“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.