Local News

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a process that will allow them to approve their own raises.

In a 3-2 vote, the board agreed to move away from a formula tying supervisors’ salaries to Superior Court judges, opening the door to a compensation system based on local economic conditions and county employee pay.

Supervisors Manu Koenig and Kim De Serpa dissented.

The proposal, brought forward by Supervisor Justin Cummings, does not give supervisors a raise. 

Instead, it directs the county Human Resources Department to return Aug. 25 with a salary recommendation based on factors including inflation, the Consumer Price Index, compensation at comparable public agencies and county employee compensation trends.

Since 2021, supervisors’ salaries have been set at 62% of a Superior Court judge’s salary. The percentage reflected the relationship between the two salaries at the time: supervisors earned $134,698 annually compared with $214,601 for judges.

The arrangement was intended to provide an outside benchmark for supervisors’ compensation rather than leaving board members to determine their own raises. But it was itself a return to an older county practice.

Supervisor pay had historically been linked to judicial salary increases until the board eliminated that connection in 1997 amid significant budget constraints. For more than two decades afterward, salary recommendations instead considered factors such as the CPI, compensation at other public agencies and agreements with county labor groups. The board restored the judicial connection in 2021.

Cummings said Tuesday that the current system does not adequately reflect economic conditions in Santa Cruz County.

“It just struck me that what we try to do as a board is when we’re considering salaries for our employees, we’re taking into account Consumer Price Index, cost of living, cost of housing, compaction, all these different factors that are relevant to where we are,” Cummings said.

Cummings said he began reconsidering the system after supervisors received a 2.6% increase last year while most county employees received increases of 4% or more. Judges received no increase this year, meaning supervisors would receive none under the existing formula.

“And I just didn’t think that was fair,” Cummings said.

Critics questioned the timing. Last week, supervisors approved placing a half-cent sales tax measure on the November ballot for purchases in unincorporated Santa Cruz County amid the county’s financial difficulties.

Aptos resident Becky Steinbruner said the change could send the wrong message.

“I think the optics are not good to do this right now,” she said.

Koenig said he supports higher compensation for supervisors but argued that the judges formula was specifically designed to depoliticize the process.

“We shouldn’t be creating a new process to give ourselves a raise,” Koenig said. “We could be looking at cuts and layoffs and furloughs in the future. This is just super bad timing.”

Any raise would require another amendment to county law, including two public agenda discussions, and would not take effect until 61 days after final approval.

With the weekend nearly here, check out things to do around Santa Cruz County, with a recommendation from Lily Belli and a specially curated list from Lookout’s BOLO events calendar.

In 2023, Santa Cruz County ranked worst in the state in reported cyclist deaths and injuries according to the California Office of Traffic Safety. (Nik Altenberg — Santa Cruz Local)

Santa Cruz Transportation and Public Works Meeting

• 6 p.m. Monday, Aug. 17 
• Santa Cruz Council Chambers, 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz
• To comment ahead of the meeting, email tpwc@santacruzca.gov no later than 12 p.m. Monday Aug. 17.

SANTA CRUZ >> In an effort to reduce traffic injuries and deaths, the Santa Cruz city transportation planners are proposing to lower speed limits in school zones and neighborhoods with heavy foot traffic. Vehicle speed is a major factor in likelihood of death for pedestrians and cyclists in crashes.

On Monday, the Santa Cruz Transportation and Public Works Commission is set to review the Santa Cruz Road Safety Action Plan, and recommend city council adopt an array of speed reducing measures. 

The commission’s recommendations include reducing speed limits to 15 mph from 25 mph in school zones when children are present, and to 20 or 25 mph from 30 mph in pedestrian heavy streets, such as Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street.

(function() { window.mc4wp = window.mc4wp || { listeners: [], forms: { on: function(evt, cb) { window.mc4wp.listeners.push( { event : evt, callback: cb } ); } } } })(); Stay informed on Santa Cruz County’s biggest issues. Santa Cruz Local’s newsletter breaks down complex local topics and shows residents how to get involved. Email address:
mc4wp.forms.on('subscribed', function(form) { // gtag.js if(form.id == '6954') { gtag('event', 'subscribe', {'event_category': 'newsletter_prompt', 'event_label':'top_of_story'}); } }); Leave this field empty if you're human:

Law enforcement data for vehicle crashes in the city of Santa Cruz from 2020 to 2024 suggests that unsafe speed was the primary factor in 17% of crashes that caused injury or death, according to the city’s Santa Cruz Road Safety Action Plan.

The council’s ability to reduce speed limits comes after a 2021 state law passed, which granted cities and counties in California the option to lower school and neighborhood speed limits to help reduce fatal accidents. Santa Cruz created the safety action plan that same year. 

Now with school back in session, the safety risks are even greater with many students walking or biking. 

“I think reducing speeds, especially around children in school zones, make neighborhoods more walkable and bikeable,” said Councilmember Renee Golder, who is also principal of Bay View Elementary School.

Bay View Elementary sits at Mission and Bay streets. Mission Street, which is also Highway 1, is a hot spot of fatal traffic accidents, with one as recently as January that resulted in the death of a pedestrian struck near Bay Street. 

With Mission Street being one of the top priority streets for local transportation planners to address, other roadways the commission is seeking improvement on include Water Street, Soquel Avenue and Center Street.  

The commission is also looking to launch a “20 is Plenty” campaign, a grassroots movement that originally started in the United Kingdom, which advocates for the idea of lowering speed limits on residential streets, particularly for cyclist safety. 

In 2023, Santa Cruz County ranked worst in the state in reported cyclist deaths and injuries according to the California Office of Traffic Safety. The state data does not incorporate how many people regularly cycle.

Originally scheduled to be completed by 2030, the action plan was given a new projected completion date of 2050, after the city recognized that there was “more work to be done” and a “more realistic timeline” needed to be implemented, according to the draft of the action plan.

Questions or comments? Email info@santacruzlocal.org. Santa Cruz Local is supported by members, major donors, sponsors and grants for the general support of our newsroom. Our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Learn more about Santa Cruz Local and how we are funded.

Learn about membership Santa Cruz Local’s news is free. We believe that high-quality local news is crucial to democracy. We depend on locals like you to make a meaningful contribution so everyone can access our news. Learn about membership

The post Santa Cruz could lower speed limits near schools, business areas appeared first on Santa Cruz Local.

One person has died following an incident in which a vehicle drove off a cliff on West Cliff Drive near Steamer Lane, Santa Cruz authorities said.

Santa Cruz Regional 911 received a call around 12:50 a.m. Wednesday, and units from multiple agencies responded, including all five units from the Santa Cruz Fire Department (four engines and a ladder truck, plus a battalion chief), three units from the Central Fire District of Santa Cruz County, a battalion chief from the Scotts Valley Fire Department and units from the Santa Cruz Police Department, according to a news release.

Crews found one victim who had escaped from the vehicle and received a report that another victim was still inside. Four rescue swimmers from SCFD went into the water to search for the victim.

They located and extracted the second victim, and the swimmers confirmed no other victims were in the car.

The first victim who escaped the vehicle sustained minor injuries. The second victim was transported to a nearby medical facility, but later passed away there, according to the release.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information is available.

Have news that should be in Lookout Briefs? Send your news releases, including contact information, to news@lookoutlocal.com.

MORE LOCAL COVERAGE

The post One dead after vehicle drives off West Cliff Drive near Steamer Lane appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

Here’s what’s happening on Santa Cruz County roads this morning…

▼︎ new incidents

Road incidents as of 6 a.m. on August 13

• A crash happened at Highway 1 south and Springfield Road in Moss Landing involving a gray Subaru and another sedan. Emergency medical services were on their way. The incident was reported today.

Disclosure: Traffic incidents are partially generated by artificial intelligence. We are constantly working to improve the accuracy and quality of our AI-generated content. However, there may still be errors or inaccuracies. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.

The post Thursday morning traffic: Crash on Highway 1 north of Moss Landing appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

A newly proposed housing development at the intersection of Seabright Avenue and Soquel Avenue in Santa Cruz envisions six stories of housing and 5,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space — and neither remaining mayoral candidate is a fan.

The proposal would demolish the existing buildings on the site, which is home to Ace Hardware and The Bagelry, among other businesses. The Santa Cruz Roller Palladium would border the project to the south and the Horsnyder’s Pharmacy to the east.

The project, headed by local development firm Workbench, includes two potential designs — a fully affordable housing development and a living facility for older adults — as it is still in the pre-application stage. The first, referred to as “Bright Plaza” in the current project plans, and includes 281 units of fully affordable housing and 5,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. The second is a 173-unit senior living facility that also includes 5,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.

However, to longtime local politico and Santa Cruz mayoral candidate Ryan Coonerty, it doesn’t matter which version moves forward. In a Facebook post, Coonerty did not mince words when expressing his dislike of the design.

“To be clear, I hate it. If elected mayor, I will fight it with every means at my disposal,” he wrote. He added that he believes the project is too tall, and does not provide enough parking. He also said that there’s no setback from the sidewalk.

“But this project also means the end of vibrant neighborhood businesses and Santa Cruz gems, like The Bagelry, Akira, Ace and more,” he wrote. “It is exactly what we don’t need or want in Santa Cruz.”

This rendering was included with the pre-application for the project at 1214 Soquel Ave., but isn’t necessarily the actual proposed design for the project. A proposed design will be submitted with the formal application. Credit: City of Santa Cruz

Ami Chen Mills, Coonerty’s opponent in the November mayoral election, told Lookout that she thinks Coonerty’s post felt “a little bit like a political stunt.” Still, she said that although she supports affordable housing and thinks the city needs more, she also opposes the project, largely because of the uncertain future of popular or useful businesses on the parcel. She said, however, that some new buildings, trees, and pedestrian infrastructure could be a good idea on the Soquel corridor. She would like to see the affected businesses preserved or even included in the development, should there be one.

“In this case, I have several people on my team who live in the Seabright area and who frequent all those businesses,” she said. “We are reaching out to residents in the Seabright area to start having meetings to talk about how they can have input right away.”

Both candidates have shared mixed feelings on development throughout the city. Coonerty previously said there are some projects he likes more than others, particularly those that aim to activate neglected areas, such as the RiverRow apartments on Front Street. He also believes that the city should preserve cultural and historical places, such as The Catalyst, itself the site of a potential development.

Chen Mills previously said she wants to see more nuance in the housing conversations, adding that YIMBY (yes in my backyard) is too single-issue-oriented, while NIMBY (not in my backyard) perspectives can come off as unkind when opposing developments. She also said she would favor affordable units over market-rate units.

Coonerty told Lookout that he believes “the community needs more input, not less,” and does not support a ministerial overlay district that would remove public hearings in front of elected officials, which the city is exploring. 

“Neighbors know best what the pain points are in a particular place, and to the extent that you have really predatory development, it’s important that we push back using any means at our disposal,” he said. “Legal, regulatory and otherwise.”

Chen Mills said Santa Cruz is likely experiencing development fatigue given the pressure from the state to build, and particularly the major jump from the previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle. In that 2015-2023 cycle, the city was on the hook for just 747 new units. Now, it needs to plan for more than 3,700.

“I think that the council is responding to some of this pushback and they’re reaching out to the community,” she said. She encouraged people to fill out the city’s design guidelines survey, and get organized sooner rather than later. “People need to get involved. Rather than just getting upset, people need to get engaged.”

Chen Mills added that she wants to find and build on parcels in the city that will have less impact on nearby houses, and to steer as clear from displacement and gentrification as possible. She also supports a cap on building heights at six to eight stories.

Coonerty told Lookout that although it’s true that the state has taken away a lot of local control over its building, he believes that there are still tools the city can use to assert the control it does have. Generally, Coonerty supports three-story development with adequate parking and setbacks from neighborhoods.

Santa Cruz mayoral candidates Ami Chen Mills (left) and Ryan Coonerty. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

“We need to leverage all those things for developments that don’t meet the basic criteria for design, scale and setback in our community,” he said. “I think we need to be much more aggressive in looking at all of our leverage points.”

Coonerty said he’s frustrated that housing built on UC Santa Cruz’s campus doesn’t count toward the RHNA total, and that there is little room for flexibility despite local strides to build housing.

“If you’re a good character, if you’re a good actor, we should have more control over the size, quality and design of the housing that’s being built,” he said. “I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

While she doesn’t see lawsuits against the state as being successful, and would rather not take that route, Chen Mills said she wants to leverage state relationships to find a balance.

“As mayor, I would be organizing our constituents to be speaking to [state Sen.] John [Laird] and [Assemblymember] Gail [Pellerin] and to the state,” she said. “But what I hear about Sacramento is that [having local control] is a dead issue. So that means we need to be lobbying from the city level for that local control to come back.”

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

The post Santa Cruz mayoral candidates oppose 6-story housing project at Seabright and Soquel; wish to regain some local control over building appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

After nearly five decades of baking bagels in Santa Cruz County, Bagelry founder John Hamstra has retired and handed the business to former employee Sidney Grant and his wife, Tal Cameron. The new owners say they intend to keep the local institution unchanged, from its menu and affordable prices to its longtime staff.

This opinion piece was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for its newsletters.

The Altadena and Palisades fires that swept through Southern California last year were just the latest in an escalating series of wildfires that have scorched the state.

The damage has been far-reaching: Californians have lost homes, community and — in some tragic cases — their lives. Wildfires are also raising insurance premiums and threatening the state’s giant sequoias and the headwater regions that provide most of California’s water supply. 

This year threatens to be another above-average fire season. As we’ve seen in recent years, fires can emerge quickly — even after wet winters. And if it feels like wildfires are increasing in size and scale, that’s because they are: The area of land burned in severe wildfires in the Sierra Nevada has tripled since 1990, while annual wildfire damages have more than quadrupled during that same period. 

Californians are understandably weary of this cycle. Decades of fire suppression have allowed vegetation to build up, increasing the risk of damages from high-severity wildfires. And now, a changing climate is intensifying the conditions that drive severe wildfire. 

The good news is that the state is engaged in an unprecedented multi-agency effort to reduce severe wildfire hazard on 1 million acres of wildlands each year. It’s an ambitious target, guided by a state-led task force, and one that meets the scale of the problem.

In a new report, the Public Policy Institute of California analyzed data from the task force that’s coordinating and tracking these efforts. We found the progress toward the goal accelerated between 2021 through 2024, with an average of 591,000 acres undergoing work to reduce wildfire hazard each year.  

The task force’s recently released five-year action plan doubles down on the need to prioritize the most at-risk landscapes with a call to “treat the worst first.” Our analysis shows that they’re doing just that: 83% of the forest and wildland areas treated — through thinning, prescribed burns or other methods — were in areas with high severe wildfire potential, in areas where communities and wildlands overlap, or both. 

One of the task force’s biggest wins was how it’s helped accelerate the return of beneficial fire to California’s landscapes. For a millennia, Native peoples used low-intensity fire to manage the landscape. Beneficial fire nearly doubled from 2021 to 2024, rising from about 100,000 to 200,000 acres per year.

This increase in cultural and prescribed burns represents an economical and environmentally sound way to restore forests and woodlands to health.

However, we are in a moment when federal agencies are reconsidering commitments to reduce wildfire hazard. Shifting federal policies and cuts at the Forest Service and its federal partners — which manage more than half of California’s forests — are introducing uncertainty about California’s ability to limit severe wildfire. 

In addition, the state’s annual budget for wildfire mitigation work could drop by hundreds of millions as key funding sources dry up. State officials recently voted to change a program that charges polluters for their emissions, resulting in $200 million less for wildfire mitigation each year.

Without dedicated funding, this crucially important work — which touches on public health, housing, water supply and more — will not occur at the scale the state needs.

Bradley Franklin (left) and Kyle Greenspan. Credit: Via CalMatters

In our report, we identified ways the task force can further enhance its efforts to protect landscapes and communities. For instance, it should refine its tracking of how long these treatments last and build the capacity of small and under-resourced partners to both conduct and report wildfire reduction efforts on private lands, which may not be captured right now.

Most importantly, this effort relies on a robust state and federal partnership that is already yielding results. Preserving this collaboration must be a priority.

Risks are rising, but the task force is making real progress. Now is not the time to lose momentum.

Bradley Franklin is a research fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center. He is an agricultural and environmental economist who focuses on ways to inform the design and implementation of public policy in natural resource management.

Kyle Greenspan is a research associate with the PPIC Water Policy Center, where he focuses on topics ranging from groundwater to carbon sequestration.

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

The post California is making progress on fire prevention. Federal retreat, shaky funding put it at risk appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

On the last leg of our 10-day road trip from Watsonville to Southern California, my wife Sarah and I bid farewell to family in San Diego County, packed up and departed the Great Western Hotel on the rocky shoreline of Carlsbad.

Heading north on Highway 5, we switched to Highway 1 through coastal towns such as Dana Point and Laguna Beach. Both of us have early memories of family trips in many of these spots. I even rode my bicycle through that area in the mid ‘70s with my friend Joe on a bike ride from Eugene, Oregon to San Diego.

Going through Los Angeles, we meandered through the mammoth port city of San Pedro. The endless rows of harborside cranes along Terminal Island, stacks of shipping containers, huge cargo ships from around the globe, all tied together with a spaghetti heap of bridges makes for dramatic views. 

ARTFUL Zany art packs the Handmade Marketplace in the Port of Los Angeles. 

The Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, similar to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has proven to be a great stop and there’s no admission fee. Their website states that their mission “is to be a leader in accessible, science-based marine education where every person is inspired to understand, respect, and protect the ocean and all life it sustains.”

Along Highway 1, north of Santa Monica, we took the slow way through Pacific Palisades to see the widespread damage left by the Jan. 7, 2025 Palisades Fire that killed 12 people, and roared through 6,837 structures. The blaze started in the Santa Monica Mountains and left a heavy trail of damage through Pacific Palisades, Topanga and Malibu. 

RUINS Burned-up ruins of scores of homes dot the landscape along Highway 1 in Pacific Palisades where a massive fire swept through last year.

We saw hundreds of homes that were reduced to their concrete and brick foundations, side by side for miles. Along the oceanfront, rows of concrete stairways, foundation slabs and fireplaces were all that was left, their pricey real estate lots standing empty at the ocean’s edge.

By plan we continued north and met up for coffee with my longtime friend from the UC Santa Cruz days in the late 1970s. Roger bought a house in Oxnard several years ago. His folks bought a home in the Hollywood hills back in the late 1940s and he is a treasure trove of information about the Hollywood scene and its surroundings, past and present.

OLD AND NEW Downtown Los Angeles offers a wide array of older buildings and businesses mixed in  with the newer ones.

Then we headed home. We meandered through a number of coastal cities with the intent of revisiting some of them for a deeper view of their nature and history.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for its newsletters.

In the final few weeks of his last legislative session as California governor, Gavin Newsom is asking lawmakers to help reduce how much profit-making utility companies must pay out after wildfires. 

His administration has for weeks floated to lawmakers a wide-ranging but still-vague package of bills to address the spiraling costs of wildfires that has made a slew of different interests unhappy. 

Insurance companies have launched an ad campaign against what they call a potential “utility bailout,” that would leave them unable to recover from the power companies the costs of paying homeowners’ insurance claims. Attorneys representing fire survivors and other plaintiffs that sue utilities don’t want to see their fees reduced.

Wildfire survivors worry the governor’s proposal would prevent them from being made financially whole for suffering trauma. Local government leaders are demanding that they continue to be paid the full cost to rebuild incinerated infrastructure. 

On the other side are the politically influential utilities, who have drawn fury for their equipment sparking several of the state’s most devastating wildfires. 

The state’s three investor-owned utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric – aren’t in imminent financial danger, and last year saw profits rise. But fire costs have contributed to Californians paying the second-highest electricity rates in the country, and lawmakers and Newsom’s office worry that if it becomes harder for utilities to borrow money those bills will continue to climb. The utilities together provide power for about three-quarters of the state.

Newsom and the lawmakers say utilities are held responsible for too much after a wildfire and that bad actors like hedge funds are taking advantage to get a cut. If another devastating wildfire triggers damages too high for a utility to pay, the potentially resulting bankruptcy would make it even harder for victims to collect.

“The status quo doesn’t work,” Newsom said at a news conference last week when asked whether his proposal is in the best interests of fire survivors. “And we’re trying to balance all of those needs in a very familiar process that will unfold over the course of the next few months.”

CalMatters asked the governor’s office whether the timeline Newsom mentioned was correct, considering the legislative session ends in three weeks. A spokesperson said the governor meant “the next couple of months of the legislative session,” and did not respond to whether Newsom will call a special session to address the issue.

As he mulls a presidential run, Newsom has political incentive to push through a deal. Opponents from the right are eager to paint California as unaffordable and lurching through disasters; further rate hikes or the specter of a utility bankruptcy wouldn’t help. But backing the utilities also comes with risks: Anger at the companies remains fresh after Edison was last week found by Cal Fire and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to be responsible for the January 2025 Eaton fire that killed 19 people in Altadena. 

The chair of a key Assembly committee, Democratic Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, is generally on board with Newsom’s proposals, but lawmakers in the Senate appear less certain. Fire survivors are urging them to slow down and commit to a more public debate.

“You cannot be ‘there are some bad actors’ and therefore we will have a secret bill,” said Joy Chen, who leads a group of Los Angeles wildfire survivors. “Then your bill is the bad actor.”

A familiar fight

It’s a redux of a bitter fight that has bookended Newsom’s time as governor. 

He stepped into his role in the wake of devastating wildfires that tore through Northern California in 2017 and 2018, several of which PG&E was found to have been responsible for. 

The utility was in a bind: Under California law it was strictly liable for fires that were getting more severe, partly due to climate change, and regulators were no longer letting the companies pass damages onto customers in cases where they were found careless.

Facing mounting suits from victims and insurance companies, the company in 2019 declared bankruptcy. Newsom quickly signed legislation to help buffer utilities from those claims, drawing accusations of a bailout. The state created a $21 billion wildfire fund, paid for half by utility shareholders and half by customers through a $2.50 surcharge on their monthly electricity bills, to pay victims’ claims, provided the utilities follow stricter safety regulations. 

The remaining structure of a building burned from the Eaton fire in Altadena. Jan. 8, 2025. Credit: Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Then in January 2025, during an intense windstorm, electricity arcing from a century-old out-of-service Edison tower in Southern California’s Eaton Canyon set dry brush ablaze. The resulting Eaton Fire, burning at the same time as the deadly Palisades fire, claimed 19 lives and nearly 9,500 homes and other buildings. UCLA estimated losses at between $24 billion and 45 billion.

The state wildfire fund is expected to be drained once the costs of insurance claims, Edison’s multimillion-dollar voluntary settlements with survivors and numerous unsettled lawsuits are tallied. (Lawmakers extended the fund last year to address future fires, adding to electricity customers’ surcharges through 2045.) Profiteering hedge funds have sought to take advantage by buying up insurance claims. 

Newsom’s goal is twofold: Limit who can make claims to the fund and limit how much they can get. In private briefings last week and a document outlining his package released Tuesday, his office said he would combine the cost reductions with bills to boost home hardening, help homeowners get off the state’s insurer-of-last-resort and re-enter the home insurance market, tie utility executive pay to safety and require shareholders to pay down customers’ rates for two summers. 

Details of the package remain scant. The outline released Tuesday did not include proposed legislative language.

CalMatters contacted the state’s three major utility companies. San Diego Gas & Electric did not respond. PG&E and Edison referred questions to Nathan Click, spokesperson for the utilities’ campaign, which is called Wildfire Victims First and has been blanketing the state with ads telling Californians to urge their lawmakers to act.

Click, who is also a political spokesperson for Newsom, did not answer specific questions, including whether utilities are meeting directly with lawmakers. Instead, he shared statements from a handful of business groups and a powerful electrical workers’ union urging lawmakers to advocate for the proposed liability reduction.

In addition, the chief executives of PG&E and Edison have said they plan to take action to protect their shareholders if California lawmakers do not pass legislation to limit their fire liability. They did not specify what they planned to do.

Over the past four years PG&E, Edison and SDG&E collectively spent $5.2 million on California political campaigns, sponsored travel for lawmakers and donations to officials’ favored charities, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. 

PG&E also has the fifth-highest spending on lobbying in the 2025-2026 legislative session and was the top spender from April through June. In the first half of this year, the three utilities reported spending nearly $7 million to influence Newsom’s administration, the Legislature and their regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission.

Limiting damages

Newsom suggests chipping away at utilities’ liabilities by limiting attorneys’ fees, reducing the amount of money local governments can recoup to rebuild burned infrastructure and curbing how much some victims can receive in damages.

His proposal would set up a state-administered “fast pay” program to prioritize wildfire fund payouts for survivors whose loved ones are killed, who are injured or whose properties are destroyed. To participate, claimants would likely need to give up their right to sue the utility — trading an often lengthy wait through litigation to get comprehensive damages in exchange for the relief of a quicker payout. 

For other victims “in harm’s way,” the Tuesday outline suggests allowing up to $150,000 in damages. 

Newsom’s office and Petrie-Norris, who generally supports the idea, said they do not intend to limit emotional distress claims for survivors they deem legitimate but those kinds of damages should be curbed for others. 

“If you were part of a disaster no one’s going to say you can’t make a claim,” Petrie-Norris, an Irvine Democrat who chairs the Assembly utilities committee, said. “If you did not actually experience a disaster, what non-economic damages should you be entitled to?”

Petrie-Norris and Newsom are concerned about billboard attorneys who seek clients to file lawsuits against utilities and the wildfire fund; one study has found attorneys are likely to get 30% to 40% of victims’ payouts. Groups representing survivors and attorneys argue it’s not so clear who should count as a victim. Residents who lost no property and stayed in their homes miles away could still be harmed by smoke inhalation, for example. 

Chen said she was “stunned” after she was briefed by the governor’s office last week and was told that only people who are evacuated and have their house burn down would be eligible for non-economic damages.

“Let’s say someone was out of town, but their house burned down so they didn’t evacuate,” she said. “But they lost everything, so they have to rebuild. So you won’t compensate them for pain and suffering?”  

Newsom also wants to stop investors from buying claims and prioritize small business claimants over corporations, but his office has not explained how to accomplish that. 

The proposed bill package has so incensed some wildfire victims that opponents of the plan have shrugged at arguments that some claimants are taking advantage of the Wildfire Fund. 

“The utilities are finding a lot of creative ways to avoid responsibility. That’s it,” said Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California Association of Counties. “We should not be opening the door for them to escape accountability.”

Shifting costs

Another component of the outline released Tuesday could affect homeowners across the state. Newsom is proposing to limit — or eliminate entirely — insurance companies’ right to recoup money from utilities when a utility-caused fire forces those insurers to pay out homeowners’ claims. 

The process is known as subrogation. The two powerful industries have been at odds over it for years.

Utilities and insurance already clashed in 2018 when utilities unsuccessfully backed a bill to loosen a unique California legal doctrine that holds power providers strictly liable for wildfire damages near their equipment even if they aren’t found responsible for the fire. 

“We’re a well-resourced industry, but not like [the utilities],” Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, recalled. “Their lobbying spend was just crazy.”

Denni Ritter, vice president for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said eliminating subrogation could impede the progress that has been made due to the regulations California adopted last year to address insurance availability problems. 

“We’re at this precarious time,” Ritter said. Because the state now allows insurance companies to consider catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs in pricing their premiums, some insurers have resumed writing new policies in California, and the number of policies in the last-resort FAIR Plan is growing at a slower rate, according to the state insurance department.

But if they can’t recover the costs of wildfire claims, Frazier and Ritter said insurance companies will raise premiums, which would affect homeowners even in areas with low fire risk.

“We don’t understand how they’re not embarrassed to suggest that the answer to their problem is to shift their costs over to other people,” Frazier said. “Why should a homeowners insurance customer in a dense urban environment have to pay considerably more?”

Sen. Ben Allen, the Democratic chair of the Senate utilities committee and a candidate for insurance commissioner, said he doesn’t want to make that tradeoff if the package doesn’t include other benefits for consumers or taxpayers. 

Petrie-Norris said it could be worth it. 

“If I can save you $2 on your utility bill and your insurance bill goes up by $1, that seems like a smart thing for us all to do,” she said. But we’ve got to make sure that’s true and whether there are unintended consequences.”

Jeremia Kimelman and Digital Democracy engineer Andrew Chan contributed to this story.

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

The post Newsom makes last-minute push to help California utilities facing wildfire bills appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

This post is updated throughout the day to reflect the latest incidents. It was last updated at 6:31 a.m..

Here’s what’s happening on the roads this morning…

▼︎ new incidents

Road incidents as of 6:30 a.m. on August 12

• A traffic collision happened at Salinas Rd and Fruitland Ave. in Watsonville / Pajaro at 6:24 a.m. today. A semi truck (blue big rig) rear-ended another vehicle. Both vehicles were able to move to the side of the road. The person who reported the incident had trouble getting information from the truck driver because of a language barrier. No injuries were reported.
   
• A vehicle went off the road into a ditch about 15 feet from the roadway at SR236 and Acorn Dr in San Lorenzo Valley. The driver left before authorities arrived. No injuries were confirmed at the time of the report. The incident was reported today.
   
• Highway 9 at Cascade Avenue in San Lorenzo Valley has one-way traffic due to ongoing work. This closure will last until 7:01 a.m. on August 31.
   
• Alternating lanes are closed on Highway 9 at Riverdale Park in San Lorenzo Valley because of bridge work. The closure is expected to last until 6:59 a.m. on April 30, 2027.
   

Disclosure: Traffic incidents are partially generated by artificial intelligence. We are constantly working to improve the accuracy and quality of our AI-generated content. However, there may still be errors or inaccuracies. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.

The post Wednesday morning traffic: Semi rear-ends car in Watsonville; Hwy 9 lane closures appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

In her weekly look at local business, Jessica M. Pasko reports on a proposed six-story mixed-use development in Santa Cruz, Joby Aviation’s latest maneuvers and names, numbers and dates to know.

Pajaro Valley Unified School District students return Wednesday with their teachers and district still at an impasse over a new contract. Negotiations have now moved into fact-finding, bringing the sides closer to a potential strike vote if they remain unable to reach a deal.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for its newsletters.

Every eight years, state housing regulators give cities and counties across California an especially dreaded homework assignment: Make a plan for a bunch of new homes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration assigns localities goals to hit at four different affordability levels. Collectively, the numbers represent the housing department’s best estimate of the number of new homes needed to match any expected population growth and to chip away at the state’s decades-in-the-making shortage of affordable places to live.

With these targets meted out to each region on a rolling basis, this summer, a massive chunk of the state, including all of Southern California, passed its halfway mark. 

So in the spirit of a mid-term exam, how are cities and counties doing? 

Bad news, California. If this were graded, the state would abound in D’s and F’s.

Less than a third of cities and counties are on track to permit enough “above moderate” units, the category that typically refers to market-rate housing, according to data submitted by locals to the state housing department.  

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

The progress report for more affordable types of housing is even bleaker. Only 32 jurisdictions — less than 6% — are on track to hit their “very low” targets. That refers to housing within financial reach of anyone earning less than half the typical local income.

After years of nudging, political trolling and litigating, most cities and counties now have state-approved plans in place. But as the production numbers show, it’s one thing to plan and another to build. Almost nowhere in the state is actually seeing the new construction necessary “to meet the housing needs of all Californians,” as housing regulators have described these targets.

Only five jurisdictions in the entire state are permitting at a pace to hit all four income targets. Four are the lightly populated unincorporated bits of small, mostly rural counties: Plumas, Napa, Yolo and Mono. The fifth is Placerville, a town of roughly 11,000 people in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento.

To be “on track,” a city or county needs to issue permits at a clip that, if sustained, would allow it to hit its state targets by the end of its planning cycle. State housing regulators told the city of Irvine in Orange County, for example, to plan for 8,671 market-rate units by 2030. Now halfway there, the city has issued more than 6,000, making it one of the minority of cities to be on pace to reach its target for above-moderate housing. 

But for more affordable digs, Irvine, like most California cities, is far behind. The city has permitted just 9% of the very low-income housing needed to reach its target by the end of the decade. For the next most affordable category, which refers to units priced for those earning up to 80% of the regional median, it’s at a mere 3%.

What’s the housing hold-up?

For anyone who has been monitoring the pace of new residential development in California over the last half century, the disconnect between housing planned and housing permitted won’t come as a surprise. The state’s total planning target adds up to nearly 2.5 million units over eight years, a reduction of the even more ambitious 3.5 million target Newsom set for his administration during his 2017 election. That 2.5 million figure works out to 312,500 new homes per year. Even during the state’s boomingest boom years in the early 1960s and mid-1980s, construction figures never reached such lofty heights. 

This decade, despite a blizzard of state legislation and policy changes aimed at boosting the construction of new homes, the number of new homes built annually is still just north of 100,000.

Critics of the state’s planning process have long stressed that California’s targets are unrealistic and that local governments can only do so much.

“Cities cannot require developers to develop and cities don’t build housing,” said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities. You can lead a developer to a rezoned plot of land, in other words, but you can’t make them build.

Pro-development advocates counter that the uninspiring production numbers suggest that cities still aren’t doing enough to welcome more housing. 

“Cities can argue that they don’t directly control production, but they do control fees, zoning and permitting,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action. The housing needs allocation process “is only as good as we have the political will to actually hold cities accountable.”

Foote directed some of the blame at state housing regulators for failing to compel cities to adopt more development-friendly policies. 

In a written statement, housing department spokesperson Jennifer Hanson said regulators are “actively monitoring and enforcing” the commitments each jurisdiction has made in its housing plans. She also pointed to a couple of recent laws exempting many urban housing developments from environmental litigation and requiring local governments to allow for taller buildings near major public transportation stops. Both have already been used to “advance approved projects representing thousands of proposed homes,” she said.

There are many reasons that developers might or might not choose to build in a particular location. Some are in the power of local and state governments, like zoning and building codes, permitting timelines and fees. But many are not, said Hanson.

“Whether a project moves forward depends on interest rates, construction and land costs, access to capital, insurance and expected rents or sale prices,” she said.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

Affordable housing construction faces an additional hurdle: A lack of public money. With very few exceptions, building homes that are affordable to those making below average incomes in California requires public subsidies, philanthropic capital or other lenders and investors willing to take a loss. Taxpayer support provided by the state has been in short supply after a voter-approved bond from 2018 that provided funding for California’s signature affordable development subsidy ran dry.  That explains why the affordable production numbers are so much lower. 

Affordable developers and other housing advocates are hoping voters will back an $11.25 billion state bond in November to replenish the coffers. 

Meanwhile, “moderate” income housing is especially tough to build, facing the financial worst of both worlds. It often doesn’t qualify for affordable subsidy programs that prioritize projects serving people further down the income ladder. But rents affordable to those earning median incomes are often too low for unsubsidized developers hoping to turn a profit. 

An escape valve

The state may force local governments to lay the groundwork for new development — identifying potential sites, rezoning to allow for denser housing, changing local laws that make construction more economically feasible. But historically, local governments haven’t faced any consequences if nothing actually gets built. 

That changed in 2017, when state lawmakers passed a landmark housing bill aimed at boosting new housing production where it was most needed. In jurisdictions that are halfway through their planning process but have yet to permit at least half their housing targets for above-moderate, low- and very low-income housing (housing affordable to a “moderate” income level isn’t included), the law requires local governments to fast track most apartment and condo projects. In exchange, developers have to set aside a certain number of affordable units and pay their workers more.

Of the 212 Southern California cities and counties that crossed the halfway point this year, all but four failed to hit those numbers and are now subject to the streamlining law. 

But if history is any guide, that alone isn’t likely to trigger a building boom.

Private developers have insisted that the affordability requirements and higher wage standards written into the law make projects infeasible everywhere but in the highest rent neighborhoods. Since 2018, the law has been used to greenlight 27,961 units, according to the state’s housing department. That’s a significant sum, but it’s far from enough to close the gap.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

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

The post Almost nowhere in California is building enough, according to the state. Here’s why appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

This story was originally published by KQED and brought to Lookout by our content partners at CalMatters.

Thinking about buying or leasing an electric car in the near future? California will soon be making that cheaper.

On Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom launched “MyFirstEV,” a new state program that sets aside millions of dollars to fund rebates for residents who buy or lease a zero-emission vehicle — a category that includes battery-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles.

First-time EV buyers can qualify for a $3,500 discount when buying or leasing a new electric vehicle, as long as the retail price is under $50,000. If you’re looking for a used electric car, there’s still a price reduction available — a smaller one, however: $1,750 off for vehicles retailing for under $25,000.

The state’s program comes a year after President Donald Trump’s massive spending and tax plan known as the One Big Beautiful Bill ended federal tax credits for EVs nationwide. Previously, American consumers could claim a $7,500 tax credit after buying a new EV or $4,000 for used EVs.

When announcing the program in July, Newsom said that as the federal government pulls back from supporting EVs, California would instead be “putting its foot on the accelerator” — and that the instant rebate program would “[make] it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean and keep more money in their pockets.”

The program has secured $270 million in funding — half of that from the state budget and the other from participating EV automakers. 

Who qualifies for new EV rebate?

Only California residents who are buying or leasing an EV for the first time are eligible for this rebate.

And consumers will have to confirm that this is the first time they are buying or leasing an EV before taking their car home, said Lindsay Buckley, communications director of the California Air Resources Board, the agency tasked with managing the program.

“Participants will be required to sign a legal document declaring that this is in fact their first purchase or lease of an electric vehicle,” she said.

“So if you’ve already bought or leased an electric vehicle in the past, then you wouldn’t be eligible for this program.”

Limiting the program to first-time buyers could actually help boost the popularity of EVs among people who have never bought them, said Scott Moura, a UC Berkeley professor of civil engineering.

“Providing incentive to people who have bought EVs before isn’t really adding to the number of people who purchase EVs,” he said. “The funds can be used most effectively if they’re targeted towards first-time EV buyers.”

Do you need to apply ahead of time?

No — there’s no application to fill out ahead of time. All you need to do is go to a dealership of one of the 15 participating automakers. 

Hyundai, Lucid and Tesla rebates are available starting today. The other participants will launch their programs throughout the fall.

This is different from other past state rebate programs — like the now-terminated Electric Bicycle Incentive Program — which have required participants to fill out an application before making a purchase.

If you move forward with making a purchase or lease, confirm two things with the salesperson and the financing team:

• That you qualify for the MyFirstEV discount.
• That there are still state funds available for this specific car brand.

When federal EV rebates were available, buyers had to initially wait until they filed their taxes the year after buying their car to request this money back. But state officials say that folks interested in the FirstEV discount won’t have to wait so long.

“Californians will be able to go down to participating automakers’ dealerships and access the rebates at the point of sale,” Buckley said. “They won’t have any delay in getting this discount.”

Can I get a rebate for any EV I want?

No — MyFirstEV discounts will only cover battery-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles from automakers participating in the program.

Hybrid vehicles are also not included in MyFirstEV, state officials confirmed with KQED. 

There’s also a price limit: The EV you choose must cost under $50,000 if it’s a new car, and $25,000 if it’s used.

There is, however, a small exception to this price rule if the automaker is headquartered in California — in which case the discounts will apply regardless of the manufacturer’s retail price.

More than a dozen electric car brands are based in the Golden State, with several selling models priced beyond the $50,000 limit.

Can low-income buyers get additional support?

While the MyFirstEV discount will not vary based on income, consumers can stack the discount with other incentive programs, including the Driving Clean Assistance Program and Clean Cars 4 All.

To qualify for Clean Cars 4 All, residents must have an income of less than or equal to 300% of the federal poverty level. This program could unlock up to $12,000 in additional savings. 

Will some carmakers have more rebates than others?

No — funds will be divided equally among the participating automakers.

However, there could be greater demand for some brands, which could mean that rebates might run out faster at some dealerships.

This article includes reporting from KQED’s Laura Klivans.

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

The post How does California’s new $3,500 EV rebate work? appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

This week brings invitations to ask better questions, rehearse courage, distinguish destinations from horizons and make room for surprising new possibilities.

UC Santa Cruz students, faculty and staff are pushing back against steep parking fee increases they say will worsen an already difficult mix of high housing costs, long commutes and scarce campus parking.

Flower Power Herbs & Roots founder Julie Rothman has spent more than 35 years blending teas, sourcing herbs and helping Santa Cruz reconnect with plant-based traditions.

After a decade in California’s wine industry, Dan Murphy returned home to Columbia Falls, Montana, to launch White Raven Winery and make wines of his own.

Chef Nongluk Ritter brings recipes rooted in her childhood in Thailand to Poon Sup Thai Cuisine, the new Scotts Valley restaurant she owns with husband Myles Ritter.