San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2006-2007
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The following Findings are the result of the Grand Jury’s investigation of complaints against the CVCSD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CVCSD should amend the General Manager’s employment contract to remove the line stating the General Manager can be removed from this position by the Grand Jury. (Finding 1)
F2:
The General Manager’s Employment Contract contains a line stating that the General Manager of the CVCSD can be removed from office by the County Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Tax Collector, the County Auditor-Controller and the California Valley CSD need to confirm that assessment monies are being designated and used as prescribed by law. (Finding 2)
F3:
The current $15.00 fee for trash pickup and disposal is not adequate to cover the actual cost of these services. It is not clear from the information received from the County Auditor-Controller’s office whether or not the additional funds to cover the actual cost of these services are being used as prescribed by law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CVCSD should consider forming an audit committee whose responsibilities include selecting an external auditor and determining the scope of the audit engagement. (Finding 3)
F4:
Current information being provided to the CVCSD from its external auditor does not include an annual management advisory letter, the purpose of which is to point out weaknesses in internal controls.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CVCSD Board should review and revise their current Office Procedures Manual so that it more accurately reflects this specific community. For example, job descriptions listed in the current manual are too broad-based to be useful. (Finding 4)
F5:
The current Office Procedures Manual being used by CVCSD, as adapted from a Special District Risk Management Authority template, does not serve the specific needs of California Valley.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CVCSD Board and management should conduct business with strict adherence to those areas within their purview, i.e., road maintenance and trash pickup and disposal. (Finding 5)
F6:
Board Meetings include subjects not within the purview of the CVCSD, e.g., Emergency Preparedness, Parks and Recreation and Social Function.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
If the CVCSD intends to have a web site, then they should own it and have control over what is being published. (Finding 6) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-100
F7:
The web site that is meant to represent CVCSD is inadequate and not under the control of the CVCSD. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-99
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R12:
VECTOR CONTROL - AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The population of minors residing at Juvenile Hall often exceeds capacity. There have been repeated requests for funding to increase the capacity of the Hall. The first phase of expansion is underway and will provide necessary infrastructure for expanding the number of beds. Expansion of the existing physical plant is a prerequisite to expansion of services.
F2:
Despite the age of the facility and the overcrowded conditions, it is working. There are some indicators of success. These include: • Cooperation among the various groups such as the Probation Department, County Health Services, Office of Education, and other agencies and employees; • Long-term employees who demonstrate a caring commitment and are clearly invested in the success of their charges; • Parents and family of the juveniles who are included in the entire process. Due in part to space constraints, meals are served family style providing an opportunity to work with the juveniles on social skills, including table manners. Often, the superintendent and assistant superintendent have lunch with the juveniles. The Juvenile Court Judge also lunches with them regularly and has holiday dinners with them on occasion. This demonstrates a personal commitment on the part of the professionals who work at Juvenile Hall and helps to lessen the physical and financial shortfalls of the system. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-151
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury believes that the short term holding cells within San Luis Obispo County are being managed and maintained in a professional manner. All cells were clean, and well maintained. The Police and Sheriff’s departments were well organized and have written procedures relating to their operations. The staffs are well trained and very professional.
F2:
The reduction of peace officers on the street during transport of prisoners seems to be a countywide issue. Additionally, financial constraints have resulted in departmental staff reductions in some cities. The impact of these conditions intensifies with growth and affects smaller departments the most.
F3:
While transporting a prisoner to County Jail might take only one peace officer off the streets for a few hours, that officer on the streets might have prevented an accident or saved a life. For each city to divert manpower for transporting prisoners seems inefficient.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Because of their proximity, residents of Avila Beach are understandably most concerned about limited emergency evacuation routes. . The county has been successful in working cooperatively with the private property owner of the Avila Beach Resort and Golf Course. For residents on the south side of Avila Beach, the Cave Landing to Bluff Drive route, originally considered as a possible exit, seems like an obvious alternative. The existing dirt road should be upgraded and designated as another alternative evacuation route from Avila Beach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Office of Emergency Services should work with private owners San Miguelito Partners to explore the addition of Cave Landing to Bluff Drive as an alternative emergency exit from Avila Beach. (Finding 1)
F2:
Emergency responders repeatedly stress the need for all residents to be self-sufficient for at least 72 hours. As one Emergency Services Coordinator put it, “Planning starts at the individual level and moves out from there.” However there is limited information about what people need to do to prepare to be self-sufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Information about self-sufficiency, how to prepare a 72 hour emergency kit, and how to obtain potassium iodide as an individual should be developed and mailed directly to county households annually. As part of this mailing, information about CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) should also be included. This could be included in the annual Disabled Registration card mailer or sent as a separate mailer to all county residents. (Finding 2)
F3:
The very successful meeting on emergency planning for people with special needs was specifically for providers in licensed county facilities. It did not include special needs residents who are living on their own with family or professional assistance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Using the Disabled Registration cards, OES should organize meetings with independent special needs residents and their caretakers to discuss emergency response and self- sufficiency. (Finding 3)
F4:
Liquid potassium iodide especially prepared for infants and children, the most vulnerable population to radiation, is not readily available. The information in the AT&T telephone book about potassium iodide is insufficient and outdated. Currently the State of California does not stock liquid KI. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-9
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
An information sheet about potassium iodide should be prepared for distribution to county obstetricians and pediatricians. OES should review all information in the AT&T telephone book headed “Nuclear Emergency Information” for currency, accuracy and clarity. Particular attention should be paid to the section on potassium iodide. (Finding 4) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-10
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Based upon the Grand Jury’s interviews with two sub-contracting public defenders, a partner from the firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh, and the presiding judge, we believe the county’s public defender contract with the law firm of Maguire & Ashbaugh is serving the needs of San Luis Obispo County well.
F2:
The use of multiple public defenders in the complainant’s case appears to be an aberration, not a pattern. The bulk of the defendant’s complaint appears to be based on a misunderstanding, compounded by a succession of public defenders handling her case.
F3:
Training of new sub-contracting public defenders needs strengthening, especially with regard to expectations/requirements concerning taking and filing good notes and the placement of Minute Orders in files.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
New sub-contracting public defenders should be given training that incorporates an operations manual or check-list that includes required notes for each case. (Finding 3).
R2:
Minute Orders should be maintained in files. (Finding 3).
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
There appears to be a lack of formal, published standard operating procedures for contract administration. An employee faced with a question relating to a particular aspect of managing contracts may have to seek out other employees who have some familiarity with the problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All County departments that issue contracts should develop standard contract management operating procedures. These procedures should cover all aspects of contract management and clearly define tasks and responsibilities for each step in the contracting process. (Finding #1)
F2:
Managers in major contracting departments are dedicated and are doing a good job of ensuring that contractors are meeting their obligations. However, tools they currently in use to track contracts are not standardized and may not be sufficiently reliable to meet County’s long-term needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Any automated tracking systems used for contract management should be created using robust, high-reliability database programming standards. Systems should be fully documented and data should be protected from loss or corruption. (Finding #2)
F3:
Not all sections of County staff have the same familiarity and expertise in managing contracts. This could cause inconsistency in contract management throughout the County. In addition, expertise and best practices developed within certain County departments are not shared with other departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
County offices that do not issue contracts on a regular basis should work through other departments that are more familiar with contract management procedures sharing established best practices. (Finding #3)
F4:
The Grand Jury did not identify any standard procedures for review of contracts after their terms had ended. A review of this type would verify whether all provisions were met, if any action against the contractor is required, and whether any changes need to made to contract management standard procedures. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-35
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
When any contract term ends, the issuing office should review the contract to evaluate its effectiveness. (Finding #4)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is one of the County’s major economic engines.
F2:
The Airport is an “Enterprise Fund.” Hence, unlike most other County agencies, the Airport’s primary source of funding is not the County’s general fund. The Airport depends upon revenue it generates as its primary source of funding. A major expenditure not within Airport control is its reimbursement to the County’s general fund for use of County facilities and services. If the amount transferred becomes excessive, it could seriously impact the Airport’s capability to maintain an acceptable level of customer service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should continually review the amount the Airport is required to reimburse to the general fund, ensuring conformance with FAA requirements and intent. (Finding #2)
F3:
While several Airport tenants expressed concerns regarding on-site operations and planning decisions, none appeared serious enough to drive tenants away. There may be an opportunity to reduce this dissatisfaction through increased outreach to the tenant community, making them an important part of the Airport’s decision-making process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Most complaints raised by Airport tenants were due primarily to differing perceptions. The Airport should address these concerns by increasing outreach programs to keep tenants better informed and involved. (Finding #3)
F4:
The Airport uses innovative technologies to maximize utilization and efficiency of its area-constrained facilities. However, it should seek out additional opportunities to benefit from technology.
F5:
The Airport is a division within the County’s General Services Department. Because the Airport is an enterprise fund and operates in a very competitive market, its business model is very different from that of other County agencies. The current organizational structure will not provide flexibility the Airport needs to succeed in an extremely complex and rapidly changing market. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-45
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should establish an independent, fact-finding committee or task force to investigate benefits and implications of creating an Airport Department or Authority. (Finding #5)
F6:
Because airport management is a very specialized field, finding experienced airport professionals to fill key vacancies can be a challenge. Current County hiring procedures and position classification structures will not have sufficient flexibility to quickly fill future Airport vacancies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should ensure hiring procedures and position classification structures have the flexibility to quickly fill any key Airport vacancies that may occur. (Finding #6)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Change is difficult. The Grand Jury found that the leadership has created a positive climate and a great capacity for change among the senior staff. They clearly articulated an understanding of and commitment to the new model.
F2:
The Grand Jury is satisfied that YCF staff is doing a good job in the areas of public safety and welfare. Good safety and security measures are in place, with trained professional personnel monitoring all areas of the facility.
F3:
YCF is charged with the rehabilitation of the more serious youth offenders in the state. Considering that their stay at this facility averages about 15 months, there doesn’t seem to be enough time to substantially influence wards so that they are more likely to experience success after parole. RESOURCES ONLINE Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/crim Juvenile Justice justice/cj_06_an106. California Department of www.cya.ca.gov/BudgetRegs/ Corrections and Rehabilitation cdcr_SOE. State of Emergency California Department of www.ebudget.ca.gov/ Corrections and Rehabilitation BudgetSummary/CLE8866383. Enhancing Public Safety in California/Implementation of Farrell v. Hickman 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-10 SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL READING “Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan Implementing Reform in California” July 10, 2006 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 16-11 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report
F17:
COUNTY JAIL AUTHORITY Section 919(b) California Penal Code states: “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the prisons within the county.” METHOD Members of the 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury visited the county jail and met with the County Sheriff-Coroner. A presentation was made by the Sheriff and members of his staff describing the Sheriff’s Department’s operational responsibilities. Afterward the Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the facilities, including the following: • Communication Center • Kitchen Facility • Honor Farm • Women’s Jail The State of California Board of Corrections (BOC) is responsible for conducting biennial inspections of the facility in accordance with Penal Code §6031, in addition to the yearly inspection by the County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury reviewed the BOC Inspection Report as part of its charge. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 17-1 NARRATIVE The facility is located on Kansas Avenue, off Highway 1 on the outskirts of the city of San Luis Obispo. The initial structures were built in 1971, the conference room and kitchen were added in 1991, and the newer section of the jail was built in 1993. Non-violent inmates are housed at the Honor Farm. Still in use are World War II Army barracks that house weekend prisoners. There are approximately 98 Correctional and Senior Officers employed at the jail complex and court holding facility plus four officers currently in training. The county has budgeted for 108 officers, however, according to the Chief Deputy, the Department needs 120 officers. Correctional Officers attend an intensive five-week formal training period, followed by a probationary period of six month on-the-job training that includes an additional 24 hours of custodial training which is mandated by the State of California. Fortunately, due to the availability of in-house instructors, custodial training is extended to approximately 40-50 hours. The physical capacity of the jail, as rated by the California Standard Authority, is 518 prisoners. The average daily population, however, is 548 with about 630 on weekends. The term of incarceration per prisoner is one year or less, 6 months on average. Inmates who are being held for trial prior to conviction for a crime are usually housed separately, but receive the same treatment as other inmates. The women’s section of the jail has a rated capacity of 43, with 82 actual beds. During 2006, the female population exceeded 100 on occasion, with the overflow is forced to sleep on mattresses on the floor. Additionally, women are restricted to medium custody placement, with no opportunity to engage in any minimum or Honor Farm programs, such as grounds keeping, working in the animal shelter, etc. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 17-2 CONCLUSION As stated in several prior Grand Jury reports, the County Jail continues to operate efficiently. In spite of overcrowding and its related problems, staff at the Jail and Honor Farm is performing admirably. The chronic overcrowding, which is growing worse yearly, especially in the women’s section has made the need for the County to find and dedicate funds for expansion more critical. On April 23, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a prison reform plan, that includes a provision of $1.2 billion for local jail beds. The time is ripe, therefore, for the County to determine how to access these funds. As the County experiences growth, it is likely that the jail population will increase at about the same rate as the County. It is critical for the welfare and safety of the citizens of this county to plan now and budget funds for future jail expansions. With recent increase in drug use, particularly methamphetamines, merely arresting and jailing drug abusers for short periods of time due to lack of bed space, will tend to clog our courts with repeat offenders. In addition, increased crime in metropolitan areas of California is overwhelming the State Prison System to the point that one solution in the near future will likely be to place additional prisoners at the county level instead of the state level, thus compounding the problems of overcrowding. FINDING Overcrowding, especially in the women’s section, continues to be the number one problem at the San Luis Obispo County Jail. Increases in county population, coupled with increases in drug abuse in the county, means that overcrowding will only get worse in the future. If the situation is 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 17-3 not addressed soon, the jail population could be capped judicially, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
– A portion of the “bed tax” from Avila Disagree. hotels should be shared with Harbor District. District has potential to increase funding through revenue sources currently under its control but bed tax is used for county wide services.
R2:
– County should take responsibility for Not implemented, not warranted. – designing, providing and maintaining a solution to flooding Want to form a zone of benefit to fund appropriate flood problems at the drainage ditch. control.
R3:
– County should do regular mosquito County Environmental Health does provide mosquito control. abatement in and around the drainage ditch.
R4:
– Drainage ditch should be fenced with Agree. restricted access to insure safety. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLEET GARAGE 2005/2006 Grand Jury Recommendation Agency Response
R5:
– Adhere to recommendation from No response. Agriculture Commission when planning new school locations.
R6:
– Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use Not agree. should meet annually.
R7:
– Local citizens should work to protect school No response. sites and surrounding residents from future contamination. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page R-2 THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION 2005/2006 Grand Jury Recommendation Agency Response
R8:
– District should re-evaluate the need for Agree. Camera surveillance has been installed. additional security at AHS and other campuses. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page R-5 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 2005/2006 Grand Jury Recommendation Agency Response
R18:
JUVENILE HALL – JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER ORIGIN On November 14, 2006, members of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury toured Juvenile Hall ("the Hall") as part of its mandate to review prison facilities in the county (§919(b) California Penal Code). METHOD Information for this report was gathered in the following ways: • Visit to and tour of the Juvenile Services Center and Juvenile Hall; • Interviews/conversations with the Chief Probation Officer, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Juvenile Hall, the on-duty nurse, Juvenile Services Officers, a cook, various other staff, minors detained in the facility, and the Supervising Juvenile Judge; • Review of the County of San Luis Obispo Probation Department web site (www.slocounty.ca.gov/PR) including the "Juvenile Hall Handbook." NARRATIVE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is one of the County’s major economic engines.
F2:
The Airport is an “Enterprise Fund.” Hence, unlike most other County agencies, the Airport’s primary source of funding is not the County’s general fund. The Airport depends upon revenue it generates as its primary source of funding. A major expenditure not within Airport control is its reimbursement to the County’s general fund for use of County facilities and services. If the amount transferred becomes excessive, it could seriously impact the Airport’s capability to maintain an acceptable level of customer service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should continually review the amount the Airport is required to reimburse to the general fund, ensuring conformance with FAA requirements and intent. (Finding #2)
F3:
While several Airport tenants expressed concerns regarding on-site operations and planning decisions, none appeared serious enough to drive tenants away. There may be an opportunity to reduce this dissatisfaction through increased outreach to the tenant community, making them an important part of the Airport’s decision-making process. 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-9
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Most complaints raised by Airport tenants were due primarily to differing perceptions. The Airport should address these concerns by increasing outreach programs to keep tenants better informed and involved. (Finding #3)
F4:
The Airport uses innovative technologies to maximize utilization and efficiency of its area- constrained facilities. However, it should seek out additional opportunities to benefit from technology.
F5:
The Airport is a division within the County’s General Services Department. Because the Airport is an enterprise fund and operates in a very competitive market, its business model is very different from that of other County agencies. The current organizational structure will not provide flexibility the Airport needs to succeed in an extremely complex and rapidly changing market.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County should establish an independent, fact-finding committee or task force to investigate benefits and implications of creating an Airport Department or Authority. (Finding #5)
R5:
The CVCSD Board and management should conduct business with strict adherence to those areas within their purview, i.e., road maintenance and trash pickup and disposal. (Finding 5)
F6:
Because airport management is a very specialized field, finding experienced airport professionals to fill key vacancies can be a challenge. Current County hiring procedures and position classification structures will not have sufficient flexibility to quickly fill future Airport vacancies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The County should ensure hiring procedures and position classification structures have the flexibility to quickly fill any key Airport vacancies that may occur. (Finding #6) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report: Page: 7-10
R6:
If the CVCSD intends to have a web site, then they should own it and have control over what is being published. (Finding 6)
F7:
The web site that is meant to represent CVCSD is inadequate and not under the control of the CVCSD.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Great harm has come to the community because of the secrecy surrounding the closed session of the Lucia Mar Unified School District Board of Education held February 20, 2007, and actions taken thereafter.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Given that the affected principals have waived confidentiality, and given that the LMUSD Board of Education has the power to also waive confidentiality, the Board should, as a body, waive its right to confidentiality and place on the next possible agenda, a discussion of what actually occurred during the closed session of February 20, 2007. (Findings 1, 5)
R4:
Receipt of required responses from Lucia Mar Unified School Board members and Superintendent should be forwarded to the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney for possible investigation of potential violations of the Brown Act by the Lucia Mar Unified School District Board of Education and for possible perjury in their testimony before the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-124
F2:
The Lucia Mar Unified School District Board of Education members may have been in violation of the Brown Act if, in the February 20, 2007 closed session, a collective decision by a majority of the Board gave clear indication to the Superintendent of their expectations that she remove a number of principals from their present positions and the Board did not subsequently report this action (i.e., giving direction to the Superintendent) in open session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the LMUSD Board directed the Superintendent to remove principals from their current positions, Board members should make public their rationale for having done so without reporting out this action in open session, as required by the Brown Act. (Finding 2)
F3:
The Lucia Mar Unified School District Board of Education may be in violation of Section 54957 of the Brown Act if, in a February 20, 2007 closed session, specific complaints or charges were brought against any employees, including principals, and those employees were not notified in advance of their right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The LMUSD Board members should explain how their use of “placeholders” allowed them to discuss charges or complaints against employees in closed sessions, without first notifying those employees, under the Brown Act. (Findings 3, 4)
F4:
The Lucia Mar Unified School District Board of Education is in violation of the spirit of openness when it uses “placeholders” as agenda items for closed sessions. A Board member testified to the Grand Jury about the placeholder “Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release” saying, “I don’t think that’s legal. I think that if we’re going to be taking action against an employee, I think the Brown Act requires that we actually say ‘this is the employee we’re taking action against.’” 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-123
F5:
The Lucia Mar School Board’s actions subsequent to the February 20, 2007 special closed meeting exacerbated the problems. The public announcement and apology, blaming all the harm done on “miscommunication,” was not an adequate response to the community, based on testimony and continued public outcry.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The failure to include the “Figure 4 map” and references to it in the staff report was at best inept staff performance or at worst deliberate deception.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Commission should require relevant source documents accompany reports from the Planning and Building Department.
F2:
The staff report was a crucial element in an important decision by the Planning Commission and it was only public testimony at the Commission hearing that prevented a decision counter to approved land use policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Planning Commission should direct Planning and Building Department staff to indicate to the Planning Commission if any source documentations were altered in preparing reports and provide reasons for such alterations.
F3:
The staff report concluded that the sale of County land to State Parks was in compliance with County land use policy, a conclusion consistent with the report only because of the omission of the “Figure 4 map” and related text.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Training procedures for staff charged with report development should be reviewed and changed so as to prevent the omission or misrepresentation of significant documentary evidence.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Information pertaining to the Farmers’ Alliance Building was missing from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, per the October 4, 2005 City Council minutes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Paso Robles should review and improve their documentation procedures specific to their Historic Resources Survey and Inventory. (Finding 1) 2006-2007 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-57
F2:
The Grand Jury believes a thorough local historic preservation process would decrease the likelihood of situations similar to Smart & Final’s purchase of a building they later learned they were unable to use because of its historical significance.
F3:
Historic Preservation Committees/Commissions appear to be a key factor in assisting local governments to identify historic resources and maintain continuity of processes across historic resources and permit applicants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Local governments in San Luis Obispo County that do not already have an Historic Preservation Committee/Commission should study the feasibility of creating one. Information about these committees/commissions can be obtained from the state Office of Historic Preservation (www.ohp.parks.ca.gov). (Finding 3)
F4:
The provisions of CEQA are intended to assist local governments in the proper identification and treatment of historic resources consistent with Federal regulations. A significant degree of local discretion exists, however, which allows local citizens to influence the degree of preservation in their communities through their elected representatives. The Historical Preservation Program in the City of San Luis Obispo, while it does not include all possible provisions of CEQA, can serve as a model for other communities in the county, including making information available to residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If they are not already doing so, local communities should make available to their residents a handout/brochure containing information such as the following: (Finding 4) • Does the community have an historic preservation program? • Does the community have historic districts? • How does the community identify historic properties? • What benefits and services are available to owners of historic properties? • Can historic properties be changed? If so, what is the process? • Can historic structures be demolished? If so, what is the process? • What changes can be made to an historic structure without a building permit? • How can property owners find out more about their historic properties?