San Luis Obispo County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

July 14, 2016 — Inal Eport San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury P.o. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, California 93403

79 páginas 10 hallazgos 8 recomendaciones

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: The General Plan, which governs the issuance of Minor Use Permits, is complex, outdated, and contains over 140 “Band-Aid” amendments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: An estimated project cost should be required on the application to assist the public in evaluating the project’s 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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department to ensure MUP fees cover all costs of the application process.

F4: San Luis Obispo County may provide more notification than state requirements.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: Tier III MUP projects should mandate a public hearing and not go on the Planning Department’s consent agenda.

F5: Projects with potentially significant environmental and social impacts can get placed on the consent agenda, get overlooked and pass easily.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 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 5 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON Exhibit A 6 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 7 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 8 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 9 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 10 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 11 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 12 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 13 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 14 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 15 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 16 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 17 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 18 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 19 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 20 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 21 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON Exhibit B 22 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 23 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 24 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 25 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 26 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 27 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 28 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 29 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 30 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 31 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 32 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 33 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 34 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON 35 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON Exhibit C 36 MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON Exhibit D 37 This page intentionally left blank. KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? INTRODUCTION After an arrest for most offenses, a defendant can pledge to the court cash or a bond to obtain temporary release from custody. This pledge, known as “bail”, historically was meant to assure a defendant’s appearance in court to answer for any criminal charges that might be filed. In 1982, voters in California passed Proposition 45 (known as the Victim’s Bill of Rights) which, along with some additional legislation, made public safety the primary focus of bail. In doing so, it provided guidance to judges in setting bail for individuals who had been arrested. It gave judges the latitude to take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, the dangerousness of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case. California Penal Code section 1269b(c) requires judges of each county to annually establish a schedule of the bail which is to be set for every criminal offense. This becomes the county’s bail schedule and its purpose is to set a reasonable bail for each offense. The bail amounts in this schedule, however, cannot take into consideration all of the aspects of Proposition 4 so the legislature amended the law in Penal Code section 1269(c). If an arresting officer believes the circumstances, surrounding the offense warrants it, this statute gives the officer the ability to request that a judge set bail for an individual higher than what is specified in the county’s bail schedule. Examples of such circumstances are: 1. the suspect has an extensive criminal record, 2. the suspect has a record of failing to appear in court on prior occasions, 3. the suspect is in the country illegally, 5 Proposition 4 amended Section 12 of Article 1 of the California Constitution. Report Submitted June 30, 2016 39 KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? 4. the suspect may continue to engage in criminal conduct, 5. the suspect is a continuing threat to a victim or, 6. the facts of the current offense are so egregious or extraordinary that the officer believes the current bail is insufficient. BACKGROUND In July 2015, a man brutally abused a young child in Paso Robles and inflicted very serious injuries. The severity of these injuries required the child to be transported by air ambulance to a hospital. Police were able to identify a man they suspected of committing the crime and arrested him. Shortly after this arrest, police developed reason to believe the suspect may have been in the country illegally. Police booked the suspect into the County Jail on P.C. 273a (a) felony child abuse and bail was set at $100,000 using the standard county bail schedule. During booking, police notified the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) of the arrest of this individual and ICE placed an immigration hold (ICE hold) on the suspect. The arresting officers believed the suspect would be held on the combination of the bail amount and the ICE hold. Therefore, officers never attempted to seek an increase in this bail. Shortly after being booked into jail, the suspect posted bail and was released from custody in spite of the ICE hold. The suspect failed to appear in court as directed and his whereabouts are currently unknown. METHODOLOGY This incident prompted an investigation by the 2015-2016 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury to determine if local law enforcement agencies ensure that bail for offenders they arrest in serious criminal cases is sufficient to preserve public safety and enhance the chances the offender will appear in court. In the course of the investigation, the Grand Jury requested policies, procedures, and training information from the Sheriff’s Department and each of the seven city police departments within the county related to assessing the sufficiency of bail and, if necessary, requesting a court to 40 KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? increase bail above the scheduled amount. Inquiry was also made of each agency as to the impact ICE holds have on an officer’s decision whether or not to seek a bail increase. The Grand Jury also obtained the current bail schedule for San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, which included a cover letter to all the county law enforcement agencies advising them of their responsibilities for recognizing the need for and requesting an increase in bail.6 The Grand Jury interviewed the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff, the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney and his staff, as well as law enforcement officers from the Sheriff’s Department, and each of the seven police departments within the county. Specific inquiry was made of the arresting agency in the previously mentioned July 2015 child abuse case as to their policies, procedures, and training relating to requesting a bail increase. Further, how they handled that particular child abuse case in these regards. Inquiry was also made of the other law enforcement agencies as to their policies, procedures, and training relating to bail increase request in cases of similar seriousness. NARRATIVE In August 2015, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff met with the newly seated Grand Jury. During this meeting, among other topics, the Sheriff discussed the previously mentioned case wherein an illegal immigrant had been released from custody on bail even though an ICE hold was reportedly in place. Due to this fact, the case had received extensive media coverage. The Sheriff informed the Grand Jury that federal courts have held that it is against the law for local law enforcement officials to hold an individual in custody solely based on their immigration status or deny the individual the opportunity to post bail solely because of immigration status. According to the Sheriff, this is a problem County Sheriffs throughout the state are facing and repeated requests to the federal government for assistance in dealing with this issue have left the matter unresolved. Consequently, unless and until the federal government provides enforcement authority or direction to counties on immigration matters, local law enforcement officials must 6 http://slocourts.net/downloads/court_documents/2015_Complete_Bail_Schedule_&_LTR.pdf 41 KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? rely solely on the bail set by each county’s bail schedule or otherwise authorized bail set by a judge to lawfully continue to detain individuals arrested for serious offenses. The Sheriff acknowledged that a request to increase the standard bail for offenses can be made if an arresting officer feels the circumstances of the offense or the offender would support an increase in bail. The Sheriff said, to his knowledge, such a request was not made in this case. The Grand Jury determined that the bail increase process is contained in California Penal Code section 1269c. This Penal Code statute and the duties of law enforcement in using it are stated in the Superior Court’s 2015 Bail Schedule cover letter to the law enforcement agencies wherein the court said, “Prevailing legislation places the burden on law enforcement agencies to notify the magistrate if the scheduled bail is not adequate for the crime.” The court further said in this letter, “It is recommended that each agency make their personnel cognizant of Penal Code Sections 1269c … as certain provisions may apply if bail modification occurs.” The Grand Jury interviewed the two officers who were involved in the arrest of the suspect in this case. The Grand Jury learned the following: In July 2015, their police department received a report from a hospital that a two-year old child with very serious injuries had been admitted to the hospital. The injuries were numerous and included two broken arms and a broken leg. Hospital staff suspected that the child’s injuries were the result of severe child abuse. Believing that the abuse had occurred within the jurisdiction of this police department, two police officers went to the hospital and began an investigation. These officers determined the identity of the suspect whom they knew from prior incidents and believed he was in the United States illegally. The officers then arrested and transported the suspect, booking him into the San Luis Obispo County Jail on the child abuse charges. Using the standard bail schedule for these charges, bail was set at $100,000. Believing the suspect to be in the country illegally, the officers sent a fax to ICE informing them of the arrest. An ICE hold was placed on this suspect that lead the arresting officers to believe that ICE officials would pick him up before he was released from custody. KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? Shortly after his arrest, the suspect was able to post bail. Although ICE did place a hold on the suspect with the jail, the suspect was not stopped from posting bail. Upon posting bail, he was given a date to appear in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court and was released from custody. The suspect did not appear as directed in court and, to date, law enforcement does not know where he is. On November 24, 2015, the Grand Jury spoke with the District Attorney (also known as the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer”) and his staff. In this role, the District Attorney provides legal guidance to law enforcement agencies in matters of importance. The District Attorney provided the Grand Jury with a copy of a training memorandum from his office dated November 20, 2015, and directed to the San Luis Obispo County law enforcement agencies titled “Setting Bail at Booking”. Among the points raised in the memorandum was the use of PC1269c to obtain a bail increase as well as “templates” available to the officers to assist in preparing the necessary paperwork. The District Attorney demonstrated the ease with which law enforcement officers can electronically access these templates, prepare them on a computer, and either print the documents out or submit them to a judge electronically. The District Attorney also said that attorneys from his office are available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year for legal assistance to law enforcement officers in the preparation of this paperwork. The Grand Jury also went to each of the seven city police departments in the county. The purpose of the visits was to interview law enforcement officers to determine: 1) Whether the officers were aware of the provisions of PC1269c, 2) Did the department have a written policy regarding the use of PC1269c, 3) Did the department provide training to the officers of the department on PC1269c, 4) How often has PC1269c been used by officers of the department and, 5) What information or training is provided to the officers of the department regarding federal immigration (ICE) holds? The Grand Jury noted that the police departments interviewed early in the investigation had little or no knowledge of PC1269c and little or no training in the use of these provisions. The officers interviewed in one of the police departments said that some of their detectives are experienced 43 KEEPING SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY: WHEN IS SCHEDULED BAIL NOT ENOUGH? and knowledgeable in using PC1269c. This knowledge however, is only passed on verbally from one detective to another. The police departments did not have written policies or training in this area. The officers indicated that their detectives handle all serious crimes and the detectives talk with one another about their cases. If the need arose, an experienced detective would assist a fellow detective in the use of the PC1269c to obtain an increase in bail. At the conclusion of our interviews, it appeared to the Grand Jury that there was little consistency among the law enforcement agencies as to the policies, procedures, training, and use of PC1269c. Each of the agencies said that they rarely handled arrests for crimes within the county that would justify an increase in the bail. They categorized these types of crimes generally as serious felonies with extenuating circumstances or serious felonies committed by an individual with an extensive or serious criminal background. Each of these agencies, however, did acknowledge the importance for their officers to be familiar with and know how to use PC1269c to obtain a bail increase. Further, these agencies each felt that the serious crimes for which PC1269c would be used, occur very infrequently and ongoing training is important. None of the city police department officers interviewed indicated a clear understanding of ICE hold’s ineffectiveness in keeping individuals in custody. The Grand Jury spoke with a training officer and a detective from the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department about their PC1269c policies and training. The Grand Jury reviewed the PC1269c written policies, which included the district attorney memorandum of November 20, 2015. The Sheriff’s Department provides their detectives with PC1269c training and bail enhancements have been sought when appropriate. FINDINGS

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. MINOR USE PERMITS: AN OXYMORON c) The Department’s website includes detailed information, however, the actual parcel or project number is needed to be able to identify the project.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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. CONTINUITY REPORT REPORT 3 - Morro Bay Municipal Code Enforcement: Band-Aid or Process? The recommendations requiring responses:

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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. CONTINUITY REPORT REPORT 5 – We Are Waiting: Access to County Provided Mental Health Services The recommendations requiring responses:

F8: Government agencies are notified at the discretion of the Department without clear-cut guidelines.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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. CONTINUITY REPORT 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. CONTINUITY REPORT REPORT 6 – San Luis Obispo County Juvenile Hall, Jail, and Allied Agencies Inspection The recommendations requiring responses:

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.

July 12, 2016 — Continuity Report*

22 páginas 8 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Recomendaciones adicionales 8

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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:

June 30, 2016 — Keeping Suspects in Custody: When is Scheduled Bail Not Enough?

8 páginas 8 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

June 07, 2016 — Minor USE Permits: an Oxymoron1

38 páginas 10 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: The General Plan, which governs the issuance of Minor Use Permits, is complex, outdated, and contains over 140 “Band-Aid” amendments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: An estimated project cost should be required on the application to assist the public in evaluating the project’s impact.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F8: Government agencies are notified at the discretion of the Department without clear-cut guidelines.

F10: It is unclear if MUP filing fees cover the entire costs to the County for processing applications.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department to ensure MUP fees cover all costs of the application process.

May 26, 2016 — Minor USE Permits: an Oxymoron1

38 páginas 10 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: The General Plan, which governs the issuance of Minor Use Permits, is complex, outdated, and contains over 140 “Band-Aid” amendments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: An estimated project cost should be required on the application to assist the public in evaluating the project’s impact.

F8: Government agencies are notified at the discretion of the Department without clear-cut guidelines.

F10: It is unclear if MUP filing fees cover the entire costs to the County for processing applications.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department to ensure MUP fees cover all costs of the application process.

* 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.