San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2007-2008
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 (31)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that School Pool Safety Plans varied from comprehensive to almost nonexistent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recommend that the County Superintendent of Schools monitor school pool safety plans to ensure that each school district using a pool has adequate safety policies in place.
F2:
Atascadero Unified School District’s School Pool Safety plan will meet their needs with only minor modifications. We commend the Atascadero School District for responding to the tragic accident at their high school by developing a plan to protect future students.
F3:
Lucia Mar Unified School District has clear rules for student behavior and an excellent Emergency Action Plan flow chart. However, they fail to have a plan for 7 instructor qualifications or facility safety. It is also unclear whether instructors at Arroyo Grande High and Nipomo High are familiar with the Emergency Action Plan flow chart.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Recommend Atascadero Unified School District policies include a requirement for a current CPR certification.
R2:
Recommend that Atascadero Unified School District policies include a requirement that the instructors have access to a cell phone.
R3:
Recommend that Lucia Mar Unified School District develop a school pool safety plan that incorporates their Student Rules and their Emergency Action Plan with Teacher Qualifications and Facility safety.
F4:
Cayucos Elementary School District has rules for student behavior. They need to refine their rules for instructor qualifications and develop an emergency action plan. They should work with the County of San Luis Obispo to create a facility safety plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Recommend that Cayucos Elementary School District develop a comprehensive set of School Pool Safety Plans including sections on instructor qualifications, facility safety, student rules and emergency procedures.
F5:
Paso Robles Public Schools need to develop a school pool safety plan. They may choose to adopt the rules from the City of Paso Robles, but should also include an emergency plan specific to school use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Recommend that Paso Robles Public Schools develop their own set of school pool safety plans including sections on instructor qualifications, facility safety, student rules and emergency procedures. 8
F6:
Recommend that the County Superintendent of Schools monitor school pool safety plans to ensure that each school district using a pool has adequate safety policies in place.
F7:
The San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools, Atascadero Unified School District, Lucia Mar Unified School District, Paso Robles Public Schools and Cayucos Elementary School District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. REQUIRED RESPONSES Responses to the recommendations are required from the following: • Atascadero Unified School District – Finding #1 & #2, Recommendations #1 & #2 • Lucia Mar Unified School District - Finding #1 & #3, Recommendation #3 • Paso Robles Public Schools – Finding #1 & #4, Recommendation #4 • Cayucos Elementary School District – Finding #1 & #5, Recommendation #5 • San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools – Finding #1, Recommendations #6 & #7 . The responses from the Atascadero Unified School District, the Lucia Mar Unified School District, the Paso Robles Public Schools, the Cayucos Elementary School District and San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge at the San Luis Obispo Superior court by August 12, 2009. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The responses from the San Luis County Board of Supervisors shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge at the San Luis Obispo Superior court by September 11, 2009. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman San Luis Obispo County Grand Superior Court of California Jury 1035 Palm, Room 385 P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 APPENDIX A Atascadero High School Pool Rules 1. Urinating or blowing the nose in the pool prohibited.
F8:
Swimmers will not run on or around pool areas or deck.
F9:
No diving will be allowed in the shallow half of the pool off the deck or off of the starting platforms. Only those competitive swimmers instructed in proper technique will be allowed to use starting platforms in competitive practice or meets.
F10:
No glass will be allowed in the pool area.
F11:
The deck of the pool shall be clear of all unused equipment. All equipment must be put away after use. Nothing is to be left around the pool deck.
F12:
All safety equipment, including first aid kit, shall be readily available and in its proper place at all times.
F13:
No bather shall enter the pool area unless a qualified instructor or lifeguards is on duty in the immediate pool area.
F14:
The instructor, pool assistant, and/or lifeguard must always enter the pool area first to secure the area and be the last to leave the pool after checking carefully to see that all are out. No one should enter the water until so instructed by the person(s) in charge of supervision.
F15:
Head first diving from the pool deck is prohibited in water depths less than eight feet.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools, Atascadero Unified School District, Lucia Mar Unified School District, Paso Robles Public Schools and Cayucos Elementary School District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
State and federal grants for anti gang efforts are being reduced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The county should continue to pursue additional grant money on the state and federal levels.
F2:
Probation officials say not all parents attend the classes provided by the Youth in Action Program. The classes could be more effective if made mandatory.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Anti Gang Coordinating Commission should pursue legislation that requires parents of juveniles on probation attend educational classes.
F3:
The County Gang Task Force believes graffiti must be removed as soon as possible to avoid escalation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
County Board of Supervisors should consider enacting a graffiti removal ordinance.
F4:
The Anti Gang Coordinating Commission believes the Liberty Tattoo Removal Program assists former gang members seeking employment.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
San Luis Obispo County is the only California county with an Environmental Division that is separately staffed for and dedicated solely to the review and analysis of environmental planning issues.
F2:
Both state and county CEQA Guidelines specifically require the Environmental Division to consider both the individual and cumulative environmental effects of projects.
F3:
Within a one year period, the Environmental Division of the Planning Department received three applications for Conditional Use Permits to conduct sand and gravel mining operations in the Salinas River or its tributaries and it concurrently reviewed and studied all of these applications from September 2006 through March 2008.
F4:
While concurrently reviewing and studying these three applications over a period of approximately eighteen months, the Environmental Division staff never raised or asked the applicants for studies to address the possible cumulative environmental effects of these applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department and its Environmental Division should institute procedures and training to assure that its environmental resource specialists consider the issue of cumulative environmental effects and advise applicants of this issue at the earliest appropriate time when reviewing applications for projects that may have significant environmental impacts.
F5:
Public hearings on the Conditional Use Permit applications for these three applications were scheduled so close to, and even before, the end of the applicable public comment periods that Environmental Division staff requests for continuances were almost a certainty and were, in fact, requested for two of the applications. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Planning Department and its Environmental Planning Division should institute procedures to assure that public hearings on applications involving possible environmental impacts are scheduled not less than 30 days before the end of any applicable public comment period or period for filing Requests for Review.
F6:
Continuances of the Planning Commission public hearings for the two applications referenced in Finding 5 resulted in a four to six month delay of a process that had already taken approximately two years before the public hearings were scheduled.
F7:
The Planning Department and the Planning Commission permit the submission of written comments by applicants and the public at any time before or during the public hearing process up to the point in time that the Planning Commission makes a decision on a project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Planning Commission Rules of Procedure should be revised to establish a deadline for the filing of written comments on applications that is not less than three days before the scheduled public hearing and to provide that any written comments filed after the deadline will not be considered by the Planning Commission and will not be part of the record of the public hearing.
F8:
The Planning Commission Rules of Procedure have no provision concerning public comment on revised findings being considered by the Planning Commission after it has closed a public hearing and reached a tentative decision on a matter and there is no legal requirement that public comment be allowed on such revised findings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Planning Commission Rules of Procedure should be revised to specifically provide that public comment will not be allowed on revised findings that have been presented to and are being considered by the Planning Commission after the public hearing on the application has been closed and the Planning Commission has made a tentative decision on the project. 9
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The county has a large fleet of 777 licensed vehicles; 132 are driven to employees’ homes for overnight parking and personal commuting.
F2:
The County has a policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July 2008, which further clarifies the delegated approval and assignment of take-home vehicles in the Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office. All other county departments must seek approval from the County Administrative Officer.
F3:
The policy and required process to be used by the Sheriff and the District Attorney in the assignment of take-home vehicles does not have a check and balance review process beyond the department. Although the District Attorney argues strongly to preserve his independence in these decisions, there is potential for lax oversight in the assignment of those vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should modify the current Rules for Use of Vehicles on County Business (July 2008) to insure that a system of “check and balance” exists in the justification for take-home vehicle assignments. B A
F4:
There is significant cost in take-home vehicle use. The total annual cost for all such vehicles is estimated to exceed $1,000,000 of which the commuting miles are a significant portion. There are opportunities for savings with more rigorous justification for the assignment and use of these vehicles.
F5:
There is additional County liability exposure in the assignment of take-home vehicles.
F6:
The justifications for take-home use presented to the Grand Jury for the Sheriff and District Attorney take-home vehicles were minimal and the Grand Jury found them to be inadequate. 5
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The San Luis Obispo District Attorney
R3:
This expanded analysis should be done annually and submitted for public review at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, being sensitive to the undercover nature of some of those vehicle assignments.B A
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Police Departments all follow California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Some also comply with the more rigorous International Association of Property and Evidence standards. Property officers, both sworn and civilian, were well trained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff should update property room policies and procedures to meet industry standards, especially those pertaining to the temporary storage of evidence to make it more secure.
F2:
The Sheriff’s Department complies with the POST Standards and all legal statutes. Officers are all well trained and disciplined in their recording of evidence. Corrections in the storage of evidence has made it more secure from theft or intermingling with other cases. Policy and procedure directives are dated and supervision of Substation property rooms was lax until after Grand Jury inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department should conduct regular, independent monitoring of substation property rooms.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The National Weather Radios provide a valuable extension of the existing alert system, cover a wide variety of emergencies, and are operable throughout the county. This possibility is, however, not well known and deserves wider publication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should review its procedures to accommodate safe and equal access for motorcycles in City parking structures. (Finding 1)
F2:
Due to the current economic environment, the project was able to award four of its five major construction contacts for less than the original cost estimates. This saves the project almost $16 million.
F3:
Even with the savings noted in Finding #2, the currently projected overall project cost has increased approximately 19% from the project’s original 2004 budget projection.
F4:
While the project is important in addressing the short term needs of the participating agencies, it is not a permanent solution. All local governments in the County will need to develop long term strategies to address future water needs and threats to current supplies. The Jury found that many of the existing water resource planning documents are outdated.
F5:
Many consumers will be facing significant water rate increases to pay for the project’s construction and ongoing operation and maintenance. Most of the agencies involved in the project will be combining project costs with costs for their current water systems. Over time, it may be difficult for consumers to identify which portion of their water bill is being used to actually fund the project.
F6:
The project may have “growth inducing” effects and the governing bodies for the participating agencies will have to recognize and address this potential.
F7:
The project will have to use eminent domain to acquire portions of the necessary right-of- way. Project managers will have to address citizen resentment inherent in this legal process to avoid the potential for project delays.
F8:
BUILDING PERMITS PROCESS, PROBLEMS AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FINDINGS
F15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL CONCLUSION While the overcrowding has been a major problem for several years, it is the Grand Jury’s opinion that the facility continues to operate efficiently. The chart above provides a summary of Average Daily Population and highlights the ongoing chronic overcrowding problem. The County must find the necessary funds to construct the new Women’s Jail and Medical facility. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 100 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-
F16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS FINDINGS The Grand Jury found the short term holding cells within the County of San Luis Obispo to be clean, well maintained and professionally managed. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 101 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The OES should revise its alert information included in the telephone directory and other brochures and presentations to include NOAA Weather Radios. The OES should also encourage PG&E to include information on these radios in its public information about emergencies at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
R3:
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ................28
R4:
EMERGENCY ALERT RADIOS...........................................................29
R5:
PISMO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION..............33
R6:
SANTA MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT (ATASCADERO) ................34
R7:
THE FOOD BANK COALITION OF SLO COUNTY.............................40
R8:
BUILDING PERMITS.........................................................................41
R9:
HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL?..............................................62
R10:
WHERE CAN I PARK MY MOTORCYCLE?......................................63
R11:
IT’S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S FIRE DEPARTMENT..............83
R12:
ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES – WHAT’S GOING ON....................88 PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK-UPS:
R13:
REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS.........................98
R14:
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY FROM THE INSIDE ........................99
R15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL..................................................100
R16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS....................................................101 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The National Weather Radios provide a valuable extension of the existing alert system, cover a wide variety of emergencies, and are operable throughout the county. This possibility is, however, not well known and deserves wider publication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should review its procedures to accommodate safe and equal access for motorcycles in City parking structures. (Finding 1)
F2:
Due to the current economic environment, the project was able to award four of its five major construction contacts for less than the original cost estimates. This saves the project almost $16 million.
F3:
Even with the savings noted in Finding #2, the currently projected overall project cost has increased approximately 19% from the project’s original 2004 budget projection.
F4:
While the project is important in addressing the short term needs of the participating agencies, it is not a permanent solution. All local governments in the County will need to develop long term strategies to address future water needs and threats to current supplies. The Jury found that many of the existing water resource planning documents are outdated.
F5:
Many consumers will be facing significant water rate increases to pay for the project’s construction and ongoing operation and maintenance. Most of the agencies involved in the project will be combining project costs with costs for their current water systems. Over time, it may be difficult for consumers to identify which portion of their water bill is being used to actually fund the project.
F6:
The project may have “growth inducing” effects and the governing bodies for the participating agencies will have to recognize and address this potential.
F7:
The project will have to use eminent domain to acquire portions of the necessary right-of- way. Project managers will have to address citizen resentment inherent in this legal process to avoid the potential for project delays.
F8:
BUILDING PERMITS PROCESS, PROBLEMS AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FINDINGS
F15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL CONCLUSION While the overcrowding has been a major problem for several years, it is the Grand Jury’s opinion that the facility continues to operate efficiently. The chart above provides a summary of Average Daily Population and highlights the ongoing chronic overcrowding problem. The County must find the necessary funds to construct the new Women’s Jail and Medical facility. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 100 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-
F16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS FINDINGS The Grand Jury found the short term holding cells within the County of San Luis Obispo to be clean, well maintained and professionally managed. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 101 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Responses Page: R-
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The OES should revise its alert information included in the telephone directory and other brochures and presentations to include NOAA Weather Radios. The OES should also encourage PG&E to include information on these radios in its public information about emergencies at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
R3:
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ................28
R4:
EMERGENCY ALERT RADIOS...........................................................29
R5:
PISMO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION..............33
R6:
SANTA MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT (ATASCADERO) ................34
R7:
THE FOOD BANK COALITION OF SLO COUNTY.............................40
R8:
BUILDING PERMITS.........................................................................41
R9:
HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL?..............................................62
R10:
WHERE CAN I PARK MY MOTORCYCLE?......................................63
R11:
IT’S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S FIRE DEPARTMENT..............83
R12:
ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES – WHAT’S GOING ON....................88 PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK-UPS:
R13:
REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS.........................98
R14:
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY FROM THE INSIDE ........................99
R15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL..................................................100
R16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS....................................................101 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The National Weather Radios provide a valuable extension of the existing alert system, cover a wide variety of emergencies, and are operable throughout the county. This possibility is, however, not well known and deserves wider publication.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed. Response: I acknowledge the variation among the Emergency Response Plans for the ten school districts in the county. While we strive for conformity as much as possible, I also recognize that the variation in size, geography and facility configuration of each district dictates a Plan that is reflective of local circumstances. For example, one district may rely on one law enforcement agency, while others coordinate with multiple agencies due to boundary configurations. Adherence to the NIMS model noted above provides commonality among the districts. ■ 3350 EDUCATION DRIVE ■ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ■ 805-543-7732 ■ FAX 805-541-1105 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Page Two October 24, 2008
F3:
We were informed by a County Planning and Building official during the fact check that beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009, permit fees will be based on a "cost recovery" system related directly to the department's operation budget. Response No response required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-5600. Sincerely, Victor Holanda Victor Holanda, AICP Director Department of Planning and Building A5-7 8/5/2008 OWNER BUILDER INFORMATION SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING 976 Osos Street • Room 200 • San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805) 781-5600 Promoting the Wise Use of Land • Helping to Build Great Communities Dear Property Owner: An application for a building permit has been submitted in your name listing yourself as the builder of the property improvements specified. For your protection you should be aware that as 'owner-builder' you are the responsible party of record on the permit. Building permits are not required to be signed by property owners unless they are personally performing their own work. If your work is being performed by someone other than yourself, you may protect yourself from possible liability if that person applies for the proper permit in his or her name. Contractors are required by law to be licensed and bonded by the State of California and to have a business license from the city or county. They are also required by law to put their license number on all permits for which they apply. If you plan to do your own work, with the exception of various trades that you plan to subcontract, you should be aware of the following information for your benefit and protection: If you employ or otherwise engage any persons other than your immediate family, and the work (including materials and other costs) is $500 or more for the entire project, and the persons are not licensed as contractors or subcontractors, then you may be an employer. If you are an employer, you must register with the state and federal government as an employer and you are subject to several obligations including state and federal income tax withholding, federal social security taxes, workers' compensation insurance, disability insurance costs, and unemployment compensation contributions. There may be financial risks for you if you do not carry out these obligations, and these risks are especially serious with respect to workers' compensation insurance. For more specific information about your obligations under federal law, contact the Internal Revenue Service (and, if you wish, the U.S. Small Business Administration). For more specific information about your obligations under state law, contact the Department of Benefit Payments and the Division of Industrial Accidents. If the structure is intended for sale, property owners who are not licensed contractors are allowed to perform their work personally or through their own employees, without a licensed contractor or subcontractor, only under limited conditions. A frequent practice of unlicensed persons professing to be contractors is to secure an 'owner-builder' building permit, erroneously implying that the property owner is providing his or her own labor and material personally. Building permits are not required to be signed by property owners unless they are performing their own work personally. Information about licensed contractors may be obtained by contacting the Contractors' State License Board's automated telephone information system at 1-800-321-CSLB (2752) or by accessing their Web site at www.CSLB.ca.gov. Please complete and return the enclosed owner-builder verification form so that we can confirm that you are aware of these matters. The building permit will not be issued until the verification is returned. OWNER BUILDER INFORMATION Owner/builders take note! A word of caution from the Contractors State License Board Anyone who talks you into being your own general contractor, or Hiring an unlicensed "owner/builder," may be doing you no favor. "consultant" to manage "Owner/builder" describes a situation in which the homeowner becomes the project does not the general contractor. As an owner/builder, you (not the person you save you money hire) assume responsibility for the overall job. in the long run. Your responsibilities may include such things as state and federal taxes, By hiring a licensed workers' compensation insurance, and other legal liabilities. You may be experienced contractor required to hire various subcontractors for your project, scheduling their for your project to hire work and supervising the job. If a worker is injured while working on licensed knowledgeable your property, you could be asked to pay for injuries and rehabilitation tradespersons, the through your homeowner's insurance policy. contractor becomes responsible for all By signing a building permit application as an owner/builder, you phases of construction. assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. Hiring an unlicensed "consultant" to manage the project does not save you money in the long run. By hiring a licensed experienced contractor for your project to hire licensed knowledgeable tradespersons, the contractor becomes responsible for all phases of construction. Unless you are very experienced in construction, it is best to leave these matters to your licensed contractor. 6/04 CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 (800) 321-CSLB FAX (916) 255-1395 www.cslb.ca.gov A5-9 8/5/2008 . A Warning about being your own Contractor (Owner/Builder) Homeowners can face very serious legal and financial problems if they choose to try to save money by acting as their own contractor. The term for this is owner/builder. If the homeowner chooses to be an owner/builder, they become an employer and must: Provide workers compensation insurance and withhold payroll taxes if they hire any unlicensed contractors; • Be responsible for making sure the job is done properly. If any of the construction doesn't pass building inspections, the homeowner is responsible for correcting the work; Make sure all contractors and material • suppliers are paid, or mechanic's liens may be filed against your property. Even though you may have paid your roofing contractor in full, a mechanic's lien could lead to the sale of your property in order to pay a bill for services on your property that was not paid by your contractor. It is not illegal for a homeowner to act as an owner/builder. But, unless you have a lot of experience in construction, the CSLB recommends that it's best to hire a legitimate, licensed expert. A5-10 8/5/2008 · . WHAT IS AN OWNER/BUILDER? This section defines what an owner builder is and the laws surrounding the practice. An owner/builder is what the term indicates. The person owns the property and acts as their own general contractor on the job and either does the work themselves or has employees (or subcontractors) working on the project. The work site must be their principal place of residence that they have occupied for 12 months prior to completion of the work. The homeowner cannot construct and then sell more than two structures during any three-year period. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN OWNER/BUILDER. This section outlines the job responsibilities of a property owner when they decide to handle their own construction projects as an owner/builder. When you sign a building permit application as an owner/builder, you assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. You must pull all building permits. Your project must pass codes and building inspections. The owner/builder is responsible for ordering materials and making sure all suppliers are paid. An owner/builder is also responsible for supervising, scheduling and paying subcontractors. If you use anyone other than your immediate family or a licensed subcontractor for work, you may be considered an "employer". Employers must register with the state and federal governments and are obligated to participate in state and federal income tax withholding, federal social security taxes, workers' compensation insurance, disability insurance costs, and unemployment compensation contributions TIP For more specific information about your obligations under federal law, contact the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040 [and, if you wish, the A5-11 8/5/2008 . ' U.S. Small Business Administration at (800) 359-1833]. For more specific information about your obligations under state law, contact the Employment Development Department at (916) 653-0707, the Department of Industrial Relations at (415) 703-5070, and the Franchise Tax Board at (800) 852-5711. THE DOWNSIDE OF BEING AN OWNER/BUILDER This section presents some additional issues that should be taken into consideration before deciding to become an owner/builder. Unless you are knowledgeable about construction, mistakes can be costly and take additional time to repair or do it right. Subcontractors and suppliers who are not paid on schedule may file mechanic's liens against your property. Educate yourself about mechanic's liens and how to prevent them. If your workers are injured, or your subcontractors are not licensed or do not carry liability insurance or worker's compensation and they are injured, you could be asked to pay for injuries and rehabilitation through your homeowner's insurance policy or face lawsuits. You should be cautious of unlicensed individuals claiming to be contractors who prey upon homeowners. They may promise to guide you through the owner/builder process for a consulting fee, but they are breaking the law. ✓ REMEMBER As an owner/builder, you assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. Licensed contractors must demonstrate knowledge of their craft, be tested, fingerprinted, bonded and FBI background checked before they are licensed to work in California. Illegal contractors can bungle a job or skip with the down payments leaving the owner/builder pretty much on their own to deal with the issue. A5-12 8/5/2008 This section provides answers to questions regarding owner/builder's and briefly describes the laws surrounding the practice. Who is considered an owner/builder? Any individual, or group of individuals, who own the property on which they plan to construct, alter, repair, improve, or remodel a building or structure. Also, a tenant may be considered an owner/builder (case-by-case). Is an owner/builder required to have a license? An owner/builder is exempt from licensure, but there are limitations. A license is not required if: The owner/builder does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation and the structure(s) is/are not intended for sale. The owner/builder contracts with properly licensed subcontractor(s). (This exemption applies to the construction of a single- family residential structure and limits the number of structures intended or offered for sale to four or fewer in a calendar year.) The owner/builder contracts with a general building ("B") contractor. (The number of structures is then unlimited.) Is a homeowner required to obtain a license if he/she wants to improve his/her home? A homeowner improving his or her principal place of residence is exempt from licensure if all of the following exist: The work is performed prior to sale; The homeowner resides in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work; and, A5-13 8/5/2008 ...... The homeowner has not taken advantage of this exemption on more than two structures during any three-year period. Are there any trades that property owners are prohibited from performing themselves? Property owners are prohibited from performing well-drilling work covered under the C-57 Well Drilling classification. Does the owner/builder exemption apply to an individual who builds homes for resale (spec homes) and are there any limitations? Yes. The owner/builder exemption would apply to an individual who builds homes for resale under any of the following conditions: Licensed tradesmen are hired to perform all work on the project (provided no more than four structures per calendar year are intended for resale). A licensed general contractor is hired to perform and/or subcontract the completion of all work on the project. (No restriction on the number of structures completed per calendar year.) The owner/builder performs the work, all or in part, and resides in the completed structure for one year prior to resale. (Applies to not more than two structures in a three-year period.) (For more information regarding owner/builder, see section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code or The Risks of Being an Owner/Builder under the "Consumers" section of this website.) A5-14 8/5/2008 Michie's Legal Resources § 7044. Property owner making own improvements This chapter does not apply to any of the following: (a) An owner of property, building or improving structures thereon, or appurtenances thereto, who does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation, provided none of the structures, with or without the appurtenances thereto, are intended or offered for sale. (b) An owner of property, building or improving structures thereon, or appurtenances thereto, who contracts for such a project with a subcontractor or subcontractors licensed pursuant to this chapter. However, this exemption shall apply to the construction of single-family residential structures only if four or fewer of these structures are intended or offered for sale in a calendar year. This limitation shall not apply if the owner of property contracts with a general contractor for the construction. (c) A homeowner improving his or her principal place of residence or appurtenances thereto, provided that all of the following conditions exist: The work is performed prior to sale. (2) The homeowner has actually resided in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work. (3) The homeowner has not availed himself or herself of the exemption in this subdivision on more than two structures more than once during any three-year period. In all actions brought under this chapter, proof of the sale or offering for sale of any such structure by the owner-builder within one year after completion of same constitutes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that such structure was undertaken for purposes of sale. Except as otherwise provided in this section, proof of the sale or offering for sale of five or more structures by the owner-builder within one year after completion constitutes a conclusive presumption that the structures were undertaken for purposes of sale. In addition to all other remedies, any (1) licensed contractor, or association of contractors, (2) labor organization, (3) consumer affected by the violation, (4) district attorney, or (5) the Attorney General, shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief prohibiting any violation of this chapter by an owner-builder who is neither licensed nor exempted from licensure by this section or any other section according to the provisions specified in Section 7028.3 or Section 7028.4. The plaintiff in any such action shall not be required to prove irreparable injury and shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in the prosecution of such action, provided the plaintiff is the prevailing party. The defendant in any such action, shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in the defense against such action, provided the defendant is the prevailing party. The registrar pursuant to Section 7090 may take disciplinary action as provided in this chapter against any person whenever the grounds or cause for disciplinary action arose upon any project undertaken by him or her as a licensee licensee pursuant to this chapter. Any person, firm, or corporation which has violated Section 7028 by engaging in contracting work as an owner-builder without having a license or an exemption from licensure under this section or any other section shall not be entitled to become a licensee under this chapter for a period of one year following the violation. Added Stats 1981 ch 1124 § 10. Amended Stats 1988 ch 1035 § 1.3. A5-15 http://michie.lexisnexis.com/california/lpext.dll/cacontr/6/c8d/c90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{1.008}/14/2008/e90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{1.008}/14/2008/e90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{ OWNER/BUILDER VERIFICATION SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING 976 OSOS STREET * ROOM 200 * SAN LUIS OBISPO * CALIFORNIA 93408 * (805) 781-5600 Promoting the Wise Use of Land + Helping to Build Great Communities OWNER-BUILDER VERIFICATION Attention Property Owner: An 'owner-builder' building permit has been applied for in your name and bearing your signature. Please complete and return this information in the envelope provided at your earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary delay in processing and issuing your building permit. No building permit will be issued until this verification is received. 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement (yes or no) _____ I (have/have not) _____ signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 2. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction: 3. Name ______Address/City ______Phone _____ Contractors License No. ______ 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise, and provide the major work: Name _____ Address/City _____ Contractors License No.____ 5. I will provide some of the work but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated: Address Phone Type of Work Name Signed: Property Owner: Date____ OWNER/BUILDER VERIFICATION 9. HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL? FINDINGS 1. Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe environment for schools in San Luis Obispo County. 2. The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Crisis Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed.
F4:
While the project is important in addressing the short term needs of the participating agencies, it is not a permanent solution. All local governments in the County will need to develop long term strategies to address future water needs and threats to current supplies. The Jury found that many of the existing water resource planning documents are outdated.
F5:
Many consumers will be facing significant water rate increases to pay for the project's construction and ongoing operation and maintenance. Most of the agencies involved in the project will be combining project costs with costs for their current water systems. Over time, it may be difficult for consumers to identify which portion of their water bill is being used to actually fund the project.
F6:
The project may have "growth inducing" effects and the governing bodies for the participating agencies will have to recognize and address this potential.
F7:
The project will have to use eminent domain to acquire portions of the necessary right-of- way. Project managers will have to address citizen resentment inherent in this legal process to avoid the potential for project delays.
F8:
BUILDING PERMITS PROCESS, PROBLEMS AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FINDINGS
F9:
HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL? FINDINGS
F13:
REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NO RESPONSES REQUIRED
F14:
CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY FROM THE INSIDE CONCLUSION After several visits and interviews with question and answer periods, the Grand Jury concludes that CMC is well managed. Staff appeared professional in performing their duties. Moreover, we observed staff and inmates showing respect for one another. With the overcrowding and the antiquated facility, the Grand Jury concludes CMC functions well in part because of inmate cooperation and well trained staff. Our community should be pleased to know that CMC is providing rehabilitation programs. All at CMC should be commended for creating such a positive prison environment. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED
F15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL CONCLUSION While the overcrowding has been a major problem for several years, it is the Grand Jury's opinion that the facility continues to operate efficiently. The chart above provides a summary of Average Daily Population and highlights the ongoing chronic overcrowding problem. The County must find the necessary funds to construct the new Women's Jail and Medical facility. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED
F16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS FINDINGS The Grand Jury found the short term holding cells within the County of San Luis Obispo to be clean, well maintained and professionally managed. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED
F18:
F ATASCADERO October 17, 2008 The Honorable Martin Tangeman, Justice Superior Court of California 1035 Palm Street, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 RE: City of Atascadero's Response to the 2007/2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report - Building Permits - Process, Problems, and Fiscal Implications Dear Judge Tangeman: This letter is provided in response to the Grand Jury's June 19, 2008 letter from Maryellen R. Simkins requesting the City's response to Recommendation #2 of the Building Permit report. This response represents that of the City Council as well as the Community Development Department, which includes Planning and Building. It is based on research conducted by City staff on the recommendation and related issues. The City of Atascadero responds to building code violations on a complaint basis. This City policy is the preference of the City Council and is necessitated by a lack of enforcement staff. Code violations are handled by the Fire Department's Code Enforcement Official who is also the Fire Marshal. The Code Enforcement Official is the only person assigned to investigate code violations and is currently handling a backlog of enforcement cases. The Building Inspectors provide back-up on routine investigations of unpermitted work and will initiate code violation investigations when they become aware of unpermitted work occurring. City staff and the City Attorney are currently reviewing the financial structure of code enforcement. The City's experience has been that the code enforcement program often requires the involvement of the City Attorney and is a very expensive process. The City is currently reviewing cost recovery options to help defray the cost of code enforcement operations. Typically, code enforcement cost recovery involves staff logging time spent on an enforcement case and then requiring the violator to reimburse the City for this cost. 6907 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 FAX (805) 461-7612 The Honorable Martin Tangeman, Justice October 17, 2008 Thank you for providing the City of Atascadero with the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury's report. I can be reached at 470-3400 if you have any questions. For technical questions regarding the City's enforcement process, I would suggest you contact Warren Frace, Community Development Director at 470-3488 or Kurt Stone, Fire Chief at 470-3326. Sincerely, Mike Brennler Mayor B.K. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES "The Pass of the Oaks" September 10, 2008 Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 Attention: Maryellen R. Simkins, Foreperson Ms. Simkins: The City of Paso Robles would like to acknowledge its receipt of your June 19, 2008 "Building Permits – Process, Problems and Fiscal Implications." The information provided in the narrative has significant relevance for anyone considering a construction project. It is important that consumers understand the process and the problems that can occur when they are not adequately informed about, or are inexperienced with the construction process. The City of Paso Robles believes in the principle of responsible government. We go to great lengths to work with our citizens to achieve equitable building practices and responsible costs. An example is the streamlining meeting for permit application and processing we conducted this spring. We invited architects, developers, ntractors and homeowners to gather their ideas on how to make the process more efficient. It was well attended and we have incorporated many of the suggestions into our processes. The City has reviewed the Grand Jury suggestions noted on pages 11 and 12 of the report, and initiated internal follow up meetings to review procedures regarding discovery and enforcement with respect to work performed without benefit of a building permit. The City's inspectors routinely investigate excavations, material drops and construction activity to ensure proper permits are in effect. Later this year, the City will conduct a cost study to assess and update costs and users fees throughout the City. This will include the fees associated with the building process. This endeavor is consistent with the City's economic policy that requires development to cover its associated costs and all City programs to be fiscally neutral. We, in the Building Division, know that effective enforcement of the building codes has a direct effect on the safety of our citizens. Therefore we thank you for your taking time to review our processes, the positive comments we received and for your continued dedication to the people of San Luis Obispo County. Sincerely, . Clyde Ganes Deputy Building Official City of El Paso de Robles 1000 SPRING STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 • www.prcity.com COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL (3) CONTACT/PHONE (1) DEPARTMENT (2) MEETING DATE Vincent Morici (805) 781-5020 Administrative Office August 5, 2008 (4) SUBJECT Submittal of Board of Supervisors' recommended responses to a Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications" (5) SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Grand Jury released a report on June 24, 2008 dealing with the building permits, process, problems and fiscal implications that identified three findings and two recommendations. The Grand Jury has directed that the San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department and the Board of Supervisors respond to both recommendations in the report. (6) RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that your Board of Supervisors adopts the attached Planning and Building Department response to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications", as the Board of Supervisor's response to the Grand Jury and forward the responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Grand Jury. (9) ANNUAL COST (10) BUDGETED? (7) FUNDING SOURCE(S) (8) CURRENT YEAR COST ⊠ N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes (11) OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT (LIST): The County Planning and Building Department developed information used in the preparation of this response to the Grand Jury Report. (12) WILL REQUEST REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF? No Yes, How Many? Permanent ____ Limited Term ___ Contract ____ Temporary Help ___ (14) LOCATION MAP (15) Maddy Act Appointments Signed- (13) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) off by Clerk of the Board Attached N/A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, All (17) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS (16) AGENDA PLACEMENT Contracts (Orig + 4 copies) Consent Hearing (Time Est. _____) Resolutions (Orig + 4 copies) N/A Ordinances (Orig + 4 copies) Board Business (Time Est. ) Presentation (19) APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUIRED? (18) NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? N/A N/A 4/5th's Vote Required Number: ____ Attached Submitted (22) Agenda Item History (21) W-9 (20) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR) N/A Date____ No Yes 19000557 (23) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW A5-1 8/5/2008 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 OF OBISPC Board of Supervisors To: DAVID EDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR From: Vincent Morici, Administrative Analyst August 5, 2008 Date: Responses to 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report - "Building Permits - Subject: Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications" RECOMMENDATION The Board of Supervisors adopts the attached Planning and Building Department response to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications", as the Board of Supervisor's response to the Grand Jury and forwards the responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Grand Jury. DISCUSSION: The Grand Jury issued a report on June 24, 2008 dealing with the building permits, process, problems and fiscal implications that identified three findings and two recommendations (see attached Grand Jury report). The Grand Jury has directed that the San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department and the Board of Supervisors respond to both recommendations in the report. The Grand Jury also requested that the Atascadero Planning and Building Department and the Atascadero City Council respond to Finding Number 2. The response by the City of Atascadero provided as a separate submittal directly to the Grand Jury and Presiding Judge. The Planning and Building Department is the organization that manages the County's building and land use permit processes. The Department has provided a response to the Grand Jury report. Staff has reviewed the response by the Planning and Building Department and recommends that your Board adopt the Department's response as the Board of Supervisors response to the Grand Jury report. A copy of the Grand Jury Report and the response by the Planning and Building Department is attached. The Grand Jury report addresses the concerns related to individuals who build new or remodeled structures without the appropriate county building permits. It also addresses issues related to the use of unlicensed contractors by individuals who undertake construction as "owner/builder". The Grand Jury recommendations contained in their report are shown below along with the recommended Board of Supervisors response. Finding No. The County Building and Planning Department does not adequately inform property owners obtaining an Owner/Builder permit about the construction quality, legal and financial risks associated with these permits. A5-2 8/5/2008 Grand Jury Recommendation No. The County Planning and Building Departments should include a CSLB pamphlet on the legal and financial risks associated with Owner/Builder permits in every property owners permit package. (Finding #1) Recommended Board of Supervisors Response Adopt the response from the County Planning and Building Department as the Board of Supervisors response. The Planning and Building Department disagrees with the contention in Finding Number 1 and identifies that department follows all legal procedures for signature and disclosure on all permit documents and Health and Safety Code notifications. The Planning Department will implement the recommendation to provide additional information associated with the requirements related to "owner/builder". The package of information will include a link to the Contractors State Licensing Board that also includes warnings and advisories to owner to individuals who intend to carry out construction as an "owner/builder." Finding No. The County and cities may derive financial benefit by adopting procedures that discover non-permitted work and calculate the impact on permit fees and taxes. The Paso Robles Code Enforcement Division is currently checking for un-permitted work being performed. Grand Jury Recommendation No. The County and Cities should evaluate the financial benefit of identifying non-permitted work and its impact on permit fees and taxes. (Finding #2) Recommended Board of Supervisors Response Adopt the response from the County Planning and Building Department as the Board of Supervisors response. The County Planning and Building Department identifies that there is insufficient information available to evaluate the true extent of building done without permits and therefore it is not possible to correlate the effect on permit fees and taxes. The County Planning and Building Department also identifies the processes that the department uses to address construction done without permits as well as the priorities of the code enforcement division with regard to their work in enforcing San Luis Obispo County's building and land use codes. It is noted that the department investigated 204 cases which resulted in individuals being required to obtain the appropriate building and grading permits. OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT The County Administrative Office reviewed the recommended responses with the staff in the Planning and Building Department. A5-3 8/5/2008 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The minor expenses associated with development of informational materials as identified in the first recommendation of the Grand Jury and the Planning and Building Department expenses for enforcement activities are already contained in the department's adopted budget. RESULTS Adoption of the findings and recommendations will fulfill the County's obligation to respond to Grand Jury reports as specified in Section 933 of the Penal Code. Attachments Letter Dated from The County Planning and Building Department to the Presiding Judge. Grand Jury Report A5-4 8/5/2008 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING VICTOR HOLANDA, AICP DIRECTOR August 5, 2008 Honorable Martin Tangemen, Presiding Judge Superior County of California, San Luis Obispo County 1035 Palm Street, Suite 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Response to Grand Jury Report 2007/2008 – "Building Permits – Process, Subject: Problems and Fiscal Implications" Honorable Judge Tangemen: In accordance with the required responses as detailed on of the above report: Finding 1. The County Building and Planning Department does not adequately inform property owners obtaining an Owner/Builder permit about the construction quality, legal and financial risks associated with these permits. Recommendations 1. The County Planning and Building Departments should include a CSLB pamphlet on the legal and financial risks associated with Owner/Builder permits in every property owners permit package. (Finding #1) Response The County disagrees with finding #1. The County follows the required legal procedures for signature and disclosure on all permit applications and per Health and Safety Code 19830 & 31, requires a notification form and a completed verification form for applicants taking out permits as owner-builders. We will increase our "standard of care" to provide additional information to our "owner/builder" customers. Effective August 1, 2008 we will provide a package of information to all owner/builder permit applicants. The package and a link to the Contractors State License Board website will also be available on the Planning and Building Department website (see attached). Finding The County and cities may derive financial benefit by adopting procedures that discover non- permitted work and calculate the impact on permit fees and taxes. The Paso Robles Enforcement Division is currently checking for un-permitted work being performed COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO California 93408 (805) 781-5600 . EMAIL: planning@co.slo.ca.us FAX: (805) 781-1242 WEBSITE: http://www.sloplanning.org A5-5 8/5/2008 Response To Grand Jury Recommendations 2. The County and cities should evaluate the financial benefit of identifying non- permitted work and its impact on permit fees and taxes. (Finding #2) Response The County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding because there is not accurate information available to evaluate the amount of unpermitted work and consequently impossible to correlate the impact on permit fees and taxes. Unpermitted construction, when identified by staff through observations or constituent complaint, is always investigated. Additional fees and often fines are assessed. In the case of repeat offenders prosecution is sought. If licensed professionals have done the unpermitted construction we file a complaint with the State Contractor's Licensing Board and seek prosecution through the office of the District Attorney. Fees charged for building permits are based on the actual staff time required to process the permits and to complete the required inspections. Work that is done without a proper building permit has no time requirements of department staff and therefore there is no impact on the department budget due to uncollected fees. When unpermitted work is discovered the appropriate fees are collected at that time to cover staff time. This would also trigger a reassessment of property taxes, development impact fees and school fees. The San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building Code Enforcement unit's area of responsibility covers approximately 3,360 square miles (3,500 sq. mi. – 7 cities of 20 sq. mi. each = 3,360 sq. mi.), including 12 unincorporated communities and a population of over 120,000. The unit consists of six investigators and a supervisor, and in a given year conducts over 1,000 investigations in addition to community cleanups and special projects. By comparison, the City of Paso Robles, with an area of 20 square miles and a population of under 30,000 has three code enforcement officers, a supervisor and the assistance of the police department. The County Code Enforcement effort is triage-weighted in order of: Public safety Substandard living conditions Irreparable environmental damage Other Housing Code violations Building Code violations Other environmental crimes Land use violations Vehicle Abatement Staffing resources and other priorities do not allow us to specifically target unpermitted construction. Nevertheless in fiscal year 2007/08, 204 "as-built" and "expired permit" cases were investigated and required to obtain building and grading permits. While we A5-6 8/5/2008 Response To Grand Jury . have not kept a tally of the fees, it is very safe to say that at least $250,000 was paid that would have otherwise gone unrealized. It is the Department's policy to put priority on issues of public safety and orderly community development, not revenue generation. Consequently it is unlikely that, given our limited resources, any special program, other than an amnesty period, would be considered in the near future. Finding 3. We were informed by a County Planning and Building official during the fact check that beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009, permit fees will be based on a "cost recovery" system related directly to the department's operation budget. Response No response required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-5600. Sincerely, Victor Holanda Victor Holanda, AICP Director Department of Planning and Building A5-7 8/5/2008 OWNER BUILDER INFORMATION SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING 976 Osos Street • Room 200 • San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805) 781-5600 Promoting the Wise Use of Land • Helping to Build Great Communities Dear Property Owner: An application for a building permit has been submitted in your name listing yourself as the builder of the property improvements specified. For your protection you should be aware that as 'owner-builder' you are the responsible party of record on the permit. Building permits are not required to be signed by property owners unless they are personally performing their own work. If your work is being performed by someone other than yourself, you may protect yourself from possible liability if that person applies for the proper permit in his or her name. Contractors are required by law to be licensed and bonded by the State of California and to have a business license from the city or county. They are also required by law to put their license number on all permits for which they apply. If you plan to do your own work, with the exception of various trades that you plan to subcontract, you should be aware of the following information for your benefit and protection: If you employ or otherwise engage any persons other than your immediate family, and the work (including materials and other costs) is $500 or more for the entire project, and the persons are not licensed as contractors or subcontractors, then you may be an employer. If you are an employer, you must register with the state and federal government as an employer and you are subject to several obligations including state and federal income tax withholding, federal social security taxes, workers' compensation insurance, disability insurance costs, and unemployment compensation contributions. There may be financial risks for you if you do not carry out these obligations, and these risks are especially serious with respect to workers' compensation insurance. For more specific information about your obligations under federal law, contact the Internal Revenue Service (and, if you wish, the U.S. Small Business Administration). For more specific information about your obligations under state law, contact the Department of Benefit Payments and the Division of Industrial Accidents. If the structure is intended for sale, property owners who are not licensed contractors are allowed to perform their work personally or through their own employees, without a licensed contractor or subcontractor, only under limited conditions. A frequent practice of unlicensed persons professing to be contractors is to secure an 'owner-builder' building permit, erroneously implying that the property owner is providing his or her own labor and material personally. Building permits are not required to be signed by property owners unless they are performing their own work personally. Information about licensed contractors may be obtained by contacting the Contractors' State License Board's automated telephone information system at 1-800-321-CSLB (2752) or by accessing their Web site at www.CSLB.ca.gov. Please complete and return the enclosed owner-builder verification form so that we can confirm that you are aware of these matters. The building permit will not be issued until the verification is returned. OWNER BUILDER INFORMATION Owner/builders take note! A word of caution from the Contractors State License Board Anyone who talks you into being your own general contractor, or Hiring an unlicensed "owner/builder," may be doing you no favor. "consultant" to manage "Owner/builder" describes a situation in which the homeowner becomes the project does not the general contractor. As an owner/builder, you (not the person you save you money hire) assume responsibility for the overall job. in the long run. Your responsibilities may include such things as state and federal taxes, By hiring a licensed workers' compensation insurance, and other legal liabilities. You may be experienced contractor required to hire various subcontractors for your project, scheduling their for your project to hire work and supervising the job. If a worker is injured while working on licensed knowledgeable your property, you could be asked to pay for injuries and rehabilitation tradespersons, the through your homeowner's insurance policy. contractor becomes responsible for all By signing a building permit application as an owner/builder, you phases of construction. assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. Hiring an unlicensed "consultant" to manage the project does not save you money in the long run. By hiring a licensed experienced contractor for your project to hire licensed knowledgeable tradespersons, the contractor becomes responsible for all phases of construction. Unless you are very experienced in construction, it is best to leave these matters to your licensed contractor. 6/04 CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 (800) 321-CSLB FAX (916) 255-1395 www.cslb.ca.gov A5-9 8/5/2008 . A Warning about being your own Contractor (Owner/Builder) Homeowners can face very serious legal and financial problems if they choose to try to save money by acting as their own contractor. The term for this is owner/builder. If the homeowner chooses to be an owner/builder, they become an employer and must: Provide workers compensation insurance and withhold payroll taxes if they hire any unlicensed contractors; • Be responsible for making sure the job is done properly. If any of the construction doesn't pass building inspections, the homeowner is responsible for correcting the work; Make sure all contractors and material • suppliers are paid, or mechanic's liens may be filed against your property. Even though you may have paid your roofing contractor in full, a mechanic's lien could lead to the sale of your property in order to pay a bill for services on your property that was not paid by your contractor. It is not illegal for a homeowner to act as an owner/builder. But, unless you have a lot of experience in construction, the CSLB recommends that it's best to hire a legitimate, licensed expert. A5-10 8/5/2008 · . WHAT IS AN OWNER/BUILDER? This section defines what an owner builder is and the laws surrounding the practice. An owner/builder is what the term indicates. The person owns the property and acts as their own general contractor on the job and either does the work themselves or has employees (or subcontractors) working on the project. The work site must be their principal place of residence that they have occupied for 12 months prior to completion of the work. The homeowner cannot construct and then sell more than two structures during any three-year period. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN OWNER/BUILDER. This section outlines the job responsibilities of a property owner when they decide to handle their own construction projects as an owner/builder. When you sign a building permit application as an owner/builder, you assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. You must pull all building permits. Your project must pass codes and building inspections. The owner/builder is responsible for ordering materials and making sure all suppliers are paid. An owner/builder is also responsible for supervising, scheduling and paying subcontractors. If you use anyone other than your immediate family or a licensed subcontractor for work, you may be considered an "employer". Employers must register with the state and federal governments and are obligated to participate in state and federal income tax withholding, federal social security taxes, workers' compensation insurance, disability insurance costs, and unemployment compensation contributions TIP For more specific information about your obligations under federal law, contact the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040 [and, if you wish, the A5-11 8/5/2008 . ' U.S. Small Business Administration at (800) 359-1833]. For more specific information about your obligations under state law, contact the Employment Development Department at (916) 653-0707, the Department of Industrial Relations at (415) 703-5070, and the Franchise Tax Board at (800) 852-5711. THE DOWNSIDE OF BEING AN OWNER/BUILDER This section presents some additional issues that should be taken into consideration before deciding to become an owner/builder. Unless you are knowledgeable about construction, mistakes can be costly and take additional time to repair or do it right. Subcontractors and suppliers who are not paid on schedule may file mechanic's liens against your property. Educate yourself about mechanic's liens and how to prevent them. If your workers are injured, or your subcontractors are not licensed or do not carry liability insurance or worker's compensation and they are injured, you could be asked to pay for injuries and rehabilitation through your homeowner's insurance policy or face lawsuits. You should be cautious of unlicensed individuals claiming to be contractors who prey upon homeowners. They may promise to guide you through the owner/builder process for a consulting fee, but they are breaking the law. ✓ REMEMBER As an owner/builder, you assume full responsibility for all phases of your project and its integrity. Licensed contractors must demonstrate knowledge of their craft, be tested, fingerprinted, bonded and FBI background checked before they are licensed to work in California. Illegal contractors can bungle a job or skip with the down payments leaving the owner/builder pretty much on their own to deal with the issue. A5-12 8/5/2008 This section provides answers to questions regarding owner/builder's and briefly describes the laws surrounding the practice. Who is considered an owner/builder? Any individual, or group of individuals, who own the property on which they plan to construct, alter, repair, improve, or remodel a building or structure. Also, a tenant may be considered an owner/builder (case-by-case). Is an owner/builder required to have a license? An owner/builder is exempt from licensure, but there are limitations. A license is not required if: The owner/builder does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation and the structure(s) is/are not intended for sale. The owner/builder contracts with properly licensed subcontractor(s). (This exemption applies to the construction of a single- family residential structure and limits the number of structures intended or offered for sale to four or fewer in a calendar year.) The owner/builder contracts with a general building ("B") contractor. (The number of structures is then unlimited.) Is a homeowner required to obtain a license if he/she wants to improve his/her home? A homeowner improving his or her principal place of residence is exempt from licensure if all of the following exist: The work is performed prior to sale; The homeowner resides in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work; and, A5-13 8/5/2008 ...... The homeowner has not taken advantage of this exemption on more than two structures during any three-year period. Are there any trades that property owners are prohibited from performing themselves? Property owners are prohibited from performing well-drilling work covered under the C-57 Well Drilling classification. Does the owner/builder exemption apply to an individual who builds homes for resale (spec homes) and are there any limitations? Yes. The owner/builder exemption would apply to an individual who builds homes for resale under any of the following conditions: Licensed tradesmen are hired to perform all work on the project (provided no more than four structures per calendar year are intended for resale). A licensed general contractor is hired to perform and/or subcontract the completion of all work on the project. (No restriction on the number of structures completed per calendar year.) The owner/builder performs the work, all or in part, and resides in the completed structure for one year prior to resale. (Applies to not more than two structures in a three-year period.) (For more information regarding owner/builder, see section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code or The Risks of Being an Owner/Builder under the "Consumers" section of this website.) A5-14 8/5/2008 Michie's Legal Resources § 7044. Property owner making own improvements This chapter does not apply to any of the following: (a) An owner of property, building or improving structures thereon, or appurtenances thereto, who does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation, provided none of the structures, with or without the appurtenances thereto, are intended or offered for sale. (b) An owner of property, building or improving structures thereon, or appurtenances thereto, who contracts for such a project with a subcontractor or subcontractors licensed pursuant to this chapter. However, this exemption shall apply to the construction of single-family residential structures only if four or fewer of these structures are intended or offered for sale in a calendar year. This limitation shall not apply if the owner of property contracts with a general contractor for the construction. (c) A homeowner improving his or her principal place of residence or appurtenances thereto, provided that all of the following conditions exist: The work is performed prior to sale. (2) The homeowner has actually resided in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work. (3) The homeowner has not availed himself or herself of the exemption in this subdivision on more than two structures more than once during any three-year period. In all actions brought under this chapter, proof of the sale or offering for sale of any such structure by the owner-builder within one year after completion of same constitutes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that such structure was undertaken for purposes of sale. Except as otherwise provided in this section, proof of the sale or offering for sale of five or more structures by the owner-builder within one year after completion constitutes a conclusive presumption that the structures were undertaken for purposes of sale. In addition to all other remedies, any (1) licensed contractor, or association of contractors, (2) labor organization, (3) consumer affected by the violation, (4) district attorney, or (5) the Attorney General, shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief prohibiting any violation of this chapter by an owner-builder who is neither licensed nor exempted from licensure by this section or any other section according to the provisions specified in Section 7028.3 or Section 7028.4. The plaintiff in any such action shall not be required to prove irreparable injury and shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in the prosecution of such action, provided the plaintiff is the prevailing party. The defendant in any such action, shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and all costs incurred in the defense against such action, provided the defendant is the prevailing party. The registrar pursuant to Section 7090 may take disciplinary action as provided in this chapter against any person whenever the grounds or cause for disciplinary action arose upon any project undertaken by him or her as a licensee licensee pursuant to this chapter. Any person, firm, or corporation which has violated Section 7028 by engaging in contracting work as an owner-builder without having a license or an exemption from licensure under this section or any other section shall not be entitled to become a licensee under this chapter for a period of one year following the violation. Added Stats 1981 ch 1124 § 10. Amended Stats 1988 ch 1035 § 1.3. A5-15 http://michie.lexisnexis.com/california/lpext.dll/cacontr/6/c8d/c90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{1.008}/14/2008/e90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{1.008}/14/2008/e90/c93/c96/c99/e4f/e81?f=templates \cite{ OWNER/BUILDER VERIFICATION SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING 976 OSOS STREET * ROOM 200 * SAN LUIS OBISPO * CALIFORNIA 93408 * (805) 781-5600 Promoting the Wise Use of Land + Helping to Build Great Communities OWNER-BUILDER VERIFICATION Attention Property Owner: An 'owner-builder' building permit has been applied for in your name and bearing your signature. Please complete and return this information in the envelope provided at your earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary delay in processing and issuing your building permit. No building permit will be issued until this verification is received. 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement (yes or no) _____ I (have/have not) _____ signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 2. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction: 3. Name ______Address/City ______Phone _____ Contractors License No. ______ 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise, and provide the major work: Name _____ Address/City _____ Contractors License No.____ 5. I will provide some of the work but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated: Address Phone Type of Work Name Signed: Property Owner: Date____ OWNER/BUILDER VERIFICATION 9. HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL? FINDINGS 1. Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe environment for schools in San Luis Obispo County. 2. The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Crisis Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that all County schools re-evaluate their Emergency Crisis Plans with input from parents, staff and local fire and law enforcement departments. This process of re-evaluation should be ongoing. (Findings No. 1 & 2) REQUIRED RESPONSES A Response to the recommendation is required from each of the following: San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools • Superintendent of the following School Districts: - Lucia Mar Unified - Shandon Unified - Templeton Unified - Atascadero Unified - San Miguel Joint - Grizzly Challenge Charter - Bellevue - Santa Fe Charter - Cayucos Elementary - San Luis Coastal Unified - Coast Unified - Paso Robles Joint Unified - Pleasant Valley Joint Union Atascadero Unified School District 5601 WEST MALL • ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 DISTRICT OFFICE (805) 462-4200 • FAX (805) 462-4421 254 No. May 6 19 H John Rogers, Superintendent October 3, 2008 Foreperson Maryellen R. Simkins San Luis Obispo Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Foreperson Simkins: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report "How Prepared is Your School?". Atascadero Unified School District's staff concurs with the findings of the report as they relate to Emergency Crisis Response Plans in county public schools. The Grand Jury recommends that all county schools reevaluate their emergency crisis plans with input from parents, staff and local fire and law enforcement. Further, the Grand Jury recommends that this process of reevaluation should be ongoing. We appreciate the notation in the report that identifies Atascadero High School as having the most comprehensive plan in the county. The plans represent a lot of hard work on the part of staff, and includes individual action plans to address medical emergencies, violence and criminal activities, shelter in place/evacuation, facility emergencies and student welfare problems. In addition, we have revised several other safety plans, not just at AHS, but all school sites. At the County Superintendents' meeting in August the issue of coordinating districts to share information on safety plans was discussed. As always we are ready to assist other districts if asked and continue to reflect on our plans and our procedures in an effort to ensure the highest degree of student and staff safety possible. We appreciate the hard work that the Grand Jury did in compiling this report. Of the many topics available for selection by the Grand Jury, the selection of this one gives evidence that the concern over student safety is shared by everyone in our communities, not just the schools. Respectfully submitted, John Rogers John Rogers, Superintendent Atascadero Unified School District DEDICATED TO STUDENTS ~ COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE Carrisa Plains School • Creston Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary • San Benito Road Elementary San Gabriel Road Elementary • Santa Margarita Elementary • Santa Rosa Academic Academy Atascadero Fine Arts Academy · Atascadero Junior High School · Atascadero High School Del Rio Continuation High School . West Mall Alternative School . Atascadero Adult School BK CAYUCOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 301 CAYUCOS DRIVE CAYUCOS, CALIFORNIA 93430 Telephone (805) 995-3694 September 24, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report on Emergency Crisis Response Plans Judge Tangeman; The Cayucos Elementary School District is in receipt of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury's report on School's Emergency Crisis Response Plans. After careful review of the report and the recommendations presented, I can assure you that CESD has a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan that meets all of the state and federal mandates for planning and training of school district staff and students. Our plan is in compliance with all SIMS/NIMS requirements. Annually a full-scale emergency drill is conducted in the district with local public agencies that includes the entire district staff, parents, and students as well as adjoining school districts, the County Office of Education and numerous adjunct county agencies. These drills are evaluated by outside public safety personnel and recommended changes are implemented where necessary. In addition the CESD Health and Safety Committee annually reviews, evaluates, and modifies the CESD School Safety Plan. Training of staff is determined by this annual review. Sincerely, George Erdelyi Supt./Principal CESD Cc: CESD Board of Trustees file COAST UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1350 Main Street Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Com 1350 Main Street Cambria, California 93428 (805) 927-3880 FAX: (805) 927-7105 July 11, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report on Emergency Crisis Response Plans Judge Tangeman; The Coast Unified School District is in receipt of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury's report on School's Emergency Crisis Response Plans. After reviewing the report and the recommendations presented, I can assure you that the Coast Unified School District has a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan that meets all of the state and federal mandates for planning and training of school district personnel and students. The plan is in compliance with all SIMS/NIMS requirements. Annually a full-scale emergency drill is conducted in the district with local public safety agencies that includes the entire district administrative staff, teachers/aides, parents, and students. These drill are evaluated by outside public safety personnel and recommended changes are evaluated and implemented where necessary. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance to you or the Grand Jury, I may be reached at (805) 927-3693. Sincerely, Denis M. de Clercq District Safety Officer Cc: District Superintendent File SLO Grand Jury B.K. Office of the Superintendent 602 Orchard Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 474-3000 Ext.1080 FAX (805) 481-1398 UCIA MAR UNIF CHOOL DISTRICT October 13, 2008 The Honorable Martin Tangeman Presiding Judge Superior Court of California 1035 Palm Street, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Judge Tangeman: This letter is submitted in response to the findings and recommendations included in the section "How Prepared Is Your School?" from the 2007-2008 Grand Jury report. The District has reviewed the report and appreciates the Grand Jury's interest and suggestions for improving emergency crisis response plans for the students in our county. The Lucia Mar Unified School District has a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan responsive to state and federal requirements. Emergency drills are practiced at all sites throughout the school year and the District participates in annual emergency drills with the County of San Luis Obispo Office of Emergency Services, County Office of Education, and also works with local fire and law enforcement departments. We agree that the process of re-evaluation of emergency preparedness should be ongoing and will continue efforts to improve and implement changes when necessary. Thank you for your time and recommendations on behalf of our students and staff. If you have any questions or if I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me at (805) 474-3000, ext. 1080. Sincerely, PASO ROBLES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Kathleen McNamara, Ed. D., Superintendent 800 Niblick Road, P.O. Box 7010 • Paso Robles, CA 93447 Tel (805) 238-2222 • Fax (805) 237-3339 • www.pasoschools.org TRUSTEES Jeanne Dugger Pat Johnson W. Jay Packer Joe E. Quiroz Debi Saunders Robert Simola, Ph.D. July 1, 2008 Ruben F. Tate, Jr. San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 To Whom It May Concern: PLEASANT Joint Union School 805-467-3453 7000 Ranchita Canyon Road San Miguel, California 93451 EST. 1884 September 17, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report on Emergency Crisis Response Plans Honorable Judge Tangeman, The Pleasant Valley Joint Union Elementary School District is in receipt of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury's report on Schools Emergency Crisis Response Plans. I can assure you that Pleasant Valley's comprehensive school safety response plan meets requirements specified by all agencies. Annually, in September, a full scale emergency drill is conducted in the district with California Department of Forestry, County Sheriff, and County safety personnel present to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of our plan. The entire school district is involved in the drill. The drill is evaluated by staff and outside agencies to continue to modify and change, if needed, to make it the most comprehensive and effective plan in place. We follow up with monthly fire drills, including duck and cover practices. Our school also has an intruder on campus drill once a year with entire district participation in the drill. If you have questions or if I can be of any further assistance to you or the Grand Jury I can be reached at school (805)467-3453. Sincerely, 1.00 ALC: Y Tom Apkarian The Court of the Participation and Superintendent SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEADERSHIP . COMMUNITY . SERVICE JULIAN D. CROCKER, SUPERINTENDENT October 24, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Judge Tangeman: I am writing in response to the Findings and Recommendation of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury report, "How Prepared is Your School?" dated June 19, 2008. Finding 1: Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe environment for schools in San Luis Obispo County. Response: I agree that Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe school environment for students and staff. All school districts in the county have been required to develop and implement plans that comply with the Incident Command System (ICS) and Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The current national standard is the National Incident Management System (NIMS) based on the models cited. These components are the guides that we use for our plans. I am confident that the Superintendent and the Board of Trustees of each of the ten school districts in our county and the County Office of Education are committed to providing a safe environment for students and staff and strongly believe that a Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan is critical to accomplishing this task. Finding 2: The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed. Response: I acknowledge the variation among the Emergency Response Plans for the ten school districts in the county. While we strive for conformity as much as possible, I also recognize that the variation in size, geography and facility configuration of each district dictates a Plan that is reflective of local circumstances. For example, one district may rely on one law enforcement agency, while others coordinate with multiple agencies due to boundary configurations. Adherence to the NIMS model noted above provides commonality among the districts. ■ 3350 EDUCATION DRIVE ■ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ■ 805-543-7732 ■ FAX 805-541-1105 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Page Two October 24, 2008 Recommendation: The Grand Jury recommends that all County schools re-evaluate their Emergency Crisis Plans with input from parents, staff and local fire and law enforcement. This process of re-evaluation should be ongoing. (Findings No. 1 & 2) Response: My office will work with the ten school schools districts in the county to implement this recommendation. For example, the topic of emergency planning is a regular topic of discussion in the Risk Management Committee (RMC) of the Schools Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE), the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for worker compensation coverage for the ten school districts, the County Office of Education and Cuesta Community College in the county. Also, On October 22, 2008, my office convened and hosted a Safe School Planning Workshop for local school districts and law enforcement. Twenty eight people attended the workshop. A copy of the announcement is attached. Please contact me if you need additional information or clarification. Sincerely, Julian D. Crocker County Superintendent of Schools Safe School Planning WORKSHOP Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:15 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. SLOCOE Board Room Fee: $20 Presenters: Bill Spencer - Trainer, School/ Law Enforcement (Includes materials/lunch) Partnership; Director, Student Services, Paso Robles JUSD Bob Velasquez - Resource Officer, PRJUSD 8:15 - 8:30 Registration/Networking & Paso Robles Police Dept Linda Sargent - Consultant, School/Law 8:30 - 2:30 Safe School Planning Enforcement Partnership, ▶ Creating a Planning Team ▶ Reviewing your School Safety Plan ▶ Revising the Plan to meet the March 1st Annual Review Deadline 2:30 - 3:30 School Crisis Response OVERVIEW Preparing for a Possible Crisis ▶ Linking the Safe School Plan to the Crisis Response Plan Audience: A School Site Administrator and/or a Safety Team representative should attend this training. PLEASE bring a copy of your school site's Safe School Plan! This training will review the requirements for developing a comprehensive safe school plan as required in Education Code (EC) section 35294.2(I)(b). This training will provide tools for a site representative to convene a safety meeting and update the site plan. The Safe School Plan must be evaluated and amended not less than once per year (by March 1st); and is a required part of the yearly School Accountability Report Card (SARC) as mandated by Education Code (EC) 33126 and 35256 (completed in July). Registration Deadline: OCTOBER 17, 2008 Method of Payment: Check # PO# (FAX REGISTRATION BEFORE SUBMITTING TO YOUR BUSINESS DEPT. FOR PAYMENT) Make checks or purchase orders payable to SLOCOE and return to: Jacki Seibert, SLOCOE, Educational Services fax 594-0739, jseibert@slocoe.org, 782-7262, Name: Position: District/School/Organization: Telephone: _____ FAX: _____ E-mail: _____ Questions? Contact Christine Envart-Elfers Prevention & Community Partnerships SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYOFFICE OF EDUCATION 782-7284, cenvart@slocoe.org LEADERSHIP #COMMUNITY #SERVICE Julian D. Grocker, Superinterstant B.K. San Luis Coastal Unified School District 1500 Lizzie Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3062 (805) 549-1200 EDWARD T. VALENTINE, Ed.D., Superintendent phone (805) 549-1334 fax (805) 549-9074 email: district@slcusd.org November 12, 2008 Maryellen Simkins, Foreperson San Luis Obispo Grand Jury PO Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Madam Foreperson and Members of the Grand Jury: I'm sorry not to have responded sooner. Our office staff does not have a record of receiving the report. We share the Grand Jury's understanding that emergency response plans are essential to maintaining a safe school environment. To that end, each school site has its own safety plan which is coordinated with the overall district safety plan. Appropriate drills related to a variety of potential emergencies are conducted and evaluated each year. In addition to drills, we have had several incidents of phone threats regarding weapons or explosives which have prompted live responses. Thankfully, those incidents have proven to be hoaxes, but the responses were real. We have learned from each incident and conducted formal debriefings following each. Those experiences keep us from complacency with our procedures. Each year, all school sites are required to review and revise their school safety plans. Principals are provided all of the relevant Education Codes regarding their responsibilities for annual review. The review is conducted through each school's School Site Council which consists of parents, teachers, classified staff and, in secondary schools, students. A form with the principal's signature and the signature of the School Site Council President verifying the review is submitted each year to our Student Services Department. As a result, we respond as follows to the Grand Jury Report: Findings 1. Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe environment for schools in San Luis Obispo County Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. AND PROPERTY SERVICE ALTERNATION OF THE SALE AND THE SALE OF THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE SALE AND THE S Maryellen Simkins, Foreperson San Luis Obispo Grand Jury November 12, 2008 2. The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Crisis Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed. Response: Our plans were not reviewed by the Grand Jury, nor did we review the plans of other districts. As a result, the Grand Jury's conclusion is beyond our scope of knowledge. That said, we strive to improve our plans each time we review them which lends credence to the notion that the quality and comprehensiveness of all plans is a work in progress. With that qualification, the respondent is comfortable in agreeing with the finding. Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that all County schools re-evaluate their Emergency Crisis Plans with input from parents, staff and local fire and law enforcement departments. This process of re-evaluation should be ongoing. Response: As described above, the recommended review occurs annually. Signed verification of each site's review is due to the Student Services Department by March 1 of each year. Fire and law enforcement personnel are familiar with our plans, participate in selected drills and, as noted, have performed live services during threatened emergencies. We are comfortable that the recommendation has been implemented per the included summary. I thank the Grand Jury for its interest in this important topic and for its work to improve the safety of children in our schools. Respectfully, Chuard T. Valen EDWARD T. VALENTINE, Ed.D. Superintendent EV:mkh TEMPLETON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT "Home of Tomorrow's Leaders" 960 Old County Road Templeton, CA 93465 (805) 434-5800 FAX (805) 434-5879 October 17, 2008 Foreperson Maryellen R. Simkins San Luis Obispo Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Foreperson Simkins: This letter is in response to the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report "How Prepared is Your School?" The Templeton Unified School District would like to thank you for your work on this most important subject. We are always concerned for the welfare of our students and staff. It is reassuring to know that others share our concerns. We are well aware that, unfortunately, the world we live in now is not the same world most of us grew up in. Violence in the school environment has become a very real possibility and we all need to be prepared to handle it. In addition to that, there are a multitude of other emergency situations that could threaten the safety of our students and staff. There are several ways in which we address this need. First of all, we have compiled a comprehensive "Multi-Hazard Action Plan" that forms the basis of our emergency procedure guidelines. This plan outlines detailed procedures for 14 possible emergency scenarios, including Earthquake, Fire, Lockdown, Bomb Threat/Explosion, Hazardous Materials and others. In addition, the Multi-Hazard Action Plan contains staff assignments. organizational charts, incident classifications and emergency phone numbers for staff and local agency responders. A copy of our Multi-Hazard Plan was filed with the SLO County Sheriff's Department. Each school site holds emergency drills monthly, two of which are shelter-in- place or lockdown drills. All of these drills are evaluated by site administrators using a standardized evaluation form. Once a year we hold a district-wide earthquake drill. Our Sheriff's Department Resource Officer and the Templeton Fire Chief take part in this drill and provide feedback from a local responder point of view and recommend changes, if necessary. All of our emergency actions are managed using the National Incident Management System which assures that we will be able to effectively network and communicate with any outside emergency responders that may be required to assist us. The Templeton Unified School District adopted the National Incident Management System (NIMS) on August 16, 2006 by Board Resolution #07-04 and all administrators are trained and certified to the NIMS IS-700 level. While it is absolutely vital that we are prepared for a variety of emergencies, it is also imperative that we address the prevention of emergencies whenever possible. Obviously we cannot predict or prevent an earthquake, but we can prevent fires with good housekeeping, facility inspections and preventative maintenance. We also feel we can prevent some emergencies/crimes that might be perpetuated by individuals. To that end we have taken proactive measures to head off and hopefully prevent such an occurrence in our district. We are proud of the Intervention Programs that we have in place. Our staff is sensitive to signs from students that reveal a possible danger to themselves or others and aggressively pursue remediation, including risk assessments when warranted. In addition, our counseling department has an "open door" policy giving students access to services any time of the day. It also has an extensive referral list for students and families needing outside assistance. Finally, the district maintains a "Crisis Team" which mobilizes all district counselors, our psychologist and other staff trained in crisis intervention, to any site when needed. We, at the Templeton Unified School District, are confident that the efforts we have put into emergency planning has prepared us to effectively handle a wide variety of possible emergencies should they occur at our school sites. Sincerely, skeiger Bill Schassberger District Safety Coordinator Cc: Deborah Bowers, Ed.D., Superintendent, T.U.S.D. SLO Grand Jury Julian Crocker, Ed.D., County Superintendent of Schools B.K San Miguel Joint Union School District Lillian Larsen School Cappy Culver School Truth 1601 "I." Street 11011 Heritage Ranch Loop Road San Miguel, CA. 93451 Paso Robles, CA 93446 (805) 467-3216, Fax (805) 467-3410 Wisdom (805) 227-1040, Fax (805) 227-1045 Knowledge "Pointing the Way to Excellence" Responsibilitu September 15, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Honorable Judge Tangeman: The San Miguel Joint Union School District (SMJUSD) has received the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury's Report on School Emergency Crisis Response Plans. As superintendent of SMJUSD, I can assure you that the District has a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan that meets all of the State and Federal mandates for planning and training of District personnel and students. The plan is in compliance with the NIMS / SIMS requirements. Each year emergency drills are conducted that involve the entire district staff, teachers / paraeducators and students. The local fire departments also take part in some of the drills. The emergency drills are evaluated by the fire departments and staff. The evaluation of the Emergency Preparedness Plan is ongoing. Recommendations are evaluated and implemented as necessary. If you have any question or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at (805) 467- 3216 x204. Sincerely, all Dean Smith Superintendent / Principal Cc: File Grand Jury Jack Wood, Director of MOT, SMJUSD Board of Trustees: Meg Brooks, Rob Roberson, John Green, Mary Jo Del Campo, Janet Gamez Superintendent Dean Smith HAND DINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC 101 SOUTH FIRST STREET, P.O. BOX 79, SHANDON, CA 93461 MR. CHRIS CRAWFORD TELEPHONE (805) 238-0286 SUPERINTENDENT FAX (805) 238-0777 July 8, 2008 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury, The Shandon Joint Unified School District takes the safety of students and staff very seriously. The District annually reviews and updates the Shandon Emergency Crisis Plan utilizing input from staff, parents, students, fire and law enforcement departments. The school sites run monthly drills to test the effectiveness of the plan and documents those drills. Annually, a disaster is simulated to determine the preparedness of staff and students. Then the school's staff spend time analyzing the drill and fine-tuning the plan. This process is essential in assuring the safety of all. Thank you for spending time to assure the safety of all students in San Luis Obispo County. Chris Crawford Superintendent 10. WHERE CAN I PARK MY MOTORCYCLE? FINDINGS 1. The City does not allow motorcycles to park in city public parking structures. 2. The City has stated there are technical concerns in allowing motorcycle access into the parking structures. RECOMMENDATION 1. The City should review its procedures to accommodate safe and equal access for motorcycles in City parking structures. (Finding 1) REQUIRED RESPONSES 1. San Luis Obispo City Council 2. San Luis Obispo City Administrator PZ city of san luis obispo OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 805/781-7119 The Honorable Martin Tangeman, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California 1035 Palm Street, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 2007-08 Grand Jury Report – Where Can I Park My Motorcycle? Subject: Dear Judge Tangeman, The San Luis Obispo City Council discussed the Grand Jury Report titled "Where Can I Park My Motorcycle?" at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 2008. The City Council appreciates the work of the members of the Grand Jury on this report and its focus on motorcycle parking in the downtown. The City Council directed staff to respond to this report accordingly. In accordance with Penal Code §933(c), the following is the City of San Luis Obispo City Council's response to the 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report Grand Jury Finding 1: The City does not allow motorcycles to park in city public parking structures. The City does not dispute this finding because it is correct. The City's policy of restricting motorcycles in the parking structures has been in place for a very long time. The restriction was placed because of potential safety issues stemming from the inability of the parking structure's gate arm detection systems to efficiently identify a motorcycle as they enter and exit the structures. Grand Jury Finding 2: The City has stated there are technical concerns in allowing motorcycle access into the parking structures. The City disagrees with this finding. It is more than a technical concern; it is a concern for the safety of motorcyclists and their passengers due to mechanical inabilities of the gate arm system to assure safe passage through the gates. In the pavement ahead of each gate arm, there are inductive loops that detect cars and trucks and command the gate arm to safely come up and go back down. This detection equipment has significant limitations in accurately executing the up and down commands when motorcycles pass over the loops. It is further complicated due to the varied use of aluminum and other metallic parts used in motorcycles that increase the difficulty of the loops to detect them. This loss or lessened "detection" is very significant because the gate arm can come down prematurely and strike the operator (or passenger) of the motorcycle causing injury or loss of control. While the detection equipment can determine that a motorcycle is present it cannot adequately detect when the motorcycle leaves the loop location - causing the gate arm to come down prematurely. The detection equipment can be adequately adjusted for 1 city of san luis obispo most cars and trucks, but it cannot be adjusted well enough to ensure the safety of motorcyclists, or for staff to relax the restriction on motorcycle parking in the structures. Grand Jury Recommendation 1: The City should review its procedure to accommodate safe and equal access for motorcycles in City parking structures. Staff routinely reviews its parking structure practices and policies based on regular feedback. The structure access controls (or gate arm systems) are manufactured by Federal APD Inc. who was contacted during and after the Grand Jury investigation. Unfortunately, they cannot guarantee that the detection systems in use can adequately pick up motorcycles such that we would consider revising our current policy. Staff checked again with Federal APD as part of preparation for this report to find out if there have been recent changes that would allow motorcycles in our structures. They responded with the following: "Federal APD requires that no motorcycles, bicycles or pedestrians traverse a traffic lane in which a barrier gate is controlling ingress or egress. This warning is clearly indicated on the warning labels placed both on the gate cabinet and gate arm. The lane's operation is controlled by a series of inputs from vehicle loop detectors that are essentially ferrous metal detectors. They detect a metal surface area passing through the electromagnetic field of the loop detector. If the metal surface area is irregular (like a motorcycle) or basically non-existent (as with a pedestrian or bicycle), the loop detector may not detect the object at all, or, detect but prematurely lose the detection of the object's presence. Based upon where this occurs within the current lane workflow, the result could vary from nothing happening to the gate arm prematurely lowering." Federal APD Inc. also provided us further documentation available on their website as a "Safety Notice" (Attachment 2). Without the assurance that the system can adequately address motorcycle safety concerns, allowing access could lead to injuries and possible city liability. In addition to this primary concern, the ramp gradients, raised ceramic markers used for channelization, and the slow operating speeds during peak egress periods are also problematic for motorcycle use of our parking structures. For these reasons, staff continues to recommend the City maintain its policy of no access in the parking structures for motorcycles. City of Sacramento Follow Up One of the main points of the Grand Jury report was that the City of Sacramento made changes in their parking structure to accommodate motorcyclists. Our staff followed up with the City of Sacramento Parking office on this arrangement. Sacramento did in fact agree to allow motorcycles in one of their parking structures for a period of time to see if it would work. However, after experiencing continued instances of gate arms coming down on motorcyclists and pedestrians near their entrance and exit gates, the City stopped this practice. They met with local AMA representatives who agreed that the arrangement was not safe. The City of Sacramento and the AMA agreed to accommodate motorcycle parking on the street near this structure at no cost. city of san luis obispo Current Motorcycle Parking Benefits The City does attempt to mitigate this restriction by providing alternative parking locations spread throughout the downtown area with special parking rates for motorcycles. In addition, motorcycle parking meters have been installed near the entrances to our Palm I and Marsh Street parking structures. Motorcyclists push a button to obtain their 1st 60 minutes free (as other vehicles do in the structures) and then pay for any additional time above the first 60 minutes. However, there is one significant difference in the rate; they pay a lower rate of $0.30 an hour as opposed to the $0.75 an hour for structure users. The primary difference between a structure user and a motorcyclist is that they have to pay at the beginning of their stay rather than paying at the end. While some may comment that this amounts to unequal treatment, staff believes that the lower hourly rate adequately compensates motorcyclists for their prepayment. Currently the City provides 31 motorcycle spaces in the Downtown in relation to 2,742 total parking spaces. These spaces are spread around the downtown to accommodate motorcycle parking. (See Attachment 3) Staff continues to monitor all motorcycle parking in the downtown and adds spaces as they are needed. While motorcycle parking is restricted in our parking structures due to safety concerns, there are many other benefits provided motorcyclists under our current programs that are not extended to cars and trucks. Lower Rates. Motorcycle meters are set at $0.30 an hour as compared to the higher 1. hourly parking rates of $0.75 and $1 an hour in the structures and metered spaces on our streets and parking lots. 2. Exclusive Parking. Motorcycle spaces are reserved exclusively for motorcycles and exclude cars and trucks from parking in these spaces. 3. More Parking Options. Motorcycles can park at the reserved motorcycle spaces and at any street or parking lot space. They can park at any regular space on street or in a parking lot. We even allow them to share parking spaces. Less Restrictive Time Limits. Most of our downtown motorcycle spaces are in the 2- 4. hour downtown commercial core where we want turn-over for customer parking. To accommodate long-term parking we have converted some motorcycle spaces to 10 hour metered parking. This is not offered to other long term parking customers who must park on the perimeter of the downtown. city of san luis obispo Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury's report. As demonstrated in the responses, we believe that the City is undertaking reasonable methods to both accommodate motorcycle parking and to ensure that they are protected from harm. Please contact me should you or any member of the Grand Jury have any additional questions. Sincerely, David F. Romero, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo . · · . . . . . 11. IT'S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S FIRE DEPARTMENT FINDINGS 1. The volume of non-fire related calls has become the primary service provided by the Fire Department. 2. The Fire Department has received approval and funding to hire an independent consulting firm to review the Master Plan and the Standards of Coverage. The review will include but is not limited to; Equipment and personnel needs • Current and future fire and emergency medical needs • Non-response related services such as prevention, training and administration 3. Other cities' have introduced an ambulance service to increase service levels while offsetting public safety costs. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Fire Department should use the results of the independent study to determine whether equipment and Fire Department personnel are appropriate to meet changing department service demands. (Finding #2) 2. The Fire Department should evaluate the benefits versus costs of adding an ambulance service. (Finding #3) REQUIRED RESPONSES A response to the recommendations is required from both of the following: • San Luis Obispo Mayor and City Council • San Luis Obispo City Fire Chief b.K. city of san luis obisp OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ■ 805/781-7119 November 12, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1055 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Judge Tangeman: I concur with the comments expressed by Fire Chief John Callahan. It is my belief that the Grand Jury's concerns will be addressed in the Fire Master Plan by the consultant CityGate. By completing an independent audit of the Fire Department and the community needs, recommendations will be presented to Council which will help Council to conclude whether equipment, deployment and Fire Department personnel are appropriate to meet changing service demands. Additionally this appraisal will allow Council to project future emergency loads within the City and where personnel and equipment should be located. I agree that at this time the Council should review the results of the Master Plan to ascertain if one of their recommendations would be the addition of an ambulance service provided by the Fire Department. The difficulty of starting a separate ambulance service within the City is clearly stated in Chief Callahan's letter. I, too, would like to thank the Grand Jury for its comprehensive review of the City's Fire Department. Sincerely, Land holomer David F. Romero Mayor 5 R city of san luis obispo FIRE DEPARTMENT 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 • 805/781-7380 "Courtesy & Service" November 12, 2008 Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman Superior Court of California 1055 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Judge Tangeman: First, I would like to thank the Grand Jury for the time they took to thoroughly examine the operations of the Fire Department; from interviews to touring the Department. Because of this I believe they have a good understanding of our procedures. This letter is the requested response to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations dated June 19, 2008. Recommendation 1 - The Fire Department should use the results of the independent study to determine whether equipment and Fire Department personnel are appropriate to meet changing department service demands. Response - On July 10, 2008 the City entered into an agreement with CityGate Corporation for the development of a Fire Master Plan. As part of the Master Plan a report will be developed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Fire Department's ability to provide fire and emergency services to the community based upon the characteristics and demographics of the City using nationally accepted methods and a computer model. This report will explain existing performance capabilities within the City, and propose alternatives for future growth. When completed, this report will provide the main tool to allow the Council to evaluate and make decisions about the distribution and concentration of resources, which include personnel and equipment. The Fire Department Master Plan is expected to be presented to City Council in January of 2009. Recommendation 2 - The Fire Department should evaluate the benefits versus costs of adding an ambulance service. Response - Because the Department is participating in an in-depth audit of its operations and this subject has been discussed with the consultant, the final Master Plan should determine if Fire-based ambulance service is advised. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Presiding Judge Martin Tangeman November 12, 2008 Staff believes this is unlikely for the following reasons: The costs of adding an ambulance service operated by the Fire Department would far exceed revenues for years. The costs would include more personnel, equipment, and either expansion of stations or construction of new ones. This would be a burden to the already taxed City's financial situation. The current ambulance provider is in contractual agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to provide ambulance services to our citizens. Providing a separate ambulance service would take years to complete and would be a long and difficult process. As part of the County contract, the City receives reimbursement from the local • ambulance provider for first-response emergency medical services provided by this fire department in connection with emergency calls for medical assistance. First-response emergency medical services provided include, but are not limited to, initial stabilization and trained on-scene assistance, assistance en-route to medical facilities as required, and extrication/rescue services. I want to thank the Grand Jury once again for taking an interest in this department and the vital services we provide. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 805-781-7390. Sincerely, Cellalia John Callahan Fire Chief . 12. ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES – WHAT'S GOING ON? FINDING The Jury was limited in its efforts to objectively and thoroughly review the Animal Services Division. Of particular importance were meetings held by the County that discussed current problems and potential solutions. While County staff may have had the legal authority to deny the Grand Jury's request to attend these meetings, not being able to hear these discussions firsthand definitely impacted the Jury's ability provide adequate oversight necessary to fully respond to the complaints. The meetings in question were: The Ad Hoc Group asked Jury members not to attend their meetings thereby limiting access to the material and relevant information needed for its investigation. The Grand Jury was barred from attending the HSUS exit briefing which would have • provided the Jury with an independent, first-hand view of shelter issues and HSUS suggested solutions. RECOMMENDATION The Board of Supervisors should take steps to facilitate Grand Jury access to proceedings of the Board and its agencies where parallel reviews are taking place. The Jury should not be viewed as an adversary on these occasions rather as the county's watchdog doing its job to provide independent and objective evaluation of county government. REQUIRED RESPONSE A Response to the recommendation is required from the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL (2) MEETING DATE (3) CONTACT/PHONE DEPARTMENT Administrative Office Leslie Brown (805) 781-5011 July 22, 2008 (4) SUBJECT Response to the June 12, 2008 Grand Jury Report "Animal Services - What's Going On?" (5) SUMMARY OF REQUEST On June 12, 2008, the Grand Jury released a report titled "Animal Services – What's Going On?" addressing complaints received from citizens relating to operations and personnel at the County's animal shelter. The Grand Jury made one finding and one recommendation and has required the Board of Supervisors to respond to the recommendation. The attached report provides the recommended response for Board adoption. (6) RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that your Board: 1) Adopt the responses in this report as the Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report on San Luis Obispo County Animal Services, and 2) Direct staff to forward the adopted responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. (7) FUNDING SOURCE(S) (8) CURRENT YEAR COST (9) ANNUAL COST (10) BUDGETED? N/A N/A N/A No Yes N/A (11) OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT (LIST): None (12) WILL REQUEST REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF? X No. Yes, How Many? Permanent Limited Term Contract Temporary Help (13) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) (14) LOCATION MAP (15) Maddy Act Appointments Signed-off by Clerk of the Board 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, All Attached X N/A 1st. (N/A) (16) AGENDA PLACEMENT (17) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS Consent Hearing (Time Est. _____) Resolutions (Orig + 4 copies) Contracts (Orig + 4 copies) X N/A Presentation Board Business (Time Est. Ordinances (Orig + 4 copies) 18) NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? (19) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED? X N/A N/A Attached Submitted 4/5th's Vote Required Number: (20) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR) (21) W-9 (22) Agenda Item History Yes NA N/A Date_ No (23) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW This item was prepared by the Administrative Office. A4-1 7/22/2008 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 DAVID EDGE TO: Board of Supervisors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Leslie Brown, Administrative Analyst DATE: July 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Response to the June 12, 2008 Grand Jury Report "Animal Services - What's Going On?" Recommendation: It is recommended that your Board adopt the responses in this report as the Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report on San Luis Obispo County Animal Services. It is further recommended that the adopted responses be forwarded to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Discussion: On June 12, 2008, the Grand Jury released a report addressing complaints received from citizens relating to operations and personnel at the County's animal shelter. Specifically, the concerns as perceived by the complainants related to the treatment of animals in the shelter including: medical treatment, abuse of animals by Honor Farm inmates, infractions of compliance with the Hayden Law related to the state mandated euthanasia protocol, personnel issues and a lack of standard operating procedures. In it's report, the Grand Jury commended the County for forming an "Ad Hoc Group" to work on solutions to issues raised by volunteers at the shelter, and commended the Sheriff and Animal Services Manager for initiating an agreement with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to conduct an outside evaluation of the Animal Services operation. However, the Grand Jury concluded that it was unable to either substantiate or refute the allegations primarily because it was not allowed to sit in on two of the many meetings County personnel and animal services volunteers have had. The Jury contends that because it was not permitted to attend an October 2007 meeting of the "Ad Hoc Group" or the verbal debrief of preliminary findings of the HSUS evaluation, it was limited in its ability to objectively examine and report on the concerns about Animal Services Division. Further, the Grand Jury did interview attendees from both meetings but considered their testimony as "hearsay", which they do not consider to carry the same weight as direct testimony and is "difficult to validate." (The definition of "hearsay evidence" in the 2006 edition of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary A4-2 7/22/2008 is "testimony based on what a witness heard from another person rather than on direct personal knowledge or experience.") As a result of this report, the Grand Jury made one finding and one recommendation. The Grand Jury has required the Board of Supervisors to respond to the recommendation. Finding: The Jury was limited in its efforts to objectively and thoroughly review the Animal Services Division. Of particular importance were meetings held by the County that discussed the current problems and potential solutions. While County staff may have the legal authority to deny the Grand Jury's request to attend these meetings, not being able to hear these discussion firsthand definitely impacts the Jury's ability (to) provide adequate oversight necessary to fully respond to the complaints. The meetings in question were: The Ad Hoc Group asked Jury members not to attend their meetings thereby limiting access to the material and relevant information needed for its investigation. The Grand Jury was barred from attending the HSUS exit briefing which would have provided the Jury with an independent first hand view of shelter issues and HSUS suggested solutions. Response to Finding The Board disagrees with this finding. While it is true that the Grand Jury's requests to attend the two meetings in question were denied, the Board believes that there were many more avenues available to the Grand Jury to gather information to 'objectively and 'thoroughly' review the claims being made by the complainants, such as: Make successive visits to the shelter to observe the day to day operations with their own eyes. (Apparently, the Jury did make one site visit, but the results of this visit are not described in the report.) Review records maintained by the Animal Services Division (ASD) related to the euthanasia procedure to assess compliance with the Hayden Law. Subpoena and interview members of the AD Hoc Group about the issues raised • and the strategies that will be employed to address them. Attend or request minutes of the Animal Services Volunteer Advisory Group meetings. This group was created in late February 2008 as a result of discussions by the AD Hoc Group to improve communication and teamwork between Animal Services personnel and volunteers. Until the final HSUS report was available, there had been no professional, third party evaluation as to the quality of animal care and shelter management at Animal Services Division. Nonetheless, had the Grand Jury utilized such strategies to obtain more information, they may have discovered that, whether or not the allegations made by some of the volunteers were based in fact, Animal Services has taken these issues A4-3 7/22/2008 seriously and has made substantial progress in developing systems and processes to improve the results for the animals in the shelter and for the community as a whole. In addition, the statement in the Grand Jury report that "A review of these minutes (from the October and January AD Hoc Group meetings) showed that the AD Hoc Group had not specifically addressed many of the complaint issues described in Appendix A of this report." is not accurate. The minutes from these meetings revealed that in fact the AD Hoc Group did discuss the very issues cited in Appendix A. A copy of a memo Supervisor Patterson sent to the Board of Supervisors and Legislative Assistants, dated February 28, 2008 was provided to the Grand Jury and substantiates this. This memo (copy attached) provided a summary of the AD Hoc Group discussions and the corrective actions that have been or will soon be put in place to address these issues. This memo was not referenced in the Grand Jury's report. Many of the corrective action plans were developed by the Animal Services Manager in collaboration with the Volunteer Advisory Committee after the AD Hoc Committee completed their three meetings and would have been important to follow-up on and note in the Grand Jury's report. In fact, most of the progress made at the County shelter has been made since the AD Hoc Group held its final meeting (January 2008). The Grand Jury request to attend the debrief of the HSUS site visit was denied in part based on information from the HSUS that these debriefs often encompass discussion about specific personnel issues. Neither the County nor the HSUS deemed it appropriate for Grand Jury members to attend this debrief meeting due to this fact. Further, the information provided in the debrief was preliminary and not complete - the findings and recommendations from the HSUS evaluation were not fully fleshed out and finalized until the written report was completed. The Grand Jury has access to this written report, as does the public, now that it has been released. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors should take steps to facilitate Grand Jury access to proceedings of the Board and its agencies where parallel reviews are taking place. The Jury should not be viewed as an adversary on these occasions rather as the county's watchdog doing its job to provide independent and objective evaluation of county government. Response to the Recommendation The recommendation is already implemented. The Grand Jury is not viewed as "an adversary" and appropriate access to proceeding is available to the Grand Jury. The Board does not agree that additional access is required for the Grand Jury to conduct careful and diligent investigations. Other Agency Involvement None A4-4 7/22/2008 Financial Considerations There are no financial considerations related to the Grand Jury Report findings and recommendations or the response to the findings and recommendations. Results Adoption of the finding and recommendation will fulfill the County's obligation to respond to Grand Jury reports as specified in Section 933 of the Penal Code. ATTACHMENTS June 12, 2008 Grand Jury Report on San Luis Obispo County Animal Services A4-5 7/22/2008 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1055 MONTEREY, ROOM D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 JAMES R. PATTERSON SUPERVISOR DISTRICT FIVE TO: Board of Supervisors and Legislative Assistants- James Patterson, 5th District Supervisor FROM: February 28, 2008 DATE: Informational Update on Activities on Behalf of Animal Services SUBJECT: Constituent/Volunteer Concerns: In response to concerns voiced by constituents and volunteers at the Animal Services shelter, Supervisors Jim Patterson and Bruce Gibson hosted a series of facilitated meetings to allow shelter volunteers to express their concerns and to work with staff to develop strategies to address their priority issues. The first of three meetings was held October 5, 2007. The key goals identified by the volunteers included: Consistent compliance with the Hayden Law – AB 1842 (This legislation went into effect July, 2001, to make public shelters more accountable and to give the public more time to find lost animals and more "work friendly" hours to go to the shelters. Subsequently, this Law also provided owner- surrendered animals the same amount of time - four to six business days, not including the day of impoundment - to remain alive before being eligible for euthanasia.) Responsible and involved management, with clear policies and procedures 2. Improved cleaning crew and quality of work (currently, cleaning is done by Honor Farm inmates) 3. Qualified and suitable staff at all levels of the Animal Services Division organization (staff in each position have the skills, knowledge and abilities required to perform successfully) Several of the solutions the volunteers called for have been (or are in the process of being put into effect): a) Rescue persons and organizations will now be contacted as soon as it becomes clear that the shelter is facing an overcrowding situation. This is intended to reduce the risk of euthanasia of eligible animals for the reason of making room for new intakes. b) A policy manual has been drafted, reviewed by SLOCEA, and will soon be distributed to ASD staff. A second version of this manual focusing on how the policies relate to volunteers is also under development, with support from John Schwind, Risk Management, and is expected to be released within the next few weeks. Together, these should clarify the role and responsibilities of both staff and volunteers. A4-6 7/22/2008 c) Standard operating procedures covering such processes as the animal intake process, animal evaluation (temperament testing), fostering and rescue of animals, medical rounds and information dissemination, infection and disease control, cleaning of cages and yards, feeding of animals, volunteer access to quarantined animals etc. are being developed by Dr. Anderson. This documentation process has begun and will continue in earnest upon release of the first draft of the Volunteer Policy. This effort is expected to improve conditions for staff, volunteers and the animals and diminish confusion, inconsistency, misinformation, etc. d) Dr Anderson now holds office hours two days a week to provide a standing time for volunteers to discuss concerns with him. One day of office hours will be held on the shelter side, which will also expand the time that he spends working in the shelter. To further create a venue for volunteer input and information sharing, a Shelter Team, comprised of e) the Animal Services Division Manager, the Animal Shelter Coordinator, and six volunteer representatives, has been established. Transition of Animal Services from Sheriff's Department Leslie Brown, Admin, has been heading up the research and information collection involved in identifying the best model for placing I structuring Animal Services Division (ASD) out of the Sheriff's Department. As part of the information gathering, focus groups with ASD staff and volunteers have been held to gather their concerns and ideas. Another component involves the shelter assessment by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This assessment; data compilation and public comment on-going since January and site visit scheduled for March 18-20th, will provide an external source of information as to the operations and conditions at the Shelter. Leslie intends to update the Board on the transition's progress and status at our March 25, 2008 Board meeting. Additionally, as the above activities have progressed, ASD staff recently expressed concern through their union representative about the role of volunteers, the access they have to staff work areas and the tensions that exist between some of the staff and volunteers. To respond to this, John Schwind has investigated this complaint and is leading the effort to establish a policy framework outlining the respective roles and responsibilities of the volunteers, facility access limitations; code of conduct, etc (see item 'b' above). This framework likely will change how the volunteers are used in shelter operations. John is trying to ensure that the respective roles and responsibilities of staff and volunteers ensure shelter safety for all and are supportive of the overall organization. He will be looking at volunteer programs and policies used by other County departments as well as other successful shelter operations. Attached is a Memo sent by the Animal Services Manager describing various initiatives underway, including some mentioned above. We want to keep you informed as we progress through these efforts in case you receive calls from volunteers, the press or other constituents. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my legislative assistant, Amy Gilman. . Cc: County Administrative Office County Grand Jury A4-7 7/22/2008 Eric Anderson/Sheriff/COSLO To ASD Staff, BOS Legislative Assistants, David Edge/Admin/COSLO@Wings, Gail Wilcox/Admin/COSLO@Wings, Deb 02/22/2008 10:54 AM CC bcc Subject Animal Services Update February 21, 2008 To: All Parties Interested in the Animal Services Division Transition From: Dr. Eric Anderson, Animal Services Manager Thank you all for your continued interest in the Animal Services Division of the SLO County Sheriff's Department. As you know, the Division is in a time of evaluation and transition, and I wanted to communicate to you about the various efforts we have commenced towards the improvement of our vital, effective Animal Care and Control operation. Through the course of 2007, a number of events have prompted renewed attention to the operations of the Animal Services Division (ASD). In late 2007 the Sheriffs Department announced that they will seek to relinquish control of the ASD and requested that the Board of Supervisors consider making Animal Services a stand-alone department. This has created an opportunity to revise and/or restructure the Animal Services Division and therefore an initiative is underway to evaluate and produce viable options. At the same time, there are the day-to-day matters of operating the facility that require immediate attention in order to ensure a safe workplace and effective animal care and control for the County. As you read about the efforts we have begun regarding the ASD, please keep in mind the context of any one effort. Some are aimed more at the long term restructuring of the Division, while others are focused on immediate needs. Please also know that your constructive input is valued for each initiative. There are four concurrent 'projects' presently underway: 1) HSUS evaluation, 2) Focus groups for transition, 3) Safety-driven Shelter Policy 4) Shelter SOPs. While these initiatives are all naturally intertwined, the latter two of these are intended to address the immediate needs for improved controls and safety at the facility. Any and all efforts are subject to review and revision as information and opinions about the final structure of Animal Services come into greater focus. As reported in the media recently, The Humane Society of the United States has begun an evaluation of the Division and specifically of the shelter operation. At this time, the HSUS is soliciting public comment and gathering background information. This process will be followed by a site visit on March 18-20, in which HSUS experts will take a closer look at all aspects of Animal Services' operations. This effort is aimed at establishing a baseline evaluation, recognizing those things we are doing well, identifying objectives for improvement, and recommending an organizational outline for the future ASD. Please note that this is the public comment period for this initiative, and anyone may submit written comments to HSUS by Monday February 25, 2008 to: Beau Archer, Shelter Services Coordinator, HSUS Animal Services Consultation at Fax 301-258-3081 or e-mail asc@humanesociety.org. A4-8 7/22/2008 13. REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 14. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY FROM THE INSIDE CONCLUSION After several visits and interviews with question and answer periods, the Grand Jury concludes that CMC is well managed. Staff appeared professional in performing their duties. Moreover, we observed staff and inmates showing respect for one another. With the overcrowding and the antiquated facility, the Grand Jury concludes CMC functions well in part because of inmate cooperation and well trained staff. Our community should be pleased to know that CMC is providing rehabilitation programs. All at CMC should be commended for creating such a positive prison environment. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 15. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL CONCLUSION While the overcrowding has been a major problem for several years, it is the Grand Jury's opinion that the facility continues to operate efficiently. The chart above provides a summary of Average Daily Population and highlights the ongoing chronic overcrowding problem. The County must find the necessary funds to construct the new Women's Jail and Medical facility. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED 16. SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS FINDINGS The Grand Jury found the short term holding cells within the County of San Luis Obispo to be clean, well maintained and professionally managed. NO RESPONSES REQUIRED
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
- • San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors 0 o San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department Recommendations #2 – • San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors BK. CITY OF ATASCADERO F 18 F ATASCADERO October 17, 2008 The Honorable Martin Tangeman, Justice Superior Court of California 1035 Palm Street, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 RE: City of Atascadero's Response to the 2007/2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report - Building Permits - Process, Problems, and Fiscal Implications Dear Judge Tangeman: This letter is provided in response to the Grand Jury's June 19, 2008 letter from Maryellen R. Simkins requesting the City's response to Recommendation #2 of the Building Permit report. This response represents that of the City Council as well as the Community Development Department, which includes Planning and Building. It is based on research conducted by City staff on the recommendation and related issues. The City of Atascadero responds to building code violations on a complaint basis. This City policy is the preference of the City Council and is necessitated by a lack of enforcement staff. Code violations are handled by the Fire Department's Code Enforcement Official who is also the Fire Marshal. The Code Enforcement Official is the only person assigned to investigate code violations and is currently handling a backlog of enforcement cases. The Building Inspectors provide back-up on routine investigations of unpermitted work and will initiate code violation investigations when they become aware of unpermitted work occurring. City staff and the City Attorney are currently reviewing the financial structure of code enforcement. The City's experience has been that the code enforcement program often requires the involvement of the City Attorney and is a very expensive process. The City is currently reviewing cost recovery options to help defray the cost of code enforcement operations. Typically, code enforcement cost recovery involves staff logging time spent on an enforcement case and then requiring the violator to reimburse the City for this cost. 6907 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 FAX (805) 461-7612 The Honorable Martin Tangeman, Justice October 17, 2008 Thank you for providing the City of Atascadero with the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury's report. I can be reached at 470-3400 if you have any questions. For technical questions regarding the City's enforcement process, I would suggest you contact Warren Frace, Community Development Director at 470-3488 or Kurt Stone, Fire Chief at 470-3326. Sincerely, Mike Brennler Mayor B.K. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES "The Pass of the Oaks" September 10, 2008 Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 Attention: Maryellen R. Simkins, Foreperson Ms. Simkins: The City of Paso Robles would like to acknowledge its receipt of your June 19, 2008 "Building Permits – Process, Problems and Fiscal Implications." The information provided in the narrative has significant relevance for anyone considering a construction project. It is important that consumers understand the process and the problems that can occur when they are not adequately informed about, or are inexperienced with the construction process. The City of Paso Robles believes in the principle of responsible government. We go to great lengths to work with our citizens to achieve equitable building practices and responsible costs. An example is the streamlining meeting for permit application and processing we conducted this spring. We invited architects, developers, ntractors and homeowners to gather their ideas on how to make the process more efficient. It was well attended and we have incorporated many of the suggestions into our processes. The City has reviewed the Grand Jury suggestions noted on pages 11 and 12 of the report, and initiated internal follow up meetings to review procedures regarding discovery and enforcement with respect to work performed without benefit of a building permit. The City's inspectors routinely investigate excavations, material drops and construction activity to ensure proper permits are in effect. Later this year, the City will conduct a cost study to assess and update costs and users fees throughout the City. This will include the fees associated with the building process. This endeavor is consistent with the City's economic policy that requires development to cover its associated costs and all City programs to be fiscally neutral. We, in the Building Division, know that effective enforcement of the building codes has a direct effect on the safety of our citizens. Therefore we thank you for your taking time to review our processes, the positive comments we received and for your continued dedication to the people of San Luis Obispo County. Sincerely, . Clyde Ganes Deputy Building Official City of El Paso de Robles 1000 SPRING STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 • www.prcity.com COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL (3) CONTACT/PHONE (1) DEPARTMENT (2) MEETING DATE Vincent Morici (805) 781-5020 Administrative Office August 5, 2008 (4) SUBJECT Submittal of Board of Supervisors' recommended responses to a Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications" (5) SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Grand Jury released a report on June 24, 2008 dealing with the building permits, process, problems and fiscal implications that identified three findings and two recommendations. The Grand Jury has directed that the San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department and the Board of Supervisors respond to both recommendations in the report. (6) RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that your Board of Supervisors adopts the attached Planning and Building Department response to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications", as the Board of Supervisor's response to the Grand Jury and forward the responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Grand Jury. (9) ANNUAL COST (10) BUDGETED? (7) FUNDING SOURCE(S) (8) CURRENT YEAR COST ⊠ N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes (11) OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT (LIST): The County Planning and Building Department developed information used in the preparation of this response to the Grand Jury Report. (12) WILL REQUEST REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF? No Yes, How Many? Permanent ____ Limited Term ___ Contract ____ Temporary Help ___ (14) LOCATION MAP (15) Maddy Act Appointments Signed- (13) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) off by Clerk of the Board Attached N/A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, All (17) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS (16) AGENDA PLACEMENT Contracts (Orig + 4 copies) Consent Hearing (Time Est. _____) Resolutions (Orig + 4 copies) N/A Ordinances (Orig + 4 copies) Board Business (Time Est. ) Presentation (19) APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUIRED? (18) NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? N/A N/A 4/5th's Vote Required Number: ____ Attached Submitted (22) Agenda Item History (21) W-9 (20) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR) N/A Date____ No Yes 19000557 (23) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW A5-1 8/5/2008 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 OF OBISPC Board of Supervisors To: DAVID EDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR From: Vincent Morici, Administrative Analyst August 5, 2008 Date: Responses to 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report - "Building Permits - Subject: Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications" RECOMMENDATION The Board of Supervisors adopts the attached Planning and Building Department response to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report titled "Building Permits - Processes, Problems and Fiscal Implications", as the Board of Supervisor's response to the Grand Jury and forwards the responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Grand Jury. DISCUSSION: The Grand Jury issued a report on June 24, 2008 dealing with the building permits, process, problems and fiscal implications that identified three findings and two recommendations (see attached Grand Jury report). The Grand Jury has directed that the San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department and the Board of Supervisors respond to both recommendations in the report. The Grand Jury also requested that the Atascadero Planning and Building Department and the Atascadero City Council respond to Finding Number 2. The response by the City of Atascadero provided as a separate submittal directly to the Grand Jury and Presiding Judge. The Planning and Building Department is the organization that manages the County's building and land use permit processes. The Department has provided a response to the Grand Jury report. Staff has reviewed the response by the Planning and Building Department and recommends that your Board adopt the Department's response as the Board of Supervisors response to the Grand Jury report. A copy of the Grand Jury Report and the response by the Planning and Building Department is attached. The Grand Jury report addresses the concerns related to individuals who build new or remodeled structures without the appropriate county building permits. It also addresses issues related to the use of unlicensed contractors by individuals who undertake construction as "owner/builder". The Grand Jury recommendations contained in their report are shown below along with the recommended Board of Supervisors response.
R2:
The OES should revise its alert information included in the telephone directory and other brochures and presentations to include NOAA Weather Radios. The OES should also encourage PG&E to include information on these radios in its public information about emergencies at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
R3:
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ...... 28
R4:
EMERGENCY ALERT RADIOS ....................................
R5:
PISMO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION....................................
R6:
SANTA MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT (ATASCADERO) ...... 34
R7:
THE FOOD BANK COALITION OF SLO COUNTY....... 40
R8:
BUILDING PERMITS .......41
R9:
HOW PREPARED IS YOUR SCHOOL? ...... 62
R10:
WHERE CAN I PARK MY MOTORCYCLE?......63
R11:
IT'S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S FIRE DEPARTMENT ............. 83
R12:
ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES – WHAT'S GOING ON...... PRISONS, JAILS & LOCAL LOCK-UPS:
R13:
REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS.......98
R14:
CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY FROM THE INSIDE .......99
R15:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL...... 100
R16:
SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS ...... INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
R18:
NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? (19) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED? X N/A N/A Attached Submitted 4/5th's Vote Required Number: (20) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR) (21) W-9 (22) Agenda Item History Yes NA N/A Date_ No (23) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW This item was prepared by the Administrative Office. A4-1 7/22/2008 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 DAVID EDGE TO: Board of Supervisors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Leslie Brown, Administrative Analyst DATE: July 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Response to the June 12, 2008 Grand Jury Report "Animal Services - What's Going On?" Recommendation: It is recommended that your Board adopt the responses in this report as the Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report on San Luis Obispo County Animal Services. It is further recommended that the adopted responses be forwarded to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The County Building and Planning Department does not adequately inform property owners obtaining an Owner/Builder permit about the construction quality, legal and financial risks associated with these permits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Planning and Building Departments should include a CSLB pamphlet on the legal and financial risks associated with Owner/Builder permits in every property owners permit package. (Finding #1)
F2:
The County and cities may derive financial benefit by adopting procedures that discover non-permitted work and calculate the impact on permit fees and taxes. The Paso Robles Code Enforcement Division is currently checking for un-permitted work being performed
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County and Cities should evaluate the financial benefit of identifying non-permitted work and its impact on permit fees and taxes. (Finding #2) 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report
F3:
We were informed by a County Planning and Building official during fact check that beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009, permit fees will be based on a “cost recovery” system related directly to the department’s operation budget.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The City does not allow motorcycles to park in city public parking structures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should review its procedures to accommodate safe and equal access for motorcycles in City parking structures. (Finding 1) 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report
F2:
The City has stated there are technical concerns in allowing motorcycle access into the parking structures.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The volume of non-fire related calls has become the primary service provided by the Fire Department.
F2:
The Fire Department has received approval and funding to hire an independent consulting firm to review the Master Plan and the Standards of Coverage. The review will include but is not limited to; • Equipment and personnel needs • Current and future fire and emergency medical needs • Non-response related services such as prevention, training and administration
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Fire Department should use the results of the independent study to determine whether equipment and Fire Department personnel are appropriate to meet changing department service demands. (Finding #2)
F3:
Other cities’ have introduced an ambulance service to increase service levels while offsetting public safety costs. Includes; minor collision, public assistance, electrical checks, public welfare checks, etc. 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Fire Department should evaluate the benefits versus costs of adding an ambulance service. (Finding #3)
F115:
In April 2003, the Department achieved one of the plans objectives by deploying at least one paramedic resource in every fire station district in the City. According to the Fire Watch newsletter, the Los Angeles Fire Department is pleased with the results of their EMS Plan. Los Angeles is able to cover the added costs in equipment by billing for the ambulance service.1 The West Covina Fire Department had 7,080 response calls during 2003-2004 which includes 5,907 medical emergencies. In order to help balance their budget in 2004, the West Covina Fire 1 May 2004 LA Fire Watch newsletter 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Report IT’S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S FIRE DEPARTMENT! Page: 4 Department began providing paramedic ambulance services when responding to medical calls in an effort to increase service levels while offsetting public safety costs. By combining ambulance transportation services with well positioned first responders staffing fire engines, service levels to the community have increased in a cost effective manner.2 West Covina used this system in concert with their City Council’s goal to balance their budget. The City of San Luis Obispo has sited its fire stations and selected its equipment, based on past studies that would support the arrival of emergency equipment to the call scene in under four minutes. San Luis Ambulance Service, Inc. provides transport when the medical emergency requires that the patient be taken to a local hospital. This service is not currently part of the Fire Department. In an August 1, 2007 article posted on the Fire Chief web site, Bruce Evans, (EMS Chief, North Las Vegas Fire Department) reviewed the dramatic changes taking place in EMS offered by Fire Departments. In reference to equipment used, Mr. Evans states “There may be fewer engines and more ambulances deployed in systems where fire-based EMS is the main provider. As engineering practices reduce fires and the baby boomers impact the health care system, look for officials to staff peak-load units in the fire service or convert engine companies to ambulance or rescue companies.” Recently the Chief submitted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fire Department Master Plan and Standards of Coverage3 which has been approved by the City Council. The RFP states: “Specifically, a Master Plan is needed which includes a Standards of Coverage analysis to provide an objective and systematic examination of the Department’s policies, practices, and activities in the context of the City’s growth in population and existing jurisdictional area. Moreover, the intent of this process will be to provide an evaluation by an independent source for the development of information to aid in policy direction for the Department’s growth and response to changing service demands related to current and future growth.”4 2 West Covina 2006 budget statement 3 See www.slocity.org/ 4 See www.slocity.org/ 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Report IT’S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S FIRE DEPARTMENT! Page: 5 The goal of the Standards of Coverage analysis is to determine the state of current and future fire and emergency medical service needs. The study will specifically look at the City’s demand with regard to fire stations, staffing and equipment location. CONCLUSIONS Service demands have changed for the Fire Department. Of the 4,356 calls processed by the Fire Department in 2007, only 188 calls (4%) were classified as structure fires. EMS/Rescue calls totaled 2,750; hazardous condition responses numbered 30, and the remaining calls were classified as “other responses”.5 The Master Plan Study and Standards of Coverage Component is intended to evaluate the Fire Department needs and its response to changing service demands related to current and future growth. FINDINGS 1. The volume of non-fire related calls has become the primary service provided by the Fire Department.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Being asked not to attend The Ad Hoc Group, resulting in the Jury’s inability to determine whether the Ad Hoc Group was effectively addressing the issues related to shelter operations and its personnel.
F2:
Being barred from attending the HSUS exit briefing by the County Administrator’s Office, resulting in the Jury’s inability to determine whether the HSUS audit had any
F3:
The on-going actions in response to the Ad Hoc Group’s recommendations
F4:
The Animal Services reorganization study
F5:
The final HSUS shelter report due to be published in July, 2008 FINDING The Jury was limited in its efforts to objectively and thoroughly review the Animal Services Division. Of particular importance were meetings held by the County that discussed current problems and potential solutions. While County staff may have had the legal authority to deny the Grand Jury’s request to attend these meetings, not being able to hear these discussions firsthand definitely impacted the Jury’s ability provide adequate oversight necessary to fully respond to the complaints. The meetings in question were:
F6:
The Ad Hoc Group asked Jury members not to attend their meetings thereby limiting access to the material and relevant information needed for its investigation. 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report
F7:
The Grand Jury was barred from attending the HSUS exit briefing which would have provided the Jury with an independent, first-hand view of shelter issues and HSUS suggested solutions.
F8:
The Ad Hoc Group asked Jury members not to attend their meetings thereby limiting access to the material and relevant information needed for its investigation. 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report
F9:
The Grand Jury was barred from attending the HSUS exit briefing which would have provided the Jury with an independent, first-hand view of shelter issues and HSUS suggested solutions.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Animal neglect, lack of medical treatment for animals and inhumane treatment of animals. - Many of the volunteers and some staff interviewed reported observing the following: • Cats often had no food or water • Cats were often dehydrated • Litter pans were piled, there was urine in the cage and blankets were dirty • Cats were found dead in their cages • Cats were not receiving proper medical care These conditions were reported to kennel workers, the Shelter Coordinator or the Shelter Manager. Corrective action was taken in some cases; however, the interviewees did not know the status of the corrective action in all cases. 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report
R2:
Honor Farm Inmates used at the shelter - Inmates are used at the shelter to clean cages and perform maintenance. The inmate program has been a long term problem at the shelter. The Jury was told that inmates are a challenge because many of them assigned to work at the shelter are not motivated and don’t want to be there. Most of the Honor Farm inmates have short sentences and are just serving out their time. However, replacing the work the inmates do at the shelter with paid shelter personnel would have a significant impact on the shelter budget. The Shelter Manager has made recommendations in the past to replace inmate labor with paid shelter staff; however, funds were never made available. Based on the information gathered in the interviews (volunteers and staff), there were two specific areas of concern about inmates: • Inmates are not adequately supervised while at the shelter • Inmates are not adequately trained to perform their cleaning duties Other problems with the inmates were also identified, but they were not observed on a frequent basis. Volunteers did make their concerns known to kennel staff. In most cases, corrective actions were not observed by the volunteers.
R3:
Hayden Law infractions (not following state mandated euthanizing procedures) - The Hayden Law was passed in 1988. The purpose of the law was to make animal shelters in California more accountable for humane treatment of animals. The law gives the public a longer time to find lost pets; established more convenient hours to visit the shelter; and provides that animals surrendered by their owners have four to six days to remain alive before being euthanized. Based on information from the interviews, all volunteers said they did not believe that the staff had a sufficient understanding of The Hayden Law and, in their opinion, the requirements under Hayden Law were not followed when euthanizing animals. Half of those interviewed said that they had sent letters or emails to shelter staff, the Undersheriff 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report and to the Board of Supervisors regarding potential violations of The Hayden Law. In most cases, they received no response. The Shelter Manager responded by saying: • that he knew the requirements under the Hayden Law and adhered to them. • that it is not within the job function of line staff (kennel workers) to be familiar with all of the regulations related to the operation of a public shelter. • that volunteers may have incomplete knowledge of the specific situations regarding animals being euthanized. Two other questions directed to volunteers concerning euthanizing animals included: • Are animals killed that should not be killed? • Are cats killed when kennel space is available? All the volunteers questioned said they had observed animals killed, some as many as 30- 50 while others observed just a few. October, 2007 seemed to have been a particularly bad month for cats being killed. Of those volunteers interviewed, most said animals were being killed unnecessarily. For the period 2004-2006, the number of animals euthanized at the shelter has increased somewhat: 380 in 2004, 452 in 2005, and 499 in 2006. In 2007, the number of animals euthanized decreased to 476. While the actual numbers of animals euthanized have increased for the period 2004-2006, so has the number of animals coming into the shelter. However, the number of animals euthanized at the shelter is down substantially from a high of 3,000 in 1998 to 900 in 2002. Data provided to the Grand Jury by the Sheriff’s Department show the annual percentage of animals euthanized in 2006 at the Animal Service Division (12.9%) was lower than that of twelve comparable counties in the state. The ratio of animals euthanized compared to the number of intakes has remained relatively constant for the period 2005-2007- (an average of 13%)
R4:
Personnel issues - Animal Services created a new Animal Shelter Coordinator position in August, 2007 to help meet the need of increasing numbers of animals admitted to the 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report shelter. The Jury reviewed the Shelter Coordinator’s job description which included a long list of responsibilities and duties. Interviewees (volunteers and staff) expressed concerns about the Shelter Coordinator’s work ethic and job knowledge. Specifically, they raised questions about the Shelter Coordinator’s job skills, organization skills, management skills and people skills. Based on the interview results, volunteers gave the Shelter Coordinator very low marks for these skills. They also attributed some of the shelter problems (animal neglect, inhumane treatment of animals, inmate issues and euthanizing animals) directly to the Shelter Coordinator. Others interviewed (staff) rated the Shelter Coordinator’s job knowledge and skills as well below average or did not answer these questions. Those interviewed did say that the Shelter Coordinator’s job responsibilities and duties were overwhelming for one person. The Animal Services Manager was accused of:
R5:
Lack of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) - There were no formal standard operating procedures in force at the Division of Animal Services at the start of the Jury’s review. The SOP’s are currently under development and review. The Jury was provided with a draft shelter policy and protocol manual index. The proposed policy manual will include the following five general areas: • General Provisions • General Operations • Administrative Services • Field Operations • Kennel Operations 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report The draft policy and protocol manual appeared to include the necessary policies to address most of the problem areas discussed in
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
City of Arroyo Grande Police Department 2. City of Pismo Beach Police Department 3. City of Grover Beach Police Department 4. City of Morro Bay Police Department 5. City of San Luis Obispo Police Department 6. City of Atascadero Police Department 7. City of Paso Robles Police Department 8. County of San Luis Obispo Superior Court 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report SHORT TERM HOLDING CELLS Page: 1 METHOD Members of the Grand Jury toured and inspected each of the City Police Departments and the Superior Court. Each inspection included a facility tour and an interview with the department staff. The Grand Jury was briefed on the department policies and procedures. Copies were made available to the Jury. Prisoners may be booked and released from the police departments or transported to the San Luis Obispo County Jail. This generally is a short process, and the prisoner may not actually be put into a holding cell during booking. In some situations the prisoner is taken directly to the Sheriff’s Department for booking. The holding cells within each of the listed facilities are intended for short term use, usually less than 6 hours. The actual holding cells use was found to be generally less than 2 hours. The Grand Jury found the holding cells to be clean and neat. In addition to the Grand Jury’s inspection, other inspections of the holding cells include: 1. Local department in-house inspections.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans are critical to providing a safe environment for schools in San Luis Obispo County.
F2:
The Grand Jury found that the quality and comprehensiveness of Emergency Crisis Response Plans were not consistent among the schools reviewed.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Planning Department has not provided planning commissioners with any written training or educational materials concerning the due process requirements applicable to planning commissioners who are acting in a quasi-judicial role since April 2005. The Planning Commissioner's Handbook has not included any such materials since March 2000 and was not revised or updated to include such materials after April 2005. Since April 2005, at least three new planning commissioners have been appointed to the Planning commission. Public perception that planning commissioners are performing their quasi-judicial role in accordance with applicable due process requirements relating to fairness and an absence of actual bias or non-financial conflicts of interest would be improved if the public knew and understood that planning commissioners received education and training on these important issues from a Handbook or other materials which addressed them in detail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Planning Department should assure that copies of the updated and revised Planning Commissioner's Handbook are provided to each planning commissioner.
R3:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should provide annual training sessions for planning commissioners that provide more detailed education and training on the topics of due process and lack of bias that are identified in the ethics training program required by the enactment of AB 1234.
F2:
Ex parte contacts create a particularly difficult problem for planning commissioners because the potential consequences of ex parte contacts are significantly different depending on the role of the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission functions in its quasi-legislative or policy role, ex parte contacts are not a problem. But, when the Planning Commission functions in its quasi-judicial role, ex parte contacts could create significant due process issues relating to bias and the right of an applicant to hear and respond to all evidence being considered by the Planning Commission in connection with his or her project. These due process issues have the potential to cause Planning Commission actions to be reversed by a reviewing court. Public perception of planning commissioner conduct would also be improved if the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and its educational and training materials addressed in detail the due process concerns raised by ex parte contacts in the quasi-judicial role and provided planning commissioners with as much specific guidance as possible on methods for dealing with such concerns in a way that minimizes their potential adverse consequences.
F3:
The planning commissioner whose conduct was the primary subject of this Grand Jury investigation came to the Planning Commission with substantial prior knowledge of and _____________________________________________________________________________ 13 significant involvement and experience in issues of land use planning and regulation, primarily from an environmental perspective. In the judgment of the Grand Jury, this knowledge, involvement and experience does not disqualify this individual from serving as a member of the Planning Commission. Such attributes are, in fact, desirable in any planning commissioner. These attributes would be expected to bring with them strongly held beliefs and positions on land use planning and regulation, but there is nothing illegal or improper about any planning commissioner bringing established beliefs or positions to bear on land use policy issues that are considered by the Planning Commission. Issues of land use policy are ultimately decided by the elected Board of Supervisors after an in depth review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Supervisors are elected, at least in part, based on their established beliefs and positions concerning land use policy. It should come as no surprise that their appointees to the Planning Commission would generally have or reflect similar beliefs and positions. The difficulty created by appointing planning commissioners who have strong, established advocacy positions on land use planning and regulation from either an environmental or a development perspective is that these same planning commissioners must also function in a quasi-judicial role that requires them to be reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewers when they hear and weigh evidence and make discretionary decisions on individual applications for land use permits. In the judgment of the Grand Jury, the stronger the established advocacy positions or beliefs of a planning commissioner from whatever perspective, the more difficult it is for the public to perceive that this same planning commissioner can make some discretionary land use decisions without an unacceptable probability of actual bias concerning the project. The Grand Jury believes that detailed and regular education and training of planning commissioners on the due process requirements described in this report is the best way to impress on planning commissioners the need for them to make a conscientious, good faith assessment of whether they have an actual bias concerning a project which is being considered by the Planning Commission in its quasi-judicial role. If a planning commissioner can fully and carefully assess all the facts and circumstances of his or her positions and beliefs as they relate to a project and can honestly conclude that there is no unacceptable probability of actual bias on his or her part about the project, that is all the public can expect. In the final analysis, this assessment can only be made by the individual planning commissioner and a definitive decision _____________________________________________________________________________ 14 as to whether or not the facts support that assessment can only be made by the courts. The Grand Jury concluded that the background and conduct of the planning commissioner discussed in this report raised a legitimate concern as to whether or not that planning commissioner had already decided to deny one or more applications for Conditional Use Permits before the public hearings on the applications. The Grand Jury cannot ever know if that was actually the case. FINDINGS4
F4:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain that due process for quasi-judicial hearings includes a requirement that planning commissioners be reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. _____________________________________________________________________________ 16 c. The reasons why ex parte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
F5:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain how ex parte contacts by planning commissioners may violate the due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings. In accordance with Section 933.05(d) of the Penal Code, the Grand Jury invited representatives of the two entities that are the subject of this report to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings and the narrative sections of this report relating to those entities in order to verify the factual accuracy of the findings and the narrative prior to their release. _____________________________________________________________________________ 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. _____________________________________________________________________________ 16 c. The reasons why ex parte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
F6:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain the concept of a non- economic conflict of interest or how such a conflict of interest may violate due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. _____________________________________________________________________________ 16 c. The reasons why ex parte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
R6:
County Counsel should provide assistance and advice to individual planning commissioners in resolving their questions or concerns as to whether or not they have a non-financial conflict of interest or an actual bias with respect to an application for a discretionary decision. _____________________________________________________________________________ 17
F7:
The 2005 revision to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure deleted an explanation of how ex parte contacts by planning commissioners might violate due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings and adversely affect the actions and decisions of the Planning Commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Planning Department and County Counsel, should revise its Rules of Procedure concerning ex parte contacts to define or limit the ex parte contacts which can be initiated by planning commissioners and improve the adequacy of planning commissioners' disclosure of the substance of their permitted ex parte contacts when functioning in their quasi-judicial role.
F8:
Planning commissioners do not always include sufficient detail in their disclosures to provide adequate information as to the substance of their ex parte contacts as required by the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Planning Department and County Counsel, should revise its Rules of Procedure concerning ex parte contacts to define or limit the ex parte contacts which can be initiated by planning commissioners and improve the adequacy of planning commissioners' disclosure of the substance of their permitted ex parte contacts when functioning in their quasi-judicial role.
F9:
Ex parte contacts and a pre-hearing comment by one planning commissioner raised a legitimate concern that this planning commissioner had an unacceptable probability of actual bias by possibly deciding to deny one or more Conditional Use permit applications before the public hearings on the applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County Counsel should educate planning commissioners on the importance of not making ex parte contacts or pre-hearing comments which might reasonably be perceived as suggesting that a planning commissioner has made a decision on a project before the planning commissioner has had an opportunity to hear and weigh all of the evidence on the project which will be presented at a public hearing.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
This is the largest public works project ever attempted in San Luis Obispo County. The size and complexity of the project requires a great deal of dedication and technical ability. Throughout its investigation, the Grand Jury was impressed by the capabilities and professionalism of those involved in the project’s planning and implementation.
F2:
Due to the current economic environment, the project was able to award four of its five major construction contacts for less than the original cost estimates. This saves the project almost $16 million.
F3:
Even with the savings noted in Finding #2, the currently projected overall project cost has increased approximately 19% from the project’s original 2004 budget projection.
F4:
While the project is important in addressing the short term needs of the participating agencies, it is not a permanent solution. All local governments in the County will need to develop long term strategies to address future water needs and threats to current supplies. The Jury found that many of the existing water resource planning documents are outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Because this project only addresses the area’s short term water requirements, the County and other participating agencies should frequently review and update their strategic water resource plans. These plans also need to address the “growth inducing” effects of increasing available resources. (Findings #4 & #6)
F5:
Many consumers will be facing significant water rate increases to pay for the project’s construction and ongoing operation and maintenance. Most of the agencies involved in the project will be combining project costs with costs for their current water systems. Over time, it may be difficult for consumers to identify which portion of their water bill is being used to actually fund the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
For customers to adequately evaluate the advantages and costs of projects like this one, participating agencies should insure that their water customers can readily identify which portions of their utility bills are attributable to the project. (Finding #5)
F6:
The project may have “growth inducing” effects and the governing bodies for the participating agencies will have to recognize and address this potential.
F7:
The project will have to use eminent domain to acquire portions of the necessary right-of- way. Project managers will have to address citizen resentment inherent in this legal process to avoid the potential for project delays. 2007/2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report Commendation A great deal of energy and commitment is required to overcome the myriad of technical and political challenges that are inherent with any project of this magnitude. As mentioned in the “Method” section of this report, the Grand Jury met with many of those who were responsible for moving this project from a concept to an actuality. Throughout the process of taking testimony and gathering background information, the Jury was continually impressed by the technical competence and enthusiasm for the project demonstrated by these individuals. While it may be several years before it can be determined whether or not the project is a complete success, the Jury commends the participating governmental agencies, project staff and consultants for their work thus far. (Finding #1)
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Planning Department has not provided planning commissioners with any written training or educational materials concerning the due process requirements applicable to planning commissioners who are acting in a quasi-judicial role since April 2005. The Planning Commissioner's Handbook has not included any such materials since March 2000 and was not revised or updated to include such materials after April 2005. Since April 2005, at least three new planning commissioners have been appointed to the Planning commission. Public perception that planning commissioners are performing their quasi-judicial role in accordance with applicable due process requirements relating to fairness and an absence of actual bias or non-financial conflicts of interest would be improved if the public knew and understood that planning commissioners received education and training on these important issues from a Handbook or other materials which addressed them in detail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should provide annual training sessions for planning commissioners that provide more detailed education and training on the topics of due process and lack of bias that are identified in the ethics training program required by the enactment of AB 1234.
F2:
Exparte contacts create a particularly difficult problem for planning commissioners because the potential consequences of exparte contacts are significantly different depending on the role of the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission functions in its quasi-legislative or policy role, exparte contacts are not a problem. But, when the Planning Commission functions in its quasi-judicial role, exparte contacts could create significant due process issues relating to bias and the right of an applicant to hear and respond to all evidence being considered by the 12 Planning Commission in connection with his or her project. These due process issues have the potential to cause Planning Commission actions to be reversed by a reviewing court. Public perception of planning commissioner conduct would also be improved if the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and its educational and training materials addressed in detail the due process concerns raised by exparte contacts in the quasi-judicial role and provided planning commissioners with as much specific guidance as possible on methods for dealing with such concerns in a way that minimizes their potential adverse consequences.
F3:
The planning commissioner whose conduct was the primary subject of this Grand Jury investigation came to the Planning Commission with substantial prior knowledge of and significant involvement and experience in issues of land use planning and regulation, primarily from an environmental perspective. In the judgement of the Grand Jury, this knowledge, involvement and experience does not disqualify this individual from serving as a member of the Planning Commission. Such attributes are, in fact, desirable in any planning commissioner. These attributes would be expected to bring with them strongly held beliefs and positions on land use planning and regulation, but there is nothing illegal or improper about any planning commissioner bringing established beliefs or positions to bear on land use policy issues that are considered by the Planning Commission. Issues of land use policy are ultimately decided by the elected Board of Supervisors after an in depth review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Supervisors are elected, at least in part, based on their established beliefs and positions concerning land use policy. It should come as no surprise that their appointees to the Planning Commission would generally have or reflect similar beliefs and positions. The difficulty created by appointing planning commissioners who have strong, established advocacy positions on land use planning and regulation from either an environmental or a development perspective is that these same planning commissioners must also function in a quasi-judicial role that requires them to be reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewers when they hear and weigh evidence and make discretionary decisions on individual applications for land use permits. In the judgement of the Grand Jury, the stronger the established advocacy positions or beliefs of a planning commissioner from whatever perspective, the more difficult it is for the public to perceive that this same planning commissioner can make some discretionary land use decisions without an unacceptable probability of actual bias concerning the project. The Grand Jury believes that detailed and regular education and training of planning commissioners on the due process requirements described in this report is the best way to impress on planning commissioners the need for them to make a conscientious, good faith assessment of whether they have an actual bias concerning a project which is being considered by the Planning Commission in its quasi-judicial role. If a planning commissioner can fully and carefully assess all the facts and circumstances of his or her positions and beliefs as they relate to a project and can honestly conclude that there is no unacceptable probability of actual bias on his or her part about the project, that is all the public can expect. In the final analysis, this assessment can only be made by the individual planning commissioner and a definitive decision as to whether or not the facts support that assessment can only be made by the courts. The Grand Jury concluded that the background and conduct of the planning commissioner discussed in this report raised a legitimate concern as to whether or not that planning commissioner had already decided to deny one or more applications for Conditional Use Permits before the public hearings on the applications. The Grand Jury cannot ever know if that was actually the case. FINDINGS4
F4:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain that due process for quasi-judicial hearings includes a requirement that planning commissioners be reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: 15 a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. c. The reasons why exparte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
F5:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain how exparte contacts by planning commissioners may violate the due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: 15 a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. c. The reasons why exparte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
F6:
The Planning Commissioner's Handbook does not describe or explain the concept of a non- economic conflict of interest or how such a conflict of interest may violate due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Planning Department, with the assistance of County Counsel, should revise and update the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to include explanations of the following: 15 a. The quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles of the Planning Commission and the reasons why planning commissioner conduct in one role is not necessarily acceptable in the other role. b. The due process requirements and legal standards of conduct for quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to the right of an applicant to hear and respond to evidence being considered by the planning commissioners and the right to reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewers. c. The reasons why exparte contacts by planning commissioners have the potential to violate due process requirements. d. Non-financial conflicts of interest such as loyalties to groups or organizations with positions on land use planning and regulation.
R6:
County Counsel should provide assistance and advice to individual planning commissioners in resolving their questions or concerns as to whether or not they have a non-financial conflict of interest or an actual bias with respect to an application for a discretionary decision. 16
F7:
The 2005 revision to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure deleted an explanation of how exparte contacts by planning commissioners might violate due process requirements for quasi-judicial hearings and adversely affect the actions and decisions of the Planning Commission.
F8:
Planning commissioners do not always include sufficient detail in their disclosures to provide adequate information as to the substance of their exparte contacts as required by the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Planning Department and County Counsel, should revise its Rules of Procedure concerning exparte contacts to define or limit the exparte contacts which can be initiated by planning commissioners and improve the adequacy of planning commissioners' disclosure of the substance of their permitted exparte contacts when functioning in their quasi-judicial role.
F9:
Exparte contacts and a pre-hearing comment by one planning commissioner raised a legitimate concern that this planning commissioner had an unacceptable probability of actual bias by possibly deciding to deny one or more Conditional Use permit applications before the public hearings on the applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County Counsel should educate planning commissioners on the importance of not making exparte contacts or pre-hearing comments which might reasonably be perceived as suggesting that a planning commissioner has made a decision on a project before the planning commissioner has had an opportunity to hear and weigh all of the evidence on the project which will be presented at a public hearing.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Planning Department should assure that copies of the updated and revised Planning Commissioner's Handbook are provided to each planning commissioner.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The complainant was admitted to the San Luis Obispo County Psychiatric Health Facility at 1:13 AM on a Saturday morning in October 2007 acting irrationally. He was released about 9 AM that same morning, was coherent and functioning well enough to be safely taken home by a friend.
F2:
The San Luis Obispo County Psychiatric Health Facility has in place a policy prescribing that mental patients who have “ingested alcohol and/or more medications than directed, or any person suspected of having ingested any of these substances” should be sent to an emergency room.
F3:
The patient in this case communicated to the health facility staff minutes after his admission that he’d been using a prescribed pain medication patch hours before he was determined to be a danger to himself or others.
F4:
This patient was not taken to a hospital emergency room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Psychiatric Health Facility should review how its policy of taking possible drug overdose patients to the emergency room is implemented. The results of that review should be reported to the Board of Supervisors within three months to assure patient protection.
F5:
The Health Facility routinely allows video records showing the behavior of isolated 5150 patients to be erased after 30 days. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Psychiatric Health Facility should retain for at least two years the video records of 5150 patients’ isolation room behavior, as a way both of assuring appropriate treatment of patients and of protecting the county in the case of legal action.
F6:
Mental health department officials say that it takes them too long under current conditions to receive results of a toxicology screen.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Mental Health officials must assure that speedy toxicology screens are available when needed, with a stated policy that requires such action.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Space: Public Works stated that property lines and fences are encroaching into the proposed space required to construct the 4 ft. shoulder. Based on the Grand Jury’s review of the project drawings, the County Streets and Highways Codes, and a legal interpretation of County right-of-way law, we do not believe that the Public Works space argument is valid because: (cid:154) The code states that “the term highway includes all or any part of the entire width of right-of-way of a county highway, whether or not such entire area is actually used for highway purposes”. (cid:154) In this case, the County right-of-way extends far beyond the area needed for the 4 ft. shoulder. (cid:154) The code also states that “if a fence or other physical structure does encroach into the County right-of-way, the Director of Public works may issue an encroachment permit under Chapter 5.5 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code”. The code also states: “that the Director of Public Works may immediately remove, or by notice may require the removal of an encroachment which obstructs or prevents the use of a county highway by the public”. The Safety Issue: People walking on the proposed 4 ft. path would have to cross the road at La Pradera to access the pathway. There is a blind corner just before La Pradera Road traveling west on Santa Margarita Road. This situation eliminates the possibility of 2007-2008 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report SANTA MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT (ATASCADERO) Page: 5 installing a marked crosswalk at this location due to safety concerns according to Public Works. During the Santa Margarita Road Project, residents and property owners raised a number of issues and concerns. Most of the concerns have been addressed, corrected or dismissed by Public Works. The major remaining outstanding issue, the construction of a shoulder, has yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of several residents and property owners living in the area of Santa Margarita Road. FINDING Public Works made a commitment, in writing, to residents and property owners to include a 4 ft. shoulder as part of the Santa Margarita Road Project. To date the shoulder has not been installed on the easterly 300 feet of the roadway. Further, there has been no communication from Public Works officials to residents and property owners as to why the 4 ft. shoulder has not been constructed.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The National Weather Radios provide a valuable extension of the existing alert system, cover a wide variety of emergencies, and are operable throughout the county. This possibility is, however, not well known and deserves wider publication.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The OES should revise its alert information included in the telephone directory and other brochures and presentations to include NOAA Weather Radios. The OES should also encourage PG&E to include information on these radios in its public information about emergencies at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.