Quick Take
Santa Cruz County supervisors voted Tuesday to end a costly third-party contract for wildfire rebuild permitting, shifting responsibilities to a county staff who said they were already stretched. With hundreds of homes still unfinished, questions linger about whether the county can handle the workload without derailing recovery for CZU fire victims.
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to end a third-party contract and absorb responsibility for permitting and inspecting CZU wildfire rebuild projects despite workload concerns from staff and worries from residents about the county planning department’s reputation for an agonizingly slow workflow.
The 2020 CZU wildfire that swept through the Santa Cruz Mountains burned roughly 700 lots hosting residential units. The pace of the recovery and obstacles faced by victims trying to rebuild have been lightning-rod political issues for the region ever since. Today, just 127 homes have been rebuilt and occupied, while hundreds more remain somewhere in the construction pipeline.
Since 2021, those hoping to rebuild have relied on 4Leaf, a San Francisco-based construction management firm hired by the county to walk fire victims through the confusing world of building permits and analyses, a service many called critical. However, with the supervisors’ vote on Tuesday, those still in the construction pipeline will instead deal directly with a county government stretched thin by myriad planning responsibilities.
One of the thornier obstacles for people trying to rebuild has been the state’s updated and strict septic standards. In cases where the home and septic system were destroyed, homeowners have to install modern systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars. The county’s environmental health division will now be handling that issue directly with fire victims. When asked bluntly by District 5 Supervisor Bruce McPherson whether her department has the bandwidth to handle the new workload, Health Services Agency Director Monica Morales said no.
“We can’t replace that capacity that 4Leaf brought to the table,” Morales said. The environmental health division has only a single full-time project manager and five trainees, she said. “We do believe we will work and make this a priority, absolutely, you have our commitment to that. … We are eager, just as you, to get through this. We don’t want this to carry on.”
However, Carlos Palacios, who as chief administrative officer oversees the entire county government, said he was eager to transition from the 4Leaf contract, which has cost the county more than $2.3 million over the past three years. Since the original 4Leaf contract, the county’s budget has endured dire straits, and an uncertain financial situation ahead.
Palacios said he was personally “committed to doing whatever we need to do to keep the transition moving forward.” He said whether it requires hiring 4Leaf consultants to help the county’s environmental health division, or some other means, he would “come up with the resources to do that.”
District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings said he wanted to see the county find $150,000 to help support its Long Term Recovery Group, a county arm that assists people through disaster recovery. He also pressed to require county staff to come back with quarterly reports on how they are handling the new workload.
Cummings said the vote “was not easy” for him, but ultimately supported the move.
“We’re making a major step here today,” Cummings said. “We’re taking away a program that many people found to be beneficial in helping them rebuild, and there are a lot of folks who are still going through this process. I don’t want them to feel like we’re leaving them behind.”
On Monday, department spokesperson Tiffany Martinez said the county planned to give CZU fire victims special preference. The county planned to uphold 4Leaf’s commitment to 10-day reviews and five-day second reviews. Martinez said the county would also carve out appointment slots with staff specifically for CZU victims.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.