Gran Jurado del Condado de San Luis Obispo

2007-2008

27 informes

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (27)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 15 hallazgos
F1: The Grand Jury found that School Pool Safety Plans varied from comprehensive to almost nonexistent.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: State and federal grants for anti gang efforts are being reduced.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: San Luis Obispo’s In-Home Supportive Services program provides essential care for almost 1800 vulnerable (disabled, elderly or blind) and low-income citizens and does so at substantially less cost than institutional care.
F2: In SLO County about 60% of clients are under age 65, all of those disabled in some way. In contrast statewide almost 60% of the clients are over 65. In this county about 8% of the caseload are children.
F3: The program provides employment, at $10 per hour, for caregivers who may be relatives or friends of the clients.
F4: Staff social workers in IHSS are competent and experienced.
F5: Recently, several Social Worker positions assigned to IHSS were eliminated; as a result caseloads have increased dramatically as a direct result of budget reductions.
F6: The equipping of social workers with laptop computers (2009) should allow them to work more efficiently.
F7: Once hired, IHSS caregivers are subject to minimal oversight by DSS staff.
F8: Inherent strengths of the IHSS program (e.g. many care-providers are the devoted children, parents or spouses of clients, while others are long trusted friends or neighbors) simultaneously leave the IHSS clients open to undetected abuse. 9. “Registry” care-providers are subject to criminal investigation background screening, but not to finger printing.
F10: Most care-providers, those not on the Registry, are subject neither to criminal background checks nor finger printing.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The county should conduct criminal background checks (and or finger printing) for all IHSS care providers who are not related to clients.
R2: If recommendation #1 (above) is not implemented the county should facilitate a system by which clients and/or potential care providers could undergo those procedures at their own expense and then have the results of it entered into their IHSS records, where potential clients could consult those results.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Sheriff’s Department should conduct regular, independent monitoring of substation property rooms.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: The City does not allow motorcycles to park in city public parking structures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales 5

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
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.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R2: The Planning Department should assure that copies of the updated and revised Planning Commissioner's Handbook are provided to each planning commissioner.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
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.
Página 29
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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.
Página 29