Lookout Santa Cruz

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.

Local government and nonprofit leaders joined Rep. Jimmy Panetta Tuesday afternoon to reassure Santa Cruz County’s immigrant community that they are committed to supporting them as deportation fears continue.

After an incredible inaugural year, The Lookout List returns for its second annual celebration of Santa Cruz County, and Lookout Santa Cruz wants to hear your opinion on the people, places, businesses, and experiences that make our community such a special place to live, work, and play.

Whether you’re nominating your favorite coffee shop, local artist, real-estate agent, nonprofit, live music venue, restaurant for birthday celebrations, or dining pop-ups, The Lookout List is your opportunity to celebrate the favorites that define Santa Cruz County.

Nominations are now open

From Monday, August 10, through Sunday, September 6, readers can submit write-in nominations across dozens of categories celebrating their favorite local businesses, organizations, people, places, and experiences.

When the nomination period closes, the top five nominees in each category will advance to the final voting period.

Final Voting begins September 21

The final voting period runs from Monday, September 21, through Sunday, October 18, giving the community one final opportunity to vote for their favorites.

Beginning Monday, November 9, we’ll begin unveiling this year’s Lookout List Winners and Runners-Up, revealing one category group each business day over the following two weeks.

More than bragging rights

Recognition in the Lookout List extends well beyond the campaign itself.

This year’s Winners and Runners-Up will receive:

• A commemorative certificate
• An official Lookout List window sticker
• Discounted advertising opportunities with Lookout Santa Cruz
• Permanent recognition on the 2026 Lookout List category pages
• Additional exposure through potential Lookout editorial features, guides, and other community initiatives throughout the coming year

Check out the 2025 Lookout List Winners and Runner-Ups >>

Celebrate what makes Santa Cruz County special

The Lookout List is all about recognizing the people, places, businesses, and experiences that make Santa Cruz County one of a kind.

So spread the word, nominate your favorites, encourage your friends and family to participate, and help us celebrate the local favorites that make our community so special.

Submit your nominations today and help shape the 2026 Lookout List! >>

The Lookout List is proudly sponsored by Bay Federal Credit Union and New Leaf Community Markets.

The post The Lookout List is back! Nominations are now open for 2026 appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

Businesses operating in Santa Cruz County must register with the county clerk. Lookout Santa Cruz reviews the public filings from local businesses to report on new businesses starting in the area.

Here is what’s new in local business recently.

New businesses

• OLIVIA’S HERITAGE SPA was registered at 2908 Freedom Blvd., Watsonville, by Ngm Group LLC as a limited liability company on July 27.
• SOLINE JEWELRY was registered at 4200 Diamond Street #1, Capitola, by Align Creative LLC as a limited liability company on July 27.
• IMPERIO PAINTING AND GENERAL MAINTNANCE was registered at 789 Green Valley Rd. Spc 64, Watsonville, by Jose De Jesus Rocha Rocha as an individual business on July 27.
• FINANCIAL FREEDOM was registered at 13801 Hutchings Court, Watsonville, by Cuauhtemoc Medina as an individual business on July 27.
• UNCORPRATING was registered at 107 Washburn Ave., Capitola, by John Borgman as an individual business on July 27.
• NP CURA was registered at 6265 Highway 9, Felton, by Melco Nursing, Inc. as a corporation on July 28.
• CENTER OF ATTENTION was registered at 777 Chestnut St., Santa Cruz, by Center Of Attention Family Therapy Incorporated as a corporation on July 29.
• SEA UNIT FISHERIES was registered at 3744 Valera Dr., Soquel, by Brett Maas as an individual business on July 29.
• SUNFLOWER CHILD DEVELOPMENT was registered at 16 Vallecitos Lane, Watsonville, by Sunflower Child Development LLC as a limited liability company on July 29.
• EVERGREEN PATHS was registered at 124 School Lane, Santa Cruz, by Mas Serenity Bookkeeping LLC as a limited liability company on July 29.
• STYLEDXBEE was registered at 130 Roache Rd., Freedom, by Bianca Madrigal-Sandoval as an individual business on July 29.
• THE PIX STUDIO was registered at 1145 Chanticleer Ave., Apt. 8, Santa Cruz, by Miguel Angel Rodriguez Mendez as an individual business on July 30.
• DE COLORES CLAY was registered at 204 Calabasas Rd., Watsonville, by Daniel Casella as a general partnership on July 30.
• SALT & SUMMIT RETREATS was registered at 833 Valencia Rd., Aptos, by Valencia House LLC as a limited liability company on July 31.
• MUTTEER was registered at 621 Paradise Park, Santa Cruz, by Hussein Mohamed as an individual business on July 31.
• Aaliyah’s Catering was registered at 24 Ford St., Apt. G, Watsonville, by Laura Terriquez Gonzalez as an individual business on Aug. 3.
• MOUNTAIN MEDUSA DESIGNS was registered at 150 Taylor Rd., Ben Lomond, by Karen Michelle Oeh as an individual business on Aug. 3.
• BAMBI’S WAG TAXI was registered at 3325 Gross Rd., Santa Cruz, by Kimberly Lynn Bambi Brenkwitz as an individual business on Aug. 3.
• DAGNE & LACY was registered at 331 Martin Dr., Aptos, by Tracey Diane Brosig as a general partnership on Aug. 3.
• SOCKSMITH ON THE WHARF was registered at 1515 Pacific Ave., Santa Cruz, by Socksmith Design, Inc. as a corporation on Aug. 4.
• MAZA MADRE BREAD CO. was registered at 16 Richardson Ave., Freedom, by Maira Alondra Fernandez Nolaso as an individual business on Aug. 4.
• FIREFISH GRILL, GILBERT’S GIFT SHOP, WOODIES CAFE was registered at 25 Municipal Wharf, Santa Cruz, by Mark Gilebrt Enterprises, Inc. as a limited liability company on Aug. 5.
• TONI JULIAN INTERIOR DESIGN was registered at 3929 Mainsail Place, Soquel, by Toni Julian Apgar as an individual business on Aug. 6.
• SANTA CRUZ GARLIC was registered at 343 Soquel Ave., Suite 173, Santa Cruz, by Han Zhang as an individual business on Aug. 6.
• G’S MEXICAN GRUB SPOT was registered at 279 Lucerne Ave., Watsonville, by Gustavo Santillan Regalado as an individual business on Aug. 7.

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

MORE LOCAL COVERAGE

The post Santa Cruz County business filings: Week of Aug. 11 appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

UC Santa Cruz will provide two years of guaranteed university housing for incoming first-year and transfer students, a reflection of the campus’s longstanding commitment to advancing student success. 

The expanded housing commitment was made possible by years of thoughtful planning and intentional investment in expanding student housing. 

“I am thrilled UC Santa Cruz is able to offer this housing commitment to our incoming undergraduate students,” Chancellor Cynthia Larive said. “We are helping more students build a strong foundation for academic and personal success by offering them housing certainty for their first two years.”

UC Santa Cruz currently provides housing for about 9,300 students, roughly half of its undergraduates and one of the highest percentages within the UC system. Under Chancellor Larive’s leadership, the campus has been pursuing an ambitious plan to increase student housing by more than 40 percent.

The plan has been a success with several projects scheduled to open in the 2026-27 academic year and more projects on the horizon. 

From left: Cabrillo College President Matt Wetstein, Sen. John Laird, and UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Cynthia Larive participated in a groundbreaking ceremony on Monday, Sept. 29. Credit: UC Santa Cruz

The completion of the Delaware Apartments and near-completion of our Kresge College Renewal Phases 1 and 2 and new Family Student Housing community have increased housing opportunities while replacing aging facilities with modern, welcoming spaces. More housing is on the way through the campus’s shared project with Cabrillo College, expected to open in 2027-28, and the recently approved Heller South development, which will provide housing for nearly 1,300 upper division students. Together, these investments have created the capacity and confidence to expand housing guarantee for new undergraduates.

UC Santa Cruz is joining UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC Merced in offering undergraduate students a housing guarantee of at least two years.

A student’s ability to succeed academically, build community, and fully engage in university life is closely tied to stable housing. The expanded guarantee reflects the campuswide commitment to creating the conditions for success. Research consistently shows that students who live in university housing are more likely to build meaningful connections, access campus resources, stay engaged in their education, and persist to graduation. 

For students and families, this expanded guarantee also provides greater certainty during a critical period of transition, allowing students to focus on their academic, personal, and professional growth.

UC Santa Cruz leaders and staff are continuing to focus on expanding student housing, enriching residential life, and supporting student success. 

The post UC Santa Cruz announces two-year housing guarantee for new undergraduate students appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

Esta traducción fue generada utilizando inteligencia artificial y ha sido revisada por un hablante nativo de español; si bien nos esforzamos por lograr precisión, pueden ocurrir algunos errores de traducción. Para leer el artículo en inglés, haga clic aquí.

Funcionarios del gobierno local y líderes de organizaciones sin fines de lucro afirman que siguen comprometidos con ayudar y apoyar a la comunidad inmigrante del condado de Santa Cruz mientras continúan los temores a la deportación.

Varios funcionarios, entre ellos el fiscal de distrito del condado de Santa Cruz, Jeff Rosell, y el sheriff Chris Clark, se unieron el martes en Aptos al representante Jimmy Panetta, cuyo distrito congresional representa a una gran mayoría del condado, para explicar cómo han continuado apoyando a los inmigrantes, quienes a menudo tienen miedo de solicitar servicios debido al temor de ser detenidos y deportados por funcionarios federales.

Panetta dijo que el temor “siempre presente” que muchos inmigrantes han sentido durante los últimos dos años fue provocado por las políticas federales de inmigración implementadas por la administración de Trump.

“Están afectando a los trabajadores esenciales que tenemos en nuestras comunidades. Están afectando al sistema de justicia penal,” dijo Panetta. “Y están afectando la confianza, no solo en nuestro sistema de justicia penal, sino en todas nuestras instituciones.”

Clark y Rosell señalaron que el condado de Santa Cruz no coopera con agentes del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE). “Estamos aquí para cumplir con nuestra misión principal, y esa es la seguridad pública,” dijo Rosell.

En los últimos seis meses, Clark dijo que su departamento ha recibido menos de una docena de llamadas de cortesía de agentes de ICE para notificarles sobre sus actividades. Lookout informó anteriormente que funcionarios de inmigración han visitado el condado al menos 39 veces desde que comenzó la segunda administración de Trump sus esfuerzos de deportación.

No ha habido redadas a gran escala en el condado, como las que se han llevado a cabo en otras zonas del estado. En cambio, cualquier actividad migratoria reportada en la comunidad ha consistido en arrestos dirigidos contra personas específicas, dijo Clark.

Clark dijo a Lookout que su departamento decidió no solicitar alrededor de seis subvenciones federales porque estas exigirían que los beneficiarios interactuaran con funcionarios de inmigración. Las subvenciones variaban en monto y estaban relacionadas con aspectos como equipos y vigilancia comunitaria, explicó Clark.

“Antes las veíamos sin condiciones,” dijo Clark. “Ahora las estamos viendo con condiciones vinculadas al cumplimiento de las leyes de inmigración. Obviamente, no vamos a participar en eso.”

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Chris Clark speaks at the county courthouse in November 2024. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

El año pasado, Clark se comprometió a no volver a solicitar una subvención que proporcionaba a funcionarios federales información sobre personas indocumentadas encarceladas en las cárceles del condado de Santa Cruz. Confirmó a Lookout que sigue comprometido con esa promesa.

Con el inicio del año escolar este mes, el superintendente de escuelas del condado, Farris Sabbah, está asegurando a las familias que las escuelas de todo el condado son espacios seguros para ellas, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Sabbah agregó que los agentes federales no han intentado realizar arrestos en las escuelas ni cerca de ellas.

“Incluso cuando los estudiantes están físicamente presentes, ese miedo los sigue hasta el salón de clases y puede dificultar que se concentren, participen, se relacionen con los demás, se enfoquen en el aprendizaje y tengan éxito,” dijo Sabbah.

Otros líderes comunitarios, como Erica Padilla-Chavez, directora ejecutiva de Second Harvest, recordaron a la comunidad inmigrante que los recursos que ofrecen sus organizaciones siguen estando disponibles. Padilla-Chavez agregó que el banco de alimentos ofrece servicios de entrega a domicilio para las familias que podrían tener miedo de salir de sus casas.

Second Harvest Food Bank CEO Erica Padilla-Chavez addressed local media following deep federal funding cuts in 2025. Credit: Cat Cutillo / Lookout Santa Cruz

La conferencia de prensa del martes fue una continuación de una reunión celebrada en enero, en la que funcionarios locales dijeron que estaban comprometidos a proteger a los residentes más vulnerables del condado de las redadas migratorias, tras las acciones violentas de agentes de inmigración en Minneapolis.

Desde entonces, la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Santa Cruz aprobó una ordenanza que prohíbe a los agentes de ICE utilizar instalaciones propiedad del condado, como edificios, estacionamientos y parques, con fines de aplicación de las leyes de inmigración. Otras ciudades e instituciones, como la ciudad de Watsonville y Cabrillo College, aprobaron resoluciones similares a principios de este año.

El condado también se sumó en junio a una demanda presentada por el fiscal general de California, Rob Bonta, y el condado de Santa Clara, que busca impedir la construcción de una instalación federal de control migratorio planificada cerca de Gilroy.

The post Panetta, funcionarios locales y líderes de organizaciones sin fines de lucro se comprometen a apoyar a los inmigrantes mientras persisten los temores a la deportación 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 11

• Highway 9 at Cascade Avenue in the San Lorenzo Valley has one-way traffic due to ongoing work. This closure is expected to last until Aug. 31.
   
• Alternating lanes are closed on Highway 9 at Riverdale Park in the San Lorenzo Valley because of bridge work. The closure is expected to last until 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 Tuesday morning traffic: Highway 9 lane closures in San Lorenzo Valley for work appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

The Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commission is testing out a high-temperature steam alternative to chemical fumigants on five berry fields in Watsonville beginning in September as part of a three-month pilot program.

Esta traducción fue generada utilizando inteligencia artificial y ha sido revisada por un hablante nativo de español; si bien nos esforzamos por lograr precisión, pueden ocurrir algunos errores de traducción. Para leer el artículo en inglés, haga clic aquí.

Cinco productores de berries de Watsonville probarán una alternativa a los fumigantes químicos del suelo en sus campos como parte de un programa piloto de tres meses dirigido por la Oficina del Comisionado de Agricultura del condado.

El programa piloto busca explorar una alternativa no química a la fumigación del suelo mediante la inyección de vapor a alta temperatura para reducir las plagas del suelo, las semillas de malezas y los patógenos de las plantas, como hongos y bacterias, según David Sanford, comisionado de Agricultura del Condado de Santa Cruz.

Sanford dijo a Lookout que el programa piloto, con un presupuesto de $175,000, está financiado por el Departamento de Regulación de Pesticidas de California. Añadió que este método agrícola alternativo existe desde hace años y continúa siendo objeto de investigación.

“Los aspectos de ingeniería son realmente complicados,” dijo Sanford. “Es difícil familiarizarse con las máquinas que son funcionales y que realmente funcionan. Esto todavía está en proceso de desarrollo y sigue teniendo un fuerte componente de investigación.”

Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner David Sanford in September 2023. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz / Lookout Santa Cruz

El equipo utilizado actualmente para este método agrícola funciona a pequeña escala, y se está trabajando en tecnología que permita adaptarlo a la agricultura comercial, dijo Sanford. Como parte del programa piloto del condado, explicó que trabajarán con personas que están comenzando a construir equipos a escala comercial: grandes sistemas de vapor que utilizan tanques de propano para calentar el agua.

Históricamente, esta técnica se ha utilizado en Europa y, en ocasiones, en viveros y para la esterilización del suelo, dijo Sanford. “Pero llevarla a nivel de campo es un proyecto mucho más grande,” señaló.

Los productores participantes cultivan principalmente fresas, con la excepción de un campo de frambuesas. Se trata de parcelas pequeñas y el programa se enfocará en zonas donde existe una alta combinación de áreas agrícolas y urbanas. Sanford añadió que algunos de los productores participantes también se encuentran a menos de un cuarto de milla de escuelas.

Grupos como Campaign for Organic Regenerative Agriculture (CORA) y Safe Ag Safe Schools llevan mucho tiempo promoviendo prácticas agrícolas más seguras y han presionado a Driscoll’s —el mayor productor de berries de la región— para que convierta en orgánicos todos sus campos cercanos a escuelas y zonas residenciales.

Los grupos también han exigido que las autoridades locales y estatales establezcan zonas de amortiguamiento más amplias entre áreas sensibles, como escuelas y viviendas, y los campos agrícolas.

Sanford dijo que el programa piloto representa un “avance positivo,” ya que el condado está explorando una técnica agrícola alternativa que no utiliza fumigantes químicos, a diferencia de los métodos más tradicionales.

Sheeting in a strawberry field outside Watsonville. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

Kathleen Kilpatrick, integrante de Safe Ag Safe Schools, dijo en un comunicado de prensa la semana pasada que la organización comunitaria apoya la exploración de alternativas no químicas en campos cercanos a escuelas y espera que programas piloto como este “proporcionen herramientas para reducir el uso de pesticidas y ampliar las zonas de amortiguamiento orgánicas.”

El condado también está colaborando con Jenny Brome, investigadora de UC Santa Cruz que tiene experiencia en el estudio de prácticas agrícolas alternativas, para dirigir el componente de investigación del programa, dijo Sanford. Añadió que Brome está interesada en analizar datos sobre el rendimiento de los cultivos y explorar qué tan viable es este método para controlar las plagas del suelo.

Sanford dijo que su departamento tiene como objetivo comenzar el programa piloto el próximo mes y que la mayor parte de la recopilación de datos se llevará a cabo durante ese primer mes.

Además, la Oficina del Comisionado de Agricultura organizará un par de reuniones informativas para explicar el programa piloto a los miembros de la comunidad y, una vez que haya datos disponibles, analizar qué aspectos han funcionado. La primera reunión está programada para el 18 de agosto a las 5:30 p. m., en la Sala Comunitaria Greg Caput del South County Government Center, ubicada en 500 Westridge Dr., Watsonville.

The post ¿Puede el vapor reemplazar a los fumigantes químicos? Los productores de berries de Watsonville lo pondrán a prueba appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

Pacific Avenue once embodied Santa Cruz’s quirky, community-driven spirit, writes UC Santa Cruz student and aspiring writer Carly Pavlin. As chain retailers, including Anthropologie, replace longtime local institutions, she fears that identity is beginning to fade. Here, Pavlin reflects on the downtown she fell in love with four years ago — and asks what kind of city Santa Cruz is becoming. Is Pacific Avenue still Santa Cruz, or is it starting to look like everywhere else?

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

For six years, Californians have been able to shake up a craft cocktail at home using alcohol delivered to their doorstep. Now, it’s last call for the distillery deliveries, unless lawmakers intervene by the end of this month.

That’s unlikely, thanks to opposition from California’s wine industry, Teamsters union truck drivers and corporate alcohol wholesalers and distributors.

The influential, well-funded groups lobbied the Legislature behind closed doors this year to block legislation that would have made permanent pandemic-era rules that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits directly to their customers.

During the pandemic shutdowns, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits to their customers’ homes. In the years since, lawmakers passed temporary laws allowing craft distillers — defined as those that produce up to 150,000 gallons a year — to keep shipping their spirits.

The latest extension expires Dec. 31.

“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” said Folsom Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover. He tried unsuccessfully this year to amend one of his bills to let small distillers continue shipping directly to their customers.

The groups blocking Hoover’s proposal have spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state government this year. They have donated at least 11 times that much to California politicians and their campaigns over the years.

The craft distillers, who have spent a fraction as much on state politics, say all that spending from the opposition, particularly from corporate liquor distributors, appears to have paid off.

Cris Steller, owner of Dry Diggins Distillery, talks about the various products made in his El Dorado Hills distillery. Credit: Fred Greaves for CalMatters Bottles are filled with whiskey in the bottling area of Dry Diggins Distillery in El Dorado Hills. Credit: Fred Greaves for CalMatters

“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and the owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills, a family-run business that makes whiskey, brandy, vodka and gin.

The fight is about more than whether Californians can have a bottle of whiskey or gin delivered. It illustrates how decisions are made in Sacramento, where wealthy and powerful interests can shape or kill policy in secret negotiations with lawmakers. Politicians, in turn, benefit when proposals die quietly because they don’t have to explain their decisions to voters. 

Opponents insist they aren’t using the political system to crush competitors as national alcohol sales slump.

Instead, representatives of the major alcohol wholesalers and distributors that stock shelves at liquor retailers say they oppose the proposal because it primarily benefits out-of-state companies and weakens safeguards that include preventing alcohol deliveries to minors.

Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said the labor group’s truck drivers aren’t opposed to allowing craft distillers to ship their product. They just want them to use established shipping companies that have actual employees, including those that employ Teamsters, such as UPS. Those companies, Broad said, have standards to ensure liquor is delivered legally.

Federal law preempts California from mandating hiring unionized truck drivers, Broad said.

“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers, and in fact, we have a track record of supporting the proposal but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public,” he told CalMatters.

The California wine industry, which has been allowed to ship bottles directly to customers in California for decades, isn’t necessarily opposed, either. But its representative says wine sellers are leery of giving little alcohol sellers delivery rights when big liquor companies deserve the same. Wineries of any size can ship to their customers in California.

Big booze, big labor spend big

The U.S. Postal Service prohibits most alcohol shipments to homes, but California allows certain types of alcohol sellers to use private shipping companies. Breweries are prohibited from shipping directly to California customers.

Hoover hoped his Assembly Bill 2211, a proposal to give craft distillers the ability to offer tastings and sell spirits at locations other than their distilleries, could be amended to give craft distillers a permanent direct-to-consumer provision.

It has advanced through the Legislature without formal opposition or any lawmaker voting against it, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. The measure is pending before the full Senate. 

There might be no formal opposition, but reports filed with the California secretary of state show an extensive behind-the-scenes lobbying effort aimed at preventing any changes.

At least six groups, including some of the biggest national alcohol distributors, have reported lobbying on Hoover’s bill.

The reports show those groups spent more than $1 million on lobbying this year. State ethics laws only require entities to report the total amount they spent lobbying the government in a year. They’re not required to report how much they spent on specific legislation, so it’s unclear how much they spent trying to influence lawmakers as they considered AB 2211 and its never-published direct-shipping amendment. 

Those groups, along with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Wine Institute, have given at least $11 million to both Democrats and Republicans in California since 2000, according to Digital Democracy, including at least $738,000 since 2025, the start of the current two-year legislative session. 

By comparison, California’s craft distillers reported spending $54,000 on lobbying this year. 

They reported just three donations to lawmakers in the past decade, according to Digital Democracy. One was a $42 bottle of whiskey in 2022 to former Napa Democratic Sen. Bill Dodd, who now lobbies on behalf of the craft distillery industry. In 2023, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, whose district includes part of Santa Cruz County, received $215 in tequila. Democratic Assemblymember-turned U.S. Rep. Adam Gray received a $1,300 campaign donation in 2016.

Hoover said he has been trying since last year to add language to his bill that would allow craft distillers to permanently keep shipping. He succeeded last year in getting the extension that expires Dec. 31, but this year he’s been unable to overcome the opposition to expanding the tasting room measure.

“I’m always open to figuring this out, if there’s a way that we can make this work. … but I don’t have a lot of hope that this bill is going to preserve those provisions this year,” he said.

 With less than a month left before the Legislature finishes for the year on Aug. 31, Democratic leaders would likely need to sign off on changes to Hoover’s tasting room measure. They’ve offered little indication they intend to intervene for craft distillers.

Rivas, who’s received at least $108,000 in donations over the years from opponents of Hoover’s unpublished proposal, declined CalMatters’ request for an interview. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who’s received at least $33,000, responded to an interview request with an emailed statement saying she is aware of the pending deadline.

“This bill will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended,” it said.

Bottles of spirits produced by Dry Diggins Distillery in El Dorado Hills. Credit: Fred Greaves for CalMatters

Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, oversee the committees that regulate California’s alcohol industry. When Hoover’s measure passed through their committees, the chairs could have allowed Hoover to add the direct-to-consumer amendment. They did not.

Susan Rubio has received at least $65,000 in donations from the groups blocking the direct-shipping proposal, according to Digital Democracy. Blanca Rubio has received at least $129,000.

Sen. Rubio’s spokesperson, Giovanni Ruiz Reyes, responded to interview requests with emailed statements. The first said “conversations between stakeholders are ongoing” and that she “looks forward” to reviewing potential legislation.

Ruiz Reyes said in a second statement Thursday that she’s supported four previous extensions of the craft distiller shipping policy.

“There is currently no bill or amendment before the committee seeking another extension,” Ruiz Reyes said. “Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Senator Rubio or the committee has blocked or refused to hear an extension when no such proposal is currently before the committee.” 

Assemblymember Rubio didn’t return interview requests.

Fewer Americans are drinking 

The liquor industry is facing a nationwide decline as more Americans cut back on drinking. 

In that difficult business climate, corporate liquor wholesalers and distribution companies lobbied “to obliterate competition,” said Dodd, the former state senator from wine country lobbying on behalf of craft distillers.

“We oppose any effort to make DTC [direct-to-consumer] permanent,” the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors wrote in a joint statement to CalMatters. 

Craft distilleries’ direct shipping “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief, and it’s expiring exactly as designed, six years later” said the groups, which represent local and national companies that move many of America’s best-known beer, wine and liquor brands. They argue that after the law expires, spirits can still be delivered to customers through services such as DoorDash. DoorDash is listed as a member of the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America on its website.

The groups’ representative, Kevin Luckey, declined an interview request.

Steve Gross, president and CEO of the Wine Institute, said the wine industry has worked hard over the decades to have large and small wine sellers treated equally under California and national alcohol distribution laws. He said it would undermine his industry’s efforts if small distillers get delivery rights in California when large ones don’t have them.

“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to because those larger distillers are not their members.”

The Wine Institute is a lobbying group that represents more than 700 large and small wine sellers, including one of the world’s largest, Modesto-based Gallo Winery.

Craft distillers say they’ve tried to work with the groups blocking their bill to address their concerns, but they have gotten nowhere.

In the meantime, Steller, the El Dorado Hills distiller, has already started pulling back on shipping bottles to his customers because the Legislature won’t budge.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.

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

The post California craft liquor delivery is about go away thanks to big-money lobbying appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

A fast-growing fire near Big Sur had burned 1,300 acres as of Monday afternoon, prompting evacuation orders and warnings in the surrounding areas. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection crews were preparing to assume control of the fire response, although the blaze remains a federal incident.

The Timber fire was first reported on Sunday at 10:44 a.m. As of 2:17 p.m. Monday, it had burned 1,300 acres and was only 5% contained. Three zones were under evacuation orders and four others were under evacuation warnings. It is on federal land in the Los Padres National Forest, and the cause was still under investigation.

A map of the Timber fire and the zones under evacuation orders and warnings as of Monday afternoon. Credit: Cal Fire

Cecile Juliette, the Cal Fire San Mateo-Santa Cruz Unit spokesperson, was at the scene of the fire on Monday, and told Lookout that a Cal Fire incident management team would assume command of the fire at 6 p.m. despite the fire occurring on federal land. Juliette added that it isn’t common for the state agency to assume this role in a federal fire. 

“California’s wildfires are not as active as in other parts of the west right now, so it gives Cal Fire the ability to support our federal partners,” she said.

According to a Cal Fire post on X, incident management teams are specialized groups of emergency personnel that provide leadership and coordination during complicated incidents. The groups direct and supervise fire suppression efforts, resources, logistics, safety and more.

Click here for Cal Fire’s latest information regarding the fire.

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

MORE LOCAL COVERAGE

The post Big Sur scorched by fast-growing fire; Cal Fire crews to assist and assume control appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

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

Brain sensors and implants are giving people the ability to control computers, robots and wheelchairs without moving a muscle. Paired with algorithms, the devices can also predict when people are most likely to be productive and when to take a break.

It’s a technology few Californians have used and many likely don’t know exists. But neurotechnology and brain data privacy is increasingly a target for regulation in the California Legislature.

Two years ago, lawmakers extended state digital privacy law protections to brain data. This year, a bill to restrict how employers use the data has cleared the Assembly and made most of its way through the Senate, as has another measure blocking the sale of brain data and other sensitive personal information. In January, new privacy agency rules go into effect that will protect more people from businesses that use artificial intelligence to make significant decisions about their lives including systems that utilize brain data and the kind made to operate in the workplace.

Neurotech systems gather information using computer chips implanted in the brain or sensors packed into devices like earbuds, headbands, wristbands, or via augmented reality headsets. 

Some uses are clearly beneficial: Helping blind people see, people with paralysis speak, and people with neurological disorders work and communicate. 

But policymakers and critics of the technology are concerned about its potential to monitor people and make predictions about them, especially in the workplace. For example, brain data can be analyzed to detect mental health disorders like depression and PTSD, potentially allowing for discriminatory hiring or firing decisions. The technology can also be used to predict words or images that form in a person’s mind, raising the possibility that in the future managers could utilize brain data to get the upper hand in salary negotiations or short-circuit union organizing. Some people concerned about the technology describe themselves as part of a mental privacy movement.

Currently, neurotechnology in the workplace is often used to detect focus or fatigue. Hitachi’s SmartCap brain-monitoring headbands are designed to keep tabs on the alertness of people working in sensitive industries like trucking and mining. Employees at an electric power company in China have reportedly been sent home or removed from critical posts if a warning is issued based on neural sensors in their hat.

Many neurotech companies call California home, including brain-implant makers Neuralink and Science Corporation and augmented reality startup Cognixion. California-based tech giant Meta is exploring ways to integrate brain data into its smart glasses. 

California lawmakers are looking to regulate the nascent sector before societal harms become commonplace as they did with AI and threats to digital privacy. Other states are also regulating neurotech: Colorado, Connecticut, Montana and Vermont already protect brain data to some extent. And this year Alabama, Illinois, New York, Vermont and Virginia are considering bills to regulate, or further regulate, the use of brain data. A United Nations body introduced the first global standards for how to treat neural data last year, and in February, Canada moved to protect the brain data of its citizens.

In California, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat from Inglewood, is pushing Assembly Bill 1883, which seeks to regulate the use of what’s known as bossware in the workplace and prohibits the collection of brain data by employers unless that data is used for safety. Another bill would expand state privacy law to prohibit the sale of sensitive personal information, which includes neural data.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan on the Assembly floor at the state Capitol. Credit: Miguel Gutierrez Jr. / CalMatters

Bryan said his bill is about ensuring that surveillance technology does not make the workplace hostile to people who are just trying to make a living.

“Much of what’s in our bill is cutting-edge technology or technologies that are emerging in real time, and we are trying to address easily predictable concerns before they hit the workplace,” he said. “You’d rather not have horror stories.”

Bryan’s bill drew opposition from major employers, including local governments and groups that represent assisted living facilities, grocers, hospitals, and wine growers. Opponents argue the measure is too broad and would prevent them from using tools that ensure safe driving, detect theft and stop inappropriate behavior toward customers.

The regulatory interest comes as Meta’s Neural Band begins to connect with smart glasses and neurotech startups seek to integrate their tech with Apple’s Vision Pro augmented reality headset. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has extended breakthrough device designation to many neurotech companies, which allows businesses to market hardware that’s in clinical trials and gives them an expedited path to commercial availability.

Nita Farahany is a Duke University professor who advises lawmakers on mental privacy protections. She fears that without adequate protections, workers may self-censor by avoiding thinking about things that could upset their employers like organizing a union. She said workers at neurotech companies have told her their employers are deciding their business model now, in particular whether to sell subscriptions, sell expensive devices or sell cheap devices and monetize the brain data of their customers.

“We’re at a critical decision point for most of the neurotech companies,” she said. “Privately all of them are grappling with this right now.”

Legislation like the bill that would prohibit the sale of neural data and other sensitive information could make that decision for small companies, Farahany said, but that won’t make a difference for tech giants like Meta if they choose to keep brain data for their own purposes such as personalized advertising.

Virtually all companies developing non-invasive forms of brain-computer interface technology have poor privacy practices written into their terms of service, according to a study by Stephen Damianos of the Neurorights Foundation, which supports more regulation of neural data. The 2024 study found that two-thirds of companies surveyed allowed data sharing with third parties.

Damianos said data collection is poised to ramp up as devices and the algorithms they use to interpret brain data improve. Without regulation, “enormous new risks emerge that can lead to people getting excluded from jobs or penalized by insurance companies or monitored at work,” he added. “So there’s an urgent need to act now before it becomes the norm that brain data is accessed without consent or used to influence decisions.”

California startups building brain tech

California-based makers of neurotechnology emphasized the benefits of their products and said they are involved with international efforts to adopt standards for the use of brain data in an ethical way.

Cognixion, which is based in Santa Barbara, makes headsets that can overlay useful information on top of a view of a user’s surroundings, technology known as augmented reality. Cognixion’s headset is also packed with brain data sensors, allowing people with neurological disorders like ALS to use their head movement, mind and eyes to interact with apps like Slack to communicate with coworkers or Outlook to send emails. Founder and CEO Andreas Forsland told CalMatters that neurotechnology developed for people with ALS could make life better for everyone, in much the same way that providing automatic doors and curb cut outs for people in wheelchairs aids everyone’s mobility. 

He believes it’s inevitable that brain data will be broadly used “either for understanding and optimizing human performance or providing an alternative to hands-on control.”

The Cognixion ONE Axon-R headset. Credit: Via Cognixion

Emotiv, based in San Francisco, makes earbuds with sensors that measure electrical activity in the brain. The company then uses algorithms to predict what these signals mean. Emotiv designs its earbuds to give people insights into how to go about their entire day. It wants to help users find and choose appropriate interventions for when they are stressed or tired, said Emotiv Chief Commercial Officer Kim Old.

The company also is working to make its products useful in workplaces and to the corporations that run them. The company says SAP used Emotiv tech to personalize employee training based on brain activity, Dell used brain data to personalize employee break schedules, and real estate company JLL used brain data to explore whether office layouts influence employee performance. Each of those projects were experiments, Old said, and Emotiv maintains that brain data deserves sensitive treatment, should be collected with consent, and people deserve control over how their brain data is used or shared.

“We do not believe neural data should be used for covert or coercive workplace surveillance,” Old told CalMatters in an email in June.

Alexander Kies is a postdoctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University in Germany who studies how consumers react when interacting with employees that use neurotech to do their jobs. He thinks neurotech that doesn’t require surgery will spread first in the workplace and that employers will start with monitoring brain data to help prevent worker fatigue then move on to using brain data to inform management decisionmaking. Once that happens it will become increasingly difficult to tell whether managers collect data to protect your well-being or control every part of your life.

“My take on this is these management tasks would creep in,” he said. “We’re taking away agency from employees.”

Guarding brain data in California

Though California lawmakers have been pioneers in regulating the use of neural data, last year there was a retreat. A bill regulating the use of automated decision systems in the workplace was amended to remove references to neural data in order to garner enough votes to pass. The watered-down measure was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said it would have placed overly broad restrictions on businesses.

The challenge that lawmakers and regulators face, said the bill’s coauthor, Stockton Democratic Sen. Jerry McNerney, is how to put guardrails in place that protect workers from harm but still allow employers to explore potential opportunities of the technology they can take advantage of.  The measure Newsom vetoed, Senate Bill 7, included brain data, he said, because “that’s the most personal thing you have, your brain.”

Credit: Illustration by Adriana Heldiz / CalMatters

“We want to make sure that neural data isn’t used to predict behavior that would cause you to punish an employee so no predictive algorithms are allowed,” he said during a panel conversation hosted by CalMatters at James Irvine Foundation offices in San Francisco last year. 

Sara Flocks of the California Labor Federation, which supports bills to regulate the use of worker brain data, said brain data has the potential to be used to repeat mistakes made during the Industrial Revolution, when initiatives to squeeze performance efficiency out of employees led to poor working conditions.

That mistake can be repeated in the future with brain data and today with AI, she said, pointing to a recent survey that found that one in five managers use automation for hiring, firing, or promotion decisions, and a 2023 survey found that three out of four employers use some form of employee surveillance or bossware.

Farahany said neural data isn’t today revealing as much about workers as other information, such as their keystrokes, social media activity or heart rate. But that may change as improvements are made to the hardware that taps into brain data and the AI that translates that data.

Any gains from neurotechnology could be undermined by a loss of trust and autonomy among employees if they feel their privacy and mental self-determination are negatively impacted, Farahany argued in her book, “The Battle for Your Brain.”

What’s at stake, she said, is not just the invasion of your privacy or the possibility that AI deployed by your employer could predict how often you have negative thoughts about your boss. Without privacy protections, this technology can undermine cognitive freedom and your ability to function as an autonomous, independent person. 

“There’s an urgent need to protect mental privacy and self determination,” she told CalMatters. “It’s part of a bigger picture that needs to be addressed.”

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

The post Would you trust your boss with data about your brain? California moves to regulate neurotech 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   ▼︎ long-term incidents

Road incidents as of 6:30 a.m. on August 10

• A man was seen standing between lanes on Freedom Blvd. near Shadowmere Way in Aptos, swinging his backpack at cars. No weapons were seen and no vehicles were involved. The incident was reported as a traffic hazard today.
   
• A traffic hazard was reported at Salinas Rd and Hilltop Rd in Watsonville / Pajaro at 4:47 a.m. today. A vehicle hit a long piece of metal or possibly a 2×4 in the road near a park/ride and bus stop. The fire department checked the vehicle before it was towed.
   
• There is one-way traffic on Highway 9 at Cascade Avenue in San Lorenzo Valley because of ongoing work. This closure will last until August 31 at 7:01 a.m.
   
• 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.
   

Long-term projects

These have been going on for a while, but are still worth keeping in mind.

• Elsie Mae Drive at 940 Elsie Mae Dr in San Lorenzo Valley will be closed today from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and again from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. while crews replace a utility pole and transformer and trim trees nearby.
   

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 Monday morning traffic: Backpack-swinging man on Freedom Blvd.; Hwy 9 lane closures appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.

Local grassroots group Get the Flock Out was chosen to kick off the National Week of Action Against Automated License Plate Readers in the Bay Area with a rally this Sunday. It’s meant to celebrate the City of Santa Cruz canceling its Flock Safety camera contract earlier this year, and to call attention to the nearly 50 cameras still active in Capitola and Watsonville, the group said.

It’s the last month for Go Santa Cruz County’s Go Bike! incentive program, which offers potential big discounts on a variety of bicycles and programs. Later this month, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission will hold a public workshop on the San Vicente-Waddell Coastal Resilience Project.

The new documentary film “My Name is Gitta” follows Santa Cruz Holocaust survivor Gitta Ryle as she returns to Europe in search of answers, discovering that forgiveness is not a destination, but a lifelong journey.

Don Nelson, the second-winningest coach in NBA history, including two stints with the Golden State Warriors, and who won five championships as a player with the Boston Celtics, died Sunday. He was 86.