final-2004-2005

Conclusions 105

• CL1
  coordinate emergency planning efforts between public and private agencies involved with the common goal of protecting the public,
• CL2
  coordinate emergency planning related to Diablo Canyon,
• CL3
  maintain and coordinate the county's EOC,
• CL4
  coordinate and disseminate emergency news and information, as requested by other agencies, and
• CL5
  develop, maintain, and coordinate San Luis Obispo County emergency worker training program. The staff of OES consists of four emergency service coordinators, and a half-time administrative assistant who are overseen by county administrator and the deputy county administrator. Three coordinators work on emergency plans for Diablo Canyon and one on general emergencies, such as earthquakes and floods. The EOC facilitates the coordination of response efforts of various agencies around the county. It is "disaster central", and can be staffed from a core group of people to full activation. Their work involves coordinating with and between the various cities in the County, as well as special districts, and state and federal agencies. The EOC has communication equipment for broadcasting emergency information. The Joint Media Center, owned by PG&E and operated by the county, is located near the EOC, and can be used to provide updated information to the news media. A major function within the OES is providing an emergency worker training program. Members of the Grand Jury observed a course of instruction given by the California Specialized Training Institute called, “Standard Emergency Management System”. This management system has been in use for over ten years and provides an organizational framework and guidance for operations at each level of the state's emergency management system. It provides the umbrella under which all response agencies may function in an integrated fashion. In addition to various on-going emergency drills, nuclear power plant drills are held every two years and are graded by FEMA. If the San Luis Obispo County emergency service plans do not pass FEMA's evaluation, they must be re-evaluated in one year. The 2002 FEMA evaluation stated there were no areas requiring corrective action and that "all local organizations demonstrated knowledge of their emergency response plans and procedures and adequately implemented them". The most recent graded exercise, conducted on December 8, 2004, demonstrated to FEMA San Luis Obispo County's emergency planning and response capabilities. Members of the Grand Jury were privileged to observe portions of this exercise. FEMA is scheduled to release an evaluation on the exercise within the spring of 2005.
• CL6
  Employee Survey – A DSS employee survey by division and departments.
• CL7
  Organizational Health Assessment (OHA) – An in-depth survey specific to DSS employees which will allow the CAO and Director of DSS to “drill down” into the issues the department may be facing in program or management areas.
• CL8
  Outside Experts Follow-Up – Depends upon the nature of the issues raised in the OHA survey which will guide the choice of consultant. Organizational Health Assessment (OHA) In response to the 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, that they “…undertake a thorough evaluation of the leadership of CWS…” they authorized the County Administrative Officer to commission an OHA survey within the Department of Social Services and with key external stakeholders. According to the CAO’s administrative analyst, “the Organizational Health Assessment instruments were developed by Franklin Covey Corporation, who contracts with Ximena de la Cruz-North, Ph.D., to administer and tabulate the results. The OHA is typically used to gather data about the department’s culture and effectiveness of systems and processes before beginning to diagnose and address any problems identified.” Communication with the CAO indicates that there is an action plan by CWS to address any problems identified. For the purpose of this report, the Grand Jury has extrapolated results from the OHA report. The scores for CWS employees in the areas of trust, training, management style, and communication, which were issues of concern in the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report, were lower than those of other DSS employees, which validates the Grand Jury findings. While there were “positive” results gleaned from the report, there were also areas in which the CWS employees rated the Department as needing significant improvement. Many of the Department’s employees were concerned with the level and quality of ongoing communication among different levels of the Department. Although CWS employees did report improvement over the course of the year, there remains “lingering issues of trust” between line staff and management. To this end, the Director of Social Services and the CAO agreed to hire an outside expert for a follow-up. According to the CAO, “the County contracted with an outside consultant to provide an Organizational Effectiveness Cycle, a process that included the random selection of employee focus groups. The focus groups, and an additional of 75 employees, met in March 2005 to identify the root causes of the communication issues in the Department.” In April, all of the Department’s managers and an equal number of line staff participated in the development of an action plan designed to address the issues of communication and trust. The facilitator reported to the CAO that the Department’s management staff “participated actively and effectively” in the Organizational Effectiveness sessions. The facilitator believes that significant progress has been made in addressing the departmental issues.
• CL9
  apply for a single family dwelling permit.
• CL10
  verify the status of a permit that is being reviewed for approval.
• CL11
  receive completed plan checks in a timely manner. As noted earlier in this report, the frequency of completed permit approval in 20 working days improved from 15% in 2000 to 75% in 2004. The goal for FY 2004/2005 is to complete plan check permits in 20 working days 80% of the time. In addition, all building plans will receive a complete plan check in 30 days otherwise they will be returned to the applicant for additional information. The turnaround goal for second submissions is 10 days. The time delays attributed to other agencies such as the Coastal Commission, Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers are not factored into the time it takes for a complete plan check. The five steps that were taken in FY 2003/2004 and the seven action items for FY 2004/2005 are oriented towards improving customer satisfaction and are in concert with the mission statement of the Building Division. Required Response This is an informational report. No formal response is required. CAYUCOS SANITARY DISTRICT (CSD) and MORRO BAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT The Cayucos Sanitary District operates the community collection and conveyance system, including five pump stations and approximately 23 miles of sewer lines. The sewage is then conveyed to the Morro Bay/Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Plant where it is treated. While the City of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District jointly own the wastewater treatment plant, the City of Morro Bay operates and maintains the plant under a Joint Powers Agreement. Under that agreement, the Cayucos Sanitary District reimburses the City of Morro Bay (MB) for its share of the total incurred costs and expenses, based on its proportion of measured flow. The plant operates under a modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) No. CA007881 issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The plant has operated under a Clean Water Action Act, Section 301(h) Modified Discharge Permit since its last upgrade in 1984. The permit delineates all requirements and standards for operating the plant, including extensive ongoing monitoring and reporting. At this time, one million gallons of treated wastewater are discharged to the ocean each day. Origin The Grand Jury selected the Cayucos Sanitary District and the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant from a list of agencies within San Luis Obispo County which had not been investigated by The Grand Jury in the last five years. Method The inquiry was conducted through interviews, site visits, and document reviews. The Grand Jury visited the Cayucos District Offices and viewed three pump stations. In addition, the Grand Jury toured the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and interviewed the treatment plant Director and staff. Cayucos Sanitary District (CSD) Narrative The CSD is managed by a governing board of five people elected by the citizens of Cayucos. There are six employees in the CSD: a district manager, two account clerks, and three field technicians. The CSD is not under any mandated regulatory requirement for training or certification of its employees. Although state certification is not required, the job description for field technicians requires certification. The permits and logs that the Grand Jury inspected were all current. The conveyance system consists of five pumping stations that pump approximately 250,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The CSD owns 35 percent of the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, and reimburses the City of Morro Bay for operating expenses based upon the amount of wastewater it sends to the plant.
• CL12
  The Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant’s NPDES permit is issued every five years. The current permit has expired.
• CL13
  The plant is operating on an administrative extension until the regional board has a permit hearing. The hearing will be held within the next three years.
• CL14
  The City of Morro Bay has assigned a high priority to a water recycling plan.
• CL15
  The Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant has a pilot program to use its sludge and green waste to make compost used for agricultural purposes.
• CL16
  The composting program is now operating on an interim ordinance issued by the county. Under the interim ordinance, compost is exempted and not classified with other bio-solids.
• CL17
  The sludge green waste compost is a useful product and keeps the sludge out of the landfills.
• CL18
  Methane gas is a byproduct of wastewater treatment and is used by the plant to heat the digesters.
• CL19
  The plant has received four recent residual chlorine violations: June 30, 2004, April 12, 2004, January 13, 2003, and December 30, 2003. The regional water control board fined the district $3000 per occurrence.
• CL20
  The chlorine violations were caused by mechanical failures. California Water Code 13385 (h) (1) does not allow for mechanical failures.
• CL21
  The secondary treatment standards require that both Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) meet the following criteria: • Removal efficiency: greater than 85% • Effluent discharge concentration: less than 30 milligrams per liter (mg/l) The Morro Bay treatment plant has not been designed to meet the secondary treatment standards. Since the plant is operating under a Clean Water Act section 301(h) waiver, the plant is not in violation of its permit contitions. The table below summarizes year 2003 and 2004 year-to-date averages for these two effluent parameters. Year 2003 Year-to-date 2004 % Removal mg/l % Removal mg/l BOD 80.9 56 83.3 53.5 TSS 86.9 39 90.0 29.5 Extensive data collected over the last 18 years has indicated that the ocean discharge has had no discernible effect on the ocean environment. This conclusion was supported by an independent review of monitoring data collected prior to 1998 conducted by the EPA. The data collected for 2003 are consistent with the historical data. Although the staff of the EPA and the staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) concur with this conclusion, the CRWQCB itself does not, and wants the treatment plant upgraded to meet the secondary effluent standards.
• CL22
  The NPDES permit has expired.
• CL23
  An external accounting firm performs the annual financial audit for SLO County. The audit covers every department. For the most recent financial audit, the auditors found “…the financial statements…present fairly, in all material respects…the financial position of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as of June 30, 2003, and the respective changes in financial positions and cash flows, where applicable, for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.” The Grand Jury neither agrees nor disagrees with this professional opinion of the independent auditor; a Grand Jury position other than that of the independent auditor would have required a duplicate examination of the financial statements, which is prohibited by California Penal Code § 925.
• CL24
  So far as the Grand Jury can determine, the contractual scope-of-services for the annual audit performed for SLO County is in all material aspects similar to that performed for Santa Barbara County, and the depths of audits for California counties do not differ significantly from the audit performed for SLO County.
• CL25
  SLO County’s cash handling procedures and audits of compliance to these procedures are consistent with procedures used by private-sector companies.
• CL26
  SLO County’s procedures for authorizing expenditures and approving payments and reimbursements are in all material aspects similar to those employed by private-sector companies.
• CL27
  To reduce the risk of fraud, since the Spring of 2003 when two of its employees were charged with embezzlement, DSS made changes in its organization structure, management practices and work assignment procedures. These steps seem to be in the right direction.
• CL28
  Do we have recourse if we feel we have been mistreated by a peace officer, or if a peace officer oversteps his/her authority?
• CL29
  Is there a procedure to file a citizen complaint?
• CL30
  Do the law enforcement agencies follow prescribed procedures?
• CL31
  Are the procedures adequate?
• CL32
  Is the complaint process friendly or intimidating?
• CL33
  Do the law enforcement agencies keep adequate records?
• CL34
  How many times in the previous years has my law enforcement agency had complaints?
• CL35
  How does their complaint ratio compare to that of similar agencies in the area?
• CL36
  How and when will I be kept informed about my complaint?
• CL37
  Is there a review process that is independent of the law enforcement agency where a complaint is filed? Method The Grand Jury reviewed the written policies and procedures manuals for handling and investigating citizens’ complaints used by each of seven city police departments (Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo) and the Sheriff’s Department. In addition, we reviewed the policies and procedures manuals of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Interviews were also conducted with the chief of police in each city agency and with the County Sheriff and his chief in charge of internal investigations. Each agency was asked to explain their citizen complaint process to members of the Grand Jury. We then compared their verbal explanation to their written policies and procedures. We also audited the five-year logs and records of all citizens’ complaints for each agency. The CHP, a state agency, is not under the purview of the Grand Jury; therefore we did not audit their logs. We were, however, given a verbal explanation of their policies and procedures, as well as being provided with a copy of their written policies and procedures. Our evaluation determined that the CHP policies and procedures were the most comprehensive and we used them as a benchmark to measure the other agencies investigated. We also reviewed the laws and some court decisions relevant to internal investigations. In addition, we viewed an introductory video tape that overviewed the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), an internationally recognized agency that accredits law enforcement agencies’ policies, procedures, and record keeping. We interviewed the Pismo Beach Chief of Police and the lieutenant in charge of implementing the CALEA program for the Pismo Beach Police Department. Additionally, we reviewed the CALEA website (http://www.CALEA.org), reviewed the CALEA program manuals, and observed how the Pismo Beach Police Department had organized their files to become accredited. Narrative This report is limited in scope to citizens’ complaints and does not contain the internal affairs complaints initiated by an agency of its own personnel, although the process for both types of investigations is the same. The Citizen Complaint Process Any member of the public may file a citizen complaint against an officer. The process of filing a citizen complaint can be intimidating, particularly if the complaint is done in person at the law enforcement office. Most of the agencies we interviewed preferred to conduct an initial interview with individuals filing their complaint in person. Individuals making citizen complaints in person are not advised that they can stop the interview at any point and submit a written complaint. Typical complaints include allegations of rude behavior, improper procedure, unprofessional conduct, harassment, negligence, false arrest, illegal entry/search, and use of excessive force. Potential criminal-level allegations such as the planting of evidence, theft, or assault and battery are unusual, and, if found to be sustained, can be brought to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution. The filing of a citizen complaint against an officer triggers an internal affairs investigation into the validity of the complaint and the conduct of the officer. Generally, the citizen complaint process in all agencies follows these basic steps:
• CL38
  Citizen complaints are accepted in person, by e-mail, fax, or in written form. A verbal complaint may be made by telephone. Even third person or anonymous complaints are accepted by most agencies.
• CL39
  The complaint is initially reviewed by the respective city’s chief of police or the county undersheriff. It is logged in and assigned a file number.
• CL40
  The chief or the undersheriff assigns the complaint to a management level officer (captain or lieutenant), who in turn may assign it to a supervisory level officer (sergeant) for investigation. Assignments will vary depending on the nature of the allegation(s), complexity of the case and the department’s written procedure.
• CL41
  The investigation must be processed and completed as soon as possible. The written report of the investigation normally contains a listing of each allegation and details of the evidence applicable to each allegation, including tape recordings or comprehensive summaries of employee and witness statements, along with other documents or photos. Government Code Section 3304 (d) affirms that in order to impose discipline, the investigation of the allegation must be completed within one year.
• CL42
  When the investigation is completed, the chief of police reviews the file and determines the final disposition. In the Sheriff’s Department, the undersheriff may review the file and designate whether each allegation is sustained or not sustained; the sheriff then determines the disposition. If an agency determines that there is a possible conflict of interest, they may ask another police department; the District Attorney; the Sheriff’s Department; and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct an investigation. All Police and Sheriff’s Departments use the following four dispositions: SUSTAINED – When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish that the act occurred and that it constituted misconduct. NOT SUSTAINED – When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the employee. EXONERATED – When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred, but that the act was justified, lawful and/or proper. UNFOUNDED – When the investigation discloses that the alleged act(s) did not occur or did not involve department personnel.
• CL43
  In sustained cases, disciplinary action may be imposed. Discipline may be informal, consisting of training, counseling or a letter of reprimand. Formal discipline consists of: suspension; demotion; reduction of pay; disciplinary transfer or termination; and requires due process, including an administrative appeal.
• CL44
  At the end of the process, a letter is sent to the complainant stating the outcome. Review of Citizen Complaint Investigation Files The Grand Jury developed a file review form to collect the data necessary to evaluate the citizen complaint process, files and logs, and compliance with policies and procedures. We then completed a separate review of each of the files, using the form as a guide. The form contained the following questions:
• CL45
  Is each complaint logged and does it have a file number?
• CL46
  When was the complaint investigation initiated?
• CL47
  When was the complaint investigation completed? Did it meet the one-year time limit? (The Grand Jury noted that all investigations we reviewed were completed within the one year time limit).
• CL48
  Is there a signed complaint form?
• CL49
  Is there a signed admonition form?
• CL50
  What type of complaint (rude behavior, improper procedure, unprofessional conduct, harassment, negligence, false arrest, illegal entry/search and/or excessive force) was filed?
• CL51
  What was the resolution or finding of those sustained?
• CL52
  If the complaint was sustained and actions were taken, were they included in the officer’s file? Verified?
• CL53
  Were there any citizen complaint files missing? How many?
• CL54
  Was there a written complaint on file for all logged complaints? The following chart reflects the data we collected during our reviews of the agencies complaint files. Citizen Complaint Log 1999 – 2003* Agency Law Enforcement Number of Complaints Complaints Logged Missing Complaints Signed Complaints Signed Admonition Complaints Sustained Percent Sustained Type of Complaint ** Rude and discourteous (5) Release of confidential information (1) Arroyo Grande 9 9 0 9 9 2 22% Excessive force (3) Conduct unbecoming an officer (13) Failure to take action (2) Assault and Atascadero 29 0 3 14 13 7 24% Battery (1) Failure to follow department policy (8) Sexual harassment (2) Harassment (2) Rude and discourteous (8) Excessive force (9) Failure to follow department policy (1) False arrest (1) False information Grover Beach 12 12 0 11 8 1 8% (2) Rude and discourteous (3) Missing property (1) Harassment (2) Failure to take action (1) Excessive force (1) Conduct unbecoming an officer (1) Rude and discourteous (5) Morro Bay 6 6 0 5 4 4 66% Harassment (1) Sexual harassment (1) Failure to take action (2) Conduct unbecoming an officer (3) Rude and discourteous (7) Failure to Pismo Beach 13 13 1 13 11 4 30% follow department policy (1) Failure to take action (1) Unprofessional conduct (3) Harassment (2) Excessive force (5) Failure to follow department policy (5) Rude and discourteous (1) Paso Robles 10 10 0 8 5 3 30% Harassment (1) Sexual harassment (1) Unprofessional conduct (1) Assault and Battery (1) Failure to follow department policy (1) Failure to take action (1) SanLuis 17 15 1 13 12 1 6% Harassment (1) Unprofessional conduct (1) Illegal search (3) Improper Obispo release of information (2) Excessive force (8) Conduct unbecoming an officer (1) Failure to follow department policy Sheriff’s 37 34 1 32 19 5 13% (4) Rude and discourteous (12) False arrest (3) Unprofessional conduct Department (1) Harassment (3) Intimidation (1) Excessive force (12) * Three Year data for Morro Bay and Paso Robles, all other agencies, five year data. ** Some Complaints had multiple allegations. Procedures to Investigate Complaints California Penal Code Section§ 832.5(a) states: “Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of those departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public.” The statute, however, leaves the details of the procedure to the law enforcement agency to define. The seven city police agencies all utilize their respective city attorney or an outside legal firm to review their written policies and procedures and track any changes. The Sheriff’s Department follows a similar process with its policies and procedures. All law enforcement agencies indicated that they consider their practices to be satisfactory. As noted earlier, the most comprehensive written procedures were those of the California Highway Patrol. Another good example was the City of San Luis Obispo which had a concise, comprehensive set of written procedures. However, when the Grand Jury compared actual practices of the agencies with their written procedures, we found that there were inconsistencies. Admonition California Penal Code Section §148.6(a) (1) states “Every person who files any allegation of misconduct against any peace officer defined in Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2, knowing the allegation to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor,” it also states in Section §148.6(a) (2) “any law enforcement agency accepting an allegation of misconduct against a peace officer shall require the complainant to read and sign the advisory, all in boldface type.” This advisory is called an admonition. See Appendix B, Admonition, for wording. California Penal Code Section§ 832.5(b) states: “Complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints shall be retained for a period of at least five years.” All agencies had admonition forms missing, except for the Arroyo Grande Police Department. There was a short period of time when some of the agencies removed the admonition from their citizen complaint form. The removal of the admonition was based on legal advice; as result of a court ruling that was later reversed. The admonition has since been put back on the forms. Agency Compliance The Grand Jury audited the files for compliance with Penal Code Section § 832.5 (b). We found four agencies had missing files. The logs and files maintained by the agencies ranged from incomplete in Atascadero to complete in Arroyo Grande. Atascadero did not have a citizen complaint log; the complaints were filed by year, not separated by individual case, and cases were mixed together. In addition, we found extraneous materials mixed with the case information. All agencies we reviewed, except Atascadero, logged in their written complaints; however, all other types of complaints, such as in person or by telephone, were logged in at the discretion of the attending supervisor. A preferred method would be to log in all types of complaints, even those that are resolved while at the law enforcement agency. Some agencies maintain logs to record every citizen complaint received by the agency, regardless of the method (in person, by telephone, by fax, etc.). Complaints against officers are also logged and tracked. It should be noted; some law enforcement agencies have been sued, and could not adequately defend themselves as a result of not keeping complete citizen complaint logs.
• CL55
  Letter from Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer of the California Regional Water Control Board (Central Coast Region) dated November 5, 2004
• CL56
  Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2004-0051 for City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility (San Luis Obispo County) dated “Draft for September 10, 2004”
• CL57
  Volumes No. 1 and 2, Wastewater Treatment Plant. Collection System Master Plans Final Report, February 2000 by Carollo Engineers and John L. Wallace & Associates
• CL58
  Master Plan Final Report, February 2004 by Carollo Engineers and John L. Wallace & Associates
• CL59
  Organization chart of Public Works/Engineering Department revised September 16, 2004 Narrative Over the past seven years the City of Pismo Beach has experienced a significant number of effluent violations and sewage spills from its collection and treatment system. The following chronology was compiled by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board: December 8, 1998 Cleanup & Abatement (Order No. 98-83 issued to the City requirements includes development of a Wastewater Master Plan). March 1, 2000 City completes Wastewater Master Plan (including proposed collection system improvements and treatment facility upgrade. July 31, 2000 Mandatory Penalty Order No. 00-059 issued for $12,000 plus Pollution Prevention Plan. December 7, 2001 Mandatory Penalty Order No. 01-117 issued for $120,000. March 1, 2002 EIR certified for wastewater treatment facility upgrade project. February 2004 City begins construction of $14 million wastewater treatment facility upgrade. May 14, 2004 Mandatory Penalty Order No.R3-2004-0008 issued for $735,000. September 10, 2004 New National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit adopted for the City, which requires comprehensive collection system management plan by September 10, 2005. October 28, 2004 Notice of Violation regarding sewage spill and status report on collection system upgrades. During this period of time the City has been operating an “Activated Sludge Secondary Treatment” Plant. Currently under construction is a replacement plant designated as an “Advanced Oxidation Ditch Secondary Treatment” plant. The new plant is projected to meet not only current wastewater treatment demand of Pismo Beach but will also have enough capacity to handle the future needs of the city at Master Plan build-out projected for 2016. The volume of wastewater requiring treatment is projected to be 1.9 million gallons per day (with a peak capacity of 3 million gallons per day for short time periods). As noted above, the efficiency and effectiveness of the new plant has been tailored to the build-out capacity designated in the July 1999 Draft Master Plan for Pismo Beach. Should, for some as yet unforeseen reason, the City revise its build-out housing capacity upward, it should be cognizant of the fact that little reserve capacity exists in its new Wastewater Treatment System. Facts A. The new Plant has been designed to match the build out capacity of the 1999 Draft Master Plan. B. Build out is projected for 2016 or sooner. C. There will be little excess capacity at build out. D. If the plant would have been built in 1995, when the problem was first defined, it would have had a cost of six to eight million dollars. E. The City has been fined $867,000. The City has paid $132,000 and is negotiating the rest with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. F. There is no water Reclamation Plan therefore, over one million gallons of treated water is discharged into the ocean every day.
• CL60
  Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume - an eight-hour study of the number of vehicles that pass through an intersection per hour.
• CL61
  Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume - the study of high volume intersecting traffic during each of any four hours during an average day.
• CL62
  Warrant 3, Peak Hour - heavy traffic volume on the major street with significant minor-street delays for the same one-hour period of an average day, typically at an office or industrial complex.
• CL63
  Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume - where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing.
• CL64
  Warrant 5, School Crossing - there may be inadequate gaps in traffic to permit school children to cross at established school crossings.
• CL65
  Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System - where signalization may be necessary to maintain proper grouping or “platooning” of vehicles to effectively regulate group movement and speed.
• CL66
  Warrant 7, Crash Experience – when the number of reported accidents potentially preventable by a signal exceeds a specified value.
• CL67
  Warrant 8, Roadway Network – where installing a traffic signal at some intersections might encourage concentration and organization of the traffic flow on the roadway. Warrants are not a substitute for engineering judgment. The fact that one or more warrants for a particular traffic signal are met is not conclusive justification for its installation. The Traffic Engineer from the Public Works Department makes a recommendation based on experience, observation and analysis of the criteria. Once a determination to recommend a traffic signal is made, the Director of the Public Works Department takes the recommendation to the San Luis Obispo City Council for a decision and funding approval. A new traffic signal may cost $100,000 to $150,000 to design and construct, plus $6,000 annually to maintain. As a result, traffic signal installations must be prioritized to help ensure maximum public safety and best use of resources.
• CL68
  a retail supermarket,
• CL69
  a petroleum products (bulk) distributor, and
• CL70
  a retail gasoline service station with a convenience store. Retail Supermarket Members of the Grand Jury accompanied an inspector on an unannounced visit to a large retail supermarket. The weights and measures inspection had three stages:
• CL71
  Scanning of products to determine that the checkout price matches the marked or posted price.
• CL72
  Calibration of scales to verify that the scale is at zero when there is nothing on the weigh pan and that when a calibrated weight is on the scale that it indicates the correct weight.
• CL73
  Checking that the net weight on packaged goods count of the contents matches the weight or count displayed on the label. Method Used by the Inspector
• CL74
  The inspector scanned 40 products, selected at random, using a hand-operated bar-code scanner to see if the shelf prices match the cash register prices. He also checked to see if the product displays and pricing were descriptive and not deceptive.
• CL75
  Packaged items were checked to ascertain that the weight of the packaging (tare weight) is subtracted from the weight of the product. Grand Jury Notes:
• CL76
  The central offices of the supermarket chains send the new prices to the computers in the cash registers daily via phone line, cable or microwave transmission.
• CL77
  Most large stores maintain full-time employees who check the accuracy of the shelf prices.
• CL78
  San Luis Obispo County has developed a computer program that takes into account all of the variables involved in package weight verification. The computer program facilitates effective use of time by the inspector. The program has been adopted by nine other counties.
• CL79
  The scales are checked and certified on a yearly basis by the D of A. Petroleum Products (bulk) Distributor Members of the Grand Jury accompanied an inspector on an unannounced inspection of a petroleum products (bulk) distributor. A bulk distributor purchases petroleum products such as motor fuel (gasoline), fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas, and aviation fuel at wholesale price from the manufacturers. These products are then sold in bulk to retail establishments such as gasoline service stations, farms, construction companies and other high volume purchasers. Method Used by the Inspector The inspector checked the distributor’s meters for accuracy. In addition to validating meters, the inspector took a sample of the gasoline to determine the purity and to ascertain that the octane number was correct. Retail Gasoline Service Station with a Convenience Store Members of the Grand Jury accompanied an inspector on a routine, unannounced inspection of a retail gasoline service station. The service station also had a “convenience store” which was included in the inspection. The inspection was carried out in four phases:
• CL80
  Visual inspection of exterior petroleum price signage.
• CL81
  Visual and physical inspection of a gasoline dispenser (pump).
• CL82
  Volumetric, octane number and water content tests of the gasoline product.
• CL83
  A check of item pricing and bar code scanner in the convenience store. Method used by the Inspector As part of the visual inspection of exterior signage, the inspector checked the following:
• CL84
  The gasoline pricing signs which are required to be visible at or near each driveway entrance. This check is to determine that there are no missing numbers or gasoline grade designations.
• CL85
  The tag that indicates the gasoline grade at the fill pipe for the underground storage tank.
• CL86
  The required sign notifying customers that compressed air (including a pressure gauge) and water are available free of charge to those who purchase gasoline. Others can obtain the items for a fee. The visual inspection of a gasoline dispenser included:
• CL87
  The dispenser price matched the price on the exterior signs.
• CL88
  The dispenser correctly identified the brand, grade and octane number of the gasoline. The physical inspection of the gasoline dispenser included:
• CL89
  A check of the security (anti-tampering) seals on the meter mechanisms.
• CL90
  A check of the physical and mechanical condition of the dispenser hoses and nozzle including the vapor recovery system.
• CL91
  Pumping two five-gallon samples of gasoline into calibrated measuring containers. One sample was drawn at the maximum pump rate and another at a slower rate. While the samples were being drawn, the inspector observed the digital total-cost and volume indicators to determine that the two measurements were “in sync” with each other.
• CL92
  Determining the octane number of a small sample of gasoline using a portable spectrophotometric octane number analyzer. In addition, a one-gallon gasoline sample was taken for further octane number analyses in a laboratory. (This additional sample and analysis is not normally performed unless there is a reason to question the octane number of the sample.)
• CL93
  Determining the water content of the gasoline. The ethyl alcohol (ethanol), that is blended with the gasoline, as an oxygenate source, has a chemical affinity for water. This test is to determine that there is no water in the gasoline. The gasoline sample that is drawn for the volumetric tests is returned to the underground storage tank. During a routine inspection, the dispenser and volumetric checks are conducted for each grade of gasoline at every dispenser. Inside the convenience store, the inspector checked 15 items, selected at random. The inspector then checked the shelf tag and/or marked price against the price that the scanner at the cash register indicated. One discrepancy was found. The shelf tag on an item was 10 cents lower than the price indicted by the scanner at the cash register. As proof of the discrepancy, the inspector retained the cash register receipt and took a photograph of the shelf display involved. As a result of the discrepancy, the inspector issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the store. In response to the NOV, the store personnel had three options for correcting the discrepancy before the inspector left the store. They were: 1) remove the item from sale, 2) update the scanner computer database or, 3) correct the price tag on the shelf. The store personnel chose to correct the price tag on the shelf. The D of A does not issue penalties or fines for minor NOV’s such as the one stated above. They do, however, track violations to determine if there are any discernable patterns. If repeated violations occur, the D of A has a series of progressively severe sanctions at its disposal including administrative fines and legal action.
• CL94
  In all three cases, the Sheriff’s Department followed their policies and procedures. To keep the incidents in perspective, the Sheriff’s Department has, in the last five years, held 65,708 people in custody and has made thousands of arrests. Any arrest is, at best, difficult. An arrest where individuals are under the influence of a controlled substance, and are often irrational, creates significant problems for the arresting officer. There is the potential for the use of force by peace officers considering that they frequently must deal with violent situations, while attempting to protect the individual, the public, and themselves from harm. The Sheriff’s Department requires its officers to take Peace Officers Standard Training (POST) certified courses and Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) courses. (See Appendix for courses that apply).
• CL95
  The 2003-2004 Grand Jury investigation of the issues in CWS management, communication, training, and trust are validated by the OHA report. We acknowledge that the overall results of the survey for the Department of Social Services are “positive.” The CWS scores, however, are much lower than the other divisions, which was the 2003-2004 Grand Jury’s concern.
• CL96
  The staff running the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is professional, knowledgeable and innovative. They have explored and implemented ways to improve the operation of the plant. Some of the programs are: (a) the use of the methane gas produced as a byproduct of the process to the digesters, (b) the conversion of sewer sludge to compost, (c) the recycling and collection of hazardous household wastes, and (d) annual inspections of various businesses in order to prevent the discharge of incompatible pollutants, e.g. paints, pesticides, etc., into the collection system. The plant is in the process of re-evaluation and as a result of the requirements for the new operating permit may require a redesign or construction of a new plant. At this time, management of the plant will evaluate the options and plan public meetings for citizens input into the process. The planning and discussion of ideas such as water reclamation will be handled during these public meetings.
• CL97
  The mission of the California Men’s Colony is to protect society by safely housing its inmates and involving them in work or education programs. We found that it satisfies this mission. Inmates are provided food, housing, clothing, and medical and dental care. In addition, there are programs for education, employment and rehabilitation. CMC staff provides for the inmates within the constraints they have from the courts, the current facilities and the budget.
• CL98
  The County is not meeting its responsibility to inform citizens about available county services. We encourage the County to promote public awareness of the services it provides and make it easy for people to get to the services they are seeking without frustration or unnecessary loss of time.
• CL99
  The El Paso de Robles CYA facility is currently underutilized due to financial restrictions resulting from the State shifting the burden to the counties. Because of this shift, counties are using alternative methods to rehabilitate their youth offenders, and they are only sending their most serious offenders to the correctional facilities. The costs are associated with running this facility with a population of less than four hundred is too high. The facility provides a reasonably safe environment for wards, correctional officers and staff; however, it is known that hostile and dangerous situations frequently occur. The new Interactive Journaling® Series is working to focus wards’ attention to beginning a new life style. The grounds are well maintained, as are the living quarters and recreational areas. The recommendation made by the 2003-4 Grand Jury regarding the disposal of out- of - date drugs has been implemented.
• CL100
  Our observations indicate that the Environmental Health inspectors are competent and thorough in performing their duties even though the number of retail food facilities has significantly increased over the last twenty years. Despite having other environmental duties, such as taking samples of ocean water to determine water purity, reviewing proposed water well drilling sites to determine if a well can be drilled, and inspecting small water systems for water purity, they work diligently to ensure that food establishments in San Luis Obispo County comply with all applicable regulations. It is interesting to note that even with the increase in the number of food establishments, the number of complaints received by the EHS has remained consistent over the last eight years, with approximately 200 a year. This consistency is attributed to the fact that most food establishments are investing more time and money in better training of their employees and in quality assurance programs.
• CL101
  Our County law enforcement agencies meet the broad standard of the law; they have policies and procedures for handling citizen complaints. All eight agencies expressed that they are doing a good job in handling citizen complaints. As noted in our recommendations, the Grand Jury found that there are some improvements that should be made. Each agency said they took citizen complaints very seriously. They all conduct investigations when a written complaint is filed. When individuals file a citizen complaint, the process can be intimidating; this may discourage them from filing. Discussing and explaining why they have a grievance to the law enforcement authority is also intimidating. Although it is best to complain directly to the law enforcement agency involved, there are alternatives. Individuals can complain to the governing board of the agency, for example the city council or board of supervisors, or they can complain to the mayor, the District Attorney, or the State Attorney General.
• CL102
  The Sheriff’s Department has old facilities that were designed when the county was less populated. Every year the number of individuals processed and incarcerated increases. In the last five years the jail has seen an increase of over two thousand people. It is time for action on the women’s jail facilities. The court holding cell problem has consistently been noted by the Board of Corrections and past Grand Jury Reports. Does it take additional serious incidents before something is done to alleviate the problems? Near term, cost effective solutions, recommended herein, are available to implement.
• CL103
  The Juvenile Hall is a small facility that is well maintained. Steps are being taken to improve the housing cells and treatment programs for those who are in need.
• CL104
  The operations budget and staffing levels of the Parks Division have not kept pace with parks growth and increased operating costs during the last five years. If this trend continues, it is likely that there will be continued deterioration of park lands and existing facilities and a risk of reduced community satisfaction and public safety. This is an accident waiting to happen that could be prevented with adequate maintenance funding. The county’s park growth has not kept pace with increased population, and it seems foolhardy to take on additional parks acreage without a change in the allocation of county funds. Required Response Parks Division, Department of General Services: Findings # 1 through # 11 due June 30, 2005 and Recommendation #2 through #7 due July 15, 2005 Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer: Recommendation # 1 due August 19, 2005 Paso Robles Housing Authority and Community Involvement The United States Housing Act of 1937 provides federal financial and technical assistance to communities in their efforts to have “decent, safe and sanitary dwellings” for families in low- income groups. The State of California, in 1938, enacted the Housing Authorities Law that enabled local governments to provide this type of housing program, which placed the major part of the work involved on the shoulders of the local housing authority. The federal government is the primary source of funding. The State of California does not give any funding to the Paso Robles Housing Authority (PRHA). Rental income from tenants helps to defray additional costs to operate the facility. Additionally, grant monies have been acquired for special projects. Consequently, it is up to PRHA (also known as the Oak Park Housing) to provide housing facilities. In addition, it sets rent scales in accordance with lawful rental rates in the community, selects eligible families in accordance with the federal guidelines, and provides for the maintenance and management of the entire operation. Origin The Grand Jury decided to look into the PRHA on its own initiative. We were also motivated by community perception and concern, and by the national media coverage in September 2004, regarding the New Jersey Housing Authority. The report alleged that the Newark, New Jersey Housing Authority misappropriated funds by its mismanagement of purchases and maintenance monies and the lack of adherence to housing authority procedures as designated by law that resulted in the sub-standard and dangerous living conditions for its tenants. Method Before embarking on this inquiry, the Grand Jury first identified these objectives: Learn about the federal, state, and local laws that govern the PRHA and its impact on the management of the housing facility. Ascertain the procedure for tenant selection. Determine if major appliances are provided by PRHA, how repair requests are processed, and who approves the replacement of appliances. Determine financial responsibilities and accountabilities of management. Determine whether the housing needs of tenants (to have decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings) are being met by PRHA. The Grand Jury reviewed the United States Housing Act and the California Health and Safety Code, Division 24 Part 2. We then contacted the Executive Director of PRHA in order to request and review the following documents: PRHA audit report Housing Commissioners Handbook Organizational charts, and budgets Criteria for tenant selection Policy statements and Community service requirements. In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed the Executive Director and spoke with other key staff members. We also toured the facility and looked at two vacant apartments. Narrative PRHA is on federal land in Paso Robles. The U.S. military built 150 family housing units in 1941, shortly before World War II for military personnel who operated Camp Roberts and for their families. With the enactment of the federal and state Housing Authority legislation, the City of Paso Robles took advantage of the unoccupied military housing apartments by applying to the federal government to use the units for housing families in low-income groups. The PRHA occupies twenty-eight acres of federal land that is not fenced. For the purpose of this report, Oak Park refers only to the 148 housing units bounded by Park Street, the railroad tracks, 28th and 34th Streets. Safety The Executive Director started working for the Housing Authority in 1978. Oak Park and its neighboring community was considered a subculture section of northern Paso Robles, where rival gangs disseminated a culture of fear, and where police did not respond immediately to reports of crime. Some people today still apply the name Oak Park to the community north of 24th Street. In 1988 the City and PRHA recognized the need to rid the area of its resident gangs and collaborated to obtain a federal grant to fund two policemen who would be stationed on the premises of the Housing Authority. They would patrol the 35-block area from 24th Street north to the city limits and west from the railroad track. This patrolling is called Community Oriented Policing (COP). As the incidence of crime decreased, one police officer has been sufficient. The Grand Jury learned from the Executive Director that COP fosters community service and cooperation between residents and police to address crime and social problems. Some tenants of Oak Park have become the “eyes and ears” of PRHA and law enforcement. Separate interviews with the Executive Director of PRHA and the Chief of Police of Paso Robles Police Department (PRPD) indicated that both agree that the culture of fear no longer exists. Although there is still a presence of gang activity, the Police Chief feels “that a status quo has been maintained.” Largely as a result of outsiders, Oak Park had acquired a reputation as a “high crime area.” The posting of “NO TRESPASSING” signs and police presence in Oak Park has been and is a deterrent to illicit activity. Since 2002 the PRPD has reported crime statistics by reporting districts. The city is divided into 32 districts. Three reporting districts (RD1, RD2, and RD3) cover Oak Park and surrounding districts. Felony (serious) crime statistics for the three reporting districts and the City of Paso Robles, are outlined in the table below. Felony Arrests by Year Reporting District 2002 2003 2004 % Change 02-04 RD1 85 84 53 -38 RD2 73 69 58 -21 RD3 105 77 60 -43 Totals for RD 1, 2, & 3 263 230 171 -35 Paso Robles All Districts 956 1032 777 -19 As the table indicates, there is a reduction of serious crime in the area in and surrounding Oak Park, by 35% compared to a reduction of 19 % for the entire city. Both the Executive Director of PRHA and the Chief of Police of PRPD attribute the reduction in crime in the area of Oak Park to the Community Oriented Policing. Facilities The PRHA has a total of 148 apartments. There are 18 one-bedroom units, 88 two-bedroom units, 40 three-bedroom units, and 2 four-bedroom units. The City of Paso Robles and PRHA administer the funds provided by the federal government. The Executive Director, PRHA administrative and maintenance staff, and the Housing Commissioners manage the day-to-day functions of the housing complex. There are seven members of the Housing Commission who are appointed by the Mayor. Two of the Commissioners are tenants who live in Oak Park and five are from the community at large. Demographics The Executive Director of PRHA reported to the Grand Jury that in 1978 Oak Park’s tenants were 30% Hispanic. They worked in farms, factories, and service oriented places such as hotels, restaurants, building maintenance, and gas service stations. Some tenants are undocumented, however, if a family member in the household was born in the United States, it is permissible to provide family housing. The tenants of Oak Park today are 90% Hispanic. In the 2000 U.S. Census, Paso Robles’ total population is 24,297, of which 6,735 (27%) are Hispanics. The U.S Census also indicate that “people who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus the percent Hispanic should not be added to the percentages for racial categories. Vacancies Openings for housing are infrequent due to the low turnover of tenants. As of January 2005, there were 91 applicants on the new waiting list. When two, three, or four bedroom apartments become available, tenants already residing in the housing authority facility get first opportunity to move in, based upon the size of the family and their need for more bedrooms and living space. This practice ensures that the tenants are provided a “decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling” as mandated in the California Health and Safety Code Section 34200-34219, the law that governs tenant occupancy. Consequently, new tenant applications for a two, three, or four bedroom apartments are placed on the waiting list because there are already in-house tenants waiting for the vacated apartments. OAK PARK HOUSING VACANCIES AND REASONS YEAR NUMBER OF REASON VACANCIES July 2001 to June 2002 19 8 – evictions 7 - moved to other housing 2 - purchased own homes 2 - transfer to other PRHA unit July 2002 to June 2003 9 5 - moved to other housing 4 - transf to other PRHA unit July 2003 to June 2004 15 1 – eviction 2 - purchased own home 7 - transfer to other PRHA unit 5 – moved to other housing New tenant applications indicating a severe need such as physical disabilities, multiple family members, low income or homelessness may be given priority over other applicants that do not present such problems. These are the exceptions within federal law regarding tenant selection. The Grand Jury noted that the Criteria for Tenant Selection is posted on a bulletin board in the waiting room in the administrative office of PRHA. The Housing Authority staff was open and informed about the criteria and other related procedures. In addition we also noted that the Executive Director, other staff member, and the police officer are bilingual. Maintenance All tenant repair requests are forwarded to the PRHA maintenance staff person who is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The Executive Director who is on call reviews and approves repair requests. The Grand Jury, on its visit to the facility, noted that repair tools and expendable supplies were stored in a large unsecured building adjacent to the PRHA administrative office. Replacement appliances such as refrigerators and stoves were stored in a secure area, which is accessible only by approval of the Executive Director. Federal and state laws regulate the PRHA income, both rental and government allocated funds. Repair expenditures, maintenance costs, appliance replacement control, and the collection of rent money is explicitly documented, and subject to review by city, and federal auditors. During the Grand Jury inquiry and site visit, federal auditors were on the premises of the PRHA reviewing financial documents. PRHA and Community Relationships The Grand Jury learned that PRHA provides additional services to its tenants and to the residents of privately owned apartments and homes in the neighboring area. The provision of these additional services has provided a very positive contribution to the community. A youth services center provides after school activities, snacks, computers, games, and special events such as costume contests for Halloween, athletic meets, and barbecue socials for up to 100 area children. An adult and child services building provides residents access to programs such as EOC, health and dental services, legal services, immigration assistance, and young men’s interests programs. A PRHA-based community police officer helps reduce criminal activity as well as facilitates better communication between law enforcement and community members. PRHA and the City of Paso Robles share expenses such as the maintenance and utilities for the community recreation center in Oak Park and the cost for policing the area.
• CL105
  The Grand Jury found that the inspectors carried out their work in a thorough, efficient, and professional manner. They were found to be dedicated and knowledgeable. In addition, it was clear that the inspectors who are assigned to the Weights and Measures Department perform a valuable function for both buyers and sellers, insuring that both parties to a transaction are served fairly. The Weights and Measures Division serves the needs of San Luis Obispo County’s with three outside inspectors and one “in-office” inspector, even though the significant increase in wineries, especially in the north county, has increased the workload of the inspectors. Required Response This is an informational report. No formal response to this report is required.