San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Atascadero Unified School District’s School Pool Safety Plan, particularly with the recent additions, is a good model policy.
F2:
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 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 (1)
R1:
Lucia Mar Unified School District should develop a school pool safety plan that incorporates their Student Rules and their Emergency Action Plan with Teacher Qualifications and Facility safety. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7
F3:
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)
R3:
Cayucos Elementary School District should develop a comprehensive set of School Pool Safety Plans including sections on instructor qualifications, facility safety, student rules and emergency procedures.
F4:
Paso Robles Public Schools do not have an adequate 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)
R2:
Paso Robles Public Schools should develop their own set of school pool safety plans including sections on instructor qualifications, facility safety, student rules and emergency procedures.
F5:
No pushing or horseplay in the pool or around the pool area.
F6:
No jewelry or personal swimming equipment will be taken into the pool unless authorized by the instructor or pool assistant. (masks, fins, etc.) 7. School equipment will not be used without permission of the instructor or pool assistant.
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.
R4:
Atascadero Unified School District, Lucia Mar Unified School District, Paso Robles Public Schools and Cayucos Elementary School District should all post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The county has agreed to revise its contracting procedures manual as recommended by the 2006-2007 Grand Jury and has drafted a plan to do that by mid-August 2009. But the plan has yet to be implemented. (See Appendix A.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Department of Social Services (DSS) agreed to implement several recommendations. Among these were procedures within Child Welfare Services (CWS) to better inform law enforcement and the District Attorney when a referral is opened. DSS agreed to develop a Desk Guide to better assist CWS employees in referral management. A copy of the Desk Guide has been provided to the 2008-2009 Grand Jury. DSS also agreed to implement procedures to improve employee morale. The 2008-2009 Grand Jury has received a list of methods the Department uses to address issues of job stress.
F2:
The county agreed to a recommendation of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury that it improve its outreach to airport tenants and said that would be done through the airport website. When asked to explain how this was accomplished by the current Grand Jury, the county has yet to respond. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District Attorney implemented several recommendations in response to a Grand Jury’s report about a vehicle manslaughter complaint that languished without resolution for most of a _____________________________________________________________________________ 2 year. Earlier this year the 2008-2009 Grand Jury published a detailed report detailing the implementation. That report is titled “District Attorney Responds Favorably: 704 Complaints Lead to Grand Jury Recommendations” and is available at the Grand Jury website, http://slocourts.net/grand_jury/reports/ 2004 - 2005
F3:
The Environmental Health Services Division of the Public Health Department has posted a separate citizen complaint form for retail food establishments at the county web site, as it agreed to do in response to a Grand Jury recommendation. The form is available at www.slocounty.ca.gov/health/publichealth/ehs.htm. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San 4. On Feb. 28, 2006, Child Welfare Services provided the county’s Chief Administrative Officer with a status report on the progress of CWS’ organizational health, as recommended and agreed upon in 2005. 2005 - 2006 1. Atascadero High School (AHS) agreed to implement two recommendations of the 2005-2006 Grand Jury. The school agreed to formally document all incidents of racial and sexual harassment and report such incidents to the Atascadero Unified School District office staff. AHS provided to the Grand Jury a copy of formal incident logs involving racial and sexual harassment, as requested. Furthermore, the school said that it would continue to seek the best methods, procedures, and strategies to address all forms of inappropriate student behavior in the 2006-2007 school year. AHS stated that it would solicit input from staff, students, and parents. The school provided to the Grand Jury evidence of several avenues of input to address inappropriate student behavior.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Environmental Health Services Division of the Public Health Department has posted a separate citizen complaint form for retail food establishments at the county web site, as it agreed to do in response to a Grand Jury recommendation. The form is available at www.slocounty.ca.gov/health/publichealth/ehs.htm. _____________________________________________________________________________ 3
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
On Feb. 28, 2006, Child Welfare Services provided the county’s Chief Administrative Officer with a status report on the progress of CWS’ organizational health, as recommended and agreed upon in 2005. 2005 - 2006
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 patrol station property rooms was lax until after Grand Jury inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department should conduct regular, independent monitoring of patrol station property rooms. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The County Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Building Department handles hundreds of cases a year. The vast majority of these are resolved in a fair and timely fashion by a dedicated and professional staff. The three subjects described in this report evidently represent unique code enforcement cases which have festered over time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Director of the County Planning and Building Department should provide increased review and oversight of the Code Enforcement Division to insure prompt and consistent attention to difficult code enforcement cases.
F2:
The County Code Enforcement Division and the Department of Planning and Building have been dilatory in enforcing the county building and safety codes when dealing with cases #2 and #3 of this report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As recommended by the County Counsel and noted in a memo to the Grand Jury from the Department of Planning and Building, “Homeless shelters, residential recovery facilities, and group homes, a category of housing currently not specifically addressed by county land use regulations, be considered for inclusion into the County Land Use Ordinance.” The Grand Jury strongly supports this effort.
F3:
According to Department of Planning and Building correspondence to the Grand Jury, three areas of service improvement have been identified: A) Building Inspection record keeping B) Code Enforcement personnel training with an emphasis on implementation and neutrality and C) Public outreach relative to county rules, regulations and policies. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The three areas for service improvement identified by the management team of the Department of Planning and Building in Finding: #3 be implemented.
F1973:
This, along with lost or misplaced documents would appear to indicate inadequate attention to this case. In fact, according to a Department of Planning and Building memo to the Grand Jury dated 03/06/09, the large main living structure at this facility has existed for over 30 years without ever having received a final building clearance. Currently, efforts are now underway through the Department of Planning and Building to rectify past expired permits and code violations and to bring this property up to full building code standards. Case #3: A privately run homeless shelter and recovery facility, adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo was scrutinized as to code enforcement actions. During shelter personnel testimony, charges of harassment and callousness toward the homeless were heard under oath. In addition, charges of hypocrisy were leveled against San Luis Obispo County for knowingly using the facility for the placement of difficult homeless persons. Alternatively, equally vehement testimony was heard from neighbors who spoke to a lack of diligence on the part of the Code Enforcement Division over the past many years. The current County Abatement Orders for this property, issued in 2008, involving the illegal conversion of a two story barn to living quarters without a permit, unpermitted occupancy of mobile homes, unpermitted occupancy of recreational vehicles, excessive vehicle storage and sub-standard electrical and plumbing work reads almost verbatim to the previous County Abatement Orders from three years past (2005). The conclusion section, of the current county abatement order against this property reads in part, “these continuing violations have subjected unsuspecting tenants to unsafe conditions and neighboring residents, to a serious and chronic blight condition that has existed for years.” Currently, the County Supervisors, at the request of the Planning and _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San Building Department, have issued new (2009) abatement orders. Litigation is ongoing. In all, a long running, time consuming, expensive and frustrating experience for all concerned. OBSERVATIONS A. Exacting and timely code enforcement is a tool used by the county to ensure the quality of life for all its citizens under the law. Delayed county code enforcement may enhance existing frustration and disharmony in the surrounding neighborhood. B. A pattern of county building and safety code enforcement, delayed beyond a reasonable time frame, was observed in relation to two of the cases described in this report. The willingness of the Code Enforcement Division and the Department of Planning and Building to act in a timely and decisive fashion was questionable. FINDINGS 1. The County Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Building Department handles hundreds of cases a year. The vast majority of these are resolved in a fair and timely fashion by a dedicated and professional staff. The three subjects described in this report evidently represent unique code enforcement cases which have festered over time.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
All Class 1 violations are not treated the same by a local CUPA official because some violators are administered a formal AEO, while others are cited with an informal NOV.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To be fair and ensure compliance with health and safety codes, local CUPA officials should address all Class 1 pollution violations through formal enforcement procedures consistent with Cal/EPA and DTSC policies.
F2:
The CUPA director does not administer the process for all Class 1 pollution violations consistent with Cal/EPA and the state Department of Toxic Substance Control policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should monitor the local CUPA program on an annual basis to assure the board that fines and permit fees are assessed at a level sufficient to assure that county general funds will not be required to sustain the program.
F3:
The result of current enforcement policies suggests the local CUPA program may soon need additional support from the county general fund to continue its enforcement efforts at the current level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If total funds being collected are insufficient to assure that the program is self-supporting, the Board of Supervisors should consider convening a task force to study the appropriate mix of fines and permit fees to assure compliance with hazardous material health and safety regulations. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The allegations which served as the basis for the 2005 HUD letter to the County Planning Department, the references by the State to a “complaint”, and at least one of the inquiries conducted by the SLO District Attorney’s Office were generated by the same individual(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Jury recommends that LMUSD take the opportunity presented by this report to affirm their intention to operate the Oceano Community Center for the continued benefit of the local community.
F2:
The amount of CDBG funds provided to the Oceano Community Center project represented the equivalent of more than 2 ½ years of “normal” CDBG funds allocation for the entire unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo county. _____________________________________________________________________________ 17
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that OCSD take the initiative to establish communications with LMUSD and to become involved in plans for use of the facility.
F3:
The 2008 purchase of the Oceano Community Center by LMUSD is a positive outcome. LMUSD is uniquely qualified to both maintain and operate the physical structure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County give strong consideration to having a security interest in future projects of this type and size.
F4:
The legal requirement that LMUSD continue to operate the facility for the “benefit of the local community” helps insure that the Community Center will be able to go forward as the positive asset that it should be to Oceano and surrounding communities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Planning and Building Department should be required to keep the County appraised of total estimated costs and associated risks involved in an entire project, not just the County’s portion, both prior to, and during, that project.
F5:
The County is best positioned to monitor and insure continued operation of the Oceano Community Center for the “benefit of the local community.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 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.
F2007:
The most alarming trend in these numbers is the increase in gang related juvenile cases from three in 2006 to 19 in 2008. The primary means of combating illegal activities has been suppression, as gang activity rises, more law enforcement personnel are needed. The San Luis Obispo County Gang Task Force was created with the goal of removing drugs, weapons and gang members from the county streets. The Gang Task Force is made up of two sheriff’s deputies, two probation officers, a deputy district attorney and one clerical staff person. Of these, grant money covers partial costs of one deputy sheriff, one deputy probation officer, one deputy district attorney and the clerical staff person. Supervision is provided by a sheriff’s sergeant who has responsibility for various units, including the Gang Task Force. Due to budget constraints no other police departments are able to dedicate a member to the task force. However, most of them have assigned a liaison for information sharing. The Board of Supervisors may apply for grant money available on the state and federal levels. Given the current state of the economy there is no additional money available from the county. State and federal grants may be eliminated. Law enforcement officials had to think of a new approach. In November 2007 the Chief Probation Officer, County Sheriff and District Attorney formed the Anti-Gang Coordinating Commission (AGCC). Since the AGCC was formed approximately two dozen other county and city departments have joined the commission. The mission of the AGCC is “to reduce the magnitude, frequency and violence of gang activity in San Luis Obispo County.” The commission consists of three branches; Prevention and Intervention (headed by _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San Probation), Detection and Suppression (headed by the Sheriff) and Rehabilitation and Re-entry (headed by the District Attorney). The commission is continually searching and applying for state and federal grants. Additional grant money will afford the hiring of more officers for the gang task force and fund new outreach programs. Along with the city and county departments, the commission hopes to involve community volunteer programs and faith-based organizations. Prevention & Intervention Everyone involved with gang suppression recognizes the importance of reaching out to young children before the gangs do. The probation department has started the Youth in Action Program. This program works with at risk students, ages 10 to 14, in the Lucia Mar Unified School District. There are currently 39 students who meet twice a week for 90 minutes each session. The students are taught about positive values, conflict resolution, anger management, and refusal skills and are shown the impacts of belonging to a gang. The Youth in Action Program also hosts periodic meetings for parents in English and Spanish. The parents are shown how to recognize and deal with the early signs of gang involvement. Despite the importance of these meetings, not all parents attend. The members of the county gang task force and probation department recommend these meetings be made mandatory for parents of minors on probation. Mentoring programs are important. Other programs like Big Brother Big Sisters, Boy Scouts, 4H and sports leagues help give children alternatives to spending time on the streets. Detection & Suppression Law Enforcement officials understand the need for better communication and information sharing among all agencies. Agencies are actively participating in investigations initiated by other agencies. By sharing information all departments will have a better grasp of the problems they face. Law enforcement is also looking at ways to provide more information and education to the public about gang activities. One of the ways gang members communicate and show their territory is with graffiti. The sheriff’s Department, working in conjunction with local cities, will be presenting a graffiti removal ordinance to the Board of Supervisors to allow for the removal of graffiti on private _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San property The Sheriff’s Department will fund a graffiti removal vehicle that will allow for mixing of paints on location. Matching colors with the original background will avoid the eyesore of using mismatched paint. In this way graffiti may be quickly removed to avoid escalation. Rehabilitation & Re-Entry National statistics show that 10 percent of all state parolees fail to report to parole officers after release. In California that rate is over 20 percent, which may be due in part to California’s lack of an effective re-entry facility for its prisoners. [Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.] The state of California has an average recidivism rate of 70% compared to 35% for states that operate a re-entry facility. In an effort to reduce recidivism in California, Assembly Bill 900, also known as the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, provides funds for the establishment of a secure community re-entry facilities in our state. Each facility will house up to 500 inmates for the last 6 - 12 months of their incarceration. A re-entry facility is planned at the former El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility site operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The proposed facility will provide intensive rehabilitation, and offer offender job training, mental health and substance abuse counseling, housing placement upon release, educational assistance, and other services in the critical few months just prior to their release. If the goal of reduced recidivism is achieved, California taxpayers will benefit from such re-entry facilities because of lower crime rates and lower incarceration costs. San Luis Obispo County is working hard to establish additional programs to assist parolees and probationers to successfully re-enter society Vocational, educational and apprenticeship programs for adults are planned. The Community Action Project (formerly The Economic Opportunity Commission) operates the Liberty Tattoo Removal Program. Former gang members can have tattoos removed in exchange for 16 hours of community service work. Once the tattoos are removed it is easier for former gang members to find employment. According to the Anti-Gang Coordinating Commission’s Strategic Plan, they would like to establish the Employment Coordinator position. This person will establish the link between _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San parolee/probationers and the programs available to them. This coordinator will work closely with the new El Paso de Robles Re-Entry Facility. CONCLUSION With the increase in gang activity in this county and the large number of gang members in surrounding counties, officials must think of new ways to combat the threat. The members of the Anti-Gang Coordinating Commission have developed a strategic plan that does not involve additional funding from the Board of Supervisors. The commission is working to increase intervention and education programs for at risk children and their parents. It has been recommended by the gang task force that the parent education classes be made mandatory for parents with minors on probation. The goal is to get juveniles involved with positive programs before they look to gangs for their identity. The Liberty Tattoo Removal Program and new El Paso De Robles Re-Entry Facility will help former gang members re-enter society. The Board of Supervisors and other county agencies have the ability to apply for additional state and federal grant money. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends the following: • The Liberty Tattoo Removal Program and the Youth in Action Program for their commitment to helping dissuade gang involvement, • The County Gang Task Force for their vigilant efforts to prevent and suppress gang activity, and • The Anti Gang Coordinating Commission for recognizing a new approach is needed and looking at programs that do not require additional county funds. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San FINDINGS 1. State and federal grants for anti gang efforts are being reduced.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County Roads Program is well managed and the pavement condition index (PCI) is a useful tool for prioritizing road maintenance and repair expenditures in the annual county budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should focus road improvements in those areas of the county that have average PCI values below the stated PCI goal of 70. Specifically, Santa Margarita, Shandon, San Miguel, Cambria, Oceano, Nipomo, and Los Osos need attention.
F2:
The funding base for the Program varies from year to year, which will cause fluctuations in the overall condition of county roads. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should increase the priority of road maintenance and improvement in the Los Osos area and maintain those roads on a comparable priority basis with all other county roads. Relatively short term maintenance processes such as crack seal, fog seal, slurry seal, chip seal and patching should be used in Los Osos until a more permanent program is established after the sewer project in completed.
F3:
The communities of Shandon, and Santa Margarita have very low average PCI ratings and are in need of road improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should designate the county roads budget as one of its highest budget priorities. Locally, as well as nationally, the condition of our infrastructure is essential for public safety, quality of life and a stable fiscal future.
F4:
The communities of San Miguel, Oceano, Cambria, and Nipomo have higher average PCI than Shandon or Santa Margarita but are still rated below 70.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All County residents should be advised of planned road improvements in their area on an annual basis. County residents should be provided with an easy telephone complaint register with an easy alpha sequence number such as "POT HOLE" (768-4653) or "BAD ROAD" (223-7623), as well as an email complaint form for similar purposes to add to the existing DPW website. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6
F5:
The Los Osos area has deteriorating road conditions due to the reluctance of the County to improve roads that may subsequently be impacted by the proposed Los Osos sewer project.
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
To assure that the citizenry is best served by the take-home vehicles, the Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and Sheriff should assure that the “brief justification” of _____________________________________________________________________________ 5 county vehicles that are approved for overnight parking exemption, or so called take-home vehicles, are subject to a cost benefit analysis and use justification.
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To assure that the citizenry is best served by the take-home vehicles, the Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and Sheriff should assure that the “brief justification” of _____________________________________________________________________________ 5 county vehicles that are approved for overnight parking exemption, or so called take-home vehicles, are subject to a cost benefit analysis and use justification.
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. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8
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.
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 _____________________________________________________________________________ 9 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.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
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 INSS 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 work more efficiently.
F7:
Once hired, IHSS caregivers are subject to minimal oversight by DSS staff. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7
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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Some of the public cemeteries in the county are generally well operated while others have problems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors should (a) appoint new cemetery district board members, knowledgeable of the relevant law and responsibilities, to fill the vacancies noted in Finding 2 and (b) set up a system whereby vacancies and term expiration on these boards will be brought to its attention promptly.
F2:
Two of the districts have fewer than the required minimum of three board members. Those districts are the Estrella-Pleasant Valley and Templeton districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In the event the Board of Supervisors finds it is not practical or feasible to appoint new cemetery district board members for the Estrella-Pleasant Valley Cemetery District due to the apparent inability of this cemetery district to operate independently without any source of revenue, The Board of Supervisors should appoint itself as the board of trustees of this cemetery district.
F3:
One of the districts, Estrella-Pleasant Valley, has no endowment care fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Trustees of the Adelaida Cemetery District should (a) hold a minimum of four meetings per year with published agendas and publicly available minutes and (b) acquire liability insurance.
F4:
Two of the districts, Adelaida and Estrella-Pleasant Valley, have fewer than the minimum four board meetings per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Trustees of the Estrella-Pleasant Valley Cemetery District should (a) hold a minimum of four meetings per year with published agendas and publicly available minutes, (b) promptly establish an endowment care fund adequate to provide income for perpetual maintenance, (c) provide for inspection of the burial register for the cemetery and (d) arrange for an annual audit and (e) acquire liability insurance.
F5:
Three of the districts, Estrella-Pleasant Valley, Santa Margarita and Templeton, do not have an accessible burial register.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Trustees of Santa Margarita Cemetery District shall respond to Findings 1 and 5 and Recommendation 6. The responses from the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge at the San Luis Obispo Superior court by September 24, 2009. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The responses from the Adelaida, Estrella-Pleasant Valley, Santa Margarita, Shandon and Templeton Cemetery Districts shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge at the San Luis Obispo Superior court by August 25, 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 Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 _____________________________________________________________________________ 10
F6:
One of the districts, Estrella-Pleasant Valley, does not have an annual audit. _____________________________________________________________________________ 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Trustees of the Santa Margarita Cemetery District should provide for inspection of the burial register for the cemetery.
F7:
Two of the districts, Adelaida and Estrella-Pleasant Valley, do not carry liability insurance.
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
3 findings
F1:
Policy 119 does not contain chest pain, heart attacks or strokes as reasons for an expedited launch.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Review and update medical criteria for expedited launch zones. (San Luis Obispo Emergency Medical Service Agency Inc.)
F2:
There is no official detailed map of the expedited launch zones.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Redefine launch zone locations in detail so they can be understood. (San Luis Obispo Emergency Medical Service Agency Inc.)
F3:
Some of the language describing expedited launch zone area in Policy 119 is not accurate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Produce an official, accurate and detailed map of expedited launch zones. (San Luis Obispo Emergency Medical Service Agency Inc.)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge at the San Luis Obispo Superior court by August 24, 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 Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1035 Palm, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4
Quick View
Full Details →
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
3 findings
F1:
The failure to include the “Figure 4 map” and references to it in the staff report was at best inept staff performance or at worst deliberate deception.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Commission should require relevant source documents accompany reports from the Planning and Building Department.
F2:
The staff report was a crucial element in an important decision by the Planning Commission and it was only public testimony at the Commission hearing that prevented a decision counter to approved land use policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Planning Commission should direct Planning and Building Department staff to indicate to the Planning Commission if any source documentations were altered in preparing reports and provide reasons for such alterations. _____________________________________________________________________________ 4
F3:
The staff report concluded that the sale of County land to State Parks was in compliance with County land use policy, a conclusion consistent with the report only because of the omission of the “Figure 4 map” and related text.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Training procedures for staff charged with report development should be reviewed and changed so as to prevent the omission or misrepresentation of significant documentary evidence.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
* 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.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.