County supervisors’ response to CZU recovery investigation ‘does not align’ with reality, District 5 candidates say

Responding to a civil grand jury investigation into the handling of the 2020 CZU wildfire, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is deflecting criticism that the county’s response failed victims and obstructed the pace of recovery. The two candidates running for the open District 5 county supervisor seat that represents the community most affected criticized that response this week.

The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury filed the 26-page investigation in June, outlining how poor communication and planning from the county contributed to the still-glacial pace of recovery and left fire victims with increased obstacles and costs. On Thursday, the volunteer-led government watchdog published the county board of supervisors’ formal responses, which were required as part of the jury’s procedures. Although the supervisors acknowledged that “more can and will be done in future disasters to increase communications,” the board disagreed with the grand jury’s claim that the county’s “failure to have an effective disaster response plan” cost victims in the recovery. 

The 2020 CZU wildfire burned nearly 1,000 structures on the county’s side of the Santa Cruz Mountains, 697 of which were single-family homes. According to the investigation, only 113 “replacement dwellings” have been built, roughly 16%. The dragged-out recovery and regulatory hurdles between victims and a rebuild have, in no small way, shaped the politics of the mountains. All four candidates in the March primary to replace outgoing District 5 Supervisor Bruce McPherson molded their platforms around the CZU rebuild. The two candidates who advanced to the November general election, Monica Martinez and Christopher Bradford, have been vocal critics of the response, each saying the county government and the board of supervisors have failed CZU fire victims. 

Following the publication of the supervisors’ responses, Lookout asked Martinez and Bradford to provide their thoughts. Both candidates said the board’s response did not align with what they have been hearing from residents and people on the ground. 

“It may surprise you to know that a substantial number of those who lost their homes simply walked away without rebuilding,” the report reads. “Many found themselves under-insured to the degree that they simply could not bear the cost to rebuild. Others were unable to rekindle their dreams because they found themselves unable to navigate a lengthy and often bewildering permitting process. And others chose not to rebuild their homes because they were unaware or uninformed that restorative resources and support were available.” 

The grand jury found that many victims did not know about the services of the Long Term Recovery Group, a volunteer organization that formed in CZU’s wake to shepherd people through the recovery process whether through rebuilding or financial assistance. The supervisors only partially agreed with this, saying that the unique circumstances of each victim and how they receive and use information and resources “was a key learning from the CZU.” 

“Even in my own communication with my fire community as recent as this year, people were unaware of the Long Term Recovery Group,” said Bradford, who lost his own Boulder Creek home in the blaze. “I think the difference between the CZU [fire] and a potential future disaster is that the resources can be marketed immediately to spread awareness. This marketing will be key in connecting victims with the resources to assist their recovery.”

The county has withheld rebuild permits in many cases because modern regulations don’t allow structures to be built exactly as they were before the wildfire. Common issues include outdated septic systems (which can cost upward of $80,000), geological testing or the width of fire roads. Martinez said she read the supervisors’ response as trying to avoid responsibility for the pace of the recovery. 

“The county’s claim that it did not fail in the rebuilding process is not what I’m hearing from the people who have been navigating that system,” Martinez said. “Residents have felt overwhelmed by bureaucracy, delays and unclear communication — particularly within the planning department. … The county must take responsibility for the culture within the planning department and across agencies. We cannot allow residents, especially disaster victims, to feel ignored or mistreated by the very systems meant to help them.” 

The board of supervisors also disagreed the the civil grand jury’s finding that it had failed to create an “effective disaster response plan” before CZU, which made the recovery more expensive for victims. 

Bradford said an effective plan would have allowed for more leniency for people trying to rebuild their homes. He said each parcel was mistreated as a “new build in relation to the code,” instead of allowing homeowners to rebuild to original specs. 

“Seemingly, the [county] inspectors and leaders of departments such as environmental health and geology, felt as if the most extreme code enforcement was required,” Bradford said. “If there had been forethought about how we were going to keep the promise of not treating us as new builds before people started the process … time would have been saved, and huge amounts of money as well. More people would be home.” 

Bradford and Matinez each disagreed with the board’s rejection of a grand jury recommendation for the county to work with its three permitting departments on developing an expedited rebuild process for future disasters. The board of supervisors bristled against a one-size-fits-all permitting procedure for future disasters. 

Bradford said the leaders guiding the county’s recovery process needed to be thinking “three steps ahead about how the implementation of our strategies will affect those trying to recover or even sell their homes.” The current permitting process, he said, was preventing some residents from moving forward. 

Martinez said she “fully supported” the grand jury’s recommendation.

“This is critical to ensuring we aren’t faced with the same issues again,” Martinez said. “It’s time to create a disaster response system that is compassionate, efficient and truly supportive. … We’re all just one disaster away from being in the same situation. The failure to fix these issues puts every one of us at risk.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.