San Diego County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
San Diego County Emergency Operations Center: Seeking Better Communication
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
All agencies involved should provide a standing representative to the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during major wildland fires that affect multiple jurisdictions.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Create a local Multi Agency Coordination (MAC) Group for San Diego County, established by the Office of Emergency Services Fire and Rescue Coordinator. The MAC group would represent all departments and agencies with fires burning within their jurisdictions, Operational plans would establish triggers for activation of MAC based on fire activity. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Emergency, public safety, fire officials and other emergency responders and agencies faced significant problems that resulted from the lack of intelligence and current information regarding the behavior of the firestorm. Finding: The fires defied predictions and had many fronts. Smoke and ash severely reduced visibility and prevented intelligence gathering by air. For these reasons getting current information was very difficult and at times impossible. Fact: In many cases, the “eyes and ears” for the Emergency Operations Center were officials who were “on the ground” fighting the fire and effecting the evacuations. Fact: During an emergency, information from field fire and rescue teams comes into the EOC through a liaison or designated representative. The liaison is elected periodically by representatives from all fire agencies and is called the Fire and Rescue Coordinator Finding: Coincidently, the Fire and Rescue Coordinator was the person in CDF who was heading up the Unified Command for the entire fire so he could not perform EOC function except briefly the second and third days of the fire. Periodically, others filled the seat. Finding: Getting fire intelligence information into the EOC would not have happened instantaneously by having the elected Fire and Rescue Coordinator sitting at the EOC table. Protocols and guidelines for governing working relationships and communications linkages among fire agencies are not established and need to be before this type of situation reoccurs. The 2003 San Diego County Fire Siege Fire Safety Review, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, March 2004; Pg. 41 6 – 2004 (filed May 25, 2004) Report 2003/4-08 Finding: The CDF and USFS San Diego County Fire Siege report contains two recommendations for fire agency representation and preparation that we believe can solve these problems.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1The San Diego County Grand Jury commends dedicated public safety, fire, rescue and medical personnel who despite unimaginable challenges during the 2003 Firestorm, time and again protected communities, saved lives and fought to preserve property, frequently at the risk of their own lives. The San Diego County Grand Jury commends the men and women who worked tirelessly in the Emergency Centers, community shelters and programs, in rescuing and transporting animals and countless other ways to help the victims of the 2003 San Diego County Firestorm. The San Diego County Grand Jury commends the San Diego Fire Chief’s Association, the Burn Institute and the Firemen’s Fund for the contribution they have made to all San Diego county residents by publishing Living With Wildfire, A Guide For The Homeowner as a supplement to the San Diego Union Tribune on Sunday April 25, 2004. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933 (c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an 12 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2003 – 2004 (filed May 25, 2004) Report 2003/4-08 explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required by the date indicated: RESPONDING AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS DATE San Diego County Board of 04-08-1 through 04-08-7 08/26/04 Supervisors SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2003 – 2004 (filed May 25, 2004) 13 Report 2003/4-08 APPENDIX A POLICY SECTION CAO ACAO Public Information DCAO - Public Safety Dir. M&PR Sheriff Other DCAOs Key Department Heads EOC Director Liaisons Safety Officer State OES Planning/ Operations Logistics Finance Intelligence Law Enforcement Sit Stat Purchasing Cost Accounting CHP Documentaiton Facilities M. E. Advanced Plans EOC Support Fire/Rescue HazMat Tech Support Animal Control Care & Shelter Health Public Hlth EMS Mental Hlth Const. & Eng. Parks & Rec Utilities 1A4W &M SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2003 – 2004 (filed May 25, 2004)
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office