San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury

2012-2013

11 reports

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: The 2012 Board of Directors of the Templeton Community Services District has behaved as a dysfunctional group to the detriment of the community.
F2: The TCSD Board of Directors has not allowed adequate time on their agendas for public input.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The TCSD Board of Directors should allow adequate time at meetings for public comment. The TCSD Board of Directors should minimize the number of cancelled meetings and
F3: The TCSD Board of Directors cancels far too many regularly scheduled meetings, and replaces them with "special" meetings, thus depriving many members of the public the opportunity to be present at the meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The TCSD Board of Directors should allow adequate time at meetings for public comment. The TCSD Board of Directors should minimize the number of cancelled meetings and
F4: Some members of the Board circumvent the "chain of command" with the GM by going directly to employees.
F5: The public is concerned that business matters are being discussed during "closed sessions" and not being properly reported to the public.
F6: The TCSD does not have a current set of personnel rules and regulations for employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The GM should follow through with the development of a comprehensive set of personnel rules and regulations for all employees.
F7: The GM did not adequately involve employees in the change process.
F8: The GM did not appear to support employees when they were verbally attacked at public meetings by Board members.
F9: The Grand Jury finds that the Board has not had adequate training in management techniques as evidenced by their dealing with District employees, their responsibilities to the public as it relates to public meetings, and their responsibility to adequately evaluate the performance of the GM.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The TCSD should hold a team-building workshop for Board members. The workshop should be conducted by an outside facilitator and include business conduct, decorum on the Board, working with the staff and employees, and dealing with the public. There should be particular emphasis on collegiality among the Directors.
R2: Members of the Board should receive specific training on the Brown Act and related state mandates governing the conduct of CSDs.
F10: The Board does not hold the GM accountable for evaluating the employees of the District on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6: The GM should be held accountable to ensure that all employees receive a formal evaluation at least once a year.
R7: The Board should conduct a formal evaluation of the GM at least once a year especially in regard to personnel management. The Board should ensure that minutes of all Board meetings are placed on the website in
F11: At the time of the Grand Jury's investigation, the District's website had not shown approved minutes of Board meetings in a timely manner, and had not provided current and relevant budget information for the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: a timely manner. Additionally, updated information regarding the budget should be readily available on the website for residents and not just an annual budget document appearing at the beginning of the year.
F12: According to documentation provided to the Grand Jury, the TCSD does not have a General Master Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The Board should develop a General Master Plan for the TCSD as required by state law.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Beach. Service levels to the citizens of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach are at risk regarding
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The City Councils of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider consolidating the public safety dispatch systems of their respective cities.
R2: All city law enforcement, city managers, Sheriff, Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should join in meeting with an independent facilitator to finalize consolidation of dispatch by contracting dispatch services with the Sheriff's Department.
F2: fire protection because of computer incompatibility. There are potentially significant future cost savings to the cities of Arroyo Grande and
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The City Councils of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider consolidating the public safety dispatch systems of their respective cities.
R2: All city law enforcement, city managers, Sheriff, Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should join in meeting with an independent facilitator to finalize consolidation of dispatch by contracting dispatch services with the Sheriff's Department.
F3: Grover Beach in joining dispatch services after the first year of combining equipment expenditure. Five Cities Fire Authority does not want CAL FIRE's involvement with the use and
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should work with an independent facilitator to develop a written contract defining fire services to be performed and the use of each department's assets.
F4: allocation of the Five Cities Fire Authority equipment. The County Sheriff's Office is prepared to handle both police and fire dispatches for
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should work with an independent facilitator to develop a written contract defining fire services to be performed and the use of each department's assets.
F5: Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. The reluctance to consolidate dispatch by Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE has
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The City Councils of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider consolidating the public safety dispatch systems of their respective cities.
R2: All city law enforcement, city managers, Sheriff, Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should join in meeting with an independent facilitator to finalize consolidation of dispatch by contracting dispatch services with the Sheriff's Department.
F6: brought action to a stalemate in finding answers to the dispatch issue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The City Councils of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider consolidating the public safety dispatch systems of their respective cities.
R2: All city law enforcement, city managers, Sheriff, Five Cities Fire Authority and CAL FIRE should join in meeting with an independent facilitator to finalize consolidation of dispatch by contracting dispatch services with the Sheriff's Department.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The City of Grover Beach does not list email addresses for City Council members on their official city website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Grover Beach should create an official city email address for each city council member and department head and list them on the city website.
F2: Grover Beach City Council members use personal emails for city business and the email addresses are not published on the official city website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Grover Beach should create an official city email address for each city council member and department head and list them on the city website.
F3: Information regarding city business discussed on personal emails is not available to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The cities of Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Atascadero and Paso Robles should provide a Brown Act disclosure, similar to that provided by the City of San Luis Obispo, regarding the use of city-based emails as a way of demonstrating that they are in conformance with the Brown Act.
F4: No evidence of Brown Act violations were discovered; however, the use of personal email in discussing public business can easily and unnecessarily give the impression of such.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The cities of Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Atascadero and Paso Robles should provide a Brown Act disclosure, similar to that provided by the City of San Luis Obispo, regarding the use of city-based emails as a way of demonstrating that they are in conformance with the Brown Act.
F5: and Recommendation 2. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by July 2, 2013. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F5: "There is contradictory information about contraband in the jail." The respondent believes that the contradictory information was probably a result of different perspectives of the problem. Contraband is and will continue to be a problem for all jails, including ours. However, over the past year significant improvements have been made and creative ways explored to detect and discourage contraband from entering the jail. Last year the Sheriff's Office reinstituted a strip search policy for all inmates entering housing units. Prior to this change inmates were only strip searched when specific reasonable suspicion existed. This previous policy was a result of a law suit in Ventura County. That case was further researched and determined and supported by County Counsel not to be relevant to our procedure. Today all inmates, male and female, that enter the housing units are strip searched. In addition the Sheriff's Office purchased a detection K-9 for the jail. This is a drug search only K-9 and has been successful in locating narcotics smuggled into the jail. It is believed that much of what comes into the jail comes in by the inmates secreting the items in a body orifice. This makes it very difficult to locate. The law does not permit a cavity search of an inmate without first obtaining a court issued search warrant. A search warrant for this purpose must be supported by probable cause and because of the intrusive nature of such a search warrant is considered difficult to obtain and only utilized for extreme cases. Last year the Sheriff's Office did a thorough evaluation of technology used by airports for the detection of concealed items. Unfortunately, we determined that this device would not help us with our problem and the only other viable alternative was x-ray. The exposure to x-ray would be far too harmful to the inmate and staff, thus this idea was not pursued. Courthouse Holding Facility:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: "Improve staff restroom facilities in the County Courthouse holding cells by using AB 109 funds." The Sheriff's Office would like to improve the courthouse holding facilities, by adding a restroom. However, the use of AB109 money to make these facility changes would not be an appropriate use of AB109 money. AB109 money is given to the County in order to cover the cost of AB109 inmates and to reduce the recidivism of these inmates. Facility upgrades do not accomplish this goal. This upgrade is considered a convenience and is a cost that the State can't afford at this time.
F10: "Correctional officers at the Courthouse do not have ready access to restroom facilities." The respondent agrees with the finding. The part of the court building that houses the Sheriff's Office holding facilities is maintained by the State of California and it is a matter for the State of California to address. These recommendations have been made; however do to the State's budget issues it is not possible at this time.
F11: "Inmates in wheelchairs are transported to holding cells through the public corridors of the Courthouse." The respondent agrees with the finding. This problem is created due to limitations of the current building structure of the courthouse. Currently, there are only staircases that access the courtrooms directly from the holding cells. Once again, the part of the building that is used by the Sheriff's Office is maintained by the State of California and this will require structural changes that would facilitate an alternative route (elevator) from the holding cells to the courtrooms for inmates in wheelchairs. These
F12: "Video surveillance systems are out of date in the Courthouse holding area. '' The respondent agrees with the finding. We have begun the process of replacing several of our video surveillance systems including the one at the courthouse. We have replaced some of the video surveillance system in the main jail and honor farm. In 2012, we consolidated our video storage to one location. We anticipate the replacement of these cameras in 2013 by our Information Technology (IT) personnel. Staff is creating a priority list of our IT projects, and this project is on that list. One of the goals of this project is to have one system with a centralized storage location that will allow IT personnel to more efficiently manage all of our video surveillance systems.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Sheriff's Office should aggressively pursue reimbursement from Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) for medications prescribed for ASH patients who are transferred to the Jail;
R2: Juvenile Hall management should take preventive and maintenance measures to address sanitation issues;
R3: Courthouse Correctional Officers should explore an alternative route for wheelchair- bound prison inmates other than through public corridors. The first recommendation is under review as the Sheriff's Office examines "proposing legislation changes to obtain relief or compensation." The second recommendation has been implemented (remedied), and the 2012-2013 Grand Jury visit confirmed this fact. The third recommendation had been "previously explored for wheelchair-bound inmates..." and had been deemed non-implementable due to "the physical layout of the Courthouse." III. ARE PASO ROBLES SCHOOL BUDGETARY WOES A LESSON FOR OTHER DISTRICTS? In 2011, the Paso Robles Joint School District found itself facing serious budget problems. Noting this, as well as the fact that all ten San Luis Obispo County school districts were incurring an annual deficit, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury examined the situation in order to determine if there were lessons to be learned. The Jury concluded that, in the absence of state assistance, local governing boards must find local solutions such as governing board financial education and the development of new financial resources. All of the responses show that the districts agree in principle with the recommendations of the Grand Jury. In those cases where immediate implementation was not considered feasible or possible, rationale for placing them under study has been provided. Those districts that disagreed with parts of the recommendations have provided alternative courses of action. It is apparent that the purpose and intent of the report has been fulfilled. No further action is required on the part of this Grand Jury. Although the response requests were focused primarily on the need for training school board members to budget more accurately and employ local solutions in the absence of state funding, the individual school districts chose to highlight what they considered to be a more important element of school funding: namely, the state-imposed funding reductions that occurred during the previous four years. This concern is illustrated by the comments of the various school superintendents in their individual responses. IV. MANAGING MILLIONS: ASSESSING TRANSPARENCY OF COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated how readily community service district (CSD) residents in San Luis Obispo County (County) could find information on the internet about how their CSDs are governed and how their budgets are allocated. Legally required public information that must be made available to CSD residents include board agendas, minutes and budget information. Among the 15 CSDs in the County, only Los Osos and Nipomo were found to provide websites containing all of the legally required information. A notable finding of the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury was that Avila Beach CSD, which operates on a budget of $1.1 million and provides many vital functions for its residents, did not maintain a website. In addition, two smaller CSDs did not have websites: Linne Road with a budget of $60,000 and Creston Hills Ranch which does not have a budget. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury noted that Avila Beach CSD activated its website in August 2012 shortly after the publication of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury report. Linne Road has also developed a website in response to the Grand Jury recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: The existing temporary events ordinance is outdated (1980). The Planning Department is operating and making decisions based on decades-old guidelines that have not kept pace with the changing realities and technologies of commercial (for-profit) and non-profit outdoor events.
F2: The current permit process needs to be streamlined.
F3: The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have received input from public groups, individuals, industry groups and special interest groups about the Events Ordinance Amendments over the last eight years.
F4: All events have the potential of adversely impacting the community and environment.
F5: Events are presently not equitably regulated. There are three types of events, (1) permitted (2) exempted or (3) those events where sponsors fail to apply for a permit.
F6: Code enforcement pertains only to permitted events. Events that are exempt from the permit process or where sponsors fail to apply for a permit are not subject to code enforcement.
F7: There can be no code enforcement without specific event guidelines defined in the ordinance.
F8: On the Planning Department's website, the "Questions and Complaints" link fails to specify how the complaint will be handled, i.e., the response time and subsequent follow up contact information.
F9: The Planning Department does not maintain a log of all code enforcement complaints received nor how and when they were resolved along with a description of actions taken.
F10: The Planning Department does not have a policy as to how long it takes to initially respond to a complaint.
F11: During the day of permitted events, several County and State agencies, i.e., Public Works, Health Department and CAL FIRE, make on-site inspections. Event sponsors who do not go through the permit process (exempted events and those who fail to apply for a permit) have no required on-site safety inspections.
F12: In the absence of specific guidelines, some event sponsors have taken on the responsibility to mitigate public concerns and public safety as a priority in their event planning.
F13: Not all regulations can be applied equally to all venues.
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Public events. No land use permit is required for: a. Events occurring in approved theaters, convention centers, meeting halls or other approved public assembly facilities; or b. Admission free events held at a public park or on other land in public ownership when conducted with the approval of the public agency having jurisdiction, provided that the event is conducted in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Title; or c. Other free admission events which are eight hours or less in duration and are operated by non-profit organizations.
R2: Commercial entertainment. Commercial outdoor entertainment activities are subject to the permit requirements and standards of Chapter 6.56 of the County Code (Temporary Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Licenses).
R3: Parades. Parades and other temporary events within the public right-of-way are not subject to land use permit requirements, provided that all requirements of the County Public Works Department and County Sheriff are met.
R4: Temporary camps. Temporary camps as a principal use or accessory to another temporary event are subject to the permit requirements and other provisions of Chapter 8.64 of the County Code. B. Time limit. A temporary event shall be held in a single location for no longer than 12 consecutive days, or four successive weekends, except where a different time limit is established by other applicable provisions of the County Code or through Minor Use Permit approval. C. Location. The site of any temporary event other than public events and parades shall be located no closer than 1000 feet to any Residential Single-Family land use category. D. Site design standards. All temporary events are subject to the following standards, regardless of whether a land use permit is required, except where alternate standards are established by Chapters 6.56 or 8.64 of the County Code.
R13-20: event days/year; 175-250 Public events (except for public attendees; approval by Planning (MUP) assembly facilities; admission free Director or designee events on public land; admission free, <8 hours, run by non-profit organization); Commercial entertainment; Parades; Temporary camps 2. Conditional Use >20 event day/year; >250 attendees; Permit (CUP) approval by Planning Commission Grandfather Clause May continue to hold such exempt Exempt events for one year from the effective date of this Section; within one year of the effective date of the adoption of the revised ordinance, all event sites shall be brought into compliance with the standards and permit requirement. Non-profit Events No permit required for non-profit Non-profit event is defined as an events w/less than 3K attendees Event where all of the following and for events > 3K at Avila Beach occur: there is no fee or charge for Golf Resort the use of the venue/event site, the event is sponsored by a non-profit org and 100% of the proceeds collected after operational expenses are met go to the sponsoring non- profit Non-profit events: ministerial permit—comply with all standards in the ordinance; unlimited number of events of < 175 attendees/day For-profit and non-profit events are subject to the permit requirements and all applicable standards of the ordinance. Time Limit Case-by-case MUP and CUP time limits not less than 3 years; determination based on site location; neighborhood capacity and compatibility; the suitability of the site for ongoing events; and the investment made in the property to meet requirements Site no closer than 1000 feet to any Meticulous setback conditions for Location residence rural, urban/village and riparian areas Site Access Minimum of 2 unobstructed access 2 unobstructed vehicle access points, points, minimum 18' wide to a 20' wide to a public road; meet public road current County Public Works standards for driveway approaches and sight distance; site vehicle circulation with signage must meet Fire Agency requirement Parking Off-street parking consisting of a One parking space per 2.5 attendees; open area with a slope of < 10%; free minimum open area with a slope of < 10%; 400 sq. feet per car, free of of combustible material and not on combustible material, on a lot free Class I soils. Parking on public roads of combustible material and off-site parking restrictions Traffic Control >500 attendees, submit a traffic None control plan to appropriate agency (Caltrans, CHP and/or Public Works) for issuance of an encroachment permit. >500 attendees—submit a report/plan prepared by a California registered engineer including a Roadway Safety Analysis (RSA) Notification Mail or website notification of the None event to Planning, Sheriff's offices, Air Pollution Control District, property owners, occupants w/in a 1000 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the proposed site. Provide full disclosure of events and contact numbers. Hours of Operation None 10 am – 10 pm Amplified Sound None 65 dB when measured at the property line Outdoor lighting shall be downcast Lighting None and shielded so that neither the lamp nor the reflector interior surface is visible from any off-site location. Use of Structures ADA compliance for commercial and None public assembly occupancy. Existing structures used <15 days per year does not require a permit for conversions. Consideration given to historic buildings (> 50 years old). Guidelines provided for proposed new structures Fugitive Dust None Dust control monitor on duty at events Site Restoration Bond or cash deposit. Guarantee Bond or cash to guarantee site Guarantee shall cover both operation and restoration after use and operation in compliance with the standards of the restoration. ordinance. Violation None Revocation of land use permit upon receipt of 2 or more substantiated complaints in any consecutive six month period. Insurance and None Business License may be required by Indemnity the Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office >3000 attendees—Proof of required Requirements insurance coverage and County indemnification; business automobile insurance; Workers' Compensation
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: CMC Inmates are allowed to participate in inmate activity groups approved by the Warden. Activity groups are supervised by a staff group sponsor. Activity groups Available include Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Literacy, Higher Ground, Prisoners Against Child Abuse (PACA), Domestic Violence, The Buddhist Group SAP and Anger Management.
F2: Religious Programs provide spiritual and educational opportunities for the Following Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assembly of God, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Later Day Saints and Native American.
F3: Industrial Training and Work Programs supervised by Victor Garcia include Shoe Factory, Knitting Mill, Laundry, Special Printing Plant, Warehouse, Industries Maintenance, General Office Techniques, Glove Factory and T-Shirt line.
F4: General Institution Work Programs include Clerical Barbering, Janitorial Services, Ground Maintenance, Plant Operations Maintenance, Accounting, Warehouse, Store-keeper, Firefighter, Culinary, Hospital Porter, Lab Porter, Radiology Tech, Dental Aide, Mechanics, etc.
F5: Academic Education Programs include Literacy, Literacy Lab, Business Education, English as a Second Language, Adult Basic Education, General Education Development and Computer-Assisted Instruction.
F6: Vocational programs include Auto Mechanics, Computer Repair, Drafting, Landscaping, Office Services, Sewing Machine Repair, Shoe Repair, Data Processing, Small Repair and X-Ray Technology
F7: Mental Health Programs provide Basic Employment Skills, Training and Pre-Vocational Skills.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

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.