the project’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions to ensure that they conform to the requirements of this section. The approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded against the residential project concurrently with recordation of the final map.
3. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions for a residential project comprised of SOU units shall conform with all provisions of state law, including requirements for maintenance reserves, and shall in addition include the following provisions:
4. Prohibition on the use of garages and carports for any use other than parking moving vehicles and other uses specifically identified in the approved plans;
5. Prohibition on rental of more than fifty percent of the SOU units in the residential project;
6. Requirement that any SOU unit that is rented be managed by a single management company designated by the homeowners association to manage all rental units in the residential project; and
7. Requirement that the homeowners association submit an annual report to the city identifying all rental units; verifying compliance with restrictions on the use of garages and carports; and identifying the management company responsible for managing all rental units in the development.
8. SOU developments may be located in the following zoning districts:
9. R-T(C) Subdistrict C – Beach Commercial;
10. C-C Community Commercial District;
11. CBD Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue;
12. Central Business District (CBD).

(Ord. 2008-14 § 4, 2008: Ord. 2006-18 § 1 (part), 2006).

Consider what this person wrote to me:

“Given the impact it can create, this SOU ordinance, passed with no real public input, is like a secret weapon the Planning Department can use to approve incredibly dense mixed-use projects.   This Ordinance was not discussed in the earlier public process for the Ocean Street Area Plan or the Corridor Plan.  I could find no other cities that have such an ordinance. 

The whole purpose is defeated if half the units can be rented and the units are then not really even for first time home ownership with low entry price .  How they will monitor this?  

Another big loophole is that there is no limit on how many units one person or company could buy.   One  large corporate company could buy all 50% if they wanted to …excluding the inclusionary units . 

Now with COVID 19 problems,  the density should be considered a concern.   And with fewer people  motivated to use public transportation,  the argument that on-site parking can be reduced because It’s on the transit corridor is not so strong .   People will want their cars even more, and the narrow neighborhood streets will suffer. 

The purpose of this SOU Ordinance is defeated.”  

MAGGIORA DEMOLISHES OLD AG WELL AT LAM PROPERTY….THE OLD HOUSE GOES NEXT
Last week, I noticed Maggiora Bros. large trucks at the Soquel Avenue Frontage Road site proposed to become the sewage water treatment facility for Soquel Creek Water District’s PureWater Soquel Project.  They were demolishing an old 159′-deep agricultural well remnant of the farm that used to be there. The well was blasted once full of concrete. The District denied the well was there during early public questioning, and it was not at all addressed in the Project’s earlier environmental review. 

Also not addressed in the Project EIR is that the old house at this Lam Property has asbestos and lead paint hazards.  The $71,000 contract awarded to TYMAN CONSTRUCTION for demolition includes substantial amounts for lead paint and asbestos abatement, as well as demolition of an old septic tank.. 

This new four-year-old company does not usually do demolition work, according to their website, so one must wonder if this bid that came in at $25,000 lower than the engineer’s estimate will be done safely for those who travel by on Highway One adjacent, and the Live Oak Community people who live and work nearby. 

The Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors has not yet approved the work for the contract CWO-20-4011 yet.  Write and ask that they will ensure the public is kept safe during this hazardous operation.  Supervisor John Leopold and County Environmental Health Services also need to hear from you.

Supervisor John Leopold john.leopold@santacruzcounty.us 
Rebecca Supplee rebecca.supplee@santacruzcounty.us 

LOCAL BUSINESSES RECEIVED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUT SOME SEEM QUESTIONABLE
The Good Times reporter Jacob Pierce did a great job investigating the local businesses who have received millions of dollars in government money for COVID-19 relief.  One really has to wonder why three major grocery stores, essential businesses, would qualify for $350,000 -$1 million forgivable loans with claims of having been hard-hit with the restrictions when their sales have been booming.  How did one restaurant, Michael’s on Main, qualify for a forgivable loan of $5-$10 loan when other local restaurants are also suffering mightily?  

Santa Cruz County Companies Bring in Millions in Recovery Loans 

Many thanks to Jacob Pierce and the Good Times for making this information public. 

WHY DID SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AWARD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION $1.5 MILLION TO DO COUNTY’S COVID WORK?
At a time when the County budget is approaching $30-$40 million deficit, why was a contract to pay the Santa Cruz County Community Foundation $1.5 million for administering the County Health Dept. response to COVID-19 tucked secretively into Consent Agenda Item #48 on the final Board meeting for the fiscal year? 

Why is the County paying a private, non-public health agency to administer the County Health Department program?  This is money  that the County will claim as COVID-19 response expenses and hopes the federal and state government funding will reimburse.  

DOC-2020-591 Approve revenue agreement with the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County, in the amount of $1,500,000, for public health COVID-19 response efforts; adopt resolution accepting unanticipated revenue in the amount of $1,500,000 Carlos Palacios, the County Administrative Officer, is also on the Board of the Community Foundation.  That seems like a red-flag for conflict of interest.  The Community Foundation Board meetings are NOT open to the public, because it is a private entity.  Likewise, the Community Foundation is exempt from responding to Public information Act requests by the public, again because it is a private entity. 

Here is what the Community Foundation, an non-public health private entity, can do with the $1.5 Million gift of public monies from the County, but how will we ever know what the money actually accomplishes?  How can this even be legal?

(Consent Agenda Item #48):

“The initial Public Health response primarily focused on non-pharmaceutical intervention containment and mitigation strategies to slow the spread, including physical distancing measures. Additional public health interventions and health system preparedness are now required to sustain long-term reductions in new cases before vaccines and therapeutics are widely available. This revenue agreement will support increasing public health and health system capacity in the areas of testing, case investigation, contact tracing, resources for isolation and quarantine, surveillance, data trending, and education and outreach. “

Here is what the Community Foundation is supposed to be doing, according to the website:

Our vision is to make Santa Cruz County thrive for all who call it home, now and in the future. Our mission is to bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things. 

Take a look at the Board and see that Carlos Palacios is included. 

If you think that the County gifting $1.5 Million in your tax-funded public money to the Community Foundation is questionable, please contact:

California State Attorney General

e-mail: Public Inquiry Unitpiu@doj.ca.gov  (you must include your mailing address in all requests for inquiry)

U.S. Mail: 
Office of the Attorney General, Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

U.S. Dept. of Justice

e-mail: U.S. Dept. of Justice

U.S. Mail:
United States Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C.  20530