San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (4)
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Cambria Community Service District (CCSD) should request that a local emergency be declared regarding the fire risk and forward it to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors for ratification; RESPONSES: a. Cambria Community Services District: Agrees. The CCSD board declared a local emergency at their meeting on March 26, 2015. b. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Agrees.
R2:
If the Cambria Community Services District fails to request a local emergency, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors should do so on its own. RESPONSE: No response needed.
R3:
The Cambria Community Services District should take additional action to raise public awareness locally and with relevant county, state, and federal emergency management agencies. Such actions might include conducting community drills, conducting a new campaign for reverse 911 sign-ups for mobile phones, and mailing the wildfire evacuation plan to residents. RESPONSE: Cambria Community Services District: Agree. The CCSD web page was updated with information about community programs and local fire safety organizations and activities.
R4:
The Cambria Community Services District should obtain funding to improve forest management. RESPONSE: Cambria Community Services District: Agree. Cambria received a $498,000 Fire Safe Council grant for fire hazard reduction.
R5:
The Cambria Community Services District should use the funding to: a. Improve existing fuel breaks, b. Expand fuel break program, c. Remove dead and dying trees, and d. Remove other fire hazards such as ladder fuels and other flammable materials. RESPONSE: Cambria Community Services District: Agrees. CCSD will be using the funding for all of the above programs. REPORT 2 - Making the Case for Efficiency: Maximizing Emergency Services in Cambria The recommendations requiring responses:
R6:
The CCSD and CCHD should determine how best to utilize firefighters and emergency medical service personnel within a common management organization. RESPONSES: Both districts agree but neither recommendation has yet been implemented. FOLLOW-UP: Recommend following up with both districts to determine progress. REPORT 3 - Morro Bay Municipal Code Enforcement: Band-Aid or Process? The recommendations requiring responses:
R7:
The Building and Planning Department should determine and fund a way to monitor whether advertised vacation rentals are properly licensed, thus ensuring collection of related taxes and fees, which can more than cover these costs. RESPONSES: San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building: Both disagree. FOLLOW-UP ON REPORT 4: The entities initially disagreed with many of the recommendation in this report as they were deemed not warranted or reasonable. In summary, after the failure of SB593 to pass the State Senate, a new bill (SB1102) was recently introduced in the State Legislature to address the same issues as SB593. However, due to statewide interest, this issue has prompted the development of SB1102 which is currently pending. The County is waiting on the resolution of this legislation prior to taking any action. All of the previous Grand Jury's recommendations on this issue should be revisited. We strongly encourage the 2016-2017 Grand Jury follow up to determine progress. REPORT 5 - We Are Waiting: Access to County Provided Mental Health Services The recommendations requiring responses:
R8:
The County, whether by clinic staff, interns, temporary or part-time employees, should institute contact with those clients awaiting appointments to decrease the number of no- shows who prevent the scheduling of another client. This could also determine if the severity of the individual's condition has improved/stabilized/worsened and if the client has transportation. RESPONSES: a. San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors and the SLO County Health Agency Both agencies partially agree: The CHA is now confirming appointments with clients, but the determination of the individual's condition will not be implemented because of confidentiality issues. REPORT 6 – San Luis Obispo County Juvenile Hall, Jail, and Allied Agencies Inspection The recommendations requiring responses:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Of the eight county law enforcement agencies (Sheriff and the seven city police departments), not every agency had a formal training program for PC1269c.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The District Attorney should coordinate formal training programs for the local law enforcement agencies in the process for obtaining bail increases.
R3:
Local law enforcement agencies should work with the District Attorney in the development of the above policies and programs within the resources of their respective departments.
F2:
The recommendation of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court regarding the responsibility of officers to seek a bail increase “…if the scheduled bail is not adequate for the crime … ” and to “… make their personnel cognizant of Penal Code Sections 1269c . . .” was not being adhered to by all law enforcement agencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The District Attorney should coordinate the development of uniform written policies and procedures for local law enforcement agencies to make requests of the court for appropriate bail increases.
R4:
Local law enforcement agencies should rely only on California State Law when considering whether a bail increase is appropriate. REQUIRED RESPONSES 1. The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney is required to respond to Findings 4, 5, 6, and 8 and Recommendations 1, 2, and 3. 2. The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff is required to respond to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. 3. The Chiefs of Police for each of the following agencies: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo are required to respond to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1035 Palm Street Room 355 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
F3:
The failure of law enforcement officers to be “… cognizant of Penal Code Sections 1269c . . .” and be regularly trained in its use can lead to situations where public safety is compromised and/or justice is thwarted.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The District Attorney should coordinate formal training programs for the local law enforcement agencies in the process for obtaining bail increases.
R3:
Local law enforcement agencies should work with the District Attorney in the development of the above policies and programs within the resources of their respective departments.
F4:
The processes are in place for San Luis Obispo County law enforcement officers to readily prepare requests for bail increases and submit the requests to a judge for approval.
F5:
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court has advised local law enforcement agencies to be mindful of this tool when considering bail.
F6:
The few crimes handled by San Luis Obispo County law enforcement officers warranting a bail enhancement increases the importance of ongoing training in this area to maintain knowledge and proficiency.
F7:
Not all of the county law enforcement officers are aware of the current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold procedures.
F8:
The District Attorney is in the best position to coordinate and lead an effort to ensure that each law enforcement agency in the county provides training to its personnel on bail enhancement tools. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The General Plan, which governs the issuance of Minor Use Permits, is complex, outdated, and contains over 140 “Band-Aid” amendments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should fund the update of the 1980 General Plan; incorporating appropriate amendments and make it easily accessible using an electronic search.
F2:
There is no difference in state requirements for notification for any MUP, regardless of project size, cost, or impact.
F3:
The notification does not require project levels (Tiers I, II, and III) to be designated. This denies the public the opportunity to determine the scope of the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
An estimated project cost should be required on the application to assist the public in evaluating the project’s impact.
F4:
San Luis Obispo County may provide more notification than state requirements.
F5:
Projects with potentially significant environmental and social impacts can get placed on the consent agenda, get overlooked and pass easily.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Tier III MUP projects should mandate a public hearing and not go on the Planning Department’s consent agenda.
F6:
Notification to the public on Tier III projects is often inadequate. a) Mailing notification of a project using only the state mandated information may not provide the recipient with enough information to understand the scope of a proposed project or activity. b) Newspaper legal notifications are published in a format which is difficult to notice, read and understand. c) The Department’s website includes detailed information, however, the actual parcel or project number is needed to be able to identify the project.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
An estimated project cost should be required on the application to assist the public in evaluating the project’s impact.
R5:
The Department should increase public notification above what is required by the State of California as the MUP tier levels increase as follows: a) The fee tier level and estimated cost of the project should be on the mailer to allow the public to gauge the scope of the project. b) The distribution area of the mailer should be appropriately increased in accordance with the tier level. c) The type size of the newspaper notice should be increased in accordance with the tier level. d) On-site signage containing the project information should be reinstated. e) The applicant should be charged for all costs. REQUIRED RESPONSES The Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer is required to respond to recommendations 1 through 5. The Department is required to respond to recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury. Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1035 Palm Street Room 355 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D
F7:
At the discretion of the Department, additional notification - such as larger type size or more frequent ads in the newspaper can be used, however it is unclear how, when and why that discretion is exercised.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Department should increase public notification above what is required by the State of California as the MUP tier levels increase as follows: a) The fee tier level and estimated cost of the project should be on the mailer to allow the public to gauge the scope of the project. b) The distribution area of the mailer should be appropriately increased in accordance with the tier level. c) The type size of the newspaper notice should be increased in accordance with the tier level. d) On-site signage containing the project information should be reinstated. e) The applicant should be charged for all costs. REQUIRED RESPONSES The Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer is required to respond to recommendations 1 through 5. The Department is required to respond to recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury. Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Superior Court of California P.O. Box 4910 1035 Palm Street Room 355 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D
F8:
Government agencies are notified at the discretion of the Department without clear-cut guidelines.
F9:
Diverse projects, such as a small deck on a house, a vacation rental, a public event, or a multi-home development require a MUP. F10 It is unclear if MUP filing fees cover the entire costs to the County for processing applications. RECOMMENDATIONS
F10:
It is unclear if MUP filing fees cover the entire costs to the County for processing applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department to ensure MUP fees cover all costs of the application process.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Juvenile Hall staff members demonstrate an impressive level of care and concern for the safety, security, well-being and rehabilitation of the youth under their care.
F2:
With its new expansion, Juvenile Hall has more space than it is likely to need.
F3:
It has been 10 years since the last Juvenile Hall needs analysis was prepared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board should commission a new needs analysis for completion no later than June 30, 2019, to help the County understand if 50 detention beds are too many and if the Juvenile Hall being too big adds unnecessarily to the County’s general fund expense. The last needs analysis was in 2007. While the Grand Jury believes it is time for a new needs analysis to be done, waiting until fiscal year 2018-19 to do so will give the County time to experience the effects of new legislation (AB 403 and Proposition 57) and the impact on Juvenile Hall usage.
F4:
The treatment program’s repurposing of 15 beds is not expected to impact the County budget, but this depends on expected group home cost-savings or cuts in other budget areas to make the program cost-neutral. If the treatment program does not pay for itself, it adds to the expense of running a larger Juvenile Hall instead of staffing and using its infrastructure more cost-effectively.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should request a report on program costs versus group home savings as part of its annual budget hearings, starting with the budget hearings for fiscal year 2017-18. If expected savings are not achieved, the Board should decide if cuts in other areas of the County’s budget are needed to allow this important program to continue. The benefits of a treatment program in the Juvenile Hall need to be weighed against the costs. Probation has suggested it would make cuts in other areas of its budget if expected group home cost savings are not realized. Probation’s desire to do what is in the best interest of County youth is important. Transparency in the program’s net impact to the County budget is important as well.
F5:
The treatment program is operating without a written operational manual.
F6:
A dual-purpose facility creates a statistical reporting dilemma. Occupancy trends may be harder to discern depending on how data is reported. Data such as average daily population and average length of stay are used by researchers and members of the public interested in understanding juvenile justice trends. If the numbers from both the treatment unit and the detention units are aggregated in developing this data, trends will become more difficult to discern. If the numbers are separated out, transparency will increase but reporting the data will become more complicated. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Probation should separately report statistical data for Juvenile Hall’s treatment population versus its detention population for improved transparency. 14
F7:
Even assuming the treatment program increases the Juvenile Hall’s usage and cost- effectiveness, the larger Hall may still cost too much for the overall use it is likely to get. Additional repurposing could reduce overall operating costs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board should commission a new needs analysis for completion no later than June 30, 2019, to help the County understand if 50 detention beds are too many and if the Juvenile Hall being too big adds unnecessarily to the County’s general fund expense. The last needs analysis was in 2007. While the Grand Jury believes it is time for a new needs analysis to be done, waiting until fiscal year 2018-19 to do so will give the County time to experience the effects of new legislation (AB 403 and Proposition 57) and the impact on Juvenile Hall usage.
R4:
If the results of the needs analysis in R1 indicate a sustained underuse, the County should determine no later than June 30, 2020, whether the repurposing suggestions in this report or other alternative uses would benefit the community and improve Juvenile Hall’s cost effectiveness, would be feasible to implement, and would be consistent with the County’s lease agreement with the State. As an alternative to repurposing, a staffing pattern that flexes based on the number of youth occupants—that is, based on usage—would improve cost-effectiveness.
* 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.