⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
DIABLO CANYON: SAN LUIS OBISPO’S KATRINA? ..............................1-1 2. YOUR VOTE COUNTS – IT REALLY DOES..............................................2-1 3. SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS........................................................................3-1 4. COUNTY CONTRACTS: DO WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR?..................4-1 5. ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE...............................................5-1 6. GETTING TO KNOW LAFCO......................................................................6-1 7. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT ................................7-1 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY......................8-1 9. HISTORIC PRESERVATION.......................................................................9-1 10. CALIFORNIA VALLEY..............................................................................10-1 11. TRIBAL CONSULTATION – A PEACEFUL APPROACH........................11-1 12. VECTOR CONTROL - AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION.............................12-1 13. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION....13-1 PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK-UPS INSPECTION REPORTS 14. REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN SLO COUNTY........14-1 15. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY ................................................................15-1 16. THE EL PASO DE ROBLES YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.........16-1 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page i 17. COUNTY JAIL...........................................................................................17-1 18. JUVENILE HALL – JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER...............................18-1 19. LOCAL LOCK-UPS...................................................................................19-1 REPONSES TO 2005-2006 GRAND JURY REPORTS COUNTY HARBORS.......................................................................................R-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLEET GARAGE.............................................R-1 PESTICIDE USE AT THE AGRICULTURAL/URBAN INTERFACE................R-2 THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION......................................R-3 LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT..............................................R-3 AREA ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION..................................................R-4 BICYCLE RIDING IN SAN LUIS COUNTY......................................................R-4 ATASCADERO HIGH SCHSOOL: RACIAL ISSUES......................................R-5 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.................................................................................R-6 OAK TREE PRESERVATION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY.....................R-7 AGING OUT: THE FUTURE OF FOSTER CHILDREN ...................................R-8 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS...................................................R-8 RESTRAINING ORDERS: PAPER THIN PROTECTION................................R-9 CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY.....................................................................R-10 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL AND HONOR FARM.............................R-10 JUVENILE HALL/JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER......................................R-10 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page ii INTRODUCTORY LETTER Each year in June, nineteen people are selected by the Superior Court from among citizen volunteers in San Luis County to serve for a full year as members of the Grand Jury. Members of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury were drawn from all areas of the county and had diverse educational and professional experiences. The resulting mix of ideas and talents, combined with a high level of dedication and energy allowed this group to produce informative and incisive reports about the workings of county government. For the benefit of citizens who may be uninformed about how a grand jury operates and how its reports are generated, and for those who may have an interest in serving on a future grand jury, the following explanation is offered. Citizens of the county who apply for grand jury service are invited to an orientation session for an overview of the process. They are then interviewed by a judge and, iff approved, their name is forwarded for inclusion in the annual grand jury lottery. Random selection results in panel members and alternates. Only panel members are sworn in and instructed in their charge by the presiding judge. Jurors take an oath of confidentiality regarding any grand jury matters, not only for their term, but for the rest of their lives. Grand juries conduct proceedings behind closed doors, as required by law, primarily for the protection of people who file complaints or who testify during investigations. Once a grand jury is impaneled, jurors spend six weeks in training with county and court officials, including the District Attorney, County Counsel, County Auditor, County Administrator and the Superior Court’s Administrator and Jury Commissioner. Before jurors begin any investigations, they receive training on the Grand Jury Procedures Handbook and the Penal Codes which apply to their work. The current handbook and penal codes are on the grand jury’s website at www.slocourts.net/grandjury. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page iii After the training period is completed, jurors begin by reviewing any complaints received that might be the subject of an inquiry and identifying areas of interest that might become the subject of self-initiated investigations. A review is done to determine which agencies of local government have not been looked into by prior grand juries within the past five years. Grand juries inspect and report on local prison conditions, as mandated by law. Each grand jury sets its own rules of proceeding and creates committees to investigate and create reports. The process of generating reports from grand jury investigations has a number of safeguards built in: 1. A committee first develops an action plan and brings it to the full grand jury for review and approval. Jurors with a conflict of interest absent themselves from all activities on that topic and recuse themselves from all voting on the report.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Once an investigation is complete, a draft of the report is written by the committee and reviewed by the full jury. The jury gives input and eventual approval by a vote of at least 12 of its 19 members.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The report is then sent to the County Counsel for legal review.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The report then goes to the responsible government department for a check on its ‘factual accuracy.’ Input is carefully considered, and corrections are made if necessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The final draft of the report is submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court for review and approval.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The report is then released to the media and posted on the grand jury’s website. It is important to note that while a report’s findings are based on solid facts gathered by the grand jury’s investigations, the conclusions and recommendations are the result of the panel’s agreed- upon opinion. Each report is presented to the appropriate department or agency which must respond within 60 days. No later than 90 days after the release of the report, the governing body of the public agency must comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations in the report. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page iv Positive changes have resulted from grand jury investigations within San Luis Obispo County. Some recommendations take time to implement, and some can be adopted immediately: 1. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury questioned the efficacy of the complex land use program, based on the transfer of development credits. This report has prompted a reevaluation of the system in the light of present pressures on land use in this county.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Members of the Grand Jury arrived at the Clerk-Recorder’s office at approximately 7:30 PM on Election Day to observe tabulating and publishing of balloting results, as well as the receiving and processing of ballots and supplies as they were brought to the site.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
While there, members of the Grand Jury observed procedures followed by poll inspectors as they arrived to return poll materials to the outside reception team waiting at the curb in front of the Clerk-Recorder’s office. They also observed the outside reception team as they checked the materials being returned and then processed those items. They stayed until after the last truck from the regional centers arrived and was unloaded, finally leaving at approximately 11:00 PM.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Subsequent to the certification of the election results, on November 28th, members of the Grand Jury requested additional information from the County Clerk-Recorder. The requested information was provided promptly. NARRATIVE Both the 2000 and 2004 elections cast a pall over the entire election process leaving many Americans wondering if their votes were counted at all and, if they were, were they counted correctly? With evidence of wrong-doing at the highest levels, media reports of hacking, and a myriad of problems with non-paper balloting, many of us need reassurance that our vote will be counted as it was cast. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 2-3 Misinformation on the Web While stories about San Luis Obispo’s 2002 results being posted on the Internet hours before the polls closed were widespread, we found those allegations not to be true. We also found that no news organization contacted the Clerk-Recorder to verify or disprove the story. The Grand Jury found that what had actually occurred was: a) At the 2002 primary election, a data backup was made on Election Day to ensure that the new system was operating as expected and in case of a crash, to secure the data. b) A Diebold representative offered to store that backup on Diebold’s servers and the Clerk- Recorder agreed. This was the third election in which the system had been used, and the first in which touch-screen machines were used for early voting in the office and was a reasonable and prudent decision by the Clerk-Recorder. After that election, the data stayed on Diebold’s FTP servers (isolated, secure units used for this purpose.) While that may have been an oversight, it was after the fact and the data was of no use to anyone since the results had been made public and precinct by precinct breakdowns of the results were widely available. c) It was that data, then 18 months old, that was discovered on the Diebold FTP site. No current data had been hacked. d) No one contacted the Clerk-Recorder to ask about what had happened or to verify the story. Current Security and Backup protocols Shortly before the election, the Clerk-Recorder programs the memory cards used in its optical scanners, inserts them into the scanner, and places appropriate seals over them. The County uses Diebold’s AccuVote optical scanners to count votes at the polling locations, as well as a similar device in the Clerk-Recorder’s office to count absentee ballots. The server used in San Luis Obispo County elections is housed in a lockable metal cabinet. Only the County Clerk-Recorder and Assistant County Clerk-Recorder have keys to that cabinet. For added security, a camera is focused on it. Prior to the election, the only connection to the server is from the optical scanners in the office used to transmit the data from absentee ballots as they 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 2-4 are run. There are no connections to modems, cable modems, T-1 lines or the like for output or input from external sources. A system that is not connected to any such device cannot be accessed remotely by hackers. Just as you cannot make or receive telephone calls if you’ve unplugged your telephone from the wall, a computer cannot receive or transmit data if it is not connected. The server is not connected to its modem until a few minutes after 8:00 PM on Election Day, when the polls are closed. CONCLUSIONS Voters in San Luis Obispo County’s 2006 election can be assured that after casting their ballots, whether in person or absentee, not only were their votes counted, and counted correctly, but that their vote counted. No chads, no stolen votes, no miscounted votes, no lost votes, no rigged voting machines or suspect totals. Not here in San Luis Obispo County. The Clerk-Recorder repeatedly reviewed the routines and protocols to be sure that Election Day ran smoothly. The planning and logistics were finely tuned with continual checks in place to be sure that all ballots received were counted as the voter intended. As in past years, experienced part-time workers came back to help the regular staff with the extra work during election time. FINDINGS 1. The pre-election procedures for ensuring that optical scanners accurately counted our votes were followed to the letter. The back-up routines employed by the Clerk- Recorder’s office to ensure against any loss of voting data meet the highest standards. The computer security policies in place precluded the possibility of hacking into, altering, 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 2-5 or modifying any data in the system. Please see Appendix A for a detailed description of that process.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 25
-
CL1GETTING TO KNOW LAFCO ORIGIN The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of San Luis Obispo County plays a significant part in the use of land and the development of our living space. Although their decisions have an overall impact on our way of life, most citizens are unaware of the Commission’s role until that rare occasion when a LAFCO recommendation affects them directly. In September 2006, a LAFCO determination to deny a petition to dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District brought brief attention to the agency. Many residents may have followed this in the news and wondered about this relatively obscure organization. Since there appears to be no record of a LAFCO review by a Grand Jury in this county, it seems an appropriate time to prepare an informational report on the goals and responsibilities of this important though little-known agency. METHOD Members of the Grand Jury attended a LAFCO meeting, and interviewed the Executive Officer of the Commission. In addition, Grand Jury members interviewed three of the seven current LAFCO Commissioners and one alternate Commissioner. Jurors also reviewed the following documents: • San Luis Obispo LAFCO website (www.slolafco.com) • “What is LAFCO?” A publication of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO) • “Major Provisions of AB 2838: The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000” State of California Office of Planning and Research • “Directory of Local Agencies” San Luis Obispo LAFCO, October 2006 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-1 • Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century; State of California, 2000 • “Sphere of Influence Update/Municipal Service Review: City of Paso Robles” San Luis Obispo LAFCO, September 2004 A BRIEF HISTORY Post World War II saw a period of unrestricted growth in California. Poor planning and land use decisions resulted in an alarming conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses. Prior to 1963 any proposal for incorporation, annexation or formation of a new district was formulated through petition to the local governing body. In the competition for tax dollars, cities were anxious to annex new developments. At the same time, counties were encouraging these developments to incorporate and contract with them for services such as public safety, public utilities, transit, or cultural and recreational services. The result was a proliferation of overlapping and inefficient systems for delivering public services. In 1963 AB1662 (Knox) created a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for each county, with representation from county, cities and the public to oversee procedures for incorporation and annexation. “The LAFCO boards…(create) an extra review step in the incorporation process. (This) allows municipal government a voice in a process that the county supervisors had performed virtually alone.” (Growth Within Bounds, p. 27) Various changes to the original enabling 1963 legislation were enacted over the years. However, an ongoing debate over the independence of LAFCOs continued. In 2000 the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century issued a report that made a number of recommendations to reform and reorganize LAFCO. These recommendations were the basis for the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (AB 2838). The California Office of Planning and Research identifies the major provisions of the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Act (CKH Act) as follows: 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-2 • Streamlines and clarifies LAFCO policies and procedures. • Makes LAFCO neutral, independent, and balanced in representation for counties, cities and special districts. • Strengthens LAFCO powers to prevent sprawl and ensure the orderly extension of government services. • Enhances communication, coordination and procedures of LAFCO and local governments. • Enhances opportunities for public involvement, active participation, and information regarding government decision-making. (For a more detailed description of these provisions, see Appendix A.) SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY LAFCO TODAY STAFF Since the CKH Act of 2000, a number of changes have taken place within LAFCO in San Luis Obispo County. The Commission staff has moved out of the county government building where it was formerly housed and the source of its funding has become diversified. The number of LAFCO Commissioners includes two city members, two county members, two special district members, and one public member chosen by the other six. In addition there are alternates for each category. The staff now includes an Executive Officer, a LAFCO Analyst, a Legal Counsel, and a Commission Clerk. The policies and procedures of the Commission have been expanded and aligned with the CKH Act. Detailed information about the Commission, its membership, current projects, policies and procedures, agendas, staff reports, minutes of monthly meetings and copies of recent service reviews and sphere of influence updates, as well as fee schedules and applications are available on the SLO LAFCO website: www.slolafco.com. OBJECTIVES LAFCO’s major objectives under the CKH Act are to encourage the orderly formation of local government agencies; to preserve agricultural land resources; and to discourage urban sprawl. In order to meet these objectives LAFCO has the authority to: 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-3 • Conduct a comprehensive municipal service review of local government agencies every five years. Local government agencies include cities, community service districts, county service areas and other special districts. The CKH Act identifies nine factors to be addressed when preparing a service review. These factors are specified in the Policies and Procedures section of the SLO LAFCO website. For each factor, information is gathered and analyzed, with written determinations prepared for LAFCO’s consideration. • Determine spheres of influence for local government agencies that designate the agencies’ probable future boundary and service area. Spheres, based in part on municipal service reviews, are reviewed every five years. • Initiate proposals that include dissolution or consolidation of special districts or merging of existing subsidiary districts. • Regulate, through approval or denial, boundary changes to local government agencies such as annexations proposed by other public agencies or individuals. • Approve outside user agreements between local agencies and service providers outside the agencies’ boundaries. BUDGET The county, the cities, and the independent special districts in the county fund LAFCO. Each of these three groups pays one third of the LAFCO budget. Each city or special district pays a share based on its total revenues as a percentage of total cities’ (or special districts’) revenues. LAFCO’s 2006-2007 income from these sources was $454,515. Additional application fees are charged for various LAFCO activities such as annexations, formations, incorporations, dissolutions, consolidations, mergers and reorganizations. These fees range from $1,500 to $15,000 depending on the complexity of the activity. A complete list of fees can be seen on their website at www.slolafco.com. LAFCO’s 2006-2007 income from application fees is $44,501. LOCAL AGENCIES There are currently seven cities in San Luis Obispo County: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo. City incorporation requires 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-4 LAFCO approval. The process for incorporation of a new city includes a comprehensive fiscal analysis, a cost/benefit justification, proof of revenue sufficient for municipal services, and a review of California State Guidelines for Incorporation as well as LAFCO guidelines prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research. The last city to incorporate was Atascadero in 1978. Community Service Districts (CSDs) provide a variety of services to their residents. Many CSDs in San Luis Obispo County are multi-service districts that provide water, wastewater, fire protection, and solid waste services to the community. CSDs that provide multiple services are Avila Beach, California Valley, Cambria, Heritage Ranch, Los Osos, Nipomo, Oceano, San Miguel, San Simeon, Squire Canyon and Templeton. Of the 15 CSDs in the county, four provide the single purpose of road maintenance. CSDs and other special districts can add services by applying to LAFCO for activation of a latent power. A County Service Area (CSA) is managed by the County Board of Supervisors and may be formed to provide water, wastewater or solid waste services, fire protection, public recreation, street lighting, mosquito abatement, police services, street improvement, conversion to underground power and communication cables, ambulance services, airport facilities and transportation services. In addition to cities, CSDs and CSAs, Special Districts can be formed to provide special services to a community or a region. There are, for example, eleven public cemetery districts, as well as nine special districts that provide services as varied as healthcare, fire, sanitation, harbor, resource conservation, and water. EXCLUSIONS Excluded from LAFCO reviews are school districts and community college districts. Thus, if a school district or community college district wishes to build a new school, it is not required to go through the LAFCO review process to determine the impact on services or land use. In addition, any district formed solely for the purpose of financing infrastructure, such as a special assessment district or an improvement district, is excluded from LAFCO review. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-5 Finally, it should be noted that LAFCO has no jurisdiction over county urbanization outside the urban reserve line of cities. In other words, the commission’s authority is generally limited to approving or denying applications for community services districts, city incorporations or annexations, and conducting regular service reviews and sphere of influence reviews for cities and districts. Thus the Santa Margarita Ranch development, for example, has proposed an “agricultural residential cluster subdivision” which would include 112 homes now and another 400 homes plus wineries, lodging, a commercial center, churches and a golf course on what is now agricultural land. Therefore, unless the proposed development is tied to the formation of a special district, LAFCO has no jurisdiction over the approval of this massive project. Instead the Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for approval.
-
CL2• Establishes a LAFCO funding scheme whereby operational costs are borne jointly and equally by each appointing category. (Chapter 3) ISSUE: ORDERLY GROWTH AND RESOURCE PROTECTION Problem: Urban growth sometimes proceeds into areas where extension of services is inefficient, expensive, or ill-timed. Despite the policies and procedures of the Cortese-Knox Act, the loss of prime agricultural and open-space lands continues to occur where it might be averted through more effective advance planning. (3) AB 2838 strengthens LAFCO powers to prevent sprawl and ensure the orderly extension of government services. • Requires pre-zoning for territory proposed to be annexed to a city to ensure clear knowledge of plans and potential impacts. (Chapter 4) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-9 • Requires LAFCO to update spheres of influence at least once every five years. (Chapter 6) • Requires LAFCO to initiate periodic regional or sub-regional service reviews at least every five years, to determine local government service needs and adequacy. (Chapter 6) • Requires counties to consult with affected cities prior to approving any development or land use change within a sphere of influence. Requires LAFCOs to give "great weight" to any agreements reached between cities and counties on development within spheres of influence. (Chapter 6) • Requires LAFCOs to ensure that a proposal to extend services to previously unserved territory within an unincorporated area is consistent with the policies of the Act, including promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing for persons and families of all incomes, and the efficient extension of governmental services (Chapter 6). • Defines "prime agricultural lands" more precisely. (Chapter 6) • Requires LAFCO to consider existing data on timely availability of water supplies, regional housing needs, information from land owners, and land-use designations in boundary change decisions. (Chapter 3) • Allows LAFCO, when making a decision, to consider regional growth goals and policies adopted by a formally established collaboration of local elected officials. (Chapter 6) ISSUE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND EFFICIENCY Problem: State and local agencies often proceed with planning for their own needs without recognizing the potential effects on other agencies and the broader public. The result can be confusion and dissatisfaction with services. (4) AB 2838 enhances communication, coordination, and procedures of LAFCOs and local governments. • Strengthens notification, coordination, and boundary-setting procedures between local governments and school districts. (Chapter 3) • Subjects to LAFCO approval any extension of services outside a city's or a special district's existing jurisdiction, if an expansion in service capacity is planned, even if the service recipient is another public agency. (Chapter 6) ISSUE: PUBLIC INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT Problem: Voter turn-outs and public opinion surveys indicate an alarming 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-10 level of apathy by the public regarding government processes and actions and a degree of distrust of government in general. (5) AB 2838 enhances opportunities for public involvement, active participation, and information regarding government decisionmaking. • Requires LAFCOs to post information on a web site. (Chapter 8) • Expands LAFCO public and governmental notification requirements. (Chapters 3 and
-
CL3SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT INTRODUCTION San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (the Airport) is one of the County’s major economic engines. The Airport provides the region with commercial air service and it is home to more than 300 general aviation tenants as well as a number of businesses that provide aviation related services. In providing these services, the Airport annually generates as much as $180 million in total economic benefits. Because of its importance to the County’s economy, it is critical that Airport staff and County managers have policies and plans in place to ensure the Airport’s current and future economic vitality. They must also ensure that any plans for future growth are appropriate and do not negatively impact neighboring communities. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-1 ORIGIN / PURPOSE The 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint that included claims of County mismanagement for several of its commercial operations (golf courses, airports, property leases, etc.), and specifically identified several Airport related issues. The claims related to non- Airport issues were vague and dealt more with the County’s policy decisions which are not within the Grand Jury’s investigative jurisdiction. As a result, the Grand Jury decided to investigate only Airport related issues. As the investigation proceeded, the Grand Jury decided that providing a complete overview of the Airport would be appropriate. In addition to resolving issues in the complaint, the Grand Jury wanted to provide County citizens useful information about this important regional resource. METHOD As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors did the following: • Reviewed requests for proposal, agreements and other contract documents relating to Airport planning, commercial operations and facility leases. • Interviewed Airport staff. • Interviewed general aviation tenants and commercial operators. • Interviewed County Auditor-Controller’s staff. • Reviewed Airport Master Plan documents. • Reviewed planning documents and Airport informational materials. • Toured Airport facilities. • Reviewed planning documents for proposed Airport expansions and new facilities. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-2 HISTORY The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport began when Earl Thomson, along with his brothers-in- law, William "Chris" and David Hoover, convinced county officials to lease them the land needed for an airport. In April, 1939, the airport opened with an 88’-by-100’ hangar and dirt runways. In 1940, the War Department installed hard surface runways and lights. In 1940 and 1941, 183 private pilots and 20 advanced students were trained here through a federally sponsored Civilian Pilot Training Program for armed services fliers. The federal government took over the airport during World War II and turned it back to the county in 1946. In that year Southwest Airways inaugurated airline passenger service to San Luis Obispo. In 1947, county supervisors contracted for another hangar, ramp, and eventually an administration building. A full-time airport manager was appointed in 1953. In 1987, the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport was dedicated as McChesney Field, in honor of Leroy E. McChesney for his leadership and dedication to aviation. Airport facilities now include a terminal building, restaurant, numerous hangars and airplane related businesses, and in 1988, a control tower was opened by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When the control tower opened, Wings West, Skywest, West Air, and American Eagle were already in operation. Today, three regional airlines serve the community: United Express (Skywest Airlines), American Eagle and America West Express (Mesa Airlines), with service to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Las Vegas. In June 2007, Delta Connection will begin service to Salt Lake City. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-3 NARRATIVE ECONOMIC VALUE As mentioned in the introduction, the Airport is a major economic engine for the County. The following chart shows the Airport’s estimated economic value to the community in the 2003-2004 fiscal year. BENEFIT MEASURES Revenues Earnings Employment On-Airport Aviation $51,406,000 $10,029,000 347 Employers Capital Projects $2,599,000 $374,000 18 All On-Airport $54,005,000 $10,403,000 365 Economic Benefits Air Visitor Benefits $19,717,000 $8,210,000 457 Indirect Benefits (Multiplier Effect of $68,327,000 $19,690,000 719 Secondary Spending) TOTAL BENEFITS $142,049,000 $38,303,000 1,541 Table Definitions: Revenue – The value in dollars of the output of goods and services produced by businesses. Earnings – Employee compensation (the dollar value of payments received by workers as wages and benefits) and proprietor’s income of business owners. Employment – The number of jobs supported by the revenues created by the Airport. Air Visitor Benefits – Benefits from commercial and general aviation air travelers who use the Airport. Indirect Benefits – The “multiplier effects” that result from additional spending induced in the economy to produce the other benefits listed. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-4 However, the Airport is not a static enterprise. The most recent Airport Master Plan Update projects a steady growth in operations and number of aircraft. The table below shows these projections over the next 20 years. Assuming that growth takes place as projected, the Airport will continue to be critical to the region’s ongoing economic vitality. Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2003 2008 2013 2023 Annual Enplanements 1 155,177 198,000 232,000 301,000 Commercial Operations 14,710 13,600 13,000 15,000 Air Taxi Operations 1,630 1,800 2,000 2,200 Military Operations 769 850 850 850 General Aviation Operations 92,155 101,300 107,800 122,000 Total Operations 109,264 117,550 123,650 140,050 Total Air Cargo (pounds) 1,242,592 1,400,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 Based Aircraft 301 320 350 400 1 # of passengers who board an aircraft in scheduled and non-scheduled service FUNDING The Airport is an “Enterprise Fund.” This means that, unlike most other County agencies, the Airport’s primary source of funding is not the County’s general fund. The Airport depends upon revenue it generates as its primary source of funding. For major improvements (runways, terminals, etc.,) the Airport also receives funding from state and federal grants, as well as from bonds issued for specific projects. The debt financing for these other funding sources is paid from Airport revenues. This means the Airport’s ability to make staffing, service and infrastructure improvements is limited by its current and projected revenues. Any failure to maximize these revenues could severely impact 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-5 the Airport’s ability to provide the level of service that its customers (area citizens and Airport tenants) expect. Therefore, the Airport must continually balance the need to increase its fees with the possible loss of revenue that could occur if customers go to other airports due to unreasonable costs. There is one major expense over which the Airport has little control. Because it uses County facilities and services, the Airport is required to pay more than $500,000 in overhead and direct charges back to the County’s general fund. This amount is currently within federally allowed limits. However, as is the case with government owned airports throughout the country, there is a constant tension between the County’s need to maximize its revenue sources (particularly during tight budget years) and the FAA’s mandate that airports primarily use their funds to operate, maintain and improve their aviation related services. The “diversion of revenue” issue is both a legal and an investment question. While within FAA limits, every dollar of Airport revenue the County takes can have a service level impact. If this impact becomes too serious, financial loss to the County from a reduction in generated benefits could outweigh the revenue transferred to the general fund. CUSTOMER SERVICE The Airport faces several serious impediments in addressing all of its customer needs. Some problems relate to physical constraints of the Airport site which limit the Airport’s ability to meet the needs of general aviation tenants for additional services and hanger space. It also limits the ability to extend runway lengths and expand terminal facilities to address commercial aviation’s desire to accommodate more and larger aircraft. As these sometimes-conflicting needs increase, the Airport is faced with the difficult problem of allocating its limited resources. The Airport Master Plan determines its long- term needs and optimal ways to address them. This document (available on-line at http://sloairport.com/Master%20Plan.htm ) is reviewed and updated on a regularly to ensure its financial and market projections for the Airport are current and all facility and service changes are incorporated. The Grand Jury interviewed several tenants. Their main concern was whether all tenants were being treated equally, and whether the Airport’s enforcement of rules and regulations was consistent. They also claimed certain tenants received preferential treatment, and favoritism influenced the awarding of 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-6 certain Airport contracts and allocation of hanger space. The Grand Jury found no facts supporting either allegation. These complaints may be due to differing perceptions that could be addressed through increased outreach by the Airport to keep tenants better informed and involved. Parking fees at the airport are another customer service issue. While fees charged at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport are very reasonable compared to other airports that charge for parking, nearby Santa Maria Public Airport provides “free” parking. The Grand Jury found that, for most airports, parking fees constitute the majority of revenues. Other funding sources must be found to supplement the loss of revenue at airports with free parking. In Santa Maria, this is done through an assessment district that taxes local residents and businesses to subsidize parking for airport patrons. In San Luis Obispo County, those who use the airport pay for this service rather than placing the cost on local taxpayers who may or may not use this facility. USE OF TECHNOLOGY As is the case with most competitive businesses, it is critical that the Airport consider emerging technologies to help optimize productivity. One Airport project that demonstrates an innovative use of technology is the planned runway extension. In order to accommodate a greater variety of aircraft, the Airport is planning to extend its main runway 1,000 feet to an ultimate length of 6,300 feet. The FAA typically requires a paved runway safety area extending 1,000 feet beyond the end of each runway. This safety area is primarily required for those rare occasions when aircraft overrun a runway and need extra room to decelerate and stop. Using the FAA standard design at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport would have required extending the paved area over Acacia Creek on the northeast edge of the Airport. In addition to increased cost, the potential for severe environmental impacts would have delayed or even stopped the project. To address this problem, the Airport’s current design calls for the use of an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), typically constructed from lightweight, crushable concrete. Should an aircraft roll into an EMAS arrestor bed, its tires would sink into the lightweight concrete, thus slowing the aircraft by having to roll through the material. This system allows the Airport to reduce the total length of both 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-7 safety areas by as much as 800 feet, avoiding any impact to the creek. There are currently only eighteen other airports in the United States using this design. While this is a very impressive project, the Airport should continue investigating new technologies to enhance safety and security, lower operating costs and improve customer services. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Airport is a division within the County’s General Services Department. Because the Airport is an enterprise fund and operates in a very competitive market, its business model is similar to that of private sector companies and very different from other County agencies. In order to be profitable, it must evaluate shifting customer needs and respond to rapidly changing market forces that drive the air transportation industry. Due to their importance to regional economies and their unique requirements, most government-owned, commercial airports are not divisions within departments. More typically, they are their own departments reporting directly to the local governing body or its appointed administrator, or independent “authorities” managed by a board that includes local officials. As a division, the added layer of management could inhibit an airport’s innovation and calculated risk- taking essential to succeed in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. Because the Board of Supervisors is often more attuned to the region’s overall business climate than other County staff, a closer working relationship between that body and the Airport would be advantageous to both entities and would better serve the community. The Grand Jury also identified Airport staffing as another potential organizational problem. Airport management is a very specialized field, thus finding experienced airport professionals to fill key vacancies can be challenging, even more so due to San Luis Obispo County’s high cost of living. The County needs to ensure hiring procedures and position classification structures will promote the quick filling of any key vacancies that may occur. In addition, decisions and actions of the Airport Manager can have a direct influence on the regional economy, thus the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider making this position unclassified, serving at the will of the Board. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-8
-
CL4• Requires proponents of reorganization actions to report campaign contributions and expenditures. (Chapter 3) • Permits proponents of a new incorporation or special reorganization to petition LAFCO for full or partial waiver of fees if State funds are available for a loan covering the costs. The loan, if granted, would be repayable by the new city. (Chapter 4) • Declares the cost of verifying citizen petitions for any change of organization to be a governmental cost. (Chapter 4) • Permits a proposed new city under a special reorganization to include in its incorporation proposal the election of 5, 7, or 9 council members by district, to expand representativeness. (Chapter 4) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 6-11 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report 7. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT INTRODUCTION San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (the Airport) is one of the County’s major economic engines. The Airport provides the region with commercial air service and it is home to more than 300 general aviation tenants as well as a number of businesses that provide aviation related services. In providing these services, the Airport annually generates as much as $180 million in total economic benefits. Because of its importance to the County’s economy, it is critical that Airport staff and County managers have policies and plans in place to ensure the Airport’s current and future economic vitality. They must also ensure that any plans for future growth are appropriate and do not negatively impact neighboring communities. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-1 ORIGIN / PURPOSE The 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury received a citizen complaint that included claims of County mismanagement for several of its commercial operations (golf courses, airports, property leases, etc.), and specifically identified several Airport related issues. The claims related to non- Airport issues were vague and dealt more with the County’s policy decisions which are not within the Grand Jury’s investigative jurisdiction. As a result, the Grand Jury decided to investigate only Airport related issues. As the investigation proceeded, the Grand Jury decided that providing a complete overview of the Airport would be appropriate. In addition to resolving issues in the complaint, the Grand Jury wanted to provide County citizens useful information about this important regional resource. METHOD As part of its investigation, Grand Jurors did the following: • Reviewed requests for proposal, agreements and other contract documents relating to Airport planning, commercial operations and facility leases. • Interviewed Airport staff. • Interviewed general aviation tenants and commercial operators. • Interviewed County Auditor-Controller’s staff. • Reviewed Airport Master Plan documents. • Reviewed planning documents and Airport informational materials. • Toured Airport facilities. • Reviewed planning documents for proposed Airport expansions and new facilities. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-2 HISTORY The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport began when Earl Thomson, along with his brothers-in- law, William "Chris" and David Hoover, convinced county officials to lease them the land needed for an airport. In April, 1939, the airport opened with an 88’-by-100’ hangar and dirt runways. In 1940, the War Department installed hard surface runways and lights. In 1940 and 1941, 183 private pilots and 20 advanced students were trained here through a federally sponsored Civilian Pilot Training Program for armed services fliers. The federal government took over the airport during World War II and turned it back to the county in 1946. In that year Southwest Airways inaugurated airline passenger service to San Luis Obispo. In 1947, county supervisors contracted for another hangar, ramp, and eventually an administration building. A full-time airport manager was appointed in 1953. In 1987, the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport was dedicated as McChesney Field, in honor of Leroy E. McChesney for his leadership and dedication to aviation. Airport facilities now include a terminal building, restaurant, numerous hangars and airplane related businesses, and in 1988, a control tower was opened by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When the control tower opened, Wings West, Skywest, West Air, and American Eagle were already in operation. Today, three regional airlines serve the community: United Express (Skywest Airlines), American Eagle and America West Express (Mesa Airlines), with service to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Las Vegas. In June 2007, Delta Connection will begin service to Salt Lake City. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-3 NARRATIVE ECONOMIC VALUE As mentioned in the introduction, the Airport is a major economic engine for the County. The following chart shows the Airport’s estimated economic value to the community in the 2003-2004 fiscal year. BENEFIT MEASURES Revenues Earnings Employment On-Airport Aviation $51,406,000 $10,029,000 347 Employers Capital Projects $2,599,000 $374,000 18 All On-Airport $54,005,000 $10,403,000 365 Economic Benefits Air Visitor Benefits $19,717,000 $8,210,000 457 Indirect Benefits (Multiplier Effect of $68,327,000 $19,690,000 719 Secondary Spending) TOTAL BENEFITS $142,049,000 $38,303,000 1,541 Table Definitions: Revenue – The value in dollars of the output of goods and services produced by businesses. Earnings – Employee compensation (the dollar value of payments received by workers as wages and benefits) and proprietor’s income of business owners. Employment – The number of jobs supported by the revenues created by the Airport. Air Visitor Benefits – Benefits from commercial and general aviation air travelers who use the Airport. Indirect Benefits – The “multiplier effects” that result from additional spending induced in the economy to produce the other benefits listed. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-4 However, the Airport is not a static enterprise. The most recent Airport Master Plan Update projects a steady growth in operations and number of aircraft. The table below shows these projections over the next 20 years. Assuming that growth takes place as projected, the Airport will continue to be critical to the region’s ongoing economic vitality. Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2003 2008 2013 2023 Annual Enplanements 1 155,177 198,000 232,000 301,000 Commercial Operations 14,710 13,600 13,000 15,000 Air Taxi Operations 1,630 1,800 2,000 2,200 Military Operations 769 850 850 850 General Aviation Operations 92,155 101,300 107,800 122,000 Total Operations 109,264 117,550 123,650 140,050 Total Air Cargo (pounds) 1,242,592 1,400,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 Based Aircraft 301 320 350 400 1 # of passengers who board an aircraft in scheduled and non-scheduled service FUNDING The Airport is an “Enterprise Fund.” This means that, unlike most other County agencies, the Airport’s primary source of funding is not the County’s general fund. The Airport depends upon revenue it generates as its primary source of funding. For major improvements (runways, terminals, etc.,) the Airport also receives funding from state and federal grants, as well as from bonds issued for specific projects. The debt financing for these other funding sources is paid from Airport revenues. This means the Airport’s ability to make staffing, service and infrastructure improvements is limited by its current and projected revenues. Any failure to maximize these revenues could severely impact 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-5 the Airport’s ability to provide the level of service that its customers (area citizens and Airport tenants) expect. Therefore, the Airport must continually balance the need to increase its fees with the possible loss of revenue that could occur if customers go to other airports due to unreasonable costs. There is one major expense over which the Airport has little control. Because it uses County facilities and services, the Airport is required to pay more than $500,000 in overhead and direct charges back to the County’s general fund. This amount is currently within federally allowed limits. However, as is the case with government owned airports throughout the country, there is a constant tension between the County’s need to maximize its revenue sources (particularly during tight budget years) and the FAA’s mandate that airports primarily use their funds to operate, maintain and improve their aviation related services. The “diversion of revenue” issue is both a legal and an investment question. While within FAA limits, every dollar of Airport revenue the County takes can have a service level impact. If this impact becomes too serious, financial loss to the County from a reduction in generated benefits could outweigh the revenue transferred to the general fund. CUSTOMER SERVICE The Airport faces several serious impediments in addressing all of its customer needs. Some problems relate to physical constraints of the Airport site which limit the Airport’s ability to meet the needs of general aviation tenants for additional services and hanger space. It also limits the ability to extend runway lengths and expand terminal facilities to address commercial aviation’s desire to accommodate more and larger aircraft. As these sometimes-conflicting needs increase, the Airport is faced with the difficult problem of allocating its limited resources. The Airport Master Plan determines its long- term needs and optimal ways to address them. This document (available on-line at http://sloairport.com/Master%20Plan.htm ) is reviewed and updated on a regularly to ensure its financial and market projections for the Airport are current and all facility and service changes are incorporated. The Grand Jury interviewed several tenants. Their main concern was whether all tenants were being treated equally, and whether the Airport’s enforcement of rules and regulations was consistent. They also claimed certain tenants received preferential treatment, and favoritism influenced the awarding of 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-6 certain Airport contracts and allocation of hanger space. The Grand Jury found no facts supporting either allegation. These complaints may be due to differing perceptions that could be addressed through increased outreach by the Airport to keep tenants better informed and involved. Parking fees at the airport are another customer service issue. While fees charged at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport are very reasonable compared to other airports that charge for parking, nearby Santa Maria Public Airport provides “free” parking. The Grand Jury found that, for most airports, parking fees constitute the majority of revenues. Other funding sources must be found to supplement the loss of revenue at airports with free parking. In Santa Maria, this is done through an assessment district that taxes local residents and businesses to subsidize parking for airport patrons. In San Luis Obispo County, those who use the airport pay for this service rather than placing the cost on local taxpayers who may or may not use this facility. USE OF TECHNOLOGY As is the case with most competitive businesses, it is critical that the Airport consider emerging technologies to help optimize productivity. One Airport project that demonstrates an innovative use of technology is the planned runway extension. In order to accommodate a greater variety of aircraft, the Airport is planning to extend its main runway 1,000 feet to an ultimate length of 6,300 feet. The FAA typically requires a paved runway safety area extending 1,000 feet beyond the end of each runway. This safety area is primarily required for those rare occasions when aircraft overrun a runway and need extra room to decelerate and stop. Using the FAA standard design at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport would have required extending the paved area over Acacia Creek on the northeast edge of the Airport. In addition to increased cost, the potential for severe environmental impacts would have delayed or even stopped the project. To address this problem, the Airport’s current design calls for the use of an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), typically constructed from lightweight, crushable concrete. Should an aircraft roll into an EMAS arrestor bed, its tires would sink into the lightweight concrete, thus slowing the aircraft by having to roll through the material. This system allows the Airport to reduce the total length of both 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-7 safety areas by as much as 800 feet, avoiding any impact to the creek. There are currently only eighteen other airports in the United States using this design. While this is a very impressive project, the Airport should continue investigating new technologies to enhance safety and security, lower operating costs and improve customer services. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Airport is a division within the County’s General Services Department. Because the Airport is an enterprise fund and operates in a very competitive market, its business model is similar to that of private sector companies and very different from other County agencies. In order to be profitable, it must evaluate shifting customer needs and respond to rapidly changing market forces that drive the air transportation industry. Due to their importance to regional economies and their unique requirements, most government-owned, commercial airports are not divisions within departments. More typically, they are their own departments reporting directly to the local governing body or its appointed administrator, or independent “authorities” managed by a board that includes local officials. As a division, the added layer of management could inhibit an airport’s innovation and calculated risk- taking essential to succeed in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. Because the Board of Supervisors is often more attuned to the region’s overall business climate than other County staff, a closer working relationship between that body and the Airport would be advantageous to both entities and would better serve the community. The Grand Jury also identified Airport staffing as another potential organizational problem. Airport management is a very specialized field, thus finding experienced airport professionals to fill key vacancies can be challenging, even more so due to San Luis Obispo County’s high cost of living. The County needs to ensure hiring procedures and position classification structures will promote the quick filling of any key vacancies that may occur. In addition, decisions and actions of the Airport Manager can have a direct influence on the regional economy, thus the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider making this position unclassified, serving at the will of the Board. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-8
-
CL5Recognition of a limited number of structures and sites through the application of a General Plan “H” designation, and
-
CL6During the evaluation of individual projects through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The “H” (Historic) designation in the General Plan has been applied to a limited number of sites in the unincorporated area. These designations are typically requested by property owners or communities and the designation occurs during the update of the individual planning areas. An evaluation (usually by the owner, the community, or staff) is conducted in order to support the designation. The “H” designation requires a different level of permitting for alteration or demolition, and encourages preservation of these designated structures or sites. These “H” 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-13 properties constitute the County’s list of historic designated properties in the unincorporated area. Any discretionary project is also subject to environmental review under CEQA. The State CEQA guidelines include criteria for what is considered an historic resource. If a site meets any of the criteria, the impacts to the historic resource need to be considered and evaluated during the environmental review process. Due to the rather specialized nature of evaluating potentially historic resources (e.g., historic, architectural expertise), and the need to apply the criteria consistently, the county often requires an Historic Resource Evaluation be prepared by a qualified professional. This report is used by the county in its determination as to whether a structure qualifies as an historic resource and what mitigation measure may be appropriate.
-
CL7HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRESERVING THE PAST TO ENRICH THE FUTURE Farmers Alliance Bldg, Paso Robles, CA Photo by Sal Crespo, Jan. 2005 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-1 INTRODUCTION The County of San Luis Obispo possesses a mixture of natural beauty with generally moderate climatic conditions that have made it a desirable location for human habitation for thousands of years. The rugged mountains contribute to both the existence of local microclimates which favors a variety of agricultural opportunities, and challenging overland access which has historically limited development and population growth. Ocean access has provided sources of food, resources for trade and transportation to distant markets. The pattern of steady but limited growth has left distinct communities intact, each with a unique history of settlement and development. As a result, the county has become a desirable destination, both for tourists and for prospective new residents seeking refuge from a more hectic metropolitan life. This combination of tourism and a growing influx of new residents has contributed to a strong desire among many to have the area maintained largely as it is, while others have come to accept the need for change as part of the cost of providing new jobs and maintaining the health of existing local businesses that are not directly supporting tourism. Often residential neighborhoods and commercial communities in the county still contain many older buildings due to the slow pace of development. Unlike some other parts of California, this county gives visitors a ‘going back in time’ feel, caused in large part by the prevalence of intact historic structures. Residents have sensed the need for identifying and defining the historic character of areas within their communities, and cataloging significant historic buildings, both commercial and residential. All communities in the county, however, do not approach the issue of historic preservation in the same way. Private preservation efforts, beginning perhaps with Mt. Vernon in 1848, eventually led to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which requires states to administer the federal program. California law gives local governments tools to help identify cultural resources and provide incentives for rehabilitation and maintenance, while seeking a balance between property rights and the public’s interest in preserving local heritage. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-2 ORIGIN The Grand Jury elected to inquire into the purchase of the Farmers’ Alliance Building, Paso Robles, by the Smart & Final Corporation in March, 2005 and the ultimate decision of Paso Robles’ City Council, denying the issuance of a demolition permit which would have enabled Smart & Final to build a new store.3 The investigation into this City Council action included an inquiry concerning Paso Robles’ process for identifying historic resources. The Grand Jury then began an investigation of other communities in San Luis Obispo County and their processes for identifying and preserving historic resources. METHOD Grand Jurors interviewed Smart & Final’s Corporate Vice President for Construction and Purchasing along with the Director of Community Development for Paso Robles. They collected past and present data concerning historic relevance, City Council actions and how Paso Robles’ procedures for designating historical significance compares with that of other San Luis Obispo cities and San Luis Obispo County (for the unincorporated areas). NARRATIVE In 1891 heavy rainfall led to record wheat crops, prompting San Luis Obispo and Monterey County farmers to come together and form the Farmers Alliance Business Association (FABA) for the purpose of building a warehouse in Paso Robles and utilizing the railroad to ship their 3 The Paso Robles City Council was supportive of Smart & Final coming to town and encouraged them to consider a restoration and adaptive reuse of the Farmers’ Alliance Building. However, Smart & Final did not believe it was economically feasible to do so. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-3 grain. They purchased land and developed the site fronting the Southern Pacific sidetrack that served local facilities of a competitor, Southern Pacific Milling. The competitor denied FABA the use of their sidetrack and FABA filed a grievance with the newly formed California State Railroad Commission. In August, 1891 the Commission voted that the Alliance was equally entitled to use the tracks with the Southern Pacific Milling Company. This ruling helped save FABA while establishing a tradition of supportive agricultural cooperation in California. Paso Robles, once known as the “Almond Capital of the World,” is home to the building now known as the Farmers’ Alliance Building. In 1922, the building was constructed as the Paso Robles Almond Growers’ warehouse and processing plant. In 1936, the FABA expanded warehouse operations and purchased this building, just blocks away from its original site, which then became a cornerstone for the FABA’s processing operations. It functioned through the last half of the Great Depression, World War II and into the prosperity of the 1950’s. The FABA owned the warehouse until 1975 when, vacated and not used again until June 27, 1985, a Grant Deed was filed in the County of San Luis Obispo in favor of a William Jacobson, who retained the property under the name “Riverside Centre” until March 2, 2005 when it was sold to the Smart & Final Corp., City of Commerce, California. Prior to the purchase, Smart & Final attempted to do their due diligence. A representative from Smart & Final reported to the Grand Jury the following events: In May, 2004 the company discussed the subject site with the city’s Associate Planner and asked whether they would be able to build a Smart & Final store on the site and if the site had historical significance. The Associate Planner responded that the site was not historically significant, and that the company could build what they were requesting, as long as they followed the Table of the Land Use requirements. On September 24, 2004 Smart & Final returned to the city and the same Associate Planner repeated/reassured them that the demolition permit would not be a problem. On December 16, 2004 Smart & Final met with several Paso Robles departments, including Planning (both the Community Development Director and Associate Planner), and no indications were given that the project could not proceed as envisioned. Based on information received from 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-4 the City of Paso Robles, Smart & Final proceeded with the purchase and escrow closed on March 5, 2005. In September, 2005 The City of Paso Robles printed a notice of Smart & Final’s demolition permit request in the San Luis Obispo Tribune, as required by Municipal Code chapter 17.l6. The notice generated approximately seven4 e-mails/letters from concerned citizens imploring the council to disallow the permit. A public hearing was held on October 4, 2005. The outcome of which was to direct the preparation of an historical evaluation on the Farmers’ Alliance Building. In November, 2005 The City of Paso Robles sent Smart & Final a request for $50,000 to cover the cost of a comprehensive “Historic Significance Report” by the “Historic Resources Group,” Los Angeles, California. In July, 2006, based on the “Historic Significance Report,” the Paso Robles City Council denied Smart & Final’s demolition request. On December 6, 2006, San Luis Obispo Grand Jury members met with the Community Development Director, City of Paso Robles, and inquired into the manner in which the city processes and allows demolition permits, specifically with regard to Smart & Final. At that time, the Community Development Director replied that the City Council acted within its jurisdiction and guidelines. The Grand Jury was supplied with copies of the City’s process for building demolitions, CEQA legislation regulating demolition of historic resources, and copies of documents related to demolition requests for other buildings in Paso Robles. 4 The Paso Robles Community Development Director, on May 3, 2007, indicated that there were nine emails/letters. However, when the Grand Jury originally asked for copies, only seven documents were supplied to us. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-5 TIME LINE OF EVENTS The following time line of events helps to explain the history of the Farmers’ Alliance Building, as well as other buildings in Paso Robles which may have historical significance: • 1922—Farmers’ Alliance Building (as currently known) was constructed and completed as a warehouse and distribution facility for the Paso Robles Almond Growers’ Association. • 1936—Farmers Alliance Business Association purchased the building. • 1975—Building became vacant. • 1978—Permit issued for interior work for office space. • 1985—William Jacobson (known as “Riverside Centre”) purchased building. • 1987—Permit issued for electric meter installations. • 1988—Permit issued for re-roofing. • 2001—Permit issued for cellular equipment work. • December 16, 2004—Smart & Final’s Vice President submitted to Paso Robles Acting Community Development Director plans to demolish the FABA building and replace it with a new structure, leaving the tower section, if structurally sound, for use by the Smart & Final store. Per Smart & Final, he “met with several departments, including planning” (“head planner and associate planner”). “We really never got a negative response from the city nor did they provide us with a letter indicating either a positive or negative response to our proposal.” • March 2, 2005—Escrow closed between sellers, Jacobson (Riverside Centre), and buyers, Smart & Final. • Owners of other structures in Paso Robles requested and received demolition permits: o April 5, 2005: 2127 Oak Street, Paso Robles, application for demolition permit granted (structure included in City’s 1984 Historic Resources Survey and Inventory.). o April 19, 2005: 1344 Oak Street, Paso Robles (Methodist Church), application granted for demolition permit (structure included in City’s 1984 Historic Resources Survey and Inventory). 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-6 o June 21, 2005: 1319 Spring Street, Paso Robles, application for demolition permit granted (structure included in City’s 1984 Historic Resources Survey and Inventory). o August 2, 2005: 733 23rd St., Paso Robles (Mennonite Church), application to expand outdoor playground for pre-school. Permit for expansion was granted (structure included in City’s 1984 Historic Resources Survey and Inventory). • September 12, 2005—Smart & Final filed demolition application with city to remove the building and tower based on conceptual drawings for a new building with a new tower. • September 14, 2005—Notice of Public Hearing regarding demolition application appeared in the Tribune. • October 4, 2005—Seven (see footnote 2) emails/Faxes were received between 11:30 am and 5:01 pm by City Council from concerned local citizens and others. No previous correspondence was received from citizens regarding this matter. See Appendix A for times received). • October 4, 2005—Per City Council minutes, “The building that is proposed for demolition [i.e., the building that was the subject of Smart & Final’s demolition request] was previously listed in the City Inventory of Historic Resources, although at this time the information is missing from the inventory.” • November 29, 2005— Letter from City of Paso Robles to Smart & Final requesting $50,000 for making bids to five firms with experience in historic resource evaluation. • January 20, 2006—City of Paso Robles hired Historic Resources Group to prepare an historic evaluation report on the Farmers’ Alliance Building. • June 23, 2006—City of Paso Robles received report from Historic Resources Group finding that Farmers’ Alliance building meets the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Places and therefore is considered a historic resource subject to the CEQA process. • July 5, 2006— City Council adopted a resolution stating the Farmers’ Alliance Building is a historic site that meets criteria for listing on national and state registers of historic places and directing staff to add the building to the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. City Council then denied the demolition permit requested by Smart & Final. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-7 As the above time-line shows, several other permits for demolition or expansion of facilities for buildings on the City’s Historic Resources Survey and Inventory were granted. None of those applicants were requested to either deposit funds or provide historic resource evaluations. Smart & Final, however, was treated differently. After citizens complained about the proposed demolition of the Farmers’ Alliance Building, the company was required to obtain a $50,000 historical evaluation and, based on the results of that evaluation, their demolition permit was denied, even though the building was not currently included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. City Council action on July 5, 2006 placed it there. The Grand Jury requested from the Paso Robles Community Development Director documentation pertaining to the process of denying or approving demolition requests for the Farmers’ Alliance Building and the other four properties mentioned earlier in the time line. Only the farmers’ Alliance documentation included the public notice required by CEQA. UPDATED RESPONSE SINCE GRAND JURY’S INQUIRY FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, PASO ROBLES: The Grand Jury received the following information, dated March 16, 2007, from Paso Robles’ Community Development Director: “As a follow-up action to the Council’s July 5, 2006 decision to designate the Farmers’ Alliance Building as historically significant, the Council directed staff to explore and report back on the process to update the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources and adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff has received a preliminary scope of work and cost estimate to do so and will be presenting it to the Council for consideration as part of their 2007-09 budget. Budget adoption is still a few months away and we are unsure at this time how this program will compete with many other worthwhile community goals. ….. You will see that all demolition requests followed the same process contained in Chapter 17.16 of the Municipal Code. The different outcomes related to the historic significance of the buildings.” 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 9-8 OTHER CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS SAN LUIS OBISPO For comparison purposes, the Grand Jury investigated the procedures used by other entities in the county, and the county itself, beginning with the City of San Luis Obispo. We found that inquiries to the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department’s Planning Staff regarding possible demolition of any residence or commercial structure not listed on the City Inventory of Historic Resources or List of Contributing Properties, but having potential historical significance would result in the Community Development Director requiring an initial environmental study for historic resources in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That initial study would be forwarded to the City Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for review and recommendations. While approval of demolition is possible in cases of threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community, or where rehabilitation is economically infeasible, we found it likely that in the case of a structure such as the Farmers’ Alliance building, the initial recommendation would be to seek alternatives, with demolition as the least favored option. A free brochure entitled Owning and Renovating Historic Property in the City of San Luis Obispo is available in the lobby of the Community Development Department which summarizes the above described procedures. The City of San Luis Obispo created a Cultural Heritage Committee in 1981 consisting of seven volunteers, appointed by the City Council, and one City Planning Staff member whose duties include maintaining and updating a Master List of Historic Resources and a List of Contributing Properties, first published in 1983, that currently total about 725 structures. The CHC makes
-
CL8Recruit new candidates to stand for election to the Board of Directors.
-
CL9Do not re-elect incumbents.
-
CL10Recall present members of the Board of Directors.
-
CL11Petition LAFCO to become a County Service Area under the authority of the Board of Supervisors. It should be noted that if California Valley applied to become a CSD today, it would likely not qualify according to current LAFCO rules, which are based on population and finances. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 10-5
-
CL12Salary crisis addressed One year ago, prison doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical staff were paid drastically depressed wages. The below-market salaries caused high vacancies, the use of expensive temporary agencies (costing taxpayers $90 million per year), often attracted poor performers and added to the chaos and discontinuity of care. Today, medical staff are paid competitive salaries, (costing $30 million per year when all the positions are filled), and vacancies are starting to shrink. So far, we have hired more than 500 Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) and almost 300 Registered Nurses (RNs).
-
CL13Pharmacy crisis addressed One year ago, the prison pharmacy system was out of control, wasting $46 to $80 million tax dollars per year. Drugs went missing, there were no inventory or purchasing controls, lax oversight, and an atmosphere ripe for medical errors. Despite numerous reviews and audits over the past six years that found serious, wasteful and dangerous deficiencies in the prison pharmacy system, nothing had been done. Today, national correctional pharmacy experts are managing the system and a turnaround is underway. Already, Maxor National Pharmacy Services Corp. has identified nearly $500,000 in rebates that the state never collected.
-
CL14Nurse staffing restructured One year ago, Medical Technical Assistants (MTAs) served as LVNs in the prison medical system, but their dual role as correctional officer (CO) and nurse caused confusion in the 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 15-12 workplace, divided loyalties and made it even more difficult to recruit RNs. This problem had been previously identified by court experts but not addressed. Today, LVNs are replacing MTAs at a savings to taxpayers of $39 million per year. The new staffing is improving clarity of roles in the medical system.
-
CL15Contracting crisis under control One year ago, specialty physicians and community hospitals that contract with state prisons had not been paid some $100 million for up to four years of work. As a result, the sickest and most medically needy patients were no longer getting care. Today, all outstanding invoices have been paid and there is a four-prison pilot of a new automated contracting system that will replace CDCR’s unwieldy, inefficient and broken paper- based system that handles 2,600 contracts worth $43.3 million annually. The new system will save time and money, make fewer mistakes and provide better access to care. Our private and public sector partners deserve fair and timely payment for services they provide to our patients on behalf of the state.
-
CL16Broken discipline system under repair One year ago, medical staff worked without accountability. Efforts by supervisors to discipline incompetent or uncaring clinicians were often turned back by the machine of state bureaucracy. The Administrative Time Off (ATO) system had run amok, with at least 40 health care staff, about half physicians, sitting home with full pay for weeks, months and years, at an enormous waste of tax dollars and an immeasurable impact on morale. Today, there are zero medical staff on ATO. They all have been called back to work, performing non-patient care duties, rather than being allowed to sit at home collecting full pay and benefits. Instead they are reporting to mailrooms, warehouses and filing paperwork.
-
CL17Medical equipment and supplies delivered One year ago, prison medical staff worked without the most basic medical supplies and equipment. During my prison visits, I learned of a staggering unmet need – for sutures and gauze, cardiac monitors, gurneys, anatomical charts, white boards… the list goes on. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 15-13 Today, those in the clinical trenches have felt some relief, with $5.6 million of medical equipment and supplies ordered, and more on the way. REFERENCES California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation web site: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov. California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation web site: http://www.cprinc.org. California Governor’s web site, “Comprehensive Prison Reform”: http://gov.ca.gov/index. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 15-14
-
CL18THE EL PASO DE ROBLES YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY California Penal Code, Section 919(b) states, “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” METHOD Members of the Grand Jury met with the superintendent and senior staff members of The El Paso De Robles Youth Correctional Facility (referred to here as YCF), and participated in a walking tour of the facility. We were given a brief introduction, along with site-specific materials. The tour included visits to the most frequently used facilities including cottages, education buildings, the medical facility, visiting areas and various other places of interest. We found the buildings to be clean, orderly and conducive to the well being of the population they 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-1 are meant to serve. As we proceeded through the site, our questions were answered. The Grand Jury was provided with the same lunch that the wards were being given. It was nutritious and ample. After the tour, there was a comprehensive question and answer session attended by all senior staff members. A follow-up visit provided answers to additional questions. A number of pertinent documents were reviewed. INTRODUCTION In keeping with the needs, concerns and interests of the residents of the County of San Luis Obispo, the Grand Jury focuses on specific areas to determine if the public good is being served in an efficient manner. After descriptions of the physical site, the population served and the facility’s safety and security measures, this report discusses two areas. The first area of focus has to do with the implementation of the state’s “Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan” which is refocusing the mission of juvenile justice facilities in the State of California. The mission of the Department of Justice is defined by law: “To protect society from the consequences of criminal activity and to that purpose community restoration, victim restoration, and offender training and treatment shall be substituted for retributive punishment and shall be directed toward the rehabilitation of young persons who have committed offenses.” In this regard, YCF is in the midst of a major overhaul. The overall plan, which is expected to benefit the public as well as the young men incarcerated in the system, is meant to substitute the former retributive punishment with the concept of rehabilitation. While this change stems from a series of lawsuits, it is considered a new standard in providing for the care, supervision, education, training, employment, discipline and governance of the young men in YCF’s charge. It also strives to provide for the correction of their faults and the development of their character. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-2 The other focus of concern to the county’s residents has to do with public safety. We considered this in the short term, while wards are housed within our community and in the long term, after wards are paroled. The needs of wards are many and varied. NARRATIVE FACILITY DESCRIPTION YCF sits on 60 acres near the airport in Paso Robles. This includes the parking areas and the Plant of Operations. While the facility is designed to accommodate 723 wards, it currently houses approximately 192 in 13 cottages able to house between 32 to 100 wards each. There are 18 support services buildings that provide for the care, treatment, education and training needs of this population. All buildings used by wards and staff are reinforced brick structures, with walls six to eight inches thick. POPULATION SERVED The wards incarcerated in YCF are mostly from Southern California and are generally considered to be higher-level, or more serious offenders. Many have been convicted of crimes involving violence such as assault or gang related activity. The average age of offenders at this facility is 17.2 years, and most have a history of juvenile offenses. Most first-time admissions to the Department of Juvenile Justice are made by juvenile courts, and include offenders who have committed both misdemeanors and felonies. A smaller percentage of wards are committed by criminal courts. These include those juveniles who have been tried and convicted as adults. A very small number of wards are classified as “M cases” and current law requires that they be transferred to state prison at age 18, unless their earliest possible release date comes before they reach 21. Wards are categorized upon entry, based upon certain criteria such as age and street level sophistication. Category 1 offenders are the most severe and average about 7 years of prior incarceration. Category 7, on the other hand are the least severe with an average of 6 months 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-3 prior incarceration. The following chart indicates how many wards, by category, were housed at the facility when the Grand Jury visited: Category of Offender Number Housed in YCF Category 1 8 Category 2 14 Category 3 16 Category 4 70 Category 5 45 Category 6 35 Category 7 0 Category “M” 3 The state charges the home county of each ward for their incarceration at this facility. The amount of each charge is based on a sliding scale according to category. Category of Ward Reimbursement rate per ward per year 1-4 $ 2,100.00 5 $18,250.00 6 $27,375.00 7 $36,500.00 M $ 2,100.00* *predicated on commitment category The state charges much higher amounts for less serious offenders to encourage counties to house those offenders locally, rather than sending them to state-run facilities. At the beginning of their stay at YCF, all wards are professionally assessed and evaluated to determine psychological, educational, religious, medical and dental needs. The site has clean, modern and well-equipped medical, dental and educational facilities to help toward meeting many of these needs. Wards who demonstrate any at-risk concerns such as suicidal tendencies, drug dependency or other medical concerns are immediately identified and the appropriate care 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-4 provider is alerted. YCF includes an on-site high school, which has accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. This school, the Marie C. Romero High School, holds graduation ceremonies for those who have completed the required course of study. Twenty-two wards received high school graduation diplomas during the 2005-2006 academic school year. Students may also work toward completing a GED, which is equivalent to a high school diploma. Some are enrolled in course work to earn an Associate of Arts degree. GATE TO GATE The entry evaluation is part of the “gate-to-gate” concept of quickly putting a ward on track toward a successful completion of programs designed to rehabilitate him so that he can be paroled as a safe and useful member of his community. As might be expected, not all wards are willing participants in this process. Sentences are indeterminate, and wards are meant to be actively involved in securing their parole by providing and assisting with their own plans for success. For those who choose to take advantage of what is being offered, YCF offers a comprehensive rehabilitative program. Wards are expected to demonstrate significant progress in these areas: • Improving social skills and appropriate behaviors • Completing programs in o Anger management o Drug awareness o Victim awareness • Vocational training • Classroom success It is necessary for wards to work with staff to become employment ready. Removing tattoos, improving dental and other physical appearance concerns, and working with volunteers and other available family members, are helpful to that end. Wards can earn a salary, up to $1.00 an hour, for working in the cottages or the kitchen, half of which goes to a victim’s restitution fund. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-5 THE SAFETY AND WELFARE REMEDIAL PLAN The Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan (referred to here as The Plan) is the result of a 2002 lawsuit, Farrell v. Allen (Alameda Supreme Court, No. RG03079344, Consent decree filed November 16th, 2004). This suit charged that the California Youth Authority failed to provide adequate care and effective treatment programs to incarcerated wards. Issues raised in the court case include: • High levels of violence in the facilities • Abusive and punitive measures carried out by custody staff • Inadequate provision for mental health, sex offender, and substance abuse treatment for wards The administration agreed to develop and implement a plan to address deficiencies in six areas. They are: • Education • Treatment for inappropriate sexual behaviors • Health care • Mental health • General corrections The Governor’s proposed budget includes monies from the State’s General Fund to implement The Plan. The Plan is comprehensive in its depth and breadth and is being phased in over 4 years. YCF is currently in the second year of implementation. Bringing about change is difficult and requires dedicating time and resources. The Plan also requires the re-training of personnel. Budgets, availability of materials and space constraints are just some of the issues that determine which parts and how quickly components of this program model can be implemented. These areas of the Safety and Welfare Plan have been implemented: - Retraining staff - Collection of usable measurable data - Development of educational opportunities 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-6 Retraining Staff In the past, YCF staff concerned itself primarily with confinement and control of wards. The Plan calls for their retraining by becoming active members of behavior treatment teams. Treatment teams address the behaviors and needs of the wards assigned to them. A team, rather than various individuals, is responsible for a ward. They are multi-disciplinary and are meant to include, for example, someone from the ward’s living unit, the medical unit, education, and parole departments, as well as a family member or community volunteer, if possible. The team works to provide a more holistic plan setting individual, attainable, performance-based goals for each ward. Being in a position to regularly monitor a ward’s progress, they are better equipped to make more useful, productive recommendations and decisions. Treatment team goals might include: • Behavior management/modification treatment • Mental health treatment • Substance abuse treatment • Academic/vocational education • Work training • Health care • Gang interdiction • Sex offender/victim restitution • Parenting/family interaction Educational Opportunities Without education, wards cannot hope to become successful members of their community. The Plan calls for varied educational opportunities. Wards under 18 are required to work toward completing high school or earning a GED. Wards over 18 are encouraged to participate in post- secondary education, possibly through the use of long-distance or remote learning. A well- stocked, eclectic library is available. They can take advantage of job readiness programs to acquire and practice skills that will help them secure and keep a job after their release. Along with job readiness, a job search program will help facilitate the ward’s transition back into his community. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-7 Expected Outcomes The goals or outcomes for the components of The Plan are to provide as many areas of opportunity necessary to support the successful release of wards, and to help guarantee the safety of the communities into which they will be released. SECURITY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY A 12-foot high chain link fence that is topped with two strands of razor wire and equipped with an alarm system surrounds the facility’s perimeter. A video fence surveillance system, which is monitored by staff, is located in the main control center. Our review showed that security and personal safety measures for wards, staff and visitors are clearly in place and effective. The members of the Grand Jury were admitted only after presenting photo identity cards, and signing in. The same, small vertically/horizontally sensitive transmitters were worn by Grand Jury members, as are worn by all staff and personnel. They are meant to alert security should the need arise. A no cell phone rule is strictly enforced. All personnel follow rigorous sign- in/sign- out procedures. Firearms are not permitted in the facility and are kept in secure lockers at the entrance. The vehicle entry gate (sally-port) is electrically operated with the key held by specified on-site personnel. Most outside areas of the site are visually observed from a central tower, and uniformed staff patrol those areas that are not easily seen from the tower. Wards wear identifying colors and are required to walk silently in an orderly single file, with their hands in their pockets. As they proceed down the middle of a walking path, they follow a yellow line provided for that purpose. Shirt colors identify their housing units so that it is easy to determine if a ward is not in a specified area. Uniformed guards are clearly visible. Some are stationed at specified areas, some are escorting wards, and others are posted in cars on the perimeter. The Peace Officers are directly responsible for supervising wards and ensuring their safety. They have a good working knowledge of all security and safety equipment. Reinforcement of safety policies and procedures include continuing education specific to safe working conditions, 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-8 and the use of specialized equipment, such as chemical and other non-lethal restraints. Instruction in the treatment of injuries is also reinforced. Specific operation plans in the event of an emergency are posted. Egress charts, for example, are easily seen, and fire and earthquake drills are scheduled monthly.
-
CL19San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services is widely recognized as one of the best in the State of California as well as the western region. In a State of California “After Action Report” following the San Simeon earthquake, a FEMA staff member was quoted as saying, “The response to the San Simeon Earthquake by local, county, state, federal and volunteer agencies at all five SEMS (Standardized Emergency Management System) response levels was a textbook example of how a large, complex, multi- jurisdiction emergency can be managed in an efficient effective manner.” In June 2003, the State of California awarded a commendation to the county for exemplary performance during Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness exercises. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducts a Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program exercise in this county biennially. The most recent drill occurred on October 25 and 26, 2006. Twenty-one participating agencies were evaluated in 32 areas. In these areas all criteria were met and there were no deficiencies assessed. On November 15, 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presented its fourth annual regional Emergency Preparedness Leadership Award to San Luis Obispo County. The region represented included Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations. The award was in recognition of unified leadership in developing a joint nuclear power plant emergency response plan, which is unique to most areas of the United States. In summary, the OES has developed a unified emergency response plan that requires all local and locally based agencies to work together effectively and cohesively. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has provided the funding for the County Emergency Operations Center, for much of the equipment in the Center, for three of the four Emergency Services Coordinators, for the EOC Red Net phone system which connects directly to all seven cities in the county as well as Cal Poly, and for much of the extensive training and sophisticated emergency drills which go far 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 1-10 beyond the level of most county emergency service offices. Finally, the relatively sparse population of the county gives us an advantage in dealing with an emergency that might require evacuation. Could there be another Katrina in San Luis Obispo County? Clearly the answer is no. That said, there are several areas where current procedures should be reviewed.
-
CL20Voters in San Luis Obispo County’s 2006 election can be assured that after casting their ballots, whether in person or absentee, not only were their votes counted, and counted correctly, but that their vote counted. No chads, no stolen votes, no miscounted votes, no lost votes, no rigged voting machines or suspect totals. Not here in San Luis Obispo County. The Clerk-Recorder repeatedly reviewed the routines and protocols to be sure that Election Day ran smoothly. The planning and logistics were finely tuned with continual checks in place to be sure that all ballots received were counted as the voter intended. As in past years, experienced part-time workers came back to help the regular staff with the extra work during election time.
-
CL21In general, the Grand Jury found that current County staff is dedicated to ensuring that the citizens of San Luis Obispo County get what they pay for. However, it appears that current, existing standards and procedures, particularly for post-award contract management, may become inadequate as the County continues to grow, and more employees become involved in the administration of increasingly complex County contracts.
-
CL22Overall, the Grand Jury found San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport to be a professional and well managed organization. Throughout the investigation it was obvious that due to its location, demographics, and other factors, the Airport has the ability to attract and retain general and commercial aviation services that significantly benefit the region. Even those tenants who had negative comments about the airport admitted that, in spite of these problems, they would rather be at this Airport than at other facilities in San Luis Obispo or other adjacent counties. The Airport is an investment that generates considerable regional economic benefits. However, the aviation services market is complicated and notorious for its rapidly shifting nature and vulnerability to external factors such as fuel costs and international instability. In order to protect this investment, the Airport must continually monitor its customers’ needs and changing business environment, and County government should support those changes that will ensure the Airport’s continued success.
-
CL23The Grand Jury reviewed documents and listened to testimony. Everything we have reviewed and heard indicates the two principals who were told they were being removed from their positions were performing in an exemplary fashion. The Superintendent’s actions subsequent to the February 20, 2007 closed session of the LMUSD Board (i.e., summoning two principals and telling them they will be removed at the end of the school year) does not appear to be consistent with “miscommunication,” or with a lack of direction from the Board. The individuals involved and the whole community has been harmed and deserves to learn the truth. The Board has the power to make the whole truth known by waiving confidentiality and then being open and truthful with the citizens who elected them.
-
CL24Research indicates, and common sense tells us, that when a young man can function as a responsible, financially viable and contributing member of his society, he is far less likely to become a return offender. The task set before the staff of YCF is challenging, and they are doing good and important work at this facility. However, treatment teams have a lot to accomplish within the average 15 months that wards spend in their care. This is especially true considering that, on average, wards enter the facility with the equivalent of a fourth or fifth grade education. Also, research indicates staff must contend with young men who have often endured years of social and emotional deprivation and neglect. They are generally reluctant participants in programs designed to improve their future prospects. Rehabilitation is not a new idea in the field of prison reform. The Grand Jury respectfully wonders if the ambitious Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan will bring about the changes that are needed, considering the short length of time wards spend at the facility. While YCF has the facilities and space necessary to implement The Plan, it is important that they be ready to acquire the necessary professional staff that has already been identified, as soon as funding is made available. Locating, hiring and keeping staff to meet the standards of YCF is difficult in an area where the cost of living is as high as San Luis Obispo County. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-9
-
CL25As stated in several prior Grand Jury reports, the County Jail continues to operate efficiently. In spite of overcrowding and its related problems, staff at the Jail and Honor Farm is performing admirably. The chronic overcrowding, which is growing worse yearly, especially in the women’s section has made the need for the County to find and dedicate funds for expansion more critical. On April 23, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a prison reform plan, that includes a provision of $1.2 billion for local jail beds. The time is ripe, therefore, for the County to determine how to access these funds. As the County experiences growth, it is likely that the jail population will increase at about the same rate as the County. It is critical for the welfare and safety of the citizens of this county to plan now and budget funds for future jail expansions. With recent increase in drug use, particularly methamphetamines, merely arresting and jailing drug abusers for short periods of time due to lack of bed space, will tend to clog our courts with repeat offenders. In addition, increased crime in metropolitan areas of California is overwhelming the State Prison System to the point that one solution in the near future will likely be to place additional prisoners at the county level instead of the state level, thus compounding the problems of overcrowding.
Commendations 1
-
CM1It is apparent from observation of and conversation with all those involved in the operation of Juvenile Hall and with the youth who are in their care, that staff are doing their absolute best to provide a safe, secure and nurturing environment for the youth who are housed there. This is being accomplished despite having to operate in extremely overcrowded facilities where 'making do' is a way of life. The Grand Jury commends the staff of Juvenile Hall for their creativity, their positive attitude and for their successes. (Finding #2) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 18-7
Comments 2
-
CO1SLO PUBLIC DEFENDERS INTRODUCTION The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury investigated a complaint lodged against the county’s public defenders. The complainant believed she had not been well served by her public defenders. Assigned a series of different attorneys to represent her, she believed an agreed-upon arrangement worked out by one of those attorneys, with concurrence of the judge and district attorney, was not honored when a subsequent attorney took over the case. San Luis Obispo County does not have a public defenders’ office. The county has a contract with the law offices of Maguire & Ashbaugh (the firm) for this service. This contract is described in more detail below. METHOD Members of the Grand Jury interviewed two attorneys, both sub-contracting public defenders who worked on the complainant’s case. One interview was in person and the other was conducted by conference call. In addition, a partner in the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh made a presentation to members of the Grand Jury and answered questions related to the complainant’s case. It should be noted that the complainant had previously waived her right to attorney-client privilege. Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the presiding Judge regarding his opinions of the performance of public defenders in San Luis Obispo County and, finally, members of the Grand Jury examined the Minute Order (defined below) relating to the complainant’s case, and determined the final outcome of her sentencing by contacting the Sheriff’s office. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 3-1 NARRATIVE In large counties, such as Los Angeles, the public defender is an elected official and the county maintains an office of the public defender that employs its own attorneys. In smaller counties, including San Luis Obispo, the county contracts for public defender services. The contract in our county is a flat rate three-year contract that has been held by the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh since
-
CO22006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 2-49 ROSTER CHECKLIST - PRIMARY ELECTION CON INSIDE INSIDE ACCUVOTE A=S LATE PARTY TALLY #=S INACTIVE INSIDE BACK BALLOT ROSTER