📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Orange County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Orange County

Published: June 26, 2018 190 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 30 findings

F1 Page 93
Meals provided to inmates meet the requirements established by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
Related Recommendations (6)
R2
Page 137
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3
Page 137
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4
Page 137
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F2 Page 93
Food storage areas are clean and neatly maintained by the Food Service Unit in the manner required by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F3 Page 93
All dairy, produce and meat items are fresh and edible, and stored at the correct temperatures and in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F4 Page 93
Food is properly sealed so as not to contaminate or be contaminated by other foods according to the standards set forth by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2
Page 137
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3
Page 137
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F5 Page 93
Inmates are not allowed sufficient time to eat their meals in violation of the Orange County Sheriff’s Food Service Manual and the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Title 15. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Food – Reservation Required Jail Food – Reservation Required FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 137
Orange County Community Resources should add an appropriate number of additional positions to the Housing and Community Development Department beyond the two currently budgeted to be optimally positioned for the increased Permanent Supportive Housing development that will likely arise. (F5)
F6 Page 135
Service Planning Area meetings have successfully brought together city, county and non- profit entities to share information on homeless issues, but have not fostered decision- making or action.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Page 137
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4
Page 137
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
F7 Page 135
NIMBYism has impeded the creation of housing for the homeless, including Permanent Supportive Housing, in the County of Orange.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
Page 137
Cities should collaborate with, and leverage the work done by, United Way on their “United to End Homelessness” public awareness campaign. (F7) To be completed by June 30, 2019 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RECOMMENDATIONS
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
F8 Page 135
Orange County cities and the County have engaged in blaming and finger-pointing, hampering the collaborative efforts needed to site, finance, and maintain Permanent Supportive Housing. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way The Grand Jury identified issues within each of the four components listed above, including the following: cities at odds over whether to allow homeless housing, disagreements over who FINDINGS should lead development efforts for homeless housing, and even conflicts over whether PSH is In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury the best solution for the chronically homeless. requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in Officials in many cities have not reached consensus among themselves on the value of PSH, this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. making it difficult to create compelling arguments and a unified front to overcome resident Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s opposition to siting these units within their communities. County officials only recently Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at ten principal acknowledged they hold lead responsibility for homeless housing in Orange County. Until findings, as follows: consensus is achieved on these issues, the County and cities will not be able to overcome the many roadblocks to building more PSH in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3
Page 137
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4
Page 137
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F9 Page 137
Cities have taken a silo approach to developing Permanent Supportive Housing, resulting in inefficient leveraging and pooling of funds across municipal borders. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (5)
R3
Page 137
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4
Page 137
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F10 Page 137
There is no established, independent leadership body in the County empowered to address requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations regional homeless issues in an effective manner. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine
Related Recommendations (3)
R7
Page 139
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9
Page 139
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F11 Page 219
Several nearby counties have gained efficiencies by successfully consolidating their sheriffs' and fire agencies’ air support units into one organization within each county. Based on its investigation titled “Competition or Collaboration – Orange County’s Public Agency Helicopters,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 249
The Orange County Correctional Health Services’ performance is not accredited by inmate’s medical condition. (F1, F2) any peer review agency; consequently, it lacks the benefits of accreditation as a process improvement tool.
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 169
Prima Deshecha Landfill, Amended, 2001 General Development Plan, January 1, 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F14 Page 169
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 Order No RB-2009-0012, August 28, 2009. City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 15. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), dated Dec. 2001. REPORT 5 16. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
No recommendations for this finding
F15 Page 223
Anaheim Air Support, Standard Operation Procedure Manual, 4.42 – 4.5 – 4.5.1. July 15,
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 169
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), 5 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
No recommendations for this finding
F17 Page 169
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County And Olinda Alpha Landfill Expansion Planning for Informational Meetings, City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1 Tool 7b,
No recommendations for this finding
F18 Page 169
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Olinda Alpha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0035, May 27, 2015.
No recommendations for this finding
F19 Page 169
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Frank R. Bowerman Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0360, September 22, 2013.
No recommendations for this finding
F20 Page 169
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Prima Deshecha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0019, November 8 2016.
No recommendations for this finding
F21 Page 169
Cooperative Agreement between the City of Brea and the County of Orange regarding Olinda Alpha Landfill dated July 2009.
No recommendations for this finding
F22 Page 169
Orange County Waste and Recycling. “Prima Deshecha Landfill”. Accessed April 6, 2018 www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha/ 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six REFERENCES months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 1. Center for Demographic Research, 2017 Orange County Progress Report. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or 2. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Strategic Plan, November 22, 2016. personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 3. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Waste Importation Overview and Analysis, Waste agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand Management Commission Meeting, March 13, 2014 jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or 4. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, March 8, 2018. personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the 5. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Agenda Item 2, Attachment 2, March 8, elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations 2018. affecting his or her agency or department.” 6. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, December 14, 2017.
No recommendations for this finding
F23 Page 171
Tita, Bob. “Recycling, Once Embraced by Businesses and Environmentalists, Now Under APPENDIX – GLOSSARY Siege.” The Wall Street Journal. May 14, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/recycling-once-embraced-by-businesses-and- environmentalists-now-under-siege/ar-AAxclAb?ocid=ientp. Hazardous Waste - Speaking in general terms, hazardous wastes are solid wastes that are toxic,
No recommendations for this finding
F24 Page 171
Ward, Morris A. September 16, 2015. “The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.” ignitable, reactive, or corrosive according to Chapter 11 of Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. National Environmental Education Foundation. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases- and-their-sources. Household Hazardous - Waste includes paint, antifreeze, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides,
No recommendations for this finding
F25 Page 171
CalRecycle. “California State Laws and Regulations concerning Landfills and Recycling.” caustic cleaners, needles, fluorescent light bulbs, medications, and other items that may present Accessed May 16, 2016. handling problems or other hazards if they are left in the solid waste stream. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/.
No recommendations for this finding
F26 Page 171
Source: CA Code of Regulations – Title 14 (Natural Resources) – Division 7, Section 18720 Integrated Waste Management - Managing waste by multiple techniques to achieve solid
No recommendations for this finding
F27 Page 171
CalRecycle. “Local Government Central Glossary of Terms.” Accessed May 16, 2018. waste and resource conservation goals. The techniques may include waste reduction, reuse, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Glossary/default.htm#lo recycling, composting, transformation, disposal to landfills, and other means.
No recommendations for this finding
F28 Page 171
Staub, Colin. “China ban collides with Calif. diversion requirements.” Resource Recycling. Posted on May 15, 2018. Accessed on May 16, 2018. Municipal solid waste or MSW - "Municipal solid waste" or "MSW" means all solid wastes https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/china-ban-collides-with-calif-diversion- generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, and all solid waste generated at requirements/ construction and demolition sites, at food-processing facilities, and at treatment works for water
No recommendations for this finding
F29 Page 171
Orange County Executive Office Press Release, “Trash Importation Approvals Will Assure and waste water, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self-hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agricultural crop residues (SIC Codes Final Debt Repayment”, April 26, 2016 071 through 0724, 0751), animal manures (SIC Code 0751), mining waste and fuel extraction waste (SIC Codes 101 through 1499), forestry wastes (SIC Codes 081 through 0851, 2411 and 2421), and ash from industrial boilers, furnaces and incinerators. REPORT 5 Organic waste - "Organic waste" means solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste. Recycling - Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material. Solid wastes - Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. For regulatory purposes, hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. Waste - Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended. Source: CalRecycle 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash
No recommendations for this finding
F30
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Long Reach of the Law: “How Duke helps nab criminals, save citizens”. November 3, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017. http://behingthebadgeoc.com/cities/ocsd-long-reach-law-duke
No recommendations for this finding

Additional Recommendations 24

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Conclusions 89

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Orange County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office