Education and Juvenile Justice Committees:

Recommendations 9

• R1
  The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission determine a source of local funding to operate an expanded bus system;
• R2
  The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission adopt a Countywide program as soon as possible, giving priority to use of rail wherever financially feasible;
• R3
  The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission select for an initial project that segment of the Countywide program that would provide service to the greatest number of people; and
• R4
  The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles City Council allocate Proposition 5 funds to provide local matching dollars for the initial project adopted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. 55
• R5
  LANDFILLS The Committee urges immediate attention to the solid-waste-disposal situation in the southern portion of the County. When the Palos Verdes Landfill is closed in December, 1980, cities in that area must find new means of waste disposal. 56
• R6
  SOLID WASTE-RESOURCE RECOVERY The Committee found that more than 30,000 tons of solid waste are collected in this County every day. This waste could be turned into an enormous amount of usable energy—steam, gas, or electricity—through a resource recovery system. These systems are very capital-intensive, resulting in processing costs of $11 to $30 per ton, compared to $3 to $4 per ton for disposal in sanitary landfills. However, the time is coming when the landfill sites will not be there and energy will be worth more. After many studies, a site in the City of Long Beach appears to be most feasible for a resource recovery system. When it is operational in 1983, it will be strongly competitive, for after the Palos Verdes landfill is exhausted, extended hauls from the Long Beach area will be very expensive. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that local funds be raised by revenue bonds authorized by the Board of Directors of the Sanitation District to match State and Federal capital dollars for the construction of these facilities. These bonds are to be repaid from profits accruing from the sale of this newly created energy.
• R7
  WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT—MALIBU-TOPANGA AREA The Malibu-Topanga area covers more than 25 miles of major coastal-mountain area in northwest Los Angeles County and is served for waste disposal mostly by septic tanks, seepage pits, and leach-field systems. The Committee studied pollution hazards in the ocean and in other local waters. It was concerned with safe conditions for water recreation, especially swimming, and for the harvesting of shellfish. Interviews and on-site visits to the areas were conducted with staff from the Los Angeles County Engineer's Office, the Department of Health Services, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, and residents of the area. The Committee limited its study to two current issues regarding waste treatment and disposal in the Malibu-Topanga area. One concern centered around the Malibu Creek drainage area near the Civic Center/Serra Road. Secondary treatment water is being dumped into the creek by the Las Virgines Municipal Water District from its Tapia Treatment Plant, which is located approximately three miles upstream. In addition, pollution is suspected from neighboring horse corrals and creek-side homes. The Malibu community is very concerned about the disturbance of the ecologi- cal system of the Creek drainage area and the health safety of these waters for recreational use. Presently, insufficient data are available to determine what the exact sources of pollution are. The second problem area is the Malibu beachfront, which is used extensively for recreational and swimming purposes. It is lined with residences and restau- rants which have septic tanks instead of a sewer. Randomly-collected water samplings along this strip frequently do not meet water-quality standards as set by the State Regional Quality Control Board (SRQCB). While no human health problems have yet been reported by health authorities here, cesspool overflow complaints are frequently lodged against apartments and restaurants. Health authorities operate with a staff limited to one full-time man and one part-time man, who are kept busy on a continuous round of complaints, investigations, and the issuance of citations for infractions. In most instances, fines are paid, repairs made, and pipes fixed or replaced, but there has been no solution for the overall problem. A State committee recommended sewering and construction of small-package treatment plants for the beachfront and the civic center area. However, the community has not supported this recommendation because of expensive hook- up fees and the probable result of increased development. The residents have consistently voted down bonds that would finance the local share of construc- tion for a sewer project. The Environment Committee concluded that there is a potential health prob- lem that must be addressed by the community-at-large in both the Malibu Creek drainage area and the Malibu beachfront area. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends:
• R8
  SCALES AND METER SURVEILLANCE The Committee finds that the reduced surveillance service performed by the County Weights and Measures Department will cost Los Angeles County con- sumers millions of dollars annually. In fact, consumers throughout the state will suffer losses because of similar problems in other counties. The Grand Jury supports continued monitoring by the Weights and Measures Department as a necessary protection to consumers. To finance these valuable services, the Grand Jury advocates a statewide fee system which would impose annual permit fees on businesses that use weighing or measuring devices commercially. The fees would pay for the inspection of these scales and meters. The cost of the permit would be determined by the number and kind of devices at each business location. Revenues collected would go to the General Fund of each county to be specifically returned to the Weights and Measures Department. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors endorse legislation which will authorize counties to impose fees for an- nual permits for weighing and measuring devices. On September 28 the Grand Jury wrote the Board of Supervisors on the need for consumers to be alert to faulty weights and measures. On October 30 the Grand Jury urged the Board to transfer money to the Flood Control District for immediate work, to prohibit flammable roofing, and to urge the State to provide money for special districts. On December 15 the Grand Jury wrote the Board to state its support for the State Motor Vehicle Inspection Program. On February 26 the Grand Jury wrote the Board to urge it to get cities in the southwest part of the County to agree on a course of action for disposal of trash after the Palos Verdes landfill is closed. On March 8 the Grand Jury asked the Board to advocate a law for statewide fees on businesses that use weighing and measuring devices. On March 22 the Grand Jury recommended to the Board that the General Plan address the role of solar energy. Francis A. Bartolomeo, Chairman Delia H. Carbajal Marvey A. Chapman Johanne E. Hanser Frank Magallanes Robert A. Perez 59
• R90
  The intent of AB 90 is to provide the counties with the financial resources to develop local programs for youths involved in delinquent conduct. The legisla- tion also mandates the creation of a local Justice System Advisory Group (JSAG) to evaluate applications for funding and make recommendations to the Board. The Juvenile Justice Committee interviewed members of the JSAG Committee, reviewed their criteria in evaluating proposals, and studied their recommen- dations as submitted in their letter of December 8, 1978, to the Board of Super- visors. JSAG members are representatives of the juvenile justice system. The Committee believes that JSAG was thorough and objective in its deliberations and acted impartially in its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. JSAG used merit and effectiveness of programs as the major considerations for funding. All eligible agencies could not be funded with the limited funds available. The reports of the December 19, 1978, Board of Supervisors meeting contained some startling revelations. It seemed that politics and district boundaries were more important than merit. According to one supervisor, "The bottom line is nobody cares about merit." The Committee sees merit as the only appropriate guideline to use in making decisions that affect the youth of this County. Juve- nile problems and solutions are best served by the most effective and meritorious programs. In fact, none of the agencies recommended would deny access to a juvenile who did not live in a particular district, and many of the agencies serve multiple districts. The Rule of Five, which says funds and programs are to be divided equally to each district, may lend itself to the distribution of some County services; however, it is impractical when limited funds are available for community-based, juvenile-crime-prevention programs within the County. Juvenile delinquency crosses district boundaries, and the only criteria that should be considered are those related to the effectiveness of programs and the reduction of juvenile crime. The Committee concluded that the JSAG recommendations met these criteria, not a "division of five" policy. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the guidelines developed by the JSAG Committee and adopt its recommendations for funding community-based prevention pro- grams under AB 90.