Orange County Grand Jury
2021-2022
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 (9)
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F3:
collaboration for support of shelters and services, which has resulted in missed opportunities to end homelessness. The City of Yorba Linda disagrees wholly with the finding. The collaboration between Response the County, the Orange County Continuum of Care (COC) and cities in Orange County has resulted in the creation of shelters and services that better address unsheltered homelessness. This is especially the case among the 13 cities that comprise the North Service Planning Area (North SPA), which includes the City of Yorba Linda, that have worked collaboratively in recent years to address the issue of homelessness in the region. Some of the North SPA cities have contributed funding toward the construction of the Bridges at Kramer facility in Anaheim, and all have provided funding toward the construction and operation of the Navigation Centers in Buena Park and Placentia. Cities in the North SPA have also, both individually and collectively, funded homeless services and housing opportunities. There are an insufficient number of rental units available to those exiting Emergency
F4:
Shelters, resulting in the majority returning to homelessness when leaving the shelters. 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 714-961-7110 | www.yorbalindaca.gov Response to the Orange County Grand Jury report - "How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?" The City of Yorba Linda agrees partially with the finding. On a Countywide basis, Orange Response County has oversight of the Coordinated Entry System which streamlines access and referrals to permanent housing opportunities. Often individuals and families experiencing homelessness who are working towards a permanent housing option may experience delays and barriers in securing rental units due to a variety of factors. Because of the barriers to housing faced by these individuals/families, the County has invested in programs with equipped staff to assist in finding and securing units successfully. These efforts have resulted in housing-focused emergency shelters, increased housing navigation and unit identification programming, and enhanced supportive services to assist those in need to secure permanent housing. By July 1, 2024, the County of Orange and cities should collaborate to open facilities that
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
can house people with severe and persistent mental illness and addiction issues in a secure setting. The recommendation has been implemented. The 2022 Housing Inventory Count Response identified 2,793 units of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). PSH is long-term affordable housing paired with supportive services for people experiencing homelessness who may have other challenges, such as mental illness. PSH is prioritized for individuals experiencing the longest lengths of homelessness in Orange County and with high service needs as a result of the conditions they experience. Since the County's adoption of the Orange County Housing Funding Strategy in 2018 and through the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT), a total of 1,273 PSH units have been completed, are in progress of funding, or under construction. The Housing Funding Strategy has established a target for the development of 2,700 new supportive housing units by 2025. The development of new PSH and affordable housing is an existing and ongoing collaborative effort between the County, the cities and OCHFT. By July 1, 2023, the County of Orange, cities and COC should collaborate to encourage
R5:
the development of housing affordable to individuals exiting the emergency shelters in Orange County. The recommendation has been implemented. The County, cities, and COC have been Response working together to encourage the development of affordable housing and PSH that supports the needs of people experiencing homelessness and accessing the system of care. In 2019, the OCHFT was established to provide a funding tool that could be used to facilitate and encourage the development of affordable PSH units in Orange County, and to date OCHFT has funded seventeen projects. In addition, COC and the four public housing authorities - Orange County, Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Anaheim - have worked together to support the Emergency Housing Voucher program, which provides more than 1,000 special purpose vouchers for people CITY of YORBA LINDA Response to the Orange County Grand Jury report - "How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?" experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness as identified by service providers in Orange County. The County continues to allocate additional resources to subsidize housing opportunities for households that previously experienced homelessness and/or households experiencing homelessness. Since the adoption of the Housing Funding Strategy, the County has authorized the utilization of more than 300 project-based Housing Choice, Mainstream and Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers from the Orange County Housing Authority for permanent supportive housing developments throughout Orange County. The County has also allocated more than $135 million in Mental Health Services Act funding for supportive housing development that is administered at both the state and local levels, and partnered with developers to apply jointly for other available funding sources such as "No Place Like Home," "Housing for a Healthy California," and "Housing Accelerator" funds. Through its partnership with cities, the County has also worked with developers to identify prospective sites that may be eligible for State of California's Homekey Program funding. To date, more that $50 million in funding has been awarded to the County of Orange and to developer co-applicants for five motel conversions that provide 252 units of PSH around Orange County. The County and cities will continue to work closely with COC in various capacities to collaborate and encourage the development of affordable housing and PSH as part of the system of care. By December 1, 2022, the County or Orange, cities and COC should collaborate to
R6:
increase the number of housing opportunities for Transitional Aged Youth. The recommendation has been implemented. Since June 2020, the County's Office of Response Care Coordination has worked to improve the homeless service delivery for transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The County provides oversight over the Coordinated Entry System and has worked to implement a separate process for transitional aged youth to be prioritized for available housing resources in Orange County. This has resulted in the implementation of a Transitional Aged Youth Registry, composed of youth participants experiencing homelessness in Orange County regardless of their household composition. Transitional aged youth service providers are invited to attend a collaborative case conferencing meeting to discuss individual cases, available housing resources, and dynamic prioritization through the Coordinated Entry System to ensure that the most vulnerable participants are receiving the most appropriate housing referrals. In addition, the Office of Care Coordination has begun tracking outcomes in the form of transitional aged youth-focused dashboard to understand the housing needs and analyze trends. The Office of Care Coordination and the COC have utilized this information to inform the implementation of housing resources and the solicitation of new housing resources specifically designed to meet the needs of the transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness in Orange County. CITY of YORBA LINDA Response to the Orange County Grand Jury report - "How is Orange County Addressing Homelessness?" The Office of Care Coordination most recently applied for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, a funding opportunity from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designed to reduce the number of transitional aged youths experiencing homelessness through a coordinated community approach. Also, funding from the State of California's Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention Program, provided to the County, cities, and COC, requires recipient jurisdictions to allocate a minimum percentage of the funding to create housing opportunities and resources for transitional aged youth. This focused funding resource has proven helpful in the planning and design of a homeless service system that meets the needs of transitional aged youth. At the local level, the City of Yorba Linda authorized 14 transitional aged youth units as part of the Oakcrest Heights residential development in Savi Ranch. The project was built by National Community Renaissance with funding assistance from the County's local Mental Health Services Act program. Should you have any questions or require any further information from the City of Yorba Linda, please feel free to contact our Assistant City Manager, David Christian at (714)961-7107 or dchristian@yorbalindaca.gov. Sincerely, Malte Mark Pulone City Manager
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Due to the reduced availability of convenient CRV redemption sites and the lack of accurate online information, it is difficult for resident consumers to redeem CRV fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January of 2023, all cities and the County of Orange should develop extensive community outreach programs aimed at educating the public about how to access CRV redemption in their jurisdiction. (F1, F3)
F2:
Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (F2, F4)
F3:
CalRecycle is attempting to improve CRV redemption and reduce CRV recyclables from landfills and are offering financial incentives to do so. Orange County and its cities are not fully taking advantage of the grant or pilot program opportunities available through CalRecycle.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
By January of 2023, each of the cities in Orange County should research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for their community that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)
R2:
By January of 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should require OC Waste & Recycling to research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for the unincorporated areas of OC that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)
R4:
By January of 2023, all cities and the County of Orange should develop extensive community outreach programs aimed at educating the public about how to access CRV redemption in their jurisdiction. (F1, F3)
F4:
Orange County and most OC Cities do not make CRV redemption and recycling a priority when negotiating their waste hauler contracts which results in missed financial opportunities and convenience for their residents. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2021-2022 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (F2, F4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
OCPA has not properly implemented bylaws and other procedures to promote and ensure transparency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Implement OCPA and Community Advisory Committee by-laws consistent with those of other CCEs within California. (F1) Timeline: October 1, 2022.
F2:
OCPA unreasonably delayed the formation of the CAC, has failed to properly utilize CAC member expertise, and has stifled the CAC from functioning as an advisory committee as intended.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Include the Community Advisory Committee as a standing item on the OCPA Board minutes and recognize the Community Advisory Committee as an advisory committee, and not simply a mouthpiece. (F2) Timeline: October 1, 2022.
F3:
OCPA hiring practices and procedures for both employees and contractors have failed to follow best practices, potentially damaging the credibility of the agency and raising questions of cronyism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Hire a Director of Power Purchases or other qualified staff positions to properly oversee Pacific Energy Advisors and CalPine contractors utilizing best practices. (F3, F4, F5) Timeline: December 1, 2022.
F4:
OCPA has failed to hire a Director of Power Purchases or other experienced senior staff as appropriate for a CCE, resulting in a lack of oversight of contractors and fewer checks and balances in its operation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Hire a Director of Power Purchases or other qualified staff positions to properly oversee Pacific Energy Advisors and CalPine contractors utilizing best practices. (F3, F4, F5) Timeline: December 1, 2022.
F5:
OCPA lacks experienced in-house staff to develop and implement a long-term strategic plan as well as short-term plans to mitigate economic risks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Hire a Director of Power Purchases or other qualified staff positions to properly oversee Pacific Energy Advisors and CalPine contractors utilizing best practices. (F3, F4, F5) Timeline: December 1, 2022.
F6:
OCPA Board meeting agendas and staff reports are distributed at the last minute and Board meeting minutes are not always accurate, complete, or posted in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Utilize a member agency clerk or assign a qualified OCPA staff member to handle the agendas and minutes for the OCPA Board and OCPA Community Advisory Committee to ensure that they are prepared properly and posted in a timely manner. (F6) Timeline: October 1, 2022. RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department 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. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required and requested from: 90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 OCPA Board of Directors X X X X X X 90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4 OCPA Board of Directors X X X X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 City of Buena Park City Council X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 City of Fullerton City Council X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 City of Huntington Beach City Council X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 City of Irvine City Council X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 Orange County Board of Supervisors X
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
South Orange County SPA cities lack low-threshold emergency shelters resulting in more homeless encampments and individuals living on the streets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By July 1, 2023, the CoC and County of Orange should leverage funding to persuade South Orange County cities to open a regional, low-threshold emergency shelter for the homeless, in addition to the Laguna Beach Friendship Shelter. (F1)
F2:
Too many of the homeless who are severely and persistently mentally ill and those with addiction issues end up incarcerated instead of more appropriate placements.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
By July 1, 2023, South OC SPA cities should collaborate in siting and funding a low- threshold emergency shelter for the homeless, in addition to the Friendship Shelter in Laguna Beach. (F2)
R3:
The CoC should fund programs in fiscal year 2022-23 for people with severe and persistent mental illness and addiction issues to receive supervised care and treatment. (F2)
R4:
By July 1, 2024, the County of Orange and cities should collaborate to open facilities that can house people with severe and persistent mental illness and addiction issues in a secure setting. (F2)
F3:
The County of Orange and cities within Orange County have been inconsistent in collaboration for support of shelters and services, which has resulted in missed opportunities to end homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July 1, 2023, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to encourage the development of housing affordable to individuals exiting the emergency shelters in Orange County. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
There are an insufficient number of rental units available to those exiting Emergency Shelters, resulting in the majority returning to homelessness when leaving the shelters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July 1, 2023, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to encourage the development of housing affordable to individuals exiting the emergency shelters in Orange County. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The Office of Care Coordination, in collaboration with the Continuum of Care Board, provides an effective community-based system of setting priorities to address homelessness, learning best practices, awarding and monitoring contracts, and overseeing a comprehensive system of care. However, the challenge of housing all our homeless requires much more.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July 1, 2023, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to encourage the development of housing affordable to individuals exiting the emergency shelters in Orange County. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
Transitional Aged Youth who age out of the Foster Care system are a vulnerable population that often become homeless and need assistance in finding housing. There are insufficient resources to adequately serve these young people.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 1, 2022, the County of Orange, cities and CoC should collaborate to increase the number of housing opportunities for Transitional Aged Youth. (F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Despite fire departments throughout Orange County having evolved into emergency medical departments, most have not updated their emergency response protocols accordingly, but have simply absorbed emergency medical responses into their existing fire response models. Correspondence from OCFA to OC Public Health, cc: County Executive Officer, January 25, 2022. Joint Statement on Lights & Siren Vehicle Operations on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Responses February 14, 2022.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F2:
Despite use of a tiered dispatch system, OCFA’s deployment of resources for medical responses are the same for nearly all calls, resulting in unnecessary wear and tear on expensive fire-fighting equipment and public infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F3:
ALS staffed ambulances or smaller squad vehicles are often the most appropriate response to medical calls and do not compromise the quality of medical care.
F4:
There has been a breakdown of communication and trust between OCEMS and Orange County Fire Chiefs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
While OCEMS should recognize how certain policy changes may pose operational challenges to emergency responders in the field, fire leadership should recognize and respect the independent oversight authority and expertise of OCEMS. F4
F5:
Over-deployment of firefighters for medical calls contributes to the current climate of forced hiring and firefighter fatigue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F6:
Code 3 response is over utilized by OCFA, unnecessarily putting the responders and public at risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
OCFA should immediately stop the practice of requesting Code 3 responses on all non- life threatening (BLS) calls. F6
F7:
Since the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, there has been an emergency medical personnel shortage. The pandemic also has contributed to longer wait times at hospitals resulting in firefighter personnel being out of service for longer periods.
F8:
There are specific areas within Orange County, such as Laguna Woods and Seal Beach, that have an extremely high percentage of medical calls which, under the current model, results in the stations servicing those communities to require two engines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By 2024, OCFA should station a paramedic squad vehicle, which is more nimble and less costly to operate, in place of a second engine in stations with high volumes of medical calls. F8
F9:
OCEMS has the authority and responsibility to inspect all for-profit ambulances operating in Orange County; however, publicly owned ambulances are not automatically subject to OCEMS oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Departments with publicly owned ambulances should allow OCEMS to inspect their ambulances for compliance with State EMS guidelines and adopt OCEMS recommendations. F9 RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department 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.
F10:
Placentia’s changes to the emergency medical response protocols after leaving OCFA have resulted in improved medical call response times.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A singular water authority for Orange County’s wholesale water supply likely would result in further opportunities at the local, State, and federal levels in legislation, policy making and receiving subsidies and grants.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By January 2023, Orange County wholesale water agencies should formally begin analysis and collaboration towards forming a single wholesale water authority or comparable agency to operate and represent wholesale water operations and interests of all imported and ground water supplies. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R2:
Any future “One Voice” consolidated Orange County wholesale water authority should have Directors that examine and vote on issues considering the unique needs of all water districts. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
F2:
The current fragmented water system structure and operations provides challenges as it relates to development of new interconnected infrastructure as well as maintenance of existing systems.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By January 2023, Orange County wholesale water agencies should formally begin analysis and collaboration towards forming a single wholesale water authority or comparable agency to operate and represent wholesale water operations and interests of all imported and ground water supplies. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R2:
Any future “One Voice” consolidated Orange County wholesale water authority should have Directors that examine and vote on issues considering the unique needs of all water districts. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
F3:
There is a great disparity between the North/Central and South Orange County water sources, management, and operations carried out by OCWD and MWDOC.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By January 2023, Orange County wholesale water agencies should formally begin analysis and collaboration towards forming a single wholesale water authority or comparable agency to operate and represent wholesale water operations and interests of all imported and ground water supplies. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R2:
Any future “One Voice” consolidated Orange County wholesale water authority should have Directors that examine and vote on issues considering the unique needs of all water districts. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
F4:
South Orange County has many smaller retail water districts that lack a formal centralized leadership. Notwithstanding this lack of structure, South Orange County retail water districts have displayed effective collaboration when dealing with one another.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By January 2023, Orange County wholesale water agencies should formally begin analysis and collaboration towards forming a single wholesale water authority or comparable agency to operate and represent wholesale water operations and interests of all imported and ground water supplies. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R2:
Any future “One Voice” consolidated Orange County wholesale water authority should have Directors that examine and vote on issues considering the unique needs of all water districts. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
F5:
Orange County Water District is a recognized worldwide leader in groundwater resource management and reclamation. Its leadership, innovation, and expertise can be further utilized to serve all of Orange County in developing additional innovative and beneficial programs.
F6:
Orange County currently does not have a countywide coordinated policy regarding water conservation, which results in difficulty when complying with any new State-mandated conservation regulations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By January 2023, Orange County wholesale water agencies should formally begin analysis and collaboration towards forming a single wholesale water authority or comparable agency to operate and represent wholesale water operations and interests of all imported and ground water supplies. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R2:
Any future “One Voice” consolidated Orange County wholesale water authority should have Directors that examine and vote on issues considering the unique needs of all water districts. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department reacted to the Office of Independent Review’s Investigation of OCSD Use of Force Policies and Practices report by publicly and privately lobbying the OC Board of Supervisors to discount the findings of said report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By October 1, 2022, to maintain the integrity and independence of the OIR, the BOS should adopt a policy that requires all members of the BOS to publicly vote on any alteration to the OIR budget. (F1, F2)
F2:
A prominent member of the BOS reacted to the OCSD’s dispute with the findings of the Investigation of OCSD Use of Force Policies and Practices by unilaterally directing the office of the Orange County CEO to initiate a hiring freeze despite a previously budgeted OIR staff expansion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By October 1, 2022, to maintain the integrity and independence of the OIR, the BOS should adopt a policy that requires all members of the BOS to publicly vote on any alteration to the OIR budget. (F1, F2)
F3:
The hiring freeze, following so closely to the publication of the OIR report and the OCSD’s objections, precipitated the viewpoint that the independence of the OIR was marginalized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By October 1, 2022, the BOS should approve the number of staff for the OIR that the Executive Director “recommends are necessary” in accordance with OCCO Section 1-2- 226. (F3, F4)
F4:
Until the BOS appoints an Executive Director with sufficient staffing, OIR is limited in its ability to investigate complaints and challenges to ongoing investigations and those in the planning stages.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The BOS should appoint a qualified Executive Director so that the OIR can respond to complaints it receives and continue with its investigations, both ongoing and in the planning stages. (F4)
R2:
By October 1, 2022, the BOS should approve the number of staff for the OIR that the Executive Director “recommends are necessary” in accordance with OCCO Section 1-2- 226. (F3, F4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Public land trust dedications and other conservation easements affecting County land are not always properly recorded in County or State records, which impacts later County land sales decisions and notice requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CEO Real Estate should ensure that conservation easements, designations of public trust land, and similar restrictions are properly researched and recorded with the County Recorder prior to any sale. F1 Timeline: Immediate and ongoing.
F2:
Owing to the influence of the office of the District 2 Supervisor at the time, the Board of Supervisors Staff Report and the OC Park Commission Staff Report prepared for the 2021 potential sale of Newport Beach Back Bay parcel APN 439-051-14 were conclusory, incomplete, and contained inaccurate statements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors, CEO Real Estate, and OC Parks Commission should establish and follow procedures to ensure that staff reports are factually accurate, complete, and include any conservation easements or public trust designations. F2 Timeline: Immediate and ongoing.
F3:
Posting and notice requirements by the State and County fail to provide adequate information to interested citizens of the proposed sale of public land designated for park or open space use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Private individuals attempting to purchase public park land that will not be put up for public auction should pay for mailings of the relevant Board of Supervisor Resolution (including photographs accurately and clearly depicting the subject property) to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property and all property/ homeowners within one-quarter mile radius (1,320 feet) of the subject property. F3 Timeline: Effective date no later than December 31, 2022.
F4:
There is no public record of the State Coastal Commission being notified of the potential sale of a parcel of the Newport Beach Back Bay which was in the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In addition to the posting requirements found in Section 2-5-301 of the County’s land abandonment ordinance, during the same proscribed time, CEO Real Estate should post copies of the relevant BOS Resolution around the perimeter of the subject property in a conspicuous manner and at reasonable distance intervals as determined by CEO Real Estate. CEO Real Estate should take the following additional measures: check the status of the posting at least once during the posting period and maintain photographs documenting the postings. F2 Timeline: Immediate.
F5:
By allowing the owner-installed fence surrounding APN 439-051-14 to remain in place, the County has permitted the homeowner to inappropriately privatize this parcel at no cost to the homeowner and in a manner inconsistent with the well-established public trust designation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CEO Real Estate website should list all proposed land transactions and provide a link to the related Board of Supervisors Resolution and transaction documents, if any. F3 Timeline: Effective Date no later than December 31, 2022.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
CEO Real Estate should establish and follow a procedure to notify the Coastal Commission and any other applicable agency at least 45 days in advance of a Board of Supervisors vote to sell any public land that has been entrusted to that agency. F4 Timeline: Effective Date no later than December 31, 2022.
R7:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should order the removal of the chain link fence surrounding APN 439-051-14 along with any other encroachments on that parcel to return the land to its natural (original) state. F5 Timeline: Removal to occur on or before December 31, 2022. RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department 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. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required or requested from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this Report: Responses required and requested: 90 Day Response Required F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 OC Board of Supervisors X X X X X 90 Day Response Required R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 OC Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X 90 Day Response Requested F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 CEO Real Estate X X X X X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 CEO Real Estate X X X X X X X 90 Day Response Requested F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 OC Parks Commission X X 90 Day Response Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 OC Parks Commission X X
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The City of Anaheim demonstrated persistent lack of transparency and rushed decision- making in its handling of the Stadium Property transactions, exacerbating distrust by the public, State and local government officials, and even some members of its own City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
F2:
The City’s failure to timely disseminate and/or develop critical documents and information related to the Stadium Property transactions resulted in uninformed decision- making by the City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
F3:
In conjunction with its alleged violations of the Surplus Land Act, the City limited creative affordable housing strategies with the Stadium Property transactions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Any future agreement regarding the City’s disposition of the Stadium Property should allocate low and very low-income affordable housing units for the local workforce including individuals who work in the entertainment, leisure, hospitality, and health services industries. (F3)
F4:
On multiple occasions, the City Council majority blocked the Council minority from adding items to its agenda relating to the disposition of the Stadium Property, stifling public discussion about the pros and cons of such a significant land transaction.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
R3:
By October 4, 2022, the Anaheim City Council should revise Policy 1.6 so that any member of the City Council may place an item on its regular meeting agenda. (F4) RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official A shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department 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. A
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.