Grand Jury Response to Findings and Report 1 message

Vegetation/fuel management and abatement are not receiving the attention nor funding needed from the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, and therefore are not adhering to California Government Executive Order 1.8.19-EO-N-05-19. AGREE ​ X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ The compound sentence is affirmed in the nature of concern but utilizes an uninformed and inappropriate source citation as a basis for the conclusion. The Executive Order is applicable only to State Agencies receiving Forestry Management funding. (p. 6; p.11)

Santa Cruz County residents are at increased risk of fire danger due to the lack of risk management for wildfire. Specific risks are not formally identified, tracked, assessed for impact, nor is progress reported by fire departments in the County. Therefore, leaders responsible for budgets and accountability are left unprepared to manage risk, impact, or performance. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

City and County officials have not collaborated with PG&E to identify the location of high risk PG&E electrical equipment, and so are left uninformed as to how to manage their responsibilities or how to instruct residents about potential danger due to proximity to this equipment. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Santa Cruz County would greatly benefit if steps were taken to implement the CAL FIRE, San Mateo - Santa Cruz Unit 2018 recommendation of developing detailed, site specific Community Wildfire Protection Plans for communities throughout the County. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Response time data for fire departments in Santa Cruz County is challenging to obtain. Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 previously reported response time data in their annual reports, but did not do so in the 2018 or 2019 annual reports. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Roadside vegetation in rural areas of the County is not being cleared consistently which could potentially increase emergency response time, putting life and property in unnecessary danger. Furthermore, evacuations could be restricted as there is no rule or program that mandates that roads, even critical evacuation routes, be kept cleared meeting defensible space requirements. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

There are only approximately 17,000 accounts for the Santa Cruz County opt-in CodeRED™ emergency system, which implies that a significant portion of the County may not receive emergency alert messages, which potentially reduces residents’ opportunity to take action in a timely, life-saving manner. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), have been deployed in other areas of the state and have proven effective tools in alerting residents in urban and rural areas to a wildfire. However, Santa Cruz County has no such devices, increasing the risk to County residents. AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ X DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ The report exposes its lack of field observations in that Felton, Zayante -(2), Ben Lomond and Boulder Creek Fire Districts continue to maintain Station Sirens first utilized to summon volunteers and continue to provide community wide notification of an emergency.

High risk communities in the County are left unnecessarily vulnerable due to the lack of easily accessible, published information of refuge/assembly areas and structures. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Because the County does not publish a “shelter in place” plan, when a fire expands rapidly, residents cannot make informed decisions about whether to shelter in place or evacuate. AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ X DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ This is a flawed premise in that a shelter in place plan requires the specific real time situational awareness to drive a decision-making process. The general public lacks the general knowledge to evaluate all risks. What is the hazard, where is the hazard, what is the time continuum and will movement of large numbers of persons negatively impact the emergency response thus allowing it to become larger than necessary. Public shelter orders and evacuation orders disseminate from Emergency Officials who are incident informed, trained and tooled to initiate and organize effective evacuations.

Unlike the City of Santa Cruz, the County does not publish emergency evacuation routes, purportedly to avoid having old or untimely information being followed in an emergency. The County therefore withholds revealing evacuation routes until an emergency is in progress, likely creating unnecessary risk and potential for chaos. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

In the Wildland Urban Interface zone, and in many town centers, traffic choke points exist, and in some instances have roadway obstacles to traffic flow such as overgrown vegetation, concrete medians, curbs, and lane reductions resulting in roads that are inadequate for mass evacuations. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Wildfire preparedness informational materials are well done and public education is attempted by fire departments in the County, but fails to sufficiently reach and motivate residents to act. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

The FireWise institution provides a valuable fire prevention program and, as of March 2020, there were eight FireWise communities registered in the County. Marin County, by contrast, with a similar population, has sixty registered communities, highlighting the need for more FireWise promotion and participation in Santa Cruz County. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

The County Office of Emergency Services and fire agencies in the County encourage residents to be prepared for an emergency, however the passive mechanisms such as web sites used to encourage preparedness are not proving to be sufficient. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

Property owners in the County are responsible for their own vegetation management, yet they are often not sufficiently educated about vegetation management practices, or do not have the capability, financial resources, or desire to create defensible space. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

No single organization in the County is assuming a leadership role in Fire Hazard Mitigation. It is not clear whose responsibility it is to minimize this County wide risk. AGREE ​ X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ This finding assumes one organization must be responsible for leadership. There are multiple agencies including County Fire, the municipalities and individual Fire Protection Districts that encompass and serve the entire County. These agencies each have separate boundaries but share similar responsibility and goals for risk reduction within the constraint of their economic means and emergency response resources. Since the equity factors in the model “LGB” discussed on were not evaluated by the Grand Jury the obvious disparate funding levels and subsequent differing levels of proactive prevention measures cannot be evaluated nor can it provide a nexus to impact on a leadership model.

The annual report to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office by County Fire/CAL FIRE does not provide data or analysis of resources, response times, code enforcement, inspection, or education. This information is necessary to show what gaps exist between current performance and community needs in order for informed budget decisions to be made. Without adequate background information, the Board of Supervisors is unable to hold CAL FIRE accountable for the specific responsibilities specified in their contract. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley would benefit by further aligning their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ X DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ The Valley Fire Districts’ policies and procedures are not significantly contrasting to infer a benefit in a consolidation discussion. The issue is not policy but rather demographics, economics and most importantly cultural within the communities served and a key indicator is the pride demonstrated by each community towards their locally responsive fire protection agency. Consolidations occur for specific reasons, frequently associated with the stress of insufficient resources. As long as the communities in question are solvent, staffed and satisfied with the level of service they receive there will not be substantial benefits realized from a regional consolidation. The benefits have been realized through the proactive leadership of District Fire Chief’s and their Boards through the utilization of the master mutual aid system for shared response and a consistent utilization of joint training, prevention and purchasing opportunities.

Reporting data, statistics, and formats utilized by fire agencies throughout the County are highly inconsistent, uncoordinated, and therefore not readily evaluated and compared. The standard Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating system would be useful to adopt. Response time data are not well described or consistently reported by the jurisdictions, making accurate assessment difficult, especially by other agencies or by the public. AGREE ​ X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ The ISO Grading system is utilized by the Fire Agencies in the County and is driven by private industry demands for insurability. The ISO provides for reoccurring evaluations to satisfy the insurance market. It is not something that is adopted. Response time data and assessment are not readily available.

The 2015 County of Santa Cruz Emergency Operations Management plan does not adequately address evacuation, and references data too outdated to be useful, such as a population density map from the 2000 census. X AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​

The Grand Jury finds that formally specified baseline and target performance statements, in alignment with the Center for Public Safety Excellence Assessment Process, neither currently exist nor are they reported by fire departments in the County as required by best practice standards. There are no goals set or measures made of progress for review by the Board of Supervisors regarding County Fire/CAL FIRE performance. Other fire districts in the County are similarly remiss in reporting to their governing bodies. Appropriate goals would include progress on response times, vegetation management, and code inspection progress, all of which are necessary to properly quantify the budget and resources required for full-time, volunteer, and prison inmate workforces, in appropriate, affordable proportions. AGREE ​ PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion ​ ​ X DISAGREE – explain why ​ ​ Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ​ ​ ​ this is a flawed compound thought and sentence. The Fire Agencies are not required to adhere to the Center for Public Safety Excellence assessment process and the Fire Districts are not staffed, funded, or required to meet the Standard. Secondly, Best Practices are not a requirement but rather goals to be aware of and striven towards when possible. Thirdly, no fire agencies at the County level have incorporated, maintain or direct prison inmate workforces – that resource is a State of California program incorporating Department of Corrections and Cal Fire. There is a difference between the Cal Fire mission and County Fire Department. They have separate missions and separate budgets. Missing in this finding is the lack of study in the equity balance between agencies in the County. A critical omission and failed opportunity in this report and one that would have illustrated to the public the levels of service supported by public tax funding sources and the direct link between the haves and have nots.