Santa Cruz County 2003-2004 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 24, 2004 — Overcrowding in the Santa Cruz County Main Jail

10 pages 12 findings 3 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The Santa Cruz County main jail has been overcrowded since it opened in 1981.

F2: Data on inmates transferred to the main jail for parole hearings (Morrissey) was evaluated for a 60-day period starting mid-August 2003. During this period, 20 inmates were transferred mostly from the Santa Rita State Prison to the Santa Cruz main jail to wait for their parole hearings. The holding period was distributed as follows: Number of Inmates Number of Days Held 2 1 4 4 1 5 11 6 1 12 1 16 Average Inmate Stay: 5.85 days Mid-August to Mid-October 2003 Table 1. Length of Stay for Inmates Awaiting Parole Hearings A holding period of five days or less requires scheduling transportation inbound and outbound within a two-day window around the day of a hearing. The Sheriffs department maintains that planning on anything shorter is not practical. If the total number of inmate days in our data could be reduced to an average of five days that would equal a total of 29 days in a 60-day period or less than one-half of an inmate on average.

F3: Data was analyzed for all inmates held in the main jail over 30 days from arraignment, but not sentenced. A snapshot of the data on November 18, 2003, revealed 124 inmates held over 30 days from arraignment. Additional holding time until the next scheduled court appearance for each case is totaled as well as the totals of motion delays initiated by defense, prosecution and judicial. These delays are coded in the court minute orders as “1050” motions. Data shows that most motions for delays are initiated by the defense. Some defendants prefer the Santa Cruz jail to state facilities, and any delays of the court Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 5 process will count toward their ultimate sentence therefore defense attorneys have little incentive to expedite the process. However the prosecution requests delays as well, often because certain prosecution witnesses including arresting officers may not be available so a continuance is requested. Prosecutors usually have many cases pending and these delays, though not necessarily initiated by the prosecution, are accepted without much opposition. It falls on the judges to decide on these motion delays. Judges must consider the “fairness” as well as any judicial decisions that may be viewed as reason for an appeal. Using a normal distribution throughout the year, total delays over one month from arraignment contribute approximately 40 inmates to the overcrowded condition. The distribution of “1050” motions is as follows: Number of Time Held as of Additional Time to Total Cumulative Inmates Nov. 18, 2003 Next Scheduled Months’ Delay Court Appearance Over Initial 30 Days 36 1 - 2 months 26.9 months 44.9 months 26 2 - 3 months 17 months 114.9 months 15 3 - 4 months 8.9 months 37.5 months 9 4 - 5 months 10 months 41.5 months 8 5 - 6 months 9 months 45 months 6 6 - 7 months 4.5 months 37.5 months 9 7 - 8 months 6.4 months 64.9 months 7 8 - 9 months 5.7 months 58.2 months 5 9 - 10 months 5.4 months 47.9 months 0 10 - 11 months --- --- 2 11 - 12 months 4.5 months 25.5 months 1 Over 1 year 2.1 months 14.1 months Total Cumulative Months' Delay Over 30 Days: 531.5 months Table 2. Inmates Held for 1050 Motions as of 11-18-2003 - 6 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding

F4: Data was analyzed on inmates waiting for transfer to special rehabilitation programs including Proposition 36. A snapshot of data on November 10, 2003, revealed three inmates were being held at the main jail as custodial housing waiting for beds in special rehabilitation programs such as those mandated by Proposition

F5: A snapshot of data on October 29, 2003 showed eight inmates in the main jail with sequential sentencings that exceeded one year. Normally inmates sentenced over one year for one or more offenses are transferred to state prisons, alleviating the main jail population. However when a convicted inmate is sequentially sentenced with terms less than one year, the court can remand them to local hold. Six different judges sentenced the eight inmates in this data category.

F6: The daily OR (Own Recognizance) releases, by day of the week, for a 60-day period of May and June 2003 are shown in the table below: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Sheriff OR 50 50 44 45 66 86 102 Court OR 55 84 72 71 73 5 2 349(B) OR 52 40 32 41 60 91 84 CIT OR 13 9 6 6 2 0 0 Table 3. Own Recognizance Releases, May - June 2003 The four categories of OR release include the following: a. A Sheriff OR Release is based on guidelines that allow the County Detention Bureau discretion to release inmates with the provision that they appear for court arraignment. Since this is under the discretion of the Sheriff’s Detention Bureau, it is assumed that the bureau exercises the releases without delay to alleviate any unnecessary increase in the jail population. b. Court OR release is presently limited to Monday through Friday, causing the population in the main jail to increase during the weekends while these inmates await court hearings. A program to have pretrial release specialists review all arrestees and arrange for a judge to be available on weekends is no longer used in Santa Cruz County. When it was in effect, this program helped smooth out the population increase on weekends. It is difficult to specifically translate the numerical impact on overall population averages but, based on the limited data available, it could be as many as a 10 to 15 inmate reduction on average. Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 7 c. An OR release under Penal Code 849 (B) 2 is for arrests for public intoxication only. The arresting officer is authorized to release such an arrestee with the provision that he show for appointed arraignment after a several hour drying-out period. Since the arrestee stays incarcerated for less than one day, it is unlikely that any opportunity for population reduction exists in this category. d. The Health Services Agency’s Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) can recommend OR release for select individuals under its care while incarcerated. Since CIT does not operate over the weekend, no releases occurred during weekends. The total number of CIT releases is so small that very little benefit can be found by extending its release activity to weekends.

F7: The average daily population of inmates accused of crimes and determined by CIT to be mentally disturbed ranges from 50 to 70 people throughout the year. They are segregated from the main jail population and are overseen by the Health Services Agency’s Crisis Intervention Team. A snapshot of data on December 18, 2003 reveals 53 inmates meeting these criteria. Approximately forty of these inmates require psychotropic medication prescribed to manage serious bi-polar or schizophrenic conditions. Defense attorneys may request competency hearings under Penal Code 1368. The main jail holds defendants while the psychiatrist makes a determination and reports to the judge. The judge then rules whether the defendant can stand for the crimes accused. Any delays in the psychiatric determination, the judge’s ruling, or delays in holding inmates waiting for a bed to open at the state mental facility can increase the main jail population. Approximately one to three inmates are held for this process per month.

F8: Data to determine the impact on main jail population of decriminalizing drug offenses is difficult to analyze. Most offenders have complex histories and the booking reports reflect a large number of arrests for parole and probation violations and other crimes. The courts under state and federal statutes now determine whether these persons should be incarcerated. None of the 124 inmates in the Santa Cruz County court process that are 30 days past arraignment on November 18, 2003 are being held only for drug usage, possession or possession of paraphernalia.

F9: The main jail is now reviewed under new standards. When the main jail was built in 1981, the ratio for toilets was 1:8, showers 1:16, wash basins 1:8. The newer code ratio is less stringent with toilets 1:10, showers 1:20, etc.

F10: A VOTIS (Violent Offender Truth in Sentencing) federal grant enabled the Sheriff's Department to offset a cut in its operating budget that resulted in a staff reduction of 62 people. This reduction would have reduced the California Board of Corrections mandated capacity of the jail to 249 persons. Because of the VOTIS grant the mandated capacity can be maintained at 311 persons. - 8 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding

F11: The California Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection under Penal Code 6031 report of August 18, 2003 highlighted overcrowding as a significant non- compliance issue with the main jail as follows: “These crowded conditions and inadequate staffing levels expose the Sheriff’s Department and the County of Santa Cruz to potential litigation. As this situation persists with inmates literally pressed against one another, there is a greater likelihood for increased assaults (e.g. inmate versus inmate or inmate versus staff) resulting in serious injury. While we acknowledge the economic downturn to the State of California and the 58 counties of this State, we must inform you that the Santa Cruz County Main Jail is not in compliance with Title 15, CCR, Section 1027, Number of Personnel, and Title 24, CCR, Section 470A.2.9 Dayrooms.” Conclusions

F36: None of these inmates had been held over a week.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The main jail needs additional capacity, with consideration of the next 10 to 20 years' projected inmate population. Avoiding action until another lawsuit forces action is both irresponsible and will be costly to settle. The continued decades of overcrowding will not go away by ignoring the problem.

R2: Judges, while maintaining judicial fairness, need to be mindful of the community impact on legal motion delays as well as sequential short-term sentencing that maintains inmates in the main jail rather than remanding them to out-of-county state facilities.

R3: Detention staff should be commended for doing their best to maintain standards under difficult conditions.

May 27, 2004 — Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County Synopsis

21 pages 31 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: County landfills are reaching maximum capacity, requiring that new sites be identified, licensed and built. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley and Capitola have been jointly conducting a solid waste facilities siting study for the last three and a half years under the umbrella of the Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force. The purpose of this study is to locate potential sites for new landfills, Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 45 transfer stations and other waste management facilities to replace our aging landfills. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City of Watsonville’s landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 15 years.

F2: It takes approximately ten years to get a permit for a new landfill. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. Permitting time is now exceeding fifteen years in many cases. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.

F3: The average lifespan of California landfills is about 15 years. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) Disposal Site database shows that most active landfills have significantly more than fifteen years life. Around 1992, when Federal Regulation “Subtitle D” came into effect, many smaller landfills could not reach compliance and closed. This resulted in fewer landfills, but left larger ones with more capacity and longer site life. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. County staff contacted the California Integrated Waste Management Board to determine the accuracy of this finding, and CIWMB was unable to provide us with the average life of all California landfills. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no data regarding average lifespans of California landfills.

F4: The remaining lifespan for the City of Santa Cruz’s landfill (Dimeo Lane) is about 34 years, if carefully used. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. - 46 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County

F5: The remaining lifespan of the Santa Cruz County landfill (Buena Vista) is about 15 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F6: Santa Cruz County Code 7.20.110 states that garbage can be held no longer than seven days. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. The actual language states, “Garbage containers on all premises shall be emptied and garbage shall be collected and properly disposed of not less than once a week.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no data regarding average lifespans of California landfills.

F7: The county contracts with a private company for its garbage and recycling pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F8: The cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville provide their own garbage and recycling trucks and pickup. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.

F9: Currently the county has no mandatory garbage or recycling service in the unincorporated areas. Garbage pickup is mandatory in all four of the county’s incorporated areas. Separate garbage and recycling containers are distributed in the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville. Using the recycling containers is optional. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Unincorporated county residents who elect to use the franchised collection services offered by Waste Management also receive garbage, recycling and yardwaste Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 47 containers. Unincorporated County residents may also elect to subscribe to lower cost recycling and/or yardwaste collection service. This “recycle only” service is intended to support those county residents who strive to generate little or no refuse. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Agree as to facts relating to the City of Watsonville.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Local recycling agencies should consider the experience of other communities and decide whether mandatory recycling would be beneficial. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. At this time, the City of Santa Cruz does not consider the costs of enforcement of mandatory recycling to be worth any diversion gain it might garner, since our recycling rates continue to increase without it. We will reevaluate at such time as our diversion flatlines, and will look at our waste composition at that time to see what action is warranted to continue toward a zero-waste goal. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The recommendation requires further analysis. The County regularly evaluates recycling and waste management programs in communities across the U.S, Asia and Europe for new and innovative ideas. Many of our current programs are modeled after other successful programs we have evaluated. Mandatory collection has been demonstrated to improve participation and waste diversion. This recommendation will be analyzed as part of the renewal process for the collection franchise with Waste Management in the spring of 2005. Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND. - 60 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville is researching mandatory recycling at this time.

F10: Approximately 65 percent of residents in the unincorporated areas of the county use garbage and recycling curbside pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F11: Approximately 55 percent of San Lorenzo Valley residents use curbside pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F12: Mandatory garbage and recycling pickup in the unincorporated area of the county could result in less illegal dumping and a reduced amount of recyclable materials in the landfill, some officials said. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: Cardboard and office paper are the focus when landfills ban commercial waste. These are high dollar items for re-sale. To enforce these bans, landfill operators should: • Refuse loads of cardboard and office paper. • Impose fines on haulers of cardboard and office paper. • Track down offending customers and fine them. • Place a significant amount of responsibility on haulers to force customers to comply. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented. Our Resource Recovery Facility staff currently checks loads at the gate, at the public tipping area, and at the landfill face, and if large amounts of any type of recyclable material are seen, they are directed to the appropriate off-loading area to try to capture those materials. Our collection and public education staff also contact customers and encourage them to use recycling containers for cardboard, paper, or containers when a large amount of those items are seen in the refuse containers. Our refuse rate structure encourages reduction in garbage volumes, and recycling containers and collection is included for no extra charge. At this time, we do not feel that the additional staff time and costs of a landfill ban on cardboard and paper are warranted. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Department of Public Works will be proposing future ordinance changes for Board considerationthat would ban specific recyclable items from the landfill and propose provisions for enforcement. Potential items to be considered for bans include cardboard, yardwaste, woodwaste, scrap metal, and concrete. The department anticipates preparation of proposed ordinance changes will occur in spring 2005, after all the upgrades and improvements to our recycling and public service facilities are completed. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This has been partially implemented. The City owns and operates the solid waste collection franchise and the city landfill. As such, the City is able to control the collection and disposal of these two materials. City garbage truck drivers deliver Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 61 any drop box bearing more than 50% recyclable material (including cardboard and paper) to the City Materials Recovery Facility for sorting. The City encourages diversion of recyclable materials by collecting them at no cost. In general, this arrangement has worked very well, as is evident from the City’s very impressive 72% diversion rates for 2001 and 2002. Occasionally, the City has had to use fines to correct chronic contamination problems in cardboard containers. The city has issued fines as high as $565 per container for contamination of cardboard with trash.

F13: If all recyclable materials were recycled, officials say that the Buena Vista landfill could have at least a 30 percent additional reduction in material. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F14: Some recycling officials said that Buena Vista landfill workers need a better understanding of California’s recycling laws (AB 939 and the appropriate California Public Resources Code sections) in order to inform customers who arrive at the landfill with recyclable materials. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Regular staff meetings are held with all landfill and transfer station staff involved with the public to review and discuss recycling policies, diversion programs and implementation of AB 939 mandated programs. Numerous flyers and informational brochures are produced and distributed by landfill and transfer station staff explaining in greater detail about the various recycling and waste diversion programs available to the public. All landfill and transfer station managers and supervisors are regularly sent to seminars conducted by peer professional organizations in the solid waste and recycling field to keep them up-to-date on the most current regulations, operational practices and recycling programs. This information is regularly disseminated to all operational staff. Most landfill and - 48 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County transfer station supervisors and managers have received operational certification through our professional peer organization, which requires very specific knowledge of recycling and waste diversion practices, policies and regulations. Administrative staff responsible for public education regularly provides direct outreach to public users of our facilities, both at the facilities and through direct outreach conducted at businesses and residences.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County of Santa Cruz should examine its operation of the Buena Vista landfill. Close monitoring and enforcement of recycling practices could reduce the amount of recyclables entering the landfill. This could include positive incentives for proper disposal and citations for improper disposal of recyclables. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 57 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has already been implemented. Ongoing evaluations of landfill practices have occurred on a regular basis over the last 15 years and program changes or new programs are implemented frequently. We have been providing rate incentives for over 15 years to customers who appropriately separate specific recyclable commodities. In order to address those landfill users who still elect not to participate in the wide variety of recycling opportunities we provide, we are preparing to implement an extensive sorting operation for construction and commercial wastes to further reduce recyclables from entering the landfill. This program will also include physical site improvements to make recycling easier and more convenient for the public. In support of this program, we will be proposing future ordinance changes that would also ban specific recyclable items from the landfill, including provisions for enforcement.

F15: Some people think recycling is free but because of the expenses involved it is not. Volume is the key to making a profit in recycling: the greater the volume, the greater the profit. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. We agree that recycling is not free. If you lose a nickel per unit on each item manufactured, selling more units will not recoup that loss. Volume has less to do with profit than market price. Volume helps if one is focused on one material type and the market price is reasonable. However, municipalities collect several items as a public service, not as a profit-making venture. The cost of all those items affect the bottom line, and the City does not just stop collecting unprofitable items, as a for-profit private recycler could do. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Recycling is not free, but it typically has a much lower cost than disposal. Revenues generated through sales of recyclable materials do not typically cover the expense associated with collection, sorting and marketing of these materials. While increased volume of some material may also increase revenues, some recyclable materials have very low market values and can have a detrimental effect on overall recycling revenues. Overall, recycling markets have been at an all time low for the last three years and no profits are being made at this time.The County has asked the state legislature to consider mandating more recycled material content in consumer products to increase this market. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. The economics of recycling depend on more than just volume. Other factors such as collection and processing efficiency, material prices, etc. affect recycling economics.

F16: The City of Santa Cruz routinely uses the same customers for its sale of recyclable materials. The City of Watsonville aggressively negotiates with brokers using high dollar items (white paper and cardboard) to obtain the best price. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 49 Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Although the City of Santa Cruz often uses the same buyers, the Recycling Center Supervisor shops around for the best market price. Using this best price, he is often able to leverage the usual buyers into matching the best currently offered price. Having long-term relationships with buyers can also help ensure that during the low-market periods, the buyers will still accept our materials and give us their best price given low demand. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Agree as to the facts relating to Watsonville.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Local recycling entities should take a regional approach to obtain countywide contracts in order to combine and sell together each category of recycled materials to the highest bidder. They should total the volume at the various locations, rather than collect the material at a central station. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented across all materials. Programs vary by types of materials collected, mix of materials collected, type of processing, and storage space. This impacts the potential buyers and transportation schedules, which may make countywide contracts infeasible. City of Santa Cruz staff has held conversations in the past with other regional recyclers on this topic and will continue to explore this option for materials where it appears to have a financial benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. From the County’s perspective, this recommendation has been implemented. The County and Cities of Scotts Valley and Capitola all utilize the collection and recycling services of a private hauler, Waste Management. Waste Management, as a private, for-profit entity, has its own internal process for preparing and marketing materials. Waste Management is the largest recycling collector in North America and has well-developed markets for all collected materials, including most Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 59 of the low value commodities that are hard to market. Waste Management collects and co-markets all recyclable materials collected by these county jurisdictions as well as jurisdictions within Monterey County at their combined processing facility in Castroville. In turn, recyclables from Waste Management’s many operations across North America are combined for mass marketing to end users all over the world in order to achieve the highest and most stable market values. The Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville collect and process their recyclables using city staff and facilities. Both cities could elect to approach Waste Management to work out details for combined marketing of their recyclables. Waste Management has informed the County that they have provided combined marketing service for other municipalities across the country. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville uses an aggressive marketing strategy to obtain the highest price for its recycled materials. If the other agencies were willing to pursue this technique, Watsonville would be open to joining a regional marketing coalition.

F17: Each recycling entity that collects materials usually makes its own arrangements to sell its products to companies outside of the county. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. Agree as to facts as they relate to Watsonville. However, Watsonville has also sold products to companies within Santa Cruz County.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: The County of Santa Cruz's Ben Lomond Transfer Station has a limited area to collect recycling materials. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The Ben Lomond Transfer Station has adequate area to collect all the basic materials collected through the curbside collection program as well as self-hauled woodwaste, yardwaste, mattresses, tires, household hazardous waste and electronic waste. However, due to limits on large open areas for processing, the transfer station is not able to store large volumes of scrap metal for on-site processing. This forces the County to haul small loads to end markets which reduces the net revenues because of the increased cost of transportation. The Ben Lomond Transfer Station also lacks adequate large open space for collection and processing of concrete and asphalt materials. These items are directed to the Buena Vista Site for processing.

F19: Interactions among various coordinators of the various recycling organizations within the county are informal. - 50 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. We agree that there is no formal system in place for recycling coordinators within the County to communicate on marketing of recyclable materials. However, there are several State and national organizations that all County entities belong to, including the National Recycling Coalition and the California Resource Recovery Association. Additionally, State legislation mandates a committee, the Local Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee, that is tasked to review and act on solid waste and recycling issues within the County. All County agencies have membership on this committee and most private and non-profit agencies are also members. Our City of Santa Cruz Waste Reduction Coordinator, who works with outreach and education issues, does work with other County agency peers, in both formal and informal settings. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While some interactions are informal, there are also formal forums for staff and public discussion of regional recycling issues. The Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force is a formal organization composed of elected officials and their representatives from each of the county and city jurisdictions. The purpose of this task force is to address regional, countywide waste management and recycling issues common to all participating members. The Task Force conducts all its meetings in the public forum. The County and the Cities of Capitola, Watsonville and Scotts Valley are all members of the Central Coast Recycling Media Coalition (CCRMC), which also includes county and city representatives from Monterey and San Benito counties. The CCRMC was formed under a Memorandum of Understanding between all the participating agencies and each agency provides funding to the CCRMC for public education. The CCRMC works specifically on joint public outreach efforts for recycling and litter reduction across the tri-county region. The County and the cities of Scotts Valley and Capitola are jointly funding resource conservation education in the public schools. This successful program provides information on recycling and resource conservation as part of the classroom curriculum and provides the necessary recycling infrastructure to support school recycling and waste diversion activities. This very successful program has received statewide awards and is supported by the County Office of Education. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 51

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The county, the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and other local agencies involved in recycling should be more cooperative among themselves. For maximum public exposure and fiscal efficiency, they should coordinate printed recycling information and media coverage. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented across all printed materials and media coverage. Recycling programs vary by community and communities target different problems, populations, opportunities, and safety and environmental issues that are unique to that community. The City of Santa Cruz participates with other agencies within the region on coordinated outreach for some types of media (especially regional media such as TV) and some public events. We will continue to do this when it provides a clear benefit to our purpose and public. A recent example of the importance of clearly designed and distinctive media information was a very serious problem created for the City of Santa Cruz by a TV ad run for the Waste Management operations of the County. The TV ad told “Santa Cruz County customers” that they no longer needed to separate their paper and containers in their blue recycling carts. Many City of Santa Cruz customers saw this ad, and assumed that since they live within the County, they no longer need to separate their recyclables. However, the City has not yet moved to a single-stream sorting system, and we have been experiencing a much greater degree of contamination in loads, resulting in a higher percentage of materials that must be disposed of, and increased staff and equipment costs to hand sort the materials at the recycling center. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 58 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County From the County’s perspective, this recommendation has been implemented as described above in responses to findings 19 and 20. In addition, the County would welcome the interest of those cities who have dropped out of these joint programs and elected not to participate to re-initiate their involvement. Programs for joint public outreach efforts already exist, and the County is actively participating with other agencies. The County is also continuing to support countywide outreach efforts through our contract with Ecology Action to promote home composting, prepare recycling guides and participate in community fairs and events across the county. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. Whenever possible, this has been implemented. Where practicable, regional coordination on recycling information does occur. An example is the curbside waste oil program. However, Watsonville has developed a number of recycling programs that are operationally distinct from those in the County and Santa Cruz City. As such, Watsonville has to provide information to their residents that is not applicable to programs in the other areas. An example of this is the City’s fully commingled curbside recycling program, which is based on undivided carts, serviced every-other-week.

F20: Some recycling officials are concerned about the idea of consolidation recycling activities that involve information and public awareness. They feel the money might not be wisely spent. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County understands that other jurisdictions have taken this position on certain programs and as such have refused to participate or have dropped out of participating in some multi-jurisdictional recycling or public awareness programs. However, the County has and continues to promote joint efforts to address recycling, waste management and public education efforts as evidenced by our continued participation in those joint programs outlined in our response to finding 19 above. The County believes that joint efforts in this area help create programs that are consistent across the entire county, improve public understanding, and can be more cost effective than individual jurisdictional efforts aimed at the same goal. All of the existing multi-jurisdictional programs have processes to involve each entity in the fiscal decisions of the programs. The level of involvement in program financing and budgeting decisions has always been left up to each participating jurisdiction. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has such concerns in cases where individual programs differ significantly.

F21: The City of Santa Cruz has won awards for its public recycling information. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES.

F22: The county’s informational materials on recycling were criticized as poor and unimaginative. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County’s public education program is very comprehensive and uses all forms of media to reach the intended audiences. The County has produced directly and indirectly through contract a wide variety of public information items including brochures, TV commercials, radio ads, internet information, hot lines and regular business and residential newsletters. The County has received numerous awards for educational activities such as three “Trash Cutter” awards from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the 1) Best Public Information Program, - 52 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County 2) Best Schools Program, and 3) Best Creative Partnerships Program. The latter award is in recognition of our efforts to partner with local non-profit agencies for development and implementation of educational outreach for a wide variety of recycling and waste diversion programs. The County has also received an award from the California Resource Recovery Association for “Innovations In Government” in recognition of our Public Schools Resource Conservation Program. The County employs a full-time Public Education Coordinator to oversee all educational activities. By conducting most of our educational efforts with in-house staff or local non-profit agencies, the County is able to provide these services more cost effectively than by using more expensive outside consulting services. As an example, the County directly contracts with local TV stations for production of commercials instead of using an intermediary consultant. The stations produce the commercials with their own professional advertising staff and the County provides editorial direction. This results in professionally produced commercials without the added overhead cost of a consultant, which allows the use of more educational funding for airtime.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department and in particular the Waste Reduction Coordinator should be commended for its excellent work in public awareness through its publications and media coverage. It should be commended for winning the 2004 Award of Excellence in Writing for the statewide competition conducted by the California Public Information Officials (CAPIO). Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented.

F23: Some recycling groups in the county believe they do not get adequate exposure to inform the public of proper recycling procedures and the availability of local resources. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. There is a wealth of advertising and public outreach in this County. Informing the public about recycling is not easy due to differences in programs and the marketability of some products, such as plastics marked as recyclable even though no practical market exists. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County has funded and worked with a local non-profit, Ecology Action, for over 15 years to produce the only comprehensive guides available for local recycling opportunities. The County produces, regularly updates, and distributes two guides: the “Where to Recycle Guide” for residential customers and the “Business Recycling Guide” for local businesses. Four newsletters are sent each year to unincorporated County residents, two to residential customers and two to all County businesses focusing on business recycling issues. These newsletters contain information and articles on the latest recycling services, changes in local and state regulations, and other current waste management issues. The County’s refuse and recycling collection franchisee, Waste Management, also produces informational brochures for their residential and commercial customers that list alternative recycling resources in the county. The County also maintains a Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 53 recycling “hotline” with up-to-date local information on recycling opportunities throughout the entire County. The County also provides significant funding and outreach support to two local non-profit recyclers, the California Grey Bears and the Valley Women’s Club. The County also employs a full time Commercial Waste Reduction Coordinator who works directly with businesses to reduce wastes. The role of this position is to assist and coordinate recycling and waste diversion service between the businesses and the various local recycling service providers. We actively promote all the known recycling service providers in the county. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.

F24: Ecology Action is a Santa Cruz based non-profit informational organization that uses grants from federal, state and county governments to promote recycling. Ecology Action works with the county on some recycling projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.

F25: Some cities and counties get state and federal grants to run special recycling programs. Examples are programs to recycle motor oil and batteries. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Some funding is available to assist in funding programs such as motor oil collection, however, the entire cost of the programs typically are not covered (with the exception of initial funding for innovative pilot projects). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees with this finding but is not aware of any federal or state grants available for recycling batteries. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: The Valley Women’s Club should be commended for using recycling revenues to finance its charitable services to the community. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the Valley Women’s Club’s use of recycling revenues to fund its charitable services to the community.

R8: The California Grey Bears should be commended for its service to the seniors of Santa Cruz County and for using recycling as one means to raise money. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the California Grey Bears for their service to seniors and for their recycling efforts.

F26: As of 2003, 22 of the 58 counties in California have met the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement specified by AB 939.4 In 2001, Santa Cruz County had a 53 percent diversion rate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Nevada County Grand Jury Report 2002-03. - 54 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The County of Santa Cruz should be commended for exceeding the state mandate of 50 percent solid waste diversion in 2001. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors - 62 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury’s acknowledgement of the efforts of the Department of Public Works and the residents of Santa Cruz County to meet this mandate.

F27: Each day 2.5 million glass bottles are discarded in landfills in California. Commercial customers, such as restaurants and apartment complexes, are large users and therefore large contributors to the problem in California. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. The last full statewide waste characterization study available from the CIWMB was done in 1999. It estimates that about 2.8% of the waste stream is glass, or about 1.07 million tons (although this figure includes non-recyclable glass). It is not clear to us that there is a logical basis for the assumption that commercial customers send a larger proportional share of glass to the landfill rather than recycling it. Many of the restaurants and apartment complexes in the City of Santa Cruz do participate in glass recycling. In our 1998 City landfill disposal characterization study, the commercial samples showed 2% glass bottles and containers, and the residential samples 2.1%. (It would be useful if the Grand Jury cited the source of their statistics.) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This is a very generalized statement. In the unincorporated County, we have very good participation in bottle recycling both at businesses and apartment complexes. Our Business Waste Reduction Coordinator also works with a network of dedicated recycling advocates at most apartment complexes to disseminate recycling information, track waste diversion progress and expand recycling services. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no statewide data of this nature.

F28: Several communities across the U.S. have adopted programs of mandatory recycling with excellent results. (This does not include mandatory garbage pick- up). An example is San Diego where mandatory separation saw participation jump from 30-40% up to 80-90%. They used a coordinated approach of public awareness, slogans, media press releases, press conferences and special events to enlist public understanding of the advantages of recycling. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. While some cities in the nation may have mandatory recycling, the City of San Diego is not one of them. The reference may refer to that program changing from source-separated recycling collection to its new single-stream collection. A major program change would include all those outreach aspects. With the current levels of voluntary participation, most communities see little need to move to mandatory recycling. There is no proof that mandatory recycling would increase recycling Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 55 levels by the amounts indicated. There are also additional questions about how enforcement can be done and the increased program cost to fund enforcement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has not confirmed the features and performance of such programs in other jurisdictions.

F29: The key element of mandatory recycling is to make participation “convenient.” Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Convenience is a key component to the success of all recycling programs, but may not be the most important factor to the success of mandatory recycling. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City of Watsonville believes that convenience is a key factor in voluntary programs as well.

F30: Other communities have seen increased cooperation by use of economic incentives along with comprehensive education and promotion activities. Although the word “mandatory” initially raises concerns, communities have found little need for it. With convenient home and commercial pick up service, plus vigorous inspection at the landfill entrance for drive up loads, people are more inclined to recycle willingly. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has not confirmed the features and performance of such programs in other jurisdictions.

F31: Enforcement programs vary tremendously throughout North America. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 56 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Conclusions

May 27, 2004 — Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County

8 pages 31 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: County landfills are reaching maximum capacity, requiring that new sites be identified, licensed and built.

F2: It takes approximately ten years to get a permit for a new landfill.

F3: The average lifespan of California landfills is about 15 years.

F4: The remaining lifespan for the City of Santa Cruz’s landfill (Dimeo Lane) is about 34 years, if carefully used.

F5: The remaining lifespan of the Santa Cruz County landfill (Buena Vista) is about 15 years.

F6: Santa Cruz County Code 7.20.110 states that garbage can be held no longer than seven days.

F7: The county contracts with a private company for its garbage and recycling pickup.

F8: The cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville provide their own garbage and recycling trucks and pickup.

F10: Approximately 65 percent of residents in the unincorporated areas of the county use garbage and recycling curbside pickup.

F11: Approximately 55 percent of San Lorenzo Valley residents use curbside pickup.

F13: If all recyclable materials were recycled, officials say that the Buena Vista landfill could have at least a 30 percent additional reduction in material.

F15: Some people think recycling is free but because of the expenses involved it is not. Volume is the key to making a profit in recycling: the greater the volume, the greater the profit.

F17: Each recycling entity that collects materials usually makes its own arrangements to sell its products to companies outside of the county.

F18: The County of Santa Cruz's Ben Lomond Transfer Station has a limited area to collect recycling materials.

F19: Interactions among various coordinators of the various recycling organizations within the county are informal.

F20: Some recycling officials are concerned about the idea of consolidation recycling activities that involve information and public awareness. They feel the money might not be wisely spent.

F21: The City of Santa Cruz has won awards for its public recycling information.

F22: The county’s informational materials on recycling were criticized as poor and unimaginative.

F23: Some recycling groups in the county believe they do not get adequate exposure to inform the public of proper recycling procedures and the availability of local resources.

F25: Some cities and counties get state and federal grants to run special recycling programs. Examples are programs to recycle motor oil and batteries.

F26: As of 2003, 22 of the 58 counties in California have met the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement specified by AB 939.4[4] In 2001, Santa Cruz County had a 53 percent diversion rate.

F29: The key element of mandatory recycling is to make participation “convenient.”

F31: Enforcement programs vary tremendously throughout North America. 4[4] Nevada County Grand Jury Report 2002-03. Conclusions

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Local recycling agencies should consider the experience of other communities and decide whether mandatory recycling would be beneficial.

R7: The Valley Women’s Club should be commended for using recycling revenues to finance its charitable services to the community.

R8: The California Grey Bears should be commended for its service to the seniors of Santa Cruz County and for using recycling as one means to raise money.

R9: The County of Santa Cruz should be commended for exceeding the state mandate of 50 percent solid waste diversion in 2001.

March 23, 2004 — Santa Cruz County Jails Review

18 pages 23 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F1: The facility is well managed by its staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

F2: The staff was very professional.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

F3: Staff appeared well organized and well versed in operational policies, rules and procedures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

F4: The hole in the kitchen pantry wall near the baseboard could allow access by small animals.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The hole in the baseboard wall in the kitchen pantry should be repaired. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office; the hole has been repaired.

F5: The Main Jail is significantly overcrowded. For more information, see the Grand Jury report “Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding in the Santa Cruz County Main Jail.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: concerning Overcrowding in the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 19 The Sheriff implemented a Jail Overcrowding Committee on July 24, 2004. The Committee will identify systemic problems contributing to jail overcrowding and recommend modifications that can be accomplished without unreasonably compromising public safety. The committee hopes to enact those recommendations in 2005. 2. Software for the jail computer system should be updated. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation is being implemented. Detention staff is currently working with the Information Services Department to develop a Detention Management System designed to meet jail needs. The accounting component of the system is now being implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been fully implemented. Corrections staff is working with the Sheriff’s Technical staff and the County Information Services Department to develop a DMS (Detention Management System) that will better meet jail needs. Though the accounting component of the system is now being implemented, the full system is at least two years away from being operational. 3. The hole in the baseboard wall in the kitchen pantry should be repaired. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office; the hole has been repaired. 4. Jail officials should verify that the plastic “boats” used for some prisoners’ beds to ensure they meet Board of Corrections requirement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented as described above in the response to

F6: The jail appears to not be in compliance with the Board of Corrections’ regulations because it has beds that are not 12 inches above the floor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Jail officials should verify that the plastic “boats” used for some prisoners’ beds to ensure they meet Board of Corrections requirement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented as described above in the response to

F7: An updated computer data management system could increase the jail’s efficiency.

F8: Total staffing level at both facilities on the Rountree site is seven staff members during the day and six at night. Conclusions 1. Rountree is a well run facility.

Page 9

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Rountree should continue to offer its current programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.

F9: The booking process includes: • Detoxification (if needed) with restraint (if needed). • Fingerprinting and photo. • Cataloging and retention of personal effects. • A visual "strip" search for weapons and drugs. • Showering and decontamination. • Issuing of jail clothing. • A health screening by deputies.

Page 3

F10: After booking, the housing requirement for each individual is determined by classification according to stipulated criteria: • Criminal sophistication. • Gang affiliation. • Gender, transgender. • Age. • Physical, medical and mental state. • Risk of violence -- from others, to others or to self. • Nature of charge(s). • Potential for escape.

Page 3

F11: Staff said that experience, skill and judgment in classifying inmates are crucial to maintaining safety and security. For example: • Members of rival gangs or other hostile factions must be identified and separated. • Homosexuals and transgendered people may be targets for attack. • Individuals charged with physical crimes against children may be targets for attack. • Mentally ill inmates can be perpetrators or targets of violence. • Some inmates are suicidal, or become suicidal once confined.

Page 3

F12: Mental state is an assessment based on behavior and observations. Individuals with mental health issues are closely monitored by the mental health, medical and jail staff. Appropriate measures are taken to ensure each inmate’s welfare and safety while incarcerated. Recent budget cuts have resulted in a lower availability of mental health Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 17 services. Services that have been cut include a follow-up outpatient program.

Page 3

F13: Since the last Grand Jury report, there have been two deaths in jail: one by suicide and one by other medical causes. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Both deaths in the jail were thoroughly investigated by Sheriff’s detectives and Coroner investigators. The Sheriff’s C.I.T. (Crisis Intervention Team) composed of Correctional, Psychological and Medical staffs, continue to work together to prevent the loss of life in the correctional facilities.

Page 4

F14: There have been two escapes since the last Grand Jury report. Both escaped inmates have been apprehended. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The escapes were due to physical plant weaknesses and a lapse of security in the Laundry room area. After a thorough investigation, the physical plant has been upgraded and the security lapse has been addressed.

Page 4

F15: Staff said that the computer system's software is outdated for the jail's current needs. Newer software would allow more comprehensive management reports. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The Sheriff’s Office is working with I.S.D. (Information Services Department) to create a new DMS (Detention Management System) that will fulfill the future needs of the office and provide comprehensive management reports.

Page 4

F16: The kitchen pantry wall has a hole near the baseboard 12 inches long by four inches wide. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The kitchen pantry hole has been repaired.

Page 4

F17: Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented by the Sheriff’s Office due to plastic “boats” not being regulated by the B.O.C. 5. Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz County 1, 15, 17 1, 2, 4 90 Days Board of Supervisors (September 30, 2004) Santa Cruz County 1, 13 - 17 1 – 4 90 Days Sheriff (September 30, 2004) Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 21 Rountree Medium Security Facility Findings 1. The Board of Corrections’ rated capacity is 96 with current staffing and a maximum of 110 with additional staffing. As of March 26, 2004, the population was 79 inmates. Response: Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office AGREES. 2. Inmates prepare meals under direct supervision, using a posted menu. 3. The S.A.F.E. program, a drug rehabilitation program, has increased participation in Rountree between July 2003 and March 2004. 4. The sole medical position, a nurse, was eliminated because of budget cuts. Correctional officers now dispense medication. Rountree inmates are transported to the Main Jail for medical treatment. The Farm Jail (Rountree Minimum Security Facility) Findings 1. This facility has a Board of Corrections’ rated capacity of 162 with current staff and a maximum capacity of 250 with additional staffing. As of March 26, 2004, the population was 97 inmates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. 2. Inmates sleep in dorm-like beds with all beds at least 12 inches above the floor. 3. No deaths have occurred since the last report. 4. Four escapes have occurred since July 1, 2003. All escaped inmates have been apprehended. 5. The Farm is a program-based facility. Inmates can continue some educational programs at Adult School free of charge if the program was started while they were incarcerated. Each inmate is enrolled in at least one program. Programs and classes include: • Work release. • Auto body and paint. • Computer. • Domestic violence awareness. - 22 Santa Cruz County Jails Review • Gang awareness. • Family reunification. • General Education Diplomas (GED). • Building maintenance and landscaping. • AIDS education and testing. • HIV awareness. • Regional Occupational Programs. • English as a Second Language. • Parenting. • Anger management. • California Conservation Corps. • Cabrillo College classes. • Animal bonding program. Substance abuse programs: • Ray of Hope. • Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). • Narcotics Anonymous (NA). • Cocaine Anonymous (CA). • S.A.F.E. 6. Inmates prepare meals under direct supervision, using a posted menu. 7. A designated area outside the building is used for family visits with a play area for children. In another area are an inmate-built koi pond, gardens and an animal enclosure for ducks, peacocks and other animals used in the animal bonding program. Outdoor recreation includes horseshoes, baseball, and other activities. 8. Total staffing level at both facilities on the Rountree site is seven staff members during the day and six at night. Conclusions 1. Rountree is a well run facility. 2. Rountree inmates benefit from its variety of programs, including increased inmate involvement in the S.A.F.E. program. 3. Meals are nutritious and appealing at both the medium-security and the minimum- security facilities. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 23 4. The interior of the minimum-security building is in good condition.

F18: Staff consists of 14 during the daytime and 13 at night.

Page 5

F19: At each level, staff was able to provide immediate, detailed answers to questions.

Page 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

F20: At the time of the Grand Jury review, July 23, 2003 and March 23, 2004, the facility was exceptionally clean and well maintained. Conclusions 1. The facility is well managed by its staff.

Page 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

F21: Postage for correspondence is provided free of charge. Juveniles cannot write to anyone in another institution or to anyone protected by a restraining order.

Page 16

F22: Juveniles have access to a phone during intake and free-time hours to make collect calls. Only under special circumstances can juveniles use a staff phone.

Page 16

F23: Juveniles shower every day and have their hair cut every four to six weeks. - 30 Santa Cruz County Jails Review Conclusions 1. The exterior of the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall building and grounds are in excellent condition.

Page 16

March 23, 2004 — Santa Cruz County Jails Review

14 pages 7 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The facility is well managed by its staff.

F2: The staff was very professional.

F3: Staff appeared well organized and well versed in operational policies, rules and procedures.

F4: The hole in the kitchen pantry wall near the baseboard could allow access by small animals.

F5: The Main Jail is significantly overcrowded. For more information, see the Grand Jury report “Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding in the Santa Cruz County Main Jail”.

F6: The jail appears to not be in compliance with the Board of Corrections’ regulations because it has beds that are not 12 inches above the floor.

F7: An updated computer data management system could increase the jail’s efficiency.

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should consider ways to relieve overcrowding.

R2: Software for the jail computer system should be updated.

R3: The hole in the baseboard wall in the kitchen pantry should be repaired.

R4: Jail officials should verify that the plastic “boats” used for some prisoners’ beds to ensure they meet Board of Corrections requirements.

R5: Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. – 14 Santa Cruz County Jails Review

February 05, 2004 — Geological Hazard Abatement Districts Report

4 pages 8 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: There are three Geological Hazard Abatement Districts in Santa Cruz County. The County manages one GHAD and private property owners manage the other two. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES There are three County districts: Corralitos, Mid-County, and Heartwood Hill. There are two private districts.

F2: The County managed GHAD is composed of ten separate properties in Aptos, Boulder Creek, and Watsonville. The properties were severely damaged by landslides and are now uninhabitable or remain at risk of further landslide activity. The County of Santa Cruz acquired the properties through FEMA’s Hazard Grant Mitigation Program. The property owners were compensated $1,941,000, which was 75% of the assessed value of the properties ($2,588,000). The remaining dwellings on the properties were demolished; the County maintains and holds the land as open space. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F3: The demolition and maintenance of the county properties as open space is intended to contribute to public safety.

F4: The GHADs located in Santa Cruz County that are managed by private property owners are Pajaro Dunes in Watsonville and Depot Hill in Capitola. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County has no jurisdiction over privately managed GHADs and cannot comment on the accuracy of this finding.

F5: The success or failure of a GHAD plan managed by private property owners is contingent on those involved within the District.

F6: Liability protection and the ability to levy assessments through property taxes are two features that make a GHAD attractive. GHADs offer guarantees with respect to the security of property values, because the GHAD is sued (rather than individual property owners) and the property thus becomes more marketable.

F7: There are some disadvantages to GHADs. For example GHADs: • cannot be easily dissolved • can be added to by a vote of 51% of the adjacent property owners, forcing some reticent parties to be a part • cannot compensate members for “soft” losses, such as emotional distress or diminution in value • can be enjoined in legal action by disgruntled members or adjacent parcel owners, increasing operating costs

F8: Property owners can evaluate if the geological hazard is worth the disadvantages of possible lawsuits or infighting prior to creating a GHAD. Conclusions

February 05, 2004 — Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazards in Environmentally Sensitive Areas

51 pages 13 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: Santa Cruz County has not had a major, extended-day fire, since the 1948 Pine Mountain Fire. Fire officials report that the potential for a very large and damaging fire on the scale of the Oakland Hills and Lexington Reservoir fires in Santa Cruz County is high. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES There have been other large fires, including but not limited to: Rocha Ranch in 1984; Big Basin State Park, l980; Newell Creek, l959; Crocker, 1964. There have been several fires that originated in Santa Clara County and burned into Santa Cruz County, including Lexington, 1985; and Austrian Gulch, 1961. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fire since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the 1964 Crocker fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 In 1984, the Rocha Ranch fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980, a -2 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were several extended day fires in the l950’s through the l960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire that burned 1,327 acres, and the 1964 Crocker Fire that burned over 1500 acres. In addition, many extended day fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the Santa Cruz County line and destroyed hundreds of Santa Cruz acres and homes. These fires include the 1961 Austrian Fire and the1985 Lexington Fire. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Hill Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 3 numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying many Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 2002 Croy Fire, the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Hill Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying many Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 2002 Croy Fire, the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the potential for a very large and damaging fire. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended day fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948. For example, in 1948 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 -4 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the 1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire.

F2: Lack of fire has contributed to an increase of ladder fuels. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Lack of brush removal or forest maintenance has also contributed to the increase of ladder fuels. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Lack on fire is only one part of the eqation leading to increase in ladder fuel. Bug infestation, drought kill and lack of brush removal or maintenance have led to ladder fuel increase. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 5 However that is just one element that contributes to the increase in ladder fuels. Just one other example is the large amount of dead trees due to sudden oak death. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES When wildland fires do not regularly reduce ground vegetation, this leads to an increase in ladder fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems.2 Santa Cruz County’s redwood, pine, and fir stands, and its various brush and chaparral areas, are in fire-dependent ecosystems. But a lack of fire is only part of the equation, as failure to otherwise manage the vegetation also contributes to overgrown ladder fuels. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES When wildland fires do not regularly reduce ground vegetation, this leads to an increase in ladder fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems. Santa Cruz County’s redwood, pine, and fir stands, and its various brush and chaparral areas, are in fire-dependent ecosystems. But a lack of fire is only part of the equation, as failure to otherwise manage the vegetation also contributes to overgrown ladder fuels. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES There are other conditions that tend to create or allow vegetation to remain in proximity to trees. Ladder fuels can also be reduced or eliminated using mechanical means or by hand. The City of Santa Cruz would not necessarily allow naturally occurring fire or managed vegetation burning in areas with significant ladder fuels. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES -6 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase.

F3: Ladder fuels are combustible material, close to the ground such as grass or weeds merging with brush or vines, which climb into the trees creating a ladder for fire. The amount of ladder fuel is one of the factors that helps fires spread. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Watsonville Fire Department AGREES Response: Zayante Fire Protection District AGREES

F4: Ladder fuels are a problem throughout the county. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 7 Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES Ladder fuels are a problem in the areas that may be classified as fire-dependent ecosystems, as discussed in the response to finding #2, supra. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES Ladder fuels are a problem in the areas that may be classified as fire-dependent ecosystems, as discussed in the response to finding #2, above. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Watsonville Fire Department AGREES Response: Zayante Fire Protection District AGREES

F5: Vegetation is denser than it was in the 1960s due to increased landscaping and development that encroaches on rural areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES -8 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. Fire suppression efforts themselves have contributed to this problem. As more fires are extinguished at a very small size, the vegetation has grown to the point that fires are becoming more difficult to control. It is only a matter of time when a large damaging fire will occur in Santa Cruz County. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While development has increased the threat of fire in the wild land urban interface, landscaping itself does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire if done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures, and the landscaping is maintained. The right landscaping can provide protection and clearance for rural structures. The type of vegetation (both native and imported), plant cover materials and location of plants also play a part in creating defensible space. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Landscaping done properly can actually help hinder the spread of fire. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures, and maintaining landscaping. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 9 and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES Generally, the vegetation in this County is denser than it was in the 1960’s. But this is not automatically attributable to either landscaping or development that encroaches on rural areas. Both are addressed in turn below. While some landscaping may add to the fuel-load and otherwise be more volatile than natural fuels, other landscaping reduces the fuel-load. It can reduce the fuel-load and resulting fire hazard when it enhances the defensible space around structures by replacing dense non-native vegetation with native fire resistive vegetation and by maintaining landscaping as part of a greenbelt.3 Similarly, development can improve the fuel-load because it typically results in clearing or thinning specified areas and because required access routes serve as further clearances and fuel breaks. This is not to say that development in the rural areas has decreased the fire danger. Statistics show that approximately 90% of fires in wildland areas are caused by people.4 Accordingly, the influx of people into developing rural areas increases the likelihood that a fire will occur in these areas. That said, the increase in vegetation density is more accurately ascribed to a lack of fire in fire- dependant ecosystems (as discussed above in the response to finding #2) and reductions in timber harvesting (as discussed below in the response to finding #6). Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES Generally, the vegetation in this County is denser than it was in the 1960’s. But this is not automatically attributable to either landscaping or development that encroaches on rural areas. While some landscaping may add to the fuel-load and otherwise be more volatile than natural fuels, other landscaping reduces the fuel-load. It can reduce the fuel-load and resulting fire hazard when it enhances the defensible space around structures by replacing dense non-native vegetation with native fire resistive vegetation and by maintaining landscaping as part of a greenbelt. Similarly, development can improve the fuel-load because it typically results in clearing or thinning specified areas and because required access routes serve as further clearances and fuel breaks. The increase in vegetation density is more accurately ascribed to a lack of fire in fire-dependant ecosystems (as discussed above in the response to finding #2) and reductions in timber harvesting (as discussed below in the response to finding #6). Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES -10 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Typically, native vegetation is denser in areas which have not been exposed to periodic naturally occurring fire episodes. Non-native vegetation tends to be denser than native vegetation, because it tends to flourish in our climate with a characteristic of aggressively displacing native vegetation. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plans, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plans, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space.

F6: Ladder fuels are a particular problem in environmentally sensitive areas, because clear- cutting and controlled burns are generally not allowed in these areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 11 The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Fire departments are not directly involved with clear-cutting, which is a term used in the timber industry. Control burns continue to be just one tool in the tool box for vegetation management for fire departments. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and controlled burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (such as Big Basin State Park, the Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, and Wilder Ranch Property). Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES The first problem with this finding is largely one of nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a term that means completely stripping trees from a portion of land. Obviously, this would decrease the ladder fuels that are stripped along with the trees. Clear-cutting is not permitted anywhere in this County. -12 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Selective harvesting, however, is permitted in certain areas. Selective harvesting thins- out overcrowded stands and thereby serves as an effective method to reduce ladder fuels and other vegetation likely to increase the hazard of a wildland conflagration. But current Santa Cruz County Ordinances prohibit commercial selective tree harvesting on all parcels except those deemed to be within Timber Production Zones (“TPZs”), Parks/Recreation/Open Space lands (located outside the coastal zone), and mining zones.5 There is a fire hazard exemption permit available, which allows residents to clear within 150’ of their homes in residential areas that are not within TPZs. Notwithstanding the nomenclature problem, the Grand Jury’s intimated conclusion is accurate, as the selective harvesting areas typically do not overlap with environmentally sensitive areas. The “controlled burns” reference is also slightly flawed since prescribed burning has been, and continues to be, used to manage vegetation in various areas throughout the County. For example, Santa Cruz County Fire Department, in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other local fire agencies, has been involved with prescribed burning at Pogonip, UCSC, Wilder Ranch and Big Basin State Park.6 In fact, a prescribed burn is currently being planned for next month. As for the conclusion that burning is not generally allowed in environmentally sensitive areas, that is too sweeping. Much of the prescribed burning is specifically conducted within environmentally sensitive areas to restore and enhance the native growth, while ridding the lands of harmful non-native species. Accordingly, the PVFD believes that prescribed burning can serve as a convergent solution that addresses both environmental and fire safety concerns. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The County partially agrees, with the following clarifications. Clear-cutting means completely stripping trees from a portion of land, which does decrease the ladder fuels that are stripped along with the trees. Clear-cutting is not permitted anywhere in this County. Selective harvesting, however, is permitted in certain areas. Selective harvesting thins overcrowded stands and thereby serves as an effective method to reduce ladder fuels and other vegetation likely to increase the hazard of a wildland conflagration. Prescribed burning has been, and continues to be, used to manage vegetation in various areas throughout the County. Much of the prescribed burning is specifically conducted within environmentally sensitive areas to restore and enhance the native growth, while ridding the lands of harmful non-native species. Prescribed burning can addresses both environmental and fire safety concerns. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES Ladder fuels are a concern in the City. However, they are not necessarily a problem due to the lack of clear cutting and controlled burns. Controlled burns are not used in the City of Santa Cruz’ urban setting. The activity termed as clear cutting is a method used by large scale timer harvesting. The City does not Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 13 conduct clear cutting. The City of Santa Cruz has successfully reduced fuel loads at one of its greenbelt properties (DeLaveaga Park) by selective cutting of non- native eucalyptus trees and the replanting of native plants. The City plans on expanding this program to other greenbelt properties, especially in areas adjacent to development. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District agrees that ladder fuels are a problem in environmentally sensitive areas, however we do not agree that this is because clear-cutting and controlled burns are not allowed in these areas. Clear cutting is not a practical method of controlling ladder fuels and would not be recommended in any area except for the formation of a firebreak. Controlled burns are not practical in populated areas due to the risk of losing containment and control of a burn. Because of the high density of vegetation in many areas in California, controlled burns have become problematic under even the best circumstances, and there are several recorded incidents of controlled burns that got away. For most of Santa Cruz County, it is already too late to use controlled burns in any area. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park).

F7: In Santa Cruz County there are numerous environmentally sensitive areas, which are habitats for endangered species (e.g. the Santa Cruz Tar Plant and the Mount Hermon June Beetle). Many of these habitats are located in high-risk fire areas. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz AGREES -14 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard

F8: Currently, county fire officials and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan that identifies where environmentally sensitive and high fire risk areas overlap. The HCP describes how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District Aromas was unaware that an HCP plan was being developed. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the US Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wild land interface is and the second will show the known sensitive Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 15 habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is not correct. Response: Central Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Felton Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The Grand Jury is likely referring to a grant funded effort to produce two G.I.S. data layers for maps to assist with locating those areas in the County that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both.7 The first map will show where the urban-wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas in the County. This is the first phase of an effort to be coordinated by the County Office of Emergency Services to develop an HCP that addresses fire protection efforts in sensitive areas. No local fire agencies are involved in this effort. The agencies that are involved include: the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife -16 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Native Plant Society. Local fire agencies may be consulted at a later date if the grant funds are renewed for future phases. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department This finding does not apply to the City of Santa Cruz. However, the City of Santa Cruz is currently developing its own HCP. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District DISAGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not agree that county fire officials are participating in this effort. The Habitat Conservation Plan is a responsibility of, and in the area of expertise of, the county and federal environmental agencies and not the fire services. We are also of the belief that any guidelines for dealing with brush in environmentally sensitive areas that are produced in the HCP will probably not incorporate fire safety concerns. This is also a concern in that it will only complicate the process of establishing fire safety in residential areas. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Watsonville Fire Department DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP described how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 17 Response: Zayante Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP described how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarifications. County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The Grand Jury may be referring to a grant funded effort to produce two G.I.S. data layers for maps to assist with locating those areas in the County that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban-wildland interface is, and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas in the County. This is the first phase of an effort to be coordinated by the County Office of Emergency Services to develop an HCP that addresses fire protection efforts in sensitive areas. No local fire agencies are involved in this effort. The agencies that are involved include: the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Native Plant Society. Local fire agencies may be consulted at a later date if the grant funds are renewed for future phases.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts and the Office of Emergency Preparedness should complete the Habitat Conservation Project. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 27 unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire district would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Also, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should -28 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wild land/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Central Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Felton Fire Protection District Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 29 This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that the County’s fire districts complete a Habitat Conservation Plan would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. The propounded purpose of the HCP is to identify and reconcile potentially incompatible environmental and fire safety clearance regulations. While the PVFD supports protecting the environment in Santa Cruz County, it does not have any interest in compromising the current fire safety laws. As such, there is an inherent conflict of interest if PVFD participates in preparing a countywide plan that proposes lessened defensible space requirements due to environmental concerns.12 While the conflict makes PVFD a stakeholder in the process, and to that extent PVFD would like to be consulted, it would be wholly inappropriate and unreasonable for PVFD to be a party to creating a plan that may undermine its ability to enforce currently mandated fire safety laws. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because the City is not involved in an HCP project with the County. As noted above, the City is developing its own HCP. Moreover, the City of Santa Cruz Fire Department, Planning Department, and Resource Ecologist are already conducting a coordinated review of areas within the City where high fire hazard and environmental issues coincide. The City’s General Plan update process will also involve a review of these aspects. Two examples of current projects on City property -30 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard which use this approach are the DeLaveaga Park demonstration project and a fuel modification and vegetation reduction plan for Meder Canyon. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. In the spirit of cooperation with other government agencies, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District has already participated in discussions regarding Habitat Conservation Plan preparation. However we have not taken an active role since that is not our area of primary responsibility or expertise. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by the agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is, in itself, unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Although the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not wish to create additional negative impact on the environment, the existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the county’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort: reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 31 This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a Habitat Conservation Plan is to be completed due to unavoidable obligations established by the Federal Endangered Species Act, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. At the same time, any HCP effort must involve the Fire Districts and any HCP planning requirements must be responsive to Fire District concerns. The HCP must avoid making implementation of fire safety measures unduly difficult and/or costly. With respect to UC Santa Cruz, an HCP is not likely to be needed for fire management purposes because the fire prone areas where vegetation management is needed for fire control purposes currently do not contain Federally protected species. UCSC is preparing an HCP for other specific areas of the campus (not for fire management purposes). If a campus-wide HCP is pursued in the future, fire management considerations would be built into the plan. UCSC is well aware of the substantial costs associated with preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore any decision to pursue an HCP should be made with full understanding of the cost implications of that decision. Take avoidance strategies should be considered as an alternative to preparing an HCP, if feasible. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards -32 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life- threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District The Zayante Fire Protection District does not believe it is within our prevue nor Responsibility to find nor commit limited staff resources to subsidize a County and Federal responsibility. This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 33 Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz This recommendation is being implemented. The County Office of Emergency Services is the lead agency in coordinating the development of the HCP in collaboration with local fire agencies, the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Native Plant Society, and affected property owners.

R2: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Environmental Section of the Planning Department should agree upon policy and create written instructions based upon the policy to be given to homeowners by all governmental agencies. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. -34 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES A cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public’s interest. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. It should be Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 35 noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Central Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. This District does have a weed abatement program that sends initial abatement notices to over 240 homeowners requiring them to abate the hazard. In addition, this District mails fire safety brochures to an additional 1200 residents that reside in the urban interface area. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Felton Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in -36 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation requires further analysis. As discussed above, PVFD does not think it is appropriate to promulgate any policy that lessens its ability to enforce currently mandated fire safety laws. Nonetheless, we believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and we would willingly participate in formulating joint instructions to homeowners to ensure uniformity throughout the County. This type of cooperative approach is currently used by the fire districts, which collectively develop written fire safety instructions for homeowners. In that same vein, PVFD would welcome the opportunity to work with other allied agencies to provide instructions to homeowners, as long as those instructions are compatible with current fire and life safety requirements. As requested in the instructions, here are the recommendations for the further analysis: (1) determine what actual conflicts exist between environmental restrictions and state and local laws addressing fire and life safety requirements, (2) determine the legal hierarchy of these conflicts, (3) assess whether a single set of instructions can be implemented on a countywide basis or whether a case-by-case review is preferable, and (4) decide upon the parameters and scope of any joint instructions. This further analysis could be conducted within six months upon agreement of all the fire districts, the Office of Emergency Services, and the environmental section of the planning department, but it may prove more efficient and beneficial to wait until the G.I.S. layers (discussed in the response to finding #8) have been completed. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The City of Santa Cruz will need to conduct further analysis of any broad-based policy and instructions developed for suburban and rural areas to see if their implementation will complement or be in conflict with our efforts within the City. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but should be implemented. The time frame is unknown pending completion of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The District believes a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. To do so will first require the Habitat Conservation Plan be completed, after which the Fire Districts could participate in the development of the instructions along with the environmental agencies. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 37 The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently employ a standard fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and the District would welcome the opportunity to now work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. -38 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz This recommendation is being implemented. The County agrees that clear direction should be given to property owners involved in vegetation management projects. Currently, local fire agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and local resource specialists collaborate to develop best practices for individual vegetation management projects pending the completion of the HCP and federal approval of the overall vegetation management program. Ultimately, the best management practices developed Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 39 in the HCP process and as included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit for fuel reduction projects will determine the policies and practices to be followed by property owners under the direction of local fire agencies. Once these policies have been determined, consistent written instructions can be provided to homeowner.

F9: Local fire departments can issue citations to homeowners for not clearing brush, a violation of fire regulations. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Unfortunately, not all departments (Aroma included) have the resources to make inspections in 100% of the fire district. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES -18 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Ben Lomond Fire Protection District does not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Fire departments can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; but many of the departments do not have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The departments have the authority but a small department like Branciforte does not have resources to do so. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations to homeowners for their failure to clear hazardous vegetation. Many of the departments, however, do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. The Pajaro Valley Fire District has access to a full-time peace officer who works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. But this peace officer is currently the only person within these agencies’ jurisdictions that has the ability to issue citations for vegetation clearance violations. And the peace officer presently gets involved only when the owner has failed to comply with three warnings issued by engine company personnel.8 To enhance present enforcement capabilities, the Pajaro Valley Fire District is currently working on getting more staff qualified to issue citations for fire code and ordinance violations. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following amplification. The fire service can issue citations to homeowners for their failure to clear hazardous vegetation. Many of the departments, however, do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. The Santa Cruz County Fire Department has access to a full-time peace officer who works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 19 but this is the only person within these agencies’ jurisdictions that has the ability to issue citations for vegetation clearance violations. The peace officer currently gets involved only when an owner has failed to comply with three warnings issued by engine company personnel. To enhance present enforcement capabilities, the Santa Cruz County Fire Department is currently working on getting more staff qualified to issue citations for fire code and ordinance violations. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the City. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. At UCSC we emphasize public education and awareness and do not cite homeowners as a matter of enforcement. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments including the Zayante Fire Protection District do not currently have the resources or process to cite homeowners for not clearing brush.

F10: Fines for violating fire regulations for not clearing brush range from $100 to $250. Fire officials report such low fines lead to a lack of compliance. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES -20 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard The fines associated with the fire code, adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Public Resources Code violations can range from $1000 to $10,000 for willful violations. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000 or six months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000 or six) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District DISAGREES Education and cooperation works much better than fines. Additionally the money from the fines does not go back to the district to help offset the cost to issue them. Response: Central Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Felton Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The Public Resources Code imposes fines for failure to comply with clearance requirements as follows: $100 to $500 for the first offense; $250 to $500 for the second offense, and $500 or the cost of forced abatement for a third offense.9 In addition, the Santa Cruz County Code provides Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 21 penalties in accordance with the County bail schedule, ranging from $170 to $1,700.10 The County Code also states that each day may constitute a separate offense and that a fine may be treble the cost of forced abatement.11 Finally, the Health and Safety Code allows fines of up to $1,000 for a willful violation. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department DISAGREES The Public Resources Code imposes fines for failure to comply with clearance requirements as follows: $100 to $500 for the first offense; $250 to $500 for the second offense, and $500 or the cost of forced abatement for a third offense. In addition, the Santa Cruz County Code provides penalties in accordance with the County bail schedule, ranging from $170 to $1,700. The County Code also states that each day may constitute a separate offense and that a fine may be treble the cost of forced abatement. Finally, the Health and Safety Code allows fines of up to $1,000 for a willful violation. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES The amount of a fine alone does not encourage compliance. A property owner’s refusal to follow corrective actions issued by the court, or the court’s failure to issue such actions, are also significant reasons why there is a lack of compliance. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District DISAGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not support the conclusion that the low fines lead to a lack of compliance. Generally homeowners want to comply with fire safe practices. For the occasional situation where there is a lack of compliance, the fire services also have the ability to contract for the work to be done and have a lien placed on the property to recover the cost. This is more effective than a fine in that it results in getting the work accomplished. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation. Response: Watsonville Fire Department DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation. -22 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Zayante Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts should create stiffer penalties for homeowners who do not comply with fire clearance regulations. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES Prosecution for violations is sometimes the only remedy, but the District has found that education and information have a more positive outcome for compliance. Most homeowners want to comply with fire safety regulations. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome that would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners -40 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in the regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear, concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. In recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Central Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 41 Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry (a stakeholder), has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Felton Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Creating stiffer penalties is not likely to motivate homeowners who fail to comply with fire clearance regulations. PVFD believes that most homeowners who do not comply, fail to do so because they are not aware of the existing laws and/or hazards, or they are confused by the seemingly conflicting directions they get from public officials with regard -42 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard to vegetation clearance. Admittedly, there are those property owners who will blatantly disregard any attempt by a government official to regulate the owner’s private property. But even for these people, better solutions exist. Increasing enforcement capabilities and public education efforts would better solve the problem. Additionally, a countywide weed-abatement program modeled after other successful programs in neighboring counties may prove useful, as would tracking the current insurance industry movement towards conducting its own property inspections prior to renewing insurance policies in rural areas. Together, these could lay the foundation for a county ordinance that allowed a fire official to report the hazard directly to the insurance company. This type of ordinance amendment would prove far more effective than increasing the fine for what is currently classified as a misdemeanor. Because the penalties already in place are not used due to a lack of qualified enforcement personnel and because there are more effective solutions, we believe that this recommendation is unwarranted. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The City of Santa Cruz will not implement this recommendation, as it uses the County Court bail schedule for violations. The City would rather gain compliance and improve the overall community fire safety by engineering, enforcement, and education. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District has not had a need to impose a fine for lack of compliance with fire clearance regulations for over twenty years. Homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and properties and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 43 Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been experienced, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulation. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is ineffective. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the -44 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to complywith fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners

F11: Conversely, the County Planning Department has the ability to red tag a homeowner for clearing brush in an environmentally sensitive area. Response: Santa Cruz County Planning Department AGREES

F12: and recommendation # 4. Conclusions 1. A major fire in Santa Cruz County is a probable occurrence. 2. The completion of the Habitat Conservation Project is needed to establish fire safety guidelines and procedures for environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Because of an inherent difference in concerns between fire safety procedures and environmental regulations, homeowners receive conflicting brush clearance instructions. 4. The current fines for violating fire regulations are too low to ensure compliance. -26 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard 5. A fire safety committee is needed. The fire safety committee should be modeled after the San Mateo County Fire Safety Committee.

F13: San Mateo County has created a fire safety committee organized by the fire chief’s association. This fire safety program is considered by fire experts to be very successful. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 25 The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES (It should be noted, however, that this was the model for the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council, which disbanded as discussed in the responses to finding #12 and

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts should reestablish a fire safety committee based on the San Mateo County model. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 45 An example for a countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a county wide council. An example for a countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. Response: Central Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. -46 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Felton Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation requires further analysis. Fire protection in the wildland-urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County. Re-establishing the Fire Safe Council would ensure that the issue remains at the forefront, but modeling it after the San Mateo County Fire Council has already proved ineffectual. Instead, some thought should be given to creating a different model designed to address the challenging and unique demographic, topographic, and political diversities within Santa Cruz County. For example, the new Fire Safe Council could be modeled after the County Fire Department Advisory Commission, or it could be regionally based instead of county-based. These are just a couple of ideas that could be explored, although they do not begin reflect the myriad of options that may be available. Further research is definitely warranted. As requested in the instructions, here are the recommendations for the further analysis: (1) find or create an appropriate model for a Fire Safe Council that would be effective within this County, (2) determine the scope and parameters of the new council, (3) develop a start-up timeline for the council. Preliminary action could be taken by the Fire Chief’s Association of Santa Cruz County to appoint a team to create a workable model. This could be completed within six months. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, as the City of Santa Cruz was a participant in the previous fire safety council and recognizes the value of this cooperative effort. However, the re-establishment of this committee will require better leadership, management, and support from the parent (or hosting) agency (CDF) if it is to be successful. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 47 Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. We estimate the time required would be about one year. While the San Mateo County model is considered good, there are other models, including a California State model that should be considered as part of this process so that the best approach for Santa Cruz County can be determined. We also feel that the best approach would be to take an advisory approach rather than a regulatory approach to avoid the types of conflict that cause the prior effort to become ineffective. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. -48 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. _______________________________________________ 1 Information obtained from Santa Cruz County Fire Dispatch Records. California’s I-Zone – Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation, Chapter 13, State of California (1996). Id. at Chapters 8 and 13; Fire Safe Guides for Residential Development in California, State of California (1993). Information obtained from Karen Terrill, public affairs information officer, CDF Sacramento 5 See Santa Cruz County Code § 16.52 et. seq. Information obtained from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Vegetation Management Program Coordinator for Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. Information obtained from the Office of Emergency Services Administrator and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Pre-Fire Engineer for Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. Information obtained from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Peace Officer assigned to Santa Cruz County. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 4291.1. Santa Cruz County Code 7.92.310; see also Santa Cruz County Bail Schedule. Santa Cruz County Code §§ 1.12, 1.14, 7.92.300 et seq. See e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 4291, Cal. Fire Code § 1103.2.4 and §16 of

February 05, 2004 — Family and Children’s Services

12 pages 23 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F1: The Little Hoover Commission investigates state agencies and their practices. After conducting extensive research, the commission recommended that the State of California and its counties adopt changes in their child welfare agencies such as CPS. The

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County Board of Supervisors should create a Citizen Review Board as recommended Family and Children’s Services -9 by the Little Hoover Commission. This Board should review child welfare services and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, local agencies and others regarding improvements. Membership should include representatives from education, foster care youth, health care, civic and business. The Citizen Review Board should hire a Child Welfare Inspector General with the authority and guidance and be accountable for improvements. Responsibilities should include enforcement of rules for CPS, reform of the foster care program, and building a volunteer support network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. In order to function effectively, Citizen Review Panels require planning, coordination, staff support, and funds to reimburse panel members for their time and travel. Without funding, it is not feasible for the County to undertake such a project at this time. In addition, it is important to note that county child welfare agencies are provided with effective oversight by the California Department of Social Services, which reviews county programs and responds to complaints about county operations and practices. The new State review process scheduled to begin in January 2004 will expand and intensify the State’s oversight function to ensure an outcome-oriented approach to the evaluation of child welfare services at the county level. Federal law does not give Citizen Review Panels the authority or responsibility for program oversight. Citizen review panels may overlap the State’s oversight role but, in most cases, cannot truly effect change because of their limited ability to impact State statutes, regulations, and funding mechanisms. Currently, only three of the 58 California counties have Citizen Review Panels. Those three counties are Kern, Napa, and San Mateo. These three counties responded to a request for applications by the State in July 2002, and were selected to receive State funding to establish and support their Citizen Review Panels. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires that the State establish three Citizen Review Panels in order to receive funding under the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants Program. At this time, the State has no plans to expand its program to provide funding to additional Citizen Review Panels. In addition, it should be noted that the Human Services Commission provides community oversight to all HRA programs and operations.

F2: There have been extensive changes at CPS since about 1980 when licensed social workers were the norm, counseling was mandatory for families, and statistics were kept. In 1997, CPS was restructured and funding was cut. Follow-up counseling was cut and caseloads increased. The volume of referral calls has tripled over the past thirty years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The statement that “licensed social workers were the norm” in 1980 is not accurate. In fact, licensed social workers have never been the norm in child welfare services. The clinical license in social work, while sometimes seen in child welfare, is more common in hospital or mental health settings. Child welfare staff has always included social workers with a range of educational backgrounds, from Masters degrees (some with licenses) to workers who do not have graduate degrees. Once they are hired by HRA, a standardized training curriculum in child welfare services is provided to all workers regardless of their level of education. This training is provided by the Bay Area Academy, a training consortium that trains child welfare social workers for all counties in the Bay Area. The statement that “statistics were kept” in 1980, implying that they are no longer kept, is also inaccurate. In fact, the statistical data available today is much better in both quantity and quality than in 1980, due to the use of automated data systems such as the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) that were not available in

F3: It was suggested to the Grand Jury that the system gives up on some families. For instance, over the course of ten years, the County responded to many abuse reports regarding one family. However, due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County cannot comment on whether such suggestions were made to the Grand Jury. However, the County disagrees with the statement that HRA “gives up on families” due to a lack of resources. Recommendations are made to the Juvenile Court based on the legal mandate to protect the safety of children, while allowing them to remain in their parents’ care when it is safe to do so. Although we do not know what case the Grand Jury is referencing, the statement that “due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated” is inconsistent with our policy and practice.

F4: Statistics on child abuse are skewed toward lower socio-economic families. Higher income families have resources to pay for legal, psychological and medical assistance. Thus their issues do not become part of the CPS record. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The correlation between poverty and child abuse/neglect is a national phenomenon, not unique to Santa Cruz County. However, we would like to provide clarification to the Grand Jury’s finding that higher-income families’ “issues do not become part of the CPS record.” Reports of suspected child abuse/neglect are made by community members, and every report becomes a part of the record regardless of the subject’s socio-economic status. In addition, an attorney is appointed through the dependency system for every family that becomes involved with the Juvenile Court, regardless of their ability to pay. Families that cannot afford private health and mental health services are also able to access these services through the Health Services Agency.

F5: The Grand Jury heard testimony that response by CPS to child-at-risk complaints is inconsistent. Some staff have developed reputations for excessive enforcement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES On a daily basis, social workers are required to make complex judgments regarding a large number of factors affecting safety and risk to children. The Human Resources Agency provides extensive training and supervision in order to ensure that casework decisions are made as consistently as possible; however, every family’s circumstances are unique and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is never made by a social worker in isolation; all removal decisions are reviewed by an HRA supervisor and law enforcement before the child is removed. In the last year, we have further enhanced the consistency of staff decision making by implementing Structured Decision Making, a set of nationally recognized, research-based tools that social workers now use to assist them in assessing safety, risk, and the readiness of parents to reunify safely with their children. Family and Children’s Services -3

F6: The Division reports a need for more foster parents for teenagers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. The Human Resources Agency has a need for more foster parents who have the willingness and ability to care for teenagers. The agency is always working to recruit more foster parents for this age group. Fortunately, this problem has been partially mitigated by new regulations regarding the procedures for approving relatives and non-relative extended family members (NREFMs) to provide care for children in placement. In the last six months, we have substantially increased the number of children, especially teens, who are placed with relative and NREFM caregivers.

F7: Foster parents need to have training in child development, basic child psychology background and a desire to help. They also need access to therapy to help damaged children. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Foster parents do in fact receive considerable training. As a requirement of licensing, all foster parents receive 24 hours of “PRIDE” training in child development, discipline techniques, cultural issues, emotional issues experienced by foster children, family relationships and dynamics, as well as the child welfare system and the dependency court process. Foster parents who enroll in the Agency’s Options for Recovery program, which serves young children affected by parental substance abuse, receive an additional 21 hours of training on the characteristics of drug exposed infants, effects of drugs and alcohol on development, special medical needs, how to care for drug exposed infants, cycles of abuse and addiction, and self-care when serving as a caregiver. In addition to these two major training curricula, various trainings on special topics are offered throughout the year. Some of the training classes are taught by experienced Agency staff; others are taught by outside experts such as physicians and psychologists under contract with the Agency. Panels of foster parents, birth parents, and former foster youth are also included in order to share their experiences with new foster parents. Regarding access to psychotherapy, HRA conducts a preliminary screening of every foster child to determine whether the child has behavioral issues that indicate a potential need for mental health services. If so, the child is referred to the Health Services Agency’s Children’s Mental Health Services for more in-depth assessment. If the assessment indicates a need for mental health services, the child receives therapy, medication, and/or other services as needed through County Mental Health. In addition, when a child in placement has special medical, developmental/educational, or emotional problems, foster parents are eligible to receive a higher rate of reimbursement (called a specialized care rate) in order to provide additional care and supervision to meet the child’s needs.

F8: Foster parents lack adequate training to participate fully in the court process. -4 Family and Children’s Services Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Although the court process is covered in the standard PRIDE training curriculum, HRA agrees that this aspect of the curriculum could be strengthened and covered in more detail and is taking steps to do so.

F9: Long-term foster parent caregivers sometimes lack a support system, such as someone to call in an emergency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Foster parenting is demanding and often stressful, and it is understandable that foster parents sometimes feel a need for more support. However, it is important to note that an HRA social worker is available on-call 24 hours per day to respond to emergency calls, including those from foster parents. During business hours, foster parents may also contact HRA’s foster care recruiter for support and advice, as well as the case-carrying social workers for children in their care. If the case-carrying social worker is not available, foster parents are encouraged to call the social worker’s supervisor. Monthly support group meetings are held for foster parents involved in the Options for Recovery program. In addition, some of the Agency’s experienced foster parents make themselves available informally as support persons/mentors to other foster parents. The Agency is currently working to develop a more formal mentoring program.

F10: It was reported that 80% of families referred to the Division have a substance abuse problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F11: Federal and State laws have established a time frame of six-months for CPS to reunify children with their families or provide a permanent plan for the resolution of custody of children less than three years of age. Children are expected to be in Family Reunification or Permanency Planning (concurrent planning), which may lead to adoption, guardianship or long-term care with a relative or foster parent. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. Permanency Planning and concurrent planning are not synonymous. Concurrent planning refers to the legal requirement that HRA develop two parallel plans for every child in the Family Reunification program, where services are provided with the goal of reunification with parents. Under concurrent planning, the preferred outcome is reunification, but an alternate plan must also be developed to provide a permanent placement (adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care) in the event that reunification fails. If reunification efforts are unsuccessful and services to the parent(s) are terminated, the child is moved to the Permanency Planning program, which has the eventual outcome of adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. Family and Children’s Services -5

F12: After six months if parents have not met the requirements, parental rights may be terminated. Interviews revealed that repeated extensions of the six-month rule are common. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The six-month time limit applies only to children under the age of three. For older children, the time limit is one year. Regarding extensions, the Court extends the time limit if there is a substantial likelihood that the child can be safely returned to the parent’s care after the parent and/or child participate in additional services. The maximum statutory time allowed for reunification is 18 months.

F13: Requirements for parents seeking to regain permanent custody of a child may include finding a place to live, finding a job, and/or completing an authorized substance abuse treatment program and parenting classes, all within six months. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F14: On average, the Division places 60 children per year for adoption. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F15: The Grand Jury heard testimony that CPS staff gave false and/or misleading testimony in court and that they were abusive and threatened reprisals to those who complained. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Giving false and/or misleading testimony violates the code of ethics followed by HRA social workers. The same is true for abusive or threatening behavior of any kind. It is important to note that parents and others are sometimes very dissatisfied with decisions made by HRA and the Juvenile Court, and their perceptions of the facts may differ from the findings of Agency and Court staff. Parents who disagree with a Court decision have the option of filing a legal appeal if they wish to do so. In addition, HRA/Family and Children’s Services has a written policy for complaints and grievances, and anyone who believes that HRA staff have behaved in an unethical manner is encouraged to use this process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Grand Jury was concerned that many people were reluctant to meet with the Grand Jury due to a concern of retribution from CPS staff.

F16: There has been an increase in litigation by parents against the agency since the 70's. CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Litigation against the County related to CPS cases has not increased since the 1970’s. In looking at the past five years, the Human Resources Agency notes that nine claims have -6 Family and Children’s Services been filed against the County for complaints related to child welfare services. All nine of these claims were rejected, and none of the claimants went on to file a lawsuit. The statement that “CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight” is false. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is made on the basis of standardized safety and risk assessments for the purpose of protecting the child and ensuring his/her safety. The potential for litigation by parents is not a factor in such decisions.

F17: The Grand Jury heard testimony from several sources that some lawyers assigned to represent a child, sometimes do so without meeting the child beforehand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should designate a Child Protective Advocate responsible for reviewing court procedures for CPS cases. The Advocate along with the Judicial Personnel should thoroughly review the collected data and consider amending the law if appropriate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Dependency Court Systems meetings are currently held monthly to review court procedures, coordinate efforts, and develop improvements where necessary. These meetings are attended by the Juvenile Court judge, Family and Children’s Services division director, program managers, and -10 Family and Children’s Services social work supervisors, County Counsel, minors’ counsel, and parents’ counsel, and representatives of Court Appointed Special Advocates. Adding a Child Protective Advocate would duplicate the efforts of this group, and would require funding. It is not necessary or financially feasible for the County to implement the recommendation at this time.

F18: About one third of CPS children have been assigned a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) by the Juvenile Court Judge. Although a CASA volunteer has befriended the child and has access to all of the child’s records, they may be requested to leave the courtroom at the judge’s discretion. There are currently about 110 CASA volunteers in Santa Cruz County.

F19: State law mandates maintaining the family unit if possible. Many people interviewed think that CPS’s priority is reunification of the family even when it conflicts with the best interests of the child. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES It is true that State law and regulations mandate maintaining the family unit if possible. If a family needs child welfare services, regulations dictate that the preferred option is to provide services while the child remains in the home, if this can be done safely. If the child must be removed from the home, regulations dictate that services must be provided in an effort to reunify the family within legal time limits. Permanent placement is a last resort, to be used only when there are no feasible means of safely maintaining or reuniting the child with his/her parents.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: If the philosophy of maintaining the family unit is the first priority even when it is not in the best interests of the child, it should be reconsidered.

F20: The Grand Jury heard testimony that confidentiality regarding children prevents interaction between social workers. The Grand Jury also learned that CPS broke confidentiality when students returned to school and informed specific teachers that they knew they had reported them to CPS. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Regarding the first statement, confidentiality regulations do not prohibit HRA social workers from discussing client information with other HRA social workers. In order to share information with persons outside the Agency, social workers must first obtain a release of information from the client. The second portion of the finding concerns the sharing of information about the identity of the person making a child abuse report. By law, the referent’s identity is kept confidential. The County is not familiar with the details of the incident described in the finding, but children are sometimes able to guess who made the referral because they Family and Children’s Services -7 know whom they have told about their experiences at home. This does not indicate that the Agency has broken confidentiality. Anyone who believes that Agency staff have broken confidentiality is encouraged to follow the steps outlined in the Family and Children’s Services complaint/grievance policy.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Juvenile Court and CPS must preserve confidentiality, especially when the Citizen Review Board and/or the Child Welfare Inspector General review a case. Children’s identity should be protected in court by using initials or a first name and initial for the surname. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has been implemented. Although there is no prohibition against using last names in court, it should be noted that all Juvenile Court proceedings are confidential and closed to the public. The only persons present at Juvenile Court hearings are the parties to the action and their representatives; no one else is admitted. Similarly, Juvenile Court documents are confidential and are not shared with anyone who is not a party to the action. Anyone who copies, distributes or discloses such documents is subject to contempt of court.

R7: The responsibility for proper conduct by CPS staff, caregivers and parents, ultimately falls on the Juvenile Court Judge. Maintaining confidentiality is an issue the county juvenile court struggles to protect. Protection of children’s identity could be maintained in court by using initials or a first name and initial for the surname. The idea of using initials came from an Oregon court procedure.

F21: The Grand Jury learned from interviews that mandatory concurrent plans are not always created. The concurrent plan is an alternative that should be implemented if re- unification fails. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES As mandated by law, HRA’s policy requires the development of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program. On an ongoing basis, the Agency works to develop and improve social workers’ concurrent planning skills.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: CPS must create and implement concurrent plans, as mandated by a 1997 Federal law. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has been implemented. HRA’s policy requires the creation of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program, as required by law. It is the responsibility of social work supervisors and program managers to ensure that this policy is carried out.

R8: The failure of CPS to pursue concurrent planning often results in delays in permanent placement for a child due to ongoing extensions.

F22: The Grand Jury learned from interviews that CPS staff lacks training in legal and social issues related to at-risk children. Once CPS primarily hired licensed social workers. Staff is now comprised of paraprofessionals—without degrees, and interns or volunteers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Child welfare staff undergo a standardized training curriculum regarding child abuse and neglect, the child welfare system, and legal and social issues related to at-risk children. As stated in response to finding #2, child welfare staff has never consisted primarily of licensed social workers. HRA certainly makes every effort to hire as many social workers with Masters degrees as possible and supports current staff in continuing their education in order to obtain Masters degrees. Two interns per year are placed with the Agency, where they participate in a structured internship program while studying for their Masters degrees in social work. The Agency does not use volunteers to provide child welfare services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Training is needed for CPS staff to raise the level of their professional skills.

F23: Statistics that track the success rates of CPS foster care placements do not exist. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES Traditionally, data collection in the child welfare field has been focused more on aspects of the process, such as whether services were provided within legal time frames, than on outcomes. However, that is changing. More sophisticated automated data systems have made more useful data available over time. Beginning on January 1, 2004, the State will initiate California Child and Family Services Reviews (CCFSR), a new outcome-based system for data collection and monitoring of child welfare agencies. The data to be collected and monitored for CCFSR include measures of “success” such as the recurrence of maltreatment, re-entries into foster care, stability of foster care placements, length of time to achieve adoption, and length of time to achieve reunification. These reviews will make it possible to compare local data to regional, Statewide and national averages. -8 Family and Children’s Services Conclusions

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Statistical data regarding reunification, foster care and other relevant information should be tracked to determine the success of CPS cases. Recommendations

January 29, 2004 — Review of Redevelopment Agencies in Santa Cruz County

26 pages 21 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 21 findings

F1: RDAs are intended to generate funds for redevelopment projects in blighted urban areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Review of Redevelopment Agencies -35 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES However, Section 33030 of California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code) provides the definition of blight, which includes both physical and economic blight, and includes situations such as inadequate public improvements, lack of parking among many situations, and others which lead to economic decline. Response: City of Scott Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES

F2: Because RDAs generate significant additional revenue, many local governments are tempted to form RDAs in areas that do not fit the intended purpose of an RDA or to expend such funds on projects that only tangentially serve the purpose of relieving urban blight. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without further information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola created a Redevelopment Agency and is in the process of expanding the project area of that agency for purposes that are consistent with Redevelopment Law. The City of Capitola uses the proceeds from its RDA in a manner that best serves the City of Capitola and that is completely consistent with Redevelopment Law. The City of Capitola does not know whether the uses of RDA funds in other jurisdictions do not fit the intended purposes of an RDA, nor whether the projects of other jurisdictions only tangentially relieve urban blight. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City of Santa Cruz’ RDA projects meet the definition of blight as set forth in the legislation. AB 1290 was adopted by the State Legislature in 1994 and SB 211 in 2001 to curtail redevelopment abuses. SB 211, in particular, gives the State Attorney General the power to seek legal action in the adoption of redevelopment projects which do not follow the prescribed legal procedures or have inadequate findings of blight. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES Scotts Valley disagrees since we have no knowledge of other agencies reasons for forming RDA’s. In the City of Scotts Valley, the Redevelopment Agency was established for a specific purpose in a blighted area. Many of those projects were to improve the infrastructure such that economic development could occur, thus eliminating the blighted conditions. -36 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City and Agency uses its redevelopment funds to relieve economic and physical blight. Language in AB 1290 has eliminated any ambiguity that may have existed in the past in the specific requirements governing what conditions are required in order to declare an area blighted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Each RDA should examine its projects to ensure they are of a type that should legitimately receive RDA funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented under the requirements of state law. Under State law, redevelopment agencies are required to adopt implementation plans every five years and update those plans in year three of the five-year cycle. The plan is required to show how the proposed projects and programs will serve to reduce the blight that was identified in the original redevelopment plan that established the redevelopment project area. As individual expenditures are approved by the agency’s board of directors, various findings must be made, including that the project or program is consistent with the adopted five year plan. This process establishes the legitimacy of individual agency expenditures and projects. Response: City of Capitola This has been implemented. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -51 This recommendation has been implemented through the adoption of the City of Santa Cruz’ 2000–2004 Implementation Plan. Response: City of Scotts Valley This City has implemented this recommendation. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES

F3: The county and all four cities in Santa Cruz County each have their own RDA with one or more project areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES

F4: The county RDA includes the largely residential areas of Live Oak and Soquel and concentrates on improvements to neglected residential infrastructure such as streets, bridges, sidewalks, and trees. The county has numerous large fully developed residential areas. Because it lacks the corresponding commercial areas usually found in city centers, the county does not have the revenue base required to provide infrastructure improvements in these residential neighborhoods. The county has turned to an RDA in Soquel and Live Oak to, at least partially, solve this problem. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $9,854,577 in increment for capital projects and $3,254,876 in increment for affordable housing projects. The RDA is expected to complete its projects sometime between 2015 and 2020. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County’s projects have served to improve infrastructure for both the residential and commercial areas. While expanded commercial areas could serve to increase tax revenues to support services to the Live Oak and Soquel areas, it is unlikely those revenues would also support the cost of upgrading the area’s infrastructure. Under the current redevelopment plan, the Agency has until 2027 to complete its projects.

F5: The Scotts Valley RDA includes the main city corridors of Scotts Valley Drive and Mt. Hermon Road and concentrates on improvements to traffic flow in this area. Significant improvements have been completed which have transformed a small town’s main street into the necessary traffic route required to support recent growth and development. Another priority has been the purchase of a large parcel on Mt. Hermon Road for future development as a Civic Center and retail complex. RDA funds have also been used for the construction, renovation and preservation of historical and government buildings such Review of Redevelopment Agencies -37 as the Hollins Stables Barn near the Borland Complex. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $989,309 in increment for capital projects and $663,693 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES

F6: The Santa Cruz City RDA has two project areas which encompass nearly all of the commercial areas of the city. Traditionally, the RDA was concerned with flood control and the rebuilding of the downtown shopping area after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Recently, they have expanded their projects to include: • major improvements to Mission Street, the major traffic route on the west side of the city • general business promotion and street improvements in the eastside business district • transformation of industrial areas along River Street and in Harvey West to large store retail use • renovation of the Del Mar Theatre The RDA has been working to develop an arts center in the historic Salz Tannery property, which is located along River Street north of Highway 1. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $3,920,501 in increment for capital projects and $1,980,987 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES

F7: Most RDAs finance their operations through bonds to be repaid through increment financing. The City of Santa Cruz RDA is almost entirely funded through loans from city enterprise funds and a $1,000,000 loan from the city’s Community Trust. This is a practice not available to county governments. RDA officials assert that significant savings are realized through this practice because of the high costs associated with issuing and administering RDA bonds.3 However, these enterprise funds are collected from ratepayers for the purpose of providing services such as water and sewer facilities. Theoretically, they are intended to be held for some time in order to finance future capital improvements or emergency repairs. However, it is not clear that ratepayers are generally aware of this practice. City officials left us with the impression that they had not considered what would happen if the enterprise fund suddenly needed access to its reserves. Presumably, repayment terms would be governed by the documents associated with the loans. When questioned they responded “Well, I guess we would have to pay it back.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 3 The City’s Community Trust was created from funds generated by the sale of the city owned Skypark Airport property in Scotts Valley. City officials commented that an added advantage of this arrangement was that it prevented the city from spending the money thus preserving it for future generations. -38 Review of Redevelopment Agencies This finding concerns the City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES Redevelopment projects are frequently financed through debt. The activities of the City of Santa Cruz RDA are beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Capitola. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City of Santa Cruz disagrees with this finding particularly with respect to the statement “is almost entirely funded through loans from City enterprise funds and a $1,000,000 loan from the City’s Community Trust.” With respect to an explanation on the RDA’s borrowing activities, please see below. a. The RDA has one loan from an enterprise fund—the Water Fund—which has a current outstanding balance of $45,851, the background of which is explained in Recommendation #3 on . This loan pays interest to the Water Fund at an interest rate set by the City Investment Portfolio, which is the same rate these monies would earn in the Water Fund. The loan at current interest rates will be repaid in seven years. b. The loan from the City Council Trust Fund is for the Mission Street Under- grounding Project and was approved by the City Council and RDA at public meetings. The funds in the City Council Trust Fund have been derived from the sale of City-owned real estate. The City Council Trust Fund has no relationship to any of the City’s enterprises. c. The major debt instrument of the Merged Project is a Tax Allocation Bond originally issued in 1989 and refunded (refinanced at lower interest rates) in 1996 in the amount of $4.2 million. The bulk of the RDA’s other debt instruments as reported on the annual Statement of Indebtedness filed with the County Auditor are obligations through Owner Participation Agreements and Cooperation Agreements with the City of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Scotts Valley GENERALLY AGREES However, we are unable to comment on the City of Santa Cruz RDA and their loans through the enterprise funds. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The City of Watsonville doesn’t have the information necessary to comment of the Santa Cruz RDA’s method of funding its projects. Review of Redevelopment Agencies -39

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The City of Santa Cruz should fully disclose to its enterprise fund ratepayers the terms and conditions of its loans to its RDA. Additionally, if city officials wish to continue this practice, guidelines for protecting the interests of the ratepayers should be developed. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -53 This recommendation has been implemented. The City RDA has one enterprise fund loan in the amount of $45,851 from the Water Fund to the Eastside Project Area. This loan was approved by the City Council in 1997. At current interest rates this loan will be repaid in seven years. The loan pays an interest rate set by the City Investment Portfolio, which is the same rate the monies would earn if they were in the Water Fund. The loan was made to accommodate the Water Fund refinancing of a previously issued Certificate of Participation which was jointly funded by the RDA and Water Fund to finance the purchase and development of the Eastside Parking Lot and various water projects. In 1997, the Water Fund chose to refinance the Certificate of Participation (to gain a lower interest rate) and the amount of funds for the redevelopment project were not included in the Certificate of Participation, but as a loan from the Water Fund to ease their refinancing of the Certificate of Participation for the Water Fund. In the event that the Water Fund was in a deficit situation, this loan could be repaid from RDA funds.

R4: At a minimum, future proposals to invest enterprise funds in local government operations should be fully disclosed to ratepayers prior to approval. Response: City of Santa Cruz This recommendation has been implemented as this information is, as previously mentioned, made available to the City Council and RDA when any such loan is made. At this point only one loan is outstanding.

F8: The City of Capitola RDA encompasses the retail areas along 41st Avenue between Highway 1 and Capitola Road. Historically, the RDA has concentrated on the development of the commercial areas located along 41st Avenue. Recently, they have had difficulty identifying suitable projects. Currently, they are discussing the renovation of the Rispin Mansion into a bed and breakfast inn. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $707,943 in increment for capital projects and $351,390 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The initial focus of the Capitola RDA was on the 41st Avenue area, including RDA action to provide for Clares Street between 41st Avenue and Capitola Road. The City Council disagrees with the statement that the Capitola RDA has had difficulty identifying suitable projects. Redevelopment increment has been used to provide ADA accessibility improvements within the project area, has been used to develop 31 new units of very low income housing, and has allowed the Loma Vista Mobilehome Park to become resident- owned. Possible road/bridge improvements to address traffic congestion along 41st Avenue are currently being studied. Affordable housing needs continue to be of major concern to the City Council. It should also be noted that in fiscal year 2001-02 $484,353 of the capital projects tax increments was used to pay debt service for qualifying redevelopment projects and activities that have already occurred.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City of Capitola’s RDA should not initiate further projects or project areas and the RDA should be terminated as soon as is prudently possible. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Capitola Redevelopment Agency is an excellent tool for the City and offers still considerable resources, about $40 million, for the construction and implementation of eligible projects. Such projects include: 41st Avenue traffic congestion studies and improvements; affordable housing projects; the Rispin Mansion project; and other pedestrian and public works projects. Finally, it should be noted that the tax increment dollars used for these projects do not diminish any revenue from any other local agency. In fact, the Capitola RDA increases those revenues.

F9: The Rispin Mansion Project is of particular note. The mansion is a decrepit, 1920’s-era home located on a six-acre parcel in the City of Capitola outside of the original RDA project area. This run down structure has been vacant for decades and has, by latest reports, been the subject of 140 police calls over the last year. The City bought the mansion in 1985 and since 1997 has been in negotiations with local developers to remodel it into a bed and breakfast. Recently, the City has proposed selling the property to its RDA for $1.35 million. Ostensibly, this is to facilitate redevelopment of the property, but it is unclear why these efforts would require RDA ownership of the property since other projects do not. However, the sale has other advantages. For example, the city proposal does not require the immediate payment of the purchase price. Instead it proposes the RDA pay interest on the debt at 8% providing the city with over $100,000 annually in additional revenue, with the principle to be paid in a lump sum prior to June of 2017. Presumably, this debt and the interest payments it generates would be paid for with increment financing. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The Rispin Mansion is an important historical asset to the City of Capitola. The reason it is necessary to sell the property to the RDA are several: 1) the preservation of this blighted property is the business of an RDA and should not encumber the limited resources of the city’s general fund; 2) because the curing of blight is the proper business of the RDA, the impacts from current blight such as vandalism, fires, trespass and issues of liability are also the province of an RDA. To accommodate these two goals requires RDA ownership of the property. The sale has been approved by the RDA Board and City -40 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Council in exchange for a note in the amount of $1.35 million and at an adjustable interest rate at the current rate of 5%.

F10: Since the Rispan property is not located in the current project area, the city will be required to amend its project area or create a new project area with sufficient increment to support the project. Presumably, since the Rispin property is owned by a local government agency, it will generate no property tax at all, so it is hard to see how it will generate sufficient increment on its own to support the any desired projects. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The meaning of this finding is unclear, but the facts are these: a) The Rispin property is currently in an amended preliminary project area, with the intent to amend the original project area to include the Rispin property; b) Once the project is developed the RDA has the option to lease or sell the property. If the property is sold, tax increment will be generated. If the property is leased, tax increment will also be generated through the possessory interest tax process. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Rispin property is not within the Watsonville City Limits.

F11: Many RDAs hold property or the rights to income from property such as rents or, in the case of the Rispin proposal above, the right to collect the transit occupancy tax generated by the property. These revenues generally show up as income to the RDA. However, in the case of the City of Santa Cruz RDA, they appear as a deduction to RDA administrative costs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This finding concerns the Santa Cruz City and Capitola Redevelopment Agencies. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The right to collect transient occupancy tax is solely that of the city (or county), not the RDA. Such revenues must by law show up as income to the city (or county). The City of Capitola has no knowledge of the City of Santa Cruz’s accounting practices. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES If any rental income is received, it is booked as such and reported that way on the appropriate State forms. As of the Fiscal Year 2001–2002, there was no rental income received by the RDA. The lease agreement on the Del Mar Theatre, which was effective in Fiscal Year 2002–2003, provides for the lease payments to be placed in a reserve fund to be used for building improvements. Review of Redevelopment Agencies -41 Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Rispin property is not within the Watsonville City Limits and we can’t comment on another agency’s specific method of accounting for expenses.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: To allow for the better evaluation of the performance of the agency, each RDA should clearly present in its annual financial documents its administrative costs without deduction for income from properties held. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented. The County Redevelopment Agency in past years did combine general administrative costs with property income and expenses. As part of the FY 2003-04 budget, property income and expenses have been set aside in a separate budget unit in order to provide more flexibility in the use of revenues. Response: City of Capitola This has been implemented. City of Capitola administrative costs to the RDA is based on city staff time, materials and overhead used by the RDA. Response: City of Santa Cruz -54 Review of Redevelopment Agencies The recommendation will not be implemented because this comment does not apply to its RDA inasmuch as the RDA does not deduct property income from its administrative costs and is unclear as to the origins of this claim. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City has implemented this recommendation. The City of Scotts Valley does not receive any income from properties. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Watsonville RDA does not offset administrative costs with income from properties.

F12: The City of Watsonville RDA encompasses the central downtown business district and the west side industrial area of the city. It has been significantly expanded in recent years to add 1,300 acres to the project area. The RDA concentrates on the revitalization of the downtown commercial district, which sustained significant damage after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and the development of job producing businesses in the city’s industrial areas. The city also has plans to use RDA funding to finance its long planned Civic Plaza Project which calls for a four-story complex on the 200 block of Main Street which includes city offices, a City Council Chamber, library, and county court space. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $2,435,276 in increment for capital projects and $801,804 in increment for affordable housing projects.4 Response: City of Watsonville The Agency partially agrees with this finding. The Watsonville Redevelopment Agency’s Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, states the RDA generated $3,207,042 for non-housing purposes and $801,804 for low and moderate-income housing projects. Of this, the Agency had to “pass-through” $771,766 to other taxing entities from the money received that was available for non-housing purposes together with an additional $668,894 that was required debt service on prior tax allocation bonds. Accordingly, the Agency only received $1,800,833 that was available for capital projects.

F13: RDAs are required by state law to allocate 20% of their available increment to the development of affordable housing. In some cases they allocate more. For example, the City of Santa Cruz allocates and uses 25%, but many RDAs throughout the state fail to utilize the entire 20%. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This finding does not pertain to the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The City allocates 20% to its low/moderate income housing fund. The City of Capitola does not monitor such allocations from any other agency. The City of Watsonville has also been designated a federal “Enterprise Zone” which provides it with significant advantages in attracting business development. -42 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Most RDAs in the area must collect a significant amount of affordable housing funds in order to assist in the production of units. While it is apparent that some jurisdictions have not been able to spend all of the affordable housing monies, Scotts Valley has made significant progress in meeting our affordable housing goals. A significant investment of over $4 million was made for a 46 unit very low income apartment project adjacent to City Hall. We have implemented a successful silent second program and worked with developers to provide additional affordable housing units within inclusionary projects than is required. Due to the costs of development and property values, Scotts Valley has had to collect funds over a period of time in order to make projects feasible. Response: City of Watsonville The City has noted this finding.

F14: It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are. For example, the Santa Cruz County RDA, in conjunction with South County Housing, a non-profit housing developer, recently completed the first phase of a 99 unit affordable housing project off Airport Boulevard next to Corralitos Creek. The first phase of this development, known as “Corralitos Creek Townhomes”, contains 23 four-bedroom units priced at $287,100 and 12 three-bedroom units at $272,100. There were originally over 200 applicants who applied for a lottery for these homes, but most of the applicants did not meet the financing requirements to be eligible purchasers. Therefore, in early April of this year, the RDA notified local governments of the opportunity for their employees to apply for these townhomes. South County Housing was to begin soliciting additional applicants as well, with the homes scheduled to go on sale at the end of June. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The evidence does not support the initial comment that, “It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are.” With almost 1,000 affordable housing units assisted by the County Redevelopment Agency since its inception with a substantial leveraging of outside funds, the County believes that the housing assistance efforts have been extremely successful. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES Without doing thorough research it is unclear how effective various affordable housing programs are. The City of Capitola has done no research on the “Corralitos Creek Townhomes” project. However, we note that the identified sales prices are well below market prices for new single family homes, and adjustments to marketing efforts will likely lead to identification of a sufficient number of eligible purchasers. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -43 The City has no comment on the above example. However, for further information with respect to this comment, the City RDA has provided on the following page a listing of where a substantial amount of redevelopment resources to the development of affordable housing has been made during the life of the Merged Project Area. These projects have created a mix of 831 low- and very low-income and market-rate household units in both for-sale and rental housing units as follows: Affordable Housing Projects - Completed, Rehabilitated or Under Construction Neary Housing Coop 95 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Co-op Units Arbor Cove Seniors Project 35 Low- and Very Low-Income Units Sycamore Street Commons Project 60 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units 12 Moderate-Income 1st Time Home Buyer Units Mariners Cove Project 72 Market-Rate Buyer Units 14 Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 155 Chestnut Street 82 Market-Rate Rental Units 511 Swift Street Artist Live/Work 9 Moderate-Income Live/Work Units Project 515 Leibrandt Avenue 7 Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 43 Very Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 1010 Pacific Avenue 70 Market-Rate Rental Units 83 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units 1280 Shaffer Road 123 Market-Rate Rental Units 47 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units – Replacement of Substandard Non-Affordable 136 Leibrandt Avenue Housing Units 1 Moderate-Income Rental Unit 405 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units Total 47 Replacement Affordable Units 342 Market-Rate Rental & Owner Units Affordable Housing Projects - Start of Construction July 2003 211 Gault Street Seniors Housing 37 Low-Income Units Project 37 Low-Income Units Total -44 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES We are unable to comment on the specific project in Santa Cruz County. However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of affordable housing projects varies with each project and program, and in each jurisdiction. Scotts Valley has been able to achieve several housing opportunities both with rental units and with for sale units where families successfully qualified and have purchased or are renting units. Purchasers are also further assisted in Scotts Valley through our Silent Second program. We also encourage potential purchasers to pre qualify for units through a local mortgage company to ensure that they can purchase a unit. For rental units, we also provide a program to assist with the first month’s rent and provide a security deposit guarantee. Both of these programs have been very successful. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City realizes just how difficult it is to satisfy the myriad of redevelopment requirements that govern the development of affordable housing projects. Redevelopment Law governs, along with other aspects of the sale of a specific low and moderate income housing unit, the sales price, the maximum income of the purchasing family, and the maximum percentage of that family’s income that can be spent on all housing costs. Special legislation that applies solely to Santa Cruz County became effective on January 1, 2002, which recognizes the difficulty Agencies have in qualifying buyers according to all the provisions required under RDA law, especially in high housing cost areas. Even with the provisions of SB 459, it is still difficult to meet all the required standards.

F15: Faced with a substantial state budget deficit, the Governor has proposed, in current negotiations, to take unused housing funds away from RDAs who fail to utilize them. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The Governor did propose such a transfer, but the proposal was resoundingly defeated in both houses of the legislature. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Governor has approved a budget without such a provision. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES The City RDA does not have any unused housing funds. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville Review of Redevelopment Agencies -45 The Governor had originally proposed this, but that proposal died due to extensive opposition from communities, housing advocates and legislators. Subsidized housing projects typically require complex and sophisticated financing from a number of different sources. Projects can take years in the making in order to secure both the required funding and development entitlements. Therefore, just looking at a fund balance does not give a true picture of how an Agency has anticipated using housing funds because anticipated projects are frequently somewhere in the conceptual or development pipeline.

F16: By law, RDA project areas are limited to a fixed term of existence. In effect, this means that some RDAs are likely to be closed out in the next two decades unless new blighted areas are identified. While new project areas can be formed, changes to state law make new projects less attractive than in the past. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES RDA project areas are limited to a fixed term of existence. More recent legislation has tightened the criteria that must be met before a project area can be formed, but “legitimate” redevelopment project areas are likely to continue to be formed.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: Each city and the county should require its RDA and community development staff to prepare a presentation at a future public meeting that • describes the proposed time table for the wind-up of the RDA project areas currently in existence • outlines the financial impact to the jurisdiction to be expected on termination of each project area. • provides a road map for future RDA wind-up planning • identifies the risks to the jurisdiction posed by potential drastic cuts in RDA increment revenue should the state decide to redirect RDA funding to other priorities Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has in part already been implemented, and other aspects will not be implemented for the reasons described below. In addition to regular public meetings to review project designs, the County RDA periodically holds general community meetings to seek feedback from the community on projects completed to date and future project needs. As part of these meetings, the time line for completing project activities is discussed, and when the Agency approaches the end of its activity (2027), those meetings will focus on an orderly transition to a time where redevelopment funding will not be available. For the County RDA that time is many years away and therefore such

R13-20: City of Santa Cruz RDA 1-3, 1-5,7 90 Days 6-7,11, (Sept 30, 2003)

R13-21: City of Capitola RDA 1-3, 1-2,5-7 90 Days 7-11, (Sept. 30, 2003)

F17: The state budget crisis poses a significant threat to the stability of RDA funding for capital projects. Actual and threatened cuts of funding for RDAs have caused the cancellation or postponement of projects and put into question the ability of RDAs to meet current obligations to repay bonds over the long term. Although RDAs are theoretically independent agencies responsible for their own debts, it is virtually inconceivable that a local government would let its RDA go bankrupt except in the direst of circumstances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES While it is true that the state budget crisis could pose a long term threat to RDA funding, it is not currently clear whether that will in fact become a problem. There will be some limited impacts from the cuts contained within the current state budget, but there will only be significant impacts to agencies’ activities in the event that the state continues to make such cuts in future years. It is not clear whether the current cut will be a one-year or ongoing transfer of RDA revenues to the state. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES -46 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Fortunately the City of Capitola has never been put into such a position. The policy tension would be using general fund money to alleviate a credit problem created by the State of California, or preserving the level of services provided to the city residents through its general fund. This would not be an easy decision to make especially if health and safety issues were involved. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES

Related Recommendations (3)

R13-20: City of Santa Cruz RDA 1-3, 1-5,7 90 Days 6-7,11, (Sept 30, 2003)

R13-21: City of Capitola RDA 1-3, 1-2,5-7 90 Days 7-11, (Sept. 30, 2003)

F18: Because commercial uses also generate sales tax revenue, they are often given more assistance from local governments and RDAs than less “profitable” but job generating properties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES To the extent that the County RDA has provided assistance to proposed commercial projects, that assistance has been targeted to both sales tax and job generating projects, the County cannot agree with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola makes every attempt to provide the same level of prompt and helpful customer service to all who come to the development counter. State law and then local policy governs who may receive assistance from RDA funds. The City of Capitola has not withheld assistance because any project was less profitable. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City RDA has given assistance to both sales tax-generating projects and job- producing projects. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES The City of Scotts Valley provides assistance to all businesses on an as needed basis. We have a variety of programs in our Economic Development Plan that assist existing and new businesses, as well. We do not provide financial incentives. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES The City agrees with this finding in general, although, not in the case of Watsonville.

F19: Some high dollar volume properties such as car dealerships and “big box” retailers can be particularly profitable to their local government hosts. For example, the proposed Home Review of Redevelopment Agencies -47 Depot on Green Valley Road in Watsonville is expected to begin generating $360,000 in sales tax for the city by 2005. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the first statement of this finding, but has no knowledge of expected sales tax income of the Watsonville store. Response: City of Capitola AGREES The City of Capitola is not familiar with the details of the Home Depot project, but retailers with a high dollar volume can contribute significantly to the city’s general fund revenue. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES However, it must be clearly understood that this was a private transaction, with no involvement or participation from the Watsonville RDA.

F20: Consequently, many local government and redevelopment agencies offer financial incentives to these businesses to encourage them to locate in their jurisdiction. This practice can result in local governments bidding against each other to direct the location of particularly lucrative businesses within their borders with no net gain to the local area as a whole. This is especially true when one jurisdiction uses its financial resources to attract local business to relocate within the local area, sometimes just a few miles in order to cross a local jurisdiction boundary.5 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. As is pointed out in the footnote to this finding, state law strictly limits redevelopment agencies’ ability to provide financial assistance to lure high sales tax generating projects from surrounding jurisdictions. To our knowledge, while there have been efforts by some business interests to pit local agencies against each other for new retailers in the areas, those efforts have not been successful in Santa Cruz County, largely due to the close working relationships between the local jurisdictions. This topic has been the subject of reform efforts at the state level. Numerous proposals have been made to encourage the sharing of sales tax revenue on a regional or per capita basis. Additionally, SB 214, which has passed the State Senate, proposes that local governments be forbidden from subsidizing relocations by large retail stores within 25 miles and car dealers within 40 miles of their current location. -48 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The City of Capitola is aware that this may happen, but the City of Capitola has never agreed to any such incentive. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES This finding is no longer valid inasmuch as the State Legislature has specifically limited the type of bidding for commercial projects, which are mentioned above with the passage of AB 178 in 1999 and other legislation which has been considered by the State Legislature in the current session. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES Scotts Valley does not provide any financial incentives to new businesses to encourage them to locate in our jurisdiction. We do understand, particularly in other counties, that local governments may bid against each other to direct the location of retail businesses. However, we have not observed that this has occurred in our County. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City can’t speak to the incentives to businesses offered by other jurisdictions but agrees that this type of “bidding war” has occurred in the past. There is new legislation which specifically prohibits redevelopment agencies from providing incentives to “Big Box” retailers and auto dealers who are relocating from within the same market area. The Watsonville Redevelopment Agency has not offered incentives to attract local business to relocate within the same market area.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Local government jurisdictions should negotiate equitable agreements to share sales tax revenues and to promote regional development planning. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been partially implemented, and part of the recommendation cannot be implemented. State law currently limits the ability of local governments to share sales tax revenues. Recent legislation proposed to provide a test of a shared sales tax system in the Sacramento area was not approved. The local planning and redevelopment directors meet regularly to discuss regional planning and development issues. City and County administrators also coordinate responses to specific inter- jurisdictional financial issues as they arise. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation requires further analysis. With regard to sharing sales tax, depending upon the source and nature of sales tax, in certain respects this has already been implemented. The transit and library districts share in sales tax (transit .50%, and Library .25% of each eligible retail transaction.) Furthermore, should AB 1412 become law, which would allow certain cities and counties to increase sales taxes by vote, there Review of Redevelopment Agencies -55 would be more of an incentive for the City to consider sharing sales taxes with other jurisdictions. With regard to promoting regional development planning, CEQA does play a role in requiring a certain amount of regional input into the development process. However, it is understood that more cooperation is desired. The difficulty is that each jurisdiction has its own special vision for its community, and these visions can differ significantly. In some cases it is the differing visions that created the separate jurisdictions in the first place. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Santa Cruz believes that there is legislation in place which addresses this recommendation. Response: City of Scotts Valley The sharing of sales tax will not be implemented because it is not warranted at this time. In the County of Santa Cruz we feel that reasonable development planning is not driven by sales tax revenues, but more by land availability and transportation and labor opportunities. In the County of Santa Cruz there also exists disparities in property tax distributions, so therefore, prior to any sales tax re-distribution, the property tax would also need to be studied, which in itself presents major obstacles. City planning decisions require financial stability to engage in the meaningful long- range planning needed to deal with the difficult issues of urban growth. The current revenue structure for local government has no stability beyond the next state budget cycle. The redistribution of local sales tax revenues should not go into effect until measures are placed on the ballot to provide constitutional protection of local government revenues. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City would be interested in participating in such discussions. -56 Review of Redevelopment Agencies

F21: In the past, the Santa Cruz area has had its share of competition for retail businesses. Today, local officials are less willing to use their resources for this purpose. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. While the meaning of this finding is not completely clear, the implication is that local governments in some past period were open to using their financial resources to encourage retail business to come to the area and that somehow that era has passed. We are not aware of any era where such assistance has been encouraged, with the brief exception of immediately after the 1989 earthquake. In general, local governments in Santa Cruz County have been reticent to provide financial incentives to attract retail businesses and have worked cooperatively on issues associated with the relocation of tax generating businesses. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Review of Redevelopment Agencies -49 The city of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the City of Santa Cruz. The City cannot comment regarding other agencies. Conclusions

January 29, 2004 — Report on the Rountree Facility

8 pages 15 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: Medium Security has a total rated capacity of 96 inmates. Population on the day of our visit was 77. The Jail Farm has a rated capacity of 162 inmates and on the day of our visit the population was 115. Both Rountree facilities are clean and well maintained by inmates under staff supervision. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F2: There is no staff relief for illness, vacation, etc. after a recent 12.5% cut in funding led to a loss of officers. The economy and State budget crisis will likely require new budget cuts at County jails. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Though there is no relief factor at Rountree, we are fully staffed. If in fact there are budget cuts, it will be up to the Sheriff where he wants to make the cuts. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Staff relief for illness and vacations is provided through overtime and by extra-help employees. The County concurs that the State budget crisis will impact services in the future.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: In order to maintain quality of services and adequate staff, the Board of Supervisors should not cut funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The needs of the County’s detention system continue to be a high priority. However, given the state of finances in California, future reductions in all areas may be necessary.

F3: On occasion, inmates are separated for disciplinary reasons. Inmates can only be separated temporarily due to the open plan at Medium Security. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Medium Facility does have temporary holding rooms, however, because the Medium is a direct supervision jail, they are rarely used. If an inmate is unable to live in this open plan, his classification would change and he would be moved to the Main Jail.

F4: There are currently about 10 women in the county who qualify for medium security incarceration. No women are housed at Rountree. (See the Main Jail Report). Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Rountree is an all male facility.

F5: Staff estimates that 80% of inmates countywide are substance abusers. Most do not qualify for drug treatment under Proposition 36 Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Prop. 36). Furthermore, Prop. 36 does not apply to alcohol abuse. There are no Prop. 36 cases at Rountree. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The percentage of 80% is a figure that may be higher or lower. The statement is making reference to inmate's cases being affected even though their sentence may not indicate drugs or alcohol. It is true that there are no Prop. 36 cases at Rountree, however, the drug and alcohol unit at Rountree, (SAFE PROGRAM) houses many inmates that have been in Prop. 36 programs and failed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Sheriff’s Department should consider utilization of unused space at the Rountree facilities by renting or subcontracting this space for Prop.36 drug treatment and other related purposes. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The Sheriff’s Office has started a drug and alcohol treatment unit in one half of the Medium Facility. The (SAFE PROGRAM) serves clients that have failed in Prop. 36 programs, as well as other inmates with drug and alcohol sentences. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County Alcohol and Drug Program does not plan to implement this recommendation at this time, but will keep this recommendation in mind as it plans for the future. Current budget pressures are threatening the closure of existing residential treatment programs, and there are licensed treatment beds going unfilled because there are not sufficient funds to pay for the staff to provide treatment services. The County Alcohol and Drug Program’s first priority will be to preserve existing residential treatment services. If funding becomes available to expand in-custody residential treatment, this recommendation will be reconsidered.

F6: Drug and alcohol treatment is available for inmates at a lower cost than from outside providers. For instance, residential drug treatment costs approximately $135 per person per day. Rountree cost is about $75 per inmate per day using Pajaro Valley Prevention (which is also an outside provider). However, comparison of service is difficult due to the large number of variables in the programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff These figures were given by Chief Simpson. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Residential drug treatment costs an average of $106 per day, and includes all room and board costs as well as staffing for client supervision (e.g., night shift). If the Pajaro Valley Prevention per day cost includes only treatment costs and not the room, board and supervision related to the Rountree facility, the cost estimates may not be comparable.

F7: About one-half of inmates at Medium Security are illegal aliens. When each inmate’s sentence is up the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) picks the inmate up for deportation. INS requires that illegal aliens convicted of crimes be housed in at least a medium security facility until sentences are served. This federal requirement provides no funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The number of illegal aliens housed at Rountree constantly changes. The county does receive some reimbursement from a federal grant for housing illegal aliens, (SCAAP). The amount of reimbursement changes from year to year. Reimbursement is determined by the amount of money available, numbers of inmates and the types of crimes. It should be noted that the only illegal aliens housed at Rountree are completing sentences on local charges before they are released to INS. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should seek compensation from the Federal government for unfunded mandates resulting in jail expenses for illegal alien deportees. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The county has received funding from the Federal Government for the past five years. (SCAAP Grant) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be implemented.

F8: Medium Security offers English as a Second Language (ESL) and preparatory classes for the General Education Diploma (GED). Substance Abuse Prevention classes are also taught at this facility. Classes in both English and Spanish are provided in substance abuse, anger management and job skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES

F9: The County Office of Education, in cooperation with the Sheriff's Office, provides five teachers to the Jail Farm. These teachers instruct Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) classes in auto body repair, food services, landscaping, building maintenance and computer operation. The facility also offers English as a Second Language and preparatory classes for the GED and an animal-bonding program. Substance Abuse Prevention, anger management and job skills training are provided in both English and Spanish. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office also contracts with Watsonville Adult Education for GED and Pajaro Prevention and Student Assistance for the SAFE Program, ESL, Substance Abuse Prevention and Job Skills. Both the Medium and the Minimum also have a variety of counseling services provided such as Aids Awareness, Religious Services, AA and NA. Rountree does give preparatory classes for the GED, but we also do testing, which allows inmates to receive a completed GED while in custody.

F10: The GED program at Rountree directly interfaces with outside programs. Due to short tenure many inmates start programs and must finish GED and other programs outside when their sentences are over. Self-motivation is required to complete unfinished programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Inmates that start a GED program while in custody can finish the program out of Custody at no cost. Inmates receive certificates for the programs that they complete while in custody. They can use these certificates to show prospective employers that they are trained in given areas.

F11: A significant portion of inmate training programs are self-funded through pay phones, commissary sales and other such income and do not require the use of tax money. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Some inmate programs are funded through the inmate welfare fund; however, most are funded through state and federal funds. That number of students allowed is fixed. Funding for new classes has to be done through different revenue sources such as the inmate welfare fund or grants.

F12: At the Jail Farm, a number of programs including Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, AIDS education classes, yoga, and church services are offered and operated by volunteer organizations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES

F13: Many inmates at the Jail Farm are on work release, which is available to qualifying inmates sentenced to less than 60-days. They work at outside jobs or for state parks, the dump, animal control, and beach or road debris clean up. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES There are no inmates on work release at Rountree. Work Release is an out of custody program administered by the Main Jail. Rountree does send out work crews to assist other government entities in their functions as described above.

F14: It appears from the most recent statistics that recidivism countywide has increased from 85% to 89% (1995-1999). There are no accurate up-to-date mechanisms to assess the impact of various programs on recidivism. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office does have statistics on recidivism in the form arrest and booking records. It is true that there are few up-to-date mechanisms to evaluate the impact of programs on recidivism. The sheriff is tasked with the responsibility of custody and does not have the funding, staff or responsibility for conducting post sentence studies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Sheriff’s Department should compile, track and report accurate data and crime statistics for substance abuse, recidivism and program success rates. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The Sheriff’s Office does report data and crime statistics for substance abuse, recidivism and program success in the form of a variety of Sheriff’s Reports, including; arrest reports, booking and housing records. The Sheriff contracts with organizations such as Parajo Valley Prevention and Student Assistance that keep records and statistics on programs such as the SAFE PROGRAM. By law the Sheriff is responsible for the welfare of inmates while they are in custody and does not have the responsibility or the mechanism to track inmates that are out of custody.

F15: In follow-up to last year’s Grand Jury report, a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund indicates an accounting system is in place. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Conclusions

January 29, 2004 — Investigation of the Financing of Local Government Services

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

January 29, 2004 — Investigation of the Impact of Land Use Decisions on Local Government Finances

30 pages 17 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: Because financial stability is not the only requirement for a healthy community, a successful long-term development plan must be based on a balanced land use policy that provides for all types of uses.

F2: Much of the property located in the county’s jurisdiction is zoned for residential use and located in such areas as Pasatiempo, Rolling Woods, and Whispering Pines between Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley and Live Oak, Soquel, Rio Del Mar, and La Selva Beach along the central coast of the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Much of the property located in the County is zoned for residential use. However, most of the unincorporated area is designated either agriculture or residential. Response: LAFCO AGREES

F3: The lack of a commercial base prevents the incorporation of these residential areas into self-sustaining cities despite their individual community identity. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Some of these residential areas are simply large subdivisions from the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s (Pasatiempo, Whispering Pines, Rolling Woods, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, etc) that are too small to be considered for individual incorporation and too isolated to combine with other neighborhoods. Other areas (such as Live Oak, Soquel, La Selva, Aptos, Seacliff, etc) are diverse communities comprising numerous smaller neighborhoods. These communities are loosely tied to special district service areas such as elementary and middle schools. They may or may not have associated commercial areas that tend to be relatively small and serve the local neighborhood. These areas are probably not fiscally appropriate for incorporation and would not be “self-sustaining cities.” Response: LAFCO AGREES -22 Investigation of the Impact of Land

F4: While many government services in the unincorporated area can be financed through the formation of special districts, other services such as law enforcement impose a significant burden on county finances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES

F5: The lack of an extensive commercial retail base also creates challenges for funding the necessary development and maintenance of infrastructure for the large residential areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES

F6: Because of this, the county has made extensive use of its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to improve neglected infrastructure in Live Oak and Soquel. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The County adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Live Oak and Soquel areas in 1987 was not due to the lack of commercial base in the area. It was mostly due to other circumstances, including: a. the rapid rate of urbanization of the Live Oak and Soquel communities following the passage of Measure J, which directed the majority of new growth into the urban areas; b. delayed community support for the need for urban services in the area as development patterns changed; and c. the impact of Proposition 13 causing new residential development to not pay its fair share for services. If the area had contained larger commercial areas that generated higher tax revenues, those revenues would have improved the County’s ability to provide services to the areas. But it is unlikely that tax revenues would have been high enough to support the cost of the needed infrastructure improvements. Response: LAFCO AGREES

F7: Because a significant portion of the property tax revenues in Live Oak and Soquel are thus committed to servicing the debt accumulated by the county’s RDA, incorporation or annexation of these areas would encounter further difficulties in the next 10 years until this debt can be paid off or manageably assumed by some other party. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Investigation of the Impact of Land -23 The County disagrees in part with the finding. To the extent that the existence of a redevelopment agency and its related debt accumulation serves as a disincentive to incorporation or annexation, it is not clear how that will change in the next 10 years. Most likely any current disincentive will continue, barring a change in the current tax structure, until the agency’s debt has been substantially reduced, which will be in 20-30 years. Response: LAFCO AGREES

F8: The political reorganization of the central county is not a new issue. Prior to the annexation of the western half of Life Oak to the City of Capitola, LAFCO commissioned a study of the options available. Many of the issues have not changed and the study’s recommendations would be a useful starting place. Unfortunately, the report was completed in 1969 and is sorely out of date. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County is unclear as to the meaning of “a useful starting place.” Otherwise, the County agrees with this finding. Response: LAFCO AGREES The report titled “Mid-Santa Cruz County to Seek a Shape for the Future” is available for review at the LAFCO office and is out of date.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: LAFCO should commission a study of the available options for the political reorganization of the residential communities of the central county. An analysis of actions taken in similar regions should play a large role in this examination. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County cannot respond to this recommendation because the County does not direct LAFCO activities. Response: City of Capitola This requires further analysis. Should LAFCO determine to undertake such a study, the City of Capitola will participate, and make comments and recommendations, based upon the results of such a study. Response: City of Santa Cruz Investigation of the Impact of Land -29 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is not likely that the City would be an interested party to such a process. Response: City of Scotts Valley This recommendation has not been implemented, but should LAFCO begin such a study, the City of Scotts Valley would participate and provide data required by LAFCO. Response: LAFCO Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable, with an explanation. This recommendation is neither unwarranted nor unreasonable, but we chose that particular response category to be frank concerning the resources that LAFCO has available and the work program we anticipate for the next two years. LAFCO, with a full-time staff of two, is now completing its review of a proposal by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to expand its sphere of influence to include Felton. The next project on the work program is the Countywide Service Review, which LAFCO is required by state law to complete by January 1, 2006. This review will evaluate all municipal services (fire, water, sewer, parks, etc.) in all communities of the county. It will quantitatively compare the services, and therefore would be a good baseline study from which a mid-county reorganization study could later be based if there is sufficient interest. Measure U, which was passed by the voters of Watsonville in November 2002, directs the City Council to revise its general plan and to apply to LAFCO for a series of annexations. This type of proposal is unprecedented in California, and LAFCO will need to work carefully on both its duty to conduct a fair hearing on the annexations, and to craft any approval that will cover a twenty year time period. Also, in advance of the next drought, LAFCO wants to review its water policies in an effort to adopt clearer public policy concerning municipal annexations, water agency annexations, and reorganization of water services. LAFCO is funded 1/3 by the County, 1/3 by the Cities, and 1/3 by the Independent Special Districts. Many of these agencies are finding it difficult to maintain services at levels that the community residents have become accustomed. LAFCO with its duties to regulate city and district boundaries is a good lead agency for intergovernmental reorganization studies. LAFCO would consider taking the lead in a central county reorganization study if sufficient interest were demonstrated by residents and affected governmental boards, and funding were identified.

F9: Historically, the land available to develop the potential retail base necessary to support the mid-county area was a part of the County’s jurisdiction. In the early 1970’s, after considerable conflict and discussion among local jurisdictions, this area, located in the western portion of Live Oak, was annexed by the City of Capitola, and developed as the 41st Avenue mall. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES General Conclusions

F10: The development of the commercial areas necessary to support these unincorporated residential areas would not benefit the region as a whole as they would compete with other previously existing commercial developments. Investigation of the Impact of Land -25

F11: The future political organization of the central county residential communities is of great importance to the coming financial condition of the county and to the quality of life of the residents of these communities. Decisions should not be made without a thorough examination of all available options.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with LAFCO and the cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley, should revisit the political organization of the central part of the county. While it is tempting to recommend the immediate incorporation of Live Oak into the City of Capitola for the beneficial effects it is likely to have on both jurisdictions, the issues -30 Investigation of the Impact of Land related to this step are truly and understandably daunting. However, this is an important issue impacting on the long-term development of the county and should be examined thoroughly. Specifically, the feasibility of the various options for reorganization should be committed to extensive study and fully presented for public discussion and input. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will not implement this recommendation because it is unreasonable. Until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, a thorough examination of this issue is very difficult. Response: City of Capitola This requires further analysis. If the county were to take the lead in such a study, the City of Capitola will participate, and make comments and recommendations. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented. It is not likely that the City of Santa Cruz would be an interested party to such a process. Response: City of Scotts Valley This recommendation has not been implemented, but should such a study go forward, the City of Scotts Valley would participate and provide necessary data to the extent required by the lead agency doing the study. Response: LAFCO Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable, with an explanation. This recommendation is not unreasonable. As explained in our response to Recommendation 4 on -12, LAFCO is using its limited resources to accomplish the high-priority items on its work program. If many residents and the

F12: One or more of the mid-county areas and particularly Live Oak could be annexed to adjacent cities.

F13: The areas located between Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley could be annexed to either or both of these cities.

F14: Alternatively, a number of these areas and possibly previously existing cities could be reformed into a larger city with city government based on community representation following the City of Fremont model. General Recommendations

F15: Strategic plans seek to match general land use decisions with expected future demands for services by identifying the specific goals for economic development necessary to meet these expected service demands. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola MOSTLY DISAGREES In our opinion, this statement seems to say that strategic plans are all about efforts to attract economic development so that local governments receive revenues (such as sales taxes) to pay for services. In our opinion, it is not accurate to define strategic plans so narrowly. A strategic plan is a way to articulate and adopt a strategy for achieving a goal, whatever that goal may be. For example, a community could adopt a strategic plan for developing a residential community within an existing commercial corridor, or a strategic plan for downtown revitalization, or a strategic plan for preserving agricultural lands and support industries. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The content of the strategic plan depends on local goals and doesn’t necessarily need to match up specific services with specific economic development goals. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES -14 Investigation of the Impact of Land 16. As an added benefit, to encourage implementation of the general or strategic plan, some jurisdictions have required relevant city or county departments to identify in their annual budget statements the actions they are taking to implement these goals and policies. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES That is not the case in the City of Santa Cruz. Certain goals of the General Plan were not expected to be achieved during the life of the plan. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES 17. At least one local city manager has repeatedly, over a number of years, recommended the adoption of a strategic plan to deal with the anticipated revenue short falls we are currently experiencing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola City Council disagrees. The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The Council does not know who the antecedent to “we” is. The current City Manager of the City of Capitola has made no such request. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES While we cannot comment about other local city managers, it is a fact that the Santa Cruz City Manager has repeatedly communicated the need for fiscal stability with respect to economic development. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville We have no knowledge of this.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should amend their general plans to include a strategic plan. These strategic plans should include goals for economic development calculated to meet the revenue demands necessary to provide the level of services expected by their citizens. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the addition of such a plan to the General Plan or re-structuring the format and presentation of the existing General Plan at the time that the next update to the General Plan is initiated. However, until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, it is difficult to consider the expenditure of public funds on further plans. Response: City of Capitola MOSTLY DISAGREES In our opinion, decisions about whether this type of strategic plan would be desirable should be a decision of each local government, based on conditions, priorities, and communications with residents. There are a variety of ways of planning to ensure that revenues/resources are available to meet service demands, and reliance on planning for economic development to provide is an unnecessarily narrow approach. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City’s General Plan will include an Economic Development Element that addresses these issues. -26 Investigation of the Impact of Land Response: City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley has implemented this recommendation, but in a different way than suggested by the Grand Jury and disagree that economic development alone can provide all of the revenues needed to provide the services demanded by the community. The Scotts Valley City Council adopted an Economic Development Plan in 1996. Although not a part of the General Plan, the Economic Development Plan focuses on balancing land uses and businesses to assist in providing needed services within the community. This Plan provides mechanisms to reduce sales tax leakages caused by residents shopping for certain retail items outside of our City. The ability of a City to achieve specific budgetary goals via economic development may not always be possible. Each city is greatly influenced by demographic factors which the City may or may not be able to control. The business and retail sector make choices about how and where they locate, these decisions are not easily influenced by local government. Without having the “right demographic profile” a jurisdiction cannot influence a needed business to locate there if the business knows that they cannot be financially viable. This has been a key struggle for Scotts Valley due to our current number of residents, the topography of the area, which limits development (and the number of persons within a geographic area) and, the proximity to other retail corridors such as 41st Avenue which is the desired location for most major retailers who choose to locate in the County of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City of Watsonville has a separate Strategic Plan which the covers the need for economic development within the City. The City also continues to evaluate the current balance of Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Agriculturally zones land. This balance is somewhat of a moving target in that the activity in, and demand for, any of these uses is constantly changing and is difficult to predict. This balance of uses is a major consideration whenever requests for rezoning are received. We also believe that due to the changing nature of the economy that the strategic plan should not be adopted within the general plan, but as a separate document and subject to continual review and revision

R2: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should require relevant departments to identify, in their annual budget statements, the steps they are taking to implement the goals and policies outlined in their general plans. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The County budget instructions direct each department to provide a brief overview of the major purposes and functions of the department and to list the major programs and services. These descriptions include workload statistics and narrative descriptions of the affected departments’ efforts to implement the General Plan. Investigation of the Impact of Land -27 Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City Council of the City of Capitola agrees that annual reporting of progress with implementation of General Plan goals and policies is a good idea. Presently, the Capitola Budget includes a section for each department for providing notes about recent and current projects of the departments. Further, the City’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission each year for consistency with the General Plan. A more elaborate reporting on all of the General Plan goals and policies is probably best done as a document separate from the budget, such as the Annual Report on the General Plan, which is required by section 65400(b)(1) of the state Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. City departments do not make “annual budget statements.” Appropriate reports are issued on an as-needed and requested basis. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley has adopted a Mission Statement for the City which is part of the General Plan. Each year the City Council, prior to the budget process, adopts goals and objectives that facilitate the Mission Statement of the City. Once those are established, the resources are provided for during the budget process. In addition, the City of Scotts Valley annually reviews compliance with the General Plan Goals and Policies and this review is concluded at a City Council meeting, with adoption of a resolution. The progress is then reported to the State of California as required by law. This review is done in conjunction with the budget process. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES The City of Watsonville requires that each Capital Improvement Project item include a description of its relevance to meeting the general plan requirements. Jurisdiction Specific Recommendations

F18: Most areas in this county are considered to be low revenue generating jurisdictions. Investigation of the Impact of Land -15 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without additional information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear what is meant by “low revenue generating”, and in what way or manner an “area in this County” is defined. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES There is a significant amount of revenue-generating activity within the incorporated areas. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES We are unclear as to the meaning of low revenue generating. Certainly the City of Capitola, from a sales tax generation perspective, exceeds the revenue of other jurisdictions.

Page 13

F19: Conversely, many areas of the county demand a high level of government services for geographical reasons and the values and desires of the community. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without additional information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear or defined any measure of high or low government service levels, and the “geographical reasons” are undefined and unknown. It is further unclear from the report the manner in which the values and demands of the community relate to the desire for services. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES -16 Investigation of the Impact of Land 20. Resulting attempts by local jurisdictions to boost revenue derived from retail development often put neighboring jurisdictions in competition with each other. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors It is true that such situations can occur, but without specific information, the County has no basis for agreeing or disagreeing with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear the “specific attempts to boost revenue”, nor have they made clear the manner, specifically, in which jurisdictions are competing with each other for retail development. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES City of Santa Cruz Findings 1. The citizens of the City Santa Cruz generally demand a high level of services. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES 2. Interviews with local government and business leaders indicate that the City of Santa Cruz has a reputation for being hostile to business development Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES This is a perceived perspective that is a result of land use decisions for controversial projects. However, the City has maintained efforts to counter this perspective with its retention and recruitment programs.

Page 14

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Ancillary to the development of its strategic plan, the City of Watsonville, as well as other jurisdictions, should assess and communicate to educational institutions that serve its children the skills expected to be required in order for graduates to fully participate in the anticipated future economic development of the region. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The development of our youth’s skills to meet the demands of today’s job market is a major part of the City’s Strategic Plan. To this end, the City has developed a close working relationship with the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD). The City worked extensively for the creation of the Cabrillo College Watsonville Campus and for development of Pajaro Valley High School. The City has also assisted the PVUSD’s Adult School by leasing and selling City properties to ensure the Adult School is kept in the downtown area. The City believes that the Grand Jury should encourage the educational community to become more pro-active in assessing the career training needs of the student population and to formulate programs with the input of other private and public sector institutions to meet the economic development needs within the region.

January 29, 2004 — Review of Options to Improve Transportation in Santa Cruz County

52 pages 22 findings 23 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: Widening of Hwy 1 has been a topic of discussion before the Transportation Commission since 1986. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Hwy 1 Widening Projects should continue to be the Transportation Commission’s highest priority project. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation continues to be the policy of the RTC.

F2: In a 1999 Transportation Commission survey of county residents, 72 percent of those surveyed supported widening Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES The SCCRTC administered public opinion polls of likely voters in 1999 and 2002. Both polls asked how much need likely voters felt there was for widening and improving Highway 1. The 1999 poll found that those expressing a “great need” and “some need” combined equaled 76%. Those categories for the 2002 poll equaled 79%.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz should improve Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive. The improvements should include expanding the streets to be two lanes in each direction with left hand turn lanes where possible, no stops signs, limited stop lights and eliminate right lanes that force the driver to make a right turn. The improvements on Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive should be from the intersection of Mission Street/Chestnut Street to Aptos Village. The improvements to this corridor should be started as soon as possible to help alleviate additional congestion during the Hwy 1 Widening Project. The City of Santa Cruz should approve and fund the project to improve the “Weave” intersection on Soquel/Water Street before construction begins on Hwy 1. The City should promote Soquel Avenue as an alternative to Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission -8 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses The SCCRTC supports operational improvements to major arterials to improve mobility for all modes of transportation, including completion of the bicycle lane network along Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive. It is the purview of the City and County of Santa Cruz, and other cities for their areas, to propose improvements on local streets and roads for funding, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. At this time, due to state and federal budget constraints and the RTC’s policy of Highway 1 Widening priority, few funds are available for programming to new projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Council The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The existing traffic pattern was implemented approximately 15 years ago and improved the operation and safety of that intersection four-fold. A master plan for the eastside has been completed and addresses further improvements in the future as funding becomes available. Soquel Avenue does act as an alternative to Highway 1 as congestion increases on Highway 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. See attached memo dated August 1, 2003, from the Department of Public Works.

F3: In the 2002 United Way Community Assessment Project, Santa Cruz County residents ranked traffic as the number one issue that takes away from the quality of life in this county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The ballot measure sponsored by the Transportation Commission should keep the half cent sales tax increase for the full 30 years and use all of the funds for transportation projects in the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will be considered by the RTC during its deliberations on the proposed tax measure, Expenditure Plan, and Financial Plan. The RTC will make a determination on the final Financial Plan for the proposed measure in

F4: The Transportation Commission has ranked the Hwy 1 Widening Project as the number one priority for the commission. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES Review of Options to Improve -3 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Transportation Commission should form a Commuter Committee, similar to the Bicycle and the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committees, to focus on improving commuting to Santa Clara Valley and within the county, and to improve local road conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation is not warranted and will not be implemented. An evaluation of the SCCRTC committees in 2001 considered and rejected this suggestion. The majority of Regional Transportation Improvement Program funds, which includes all funding sources allocated by the SCCRTC, are designated for state highway projects and projects on local streets and roads Review of Options to Improve -17 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses (65%). Street and road advocates include most local residents, businesses, city and county public works departments, and Caltrans. These latter public entities and others form the Interagency Technical Advisory Committee which advises the SCCRTC on funding allocations.

F5: Construction on the current Hwy 1 was started in the 1950s and was completed in the early 1960s. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES The section from Freedom Blvd. to Airport Blvd. was improved to state highway standards and widened to add climbing lanes in 1972.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: This service should have a limited number of stations and the proposed stations should be Santa Cruz (Harvey West), Mid-County Area and South County Area. The stations should also serve as Park and Ride facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Review of Options to Improve Transportation -25 This recommendation requires further analysis and is not within the scope of the currently proposed recreational service. As noted in the response to Finding C-11, the number of stations depends on the type of rail service, technology used and purpose of the service (commuter/transit, recreational, etc.). In general, more stations make rail service accessible to more users; fewer stations allows for more express service between fewer destinations.

F6: The population of Santa Cruz County in 1950 was 66,534 and by 2000, increased by 284% to 255,602, almost 4 times the number of people. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The population in 1960 was 84,209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Transportation Commission should work with the TAMC, CalTrain, and ACE to determine which passenger train services could be implemented based on rider interest, economics, availability of trains and existing projects currently underway. Priority should be given to working with TAMC and CalTrain to bring CalTrain service to Santa Cruz on a daily basis. This project could piggyback on the work of TAMC and CalTrain to bring CalTrain service to Pajaro. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Santa Cruz county residents will have adequate access to the proposed CalTrain service at Pajaro.

F7: Hwy 1 and Hwy 17 experience average daily traffic volumes of 110,000 and 66,000 vehicles respectively. This traffic includes trips originating or ending in the county, not just trips within the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES These figures represent Caltrans 2001 average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts at the most heavily traveled section of the highways: for Highway 1 this section is between Soquel Avenue and Morrissey Boulevard and for Highway 17 between Highway 1 and Pasatiempo. Average annual daily traffic is the total volume for the year divided by 365 days. The traffic count year is from October 1st through September 30th. Very few locations in California are actually counted continuously. Traffic counting is generally performed by electronic counting instruments moved from location throughout the State in a program of continuous traffic count sampling. The resulting counts are adjusted to an estimate of annual average daily traffic by compensating for seasonal influence, weekly variation and other variables that may be present.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Transportation Commission should create a rail set-aside fund dedicated to rail projects in the county. A portion of the revenue from the half cent increase sales tax increase should be put into the rail set-aside fund. This portion should be at least 5% or $50 million over the 30 year life-time of the sales tax increase. The rail set-aside fund, combined with matching Federal and State grants, could generate $100 million for rail projects in Santa Cruz County. The rail set-aside fund should be included in the 2004 ballot measure for the half sales tax increase. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission The SCCRTC will consider this recommendation as it develops the Expenditure Plan for the proposed transportation sales tax measure.

F8: Under the current proposals construction on the first phase of widening Hwy 1 (aka Hwy 1/17 Merge Lanes) will start in 2004, 50 years after the start of construction on the current Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES -4 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Current State fiscal constraints may affect funding availability for many transportation projects statewide, including the Highway 1/17 Interchange Merge Lanes project.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Transportation Commission should conduct additional train service demonstrations within the next 12 months. The demonstrations could be conducted using equipment borrowed from existing commuter train services like CalTrain or ACE. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation cannot be implemented without the consent of Union Pacific, current owners of the rail property. Recent efforts to bring the Colorado Railcar’s new Diesel Multiple Unit to Santa Cruz County were not successful due to Union Pacific policies.

F9: Elected officials in the City of Santa Cruz consider the Mission Street Widening Project a success. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission The City of Santa Cruz can confirm this finding. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES Additional landscaping, street lighting, and utility undergrounding are underway to improve the aesthetics and safety.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Transportation Commission should create a Passenger Rail committee similar to the Bicycle and Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committees. This committee should examine how Santa Cruz County can support CalTrain service to Pajaro and how to extend passenger train service to Santa Cruz County. -26 Review of Options to Improve Transportation Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. See response to Recommendation B-4. In the past, the RTC had a Rail Oversight Committee, which later became the MTIS Oversight Committee, and which then became the current Transportation Policy Workshop of the RTC. This monthly RTC Workshop reviews a range of issues pertinent to major projects such as Highway 1, rail planning and related tasks. If consistent with its planning programs, the RTC may consider such a committee in the future.

F10: The Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor extends from Mission Street in Santa Cruz to Aptos Village and parallels Hwy 1. The lane configuration varies from 2 to 4 lanes in numerous places along the route, has numerous stop lights and stop signs, has right lanes that force the driver to make a right turn, and a confusing intersection at Morrissey Boulevard, Soquel Avenue, and Water Street which is called the “Weave.” The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz have made improvements in numerous sections on this corridor in the last few years. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding as it pertains to its own jurisdiction, but cannot comment on those portions that pertain to other jurisdictions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Interviewed members of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation

F11: Santa Cruz County and the cities in the county have a backlog of hundreds of unfunded transportation projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan includes over 225 projects identified by local jurisdictions and agencies which could be constructed only if new funding sources become available. Review of Options to Improve -5 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: Surveyed Soquel Avenue and Water Street.

F12: The Transportation Commission currently plans to put a measure on the November 2004 ballot to approve a 30-year, half cent sales tax increase to support transportation projects in Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES It is not yet determined which agency will actually sponsor the ballot measure, the SCCRTC or the County Board of Supervisors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: Reviewed articles in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and Good Times.

F13: The half cent sales tax increase is expected to generate over $1 billion in revenue over 30 years, $506 million for the Hwy 1 Widening Project debt service and $580 million for other transportation projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The Preliminary Financial Plan assumes an accelerated schedule for the Highway 1 Widening/HOV project and passage of the November 2004 ½ cent sales tax measure.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: Interviewed the Executive Director and staff of the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE).

F14: For the first 12 to 15 years of the sales tax increase, the current proposal is to apply 90% of the sales tax increase to pay the debt for the Hwy 1 Widening Projects. The remaining funds will be used for other transportation projects in the County. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: Reviewed budget and background information on the Altamont Commuter Express train.

F15: The Transportation Commission is debating an alternative proposal to end the half cent sales tax increase after 15 years when the debt for the Hwy 1 Widening Project will be paid, instead of the proposed 30 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY DISAGREES The County Administrative Office has determined that 15 years would not be enough time to generate sufficient funds for the Highway 1 project and pay off the bond debt. An alternative Financial Plan scenario under earlier consideration was to reduce the sales tax rate from 0.5 cents to 0.375 cents in 2017 and to 0.25 cents in 2025; this scenario would leave few if any funds for other projects. The full term of the declining tax would still be 30 years. The Preliminary Financial Plan for the proposed tax measure will be finalized in 2004. -6 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Reviewed the Transportation Commission 1998 Around the Bay Rail Study.

F16: The current schedule and cost estimates for the Hwy 1 Widening Projects using the Accelerated Schedule from the Transportation Commission are: Hwy 1 Widening Hwy 1/17 Hwy 1 Widening Extension to Larkin Merge Lanes HOV Lanes Valley/San Andreas Roads $52 M $263 M $89 M Cost Estimate Fully Funded Not Funded Not Funded Construction Spring 2004 2007 TBD Begins Construction 2006 2010-11 2015-16 Complete Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES The beginning construction date for the Hwy 1/17 Interchange Merge Lanes project is currently scheduled for Fall 2004, although as mentioned earlier, this date may be affected by California’s fiscal crisis; construction is estimated to take three years. Costs for all projects are in 2002-03 dollars, not escalated costs based on the year of construction. One of the first tasks for the Highway 1 Widening/HOV project environmental review consultants will be to develop information regarding the cost and timing for improvements beyond State Park Drive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: Attended the May 1, 2003, Transportation Commission Public Hearing on Santa Cruz Branch Line Acquisition

F17: Successful ballot initiatives to raise taxes for transportation projects, like Measure K in San Joaquin County, Measure B in Alameda County and Measure A in Santa Clara County required extensive voter education campaigns. Currently, there is confusion among residents of this county concerning the Hwy 1 Widening Projects and organizations opposing the project have begun campaigning against it. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES The RTC oversees an ongoing broad public information program for its major projects and programs, including Highway 1 projects. Transportation planning and programming processes and decision-making are complex. Public agencies, by state law, are prohibited from participating in ballot measure campaigns, or from expending public resources for campaign purposes. The SCCRTC intends to provide informational material on the proposed ballot measure consistent with state and federal law, including the RTC’s position on the measure and factual information. Review of Options to Improve -7 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Conclusions

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: Attended the March 30, 2003, TAMC Public meeting on the Pajaro Train Station. Review of Options to Improve Transportation -45

F19: Surveyed the Park and Ride lots in Santa Cruz County.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: Surveyed the Park and Ride lots in Santa Cruz County.

F20: Interviewed the Mayor of Scotts Valley.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

R20: Interviewed the Mayor of Scotts Valley.

F21: Interviewed the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer for the City of Santa Cruz.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

R21: Interviewed the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer for the City of Santa Cruz.

F22: Interviewed the Director and Staff of the UCSC Planning Dept.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

R22: Interviewed the Director and Staff of the UCSC Planning Dept.

F23: Interviewed the Director of the Capitola Public Works Dept. -46 Review of Options to Improve Transportation Appendix B: County Board of Supervisors Response COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: August 1, 2003 TO: Susan Mauriello, County Administrative Officer FROM: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY INQUIRIES ON TRANSPORTATION The Department of Public Works has been asked to provide responses to two transportation related items associated with the County of Santa Cruz Grand Jury 2002-2003 report. The items include an update on proposed improvements to the Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor that parallels Highway 1, and potential improvements for the 41st Avenue and Highway 1 intersection. Highway 1 Corridor – Parallel Route The Grand Jury has identified the congestion on the Highway 1 corridor to be the most significant transportation issue in Santa Cruz County. Recent voter surveys undertaken by the Regional Transportation Commission had echoed that finding. The emphasis of the Grand Jury’s recommendation is that the City and the County of Santa Cruz should improve the Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor between the city of Santa Cruz and Aptos Village, since it serves as the parallel route to the Highway 1 corridor. These two street segments pass within the city of Santa Cruz and the unincorporated areas of Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos. Because the widening of Highway 1 is anticipated to be several years away, the Grand Jury has determined that it would be beneficial to have this parallel route improved in order to provide some congestion relief from the Highway 1 corridor as soon as possible and for potential detours associated with the actual construction of the Highway 1 widening project. While the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has not indicated that they expect to detour traffic onto local streets, it is likely that all of our local east/west arterials will be impacted. Accordingly, the Grand Jury has recommended several traffic operational improvements throughout this corridor with the main objective of having two travel lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes where possible, no stop signs, and a limited number of stop lights (traffic signals). Review of Options to Improve Transportation -47 SUSAN MAURIELLO Page –2- The Department of Public Works anticipates several projects to be constructed within the next calendar year along this corridor including two traffic signals on Soquel Drive at the Winkle Avenue and Dover Drive/Mattison Lane intersections. These improvements will eliminate two existing stop-sign controlled intersections from this corridor. In addition, another traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of Soquel Drive at Fairway Drive to provide pedestrian and vehicular operational improvements. Each new traffic signal will have exclusive left-turn lanes and protected phases for Soquel Drive traffic. These three traffic signals are currently in design and are expected to be under construction by spring 2004. Public Works will be coordinating traffic signal timing from the Highway 1/Soquel Drive interchange to 41st Avenue. Once the new traffic signals are constructed, the department will have a coordinated plan to accommodate morning, noon, and evening peak period traffic flows. The traffic signals in Soquel Village are already coordinated, as are the two traffic signals fronting Cabrillo College. The two intersections located at Soquel Drive/Rodeo Gulch Road and Soquel Drive/Main Street are the only traffic signals along this corridor that presently cannot accommodate left-turn lanes. Traffic signal operations at these two intersections will be evaluated to determine if these movements can be modified to accommodate protected left turns during the evening and morning peak periods. There are significant physical constraints (the bridge over Rodeo Gulch and buildings in Soquel Village) that will not allow the addition of left-turn lanes at either of these intersections. The Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor does have two lanes in each direction between the city of Santa Cruz and State Park Drive in Aptos, with the exception of westbound Soquel Drive in Soquel Village between Main Street and Daubenbiss Avenue. This segment of Soquel Drive only has one through lane westbound due to the physical constraints between Porter Street and Daubenbiss Avenue. It would be necessary to eliminate bike lanes and parking between Porter Street and Daubenbiss Avenue to provide the necessary width to accommodate an additional westbound through lane, but the overall performance of the intersection may not necessarily improve, and the Soquel Village community would not support such changes. The critical evening peak period direction of traffic flow is in the eastbound direction and Soquel Drive does have two through lanes in this direction. -48 Review of Options to Improve Transportation SUSAN MAURIELLO Page -3- The only stop-controlled intersection that will remain along the four-lane roadway segment between the city of Santa Cruz and State Park Drive is the Soquel Drive/Robertson Street intersection just east of 41st Avenue near Soquel Village. This intersection has been identified in previous studies as meeting warrants for a traffic signal, but it is not currently scheduled for improvements. A significant amount of right-of-way would be necessary to accommodate a new traffic signal. In addition, a circulation study would be required to determine the extent of the improvements for Robertson Street, since this roadway has severe topographical constraints. The right-of-way and financial constraints associated with this overall improvement project have delayed any action to this point. It is anticipated that the Department of Public Works will be proceeding with preliminary studies for this area in the near future. The roadway segment of Soquel Drive south of State Park Drive has only one lane in each direction. The historic bridge over Aptos Creek and the grade-separated train crossing at Spreckels Drive restrict the potential to increase the through lanes on Soquel Drive into Aptos Village. The Planning Department is currently in the community planning process to evaluate potential land uses in the Aptos Village core area. The Department of Public Works has hired a traffic engineering consultant to analyze the traffic impacts of alternative land uses. The conclusion of the traffic report recommended two additional traffic signals on Soquel Drive at Aptos Creek Road serving the County park and Nisene Marks State Park, as well as at Trout Gulch Road. The southbound Soquel Drive approach to Aptos Creek Road would also have to be widened to accommodate an exclusive left-turn lane. A left-turn lane on Soquel Drive at Trout Gulch Road already exists. In conclusion, the Department of Public Works expects three additional traffic signals to be constructed on Soquel Drive within the next calendar year with significant enhancements to the traffic signal coordination throughout this corridor. In addition, the intersections of Soquel Drive/Rodeo Gulch Road and Soquel Drive/Main Street will be evaluated for modifications to initiate protected left-turn phasing. The remaining stop sign controlled intersection of Soquel Drive/Robertson Street will be evaluated in conjunction with future improvements to Robertson Street. Review of Options to Improve Transportation -49 SUSAN MAURIELLO Page -4- 41st Avenue and Highway 1 Intersection The Grand Jury has made a finding that the above referenced intersection is often severely congested along 41st Avenue and it can take several minutes and multiple red lights for a motorist to drive south on 41st Avenue from Soquel Drive to the Capitola Mall. An additional finding indicates that the three traffic signals at this intersection are controlled by CALTRANS and are not well coordinated.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

R23: Interviewed the Director of the Capitola Public Works Dept. -46 Review of Options to Improve Transportation

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R18: Interviewed the Executive Director and staff of the Santa Cruz Transit District (METRO).

January 29, 2004 — Detention Facility Inspections Pursuant to Penal Code 919(b), the Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

January 29, 2004 — Grand Jury Investigation of County Procedures for Determining Fees and Assigning Cost of Local Government Services

18 pages 12 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: In general, the county department or agency responsible for providing the government service being charged for formulates the fees. The results of this formulation are then forwarded to the County Administrative Officer who reviews and compiles a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for modification to the counties “Unified Fee Schedule.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES County Procedures for Determining Fees -59

F2: The “Unified Fee Schedule” is adopted by the Board of Supervisors and constitutes the direct legal authority for a department or agency to recover its cost through the collection of fees from the “beneficiary” of the service provided. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that most fees charged by the County do not fully recover the costs of providing the service, but rather recover a portion of the costs expended in providing a service.

F3: In general, the amount charged as a fee is limited by law to an amount required to recover the cost expended in providing the service to the beneficiary who is charge the fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The fees charged for many County services are statutory and cannot be amended by the County. Those that are not governed by statute cannot exceed the cost of providing the service.

F4: In practice, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department other than the County Planning Department. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County Planning Department, like other departments, does not recover fees to cover the cost of service delivery.

F5: Therefore, revisions to existing fees are often based on some “reasonable” adjustment to the current fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F6: These adjustments to prior fees are sometimes based on factors unrelated to the actual costs being recovered such as the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding that adjustments are sometimes related to the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions, but believes that these factors are related to the costs being recovered and are appropriate in determining fees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Unless required by some outside authority, the Board of Supervisors should not approve proposals for adjustments to fees based on factors unrelated to the actual cost being recovered. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is already in place.

F7: The fee increase form or worksheet used by county departments to request adjustment or additions to the fee schedule, does not specifically identify the cost that are being recovered by the indicated fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES -60 County Procedures for Determining Fees On the fee worksheet, departments must cite the authority under which the fee can be charged, indicate whether the fee is mandatory, and describe the services for which the fee will be charged. Sufficient information is provided to the Board of Supervisors to justify the recommended fee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County Administrative Office should improve its fee request form to require a worksheet attachment that specifically identifies the cost being recovered. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be partially implemented. The County will add a section to the fee form to assure that the fee does not exceed the cost of the service delivered. However, as the Grand Jury pointed out, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department. The County has elected to subsidize various services for the public’s benefit. For instance, if the Health Services Agency charged fees sufficient to cover their costs, their clients would not be able to afford to seek services. Likewise, if the Swim Center charged participants the full cost of the pool, few people would swim there. Because most fees are set by statute, and many fees cannot be expected to cover the actual costs of the services provided, it is doubtful that preparing additional worksheets would be useful.

F8: Public frustration with and confusion about planning department fees are one of the most important challenges facing the planning department. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The fees associated with the processing of ministerial permit applications, such as building permit applications or over-the-counter plumbing or electrical permits, typically are very simple, straight-forward, and easy to understand fee calculations that do not present problems for members of the public wanting to obtain these types of permits. The majority of fees fall into this category. However, fees associated with the processing and review of discretionary permit applications have at times been a significant source of confusion for some members of the public. The Board of Supervisors, in connection with the adoption of the County’s FY 2003-04 budget, directed the Planning Department to implement a phased conversion of its current method of fee collection to a largely “At Cost” collection procedure. The Board also authorized funds in the Planning Department’s budget to undertake a study of the department’s fees during FY 2003-04. The Planning Department is currently reviewing its cost estimate worksheets, billing invoice forms and related materials for the purpose of clarifying assumptions and explanations that provide the basis of fee costs or estimates. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City Council of the City of Capitola disagrees with this finding as it may be applied to the City of Capitola Planning Department. Recently the City conducted a voter survey of 351 residents, none of whom commented on the Planning Department fees. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City has a clearly written fee schedule for planning-related activities. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES The issue of fees can be confusing and most concerns raised are not about “processing” fees but impact fees, which have a greater burden than processing fees on most projects. We agree that more clarity as to the purpose of fees and the amounts charged would improve relationships with our customers for all fees charged, not just for the planning process Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES County Procedures for Determining Fees -61 The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City has printed fee schedules that are available to the public and City Staff is not aware of confusion related to fees.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: To improve public confidence in Planning Department fee structures, the County Administrative Officer and each City Manager should require a “from scratch” analysis of all fees for Planning department services during the next regularly scheduled review cycle. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be implemented. As previously indicated, the County Planning Department is presently implementing a phased conversion of its fee collection system to a largely at cost arrangement fee collection system. In connection with the project, the department is reviewing ways to increase clarity and understanding regarding how fee estimates are determined. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the reservation of funds in the Planning Department’s budget to conduct a fee study during Fiscal year 2003-04. The Planning Department reviews its fees on an annual basis and will continue to do so. The County cannot speak for cities. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation will not be implemented because of the following reasons: 1) It is unfounded. At no time has the City of Capitola received any information that its fees were unreasonable. 2) The meaning of “from scratch” is unclear. 3) The City has just implemented a cost recovery system for planning fees that is based on actual time spent on processing applications for development. -64 County Procedures for Determining Fees Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation requires further analysis. This idea will be considered over the next six months and then a determination will be made about the timetable of implementing an analysis of this nature. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City implemented this finding when our fee structure was reviewed in 1991. In 1991, the fees were established based upon a detailed analysis of processing times for specific types of permits. An updated comprehensive analysis is proposed over the next fiscal year, if enough cases are filed to allow for adequate review. Adequate time to develop a cost basis for each fee is critical for such an evaluation to be accurate. This analysis will be “from scratch” analyzing each fee and the actual time required to process each type of permit. In order to ensure the fees are reasonable, a minimum number of similar cases must be reviewed. Depending on the cases analyzed, the City may update the fee schedule in phases as enough historical data becomes available to have the “from scratch” data available. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City of Watsonville has recently completed a detailed assessment of its fees with the assistance of Maximus Consulting. We are confident in the analysis and have implemented changes accordingly. We cannot speak to other jurisdiction fees.

R5: The detailed cost basis for each planning department fee should be identified and made available for public review at each planning department office. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Project sponsors who have their permit application processed at cost are provided a detailed cost breakdown of services provided, including time allocated by position. When the department completes implementation of the phased conversion of fee categories to the single at cost arrangement method, project sponsors will uniformly receive detailed cost breakdowns of fees applied to their permit applications. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation is in the process of implementation and should be complete within the next three months, in the form of assessing the results of the new cost recovery based approach to planning fees. Response: City of Santa Cruz County Procedures for Determining Fees -65 The recommendation requires further analysis. Along with the analysis of the fee schedule (above), this idea will also be reviewed within the next six months. However, it should be noted that to implement this properly would require a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis and may be beyond the capacity of local governments right now. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES The City has implemented this recommendation. We have made our 1991 study available to those who request documentation. However, upon completion of the updated comprehensive fee analysis discussed in response 4 above, a detailed cost basis for each fee can be provided. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City of Watsonville has adopted fees which are equal to, or less than, the actual cost of proving the service in accordance with state law. The report and recommendations are public documents. The vast majority of City Council-adopted fees are set well below the actual costs of providing service due to the implication on home owners and property owners and as an acknowledgement that a City’s General Fund bears some responsibility to cover a portion of costs related to City “ Police Powers”.

F9: Public dissatisfaction with the planing process and its expense leads to poor public compliance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County is not aware of any studies that support this finding, but agrees that it may be true to some unknown degree. There are members of the public who, because of their perceptions about the County’s planning process, have decided to build projects or implement land uses without obtaining the requisite permits. However, a variety of other reasons exist for people not obtaining permits. For example, many individuals indicate that they were unaware that a permit was required to do their project. When it is brought to their attention, and many times not at the urging of the County’s Code Compliance staff, they voluntarily make application to secure the necessary approval(s). Another reason that a person may build a structure or introduce a land use and may not want to obtain necessary approvals or permits is because the new structure or use will trigger an unwanted increase in the property’s assessed valuation, associated tax obligations, obligatory impact fees, etc. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES As a general rule if permit fees so far outpace expenses that they are unreasonable, the public will forego the permit process and risk the penalties for non-compliance. However, it is unclear how this matter relates to the City of Capitola or upon what evidence this finding was made. In Capitola we believe we have a very high degree of compliance. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The Santa Cruz Planning Department is not aware of public dissatisfaction regarding the planning process. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES The planning process and basis for the rules being applied needs to be clearly conveyed at all times in the process. The rules and regulations are complex, however, and often influenced by outside factors such as State and Federal laws. Therefore, local government does not always have the choice about how to apply regulations at another government level. This is particularly the case for issues related with the Endangered Species Act. We agree that the process can be confusing and difficult at times, especially when a case is controversial and where neighbors oppose a particular project. Often, local government is blamed for the controversy even though it is the private sector which opposes the development. A reasonable process to allow for public comment as well as a program to assist applicants is needed. Also, a paramount issue is to ensure that -62 County Procedures for Determining Fees planners uniformly apply rules in the same manner so that there is equity in the process. Reasonable access to persons with authority to make decisions is also necessary so that applicants can move forward through the process. We agree that trust in the process is very important to encourage compliance with the regulations. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City has continually worked to improve customer service and to acknowledge that growth is necessary for the financial and social health of the City. The City provides timely response and full service permit center that is open five days a week, nine hours a day. Conclusions

F10: Interest in challenging such charges is thought to increase during tight budgetary times. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES County departments are always concerned with the accuracy of the Plan.

F11: County departments are generally not allowed to seek outside alternatives even when the cost is significantly more than private sources.

F12: The experience of this year’s Grand Jury is illustrative: The Grand Jury, as with many county departments, is charge by the County Information Services Division for internet access and access to the county’s main frame on a per connection basis. The Grand Jury has little or no need to access the county mainframe. However, it is our understanding that if we objected to the charge for this access we would be disconnected from all access and the line item would be deleted from next year’s budget. Thus there is little or no incentive to object to this charge. Similarly, many Grand Jury members familiar with technology issues felt that the amount charged to the Grand Jury for computer assistance -68 County Procedures for Determining Fees and internet access was for beyond that available commercially. However, since this is an established process, our options seem to be to decline internet access entirely, to fight for outside access which would potentially limit our access to the county intranet, or to accept the current service as presented. Conclusions

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider the adoption of a “whistleblower program” to facilitate better accounting practices and internal controls within County Departments. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be considered when the Auditor-Controller submits his report and recommendations. 2. The County Auditor/Controller should submit to the Board of Supervisors proposals for further review of this and similar structures to determine; a. whether the problem is limited to this particular structure; and b. whether the problem is the result of merely inadequate internal controls or intentional misappropriation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will defer to the County Auditor-Controller to respond to this recommendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor/Controller -74 County Procedures for Determining Fees We agree with the recommendation. Our office is in the final phase of completing the investigation of cost accounting/timekeeping irregularities that reported in the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department. Our report will be filed with the Board of Supervisors upon completion and include appropriate recommendations. Our report will also recommend a “whistleblower” program, also known as a Hot Line intended for reporting indications of fraud, misuse of County resources by employees, vendors, or contractors; and significant violations of County policy. Examples of reportable offenses include: · Theft · Conflict of interest · Fictitious claims · Misuse of County property · Embezzlement · Bribes and kickbacks · Abuse of work hours · Inappropriate use of County credit cards The individuals will be afforded confidentiality and may choose to be anonymous. This program is not necessarily used to improve accounting procedures or internal controls but is a tool to detect abuses. Accounting procedures and internal controls will not in themselves prevent abuses where there is a willful intent or conspiracy to carry out a reportable offense. In addition, we believe that the County should provide information and training on ethics for public employee. I understand that the County’s conflict of interest and incompatable activities policies are currently being reviewed. This will provide an excellent opportunity to underscore the importance of ethics in government. Public employees are entrusted to be accountable for the expenditure of public money. Employees that are directed to participate in or carry out a reportable offense, need a process to report such incidents without the fear of reprisal or retribution. In 1984 the legislature created the Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities Act, and provided additional guidance in 1986. These Code Sections are attached. County Procedures for Determining Fees -75

January 29, 2004 — Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

6 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Some information was unnecessarily difficult to obtain. One committee began an investigation into the operations of the Information Services Department (ISD). They received substantial cooperation from the director and his department heads. At least they received substantial verbal cooperation and actually stumbled into the following problems: a) On occasion, requested materials from ISD were promised, but not delivered. Follow- up requests were ignored, stonewalled, routed through intermediaries or vetted through superiors. Requests for written responses were often ignored. Through this process, some responses were also lost entirely. We cannot report on the actual cause 1Grand Jurors are paid $15.00 per day whenever they convene for however long they convene. of some of these problems. Much of the feedback was informal and came from verbal sources. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County is not aware of requested material that was not provided to the Grand Jury. It is the County’s policy that all legal requests from the Grand Jury are to be provided in a timely fashion. b) Several Grand Jury members requested virtual private network (VPN) access to the County's internal network. They wanted this access to facilitate researching county operations and to make it possible to edit Grand Jury documents from home. The ISD department made unequivocal assurances that no security issue was involved. Nevertheless, after initial approvals, the requests were stonewalled, run around, deferred, ignored, even promised and then ultimately denied due to unspecified “concerns about security”. Pressing the issue was strongly discouraged due to the cost of the necessary “political capital”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors An initial positive verbal response was given to the Grand Jury regarding the request for remote access to the County’s computer systems. After further review, the request was denied in writing due to the County’s security concerns. The County does not anticipate or plan to provide VPN access to non-employees except for the highly restricted access authorized for certain vendors to support specific software products. The use of home computers which are not under the County’s control or supervision presents specific concerns regarding virus protection and firewalls. Anyone accessing the County’s network must have a virus free computer. Any persons using DSL or broadband for access to the internet must utilize a firewall between their home computer and their Internet Service Provider. VPN, coupled with persistent connection technologies such as DSL and broadband, provides continuous 24 hour internet connections that create the opportunity for hackers to probe home computers and potentially gain access to County networks. For these reasons, it remains inappropriate for the Information Services Department to authorize any expansion of VPN access to the County’s computer networks. The Grand Jury would like to make it clear that this situation is not the norm. There were many cases where people graciously bent over backwards to be helpful. The Grand Jury is pointing out situations that should not have happened. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County appreciates the comment and will continue efforts to work cooperatively with the Grand Jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: It would be extremely useful for the CAO, key department heads, and the Board of Supervisors to meet with the incoming Grand Jury at the start of each year. In this fashion, the leaders would have an opportunity to become acquainted with the people who will be conducting the investigations. People do communicate more freely with people they have met. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County leaders would be pleased to respond to all invitations from the Grand Jury to meet informally. Some years, the County staff has been requested to participate in Grand Jury orientation, and these efforts have been well received. The County Administrative Officer would welcome the opportunity to discuss how best to formalize such a procedure for the future.

F2: Access to the county's internal network is important and even crucial for efficient and effective research. Despite this, access was denied for several weeks. The reasoning, we were led to believe, was due to fears that Grand Jurors would break into private areas of the county internal network. However, the Grand Jury has the authority to investigate all areas of the County, whether on the network or not. In any case, access was removed with little notice and we weren't officially informed in writing until near the end of our term. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors ISD is responsible for safeguarding County computer resources, and by due diligence, requires a signed security agreement for access, and uniformly monitors all access. Access to the County’s internal network was provided as soon as the signed security agreements were received from the Grand Jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All county governmental employees should be encouraged to cooperate and communicate freely with the Jury and not have to worry about their jobs. The Grand Jury should be treated as a fully functional partner in Santa Cruz County governance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is already in place and will be reiterated.

F3: This incident was followed by a request that Grand Jurors sign a somewhat modified internet access form that contained language granting the ISD department authority to monitor all Grand Jury computer network activity. This conflicts with the confidentiality required by the oath taken by the Grand Jury members. Upon careful consideration of this language, many on the Grand Jury chose to uphold the oath and forego signing the form. Though it is difficult to imagine county ISD employees monitoring the Grand Jury, this explicit right has been asserted through all versions of the document presented so far. The Grand Jury is concerned about the county government's insistence on including this language in the form. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. As stated in a letter to the Grand Jury, the County of Santa Cruz has no intention of hindering or restricting the Grand Jury’s operations or investigations in any way and is committed to complete compliance with the legal responsibility to provide requested information to the Grand Jury. However, the County is also responsible for maintaining the security of its computer data and systems. To meet these disparate obligations, the County will provide all information requested by the Grand Jury in such a way as not to jeopardize computer system security.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Grand Jury needs a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee. It needs a confidential direct DSL line to an outside ISP. It will also save $150.00 per month in the Grand Jury budget. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation for a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee is already in place. The County could provide the Grand Jury with a separate DSL line, but this would prevent the Grand Jury from accessing the County intranet, which the 2002-03 Grand Jury required. The County will continue working with each Grand Jury to provide them with the computer resources needed to complete their efforts.

F4: The transfer of the financial administration of the Grand Jury from the Superior Court to the county had been planned for a number of years. Nevertheless, the County proved to be ill-prepared to handle the transfer. Worse, county staff exhibited little concern or responsibility for the problems created. Some bills were left unpaid for inordinate amounts of time and that led to significant inconveniences. As examples: a) It took nearly six months for some of the Jurors to be reimbursed for their training expenses and three months after submittal to be paid for most of the quarterly mileage and per diem expense reports. The primary cause of these delays was that the paperwork got lost and the subsequent failure to notify the Grand Jury about their loss. b) The post office box rental went unpaid until the Post Office sealed the box. This was inconvenient. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The Courts did not inform the County of their intention to transfer administration of the Grand Jury to the County until after the 2002-03 Grand Jury was in place. This late notification resulted in transition difficulties. County staff immediately worked with Court personnel to resolve these issues, and the Courts have retained responsibility for training reimbursements, mileage, and per diem payments. We regret any inconvenience.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should make regular annual appropriations for outside management audits and structure the execution of the audits in such a way that they compliment the activities of the Grand Jury. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented. Individual departments recommend funding when necessary to employ outside auditors or management consultants to review County operations.

F5: There were occasions when "not expending political capital" was more important to County officials than their official responsibility to assist the Jury. The Grand Jury determined that there were two avenues of investigation that held promise for substantial savings in county operations. The problem was that doing a proper investigation required more time than was available to Grand Jury members. Consequently, the investigations would have required outside agencies to do much of the work. That kind of consulting work must be requested through the advocates of the Grand Jury to the Board of Supervisors. The jurors who were qualified and interested in presenting the case to the Supervisors were never called upon. Consequently, these investigations were pocket vetoed instead of openly decided upon. Some counties simply budget for outside consultants as part of the normal annual budgeting process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: There should be no security concerns about access at all. Since there is, all VPN access to the County internal network should be halted immediately. Once secure access can be assured, then VPN access should be resumed and be granted to any Grand Jury member who requests it. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will not be implemented for the reasons described in the responses to the findings above.

F6: The ISD department charges the Grand Jury $200 per month for network connections. This is $150 more than a DSL connection from the phone company. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The monthly network connection fee is $105.00 for any workstation on the County network. In addition to connectivity, this fee covers the cost for additional services including virus software with timely updates, internet access, help desk support, etc. Conclusions

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Incoming Grand Jurors should have a proper orientation meeting replete with a County Grand Juror procedures manual, forms packet and contact list. There should be no confusion over how to fill in and submit expense reports and other forms. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented. County staff will continue to work with Court staff and Grand Jury members to maintain and enhance the existing procedures manual and contact list.

F7: The security concerns the county has regarding VPN access by Grand Jury members also apply to county employees, contractors and elected officials. Anyone using VPN access to the county network presents identical vulnerabilities.

November 04, 2003 — Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District

8 pages 24 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F1: There are many applications for federal and state grant money. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game alone receives about 400 proposals for projects each year.

F2: Santa Cruz County funds the RCD with approximately $40,000 annually to cover miscellaneous expenses.

F3: The district brings in grant money for projects worth millions of dollars.

F4: The SCCRCD operates with a staff of two full-time and six part-time employees.

F5: The district’s charter establishes it as a non-regulatory agency.

F6: Proposals must be available for assessment, enhancement and implementation of a project before a grant application can be submitted.

F7: Grants are awarded for various purposes: for studies, designs, plans and reports as well as for implementation. Grant funds can be used for the stated purpose only.

F8: Each granting authority has stringent auditing requirements for both labor charges and report contents. Labor hours are audited on each submittal.

F9: Permits currently can take up to two years to process. A single stream project may require as many as five separate permits from different agencies before it can proceed. They include the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Services and several county agencies.

F10: Landowners and the SCCRCD see the permit process as a daunting problem.

F11: The SCCRCD has many years’ experience in dealing with these agencies and understands the permit process.

F12: The SCCRCD received a $4.5 million grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to take on a new role of coordinating projects through their design and permit phases. The Coastal Conservancy gave the following reasons for selecting the SCCRCD: • It is a non-regulatory agency and thus not threatening to property owners nor conflicting with other regulatory agencies. The non-regulatory requirement eliminated many other potential choices. • The SCCRCD’s jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of the county. • The SCCRCD already successfully completed several watershed projects and is “considered to be a great grant manager.”3

F13: SCCRCD recommends contractors and consultants from an approved list of specialists. Final selection is with the user.

F14: The California Department of Fish and Game has worked with SCCRCD for more than 20 years.

F15: The Natural Resources Conservation Service has worked with SCCRCD for 63 years. California Coastal Conservancy.

F16: The SCCRCD publicizes its resources through brochures, handouts, press releases, newspaper articles, radio, word of mouth, e-mail list servers, direct mailing or personal recommendations. The SCCRCD uses its own newsletters or it may be included in other newsletters as a technical resource.

F17: The SCCRCD receives numerous contacts from road associations, landowners and land managers who have learned about it from the various ways the agency publicizes itself. The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau Newsletter’s monthly article, written by the SCCRCD or the Natural Resources Conservation Service, often refers growers and landowners to the SCCRCD.

F18: Landowners are often referred to the SCCRCD by agencies or community groups or other landowners as a source of technical assistance and information. The SCCRCD recently created a Web site and has an intern making it more user- friendly. The district has noticed that other groups have links to its Web site as well.

F19: Critics say the money spent on reports would be better spent on projects.4

F20: The district cannot use grant money specified for reports to implement projects.

F21: Critics say that the SCCRCD makes decisions without public input.

F22: Public input is not required by most granting authorities dealing with the district.

F24: The district’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. Conclusions

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should be praised for the fine work it is doing.

R2: The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should work to expand public awareness of its services.

R4: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to fund this valuable agency.

R5: Funding should be found to continue the SCCRCD’s role as a permit coordinator.

November 04, 2003 — Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District Report Synopsis

10 pages 24 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F1: There are many applications for federal and state grant money. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game alone receives about 400 proposals for projects each year. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Santa Cruz County - 41

F2: Santa Cruz County funds the RCD with approximately $40,000 annually to cover miscellaneous expenses. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. While it is true that the County has provided funding to RCD over the years, the amount for the current year is $29,000. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to fund this valuable agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to fund this valuable agency.

F3: The district brings in grant money for projects worth millions of dollars. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F4: The SCCRCD operates with a staff of two full-time and six part-time employees. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F5: The district’s charter establishes it as a non-regulatory agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F6: Proposals must be available for assessment, enhancement and implementation of a project before a grant application can be submitted. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD responds to requests for proposals.

F7: Grants are awarded for various purposes: for studies, designs, plans and reports as well as for implementation. Grant funds can be used for the stated purpose only. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F8: Each granting authority has stringent auditing requirements for both labor charges and report contents. Labor hours are audited on each submittal. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F10: Landowners and the SCCRCD see the permit process as a daunting problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Funding should be found to continue the SCCRCD’s role as a permit coordinator. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Implementation of this recommendation requires further analysis and should be deferred until such time that the RCD’s permit coordination program has been fully defined and implemented to the satisfaction of both the County and RCD. At this stage, there are many issues yet to be resolved before this program can be declared a success. If that program proves successful, the County would then explore whether there are fiscal options available to fund RCD for this purpose. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The SCCRCD is actively trying to identify funding for a permit coordinator. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has dedicated part time staff support for the program. Santa Cruz County - 47

F11: The SCCRCD has many years’ experience in dealing with these agencies and understands the permit process. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F12: The SCCRCD received a $4.5 million grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to take on a new role of coordinating projects through their design and permit phases. The Coastal Conservancy gave the following reasons for selecting the SCCRCD: It is a non-regulatory agency and thus not threatening to property owners nor conflicting with other regulatory agencies. The non-regulatory requirement eliminated many other potential choices. • The SCCRCD’s jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of the county. In addition, the City of Capitola is included in the SCCRCD’s jurisdiction • The SCCRCD already successfully completed several watershed projects and is “considered to be a great grant manager.”3 Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

F13: SCCRCD recommends contractors and consultants from an approved list of specialists. Final selection is with the user. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The list contains names of Certified Professional Erosion and Sediment Control Specialists (CPESC).

F14: The California Department of Fish and Game has worked with SCCRCD for more than 20 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. California Coastal Conservancy. Santa Cruz County - 43

F15: The Natural Resources Conservation Service has worked with SCCRCD for 63 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should work to expand public awareness of its services. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD has developed a website, newsletter and specific program press releases. There is a contact form posted on the sccrcd@sccrcd.org website.

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: Critics say the money spent on reports would be better spent on projects.4 Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The SCCRCD helps people protect, conserve and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs. The development of Watershed Assessment and Enhancement Project Plans was necessary to secure implementation funding for projects.

F20: The district cannot use grant money specified for reports to implement projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Valley Press, 28 October – 4 November 2003. - 44 Santa Cruz County

F21: Critics say that the SCCRCD makes decisions without public input. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The SCCRCD Board Meetings are posted and open to the public. There is time scheduled on each agenda to receive public input. Individual projects are between the SCCRCD and individual landowners. The SCCRCD has developed a website and newsletter outlining programs and regularly solicits public participation and input through press releases, workshops, public meetings and through direct constituent communication.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should allow as much public input as possible. Even if grantors do not require it, this helps enhance the project itself, builds good community relations and publicizes the work of the SCCRCD. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The mission of the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District is to help - 46 Santa Cruz County people protect, conserve, and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs. The SCCRCD agrees with this recommendation and is developing a website, speaking at public meetings and schools, participating in the County Fair, developing a regular newsletter, conducting more outreach for SCCRCD sponsored events and partnering with water districts and community groups on outreach events.

F22: Public input is not required by most granting authorities dealing with the district. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. There are components within most of the grant programs that include public meetings, press releases, workshops and tours for public participation.

Related Recommendations (1)

F23: Critics allege that some landowners have illegally diverted water or otherwise violated water and environmental resource law. These critics say that the SCCRCD should release the names of these landowners. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District DISAGREES. The District’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. There are existing regulatory agencies with that jurisdiction.

F24: The district’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Conclusions

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should be praised for the fine work it is doing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the work of the Resource Conservation District.

Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall

4 pages 11 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: This facility houses juveniles between the ages of 12 to 18 and is divided into two units: the "A" unit houses older, more sophisticated offenders who have committed more serious crimes, and the "B" unit houses the younger and less sophisticated detainees. (“Sophistication” is a term used in the detention industry to describe an offender’s familiarity with and adeptness in crime and detention.)

F2: There are loose, crumbling and missing floor and ceiling tiles throughout the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Funds were appropriated in the 2003-04 budget to address these deficiencies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to immediately replace floor coverings throughout the facility. Funding to replace ceiling tiles should also be identified. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented.

F3: The detainees’ rooms are small and contain a sink and drinking fountain. Recently, the doors to some of the rooms were replaced and modified to swing out into the hall rather than into the rooms, freeing up living area and increasing safety.

F4: Staff reported the lack of security cameras in the intake area can compromise safety and security when admitting combative minors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The purpose of security cameras in the intake area is primarily to provide a visual record of incidents that occur during intake. The cameras do not affect safety or security since they would not be monitored by other staff in other sections of the facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should find funds for the following at Juvenile Hall: • installation of additional video cameras, especially in intake area • installation of electronic doors throughout facility and upgrade control center • installation of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) throughout the facility • modification of perimeter fencing to allow the more sophisticated detainees access to outdoor recreation areas • construction of an indoor recreation facility • modification of the remaining doors on detainees’ rooms to swing out Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Approximately $300,000 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 2003-04 budget for safety related maintenance projects at the Juvenile Hall, including the replacement of potentially hazardous window screens, floor tiles, and ceiling tiles, the partitioning of the kitchen/dining area to provide for secure visitation, and the completion of the door replacements in the sleeping units to improve the safety and security for the detainees and staff.

F5: There are electronic doors when entering the facility and when entering the courtyard but other areas do not have electronic doors. Staff reported that electronic doors throughout the facility would improve response time in an emergency and would prevent keys from being stolen. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES However, due to funding limitations, they have not been replaced.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: According to staff, Juvenile Hall does not have adequate heating and there is no air conditioning. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees that there is no air conditioning and that the heating system should be replaced. Replacement of the HVAC system has been identified for future funding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: The facility contains classrooms, computers and a library. Some of the programs offered are yoga, acupuncture, victim awareness, anger management, job readiness, Planned Parenthood discussions, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.

F8: Indoor and outdoor recreation facilities are available. The outdoor facility is not covered or protected from the environment and the indoor facilities (day rooms) are limited in size. A lack of secure perimeter fencing does not allow more sophisticated “A” unit detainees to access some of the outside recreation area because of the risk of escape. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Again, this is a funding issue.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The Santa Cruz County Office of Education operates an education program at the facility (Hartman School) with a WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) accredited program. Hartman High allows students to continue working towards their high school diploma while at the facility or earn their General Education Diploma (GED). The facility holds a graduation ceremony for those who complete the GED program, making this achievement a well-deserved special event.

F10: Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has children’s mental health services 80 hours per week and drug and alcohol specialist services 40 hours per week.

F11: Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has been designated a model site for the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI). The objectives of JDAI are: • To reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained • To minimize the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re-offend pending adjudication • To redirect public funds toward successful reform strategies • To improve conditions of confinement. As a model site for the Annie E. Casey Foundation Initiative, Juvenile Hall receives grant money and support, including access to a data analyst to track trends. Conclusions

Proposition 36 – The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 – Will It Work?

10 pages 31 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: Santa Cruz County received $1,003,973 in Proposition 36 funds in fiscal year 2001-2002. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F2: Santa Cruz County received $71,414 in Drug testing funds of which 100 % was used to directly pay for tests. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County received $71,414 in drug testing funds in 2001-02. However, as provided for by law, $32,305 was spent to fully cover the costs of drug testing by service providers, and the remaining $39,109 was spent to offset the costs of Proposition 36 drug treatment.

F3: The authors of Proposition 36 established 83% as the benchmark for the most effective programs. Approximately 82.7% of funds will be directly used for treatment in Santa Cruz County in 2002-03. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F4: There were 572 unduplicated Proposition 36 clients in 2001-02, of which 511 received treatment plan assessments and 392 received treatment. The Courts/Probation Department referred 91.8% of the clients. The remaining referrals were parolees. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -32 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses

F5: Reassessment is necessary when the defendants are placed in program that does not suit their needs. They are reassessed and then reassigned to an appropriate program. There were an estimated 398 reassessments in fiscal year 2001-02 an average of 1.7 per client. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Defendants also may be reassessed if they fail to arrive at the assigned program, or drop out prior to completion.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should work more closely with treatment programs in assessing client needs. This might reduce the number of reassessments and more quickly identify those unamenable to treatment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Reassessments are most frequently triggered by the client dropping out of treatment. Clients may not fully disclose the extent of their drug problems at the initial assessment, and additional information may be gained by treatment provider staff or through reassessment. Alcohol and Drug Program staff and Probation staff work with providers on a daily basis to identify clients who are having difficulties in treatment and resolve issues or find a more appropriate placement.

F6: The Proposition 36 Steering Committee is comprised of staff from the Health Services Agency, the Probation Department, the Courts, the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the Criminal Justice Council, the County Administrative Office, the District Attorney and the State Parole Board. Members meet once a month to promote defendant recovery and help to ensure public safety. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Proposition 36 Steering Committee should add permanent community members to increase diversity and provide better community support. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The Proposition 36 Steering Committee requested the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (ADAC) to appoint one of its members to the Proposition 36 Committee. The ADAC appointed a member at their September meeting.

F7: The County Health Services Agency does the assessments for Proposition 36. These health care professionals place an emphasis on treatment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Staff also pays close attention to identifying needs for medical care.

F8: There are 15 certified Proposition 36 treatment facilities in the county with 18 residential treatment beds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Although these residential facilities had more than 18 beds, Proposition 36 funds were used to purchase approximately 18 beds.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should continue adding treatment capacity and hold well-publicized community forums to involve the community in eliminating drug abuse. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is reducing treatment capacity rather than adding it. Treatment capacity will be added when the availability of resources -38 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses permits. Proposition 36 Steering Committee meetings are open to the public and are well-publicized through press releases.

R3: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should seek out potential treatment providers and educate them in how to qualify to become treatment providers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is focusing its energy on trying to maintain current treatment providers, and is not seeking new providers.

F9: The District Attorney has adopted charging guidelines for defendants that maximize the effectiveness of Proposition 36. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County District Attorney AGREES

F10: Penal Code § 1000 provides for Deferred Entry of Judgment (Diversion). First time offenders arrested for minor drug crimes, including cultivation of marijuana for personal use, narcotics secured by a false prescription, simple possession or being under the influence, can be referred to a drug diversion program. If offenders satisfy the requirements of the program, the charges against them are dropped. Urinalysis can be part of the program, but a positive test does not necessarily expose the defendant to additional penalties. A defendant who violates program conditions is subject to sentencing on the original crime. Proposition 36 -33 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding with the following clarification. Deferred Entry of Judgment is a post-plea program. If an offender completes the program, the charges are not dropped but the judgment against the client is not entered into official court records. In either case, the client has no criminal record if s/he completes the program. However, if the client does not complete the program, the court can simply enter the judgment of guilty rather than having to determine guilt or innocence.

F11: Diversion consists of a minimum of 22 hours of group education and counseling over a minimum of 10 weeks. It includes an assessment of the clients’ alcohol and drug use. Successful completion of the program results in charges being dismissed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES See response to Finding #10 above regarding dropping charges versus deferring entry of judgment.

F12: Proposition 36 allows an offender three opportunities for treatment. While being treated offenders are on probation. An offender’s probation can be revoked for: disobeying rules of the drug treatment program, being arrested for a non-violent possession offense, or for violating a drug-related condition of probation. They are then subject to incarceration under otherwise applicable law. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F13: Probation can also be revoked if a defendant commits a non-drug related crime, or violates a non-drug related condition of probation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F14: Proposition 36 allows defendants three violations of any kind before their probation must be revoked and the original sentence imposed. This is sometimes referred to as “three bites at the apple or three strikes”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES

F15: Additionally, if a treatment provider notifies the Probation Department that a defendant is “unamenable” to a particular treatment, Probation may recommend another treatment modality. If a defendant is deemed “unamenable” to all forms of treatment, Probation may request the defendant’s probation be revoked. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -34 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: Currently under Proposition 36 some clients wait in jail for available treatment space. In some cases they wait almost as long as the sentence they would have received. They then have a choice of whether they will serve out their sentence or go to treatment. Some opt to forego treatment and are released having fulfilled their time commitment. This is one of the reasons the number of those admitted to the program is lower than those assessed and eventually treated. Some clients elect jail time over treatment at the outset. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Most clients eligible for Proposition 36 choose treatment over jail time and do not experience extended waits in jail due to shortage of treatment space. Those who do wait in jail rarely wait more than 10 days for an assessment. The few clients who have extended waits in jail are typically waiting due to delays in scheduling court hearings unrelated to assessment or treatment availability. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES There are currently 39 women inmates housed in the Main Jail. Nine of those 39 inmates are sentenced and therefore eligible for housing at a medium facility. Although the majority of female inmates are housed in the main jail because they are either un- sentenced or classified as maximum-security inmates, the Sheriff’s Office recognizes the need for a Women's Medium Security Facility to provide alternate housing opportunities for our medium security women inmates.

F17: Proposition 36 originally placed very little emphasis on drug testing. No funds were provided for testing. It was feared tests might be used as a “hammer” to disqualify those being treated. Treatment professionals believe testing should be used as a tool and that

F18: Relapses are part of the recovery process. Consistently failing drug tests will result in probation being revoked. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Following failed attempts to divert under Penal Code §1000 and failed attempts to treat under Proposition 36, the offender is placed in a much more structured judicial program called Drug Court. Court visits are more regular, testing is more frequent, and any violation of the program can subject the offender to incarceration.

F19: The Drug Court Program is used for more serious drug offenders and unlike Proposition 36 includes alcohol programs. Drug court participants typically have abused drugs for five or more years. Half (52%) have a high school diploma and sixty-two percent were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Proposition 36 -35 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court are for persons convicted of drug crimes, and not for persons convicted solely of alcohol-related crimes. Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court offer treatment for alcohol abuse, since many drug users also abuse alcohol.

F20: Drug Court is, at a minimum, a one-year program. The client participates in daily counseling, is randomly tested for drugs three times per week, and goes before the judge weekly to review progress. The client is also required to attend a twelve-step program and provide proof of attendance to the judge. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The description above outlines the requirements of the first phase of Drug Court treatment. As clients progress to later phases, treatment services and court supervision are gradually decreased.

F21: Successful completion of the Drug Court program results in charges being dismissed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES See response to Finding #9 above regarding the difference between dismissal of charges and deferral of entry of judgment.

F22: Like Diversion and Proposition 36, clients of Drug Court cannot have been charged with a violent offense, drug sales, or possession for sale. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES

F23: Insufficient treatment facilities for Proposition 36 make it necessary to house clients at the Main Jail (courtesy housing). This may explain why the county has not yet seen a decrease in the number of clients being housed at the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office has not completed any analysis on Proposition 36’s relationship to daily jail population counts. Originally, Proposition 36 was advertised as a way to reduce jail population throughout the State. The Santa Cruz County Jail saw a slight drop in population after Proposition 36 was enacted. However, since that time, the daily population count has increased. Many factors may contribute to this increase. One factor may be a lack of treatment beds and the other appears to be Proposition 36 clients who have failed to complete the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

F24: The Sheriff’s Detention Bureau considers Proposition 36 a failure. It cites the number of repeat offenders who abuse the opportunity they are given to stay out of jail and continue using drugs. -36 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The perceptions of the Sheriff’s Detention Bureau may be accurately reported by the Grand Jury, however, it is likely that staff of the Detention Bureau rarely see successful clients and typically see the clients who are back in jail because they have failed Proposition 36, thus getting a skewed view of Proposition 36’s efficacy. No treatment can be expected to work 100% of the time. The Proposition 36 program, like other drug treatment programs, should be judged on the questions of whether more people succeed with treatment than without it, and whether that degree of success is worth the cost.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Law enforcement and other parties should give Proposition 36 more time to develop before declaring success or failure. Proposition 36 -39 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

F25: The Grand Jury was not able to locate any current conclusive data on the success of Proposition 36. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors No outcome studies on Proposition 36 exist at this time. However, numerous studies of drug treatment conducted statewide and nationally have demonstrated the effectiveness and cost savings associated with court-ordered drug treatment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Law enforcement and other parties should give Proposition 36 more time to develop before declaring success or failure. Proposition 36 -39 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

F26: A March 2002 report prepared by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and the Judicial Council of California concluded Drug Court participants who completed the program had an 85% reduction in arrests, a 77% reduction in convictions and an 83% reduction in incarceration in the two years following treatment.

F27: Overall, counties reported a total savings of $43.4 million. $42.4 million in jail and prison cost savings and approximately $1 million dollars in fees and fines collected from Drug Court participants.

F28: Treatment professionals acknowledge treatment has little effect on those who have not made a commitment to stop using drugs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Treatment providers should continue to develop and implement new treatment modalities. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES

F29: Treatment professionals believe they could be helpful in assessing clients and recommending treatment.

F30: One of the treatment facilities the Grand Jury toured uses biofeedback to aid clients in recovery. The facility reported positive results.

F31: Penal code § 1000 cases, Proposition 36 and Drug Court cases are all heard in one consolidated court with the same presiding judge. Conclusions

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.

Voter's Information Pamphlet Measures, Analyses and Arguments12 pp.