Lake County Grand Jury
2003-2004
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Lake County LAFCO operates within the provisions of State law. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/lafco.html (1 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:49 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection
F2:
Lake County LAFCO operates within the parameters of its own bylaws, policies and procedures.
F3:
The entire State is in fiscal crisis and local governments are forced to drastically reduce expenditures, including the curtailment of out of county travel. LAFCO has increased its’ budget by some 700% since 2000. This increase has been partially incurred by employing out of county consultants to do the work that could easily be handled by in-house county employees.
F4:
At a recent public hearing, excessive travel and lodging expenses were explained by the LAFCO CEO to apprise Commission members the new changes to the law since 2000; not all counties felt the need to participate.
F5:
The contract between Lake County LAFCO commission members and the CEO is heavily weighted in favor of the CEO and provides compensation far in excess of reasonable expectations.
F6:
LAFCO currently contracts with an out-of-County consultant for LAFCO Executive Officer services and also contracts with an out-of-County attorney for legal advice.
F7:
Many other Counties have not had such extraordinary increases in LAFCO budget requirements
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Lakeport and Clearlake appoint representatives to serve LAFCO who will curtail unnecessary and wasteful expenditures of tax dollars.
R2:
That the Board of Supervisors and City Councils request State Legislators to assist local government by rescinding costly mandates related to LAFCO, particularly in small rural counties such as Lake County. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/lafco.html (2 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:49 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection
R3:
That the Board of Supervisors and City Councils recommend to LAFCO that it pursue hiring locally for it’s Executive Officer and legal services, either by issuing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services or negotiating a contract with the County to provide these services.
R4:
This Grand Jury strongly recommends that the 2004-2005 Lake County Grand Jury closely monitor the development of LAFCO spending policies. REMARKS: Even though the Brown Act does not require it, a useful method of garnering public participation in LAFCO deliberations would be to notify the Lake County Record-Bee of the times and place of general meetings, such notices are generally printed as public service by the publisher. RESPONSE REQUESTED: LAFCO Board of Commissioners LAFCO CEO Lake County Board of Supervisors Lakeport City Council Clearlake City Council http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/lafco.html (3 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:49 PM
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Mr. Blakey started the Program in 1984 with “A chair and a yellow notepad sharing a small office.” The present office employs 11 professionals serving the needs of over 1400 clients a year. These vulnerable, damaged clients are guided and advised throughout the long, painful legal process and beyond, if necessary, by this dedicated county office. Due to the ability of staff counseling and legal agreements, 90% of cases do not reach the courtroom.
F2:
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/vw.html (1 of 2)4/17/2007 3:06:56 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection For 20 years Mr. Blakey has organized and operated the Victim-Witness Program without utilizing any county monies. All expenses are covered by non-matching fund grants initiated by Mr. Blakey. The Victim-Witness Program pays for the counseling of clients as well as costs to crime victim’s families such as funeral costs and emergency living expenses.
F3:
Victim-Witness clients are most vulnerable and defenseless. They include abused children and adults, victims of violent crimes and the families of violent crime victims. Clients are consulted, provided needed medical and financial assistance as well as “By your side” assistance throughout the legal process with complete confidentiality.
F4:
Hosted by the Lake County District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Blakey presents an extensive workshop entitled “Beyond Awareness” to appropriate professionals. The seminar lasts three days and covers all aspects of the Victim-Witness Program, with a number of well-qualified professionally recognized speakers.
F5:
The Victim-Witness Program professionals are concerned for the safety and confidentiality of their clients. As the office is further than a city block on a steep hill from the County Court House, there is concern about the transfer of clients to and from the office and courts. Mr. Blakey has done a survey on housing the office in the courthouse adjacent to the District Attorney’s offices. This would facilitate meetings between the two offices. He has also studied the possibility of closed circuit television testimony of witnesses. This would minimize the trauma of abuse victims and would also eliminate any court disruptions.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
None REMARKS: We recommend the Board of Supervisors review and strongly consider the IHSS Advisory Board recommendation on salary. It is an important tool of self-reliance for the elderly and disabled of our community. RECOMMENDATION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury check on the progress of the IHSS Public Authority registry and attend the IHSS Advisory Board meetings. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Lake County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/ihss.html (3 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:56 PM
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Each District would maintain subordinate Chief Officers under one Fire Chief.
F2:
The administrative and operational needs of each District guided by one Chief will benefit employees as well as the public.
F3:
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/fire.html (1 of 2)4/17/2007 3:06:54 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection Districts will benefit from the shared training, equipment and personnel.
F4:
The capacity of the facility is 244 beds. On the day of the visit there were 204 inmates.
F5:
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/detention.html (1 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:55 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection The Jail Commander’s interaction with inmates was firm but respectful, polite and courteous.
F6:
Medical personnel are on site at all times. If higher-level medical care is required, on-call medical assistance is available from Sutter Lakeside Hospital.
F7:
Due to budget constraints, six personnel positions were unfilled.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Administration allocate funding to provide adequate and appropriate undergarments for the female population.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that any person incarcerated in juvenile hall, regardless of age, should be allowed to further their education.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the kitchen be reopened and integrated with a Regional Occupational Program (ROP). This will provide learning job skills, building self-esteem and being a responsible and productive person in our society. REMARKS: On our second visit, we were given full access to the children without any supervision from the staff. We picked at random six wards (3 boys and 3 girls) to interview. These children spoke very highly of the staff. The Grand Jury commends the staff of the Juvenile Hall for their dedication and loyalty to our community by making better citizens of the children in spite of budget constraints. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Steven Buchholz, Chief, Probation Department Lake County Board of Supervisors Konocti Conservation Camp #27 BACKGROUND: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/detention.html (3 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:55 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection The Konocti Conservation Camp #27, off Highway 29, was opened in April 1961. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and the California Department of Corrections (CDC) joined to provide inmate fire crews for fire suppression activities in the Sonoma, Lake, Napa and Mendocino County areas. Konocti Camp operates both a Mobile Kitchen Unit and a Mechanic’s Support Unit. The majority of inmates are laborers; skilled inmates consist of mechanics, clerks, cooks, plumbers, welders, carpenters and electricians. Inmates are selected and trained at California Correctional Center near Susanville and then assigned to the Konocti Conservation Camp. In order to be placed at the Camp, inmates cannot have any sex related offenses, escape, arson, or high violence potential. Most inmates are serving time for alcohol or drug related offenses spending the last of their sentence at the Camp. A minimum security 110-man facility is staffed by seven Correctional Officers, one Correctional Sergeant and one Correctional Lieutenant (Camp Commander) from CDC and ten Fire Crew Captains, one heavy Equipment Mechanic, one Office Technician and one Assistant Chief (Division Chief) from CDF. Camp is open dormitories, a dining hall staffed with inmate cooks and supervised by CDC staff providing around-the-clock, seven-day-a-week supervision of inmates while in Camp. In the first eleven months of the 2003 calendar year, inmates responded to approximately 105,000 hours of emergency fires and floods saving taxpayers $2,327,220.00 year to date. Additionally, the Camp Inmates have provided 20,152 hours of project and conservation work to local communities, 135,192 hours for State Agencies and 13,992 hours for Federal Agencies. COMMITTEE ACTION: On December 4, 2003, members of the Grand Jury met Robert Brisco, Camp Commander for the California Department of Corrections and Mark Reina, Division Chief for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. A presentation was given explaining the Camp’s purpose and function prior to touring the facility. Tour included dorms, workshops, recreation and food service areas concluding with a professionally prepared luncheon by the inmate kitchen staff.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Although the Clearlake Holding Facility for animals is temporary, it was found to be inadequate and unsafe.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That a new location and holding facility in Clearlake should be found and implemented immediately. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: The Grand Jury recommends that the 2004-2005 Grand Jury follow-up on Recommendation 1 and that http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/animalcontrol.html (1 of 2)4/17/2007 3:06:57 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection all subsequent Grand Juries inspect the Animal Control facilities on an annual basis pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. REMARKS: We find the new Director of Animal Care and Control to be capable, well trained and enthusiastic about her position. We commend the Department in its efforts to improve the conditions of the animals in Lake County. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Lake County Animal Care and Control Lake County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/animalcontrol.html (2 of 2)4/17/2007 3:06:57 PM LAKE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORTS 1990 ~ 1991 ~ 1992 ~ 1993 ~ 1994 ~ 1995 ~ 1996 ~ 1997 ~ 1998 ~ 1999 ~ 2000 ~ 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 2003 ~ COUNTY AGENCY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Government & Financial Administrative Officer X Assessor - Recorder C X C X X Auditor / Controller X X X X X X Board of Supervisors X Code Enforcement C C County Clerk County Counsel X Financial Admin/Budgets X X Independent Auitors X X X Information Technology X X LAFCO X Marketing Dept / Visitors Center V X X X Personnel X X Purchasing X Registrar of Voters X Risk Management X Treasurer / Tax Collector X X X C X X Cemetery Districts V X X X X X X CX Citizen Advisory Boards Community Development X X X CCC Economic Development X Grand Jury X Hospital Districts V C C V X X Housing Development C Redevelopment Water Districts C X C X C C City of Clearlake X C X C C Clearlake Chamber of Commerce C C City of Lakeport C C Lakeport Chamber of Commerce X Public Defender District Attorney Superior Court X X X X Traffic Court C=Citizen Complaint V=Site Visit X=Inquiry LAKE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORTS 1990 ~ 1991 ~ 1992 ~ 1993 ~ 1994 ~ 1995 ~ 1996 ~ 1997 ~ 1998 ~ 1999 ~ 2000 ~ 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 2003 ~ COUNTY AGENCY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Health, Schools & Safety Alcohol & Other Drugs X Adult Protective Services C Child Protective Services X X X X Environmental Health X X V In Home Support Services X Health Services X X V Mental Health CCV Public Health X Senior Centers X Social Services V V V X C V X X X Veterans Services V School Districts/Office of Educ. V XX CC Kelseyville Unified School District C V Konocti Unified School District X C V X V C X X Lakeport Unified School District Lucerne Unified School District V Middletown Unified School District V X Upper Lake Unified School District Hill Rd Correctional Facility V V V C V V V V V V V V C V VCCC VCCC Juvenile Hall V V V V V V V V V V V V V Konocti Conservation Camp #27 V V V South Lake Court Holding Facility V Main Court Holding Facility V Clearlake Police Holding Facility V Clearlake Police V C V V V V C Lakeport Police V V V V C Office of ER Services X X X Sheriff / Coroner X X X C C C Probation Department X X Clearlake Oaks Fire District V Kelseyville Fire District V C Lakeport Fire District V C=Citizen Complaint V=Site Visit X=Inquiry LAKE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORTS 1990 ~ 1991 ~ 1992 ~ 1993 ~ 1994 ~ 1995 ~ 1996 ~ 1997 ~ 1998 ~ 1999 ~ 2000 ~ 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 2003 ~ COUNTY AGENCY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Lakeshore Fire District V V Lower Lake Fire District V Lucerne Fire District V V Nice Fire District V V V C South Lake Fire District C C X C C X X C X X Upper Lake Fire District V JPA (Joint Powers Authority) Fire X Public Works & Public Services Agricultural Comm C X Vector (Mosquito Abatement) Ctrl C Air Quality Mgmnt X X Animal Care and Control V V V C V V V V C X X VCCV Planning & Building Inspection X C C C CC Public Services X X X Buildings & Grounds X Libraries V X X Museums V Parks X Bradley Mercury Mine V V X V Calpine Geothermal Fields V X V V X V X C X X X V Clear Lake Dam V Homestake McLaughlin Mine V V X V X V V Taylor Planetarium & Observatory Sanitation / Waste Water V V C V C V V X Solid Waste X C V X C VX Recycling Centers VXV Public Works C C X Flood Control V X V X C C C Survey / Grading / Engineers X C Roads X C C C X X Airport X Central Garage V V X V Transit Authority X C=Citizen Complaint V=Site Visit X=Inquiry
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Safety issues of concern were addressed through signage and on ground separation of different classes of vehicles.
F2:
The Committee finds that the sulfate leak is being addressed with all possible speed.
F3:
The Committee finds, after investigation, that contaminated ground water (due to the leak) filtration by outside means would cost the County approximately 1.4 to 2.4 million dollars initially and $8,000.00 to $8,500.00 per month. Constructing an onsite treatment plant would cost plus or minus $200,000.00.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Committee recommends that safety remain foremost in the operation of the Eastlake Landfill.
R3:
After reviewing information provided by the Public Services Department, we recommend the installation of a County owned, onsite filtration system as the most efficient and cost effective method of maintaining ground water standards. REMARKS: The Grand Jury commends the Public Services Director and staff, members of the County Diversion Task Force and employees of the Eastlake Landfill for their diligence and cooperation in assuring that Lake County’s waste management systems are in compliance with State standards and public concern. Further, the Grand Jury appreciates the Public Services Department’s timely action regarding the interim report on safety issues. RESPONSE REQUESTED: None http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/landfill.html (2 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:53 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/landfill.html (3 of 3)4/17/2007 3:06:53 PM
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The CDD’s initial inspections did not reflect the defects resulting in four code violations. Reinspections requested by the Complainant were also in error.
F2:
Although the complainant was a major factor in extending this process, the CDD could have acted more expeditiously.
F3:
The retreat had operated under a Major Use Permit during the years 1970 to 1985 in five-year increments. Also, we found when the site was Timber Preserved Zoned (December 1, 1981), the retreat was under a legal MUP. (See “footnote” at the end of Complaint 2 for Zoning Ordinance.) The new operators of the retreat had not been informed by the CDD that the Major Use Permit had expired in 1985 (current CDD policy does not inform of permit expirations). The retreat continued to operate with all other permits in place until 2002 when a complaint was filed. CDD was unaware that the retreat was still in operation without “the permit” for 17 years. (See 60.1 Expiration)
F4:
The South Lake County Fire Protection District completed a fire safety plan for the retreat on April 29, 2004. This report addresses areas requiring compliance in a given time frame in order to continue operation. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (4 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection
F5:
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (7 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection The Grand Jury finds that most of the planned infrastructure has not been completed through two different developers. The fire department had approved narrow streets because of the planned off-street parking, which has never been constructed. The original subdivision report called for: 1. A 52 space enclosed RV storage facility. 2. A solid fence on the west side of the development to act as a noise buffer to a State Highway. 3. A recreation area, which was to include tennis, courts, swimming pool, community center and open space walkways to equal 4.3 acres. The original infrastructure was completed and signed off by the County. The new infrastructure that was relocated to the top of the hill has not been satisfactorily completed. On-street parking, roads and drives within the subdivision are currently usable as one-way traffic. The swimming pool, as noted in
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Building Inspectors insure a complete and correct inspection as per building codes.
R2:
The CDD should use all State and Local resources to resolve complaints REMARKS: A second complaint received from the same complainant on November 16, 2003 was found to be out of our purview. Although we recognize that there are faults on both sides, there must be policies and procedures that could be implemented or followed by the CDD alleviating similar problems in the future. COMPLAINT NUMBER 2: PURPOSE: Investigation of Lake County CDD in response to a Citizen Complaint dated November 16, 2003. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (2 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection BACKGROUND: Complainant alleges CDD failed to follow-up on a Notice of Nuisance involving a retreat operating in southern Lake County without a valid Major Use Permit. It was also alleged, due to the retreat’s location in a possible fire-danger area, the retreat should not be in operation without proper fire safety procedures. The complainant also states the CDD is not performing its enforcement duties within an acceptable time frame. COMMITTEE ACTION: Between February 2004 and April 2004, the Committee interviewed the complainant, the director of the retreat in question, viewed the retreat site, requested and received documents from CDD, interviewed the County Supervisor of District One, Director and key members of CDD.
R3:
Due to the prior co-existence of the Timber Preserve Zone and retreat, we recommend the rescinding of the current NON and the issuance of a temporary major use permit for the retreat until a retreat designation is added to the TPZ zoning.
R4:
The South Lake County Fire Protection District and the Retreat should continue to work together towards fire safe compliance. REMARKS: Due to the retreat’s non-profit status and the fact it has been in operation since 1955 and had a legal Major Use Permit until 1985, we recommend the permit fees be “grandfathered” to the original permit of July 2, 1970 and waived. Footnote: Lake County Zoning Ordinance dated February 27, 2003, Article 59, Sec. 21-59, 59.1 states: Non-conforming uses of land, buildings or structures: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the lawful use of land, buildings or structures existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning district may be continued, although the particular use, building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular use, building or structure is located. No such use or building shall be enlarged or increased, nor be extended to occupy a greater area than that occupied by such use at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. 60.1 Expiration: …If any use permitted by one of these permits is abandoned for a period of 2 years, then the permit as it relates to that use shall expire and be null and void, and any subsequent use of the property shall conform to the current regulations of the particular zoning district in which the property is located. … COMPLAINT NUMBER 3 PURPOSE: Investigation of Lake County CDD in response to a citizen’s complaint dated January 26, 2004. BACKGROUND: Complaint alleges CDD has neglected a north Lakeport subdivision for more than 20 years. The complainant lists: 1. A pool built and not completed. 2. CDD Building Inspectors were not thorough when verifying lot lines. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (5 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection 3. CDD did not keep current as to project development. 4. CDD disregarded the California DRE’s Desist and Refrain Order. 5. CDD allowed building prior to infrastructure completion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Between February 2004 and April 2004, the Committee visited the subdivision to meet with the complainant, requested and received documents from CDD, interviewed the complainant, District 4 Supervisor, the Director and key members of CDD. Throughout the investigation this Committee corresponded with the California DRE.
R5:
Prior to further construction by any developer, all of the originally planned infrastructure should be in place. We recommend that any new developments in the County of Lake have their infrastructure in place before the first house is built. REMARKS Although citizens and buyers beware we find the CDD culpable in all three complaints. We recommend the CDD establish a formal Oversight and Review Committee to facilitate interdepartmental communications to review all relative permit and Notice of Nuisance activity. Programs must be available to track and notify the County and public of issues and deadlines; this will keep important information from falling through the cracks. We recommend the 2004/2005 Grand Jury follow through with this investigation. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Lake County Board of Supervisors Director of Lake County Community Development Department http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (8 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM