TABLE OF CONTENTS

Note: In order to synchronize the page numbers with the printed copy,

some numbers in this internet version are intentionally skipped.

Introduction

Letter from Grand Jury Foreman .................................................................................................. iii

Roster of Grand Jurors .................................................................................................................... v

Picture of Grand Jury and Advisor Judge .................................................................................... vii

Formation and Organization of the 2006 - 2007 Sacramento County Grand Jury ....................... ix

The Making of a Grand Jury Report ............................................................................................... x

Grand Jury Complaint Form ........................................................................................................ xii

2006 - 2007 Year in Review

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... .. 1

Administrative and Municipal Affairs Committee .................................................................... 1

Emergency Call Centers ...................................................................................................... 1

Election Observers Panel .................................................................................................... 3

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Committee .................................................................................. 4

California State Prison, Sacramento ................................................................................... 5

Folsom State Prison ............................................................................................................. 7

Sacramento County Main Jail.............................................................................................. 8

Sacramento County Juvenile Hall ....................................................................................... 9

Warren E. Thornton Youth Center .................................................................................... 10

Sacramento Assessment Center – IMPACT Program ...................................................... 10

Sacramento County Boys Ranch ...................................................................................... 11

Education Committee ................................................................................................................. 11

Grant Union High School ................................................................................................. 12

Luther Burbank High School ............................................................................................ 12

Natomas High School ....................................................................................................... 13

Valley High School ........................................................................................................... 13

Environment, Public Works and Special Districts Committee .............................................. 14

Safety in the American River Parkway ............................................................................. 14

Health and Human Services Committee ....................................................................................... 15

i

2006 - 2007 Reports

North Natomas: Development Gone Awry .................................................................................. 19

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Work Release Division .............................................. 31

Sacramento County Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center .............................................................. 37

The Flood Risk in Sacramento County ......................................................................................... 41

Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant: Maintenance/ Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Used

Nuclear Fuel .......................................................................................................................... 47

County Heat Emergency Response ............................................................................................... 51

The Sacramento County Primary Care Clinic .............................................................................. 57

Interim Report

The Kings and City and County of Sacramento: Betrayal in the Kingdom? ................................ 65

Comments and Updates on Responses to the

2005 - 2006 Grand Jury Report

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... ... 77

Main Jail Health Care ................................................................................................................... 78

Elk Grove City Council and the Handling of Political Dissent .................................................... 80

City of Isleton Police Department ................................................................................................ 81

Flood Disaster Evacuation of the Medically Infirm ..................................................................... 82

Goals and Objectives of Mental Health Services in Sacramento County under the

Mental Health Services Act.................................................................................................... 86

City of Citrus Heights: Oversight of Contract Services ................................................................ 89

The responses to the recommendations in the 2006- 2007 Final Report will be available on the Grand Jury website

( www. sacgrandjury. org) after November 1, 2007.

ii

Sacramento County

Grand Jury

June 29, 2007

Honorable Raymond M. Cadei

Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury

Sacramento Superior Court

720 Ninth Street, Department 17

Sacramento, CA 95814

and

Citizens of Sacramento County

Dear Judge Cadei and Citizens of Sacramento County:

I take great pleasure in presenting the Final Report of the 2006- 2007

Sacramento County Grand Jury. On behalf of all 19 members of the Grand

Jury, I would like to acknowledge the invaluable advice and guidance

throughout the year of our Advisor Judge, Raymond M. Cadei, and that of our

legal consultant, County Counsel Robert A. Ryan, Jr., as well as representatives

of the District Attorney’s Office, including Jan Scully and Cindy Bessemer. I

would also like to commend the Grand Jury Coordinator, Rebecca Castaneda,

for her tireless and conscientious work efforts.

It has been a year of many challenges. At the outset of each new Grand Jury

year, 19 independent individuals bring together their respective talents and

skills to organize a cohesive effort to make a contribution to the governments

and citizens of the county. While there were diverse points of view on many

issues, they were resolved with dignity and decorum. In addition, of the 19

jurors who completed the year, only fourteen were original members. Five

withdrew because of ill health or other compelling causes, one of whom passed

away ( Judy Casaroli) but remains in our thoughts and memories. Since one of

the alternates also resigned due to declining health, a total of 25 individuals

have been sworn and empaneled, all of whom made their contribution to the

Grand Jury.

Another challenge involved the nearly three months of time the Grand Jury

expended in criminal indictment proceedings brought by the District Attorney’s

Office. A full year is a short period of time in which to learn how to investigate

Donald W. Prange Sr.,

Foreman

Felix Barros

Richard Bower

Terence Brown

Glenn R. Chambers

Boren Chertkov

Carol Crespo

Anthony S. Da Vigo

Peggy Desmond

Harold Eisenberg

James R. Flanigan

Emma Fravesi

Bryan D. Gross

Carroll M. Hamon

Deborah Hesse

Maureen McNeil

Robert C. Perkins

Robert A. Prentice

Jacqueline M. Ramirez

iii

2006 – 2007 Grand Jury Members

Felix Barros Parole Agent, retired Sacramento

Richard Bower Attorney, retired Carmichael

Terence Brown Attorney, retired Sacramento

Glenn R. Chambers USAF, retired Sacramento

Boren Chertkov Attorney, retired Sacramento

Carol Crespo Bookkeeper, retired Sacramento

Anthony S. Da Vigo Deputy Attorney General, retired Sacramento

Peggy Desmond Educator, retired Sacramento

Harold Eisenberg Attorney, retired Sacramento

James R. Flanigan Architect, retired Sacramento

Emma Fravesi Facilities Administrator, retired Carmichael

Bryan D. Gross Energy Consultant, retired Sacramento

Carroll M. Hamon Civil Engineer, retired Carmichael

Deborah Hesse State Executive, retired Fair Oaks

Maureen McNeil Health Program Manager, retired Sacramento

Robert C. Perkins Forensic Toxicologist Elk Grove

Donald W. Prange, Sr. Police Chief, retired Gold River

Robert A. Prentice Clinical Psychologist Sacramento

Jacqueline M. Ramirez Legal Secretary, retired Sacramento

v

Formation and Organization of the

2006- 2007 Sacramento County Grand Jury

California Constitution, Article I, Section 23, provides that “ One or more grand juries shall be

drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.” The law governing Grand Jury

formation, authority, powers and proceedings, is found in Part 2, Title 4, of the California Penal

Code, sections 888 - 939.91.

The Sacramento County Grand Jury is a body comprised of qualified persons drawn from the

citizens of the county, who have volunteered or been selected at random, and nominated by a

judge of the Superior Court. Before June 30 of each year, a new Grand Jury of 19 such

individuals is selected by lot, and impaneled and sworn by the Superior Court. The new Grand

Jury is a distinct and separate entity and must establish its own organization and rules of

procedure. By law, any action taken by the Grand Jury must be authorized by 12 of the 19 jurors.

The Grand Jury is sworn to inquire of “ public offenses committed or triable within the county,”

and to investigate or inquire into “ county matters of civil concern.” Hence, the Sacramento

County Grand Jury exercises both criminal and civil investigative authority. Its civil authority

extends to reviews of the functions and operations of the county, and of cities, school and special

districts, and specified private nonprofit organizations within the County of Sacramento.

Criminal matters are presented to the Grand Jury by the Sacramento County District Attorney or

by the California Attorney General. If it is determined that there is probable cause to believe an

accused person( s) has committed a felony, the Grand Jury will return an indictment, to which the

accused must enter a plea in Superior Court.

The Grand Jury has five standing committees that carry out investigations: Administrative and

Municipal Affairs; Education; Criminal and Juvenile Justice; Environment, Public Works and

Special Districts; and Health and Human Services. An “ ad hoc” committee may be established to

consider a subject which transcends more than one of the standing committees. Two such

committees were established during the current Grand Jury year. In addition, there are two “ in-house”

committees: Continuity and Editorial. The Continuity Committee is primarily responsible

for the coordination of internal processes, and for the interrelationship of processes with

predecessor and successor Grand Juries. The Editorial Committee is responsible for the accuracy

and integrity of the current year’s reports, including findings and recommendations.

The disclosure by a grand juror of any evidence adduced before the Grand Jury in the course of

an investigation is punishable as a misdemeanor, except in the case of a proper order of the

Superior Court. Complaints, as well as testimony given to the Grand Jury by a witness, are held

in the strictest confidence. Similarly, witnesses are prohibited from disclosing any proceedings of

the Grand Jury.

Any individual may file a complaint with the Sacramento County Grand Jury. A complaint form

may be found in the introductory section of this report, at www. sacgrandjury. org, or obtained by

calling the Grand Jury office at 916.874.7578.

ix

The Making of a Grand Jury Report

On June 30 of each year, the Sacramento County Grand Jury issues its Final Report, a

compilation of all the reports issued during the preceding year. Although each Grand Jury

establishes its own organization and rules of procedure, the process by which a Grand Jury report

is formulated is a tradition carried over from year to year. The process closely adhered to by the

current Grand Jury is described here.

The subject of a Grand Jury report may derive from a citizen complaint, an idea self generated by

a committee, or “ upon some selective basis” as provided by law. Each complaint is assigned

according to subject matter to a committee, where it is initially examined to determine if a

potential problem exists that justifies opening an investigation.

Once a committee has decided to open an investigation, it must secure the approval of the full

Grand Jury to continue. If the investigation is approved, the committee chairperson assigns the

task to an “ investigative subcommittee” consisting of two or more members of the committee.

This subcommittee is then responsible for collecting documentary and testimonial evidence and

writing a draft report. The progress of the investigation is reviewed periodically by the whole

committee and the full Grand Jury.

When the investigation is complete, the subcommittee drafts a report detailing the material facts,

findings and recommendations for remedial action. The draft is reviewed and revised as

necessary by the committee to ensure that it complies with all substance and format prerequisites

of a Grand Jury report. The draft report is then forwarded to the editorial committee for further

review and analysis to insure that the findings are supported by evidence, that the

recommendations are responsive to the findings and that the proper investigative procedures

have been followed.

All findings and recommendations of Grand Jury reports are based on the review of documents,

other pertinent evidence, and interviews. Each interview is attended by a minimum of two grand

jurors. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon

the specific approval of the presiding judge, or other judge appointed by the presiding judge, of

the Superior Court ( Pen. C. § § 911, 924.1( a), 929), or the identity of witnesses except upon an

order of the court for narrowly defined purposes ( Pen. C. § § 924.2, 929). Hence, Grand Jury

reports are not based on conjecture or opinion, but on documentary evidence and testimony.

Ultimately, the proposed report is transferred to the full Grand Jury for review. The Grand Jury

has plenary authority, by a vote of 12 or more of the 19 jurors, to approve, revise or reject the

proposed report. It is then returned to the Editorial Committee for processing. If the report is

approved, it is forwarded to the Grand Jury’s advisor judge for jurisdictional review and to the

county counsel for review as to compliance with legal requirements. Their approval does not

connote an agreement with the substance or merit of the report, or with its findings or

recommendations. If the judge or county counsel approve the report with comment, the

comments will be reconciled by a special committee.

Hence, every member of the Grand Jury is directly involved in the formulation of a report. It is

x

the product of the entity as a whole, and not the work of any individual juror or committee. The

2006- 2007 Sacramento County Grand Jury is satisfied that the reports contained in this volume

are fully qualified for publication. Copies of Grand Jury Final Reports are available at

www. sacgrandjury. org, and can be accessed through the Sacramento Public Library.

xi

GRAND JURY USE ONLY

DATE RECEIVED: _____________

NUMBER: ___________________

SUBJECT: __________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

GRAND JURY COMPLAINT FORM

PERSON OR AGENCY ABOUT WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE

NAME: ______________________________

ADDRESS: ______________________________

______________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER: _______________________

NATURE OF COMPLAINT: Describe events in the order they occurred as clearly and concisely as

possible. Also indicate what resolution you are seeking. Use extra sheets if necessary and attach copies

of any correspondence you feel is pertinent. Documentation becomes the property of the Grand Jury and

will not be returned. Please note: The Sacramento County Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over

state or federal agencies, the courts, judicial officers, private companies or most organizations.

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

WHAT PERSONS OR AGENCIES HAVE YOU CONTACTED ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT?

Person or Agency Address Date of Contact Result

WHO SHOULD THE GRAND JURY CONTACT ABOUT THIS MATTER?

Person or Agency Address Telephone No.

YOUR NAME: _________________________________ DRIVER’S LICENSE NO.: ________________

ADDRESS:_________________________________ TELEPHONE NO.:_______________________

The information I have submitted on this form is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.

___________________________________________ __________________________

Complainant’s Signature Date

xii

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND

JURY COMPLAINT FORM

A major function of the Sacramento County

Grand Jury is to examine local county and

city government, special districts, school

districts, and any joint powers agency

located in the county to ensure their duties

are being carried out lawfully.

The Grand Jury:

• May review and evaluate

procedures used by these entities to

determine whether more efficient

and economical methods may be

employed.

• May inspect and audit the books,

records and financial expenditures as

noted above to ensure that public

funds are properly accounted for and

legally spent.

• May investigate any charges of

willful misconduct in office by

public officials.

• Shall inquire into the condition and

management of the public prisons

within the county.

Anyone may ask the Grand Jury to conduct

an investigation of an issue within its

jurisdiction. Whether it chooses to

investigate such a complaint is entirely in its

discretion and may be affected by workload,

resource limitations or legal restrictions. It is

important to note that the Grand Jury may

not investigate a matter that is currently

being litigated in the court system.

By law, the proceedings of the Grand Jury

are confidential. The findings and

recommendations and issues it chooses to

address are published in its final report.

COMPLAINT PROCESS

• Present your complaint as soon as

possible. The Grand Jury’s term of

service begins July 1st and ends June

30th of the following year.

• Identify your specific concern and

describe the circumstances as clearly

and concisely as possible.

• Document your complaint with

copies of pertinent information and

evidence in your possession.

Mail or deliver your complaint in a sealed

envelope to:

Sacramento County Grand Jury

720 - 9th Street, Room 611

Sacramento, CA 95814- 1302

Complaints submitted to the Grand Jury will

be treated confidentially whenever possible.

However, it may be impossible to conduct

an investigation without revealing your

name and complaint.

Grand Jury investigation reports are

published in its Final Report, which is

available to the residents of the county.

Public entities and officers who are the

subjects of the reports are required to

respond.

xiii

2006 – 2007 Year in Review

1

2006 – 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW

Introduction

Each of the Grand Jury investigative committees, as delineated in the section titled “ Formation and

Organization of the 2006- 2007 Sacramento County Grand Jury,” has provided a description of its

responsibilities and activities undertaken during the 2006- 2007 term. Following the committee

descriptions are brief narratives of some specific committee activities, presented as informal

summary reports. These informal summary reports are provided for information purposes only and,

therefore, do not require any responses from the agencies addressed within each committee report.

Administrative and Municipal Affairs Committee

The Administrative and Municipal Affairs Committee is responsible for investigating the policies

and procedures relating to the administration and management of municipal agencies within

Sacramento County. The committee reviews budgets, organizational charts, policy and procedure

manuals, and any other pertinent information relevant to complaints concerning any municipal

agency within Sacramento County.

This year, the committee received 21 complaints, opened 15 for investigation, and investigated three

complaints carried over from the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury. The committee also reviewed the various

emergency call centers in Sacramento County. In addition, the committee observed the process of

the November 7, 2006, general election.

Emergency Call Centers

Background

Each emergency call center is located within one of six communication centers in Sacramento

County. When residents of Sacramento County face an emergency and dial 911, they are

immediately connected to one of these six communication centers, unless they dial from a cell

phone, in which case they are connected to the California Highway Patrol.

The communication centers in the county are the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and the police

departments in the Cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Elk Grove, Galt and Citrus Heights. Folsom, Galt

and Sacramento have had communication centers for years. Elk Grove and Citrus Heights opened

new communication centers last year. The City of Rancho Cordova contracts with the Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Office for dispatch services. The City of Isleton contracts with Solano County for

dispatch services.

The communication centers were found to have sophisticated, up- to- date computer equipment

2

available, and calls are handled by a technically competent, well trained and capable staff.

The six communication centers in Sacramento County and many others in the geographical area,

such as Yolo County, are all users of the Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System

( SRRCS). The SRRCS is a regional partnership that supports a network of radio communications

equipment. SRRCS has been in place since 1992, and members meet weekly. There are formal

standard operating procedures and there has been success in the use of these policies and procedures.

The federal Department of Homeland Security recently issued Tactical Interoperable

Communications Scorecards assessing the communications capabilities of 75 urban/ metropolitan

areas. The Sacramento urban area received favorable scores and was encouraged to continue what

they are doing.

Observations

The committee toured the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, Sacramento Police Department and

Elk Grove Police Department communication centers. The committee also sent an extensive survey

to each communication center regarding equipment, interoperability, staffing, training, call volume,

budget and potential consolidation with other centers.

The response to the surveys, and information gleaned from meetings with officials who staff the

various facilities, indicated that the Sacramento County local law enforcement authorities have

adequate systems and network security, as well as good disaster recovery plans in the event of a

system breakdown. All of the centers appear to be making effective use of COMMLINK, a tool

which allows dispatchers to patch multiple law enforcement agencies on various radio platforms.

The total annual costs of operating the six centers is approximately $ 20 million, although this is

difficult to estimate since each jurisdiction uses different accounting factors in determining costs.

There is a wide variance in the physical facilities that house the computer equipment and personnel.

The Cities of Sacramento and Elk Grove have new facilities which opened within the past two years

that are state- of- the- art insofar as providing a good work environment is concerned. The City of

Sacramento facility, for example, has gym facilities and rest areas for employees which may help

reduce the stress inherent with the job. Sacramento also has up- to- date facilities for training

employees for operations in the other five centers. The County of Sacramento Sheriff’s

communication facility will soon have a much needed upgrade, when the move from a downtown

location to a renovated building in the south county is completed.

The committee observed what appears to be a duplication of efforts and dollars spent on providing

identical services to the county’s population. For example, use of the City of Sacramento Police

Department training facilities by the other five jurisdictions would eliminate the need for each center

to have its own training facility. Wage competition between the different centers can be costly, as

there have been incidents in the past where workers leave one facility for another to gain better wage

and benefit packages, causing staff turnover. Ongoing improvements in technology will result in

each center’s likely purchase, at great expense to taxpayers, of the newest technology, when

centralization or consolidation of computer upgrades may reduce costs.

3

The committee recognizes that there are strong political considerations that cause the highest level

managers of each of the six communication centers to maintain and preserve their independence, as

well as protect their interest in hiring and managing their own employees. However, it appears that

costs will increase and the duplication will continue as more areas become cities and open their own

communication centers. The committee proposes that the County Board of Supervisors and each of

the mayors and councils of the five city jurisdictions should establish a commission or a study group

for the purpose of determining the possibility of cost saving measures that could be obtained by

merging and consolidating any one or more of the functions of the communication centers.

Election Observers Panel

Prior to the November 7, 2006, general election, grand jurors met with the Registrar of Voters

( Registrar) and other officials of the Sacramento County Department of Voter Registration and

Elections for a briefing on the conduct of elections generally, and specifically, polling place

operations. Thereafter, grand jurors took advantage of opportunities to participate in precinct officer

training sessions, and served as precinct observers. Over 40 polling sites were visited by Grand Jury

members during polling hours on Election Day to observe election officials and precinct procedures,

and to interview voters about their voting experience. Grand Jury members who visited these polling

places reported that overall, the Registrar did an effective, efficient job in providing polling places,

conducting the election, and collecting and counting ballots.

For the November 2006 election, there were 624,444 registered voters and 368,162 ( or 58.95%)

actually voted. Of these, 184,815 cast absentee ballots, and 183,347 voted in person at one of 500

precincts. The ballot for this election was particularly long, as there were contested and uncontested

races for federal, state and county offices, as well as special districts ( e. g., school boards, and utility,

flood control and other special districts); and there were at least 17 propositions on many

Sacramento County ballots. There were 178 different ballot types required to take into account

election variances in different geographical areas of the county.

The Registrar conducts many voter registration programs, including outreach efforts to potential

voters in county high schools. The Registrar also conducts outreach and educational programs for

those interested in casting absentee ballots. The Registrar conducts mandatory training programs for

precinct officers and teams of four or more precinct workers, and distributes an extensive manual

with “ how to” and “ what if” text and photographs, as well as the hands- on opportunity to operate

new electronic ballot marking and tabulation equipment. Voting throughout the county involves the

marking of a paper ballot, appropriately preserved as a paper trail that is then electronically counted

and tabulated. The county also uses AutoMARK voter assist terminals, a ballot marking system

designed to provide privacy and accessibility to voters who are vision impaired or have a disability

or condition that would make it difficult or impossible to mark a ballot in the usual way. This

technology also provides language assistance to voters who are more comfortable speaking a

different language or who need help to better understand written instructions.

The Grand Jury did observe some problems and “ glitches” in the absentee voting process and at

polling places. For example, due to breakdown in communications between the Registrar, the

4

printer, and a mailing contractor, some citizens were initially sent an absentee ballot that did not

contain a correct listing of candidates and propositions for their particular precinct, but this was

quickly corrected by new mailings in all questionable areas, and strong liaison with local

newspapers reminding voters to check identification numbers on their ballots to assure the correct

precinct candidates and propositions. In addition, there was concern that the long ballot weighed

over an ounce, therefore requiring additional postage, but to the Registrar’s credit, arrangements

were made with the post office guaranteeing the processing of all under- stamped ballot return

envelopes to be delivered at the county’s expense, thereby assuring the right to vote for those few

who did not use the appropriate postage.

During the course of polling place voting, there were occasions when some questions regarding

proper registration and voters’ arrival at the incorrect polling place were raised. However, the

Registrar provided telephone hot- line services, that were an effective way of resolving problems, and

if not immediately resolved, a provisional ballot process was implemented. There were occasions

when electronic vote count and tabulation scanners, and AutoMARK machines, did not appear to

work properly, but for the most part, these problems were quickly remedied by either experienced

precinct officers, or immediate technical assistance from the Registrar by a mobile team of experts.

All polling sites appeared to be handicap accessible. Some polling sites had inadequate parking

space, long wait times to obtain ballots, and an inadequate number of polling booths, but the

Registrar has made assurances that attempts will be made to remedy these sometimes unpredictable

problems. Poll workers were helpful and knowledgeable in providing assistance to voters and voters

responded favorably to inquiries regarding their voting experience.

The County Registrar’s Office, staffed by 36 full- time and 75 temporary employees and over 4,000

paid volunteer workers, lived up to the motto: “ We proudly conduct elections with accuracy,

integrity and dignity.”

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Committee

The role of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Committee ( CJJ) is to review and investigate

complaints regarding the criminal justice agencies within Sacramento County. Through the annual

inspection of correctional facilities and investigation of criminal and juvenile justice issues, CJJ

ensures that the agencies comply with specific policies and procedures.

During the year, CJJ received 25 complaints from citizens. Ten of the complaints were investigated.

Of the complaints investigated, two reports were issued by the full Grand Jury and are included in

this final report. Complaints investigated, but not reported on, included law enforcement violations

of rights, abuses and retaliation( s), District Attorney’s Office hiring practices, and California State

Prison mishandling of legal mail, including a missing IRS refund check.

CJJ also arranged the Grand Jury’s mandatory tours of correctional facilities. The California Penal

Code section 919( b) requires that the Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of the

prisons. CJJ provided the full Grand Jury with a briefing prior to most visits. During its tours, the

Grand Jury was briefed by correctional staff and spoke with staff, wards and inmates. The Grand

5

Jury toured the facilities, inquired about medical services, educational and vocational programs, and

observed facility conditions.

In addition to the two formal reports on Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center and the Sacramento

County Work Release Facility, which are set forth herein, the Grand Jury also toured the following

facilities commented on below.

California State Prison, Sacramento

Background

In October 1986, California dedicated a new prison adjacent to Folsom State Prison. The new prison

originally called “ New Folsom” was renamed California State Prison, Sacramento ( CSPS).

The entrance to CSPS is located on Natomas Street, adjacent to the City of Folsom Police

Department. Folsom State Prison shares a road with CSPS. Both prisons are located in the eastern

portion of Sacramento County within the City of Folsom. The undeveloped areas of the property are

home to deer, wild turkeys and other wildlife.

As of March 2007, CSPS is authorized 1,016 custody staff, 287 non- sworn support staff, 20

education staff and 260 medical staff with an annual budget of approximately $ 187 million.

Although the design capacity for CSPS is 1,788 inmates, there are approximately 3,104. The facility

houses Level I and Level IV inmates. 1 In addition to its administrative segregation unit, the facility

has the 180 degree2 Level IV design housing units and several gym housing units. The number of

inmates with immigration holds is approximately 200- 300. Approximately 32% of the total

population is committed to prison for life. A little more than half of the inmates have reading levels

below fourth grade. There were 27 attempted suicides and 3 verified deaths as the result of suicides

in calendar year 2006.

CSPS provides general and specialized medical services to all inmate- patients through Nursing

Triage, Primary Care Provider system and community providers. The institution has two licensed

1 Level refers to a written classification plan designed to assign inmates to housing units and activities according to the

categories of sex, age, criminal sophistication, seriousness of crime charged, physical or mental health needs,

assaultive/ non- assaultive behavior and other criteria which will provide for the safety of the inmates and staff. Inmates

who require housing in minimum- security are housed in a Level I facility. Level IV inmates refer to inmates who are

serving long- term sentences, as well as inmates who have proved to be management problems at other institutions. The

California Department of Corrections implemented a set of determinants for housing Level IV inmates. Level IV inmates

are typically housed within correctional facilities with either the 180- or 270- degree design. CSPS has a 180- degree

design. Inmates fitting the high security needs profile are those identified as validated gang members, those recently

released from a security housing unit, new life- without- parole commitments, or inmates who have exhibited recent

violent or escape tendencies.

2 The“ 180- degree” design refers to the configuration of the cellblocks ( housing units). The cellblocks are partitioned into

three separate, self- contained sections, forming a half circle ( 180 degrees). The partitioning of sections, blocks, and

facilities ensures maximum control of movement and swift, decisive isolation of disruptive incidents, thereby ensuring

effective overall management of a large inmate population.

6

Correctional Treatment Centers and an Outpatient Housing Unit to care for inmate- patients with

medical problems. Mental Health services include the Psychiatric Services Unit, Enhanced

Outpatient Programs, Correctional Clinical Case Management System, Mental Health Outpatient

Housing Unit and Mental Health Crisis Beds.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the facility including the kitchen, classroom, housing units and administrative

segregation unit. Interviews were conducted with an Associate Warden, the Appeals Officer, a

Captain and the Warden. In response to complaints received by the Grand Jury, jurors interviewed

inmates. The Grand Jury also received a status briefing from the on- site liaisons for Coleman, Plata

and Perez, the three lawsuits3 which put prison medical, dental and mental health services in federal

receivership.

The Grand Jury was advised that the prison provided for several vocational and academic programs.

Two of the academic and vocational programs of note are: Arts in Corrections Program ( AIC) and

Career Technical Education- Carpentry Program.

The AIC is a multi- disciplinary instructional fine arts program that provides opportunities for

inmates to participate in hands- on experiences in a variety of fine art and fine craft disciplines

through the presentation of classes, workshops and performances. Beyond learning an art skill, the

anticipated outcomes of the program include, but are not limited to, the development of

communication skills, increased self- motivation, ability to complete tasks and projects, development

of critical thinking and creative problem solving skills, ability to receive and give constructive

criticism, and an overall increase in self- esteem.

The Career Technical Education- Carpentry Program had a graduation for 12 inmates from CSPS at

the Modular Building Enterprise on February 13, 2007. This is the second class to graduate. The

inmates were enrolled in the carpentry union and given tools to start their trade.

3 Coleman v. Wilson: The court found that the entire mental health system operated by the California Department of

Corrections ( CDC) was unconstitutional and that prison officials were indifferent to the needs of mentally ill inmates. All

CDC institutions are presently being monitored by a court- appointed special master to evaluate the CDC's compliance

with the court's order. Plata v. Davis: In a prison class action lawsuit, prisoners alleged that California officials inflicted

cruel and unusual punishment by being indifferent to serious medical needs. A settlement agreement filed in 2002

requires the CDC to completely overhaul its medical care policies and procedures, and to direct significant resources to

ensure timely access to adequate care. The settlement allows the state to phase in the new policies and procedures over

several years and gives an independent medical panel the responsibility to audit the state's progress. Perez v. Tilton: An

amended stipulation filed in this federal class action lawsuit on August 21, 2006 requires the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation ( CDCR formerly known as the CDC) to provide adequate dental care for state prisoners.

Pursuant to this federal court order, the CDCR must implement new procedures and policies to ensure that prisoners

receive competent and timely dental treatment. Compliance is to be monitored by the prisoners' attorneys and their

consultants, as well as independent court- appointed experts.

7

Folsom State Prison

Background

Folsom State Prison ( Old Folsom) is California’s second oldest prison, and was known for its harsh

conditions in the decades following the California gold rush. Construction of the facility began in

1878 on the site of the Stony Bar mining camp along the American River. The prison officially

opened in 1880 with the transfer of 44 inmates from San Quentin Prison.

Old Folsom was one of America’s first maximum security prisons. A total of 93 prisoners were

hanged at Old Folsom between December 13, 1895, and December 3, 1937, after which time

executions were carried out in the gas chamber at San Quentin Prison.

The location for Old Folsom, on approximately 882 acres within the present City of Folsom, was

selected due to an abundance of native granite stone for building the prison. Also, the American

River offered ample water and formed a natural boundary. Inmate laborers built the first dam and

canal on the American River, which led to the first hydroelectric power plant for the Sacramento

area.

Although Old Folsom was originally a maximum security prison, it now primarily houses medium

security prisoners. The granite walled security perimeter encompasses four general population cell

blocks and an administrative segregation unit. 1 There are two dining halls, a large central prison

exercise yard, and two smaller exercise yards. Inmates are housed in cells originally designed for

one inmate, but now house two. All cells include toilet, sink, bunks and storage space for inmate

possessions. The original cell block, still in use today, has solid boiler plate doors in stone cells

measuring six feet by eight feet with six inch eye slots. Air holes were drilled into the cell doors in

the 1940s.

The Prison Industry Authority operates three factories inside Old Folsom. The license plate factory

manufactures vehicle plates for the entire state of California. There is also a metal fabrication and

sign shop and a furniture factory.

Vocational and academic classes are offered to the inmates. Vocational training includes auto body

repair, auto mechanics, welding, building maintenance, electronics, graphic arts, janitorial,

landscape gardening, masonry, cabinetmaking, and office services. Academic classes include adult

basic education, high school GED, English as a Second Language, literacy program and computer

assisted instruction.

Old Folsom’s operating budget for fiscal year 2006- 2007 is $ 118 million. Old Folsom has a staff of

1 Administrative segregation can be used for inmates who are “ prone to: escape, assault staff or other inmates, disrupt the

operations of the jail, or likely to need protection from other inmates . . . . Administrative segregation consists of separate

and secure housing only, but shall not involve any other deprivation of privileges other than what is necessary to obtain

the objective of protecting the inmates and staff.” ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1053.)

8

approximately 1,000 employees: 625 sworn peace officers and 375 support services staff. There are

currently over 4,000 inmates at Old Folsom, which is double the intended capacity.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the facility, viewing cell blocks and exercise yards. Although the prison is

old, officials have attempted to update the facility where possible. The Grand Jury observed crowded

conditions within the facility that may compromise the safety of the inmates and correctional

employees.

Sacramento County Main Jail

Background

The Sacramento County Main Jail ( Main Jail) was completed in 1989. It is conveniently located

downtown near the main courthouse and the interstate freeway system. Although it was originally

designed as a single bunk cell system it is currently almost totally configured for double occupancy.

The maximum occupancy is 2,420 and on the day of the Grand Jury’s visit there were 2,402 inmates.

Most of the inmates are awaiting trial or adjudication of their cases. Each year the main jail receives

( books) approximately 55,000 individuals who have been detained and arrested in Sacramento

County.

There are 198 peace officers on staff, well below the authorized staffing of 239 deputies. In addition

there are more than 100 support staff including medical personnel. The average age of the guards is

34. For many officers this is their first duty following training.

Observations

The Grand Jury was given an informational briefing by the Main Jail staff, and following the

briefing inspected many of the jails functional areas including: the intake department ( booking), the

intake medical evaluation section, the detoxification cells, the inmate cells, the food service facilities

and the medical sick call units. Jurors also had the opportunity to speak with guards and inmates.

2006 Correctional Facility Audit

Following their August tour of the Main Jail, the Grand Jury learned of an audit that was performed

on local correctional facilities. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors authorized a

comprehensive audit of the Sheriff’s Department Jail Operations on January 31, 2006. This review

was performed by Joseph Brann and Associates and was submitted to the Supervisors on June 20,

2006. The scope of the audit included an examination of current practices and recent improvements

in the handling, processing and treatment of inmates by reviewing:

• Exit interviews with inmates

• Cameras and other technology

• Screening and classification of inmates

9

• Access to medical care

• Use of force policy

• Management and supervision of officers

The audit also examined other aspects of jail operations including:

• Litigation

• Complaints/ grievances

• Staffing/ vacancies

• Experience levels of the staff

The report that was submitted in June 2006 directed the Sheriff and County Executive to “ evaluate

the consultants’ recommendations and report back on said recommendations and possible

implementation in approximately 90- 120 days.”

On October 31, 2006, the Sheriff’s Department submitted to the Board of Supervisors its response to

the jail operations audit. The jail management agreed with all 38 of the audit recommendations and

described how they would comply with each recommendation. Interested individuals can obtain a

copy of the audit and/ or reply by contacting the Board of Supervisors or the Sheriff’s Department.

Sacramento County Juvenile Hall

Background

Juvenile Hall provides detention of youth awaiting appearances in adult or juvenile court, serving

time, or pending placement or delivery to other programs. Probation Department staff supervises

youth programs that encourage appropriate conduct through behavior modification, education,

recreation and counseling. The facility has ten living units with a state certified capacity for 261

residents. At the time of the visit there were approximately 273 residents and it was reported that

chronic overcrowding of the Juvenile Hall has been a problem. Juvenile Hall has undergone an

expansion that added 90 new beds in early 2007. As wards are moved to the new beds from the older

living units the old units will be closed and renovated. Renovations of the ten living units will not be

completed until 2010. Juvenile Hall received funding approval in February 2007 for an additional 60

beds and 60 shelled- out beds, i. e., beds that can be made ready as needed. In addition, the contract

with Yolo County for 15 beds is being increased to 30 beds on July 1, 2007.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the clinic, kitchen, bathroom facilities, residents’ rooms and classrooms.

Grand Jury members also interviewed several residents. Due to a pending lawsuit, no further

comment will be made prior to the disposition of that case.

10

Warren E. Thornton Youth Center

Background

The Warren E. Thornton Youth Center ( WETYC) is a 110 bed coed post commitment facility for

juvenile offenders ages 12- 18, who range from those who have been committed to placement at

WETYC to a small number of offenders who have been to court and are awaiting sentencing. The

program provides a structured environment that consists of a residential component, followed by a

period of intense community supervision.

“ The mission of the WETYC is to provide youth with an environment that facilitates offender

accountability, competency development, and victim restoration”.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the kitchen, bathroom facilities, residents’ rooms and classrooms. Grand Jury

members also interviewed several residents. Due to a pending lawsuit, no further comment will be

made prior to the disposition of that case.

Sacramento Assessment Center – IMPACT Program

Background

The Sacramento Assessment Center ( Center) is a 21 bed, non- secure, coeducational, pre- placement

facility located near the Juvenile Hall for low- risk juvenile offenders. When a juvenile offender is

identified who may benefit from a less severe punishment than incarceration and the case has been

adjudicated, the Center performs a comprehensive assessment to determine placement needs. It uses

the IMPACT ( Integrated Model for Placement Case Management and Treatment) program as a tool

to develop a case plan. The goal of this plan is to assign the minor to the most appropriate placement

available by identifying the treatment and/ or services that best address his or her situation. The team

consists of a deputy probation officer, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker and an

occupational/ recreational therapist to determine the performance level of the subject in ten areas.

These include criminal proclivity, education, psychological and psychiatric adjustment, medical

history, social interaction and recreational interests, vocational skills, substance abuse history and

family dynamics.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the kitchen, bathroom facilities, residents’ rooms and classrooms. Grand Jury

members also spoke to several residents. Due to a pending lawsuit, no further comment will be made

prior to the disposition of that case.

11

Sacramento County Boys Ranch

Background

The Ranch is a secure 125- bed facility designed for male wards with a history of serious and/ or

repeated offenses. The facility was opened in 1960 and for the first time since, the demand exceeds

the bed capacity for wards to be committed to the Boys Ranch. The average stay at the Boys Ranch

is 122 days. The program focuses on education ( reading and math) and vocational training. There are

four vocational training programs: building maintenance and repair, computer graphics, landscaping

and welding.

There is not an equivalent facility for girls.

Observations

The Grand Jury toured the kitchen, bathroom facilities, residents’ rooms, and classrooms. Grand

Jury members also interviewed several residents. Due to a pending lawsuit, no further comment will

be made prior to the disposition of that case.

Education Committee

The Education Committee is authorized to review the activities of school districts within Sacramento

County, as well as the Los Rios Community College District. The committee responds to citizen

complaints alleging school district irregularities and initiates investigations into various education

issues, including those programs associated with correctional institutions within Sacramento County

( e. g., Juvenile Hall, Boys Ranch, etc.) which fall under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento County

Board of Education.

During its term, the committee received a citizen complaint regarding procurement procedures at

one of the school districts. The committee opened an investigation and upon further examination and

review determined that the complaint would be more appropriately handled through the civil court

system and closed the investigation.

Members of the committee met with the County Superintendent of Schools and discussed a number

of topics of interest to the committee and other areas for potential investigation. Specifically, the

committee was interested in learning more about the various programs being instituted county wide

to help bridge school, college and workforce readiness, including, but not limited to, Regional

Occupational Programs ( ROP) and Advancement Via Individual Determination programs ( AVID).

The committee obtained and reviewed the appropriate “ School Accountability Report Cards” for a

number of high schools, prepared in accordance with State Board of Education guidelines. The

committee then formed teams and toured four high schools in Sacramento as a follow- up to those

reports.

12

Grant Union High School

Grant Union High School is the oldest high school in the Grant Joint Unified School District. It has

an enrollment of approximately 2,100 students made up of a diverse population with Hispanics,

Asians and African Americans as the largest three. Grant is a comprehensive high school, serving

grades 9 though 12. The school’s goal is to graduate students prepared to go to college or directly to

work. Many programs are in place to achieve this goal.

To support the rigor of classes and prepare for college entrance, Grant offers programs such as

AVID that support students academically during the school day and tutoring in all subjects after

school. Qualified students may enroll in the Advanced Placement ( AP) courses in Art, English,

Mathematics and Social Sciences in order to take college- level courses and exams while still in high

school.

To provide students the opportunity of vocational education, Grant offers a wide range of career and

technical pathways, e. g., the Criminal Justice Academy, the Environmental Science Academy, the

Maritime Academy ( new this year) and various business and ROP classes. Junior Reserve Officers

Training Corps ( JROTC) is offered to students in lieu of the two year physical education

requirement.

The new principal for the 2006- 2007 school year, who replaced a long- term principal, appears to

have made a smooth transition into his new position. During the tour students greeted the principal

by name; he knew many of their names as well. His enthusiasm for the school is obvious and his

vision for all students to succeed is his motivating goal.

Many extracurricular programs are available to students as well as a large after school sports

program. The winning “ Pacer” football tradition is a source of pride for the students and the

surrounding community.

Luther Burbank High School

Members of the Education Committee visited Luther Burbank High School and toured the grounds,

observed some classes and noted the discipline during class change. The facility grounds were

pleasant, appeared to be well maintained and incorporated art work produced by students. Students

appeared generally well disciplined and there did not appear to be any undue tension.

Under the Small Learning Community ( SLC) organization used at Luther Burbank, the school is

divided into seven communities of students and teachers that go from grades nine through twelve

together. Each SLC has a vocation or career path identified: Health & Fitness, Public Service,

International Studies, Architectural & Industrial Technology, Arts & Communication, Business &

Entrepreneurship and Information Technology. Core subjects are taught in relation to the SLC career

path. This arrangement is intended to give the students a closer bond with the teachers and build

trust. The classes visited were orderly and the students appeared to be engaged. Life skills lessons,

such as the importance of showing up for work on time, are incorporated in the subject matter. Also,

13

there was a strong emphasis on the importance of reading and math for success in any job.

Luther Burbank has a very diverse student body with a large number of English language learners

from as many as 30 cultural backgrounds and multiple language groups. Many of the students arrive

with no formal education, even in their own language, and no English language experience.

However, the school must try to prepare them to pass state required tests in as little as two years.

The goal of the school principal and his staff is to keep the student in school and motivated through

individual help and by addressing family issues. The staff stresses to the students the importance of

their accepting “ ownership of goals” for success.

Natomas High School

Natomas High School is in the Natomas Unified School District and accommodates approximately

2,100 students. The school has a diverse and varied cultural makeup, with the highest percentage of

students being Hispanic and African American, reflecting the demographics of the Natomas

community in which it is located. The school opened in 1997 and appears to be in a good overall

state of repair.

The tour of the school was conducted by one of the vice principals, an individual whose exuberance

and dedication to the students impressed the team members. There is a stated goal “ to change the

mindset of the student to develop higher self- esteem.” Although, according to the discussions, a

very low percentage of students are likely to be college bound, the team was informed that the

school is seeking to actively engage students in workforce and other programs to help them succeed

in the future with such innovative approaches as Student Success Teams and programs that

encourage active parent involvement in student progress. There are Advanced Placement ( AP)

classes for achieving students, AVID programs for students performing in the middle ranks of the

student body and intervention programs for lower performers. Specific work experience classes

include topics such as resume preparation, interview skills, employment issues, guest speakers and

worksite visits. There are active ROP and other career preparation programs such as automotive,

construction, industrial technical classes, forensic science and dramatic arts classes. There is also a

very successful four year Air Force JROTC program administered by personnel who impressed the

team as individuals who seemed to be truly interested in motivating their students and have had

success in increasing the grade point averages for many of those enrolled in the program.

One of the challenges being faced by this school is the constant mobility of a large percentage of the

student population, i. e., while the numbers remain the same, the faces are changing.

Valley High School

Members of the Education Committee visited Valley High School in the Elk Grove Unified School

District where they were briefed by the principal. The principal conducted the tour of the school,

answered questions and introduced various members of the staff and some students. Although the

14

campus was built 30 years ago, it has recently been modernized and appears well maintained and

clean.

The current enrollment is about 1,700 students, down from about 2,700 ten years ago. The

enrollment goal is from 1,800- 2,200 students. Last year about 25% of the students were considered

English language learners with about 21 language groups represented.

Valley’s curriculum includes “ Special Academies” such as Tomorrow’s Employees in Careers in

Health ( Health TECH), which provides a school- to- work educational experience, and a Teacher

Academy, designed to prepare students for teacher training programs. An Air Force JROTC

program, an AVID program and advanced courses for Gifted and Talented Education students are

also offered.

The committee toured the school campus during the lunch periods and the students appeared orderly.

The school seems to have dealt quite successfully with student cell phone issues by a progressive

discipline program.

Environment, Public Works and Special Districts Committee

The Environment, Public Works and Special Districts Committee has the authority to review city

and county government agencies and all special districts in Sacramento County. The committee

received three citizen complaints. Each was considered but not opened for investigation. One

holdover complaint from the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury was also considered but not opened for

investigation.

Three investigations were generated by the committee. The results of two of the investigations,

concerning Sacramento County flood risk and SMUD’s Rancho Seco nuclear waste, are reported in

this 2006- 2007 Grand Jury Final Report. The third, concerning safety in the American River

Parkway is summarized as follows:

Safety in the American River Parkway

Background

The committee visited the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks ( Department) to assess

the degree of safety afforded to users of the American River Parkway. The parkway consists of

approximately 4,600 acres containing 82 miles of trails, including 26 miles of bike trails, and 26

miles of equestrian trails. There are approximately 600 acres of developed land for parks, picnic

sites, the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, two golf courses, six boat ramps and a pier. The parkway is

accessible from a number of locations. It is estimated that over five million visitors enjoy the

parkway annually for fishing, boating, rafting, hiking, biking and leisure every year.

Twenty- two park rangers, who are sworn peace officers with full law enforcement authority, patrol

15

the parkway by pick- up trucks and motorbikes to ensure the safety and security of the park and its

visitors. The rangers normally operate in two shifts with overlap at the busiest time of day. In spite

of the large number of users, the incidence of crime is very low and most citations are written for

ordinance violations such as illegal parking or camping. Disturbance control has been helped by the

recent decision of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to limit alcohol use in parks on

holiday weekends.

The Department has established an e- mail network with various volunteer groups that regularly use

the parkway so there can be instant communication with hundreds of people if help is needed to look

for suspicious or unruly people.

In addition to patrol and enforcement, the Department has an excellent information program to

advise users of park hazards and to encourage an “ Exercise With a Friend” approach. A park user

may encounter snakes and wildlife or be involved in an accident and a companion could be of

assistance. However, many users hike, bike, walk or run alone. Phones are available at every mile on

the bike trail to give direct contact to the Ranger Dispatch Center.

Conclusion

The committee was satisfied that the Department is doing a good job of providing security and

safety for the visitors to the American River Parkway.

Health and Human Services Committee

The role of the Health and Human Services Committee is to investigate and gather information on

policies and procedures of health and human service agencies serving Sacramento County. These

include: Bureau of Family Support, Coroner’s Office, Department of Health and Human Services,

Department of Human Assistance, Department of Mental Health, Public Administration/ Public

Guardian, Senior and Adult Services, Children’s Protective Services and Welfare Fraud. Tours were

conducted of many of these agencies or divisions, including the Coroner’s Office and the County

Primary Care Clinic.

The committee initiated a number of investigations, two of which resulted in reports which are

included in this Final Report. They are: “ The Sacramento County Primary Care Clinic,” and the

“ County Heat Emergency Response.” Other investigations were not completed due to their

complexity and exigencies of time. These have been referred to the 2007- 2008 Grand Jury, and

remain confidential.

2006 – 2007 Reports

19

2006 – 2007 REPORTS

North Natomas: Development Gone Awry

Issue

Does the reality of the development in North Natomas today reflect the City of Sacramento’s

original planning goals?

Until minimum flood protection is certified in North Natomas, is public safety at risk by allowing

continued development?

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury issued an interim report entitled “ The Kings and City and County of Sacramento:

Betrayal in the Kingdom?” That report noted that the arrival of the Kings put pressure on

Sacramento to allow development in North Natomas. That Grand Jury investigation led to an

investigation concerning the development of North Natomas.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury did archival research and conducted approximately 40 interviews including

numerous public officials at various levels of local government. In addition, persons versed in land

development, building, bonds, environmental issues, and flood issues, were interviewed.

The Grand Jury reviewed agreements, memoranda, drafts, resolutions, legal opinions, maps,

correspondence, media articles and other documents including the following:

• City and County of Sacramento General Plans

• North Natomas Community Plans and Maps

• North Natomas Financing Plans

• North Natomas Nexus Study

• Environmental reports for development and planning in North Natomas

• Documents relating to floods, most specifically concerning North Natomas

• Documents relating to transportation

• Published materials

• Internet research

20

Executive Summary

North Natomas has rapidly developed from a flood prone agricultural area to what is, in essence, a

city within the City of Sacramento. The original owners of the Kings were the primary movers for

development in North Natomas. On May 13, 1986, by Resolution No. 86- 348 the city amended the

General Plan to allow development in North Natomas. The City of Sacramento entered into a

development agreement with the Kings’ owners on October 6, 1987. The city made the land use

decision to allow development, in part, on fiscal considerations associated with new development.

This type of land use has come to be known as “ the fiscalization of land use” in California. 1

However, due to a number of reasons including flood issues, building/ development did not start in

earnest until 1998. The Grand Jury investigation has shown that although many officials in the City

of Sacramento have been involved in the planning and development of North Natomas, there were

various mistakes and shortcomings associated with the actual results. This report briefly reviews the

development history of North Natomas and concludes with two major recommendations: first, a

truly independent fiscal and compliance audit should be conducted regarding the planning and

execution of the North Natomas development, and second, that all building, not just planning, be

halted in North Natomas until the minimum 100- year flood protection is certified by the federal

government.

Background and Facts, Part I

Development Criteria

The area referred to as North Natomas is bounded by Elkhorn Boulevard to the north, Interstate 80

to the south, Steelhead Creek ( the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal) to the east, and the West

Drainage Canal, Fisherman’s Lake, and Highway 99 to the west. The area is 9,038 acres: 7,438 acres

in the city and 1,600 acres in the county. The community is located in the northwest portion of the

City of Sacramento and has a population of approximately 60,000 people, with shopping centers,

commercial buildings, Arco Arena, and an extensive infrastructure.

Before 1961, North Natomas was in the unincorporated area of the county and was zoned for

agriculture. At the request of property owners approximately 6,500 acres were annexed to the city by

1961. In the early 1960s the selection of routes for two interstate highways, Interstate 5 and

Interstate 80, which now go through the Natomas area, took place. In 1973, the City of Sacramento

added an Open Space and Conservation Element to its City General Plan and in 1974 adopted a City

Wide General Plan which contained the city’s policy against leap- frog development and encouraged

urbanization only adjacent to existing urbanized areas. On April 13, 1982, the city adopted a

“ Growth Policy for the City” by Resolution No. 82- 251which provided in part:

North Natomas is, for the most part, high quality, economically productive

1The California Planning Roundtable, “ Restoring The Balance: Managing Fiscal Issues And Land Use Planning

Decisions In California,” October 1997. “ A policy environment in which land- use decisions are made mostly or

entirely based on fiscal considerations, rather than with an eye toward healthy and balanced communities.”

21

agricultural land and there is no suitable land in the Sacramento area which can

be substituted which is not already under production; and there are no remaining

physical barriers within either the city or county which will limit the extent of

urbanization if North Natomas is opened for urban development.

The entire North Natomas area was designated as “ agriculture” in the General Plan. Shortly after

adopting the city growth policy that sought to preserve agricultural land in North Natomas, there

were efforts under way to thwart the spirit and intent of the policy. Developers who had purchased

the Kansas City Kings in 1983, along with others, filed five applications seeking development

entitlements to convert agricultural land to urban uses in North Natomas. In December 1983, and

January 1984, the applications sought development entitlements for 2,662 acres of North Natomas

land designated as agricultural. The granting of the applications would require the city to amend the

1974 City General Plan or the growth policy adopted by the city council in 1982. In response to the

applications, the city authorized $ 1.5 million to fund the North Natomas Community Planning

Studies. The planning studies’ scope of work, approved in February 1984, proposed the city

coordinate with the county and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG), in the

preparation of a preferred land use plan and alternative land use plans for North Natomas. The scope

of work also proposed the preparation and processing of a single environmental impact report ( EIR)

for subsequent city and county actions in the community plan. The city analyzed the individual land

use applications which the city had received against land use alternatives in the EIR. 2 The planning

studies ultimately led to the adoption of the 1986 North Natomas Community Plan ( NNCP) and a

General Plan which did open the area to development.

While the city’s planning process was progressing for North Natomas, the Sacramento County Board

of Supervisors, on May 15, 1985, approved a use permit for a warehouse in the county to be used as

a temporary arena on North Market Boulevard in North Natomas. The permit also allowed for

rezoning the adjacent acres for office buildings. In 1985, the Kings played their first game in

Sacramento in the temporary facility. The Kings’ owners, under a short time frame imposed by the

National Basketball Association to build a permanent arena, increased their efforts with the city for

approval to build an arena in North Natomas and to develop commercial buildings on their adjacent

property. The owners of the Kings were the primary movers, with the support of other developers, to

have the city allow development in North Natomas.

On May 13, 1986, the city, by resolution No. 86- 348, amended the 1974 General Plan to allow

development of North Natomas. Resolution No. 86- 348 adopted the NNCP which provides, in part,

2 Five alternatives analyzed in the EIR were:

Alternative A: No Project. Use would remain agricultural and no additional urban growth would occur in the city

area.

Alternative B: Permit urbanization east of Interstate 5 ( I- 5). Area west of I- 5 and a portion of the area south of

Elkhorn Boulevard would remain agricultural.

Alternative C: An estimated 31,052 housing units would be developed with an estimated total population of 63,907

persons. Under this alternative there would be a 200- acre sports complex.

Alternative D: Allow all the area east and west of I- 5 to be urbanized.

Alternative E: Incorporate the five land use applications filed with the city for the North Natomas area. This

alternative would allow for an estimated 42,752 housing units and estimated population of 76,626

persons and the 200- acre sports complex.

22

that development of North Natomas should be guided by the following principles and goals:

• The development will provide stimulus needed to reverse the city’s long- standing inability to

attract major industrial employers and new sources of employment and housing at a central

urban location within the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

• The community should contain optimum amounts of land devoted to parks, recreational

facilities and open space.

• The new North Natomas Community must be financially sound. This means that the mix and

intensity of land uses within the area must be financially capable of supporting not only the

capital costs of the infrastructure required for its development, but also the ongoing costs of

maintaining that infrastructure and providing quality public services, including the

acquisition and maintenance of a regional park.

• The net tax revenues generated by development of the North Natomas Area must provide an

. revenue surplus for use throughout the city.

• The initial phase of the development must afford an intensity and mix of land uses to ensure

economic viability for the proposed private development of a sports arena. It should also be

adequate to fund the excess capacity of the North Natomas Area infrastructure which must

be constructed in that phase to serve subsequent phases of development.

• The development of the area should contain an adequate mix of employment generating land

uses and housing for employees. A jobs- to- housing ratio goal of 60% is reasonable and

attainable.

• The intensity and mix of land uses within the area should recognize and protect future

operations of the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport.

On October 6, 1987, the city entered into a development agreement for the arena, a stadium, related

parking and other facilities.

Sacramento city’s stated planning goals for Natomas placed heavy emphasis on fiscal objectives: to

attract major industrial employers, to provide new sources of employment, and to generate ongoing

reserve surplus for use throughout the city.

The fiscal concerns facing Sacramento in 1986 were not unique to Sacramento. Proposition 13, which

cut local tax revenues, has had the effect in California of forcing local government to find alternative

sources of revenue for infrastructure and for providing basic services. The city and other local

governments throughout California have sought ways to maximize their revenue and minimize their

costs. This has led to development fees or impact fees to pay for roads, sewers and parks. Besides

development fees, local governments started encouraging development that increases sales tax

revenues, such as shopping malls and car dealerships. The California Planning Roundtable stated:

By its very nature, land- use planning is supposed to be a balancing act. Through

the planning process, local elected officials and local citizens consider the full

range of activities required to create a healthy community- housing, shopping,

jobs, recreational opportunities, transportation facilities, open space.

Today, however, land- use planning no longer ensures a healthy balance in

California communities. Simply put, cities and counties assess the value of new

23

real estate development projects by asking, Will the project bring in money – or

cost money to service? Cities compete with each other for commercial

centers . . . . 3

By 1990, little development had taken place in North Natomas except the construction of the arena

and the beginning of construction of a stadium/ sports complex. After adoption of the North Natomas

Community Plan in 1986, environmentalists filed lawsuits which held up development. These suits

were settled in 1988. Other matters holding up development were flood issues and the reluctance of

developers to agree among themselves, and with the city, on funding infrastructure and community

facilities.

The city created and provides some financial assistance to the North Natomas Transportation

Management Association. The Association in its literature describes North Natomas as follows:

Rising from the plains just north of downtown Sacramento, the North Natomas

community is the result of a far- reaching vision, based upon brilliant planning and

first- class implementation. Residents, environmentalists, planners, developers,

business owners and a host of other people and organizations conceived the North

Natomas Community Plan as the blueprint for this area through decades of

collaboration. The result is one of the most ‘ livable communities’ in the region and

a community that serves as a model for the rest of the nation.

The concept as proposed for the development of North Natomas was to create small, self- contained

“ villages” consisting of residences, shops and work places all within walking distance. There were to

be bike trails, local schools in each village, a jobs- to- housing ratio of 60%, and the attraction of new

industrial employers. All of this development was to be financially capable of supporting not only

the capital costs of the infrastructure required for development, but also the ongoing costs of

maintaining that infrastructure and providing quality public services, including the acquisition and

maintenance of a regional park.

3 The California Planning Roundtable, “ Restoring The Balance: Managing Fiscal Issues and Land Use Planning

Decisions In California,” October 1997. An in depth discussion of the Fiscalization of Land use is beyond the scope of

this report. The following are informative and particularly relevant given the explosive growth of shopping malls and

competition for sales tax revenue between local units of government in Sacramento County:

• Miscznski, Dean J., “ The Fiscalization of Land Use,” in John J. Kirlin and Donald R. Winkler ( Eds.).

California Policy Choices, Vol. 3, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1986.

• Regional Tax- Base Sharing. See Sacramento Regional Smart Growth Act of 2002 ( AB 680- Steinberg),

Sacramento: Bill would have pooled and redistributed tax revenue, derived from new development within the

Sacramento region. One third of the pooled revenue would have been redistributed to cities based on

population. Another third would stay in the city where the development is located. The final third would have

gone to the host city provided it meets certain “ smart growth” goals, including affordable housing creation,

open space preservation, and infill development. The cities in the Sacramento region opposed the bill and it did

not pass.

24

What are the results of this model of planning and implementation?

• The city lacks the financial resources to develop all the planned parks, especially the

regional park.

• No police substation has been constructed as required by the NNCP.

• The creation and maintenance of a 250 foot buffer along the boundary ( Fisherman’s Lake

Buffer) has not been maintained.

• Natomas Landing development on 69 acres on the north east corner of Del Paso Road and El

Centro Road along I- 5 had been designated for office/ employment complexes; it is currently

planned for commercial development and will add to the already congested traffic problem at

this intersection.

• It is predicted that it is going to take $ 800 million to extend light rail from downtown to the

airport, and to provide service to Natomas with an estimated implementation date of 2027.

When the money will be forthcoming and from where is uncertain. The Grand Jury has been

advised that there may be less environmentally damaging and less expensive means of

providing transportation to and through Natomas than a fixed rail traversing the American

River Parkway, crossing major highways and running on already overcrowded major surface

streets.

• Del Paso Road, a major east west thoroughfare, has been constructed with no side walks on

either side of a school. There is no sidewalk along one long stretch of the road near schools

and the town center.

• Some bike trails are dangerous to enter and exit.

• There is no bus transportation on the west side of I- 5.

• Population growth was underestimated by at least 10 to 15% causing under allocation for

park land. 4

• “ Smart growth” principles, i. e., building communities conducive to walking, avoiding long

traffic commutes for work and local neighborhood shopping, intended in the plans for the

area were violated by allowing huge shopping centers to be developed that contribute to

major traffic congestion and which are not transportation friendly or within easy walking

distance to and from the local neighborhoods.

There is no program in place to prevent surface water pollution from being discharged into the

Sacramento River. Street drains carry water directly from the street gutters into the local detention

basins. Pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, eroded soil and oil are carried to the detention

basins. There is no formal program in place to analyze the sediments and soil in the drainage

detention basins to assure the public that pollutants are not being discharged into the Sacramento

River.

The city provides little to no current information to keep the public informed or to help consumers

educate themselves before buying a home. The city web site is difficult at best to navigate and is not

kept up- to- date. Current information either is not available at public counters or does not exist.

4 The North Natomas Financing Plan Area had a total neighborhood and community parks acreage requirement of

approximately 285 acres. Additional acreage was required to account for the difference between the planners’ estimate in

the North Natomas Community Plan and the city’s Quimby Park Ordinance of five acres per one thousand residents

which led to retention basins being counted as park land.

25

The development has caused ever increasing costs of providing and maintaining municipal services

and amenities such as parks and a police station, while the city is left with the financial burden.

The planning and implementation of the development in North Natomas raises the following

questions: Who within the city has responsibility, who has oversight of the implementation of the

community plans, and who has actual knowledge of what is happening?

The city is continuing its efforts to add new areas into the development of North Natomas on the

east, west and to the north up to the Sutter County line. The combined areas of the proposed

developments are larger than the current developed area of North Natomas. The city is presently

pursuing the following annexation and/ or sphere of influence efforts: Natomas Panhandle ( M05- 031;

PO5- 077), addition of 1,465 unincorporated acres between Elkhorn Boulevard and I- 80; Greenbriar

( M05- 046; P05- 069), the addition of 577 unincorporated acres at the northwest intersection of I- 5

and Highway 99/ 70; Natomas Joint Vision ( M06- 047), the addition of 25,000 acres north of Elkhorn

Boulevard to the Sutter County line. 5 All these areas, as they are developed, will pose additional

traffic burdens to the existing traffic problems. In addition, these new developments will cause

problems for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The building and the development

continue in North Natomas and the efforts to expand are progressing even though the area is at risk

of flood.

Background and Facts, Part II

Development in a Flood Plain

The Natomas basin is a deep flood plain and is currently vulnerable to potential flood damage and

loss of life. Following major flooding in 1986, the Corps of Engineers ( the Corps) evaluated the

Sacramento flood control system. It determined the system inadequate to meet the minimum 100-

year level of flood protection required by the National Flood Insurance Program managed by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). 6 The Corps estimated that flood depths likely to

result from a 100- year flood would range from two feet to an excess of fifteen feet in the Natomas

basin. Under FEMA’s regulations this finding would have stopped all building. 7

In 1987, FEMA indicated it was going to redraw the flood maps to place North Natomas outside of

the 100- year flood plain protection. Sacramento, in response, requested the redrawing be delayed for

five to ten years. If FEMA would delay the remapping, the city could proceed with the expected

growth. Additionally, property owners would not be required to purchase flood insurance. FEMA

denied this request.

5 The sources of the numbers in parentheses and descriptions of the areas are the March 2007 City of Sacramento

Annexation Status Report and the City of Sacramento Planning Department web site.

6 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Vol. 4, Fall 2006, Flood Watch newsletter. “ 100 Year Protection: Estimated 1

in 100 chance of flooding in any given year. 200 year protection: Estimated 1 in 200 chance of flooding in any given

year.”

7 This report is limited in scope to North Natomas.

26

In 1988, Sacramento was successful in getting federal legislation passed delaying FEMA from using

the new Base Flood Elevations ( BFE) to regulate development in the Natomas flood plain until

November 7, 1992. FEMA created a special A99 flood zone. Flood zones are defined by FEMA and

describe land area in terms of its risk of flooding. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood

Hazard Boundary Map or a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Each zone reflects anticipated severity of

flooding in the area, and generally includes regulations concerning building in the zone. 8

In February 1990, the City adopted a Land Use Planning Policy Within the 100- year Floodplain

( Flood Policy). The Flood Policy imposed a de facto moratorium on residential development in the

Natomas area during the period it would take to get recertified protection and imposed conditions on

all non- residential building permits to meet certain criteria to minimize risks due to flood.

Sacramento’s continued reliance on FEMA’s minimum 100- year standard is not prudent. 9 This is an

insurance requirement, not a safety standard. Testimony supporting the authorization of the Corps’

American River project before the House Interior Committee on July 23, 1992, puts this matter in

perspective:

. . . FEMA’s 100- year requirement is not a public safety standard. It is an insurance

standard only, created as a compromise between the Federal government and local

development interests in order to facilitate widespread participation in the NFIP

[ National Flood Insurance Program].

As FEMA itself acknowledges, the 100- year standard is not meant as a particular

substitute for public safety determination in particular circumstances. This is

because the 100- year standard is essentially a frequency threshold that takes no

local variable into account, such as the depth and severity of flood damages in one

flood plain versus another . . . .

The Congress passed legislation in 1992 directing FEMA to create a new “ AR” flood zone

designation applicable to communities such as Sacramento. The rationale was that a previously

certified 100- year flood protection system had been decertified due to updated hydrologic data.

FEMA was prohibited from requiring elevation of improvements to existing structures.

In 1998, the Corps certified that levee work in the North Natomas area had raised the flood

protection level to the 100- year standard, and the de facto moratorium applied by the city in 1990

8 FEMA zones applicable to Sacramento are as follows:

AE: If building in the flood area, requires that the lowest floor of new construction be elevated to one foot above

the BFE.

AR: If work is proceeding with approved levee work or dam alterations, new construction must be elevated to

place the first floor three feet above the adjoining land if the expected BFE is no more than five feet above

grade.

A99: A special zone for Sacramento, and a few other communities, which allows building without restriction as

long as a federal levee project is underway and construction has reached a specified level.

9 Department of Water Resources’ letter to the City of Sacramento, November 21, 2006.

27

was lifted. Development in the area expanded at an accelerating rate; in excess of 30,000 people

have been allowed to buy, build, and live in this area historically subject to flooding.

As a result of the high water event in 2005 which exposed some levee weakness, and in view of

Hurricane Katrina, The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency ( SAFCA) requested that the North

Natomas flood control system be re- evaluated. The Corps found that North Natomas is without

adequate flood protection. FEMA has indicated that the area will be re- mapped to reflect the newly

identified risk.

However, the city allows building to go on in North Natomas even though the area is at risk of flood.

In the event of the need for mass evacuation of this area, there is no way for it to be accomplished in

a timely and safe manner. Some streets in Natomas could be under one foot of water and impassible

in less than an hour, and there are no specifically designated shelters for the citizens to get out of a

flood and wait for evacuation.

SAFCA, the Corps and Department of Water Resources ( DWR) have given the city notice that the

Natomas area lacks 100- year flood protection. DWR in a letter dated November 21, 2006, to the city,

which was published in the newspaper stated:

It is prudent to consider additional local efforts to protect the public against this

higher risk including the following:

• Limitation on new construction until minimum flood protection is

achieved.

• Building design requirements on any new construction related to potential

depth of flooding and resident survivability.

If the city chooses not to follow the advice of DWR concerning limiting further construction in

North Natomas, could the city be held responsible for flood related damages? In considering that

issue, the known foreseeable risk of flooding would be a significant factor. Unless the risk is abated,

the city’s reasons for allowing continued building would have to be weighed against the benefit of

cessation of further development.

Findings and Recommendations, Part I

Finding 1. The planning and implementation of the development of North Natomas, and the push to

develop to the Sutter County line, constitute the fiscalization of land use. In May 1986, the city

rejected the no project alternative ( Alternative A) and the limited development alternative

( Alternative B) for fiscal reasons. The city noted when it made findings on May 13, 1986,

( Resolution No. 86- 348, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations

supporting the NNCP and conforming to the general plan amendments), that the North Natomas area

was going to grow in the unincorporated areas and other places in the region and that the city would

not fiscally benefit unless it allowed the development to proceed on land within the city with full

build out in the entire Natomas basin.

28

Recommendation 1. An independent fiscal and compliance audit needs to be conducted to

determine whether the city has met the stated fiscal goals and whether development has actually

been completed and built in a timely and proper manner. This audit needs to be conducted by

persons versed in land use and development, fiscal issues related to development, and familiar with

municipal financing. Further, the audit needs to be conducted and overseen by some entity or

independent persons not in association with the city.

The audit should observe the actual results of development and compare the results to the stated

goals for developing North Natomas.

The following issues need to be addressed in the audit:

1. Has the development enhanced the city’s ability to attract major industrial employers?

2. Does the area contain optimum amounts of land devoted to parks, recreational facilities and

open space?

3. What has been and will be the fiscal impacts of the development on the city, i. e., is the

revenue derived from the development supporting not only the capital cost of the

infrastructure required for the development, but also the ongoing cost of maintaining that

infrastructure including the development and maintenance of the regional park?

4. Do the actual tax revenues generated by the development of North Natomas provide an

ongoing revenue surplus for use throughout the city?

5. Has the jobs- to- housing ratio goal of 60% been achieved?

6. Have the various fiscal devices that the city used to assist the developers provided a clear

audit trail to determine that builders/ developers did what they were supposed to do with the

money and in a timely and proper manner?

The audit report should be made readily available to the public at the same time it is given to the

city.

Finding 2. There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley

Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the

drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The city may be allowing untreated surface water

containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River.

Recommendation 2. The city should develop and then conduct, on a regular basis, an analysis of the

water, sediments and soil in the drainage detention basins and provide that information to the Central

Valley Water Quality Control Board.

29

Findings and Recommendations, Part II

Finding 3. The plans to evacuate the area in case of a flood event are still being developed.

However, to ignore the advice of DWR and to continue allowing building in the Natomas flood plain

after the city has been put on notice that it does not meet the minimum flood protection status, raise

the question of potential responsibility for flood related damages and loss of life.

Recommendation 3. The city should immediately stop allowing any further building in the North

Natomas flood plain. The restriction should remain in effect until the federal government certifies

the flood protection as meeting the minimum 100- year flood level. The city could allow for

continued planning, and the maintenance of existing structures. In addition, the city should build or

retrofit community buildings to a height sufficient to enable the buildings to act as a shelter for

people to gather until help arrives.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from:

• Sacramento City Council

31

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Work Release Division

Issue

The Grand Jury evaluated the Sheriff’s Department Work Release Division to determine whether the

department is efficient, properly staffed and sufficiently promoted in the community.

Reason for Investigation

California Penal Code section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to inquire into the condition and

management of county jails.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury toured the Work Release Division facility and spoke to the following individuals:

• Administrative Supervisor, Work Release

• Supervisor and Field Coordinator, Work Project

• Sheriff’s Deputies, Toy Project

• Finance and Collections Supervisors, Revenue Collections Unit

• Supervisor, Home Detention Program

• Supervisor, Revenue and Recovery Warrant Unit

• Civilian booking employee

• Inmate

The Grand Jury also reviewed:

• The Work Release Division Grand Jury Tour Booklet, August 23, 2006

• Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department 2005- 2006 Budget

Background and Facts

In August 2006, the Grand Jury conducted its mandatory tour of this correctional facility. The staff

and deputies interviewed were enthusiastic and motivated about their programs.

Since 1979, the Work Release Division has conducted Sacramento County’s alternative sentencing

program for inmates. It allows qualified inmates to serve their sentences on electronically monitored

32

home detention or by participating in community work projects. Inmate counts usually range from

1,800- 2,000 on Work Project at any one time and Home Detention is consistently over 323, and

increasing.

This alternative to incarceration allows the inmates to maintain employment and family

relationships. The community benefits from inmate labor provided to groups such as school and park

districts, churches, civic groups and other nonprofit organizations. The county benefits from reduced

jail population and related incarceration. There is also a cost recovery benefit, as inmate participants

are required to pay application and daily fees based on the applicant’s ability to pay. 1

Home Detention Program

Home Detention is an alternative to traditional incarceration. Participants are allowed to live in their

homes and are monitored by electronic equipment that tracks their movements. The equipment also

conducts alcohol breath tests randomly throughout each day for those inmates with alcohol related

offenses. All participants are also required to provide samples for drug analysis when requested.

Work Project Program

The Work Project Program was created in 1978 to allow specific inmates, who are sentenced and

considered low risk, to work in their community instead of serving time in Sacramento County jail

facilities. Inmates are recommended by the sentencing judge to participate in the program. If

accepted, they are assigned to one of more than 25 work sites throughout the county. They work one

or more days per week on a work crew supervised by a deputy sheriff. Good time is computed into

their sentence and release dates are adjusted accordingly. 2 Participants are monitored for their

attitude, dress and productivity. Currently, 84 percent of inmates complete the program, and program

failures are returned to jail.

There are more than 22 entities receiving the benefit of work performed by Work Project

participants. The type of work ranges from cleanup after community events, weed abatement,

landscape maintenance, trenching, fire breaks, trash pickup, homeless camp cleanup and debris

removal. The California Penal Code limits the use of inmate labor to public domain and nonprofit

entities. There are five public entity contracts for services, with each entity paying the cost of the

deputy’s supervision. A sheriff’s deputy supervises all job sites.

Currently, one Work Project Field Operations sergeant provides supervision to 17 full- time deputy

sheriffs and as many as 19 on call deputy sheriffs over a seven day week. These 19 on call deputy

1 California Penal Code section 1208.2( g) states that participation in these programs cannot be denied due to inability to

pay. According to the Sheriff’s Office, up to $ 40 in cost per sentence day may be assessed per inmate on Work Project,

and up to $ 41.73 per day may be assessed to the inmate on home detention. ( The actual cost of Work Project was last

calculated at $ 61.03 per work day, and $ 41.73 per day for Home Detention.) After waivers due to “ ability to pay,” and a

small failure rate, actual collections for fiscal year 2005- 2006 were approximately $ 30.20 per work day for Work Project

and $ 21.16 per day for Home Detention.

2 “ Good time” is time reduced from an inmate’s sentence for participating in a work program. “ Worktime credits shall

apply for performance in work assignments and performance in elementary, high school, or vocational education

programs.” ( Pen. C. § 2933.)

33

sheriffs are scheduled from a changing roster of academy graduates and retired annuitants.

Consequently, this sergeant may supervise 50 individuals annually. There is no other sergeant post

in Sacramento County charged with supervising this many individuals over a seven day week.

As noted in the Work Release Division Grand Jury Tour Booklet, the Work Project has evolved into

one of the largest alternative correctional programs in the nation. 3 The current average number of

inmates participating in the program is over 1,800 a week. Without the program, more jail beds

would be required. The benefit of the labor provided by inmate work crews is worth in excess of $ 5

million per year to the community.

One little known fact about the Work Project Program is that during times of local/ state emergency

or crisis, this group can be mobilized quickly, and up to 450 people can be placed in an area within a

short time period. For example, during the 2006 flooding, Work Project inmates assisted in

sandbagging efforts in high water areas.

The Toy Project

The Toy Project is a charitable function of the Sheriff’s Department in which participants of the

Work Project spend their sentence making toys, building furniture and refurbishing donated

computers and bicycles. The Toy Project has operated since 1984 and has provided children in the

community with over 60,000 gifts. In addition, it has refurbished and distributed over 5,300 bicycles.

Last Christmas, food boxes and gifts were given to more than 1,200 families, with each child up to

17 years of age receiving an average of three gifts.

Although the Toy Project emphasizes the winter holiday season, it also fills special requests

throughout the year from individuals and families in need. These requests come from agencies such

as the Fulfill- A- Wish Foundation, Mustard Seed School, Omni Program, River Oaks Center for

Children, Sacramento Children’s Receiving Home, Trinity Foster Care, Wind Youth Services and

other schools and organizations throughout the community.

There are several sources of funds underwriting the Toy Project. Inmate work crews participating in

the Work Project collect recyclables while doing roadside cleanup. The revenue generated from

recyclables is donated to the Toy Project. Also, 10 – 15 employees of the Work Release Division

volunteer once a week at a local bingo hall. From the efforts of these volunteers, approximately $ 600

a week is donated to the Toy Project. Partnerships with organizations such as YES ( Youth Education

Sports), Heald College and the Salvation Army help make Toy Project items available to children

throughout the Sacramento region. The Toy Project serves as an outreach program for members of

the Sheriff’s Department as they work to build strong ties with the Sacramento community.

3 The Work Project Program has a current annual budget of approximately $ 6 million and generated approximately

$ 3.7 million in fee revenues in fiscal year 2005- 2006. The Home Detention Program has an annual budget of

approximately $ 3 million per year, and generated approximately $ 1.2 million in fiscal year 2005- 2006.

34

Power Program

The Power Program is a community correctional program that helps offenders reintegrate into the

community. This innovative program also offers the offenders something tangible, increases self-esteem

and encourages compliance with the Sheriff’s Department alternative custody programs.

The Power Program offers educational and pre- employment skills to offenders while serving their

sentence on Work Release. A wide range of resources is available such as job training programs

operated by the federal government, Sacramento Employment Training Administration, California

Employment Development Department and Job Club ( operated by the County Department of Human

Assistance).

Problem Oriented Policing ( POP)

The POP officer is responsible for meeting with community members, schools, parks, churches,

Sheriff Service Centers, and nonprofit community based organizations. The POP officer identifies

and prioritizes work that could be accomplished in the community and coordinates with other

community contacts and the Work Project to get the work done.

The POP partners with the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office Multi- Agency Graffiti

Intervention Committee to identify areas affected by graffiti vandalism. Once affected areas are

identified, the POP officer utilizes Work Release participants to remove graffiti and/ or repaint the

blighted areas. Graffiti removal is also provided to the elderly or financially challenged individuals

at no cost. To date, POP has worked throughout the County of Sacramento in parks and trailway

systems, wetland preserves and nature areas, historical buildings, memorial gardens, abandoned

residential lots, churches, schools, parking accesses in the delta and roadways.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. There is inadequate staffing in Work Project Field Operations. The Work Release

Division has requested an Additional Growth Request for a position in this project five times since

2002, but the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has denied its request due to budgetary

restraints.

Recommendation 1. One additional Work Project Field Operations sergeant must be allocated to

address this workload. This sergeant would share in the supervision of up to 36 deputies per week.

Finding 2. The Sheriff’s Department Toy Project is a valuable asset to the community. With little

public promotion or advertisement, the Toy Project provides much needed help to Sacramento’s

families in need. The Toy Project is a nonprofit 501c( 3) organization which allows corporations and

private persons to make tax deductible donations for equipment and materials in order for them to

continue their mission to serve families and children in our community.

35

Recommendation 2. Both the Sheriff and the county should facilitate increased funding for the

advertisement and promotion of this exceptional program.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from:

• Sacramento County Sheriff

37

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center

Issue

The Grand Jury evaluated Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center ( RCCC) to determine whether it is

operating efficiently and is properly staffed.

Reason for Investigation

California Penal Code section 919( b) requires the Grand Jury to inquire into the condition and

management of county jails.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury toured the entire facility and interviewed the following staff members:

• Sacramento County Sheriff

• RCCC Commander

• RCCC Assistant Commander

• Sheriff’s Deputies

• Medical staff

• Education staff

• Food Service Training staff

• Engraving staff

• Welding staff

• Gardening and Landscaping staff

• Inmates

Background and Facts

RCCC is the primary custody facility for inmates sentenced to county jail from Sacramento County

courts. RCCC also houses inmates in transit to and from other jurisdictions. RCCC is the primary

reception point for parole violators held pending revocation hearings and is the transfer point for

defendants sentenced to state prison.

RCCC is located 27 miles south of Sacramento on 640 acres of land. Several facilities were

38

constructed in the 1960s with the capacity to house 750 inmates. By the late 1970s, the institution

needed to expand due to the demands of a growing jail population. Under a project called Plan 2000,

facilities were remodeled and expanded. This project provided a master plan for expansion that

raised the inmate capacity to 2,300. The current population ranges from approximately 1,900 - 2,100

and occasionally exceeds 2,100.

In addition to being the primary confinement facility, RCCC is equipped to accept newly arrested

persons 24 hours a day. Police departments such as Galt, Isleton, Lodi and Elk Grove book the

majority of their arrests into RCCC. Other agencies such as the California Department of Fish and

Game, California Highway Patrol, State Parole Office, State Park Rangers and the Sheriff’s

Department also book arrests into RCCC.

The women’s jail at RCCC, the Sandra Larson Facility, houses minimum, medium and maximum

security inmates.

RCCC has approximately 140 sworn officers and 65 civilian personnel assigned to the institution.

Medical Staffing

The Grand Jury learned that the nurses had filed a grievance with Sacramento County over pay

issues and staffing shortages at RCCC. There were also concerns regarding safety because there

were no officers assigned to the medical unit to provide security for the nurses.

The safety issue may have been resolved since the Board of Supervisors allocated four new deputy

staff for RCCC. In addition, the Board approved seven new nursing positions and one additional

nurse practitioner. The Board also approved a raise in salary for the nurses.

Vocational Training

Food Service

RCCC has a food service training program. Female inmates who meet specific criteria are instructed

by a professional chef in the art of cooking, meal preparation, serving, table decoration and full

service restaurant work. Participation is limited due to space constraints.

Engraving Shop

The engraving shop is staffed with accredited teachers from the Elk Grove Unified School District

which is under contract with Sacramento County. The shop teaches procedures and techniques by

creating plaques, signs, banners, emblems, and other items, for numerous governmental and

nonprofit agencies statewide. The program enrolls up to eight inmates at any time and offers a

certificate of completion upon release from RCCC.

39

Welding Shop

The welding shop is a multifaceted repair and manufacturing area in which inmate workers fabricate,

repair and maintain metal and wood items for county agencies. The shop maintains or constructs

farm implements, tractors, security gates, screens, bunks, tables and specialty items. The Grand Jury

observed inmates and the instructor retrofitting a police van to provide secure transportation. The

instructor indicated that there is more work available, but not enough room or staff to complete

similar projects.

Gardening and Landscaping

RCCC has an active horticulture program. In addition to landscaping, they produce vegetables which

are used in the food service program. The horticulture program has limited inmate participation due

to lack of supervisory staffing.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: Noncompetitive compensation and the lack of security for medical personnel have

generated complaints from medical staff.

Recommendation 1: The additional nurses and deputies authorized by the Board of Supervisors

should be selected and assigned as soon as possible.

Finding 2: The few available vocational programs afford inmates the opportunity to increase their

knowledge, training, self- esteem and the possibility for employment upon release. However, those

programs appeared to be understaffed and lacking in resources. A complete evaluation of vocational

training is needed to determine inmate needs and opportunities. Significant new resources should be

devoted to vocational training, prospective employer contacts and community acceptance.

Recommendation 2: RCCC has a physical plant large enough to expand the current vocational

programs and add other disciplines.

Response Requirements

Response Required: Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both

the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding

Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from:

• Sacramento County Sheriff

41

The Flood Risk in Sacramento County

Issue

Is the broad public interest being served by allowing development to continue in Sacramento’s high

flood risk areas before the flood risk is reduced?

The Grand Jury reviewed the history of flooding in Sacramento County and focused on three items

for discussion. Those items are the level of flood protection being sought, temporary cessation of

development in the flood plain and flood insurance in at- risk areas.

Reason for the Investigation

Many agencies, local elected officers and other officials responsible for protecting life and property

from flooding in Sacramento County have been trying to reduce the flood risk since settlement

began in the area. After the Hurricane Katrina flood disaster in New Orleans in October 2005,

Sacramento was identified as among the nation’s most vulnerable cities to flooding. There is

continuing controversy over how to achieve better flood protection.

Method of Investigation

In addition to information obtained from agency websites and printed materials, as well as from the

Grand Jury’s own observations while on tour in the Natomas area, officials from the following local,

state and federal agencies were interviewed:

• Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency ( SAFCA)

• United States Bureau of Reclamation

• City of Sacramento

• County of Sacramento

• Reclamation District 1000

Background and Facts

History of Flooding in Sacramento County

The area of Sacramento County that lies near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers

has a long history of flooding dating back to before permanent settlement of the area began in the

1840s. In the 160- year interval since permanent settlement of Sacramento began, efforts have been

made to reduce the flood threat by building up the level of land near the rivers, building bypasses to

divert flood water away from the area, building levees along the river channels and building dams to

42

control the flood water. A system of weirs and bypasses that allow floodwater from the Sacramento

River to safely bypass certain areas was constructed upstream from Sacramento. At high flows, some

of the water from the Sacramento River can enter the Yolo Bypass at the Sacramento Weir a few

miles north of the city, relieving pressure on the Sacramento levees. The levee systems along the

American and Sacramento Rivers in the vicinity of Sacramento were assembled over time, beginning

with the early efforts of farmers near the rivers nearly 150 years ago. As the area became urbanized

and modern construction methods became available, the levees were built higher and stronger to

provide greater protection to the area. Dams on the Sacramento River and its major tributaries above

Sacramento were completed between 1948 and 1968 to control floodwaters which added to the

protection provided by the levee system. Folsom Dam, upstream from Sacramento on the American

River, is credited with saving the city from disastrous flooding in December 1955, even though the

dam was only partially completed at the time. Together, the bypasses, levees and dams have

prevented catastrophic flooding in Sacramento for over 50 years.

In spite of the flood protection work that has been accomplished, the area has been threatened with

catastrophic flooding in recent years such as 1986, 1997 and 2006. SAFCA reports that combined

levee breaks in Natomas, the Pocket, and near California State University, Sacramento, could cause

the following devastating impacts: 102 square miles would be flooded; 63,800 structures would be

flooded; up to 500 people could lose their lives; 150,000 people would be threatened by flooding of

six feet or more, with 118,000 facing depths of ten feet or more; Sacramento International Airport

would be under 15 feet of water; four major hospitals and 65 schools would be flooded; and damage

to property would be $ 11.2 billion, including $ 9.2 billion to homes. In recognition of these

possibilities, and the Katrina flood event in New Orleans in 2005, there has been re- evaluation of the

flood risk to the Sacramento area. There is now an increased recognition of the fragility of the levee

system and the corresponding risk of catastrophic flooding, especially in the North Natomas area

where the levee structures are subject to seepage that may cause failure.

The Level of Flood Protection

Flood risk is generally expressed as a percent chance of occurrence based on historical records. For

example, a one percent chance of occurrence means that a flood of that magnitude has a 1 in 100

chance of occurring in any one year. It becomes commonly known as a 100- year flood. Property

flood insurance, subsidized by the National Flood Insurance Program ( NFIP), which is administered

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA), is available when an area is certified by

the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( Corps) to have protection from at least a 100- year

flood. However, when the threshold 100- year protection has not been certified, the risk is greater and

the insurance cost is much higher. Insurance is still required for homeowners who have federally

guaranteed mortgages or mortgages from most other financial institutions.

The Sacramento area has been trying to achieve 100- year protection since the FEMA flood

insurance program became available in the 1970s, but only mounted a serious effort after the area

was threatened with disastrous flooding in 1986. Local governments and flood control agencies

formed SAFCA in 1989 to work with the Corps and the California State Reclamation Board to

address the weaknesses in Sacramento’s flood control system that were exposed during the record

flood of 1986. The Corps’s post- flood evaluation showed the flood control system was inadequate to

meet the minimum requirements of the 100- year protection of NFIP.

43

After considerable levee repair and upgrading, much of the Sacramento area was certified with 100-

year protection by the mid- 1990s. The North Natomas area was certified for 100- year protection in

1998, which made flood insurance available and unleashed rapid urban development in an area that

had been farmland. However, the New Orleans flooding disaster in 2005, and high water on the

Sacramento and American Rivers in January 2006, led SAFCA to request a more in- depth evaluation

of the levees. As a result, the Corps found that the North Natomas area is now below the minimum

100- year level of protection because of seepage and other problems, and that significant levee

improvement would be necessary to return the area to that minimum level. SAFCA is actively

working toward its stated goal of providing all of the flood plains in the Sacramento area protected

by the state/ federal levee system with at least a 100- year level of flood protection by 2008, or as

quickly as possible, and providing a 200- year level of protection over time, hopefully by 2021.

Temporary Cessation of Building

When critical flood situations exist, such as in the Natomas area, that have the potential of causing

the loss of lives and property, government entities at every level may, and have, imposed

moratoriums on commercial and residential building in the high risk areas. Land in North Natomas

was zoned agricultural until Arco Arena was built in the mid- 1980s. Development was restricted by

the city in this area from 1990 until 1998 when 100- year flood protection was certified and rapid

development began. Accordingly, local government has experience with a de- facto moratorium on

building in the flood plain when the flood risk is great.

In a November 11, 2006, letter to the Mayor of Sacramento, the Director of the State Department of

Water Resources stated that it would be prudent to consider additional efforts to protect the public

by placing limitations on new construction until the minimum 100- year flood protection is achieved.

There are moratorium provisions in state law ( Gov. C. § 65858) that provide the procedural

framework applicable when a city or county adopts, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance

based on findings that continued building would constitute a current and immediate threat to the

public health, safety or welfare. Such measures require a four- fifths vote for approval, then public

notice and hearings within 45 days of approval and, if adopted, the ordinance can only remain in

effect for up to two years unless further extended by a four- fifths vote.

Flood Insurance

In June 2006, SAFCA announced that the North Natomas area had less than 100- year protection

based on the Corps re- evaluation. It was expected that the Corps would de- certify the area in March

2007, and by November 2007, FEMA was expected to re- map the area. This means that unless the

area is re- mapped into either an AR or A99 Special Flood Hazard Zone, or until 100- year protection

is achieved, flood insurance rates would likely quadruple. The Corps has issued a letter stating that

they cannot stand behind the certification that the levees provide 100- year protection, but FEMA is

not now expected to issue a new map until March 2008. In the meantime, subsidized flood insurance

remains available to residents of the North Natomas area. The City of Sacramento, representing also

Sacramento County, is expected to take the lead in filing for FEMA re- mapping and will probably

request a zoning designation of A99 to allow development to continue, or AR which would allow

only in- fill development.

44

As of February 21, 2007, when Sacramento’s south area, which includes the Meadowview and

Pocket communities, became eligible, subsidized flood insurance was available over nearly all of the

area protected by the Sacramento and American River levee system. That also includes the Natomas

area that still qualifies under the 100- year flood protection certified by the Corps in 1998, even

though the Corps stated in June 2006 that they cannot stand behind the certification. It is well known

that Natomas is vulnerable to deep flooding and notices to that effect have been issued by SAFCA

and other agencies, yet FEMA estimates issued in December 2006 showed that only about 25% of

property owners carry any flood insurance.

Flood insurance in areas certified with 100- year protection is heavily subsidized through a program

administered by FEMA. Even though there are limitations on the coverage available, the homeowner

pays a small portion of the amount that a private insurer would charge for the same coverage without

a subsidy. The Grand Jury believes that if Natomas residents were better informed of the availability

of this insurance, homeowners electing coverage would rise substantially above current levels.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. SAFCA has proposed increasing protection for the entire Sacramento flood risk area. Its

goal is 100- year protection by 2008 and 200- year protection by 2021. Even though these levels of

protection are less than what has been achieved at similar flood prone areas in the nation, they seem

reasonable and achievable for Sacramento.

Recommendation 1. All government agencies, elected officers and residents in flood risk areas

should support SAFCA in striving to reach the stated goal of providing 100- year and 200- year flood

protection for the Sacramento area by 2008 and 2021, respectively, or sooner.

Finding 2. Both the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento are allowing building to

continue in areas that do not have 100- year flood protection. This is especially true in North

Natomas that was found to have less than 100- year protection in 2006. Potential flood depths of

greater than 15 feet in that area place immense risk to both lives and property.

Recommendation 2. The city and county should curtail all building in the North Natomas area until

100- year flood protection is certified by the Corps. A policy stopping all development immediately

in North Natomas, as allowed by state law, is imperative. Extending the policy until 200- year

protection is achieved is highly recommended.

45

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from:

• Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency ( 1)

• Sacramento City Council ( 1, 2)

• Sacramento County Board of Supervisors ( 1, 2)

47

Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant: Maintenance/ Disposal

of Radioactive Waste and Used Nuclear Fuel

Issue

Are all reasonably necessary steps being taken regarding the storage and disposal of radioactive

waste and used nuclear fuel produced at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District ( SMUD)

decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant ( Rancho Seco)?

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury initiated this investigation to determine 1) the status of radioactive