Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

The Honorable Eric Labowitz Presiding Judge, Superior Court 100 North State Street, Room 303,

Published: July 07, 2005 215 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F17, F18, F19, F20

Findings and Recommendations 17 findings

F1 Page 1
Response (Mental Health): The Department agrees with this finding, although at times, due to the number of vacancies and lack of applicants, Supervisors have recommended appointees who reside outside of their district. Response (Mental Health Board): The Mental Health Board disagrees partially with this finding. The Board of Supervisors has not recognized the urgency of having a fully appointed Mental Health Board. Rarely has the MH Board had a full complement of 15 members. The Grand Jury is imminently correct in their finding No. 6. Each mental health board member spends a considerable amount of time each month in contact with consumer/clients. It is our
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Staff turnover is higher at the lower paid, entry level positions than among more senior personnel. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
To the fullest extent possible, functions of the Clerk’s Office are computerized in a very technology-intensive environment. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 1
This staffing includes nine EMTS and two first responders. 7. The geographic isolation of Covelo creates problems in training EMTS and volunteer firepersons. The problem is compounded by volunteer inability to devote time to travel and training while committed to fulltime employment. HOPLAND VOLUNTEER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HOPLAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Specific Findings 1. The Hopland Volunteer Fire Department (HVFD) protects an area of 350 square miles and a population of approximately 1,400. 2. Water supplies for the HVFD are provided by the municipal district to 72 hydrants and to Department storage tanks. 3. HVFD has the equipment necessary to accomplish its mission, but much of the equipment is old and in need of replacement. The Department has only one 22 year old water tender and it is in need of major repairs. 4. Although HVFD is authorized to carry 30 volunteer firefighter positions, only 17 of these positions are currently filled. From December to April, the Department carries four salaried positions, three fulltime and one part-time. 5. HVFD members, trained by in-house and off-site instructors, must sometimes pay for their own training. 6. Because the District has an arrangement with the CDF and has been working and training in CDF space for several years, the HVFD must comply with CDF standards. LONG VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT LAYTONVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Specific Findings 1. The Laytonville Fire Department (LFD) protects an area of 250 square miles and a population of approximately 3500. 2. Water supplies for the LFD are provided by a hydrant system which extends for two to three miles from the firehouse; water is supplied by the Laytonville Water District. 3. The LFD owns the most up-to-date equipment of the seven surveyed districts. For example, the Department’s oldest engine was built in 1989. 4. The LFD has 32 members, two salaried and 30 volunteers, including a chaplain. The department has two ambulances; the volunteers include four paramedics. 5. The LVFD is supported by a $120,000 tax base. 6. The LFD offers an EMT class onsite annually to which other County districts send their volunteers. The District also offers a community classroom at the station in which interested high school students spend a class period learning the tasks and responsibilities of fire service. POTTER VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT POTTER VALLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Specific Findings 1. The Potter Valley Volunteer Fire Department (PVVFD) protects an area of 275 square miles and a population of approximately 2000. 2. Water supplies for the PVVFD are provided by a hydrant with generator backup located at the firehouse and supplied by a well. 3. A water tender holding 5000 gallons is a PVVFD standby water source. 4. PVVFD has the equipment necessary to accomplish its mission, but much of the equipment is old and in need of replacement. 5. The PVVFD is a 100% volunteer district; the 21 members include a chief, two assistant chiefs, four active EMTS and one paramedic, and four volunteers who are also CDF employees. Two Junior firemen (cadets) also serve the district. 6. PVVFD volunteer training includes Swift Water Rescue training for Russian and Eel River incidents. REDWOOD VALLEY-CALPELLA FIRE DISTRICT Specific Findings 1. The Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District (RVCFD) protects an area of 60 square miles and a population of approximately 7800. 2. Water supplies for the RVCFD are provided by 110 hydrants in Redwood Valley and 38 in Calpella; water is supplied by three water districts and various private water sources. These sources are primarily on the Valley floor; few are in the rural or foothill areas. 3. RVCFD has sufficient equipment to accomplish its mission, but much of the equipment is old and in need of replacement. For example, the mutual aid wildland1979 Ford Type 3 pumper is no longer reliable enough to be taken on out-of-County Strike Teams. 4. The RVCFD has 26 members; of these, three are salaried, 16 are volunteers, and seven are cadets. 5. The RVCFD’s recently purchased water tender was funded by the volunteers, private donations, and a grant through the Sho-Ka-Wah casino in Hopland. 6. The RVCFD has converted a retired ambulance into a mobile compressed air support to refill firefighters’ portable air tanks at the scene of an incident. PIERCY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PIERCY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Specific Findings NOTE: The Piercy Fire Protection District, supporting a 100% volunteer Fire Department, was formed in 1956 when three lumber mills were flourishing in the area. On January 1, 2004, the Department was no longer a viable entity: OSHA specifications could not be met, the Chief retired and two of the remaining volunteers resigned. Residents of this bedroom community in northern Mendocino County, while they do not seem willing to pay additional taxes, continue to be hopeful that their District can support an active Fire Department in the near future. 1. The Piercy Volunteer Fire Department (PVFD) protected an area of 98 square miles and a population of approximately 290. 2. Water supplies for the PVFD were provided primarily by the South Fork of the Eel River and landowner’s private reservoirs when available. PVFD also had access to the hydrants in Richardson’s Grove. Two of three storage tanks in the district are presently unusable. 3. The PVFD owns a 1972 Chevrolet Type I 1200 gallon pumper and a 1978 Dodge one ton 4x4 wildlands truck. Two International engines obtained through the Federal Excess Program had to be returned following the collapse of the Department. The Department also has eight sets of turnout gear that do not meet OSHA requirements. 4. The PVFD has, at present, no members. After recent recruiting efforts by the Interim Chief and the two remaining Fire Commissioners, fifteen residents expressed an interest in joining a reconstituted PVFD. 5. There is, at present, $15,000 in the District Funds account in the State Controller’s office in reserve for the Piercy Fire Protection District. Piercy receives $8000 annually from the County from which various fees and expenses are deducted. COMMENTS In a State as huge and geographically diverse as California, fire protection services range from well-trained, well-paid urban districts using state of the art equipment to rural, 90% to 100% volunteer districts struggling for time and funds to train members and searching for ways to replace aging, outmoded equipment. Much of Mendocino County is served by the latter, many caught in an economic “perfect storm” as they attempt to protect their communities. Even as retirees flock to the County and developers rush to meet the demands of the second home market, the cost of firefighting equipment increases, potential volunteers see jobs decline and home prices soar, and the State imposes additional training hours and mandated services on rural fire districts. The portion of property taxes allotted to rural fire districts has not increased since1956, although the cost of district operations continues to rise. While some fortunate districts receive endowments and gifts from members of the community, others write and rewrite grant requests, raffle patchwork quilts, and pray that the annual district barbeque will attract paying customers from beyond their boundaries into the outlying areas. It is estimated that a rural fire district in our County of between 20-25 volunteers and an annual budget of between $75,000-$85,000 is equal to the cost of one fully equipped journeyman firefighter employed by the San Francisco Fire Department. The volunteer, who may well hold a full time job and cherish time with his/her family, must also manage on-call and training hours and State mandated services to public buildings in addition to dwellings, small businesses and wildlands. Volunteer EMTS may be called to the scene of a midnight heart attack or a vehicle accident on State 101, State 1 or any of the myriad of winding, deteriorating County roads. Mendocino County residents would surely agree with the thought that one of the finest ways to serve your community is to join their volunteer fire department. Thousands of us depend on rural fire districts for our safety, our health and the integrity of our communities. The Grand Jury recommends that both State and County governments serve these districts as fairly and faithfully as these districts serve their residents. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Chairman, Local Agency Formation Commission President, Mendocino County Fire Chief’s Association Mendocino County Safety Officer Director, Mendocino County Department of Building and Planning Mendocino County Unit Manager, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Chief, Little River Fire Department Chief, Covelo Volunteer Fire and Ambulance Service Chief, Hopland Fire Department Chief, Long Valley Fire District Chief, Potter Valley Volunteer Fire Department Chief, Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District Interim Chief, Piercy Fire Department Mendocino County Department of Transportation Unpaved Road Report (February 15, 2005) Summary There are 1020 miles of roads in Mendocino County under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation (DOT). This report deals primarily with the 360 miles of unsurfaced (unpaved) roads. Background The DOT is responsible for Roads and Bridges, Business Services, the County Surveyor, Land Improvement, Solid Waste, and Engineering. In accordance with the mission statement "The Road Division has a key role in accommodating the statutory functions of the County Road Commissioner in accordance with requirements of the California Streets and Highways Code and restricted Road Fund provisions. In order to address these responsibilities, road maintenance forces operate out of seven Road Maintenance Yards throughout the County." Methodology The Grand Jury interviewed various members of the DOT and reviewed agency documents to gather information needed for this report. Findings 1. The DOT top priority is safe roads and safe driving conditions. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. 2. The local yard Senior Road Crew Supervisors are the public's primary contact for local maintenance work and are available by phone. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. 3. Applications of fresh water are required prior to any grading of un-surfaced roads. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Road Division personnel try to take advantage of weather conditions and grade un-surfaced roads when they are at good moisture content conditions – e.g. after the first several rains in the fall and before the road structure dries out in late spring / early summer Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. 4. If water must be applied, it may have to be purchased by the DOT and hauled to the work sites. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees in part with this finding. Because the California Department of Fish & Game is requiring conditions, which make drafting water from streams more restrictive, the department has found it more economic to purchase the water rather than comply with the mitigation. The main restriction is a requirement that no more than 25% of the flow of a stream be removed and if the flow is low we would need to slowly fill our water truck. We have determined that the loss in efficiency to the grading operation in “slow fills from streams” makes purchase and haul a viable option. We are exploring purchase of tanks for slow fill and rapid transfer to water trucks but other agencies have warned us that there can be vandalism issues with leaving a slow fill tank unattended. We believe the solution is access to ponds, which we are attempting to do where possible. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding, however, the BOS has no reason to doubt the response by the Department of Transportation. 5. A consistent supply of water is required for efficient roadwork; thus progress may be slowed when water must be hauled from a distance. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with this finding. See response to #4 above. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. See response to # 4 above. 6. The California Department of Fish and Game sets stringent requirements for the taking of water from waterways, which can affect both the cost and efficiency of road maintenance. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with this finding. See response to #4 above. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. See response to # 4 above. 7. Motorists have a tendency to increase speed after grading has been completed. This driving pattern causes the road to return to its prior condition of disrepair within a short time. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees in part with this finding. Some studies indicate that traffic volume has more effect than traffic speed on the condition of un-surfaced roads. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding without further information on studies done relative to driving patterns and their effect on road conditions. 8. Very few un-surfaced roads are posted for speed limits. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding without further information. 9. Vegetation growth along roadways impedes maintenance work and creates hazardous driving conditions, decreasing visibility and narrowing the usable road surface. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. 10. Magnesium chloride, a bonding agent, is used to improve unpaved roads, control dust, and create a longer lasting surface. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. 11. The DOT Engineering Division has recently acquired four new pneumatic traffic-counting devices. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees with the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. The pneumatic traffic-counting devices were purchased in approximately November 2004. A laptop computer with the software to operate these devices was purchased in approximately February 2005. 12. Some of the maintenance yards lack adequate surveillance and security features, leading to serious theft and vandalism. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department agrees in part with this finding. Our yards have gates and are locked during non business hours. Sometimes the yards (not the office or shop) are left open and unattended during business hours because of deliveries and utility company meter readers that need access. The theft and vandalism, which has occurred, is a result of non-business hour activities. One event might well have been someone with an unauthorized copy of a key. We are considering changing certain lock systems. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with this finding. While there have been incidents of non-business hour unauthorized access, investigations have been conducted by the DOT, and some of the lock systems have been considered for a more secure system. 13. For the past three years, funding for road maintenance has been so inadequate as to create an impending transportation crisis and a threat to public safety. Response (Department of Transportation): The Department cannot support this finding. Inadequate funding creates a large problem, and while driver comfort is a priority, safety issues and concerns are a greater priority, and have been and will continue to be dealt with swiftly and as efficiently as possible even when driver comfort must be sacrificed to do so. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding without further information. However, while budget constraints are a major concern for the county as a whole, the BOS has always taken the position that public safety is a major priority. of
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The remainder of revenues from the Office goes into the County General Fund. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Requests for information and documents are met in a timely fashion. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Despite a considerable increase in recent years in the volume of work, the Clerk’s Office has functioned without an increase in staffing for the last 20 years. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The conduct of County elections by the Clerk’s Office has gone smoothly despite the increasing complexity of the process. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The conduct of elections depends heavily on a well-organized group of temporary hires. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Election results, sent by modem from the polling places, are now available almost immediately after the closing of the polls at the Clerk’s Office and the Mendocino County website. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Safeguards for a fair election process appear to be both adequate and appropriate. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Between elections voting machines are warehoused in two separate facilities, one of which has a leaky roof. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (General Services): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the responses of both departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The Assessor’s Office has an authorized staff of 24 permanent workers and supervisors. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The Assessor’s Office is increasingly computerized, enabling it to handle the workload much more efficiently. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Shortage of staff in the Assessor’s Office, particularly those with specific skills, is a serious problem, leading to a grievous overburdening of existing personnel. Response (County Clerk/Assessor): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and the County Clerk/Assessor response.
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 1
) Comments The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department is doing well with the staff available. In an era with so many funding issues, it is remarkable that the work of the Department continues with a high degree of efficiency and professional dedication which provides the citizens of Mendocino County a reasonable level of police protection. Should citizens in a given area feel the need for additional protection Neighborhood Watch Groups can be organized. The Sheriff’s Department is willing to assist in the formation of such groups if their help is requested. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department must patrol approximately 3800 square miles with a patrol staff of 68. Their duties are varied and complex. In response to a growing County population and a growing drug problem they work to provide the best service possible with the funds available. Citizens within the County will find that they are best served when involved with their communities and willing to invest time to make the County a better place in which to live and work. For example, volunteers who dedicate time to the Reserves and Search and Rescue teams are to be commended. The duty assignments for patrol officers in the County provide a very challenging logistical problem. With the staff available the Department must strive for maximum protection at the most critical times. Citizens of the county must realize that the remote areas will not have 24/7 coverage. Other deputies must cover for personnel who are injured, on sick leave, or on vacation. Law enforcement personnel within the County and beyond must be prepared to respond in a timely fashion to a wide variety of emergencies. The Emergency Response System in the County does well to service such a vast area. Communication within all parts of the county continues to improve. The Sheriff Dispatch works constantly to improve the existing communication system. An upgrade of the microwave communication system used by officers on the ground is necessary. Verizon should give closer attention to their land line communication system in the northern part of the County. Citizens with a concern regarding the 911 response system should work with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to exact a change. Responses Required Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff Responses Requested Regional Manager, Verizon Landline Division California Highway Patrol Cahto Indian Tribe Coyote Valley Tribe Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Manchester-Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians Round Valley Tribe Sherwood Valley Rancheria Yokayo Tribe Parlin Fork and Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camps (May 23, 2005) Summary In accordance with California Penal Code § 919 (b), the Grand Jury is mandated to inquire into the conditions and management of the prisons within the county. Background Parlin Fork and Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camps are located on Highway 20 in Jackson State Forest, between Fort Bragg and Willits. There are 38 Conservation Camps in the State of California that function under the direction of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and in partnership with the California Department of Forestry (CDF). Each camp has a CDF division chief and ten fire crew captains. The camps in Mendocino County, combined, have a maximum population of 220 inmates, who are minimum custody offenders with an average placement stay of one to two years. There is a strong emphasis on physical fitness. After careful screening each inmate must pass a one-week physical fitness training class followed by two weeks of training in fire safety, fire suppression and ongoing physical fitness. Each fire crew has 17 inmates supervised by a CDF officer. Fire crews work 12 hour shifts or longer during fire season, under extreme conditions, often in steep terrain, wearing heavy, insulated clothing and carrying 30 pound packs of equipment in high heat and under difficult breathing conditions. As one officer said, "We go where equipment can't.” When they are not fighting fires, the crews work eight hours a day doing community service projects under the supervision of the CDF, or they may work within the camps. While in the camps they are under the supervision of CDC Officers. Methodology Members of the Grand Jury toured both camps. The Grand Jury was able to interview members of the staff (CDF & CDC) as well as inmates. The Grand Jury observed the operations of the camps such as the running of the sawmill, the water treatment plant, the cabinet shop and the living quarters. Findings 1. The approximate cost to incarcerate an inmate in a Conservation Camp is $10,000 annually compared to $50,000 annually at a higher security State prison. 2. Inmate contributions to the community more than offset the cost of their incarceration. When inmates are not fighting fires they are available to do community work projects. 3. Inmates at Parlin Fork help support the Make a Wish Foundation by making and donating craft items, sold to the public over the past five years for over $100,000. 4. The seventeen-man crews are available at nominal rates to any tax-supported entity. 5. Chamberlain Creek has a complete wood working shop and makes many types of cabinets and signs for city, county and State government. 6. Parlin Fork operates their own sawmill and provides lumber for various projects. 7. The Mendocino County Bookmobile serves both camps and is highly valued by the inmates. 8. Inmates do most of the jobs required to run the camps. 9. No tobacco products will be allowed in the camps after July 1, 2005. This will apply to staff as well as inmates.
No recommendations for this finding
F21 Page 1
The Courthouse Holding Cells now provide space for attorney/client consultation. Response (Sheriff): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Buildings and Grounds): The Department neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding; however, it has no reason to doubt neither the Grand Jury’s finding nor the Sheriff’s response in agreement. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with the response represented by the Sheriff’s Department. 22. Graffiti exist on holding cell walls in Ukiah and Fort Bragg. Response (Sheriff): The Department agrees with this finding. It is an ongoing problem. We paint; they scratch the paint; we repaint. There are some paints and surface finishes that are resistant to vandalism, but most are toxic and require closure of the cell during curing. There is no such thing as a “graffiti proof” or “inmate proof” surface. Response (Buildings and Grounds): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with the response represented by the Sheriff’s Department. 23. A significant number of the transients arriving in Mendocino County further stress the criminal justice system. Response (Sheriff): Without further information the Department can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The Jail staff has observed an increase in the number of transients booked, together with a high incidence of mental health problems among this group. Whether or not the number of transient arrestees represents a significant portion of the overall transient population would require a count of that larger population. Response (Buildings and Grounds): The Department can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The information required to verify this finding is outside the purview of Buildings and Grounds. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding without further information. 24. Since the closure of the Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) in November, 2000, many of the individuals who would have been served at that location are now under the care of the MCJ, at a higher cost to Mendocino County. Response (Sheriff): Without further information the Department can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. It is extremely difficult to identify the impact of services that were not delivered. Response (Buildings and Grounds): The Department can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The information required to verify this finding is outside the purview of Buildings and Grounds. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS can neither agree nor disagree with this finding without further information. 25. The kennel used for detainees’ dogs at the Fort Bragg Holding Facility is not clean. Response (Sheriff): Without further information the Department can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The kennel is not owned by the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff’s Deputies assigned to the Fort Bragg Sub-Station take arrestees’ animals to the Department of Animal Care & Control shelter in Fort Bragg. Response (Buildings and Grounds): The Department neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Department of Animal Care and Control is responsible for cleaning the kennels at the Fort Bragg Animal Shelter. Response (Board of Supervisors): The BOS agrees with the response represented by the Sheriff’s Department.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 7

Comments 31

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Mendocino County County