San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Continuity Report
Inal Eport San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
From the consolidated annual report · 36 pages
Individual reports (7)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
All urban areas (city jurisdictions) have weed abatement ordinances that are comparable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A study should be done to determine the adequacy of state regulations throughout county jurisdictions and determine ways to properly supplement them. This should be accomplished by the end of the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
F2:
San Luis Obispo County has no weed abatement ordinance, which was also a finding in a report written by Cal Fire and presented to the Board of Supervisors (BoS) in April of 2017. We were unable to find any response to this report by the BoS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As recommended in the previously cited 2017 Cal Fire report, the BoS should implement a county-wide weed abatement ordinance, which should also include agricultural properties. This should be accomplished by the end of the 2020-2021 fiscal year.
F3:
Information about evacuation plans is not readily available to the general public. This could present confusion and difficulty for residents, many of whom have limited evacuation routes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should develop a weed abatement ordinance that is consistent with the cities’ regulations.
F4:
The reverse 911 system is under-utilized by county residents. Registering for this system can be accomplished via the county Office of Emergency Services (OES) or Sheriff’s department websites. There is no telephone number available to accomplish this registration. Public Service Announcements alone are not reaching enough people.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County and all city fire jurisdictions should offer a chipping program similar to Atascadero. Funds may be available through the Fire Safe Program. A plan for this should be accomplished by the end of the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
F5:
The Diablo Canyon early warning siren system is currently funded by PG&E and is now used solely for Diablo Canyon incidents. If the County plans to maintain this system, there could be a funding problem when Diablo Canyon closes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should work with the cities in a concerted effort to educate the public on detailed and coordinated evacuation plans. Various ways to disseminate this information may include all types of county or city mail communications. Public Service Announcements, websites, and other forms of communication are also informative.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Plans should be implemented to incorporate the PG&E siren warning system to be used as an evacuation warning system for any and all emergencies where evacuation is warranted.
R7:
Cities should investigate installing additional warning systems where there are no existing sirens. A draft plan should be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2019-2020.
R8:
The Sheriff’s Office should provide Reverse 911 registration information to county and city agencies for dissemination via bills or other routine mail communication. This information should include a procedure for registering by phone.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The unaffordable costs of renting and buying homes on the Central Coast is of crisis proportions for those defined in the extremely low, very low, and low- income categories.
F2:
The lack of “affordable housing” for the three lower categories presents a long- term threat to the economic vitality and social fabric of the county.
F3:
The range of terms being used in the “affordable housing” debate creates confusion and perhaps misdirection for renters, home buyers and builders.
F4:
The supply of rental units available to lower income families is insufficient.
F5:
The jobs/housing imbalance places a burden on the transportation infrastructure and is costly for those who can least afford it.
F6:
Most of the required annual housing element updates are difficult to access by the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Create, file, and publish the required housing element documents and reports on time and in a form easily accessible to the public. This should be done by the next report cycle.
R6:
The cities and County should detail their specific plans to engage the public in the formulation of the 2020-2028 Housing Plan Update.
F7:
The length and cost of the building permitting process is a major barrier to the construction of all housing, especially low income housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Reassess and improve processes to fast-track building and planning permit approvals within 12 months from date of application. This should be implemented within FY 2019-2020.
F8:
The overwhelming majority of new housing units in the Housing Element cycle (2014-2019) have been built for families earning in excess of $89,850 per year for a family of three.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The cities and County should concentrate on promoting rentals for families earning below moderate incomes by increasing the percentage of required inclusionary housing units.
F9:
All cities and the County have “affordable housing” funds which collect and hold the in-lieu fees, but the fees are not achieving the desired outcome.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Either increase in-lieu fees to realistically support the construction cost of inclusionary housing units or eliminate the fees altogether and require low-income housing construction. This should be accomplished within FY 2019-2020.
F10:
All cities and the County have the ability to maximize their “affordable housing” funds by partnering with non-profit builders.
F11:
Housing that costs less, such as tiny homes, pre-fabricated, modular, and manufactured homes, are underutilized in this county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Increase the opportunities through re-zoning for non-traditional housing options, such as modular homes, pre-fabricated homes, and mobile home parks. This should be accomplished within FY 2020-2021.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
CMC offers extensive rehabilitation opportunities for inmates. San Luis Obispo County Jail
F2:
The SLO County Jail has undergone and continues to undergo expansion to the physical facilities since the passage of AB 109.
F3:
The SLO County Jail has instituted new educational programs since the passage of AB 109.
F4:
General and Mental Health facilities and programs have undergone expansion over the last several years.
F5:
Medical, mental, and dental services have been outsourced to Wellpath, an independent contractor.
F6:
Procedures for dealing with acute mentally ill inmates have been revised since in-custody deaths.
F7:
Gang activity is increasing in the county jail. Juvenile Hall
F8:
The excess space in Juvenile Hall is not utilized to its full potential. San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s facility
F9:
Detectives assigned to the Coroner’s Office have high caseloads.
F10:
Detectives are performing clean-up duties after autopsies as well as working their caseloads.
F11:
The Coroner's Office does not have a facility expansion plan. San Luis Obispo County Crime Lab facility
F12:
City law enforcement agencies do not receive the same training as Sheriff’s deputies in handling DNA evidence. Psychiatric Health Facility
F13:
The PHF has made minor upgrades to its small, antiquated facility.
F14:
According to the Sheriff’s office, placing a deputy at the PHF is not an option because of existing county policies and procedures.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Monitor and report clinical outcomes from medical treatment provided by Wellpath.
R2:
Implement a best practices study of ways to manage increasing gang activity. San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s facility
R3:
Hire a full-time assistant to perform autopsy clean-up and other duties to make daily operations more efficient.
R4:
Provide a Coroner's Facility expansion plan by the end of the fiscal year 2019-2020. This will include sources of funding and focus on future needs of the department.
R5:
The empty airport terminal buildings be considered for additional space since there are no current plans for redevelopment. Crime Lab
R6:
Crime Lab should provide the same training to city law enforcement agencies for handling DNA evidence as they do for Sheriff Deputies. Psychiatric Health Facility
R7:
Continue physical improvements to the existing PHF.
R8:
Consider expansion into other areas of the building.
R9:
Deaths a) Other deaths
R10:
Training (title, hours, and instructor credentials for each type) a) Managing inmate violence b) Handling mental health behaviors c) Responding to drug/alcohol related problems
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
All urban areas (city jurisdictions) have weed abatement ordinances that are comparable.
F2:
San Luis Obispo County has no weed abatement ordinance, which was also a finding in a report written by Cal Fire and presented to the Board of Supervisors (BoS) in April of 2017. We were unable to find any response to this report by the BoS.
F3:
Information about evacuation plans is not readily available to the general public. This could present confusion and difficulty for residents, many of whom have limited evacuation routes.
F4:
The reverse 911 system is under-utilized by county residents. Registering for this system can be accomplished via the county Office of Emergency Services (OES) or Sheriff’s department websites. There is no telephone number available to accomplish this registration. Public Service Announcements alone are not reaching enough people.
F5:
The Diablo Canyon early warning siren system is currently funded by PG&E and is now used solely for Diablo Canyon incidents. If the County plans to maintain this system, there could be a funding problem when Diablo Canyon closes.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A study should be done to determine the adequacy of state regulations throughout county jurisdictions and determine ways to properly supplement them. This should be accomplished by the end of the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
R2:
As recommended in the previously cited 2017 Cal Fire report, the BoS should implement a county-wide weed abatement ordinance, which should also include agricultural properties. This should be accomplished by the end of the 2020-2021 fiscal year.
R3:
The County should develop a weed abatement ordinance that is consistent with the cities’ regulations.
R4:
The County and all city fire jurisdictions should offer a chipping program similar to Atascadero. Funds may be available through the Fire Safe Program. A plan for this should be accomplished by the end of the 2019-2020 fiscal year. 2018-2019 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Final Report FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT: CITIES DO IT – WHY NOT THE COUNTY? 55
R5:
The County should work with the cities in a concerted effort to educate the public on detailed and coordinated evacuation plans. Various ways to disseminate this information may include all types of county or city mail communications. Public Service Announcements, websites, and other forms of communication are also informative.
R6:
Plans should be implemented to incorporate the PG&E siren warning system to be used as an evacuation warning system for any and all emergencies where evacuation is warranted.
R7:
Cities should investigate installing additional warning systems where there are no existing sirens. A draft plan should be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2019-2020.
R8:
The Sheriff’s Office should provide Reverse 911 registration information to county and city agencies for dissemination via bills or other routine mail communication. This information should include a procedure for registering by phone.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The failure of school districts to provide the required written notice to developers of their right to protest may extend the period in which a developer is allowed to file a suit challenging a fee and may expose the districts to potential future liability.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
All school districts must immediately begin providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
R2:
The County Office of Education should provide and require the school districts to use a standardized format for the notice of the right to protest the payment of developer fees. This form should be developed by January 1, 2020.
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools for San Luis Obispo County shall verify that every district is providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
F2:
In the sampled school districts there is inconsistency in reporting developer fee income and expenditures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The School Boards for each district in San Luis Obispo County shall ensure that their district’s developer funds have been properly used and sign a certificate of compliance.
F3:
San Luis Coastal Unified School District had been failing to provide the required written notice to developers but has indicated that they are now providing the necessary notice and sent us a copy. County Offices of Education, California Department of Education website: https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/co/coes.asp
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
All school districts must immediately begin providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
R2:
The County Office of Education should provide and require the school districts to use a standardized format for the notice of the right to protest the payment of developer fees. This form should be developed by January 1, 2020.
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools for San Luis Obispo County shall verify that every district is providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
F4:
Lucia Mar School District has indicated that they are giving the required written notice and provided us a copy.
F5:
The Paso Robles, Cayucos, and Coast Unified school districts have responded with copies of the receipts given to developers, which do not include the required notice.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
All school districts must immediately begin providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
R2:
The County Office of Education should provide and require the school districts to use a standardized format for the notice of the right to protest the payment of developer fees. This form should be developed by January 1, 2020.
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools for San Luis Obispo County shall verify that every district is providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
F6:
Atascadero Unified School District did not respond to the question of whether they give the required written notice to developers, thus it is unknown whether they are in compliance.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
All school districts must immediately begin providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
R2:
The County Office of Education should provide and require the school districts to use a standardized format for the notice of the right to protest the payment of developer fees. This form should be developed by January 1, 2020.
R3:
The Superintendent of Schools for San Luis Obispo County shall verify that every district is providing the required written notice to developers of their right to protest the imposition of developer fees.
F7:
All of the sampled districts take a permissive view of the restrictions on the sort of expenditures which are allowed for developer fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The School Boards for each district in San Luis Obispo County shall ensure that their district’s developer funds have been properly used and sign a certificate of compliance.
F8:
It is difficult to determine whether developer fees are being maintained in a separate fund as required by law.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Each school district must maintain its developer fees in a separate account as required by law, and not comingle these with other funds.
R6:
The School Boards for each district in San Luis Obispo County shall ensure that their district’s developer funds have been properly used and sign a certificate of compliance.
F9:
Most of the districts in the County either do not publish the required annual and 5-year reports on their use of developer fees, or provide such information in a difficult to access and understand format on their websites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
All districts should report their developer fees, including the mandated annual and 5- year reports, on their websites, in a prominently indexed and reasonably clear and accessible manner.
R6:
The School Boards for each district in San Luis Obispo County shall ensure that their district’s developer funds have been properly used and sign a certificate of compliance.
F10:
There is no general oversight exercised over the use of developer fees beyond that which may be provided by the district school boards.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Provision of paramedics in the ambulance service meets the requirements of the negotiated agreement.
F2:
Multiple agencies provide paramedic and EMT services.
F3:
EMSA negotiates all costs for the ambulance service.
F4:
San Luis Ambulance Company INC. has the sole contract to provide medical transportation services for the county.
F5:
Only three of the 16 Cal Fire engines funded by the County have paramedics.
F6:
San Luis Obispo County does not allow non-paramedic EMTs to use devices approved in other counties to protect an airway in case of medical emergency.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Additional paramedics should be provided on County-funded engines and added to the next contract.
R2:
The County EMS Division should approve more options for airway protection by BLS personnel using equipment that limits risky outcomes. This should be accomplished by January 1, 2020.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should petition the court for the addition of a closed-circuit AV system between the courthouse and the jail (potentially ASH can tie into the system) to reduce transportation cost and resolve overcrowding at the holding facility. Following the release of the Grand Jury recommendations Sheriff’s Office staff met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to discuss video arraignments. The Superior Court has previously used video arraignments for county jail inmates, however, they encountered several problems in the procedure that led to their discontinuing the practice in 2009. Under the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution all criminal court proceedings must be open to the public and the defendant must have access to legal counsel at the time of the proceeding, this requires that a courtroom that is accessible to the public be used for the proceeding and that counsel for the people and for the defendant be present for the proceeding to be lawful. At the time that video arraignment proceedings were used by the court an available courtroom existed at the San Luis Obispo Courthouse. In 2009 the volume of family law cases required that this courtroom be placed into fulltime service and video arraignments were discontinued, due in part, to a lack of available courtrooms. A second problem that was encountered by the court was that legal counsel for the accused and a deputy district attorney were often not available to be present in the courtroom during video arraignments because their presence was required in other courtrooms where defendants were appearing in person. County of San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office A third problem that was identified was that because the arraignment was done by video, defense counsel did not have any way to hold confidential communications with their client to discuss their plea or to gather mitigating facts that might allow defense counsel to negotiate a plea agreement with the district attorney at that proceeding. Because all the members of the defense bar work as private attorneys the court cannot compel them to go to the county jail on Kansas Avenue to meet with their clients, either before or after a video arraignment. Because of the problems the court encountered with the practice of video arraignments, the court discontinued them, and they have expressed that they have no interest in resuming the process at this time.
R2:
Jail administration should re-examine how to offer programs inside housing units which can be more effective, e.g., sentenced-only housing units, as some who spoke with the Grand Jury have suggested. Sheriff’s Office Custody Manual Policy 516 should be updated to reflect legal status (pre-trial vs. sentenced) is not used as a criterion for housing assignments if these two inmate statuses continue to be mixed. We are requesting results of further analysis, specifically of the assessment of the feasibility of sentenced-only housing, which was to be completed by December 31, 2018. The Jail Programs Unit submitted a recommendation in regard to sentenced-only housing in December of 2018 up the chain of command. There has been no official response from administration about the recommendation.
R3:
In addition to either of the first two alternatives, the Grand Jury also recommends that cameras be added in the stairwells leading to the courtrooms and to the fenced area outside the sally port. Following the Grand Jury recommendation regarding the addition of cameras to the stairwells leading to the courtrooms and to the fenced area outside the sally port the Sheriff’s Office requested the Board of Supervisors approve the expenditure of funds to be used for the replacement of existing analog surveillance camera equipment and the installation of additional digital IP based cameras in the stairwells leading to the courtrooms and in the area outside the courthouse near the sally port entrance that is used to transport inmates to the courthouse. The Board of Supervisor’s approved the expenditure of $125,000 for this project and it is currently underway. The project will replace existing analog cameras with digital and add 10 digital cameras to the secured stairwells, the sally port and the exterior areas outside of the sally port to improve the safety and security of both the inmates and the correctional staff working at the court holding facility. The project is managed by the County’s Information Technology Department. At this time ITD and the County’s Central Services Department are reviewing bids for both the cabling work to be performed and for the camera hardware to be purchased. ITD expects the project will be completed by June 30, 2019.
R5:
The Sheriff should formulate a long-term plan to deal with the problems associated with the condition and layout of the main jail. This plan should include the replacement of the current main jail facility. In 2017 the Sheriff’s Office opened the Kansas Facility to take the place of an overcrowded and antiquated Female Jail. The Kansas Facility is a 194-bed facility with 2 safety cells. The Medical Program Unit was constructed in 2018 to combat the increasing number of high risk medical and mental health inmates. The Kansas Facility and MPU accumulated 25 million dollars in construction costs and an additional 17 million in associated cost. In short, the Kansas and MPU facilities totaled 46 million in expenditures. The main jail has a Board Rated Capacity of 162 beds. The Sheriff’s Office has worked diligently on the upkeep of the Main Jail which was constructed in 1971. At the last State inspection, the Field County of San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office Representative noted in his report that, “The jail was clean, and despite its age, no issues of deferred maintenance were apparent.” However, the county jail is plagued with overcrowding issues in the inmate population. The Sheriff’s Office continues to make minor capital improvements on the main jail to ensure the facility is maintained. To replace the main jail would most likely require approximately 20-30 million in construction and associated costs. The Sheriff’s Office monitors state grants for funds associated with new construction. These grants on a competitive need basis with other counties in the State and are not guaranteed. The Board of Supervisors would need to approve tax payer funds from the county to begin construction of a new Jail.
R7:
The Sheriff should construct a psychiatric hospital (jail bed competency treatment facility) on the jail campus or elsewhere within the County. The Behavioral Health Unit is due to be opened for staff to move in on March 29th. Once construction, office set-up and staff are trained; The Sheriff’s Office will begin using the Unit to program and treat the mentally ill starting May 1st, 2019. The Sheriff’s Office has also converted two modular units into additional office space for Mental Health Staff and Community Action Team members. The Sheriff’s Office plans on utilizing part of the Kansas Facility to house JBCT eligible inmates. Minor capital improvements will need to be made to the Kansas Facility to accommodate these inmates. The Sheriff’s Office is currently researching companies that specialize in staffing this type of Treatment Facility. No concrete date has been set for the opening of the JBCT but is currently in progress and on-going.
R8:
The Sheriff should increase the staffing for the jail mental health workers to reduce the wait time for appointments from five days to one day or less. Now that a contract with Correctional Medical Group Companies has been finalized, we are requesting an update on staffing levels and wait times. Wellpath, formerly Correctional Medical Group Companies, took over health care responsibilities at the SLO County Jail on 2/1/2019. Mental health staff has increased as per the table below, which is also included in the staffing matrix in the contract: Staff member Jail Psych Services staff Wellpath hours/week hours/wk Psychiatrist / Psych NP 20 40 MH Supervisor 40 40 Licensed Psych Tech 200 120 Substance Abuse Counselor 0 40 LCSW/LMFT 40 100 Total 300 340 Patients with mental health diagnoses or symptoms will be seen according to the standards outlined in the contract, which are consistent with the national standard set by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). Details can be found in the signed contract (available for download on the SLO County Board of Supervisors website from 12/11/2018) and include universal mental health screening at intake and a face to face encounter within 24 hours for any mental health symptom. County of San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office 2017-18 Moving the Dial at the County Jail: The Goal of Reducing Recidivism: