Orange County Grand Jury
2019-2020
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (18)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
26 findings
F1:
The 2018-2019 Grand Jury recommended that four interview cubicles be constructed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department at the Intake Release Center. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department agreed with that recommendation. However, as of the date of the publication of this report, the construction of the four cubicles had not been completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department be monitored for the completion of the reconfiguration on the screening area at the Intake Release Center by newly scheduled date of December 2020. (F1)
F2:
The Statement of Booking Officer form does not question if an arrestee is or could be pregnant when processed into the Orange County Jail, potentially resulting in inmates receiving the wrong care and/or placement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Correctional Health Services amend the Statement of Booking Officer form to include a question about pregnancy when processing female arrestees into the Orange County Jail. (F2)
F3:
Taking blood pressure when an arrestee is handcuffed behind the back could result in an inaccurate reading, potentially resulting in improper care and/or placement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that taking inmate’s blood pressure readings with their body in a position that will result in accurate readings thereby leading to proper placement and care. (F3)
F4:
All the printed reports of pregnant inmates’ electronic medical records were found to be incomplete with missing data.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that Correctional Health Services provide training for jail staff to properly and accurately complete required forms and to audit the completion of these forms to assure accuracy. This will increase inmate safety and reduce County potential liability stemming from incomplete inaccurate records. (F4, F10)
R11:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that pregnant inmates’ weight be consistently tracked to assure they are receiving adequate nutrition. (F4)
F5:
Correctional Health Services routinely performed pregnancy testing during the intake booking process.
F6:
Correctional Health Services consistently issued pink tags (wristbands) during the intake booking process identifying inmates as pregnant or possibly pregnant.
F7:
Although pregnant inmates were correctly identified by Correctional Health Services during the intake booking process with a pink tag (wristband), they were not consistently assigned to a low bunk or a low tier as is required for pregnant inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that pregnant inmate’s records be audited to ensure that they receive the accommodations to which they are entitled to. (F7, F11)
R21:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all jail personnel be regularly trained on policies for pregnant inmates and that activities be supervised to ensure compliance. (F7, F8, F11, F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
F8:
At the time of the Grand Jury’s visit to the Women’s Central Jail, inmates were not issued pink pants to identify them as being pregnant as is required by the current Clothing Identification system.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that pregnant inmates be consistently issued pink pants to accurately identify their classification. (F8)
R21:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all jail personnel be regularly trained on policies for pregnant inmates and that activities be supervised to ensure compliance. (F7, F8, F11, F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
F9:
The Pregnant Inmate Information form does not include all of the required standards and policies governing pregnant inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Pregnant Inmate Information Standards form be revised and updated to reflect jail standards and policies governing pregnant inmates to include an inclusive list of rights to which pregnant inmates are entitled. (F9)
R8:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that female inmates be informed of their rights with respect to consenting and testing for alcohol and/or drugs and whether the test results will be kept confidential or if the results will be reported to the County of Orange Social Services Agency (F9)
F10:
Medical care refusal acknowledgement forms were not correctly completed in that the signature line was blank with neither the inmate’s signature nor a staff notation of “refused” indicating that the inmate refused to sign the form.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that Correctional Health Services provide training for jail staff to properly and accurately complete required forms and to audit the completion of these forms to assure accuracy. This will increase inmate safety and reduce County potential liability stemming from incomplete inaccurate records. (F4, F10)
F11:
Pregnant inmates were not consistently provided an extra mattress if pregnancy was > 26 weeks as required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that pregnant inmate’s records be audited to ensure that they receive the accommodations to which they are entitled to. (F7, F11)
R21:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all jail personnel be regularly trained on policies for pregnant inmates and that activities be supervised to ensure compliance. (F7, F8, F11, F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
F12:
There are irregularities with respect to enforcement of the newly implemented policy prohibiting the use of waist restraints on pregnant inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all jail personnel be regularly trained on policies for pregnant inmates and that activities be supervised to ensure compliance. (F7, F8, F11, F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
F13:
Many inmates choose to launder their clothes in their cells between scheduled clothing exchanges.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that OCJ provide clean undergarments (i.e., underwear) for each day of the week for female inmates. (F13)
R10:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that inmates be advised that the only way to reliably remove organisms that can cause disease from clothes is to use the institutional laundry. (F13)
F14:
Once identified as pregnant, Correctional Health Services provides daily prenatal vitamins to inmates.
F15:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Food Services Unit has modified the standard diet for pregnant inmates to address their nutritional dietary needs.
F16:
Dehydration is common among pregnant inmates in the Central Women’s Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that educational materials be made available to all pregnant inmates relating to the importance of staying hydrated and the minimum recommended daily water intake during pregnancy. (F16)
F17:
Individual units of water are not available for purchase at the jail commissary.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that individual units of water be available for purchase at the jail commissary. (F17)
F18:
Based on the cases that were provided to the Grand Jury to review, the rate of Urinary Tract Infection among pregnant inmates in the Central Women’s Jail was as high as 65%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Correctional Health Services take a proactive approach on establishing guidelines and recommendations for all female inmates that will help them avoid Urinary Tract Infections. (F18)
F19:
Orange County Jail complied with ensuring that opioid dependent pregnant inmates have access to either a triage prescriber or to a prescriber on-call within 24-hours of all new bookings.
F20:
Not all opioid-dependent pregnant inmates receive adequate discharge plans and linkage of services upon their release from jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all opioid-dependent pregnant inmates receive adequate discharge plans and linkage to support services upon release from jail. (F20)
F21:
Inmate Health Message Slip(s) were not consistently documented by Correctional Health Services with date and employee number.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Inmate Health Message Slip be “hard stamped digitally” (not hand-written or left blank) to ensure that procedures are being consistently followed and inmate health care needs are being addressed. (F21)
F22:
Although male inmates have access to Patient’s Rights Advocates, female inmates do not have equal access to Patient’s Rights Advocates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that female inmates have equal access to Patients’ Rights Advocates as the male inmates do. (F22)
F23:
Contracted service providers are not aware of and do not have access to the Orange County Jail policies regarding the monitoring and securing of pregnant inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that contracted service providers with the Orange County Jail be provided with policies regarding the monitoring and securing of pregnant inmates. (F23)
F24:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department may be required to provide emergency medical care to pregnant inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department conduct training that insures that all personnel are properly trained and certified to perform the type of health care, including childbirth, that they may be called on to perform. (F24)
F25:
Health Care Agency contracts with one OB/GYN doctor to provide services at the Central Women’s Jail only two days a week.
F26:
Although Correctional Health Services policy states that they “shall keep a list of all pregnancies and their outcomes” for inmates who were less than 20 weeks pregnant, Correctional Health Services did not track the outcomes for these pregnancies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all pregnancy outcomes occurring during incarceration be tracked. (F26)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
In nine of the ten cities investigated, the waste hauler has been the sole source provider to their respective city(s) anywhere from 39 to 72 years. Where there is an opportunity for service providers to compete, there is an opportunity for competitive bidding, which may result in improvements in cost and performance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All cities and county entities that do not have a contract review process in place should establish one to ensure regular reviews of service contracts are performed and that contract terms are still relevant as legislative changes are enacted. Serious consideration should be given to shortening the length of contracts to facilitate opportunities for competitive bidding where feasible. (F1)
F2:
The labeling on residential bins are not always legible or have comprehensive enough instructions laminated or otherwise made a part of the lid, especially with regards to single use plastic shopping bags. Education and outreach efforts need to be reinforced as often as possible and a visual reminder on the recycle container will help alleviate confusion.
F3:
Orange County Waste and Recycling as well as the waste haulers provide helpful recycling education to the public where contractually required to do so. It is the Grand Jury’s view that most cities delegate much of the customers/public education efforts to the waste haulers. Contracts indicate both parties are responsible for educating the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Municipalities should ensure that recycle bins be labeled with comprehensive recycling instructions to facilitate proper sorting of waste (F2 and (F3).
F4:
Cities are not in compliance with AB 341 mandates with respect to providing recycling containers for multi-family units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Cities, that have not already do so, should implement the requirements of AB 341 as they pertain to multi-family recycling programs. Additionally, such programs need to be closely monitored by city contract administrators rather than relying solely on waste haulers to fulfill the mandates (F4).
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Eight Orange County cities, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Placentia, Seal Beach, and Yorba Linda, have not fully complied with AB 1236 that requires cities to implement a streamlined process in obtaining permits to install EVCS and make it available to the public on their city websites, thus impeding residents’ ease of installation of EVCS.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Cities, that have not already done so, should update their municipal code to add an ordinance streamlining their EVCS permitting process by May 1, 2020. (F1) 19 Office of the State Treasurer (CA); California Pollution Control Financing Authority, https://cbig.ca.gov/Government-Partners/California-Pollution-Control-Financing-Authority. Ibid.
R2:
Cities, that have not already done so, should create a streamlined permit process for single family residences, multi-family residences and businesses to obtain permits to install EVCS that includes an easy to use checklist by May 1, 2020. (F1)
R3:
Cities, that have not already done so, should describe the streamlined EV charging installation permit application process and have the checklists and forms available on their website by May 1, 2020. (F1) COMMENDATION The 26 Orange County cities not mentioned in this report have complied with at least the basics of AB 1236, as has the County of Orange for unincorporated areas. The city of Irvine is a good example of a city that has fully complied. There is a page on that city’s website dedicated to EV charging containing links to permit applications, a related Southern California Edison website, and a map of EVCS. This example may be used by cities that have not complied with AB 1236 to aid them in updating their processes and website. The city of Irvine is commended for fully implementing the mandates. Their web page can be found by searching “EV charging” or “EVCS” from the Irvine city website home page or navigating to the uniform resource locator (URL) below. https://www.cityofirvine.org/community-development/electric-vehicle-service-equipment-evse RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Peer Support Programs are effective in helping Peace Officers develop healthy coping techniques for themselves and their families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The 2019-2020 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that that the four law enforcement agencies without a written policy on their Peer Support Program institute a policy. (F1, F2)
F2:
A written policy documenting each agency’s Peer Support Program helps ensure the program’s continuation after changes in staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The 2019-2020 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that that the four law enforcement agencies without a written policy on their Peer Support Program institute a policy. (F1, F2)
F3:
The benefits in the peer support statute, effective January 1, 2020, are important to Peace Officers and Peer Support Team members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The 2019-2020 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all Peer Support Programs be in compliance with the peer support statute. (F3)
F4:
It is important that Peer Support Team members receive periodic training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The 2019-2020 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that Peer Support Team members receive periodic training and that completion of training is documented. (F4)
F5:
Allocating a specific budget line item for Peer Support Programs help ensure adequate training and continuation of the programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The 2019-2020 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies allocate a specific budget line item for their Peer Support Program. (F5)
F6:
Continuous communication to Peace Officers about the Peer Support Programs is important to increase awareness and use of the Peer Support Programs.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Some County departments are not submitting monthly vulnerability scan results of their computer devices to OCIT to be entered into the County’s enterprise Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance platform, and are non-compliant with the County Vulnerability Management Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All County departments, including those with elected heads, should be required to comply with the County’s Vulnerability Management and Patch Management Policies, or request variances from them, per the County’s Variance Review and Approval Process Policy. (F1-F3)
F2:
Some County departments have not established or submitted procedures to ensure application of software security patches based upon the severity level of the vulnerability, and are non-compliant with the County Patch Management Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All County departments, including those with elected heads, should be required to comply with the County’s Vulnerability Management and Patch Management Policies, or request variances from them, per the County’s Variance Review and Approval Process Policy. (F1-F3)
F3:
Even though a number of County departments are not in compliance with the County’s Vulnerability Management Policy or Patch Management Policy, there have been no requests or approvals for variances from these policies, per the requirements of the County’s Variance Review and Approval Process Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All County departments, including those with elected heads, should be required to comply with the County’s Vulnerability Management and Patch Management Policies, or request variances from them, per the County’s Variance Review and Approval Process Policy. (F1-F3)
F4:
The County’s most recent Vulnerability/Penetration Assessment, performed by independent consultants in June 2019, was deemed to be “Incomplete,” as only a portion of the County’s externally facing servers and internal networks were permitted to be evaluated. An incomplete vulnerability/penetration assessment increases the potential vulnerability of County information systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All external facing servers and internal networks from all County departments, including those with elected heads, should be required to be included in future County vulnerability/penetration assessments so that the cybersecurity assessments can be considered complete. (F4) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 “Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations.” “(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R18:
OCIT should establish standardized procedures for conducting periodic cybersecurity vulnerability and penetration testing by 12/31/19. County Response from Sept 2017: This recommendation has been implemented. This process is implemented and is currently being realized through the countywide cyber security audits and assessments. Additionally, OCIT oversees the conduct of a penetration test of the County externally facing network systems and security appliances. Part of this annual penetration testing is also to conduct a comprehensive vulnerability scan and social engineering penetration test. Social Engineering is the act of manipulating an employee into providing access to county information systems and networks through either a phishing attempt, phone scams and or other means of contacting the target of the attack. Penetration testing services are also offered under the Tevora RCA for audit and assessment services. It is noted that the Cybersecurity Joint Task Force (CSJTF) is a committee formed to oversee County cybersecurity policy development, and to insure that county assets and systems are as safe as practicable now and into the future. The Cybersecurity Joint Task Force (CSJTF) is comprised of representatives from County Risk Management, Departmental Administrative Services, and Departmental Information Technology, and is chaired by the County Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). The purpose of the CSJTF task force is to develop and oversee compliance with the County Cybersecurity Manual, which establishes a common set of standards and practices to improve the Cybersecurity posture for all County departments. In 2018, OCIT procured a software platform for its Governance, Risk Management & Compliance (GRC) initiative. The GRC provides a central location for assessment results from throughout the county. This information along with controls, drives actions that will mitigate cyber threats. The GRC platform is used to track individual findings and vulnerabilities that can be followed down to a specific location. This results in a disciplined and efficient approach to remediation of cybersecurity deficiencies, whether they are technical in nature or administrative.1 The potential threats in the cybersecurity landscape are ever-evolving, and it is imperative that the County ensure compliance with its adopted policies across all County departments, and continue to evaluate and implement new measures to their cybersecurity protocols and procedures. State of County Cybersecurity Reports A review was made of the two most recent State of County Cybersecurity reports prepared by Orange County Information Technology (OCIT), dated June 2018 and December 2019. These reports were requested from OCIT by the Board of Supervisors to provide an update on the state of the County’s cybersecurity preparedness. The December 2019 report indicates that OCIT is responsible for approximately seventy-five percent of the County’s cyber preparedness program. While OCIT collaborates and assists in various ways with the remaining twenty-five percent of the County, they state that they realistically cannot certify that the County fully complies with the cyber preparedness program across all County departments. OCIT recommends in its report that the Board of Supervisors initiate steps to consolidate all technology infrastructure across all County departments. The 2019 State of County Privacy and Cybersecurity report also identifies some of OCIT’s recent cybersecurity efforts. OCIT has deployed an enterprise solution for vulnerability scanning which is available to all County departments. The objective of the vulnerability management program is to reduce the time that a vulnerability is exposed to threats. The 2019 report also indicates that updating and patching of software is fundamental to effective cybersecurity hygiene and is critical for mitigation of risks related to ransomware exploitation. Rapid remediation of identified vulnerabilities with minimal user intervention is critical for large enterprises such as the County. OCIT recommends that the County acquire automated patching software tools to enhance its cybersecurity program. Continued follow-up and process improvement is critical to ensuring that the standards established in the County’s Vulnerability and Patch Management Policies are adhered to across all County departments. State of County Cybersecurity Bi-Annual Report, June 2018 County’s Cybersecurity Best Practices Manual The County’s Cybersecurity Best Practices Manual was prepared by the Cyber Security Joint Task Force and approved by the IT Executive Council at its August 2018 meeting. This manual provides a framework and describes best practices to establish a secure environment that safeguards the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the data and information systems used to manage the services provided by the County. The Cybersecurity Best Practices Manual applies to all departments in the County. To maintain a strong cybersecurity posture it is essential for cybersecurity programs to include procedures and controls implemented within all departments to secure data and information systems. Each department is required to develop a departmental cybersecurity program, with the procedures and controls included in the departmental program to be determined by the department. The Cybersecurity Best Practices Manual is intended to provide guidelines for departments, and any changes or modifications to the guidelines need to be discussed with OCIT. County Cybersecurity Policy The County has recently developed an overall County Cybersecurity Policy in order to provide guidance and protection to County employees, and to safeguard the information resources entrusted to employees. The County’s Cybersecurity Policy is based upon NIST SP 800-53 standards and best practices, and is considered the minimum standard for providing a secure environment. The County Cybersecurity Policy was approved and adopted by the CSJTF in August 2019. Although OCIT believes that passage of the Policy is the correct step, the CSJTF vote was not unanimous. The Policy recently passed a vote of the IT Executive Council, and as of the publication of this report is in the process of being approved and adopted by the County CEO. Following is a summary of some of the pertinent components of the County Cybersecurity Policy: • Approval/Revision Dates: Approved by CSJTF on August 8, 2019, pending approval by IT Executive Council and CEO • Authority: County Executive Office • Policy Owner: County Chief Information Officer • Policy: Departments shall develop, implement, and maintain a Cybersecurity program that consists of policies, procedures, plans, and guidelines for safeguards to protect information during storage, use or in transit. • Scope: This policy applies to all departments in the County as well as all employees, contractors, vendors, customers, and others who utilize, possess or have access to County IT resources. • Compliance: The County shall verify compliance with this policy. • Variances: Variances to this policy shall be documented and approved following the County Variance Review and Approval Process. • Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with this policy may result in significant delays to the implementation of information systems and/or technologies. Devices not in compliance with the Policy may have their access to the County’s network restricted. • Policy Control and Maintenance: The County Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for maintaining this policy. County Vulnerability Management Policy A vulnerability management process identifies, analyzes and manages vulnerabilities in an organization’s operating environment. The vulnerability management process is divided into three areas: Vulnerability Management – lays the foundation for the Vulnerability Management Program and establishes the management framework for monitoring, mitigating and preventing future vulnerabilities to County assets. Vulnerability Monitoring – commonly employs tools and process capable of detecting and determining various types of vulnerabilities and determining remediation and mitigation strategies. Vulnerability Remediation and Mitigation – involves the analysis of risk from identified vulnerabilities, prioritizing those vulnerabilities and determining remediation and mitigation strategies. As part of its vulnerability management program, the County adopted a Vulnerability Management Policy in August 2018. Following is a summary of its pertinent components: • Approval/Revision Dates: Approved 8/15/2018, No Revisions • Authority: County Executive Office • Policy Owner: County Chief Information Officer • Policy: Each Department shall develop and maintain a Vulnerability Management process as part of its Cybersecurity program, and shall perform monthly vulnerability scans with the results entered into the County enterprise GRC platform. • Scope: This policy applies to all County departments. • Compliance: An entity designated by the County shall verify compliance to this policy through various methods including internal and external audits. • Variances: Variances to this policy shall be documented and approved following the County Variance Review and Approval Process. • Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with this policy may result in unidentified vulnerabilities that compromise County data and/or assets • Policy Control and Maintenance: The County Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for maintaining this policy. OCIT has deployed an enterprise solution for vulnerability scanning which is available to all County departments. OCIT advised the Grand Jury that while most County departments are currently participating and utilizing this vulnerability scanning software, some departments may be utilizing other software and have not provided scanning results to OCIT on a monthly basis to be in compliance with the Vulnerability Management Policy. OCIT advised the Grand Jury that the departments which are currently not submitting vulnerability scan results include the Auditor/Controller, Treasurer/Tax Collector, Health Care Agency, Sheriff/Coroner, District Attorney, and Public Defender. While the Grand Jury has been informed by County executives that they do not have the authority to instruct elected officials on how to operate their departments, the Grand Jury believes the County has the oversight responsibility and liability for the County Policies pertaining to the County owned computer systems and data residing within all County departments, including those headed by elected officials. The Grand Jury believes that the County needs to do more than recommend compliance to departments with elected officials, and should require all County departments to comply with its cybersecurity policies, including this Vulnerability Management Policy. In-lieu of participating in the County’s monthly vulnerability scanning, a department could choose to comply by performing their own vulnerability scans and providing the results to the County Governance, Risk and Compliance platform. County Patch Management Policy Patch management has emerged as one of the more critical issues for today’s IT organizations. The importance of efficient application of vendor-supplied patches cannot be understated, particularly in light of increasing vulnerability alerts, intrusion activity, and virus proliferation. Vulnerabilities arising from unpatched or misconfigured software account for the majority of all internet security breaches. Patch management is integral to a department’s cybersecurity program, in particular its vulnerability management program. Responsible IT organizations have an obligation to establish assertive, systematic patch management processes based upon a solid foundation of policy, procedures and training. Failure in doing so is to court risk and invite disruption of business activity. As part of its cybersecurity program, the County adopted a Patch Management Policy in August 2018. Following is a summary of its pertinent components: • Approval/Revision Dates: Approved 1/28/2004, Revised 8/15/2018 • Authority: County Executive Office • Policy Owner: County Chief Information Officer • Policy: County departments shall establish internal processes and procedures to ensure efficient application of vendor-supplied security patches based upon the severity level of the vulnerabilities identified. • Scope: This policy applies to all County departments. • Compliance: An entity designated by the County shall verify compliance to this policy through various methods including internal and external audits. • Variances: Variances to this policy shall be documented and approved following the County Variance Review and Approval Process. • Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with this policy may result in vulnerabilities that compromise County data and/or assets. Devices not in compliance with this policy may have their access to the County’s network restricted. • Policy Control and Maintenance: The County Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for maintaining this policy. OCIT advised the Grand Jury that while most County departments are currently participating and have established internal processes and procedures to ensure efficient application of vendor supplied security patches, some departments have not, and are not in compliance with the Patch Management Policy. The Grand Jury requested the status of compliance for each department with the Patch Management Policy from OCIT, however this information was not received prior to the publication of this report. Reiterated from the discussion on the prior policy, the Grand Jury believes that the County has the oversight responsibility and liability for County Policies pertaining to the County owned computer systems and data residing within all County departments, including those headed by elected officials. The Grand Jury believes that the County needs to do more than recommend compliance to departments with elected officials, and should require all County departments to comply with its policies related to cybersecurity, including this Patch Management policy establishing internal processes and procedures to ensure efficient application of vendor-supplied security patches. County Cyber Incident Reporting Policy As part of its cybersecurity program, the County adopted a Cyber Incident Reporting Policy in September 2018. The County Cyber Incident Reporting Policy seeks to ensure that the Board of Supervisors, County Executive Office, and impacted Department Heads are informed of significant cybersecurity incidents in a timely manner. Following is a summary of the pertinent components of the Cyber Incident Reporting Policy: • Approval/Revision Dates: Approved 9/26/2018, No Revisions • Authority: County Executive Office • Policy Owner: County Chief Information Officer • Policy: County departments shall report cybersecurity incidents to the Central IT Service Desk. Confirmed cybersecurity incidents that meet the criteria defined in the Significant Incident/Claim Reporting Protocol shall be reported by the CISO to the CIO, CEO, and the Board of Supervisors within 24 hours. County departments shall review and confirm the accuracy of the Confirmed Cybersecurity Incident Report prepared by OCIT annually. • Scope: This policy applies to all County departments. • Compliance: The County shall verify compliance to this policy including internal and external audits. • Variances: Variances to this policy shall be documented and approved following the County Variance Review and Approval Process. • Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with this policy may result in cybersecurity incidents not being properly reported and addressed. • Policy Control and Maintenance: The County Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for maintaining this policy. • Reporting Criteria: The CISO shall report to the Board of Supervisors any confirmed cybersecurity incident that meets any of the following criteria: Involves a natural disaster or other incident that impact County residents and o property Involves an unusual or significant dangerous condition of property that is owned, o occupied or maintained by the County Involves sensitive issues of government practices or public policy o Involves multiple cities or jurisdictions and will require coordination with cities, o state agencies/departments, and or the federal government Involves reports from County contracted consultants or a government agency o critical of County policy, procedure or processes Has the potential to result in a claim/litigation against the County o May attract significant media attention o It is imperative to County decision-makers and residents that significant cyber incidents which occur on County IT systems and networks be reported to the County CIO, CEO, and Board of Supervisors within 24 hours. OCIT indicated that as of January 2020, there have been no confirmed cybersecurity incidents reported to them which meet the criteria defined in the Significant Incident/Claim Reporting. The Grand Jury requested documentation from OCIT confirming compliance with this County Policy, however this information was not received prior to the completion of its investigation. County Variance Review and Approval Process Policy The County Policy for Variance Review and Approval Process allows for Department heads and County leadership to make an informed decision on whether or not to accept a variance from the Cybersecurity Best Practices Manual or County policies by understanding the risks and alternatives involved. All requests for variances are to be documented using the County Variance Request Form and are to be logged in a central repository, to be maintained by OCIT. Approved County Variance Request Forms shall be reviewed at least annually for renewal by the CISO and the department requesting the variance. Following is a summary of the pertinent components of the Variance Review and Approval Process Policy: • Approval/Revision Dates: Approved 4/2/2018, No Revisions • Authority: County Executive Office • Policy Owner: County Chief Information Officer • Policy: The procedure will allow department heads and County leadership to make an informed decision on whether or not to accept a variance from the Cybersecurity Manual or County Policy by understanding the risks and alternatives involved. • Scope: This procedure applies to all departments in the County. • Compliance: An entity designated by the County shall verify compliance to this policy through various methods including internal and external audits. • Variances: Variances to this policy shall be documented and approved following the County Variance Review and Approval Process. • Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with this policy may result in significant delays to the implementation of information systems and/or technologies. • Policy Control and Maintenance: The County Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for maintaining this policy. A review of the current repository of all requested variances indicates that only four requests for variances have been received as of February 2020. A summary of the four variance requests is set out below: 1. August 2018 – Use of Administrative Accounts by system administrators 2. August 2019 – ROV Windows 2000 Plate Printers 3. February 2019 – OCCR Public Library Network Traffic Monitoring 4. February 2019 - Clerk of the Board Desktop Admin Account While the total number of existing issues requiring variances from the County’s cybersecurity best practices and policies is unknown, it is apparent that many non-compliant issues currently exist. It is imperative that all County departments comply with the County’s adopted cybersecurity best practices and policies or submit the required requests for variances. Security Architecture and Vulnerability/Penetration Assessment As part of the Grand Jury’s investigation into the County’s cybersecurity preparedness, a review was made of the most recent Security Architecture and Vulnerability/Penetration Assessment, dated July 12, 2019, which was conducted by IT consultants retained by the County. The Security Architecture Assessment compared the capabilities of the security tools deployed by the County, as well as the security process used by the County, with an appropriate set of security controls derived from the NIST 800-53 Standard. The results of this assessment provide the OCIT Security organization with a prioritized list of initiatives to implement new or different security tools or security processes. These initiatives can better equip the County of Orange to proactively combat the growing cybersecurity attacks causing data breaches and millions of dollars of potential ransomware. The External and Internal Security Assessments assessed the vulnerability of selected external and internal computing and network devices of the County. The IT consultant deployed several automated tools and utilized techniques in order to evaluate the vulnerability of servers, workstations and networking devices to a cybersecurity attack across the public internet, or origination from within the County’s internal networks. Based on the results of the Security Architecture Assessment, the County’s existing security controls can provide the majority of the security controls that the County should have in place, but there are several significant gaps in controls that need to be addressed. The two most significant findings of this assessment were that many of the County’s external and internal hosts are running out-of-date software, and that numerous departments/agencies chose not to participate and therefore the assessment was deemed by the consultants to be “Incomplete.” The assessment also concluded that because of the prevalence of out-of-support and unpatched software in the County’s environment, the County is at “high risk” of being compromised by a cyberattack. While the Grand Jury has been informed by County executives that they do not have the authority to direct elected officials on how to operate their departments, the Grand Jury believes the County has the responsibility and liability for the County owned computer systems and data residing within all County departments, including those headed by elected officials. It is recognized that penetration testing assessments can be disruptive and interfere with regular business operations. However, the County’s IT consultant who performed the most recent assessment has indicated that a penetration assessment could be conducted during off-business times and terms acceptable to individual department’s IT needs and security requirements. The Grand Jury believes that the County needs to do more than recommend participation in future County-wide vulnerability/penetration assessments, and should require all external facing servers and internal networks from all County departments to be included. In-lieu of participating in the County conducted vulnerability/penetration assessment, a department could choose to comply by performing its own vulnerability/penetration assessments and provide the results to the County, as long as the criteria for the assessment is equal to or exceeds County standards.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County of Orange has explored numerous planning options and development proposals regarding Parcel 18 within former MCAS Tustin over the past twenty-five years, yet has been ineffective in its efforts and has not been able to produce an approved economically viable plan within the constraints of its Park Public Benefit Conveyance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Given the altered conditions since the initial planning, the County of Orange should reevaluate its ability to provide additional value or benefit to county residents from its involvement with the redevelopment of Parcel 18 as a county regional park, and the Board of Supervisors should determine within 90-days of the release of this report whether to proceed with or withdraw from its PBC application. (F1 thru F5.)
F2:
Although the County of Orange has indicated an interest in applying to the National Park Service to alter their conveyance mechanism to a Historic Monument PBC, it has made limited progress and currently has no economically viable proposals within the constraints of a Historic Monument PBC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Given the altered conditions since the initial planning, the County of Orange should reevaluate its ability to provide additional value or benefit to county residents from its involvement with the redevelopment of Parcel 18 as a county regional park, and the Board of Supervisors should determine within 90-days of the release of this report whether to proceed with or withdraw from its PBC application. (F1 thru F5.)
F3:
The City of Tustin commenced licensing the historic South Hangar for interim uses in 2013 and has recently moved forward with its plans to renovate and retain the South Hangar. The planned retention of the South Hangar significantly limits the potential economic viability and public benefits of also retaining the North Hangar.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Given the altered conditions since the initial planning, the County of Orange should reevaluate its ability to provide additional value or benefit to county residents from its involvement with the redevelopment of Parcel 18 as a county regional park, and the Board of Supervisors should determine within 90-days of the release of this report whether to proceed with or withdraw from its PBC application. (F1 thru F5.)
R2:
As the Local Reuse Authority, the City of Tustin should commence initial steps and planning with the Department of the Navy for incorporating Parcel 18 into its Economic Development Conveyance to meet the objectives of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. (F3 and F4.) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 “Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations.” “(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the
F4:
The City of Tustin appears to be in a more advantageous position than the County to redevelop the 85 acres within Parcel 18 as it is the Local Reuse Authority, and could potentially accept the property through its existing Economic Development Conveyance and re-plan/redevelop the property in joinder with adjacent property under its ownership.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Given the altered conditions since the initial planning, the County of Orange should reevaluate its ability to provide additional value or benefit to county residents from its involvement with the redevelopment of Parcel 18 as a county regional park, and the Board of Supervisors should determine within 90-days of the release of this report whether to proceed with or withdraw from its PBC application. (F1 thru F5.)
R2:
As the Local Reuse Authority, the City of Tustin should commence initial steps and planning with the Department of the Navy for incorporating Parcel 18 into its Economic Development Conveyance to meet the objectives of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. (F3 and F4.) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933 “Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations.” “(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the
F5:
The Navy has stated to the County of Orange that absent a viable plan and path forward on the transfer of Parcel 18 to the County, the Navy will re-engage the National Park Service and the City of Tustin to discuss an alternative conveyance mechanism to meet the objectives of the original agreement and the Tustin Legacy Reuse Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Given the altered conditions since the initial planning, the County of Orange should reevaluate its ability to provide additional value or benefit to county residents from its involvement with the redevelopment of Parcel 18 as a county regional park, and the Board of Supervisors should determine within 90-days of the release of this report whether to proceed with or withdraw from its PBC application. (F1 thru F5.)