Ventura County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

May 31, 2016 — to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a week

23 pages 35 findings 5 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 35 findings

F01: At first glance, the definitions of “non-exempt employee” and “exempt employee” seem simple and straight forward. However, the regulations relating to the placement of positions into the correct classification are quite complex. Terminology is often open to differing interpretations. As a result, both employers and employees often do not understand the distinction between the two classifications. The County’s Personnel Rules and Regulations manual does not explain these classifications; nor does the Administrative Policy Manual. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09, FA-12, FA-14)

F02: State laws, local laws, and/or collective bargaining agreements may exceed the minimum requirements of the FLSA. Employers must apply whichever provides employees with the most protection. While some employees may feel that being entitled to overtime provides more protection, others may feel that a guaranteed salary with no overtime provides more protection. Based on class action lawsuits filed, it seems that the majority of employees feel they have more protection if entitled to overtime pay. (FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13)

F03: Because 25% of the County’s regular employees are classified as exempt, the County faces substantial inherent risks associated with incorrectly classifying employees as exempt. These risks to the County include:  The US Department of Labor may open an investigation and file a lawsuit if it believes a classification was incorrect. (FA-27)  The California Labor Commissioner may take action if he/she believes a classification is incorrect. (FA-12)  Individual employees may file a lawsuit if they believe their classification is incorrect. (FA-28)  A class action suit may be filed for alleged misclassification. (FA-12)  If a classification is challenged, the employer bears the burden of proving the classification is correct. (FA-27) 12 Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave  The employer will be liable for back pay and possibly penalties and interest if a position is required to be reclassified. (FA-28)  If pending federal legislation is passed, employers may be required to reclassify some exempt employees as non-exempt or increase their salaries. (FA-29)  Reclassification – in either direction – may result in employee dissatisfaction, lower morale, and decreased productivity. (FA-29)  Because the number of lawsuits alleging misclassification is increasing, employers face growing risk of being sued. (FA-27)

F04: Considerable judgement must be applied when deciding to classify a position as exempt rather than non-exempt. The focus must be on actual job duties performed on a daily basis rather than job title, job description, or salary level [Little v. Belle Tire]. Careful attention should be given to comparing the cost of paying occasional overtime to a non-exempt employee with the cost of paying a fixed salary to an exempt employee regardless of hours worked. (FA-04, FA-05, FA-09, FA-12, FA-13, FA-28, FA-29, FA-33)

F05: Due to the large number of County positions classified as exempt, there is a potential for significant financial impact if positions have to be reclassified or salaries increased to avoid reclassification. (FA-18, FA-28, FA-29)

F06: Due to the large number of County positions classified as exempt and therefore eligible for administrative leave, there is a potential for significant abuse of the Administrative Leave Policy. Exempt employees benefit from being paid their full salary for a week in which any work is performed. If the granting of administrative leave is not carefully controlled, classifying positions as exempt may be a financial disadvantage for the County. (FA-13, FA-18, FA-19)

F07: The County has not determined the financial impact of having 25% of its employees in positions classified as exempt. (FA-15)

F08: The application of the Administrative Leave provisions of the County’s Administrative Policy Manual is inconsistent across employee units. While the Administrative Policy Manual merely states that administrative leave shall be granted for no more than three consecutive days, some MOAs (SEIU and VEA) express increments for taking administrative leave in terms of maximum hours per workday. Still others express the increment in terms of a minimum (MCCOUER, CNA, APCD), or make no mention of time increments (CJAAVC). While the meaning may seem the same, the SEIU and VEA wording would allow the practice of granting administrative leave in increments as small as one hour while the wording in the MCCOUERs would prohibit the practice. (FA-16, FA-17, FA-19, FA-20, FA-21, FA-22, FA-23, FA-24, FA-25)

F09: The MCCOUER reflects the County’s position that exempt employees should not be required or even allowed to record actual hours worked beyond the Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave 13 regular workday. However, exempt employees may, for a variety of reasons, be required to track their actual hours worked (as long as their pay is not reduced for working less than a full workday). (FA-20, FA-27, FA-30, FA-31)

F10: A periodic review (audit) of the classification of positions as exempt or non- exempt would reduce the risks associated with misclassification. The review should focus on actual job duties performed on a daily basis. (FA-34)

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors require a regularly scheduled audit of workforce classifications and job descriptions to ensure employees are correctly classified under current rules. (FI-03, FI-10)

F11: The County’s Administrative Leave policy for exempt employees is not clearly stated. It does not have a provision related to “exceptional performance” but rather simply “satisfactory or better performance”. Furthermore, it does not define satisfactory performance, thereby leaving the term open to a wide range of interpretations. Requiring documentation of hours worked by exempt employees may be useful in substantiating exceptional performance. (FA-19, FA-35)

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors review and revise Chapter VIII (B) – 3 of the County’s Administrative Policy Manual to better define the level of performance required for the granting of administrative leave and to clarify the minimum and maximum time increments for taking administrative leave. The Policy should require the use of PTO for absences of less than a full work shift. The Policy should also direct the tracking of actual hours worked by exempt employees. Furthermore, as the various MOAs expire, the replacement MOAs should be consistent in the application of the Policy. (FI-08, FI-09, FI-11, FI-13)

F12: The designation of a position as exempt or non-exempt is not discretionary in so far as employees in non-exempt positions may not be classified as exempt. To do so would deny them overtime pay. However, nothing was found that would prohibit positions that could be designated exempt from being classified non-exempt. This would allow the employee to be paid overtime. When in doubt, it may be advisable to err on the side of caution and classify a position as non-exempt. (FA-05, FA-32)

F13: Requiring exempt employees to utilize available Personal Time Off, rather than Administrative Leave, for absences of less than a full work shift would reduce non-exempt employees’ perception that exempt employees receive an unfair advantage. (FA-31) Recommendations

F14: The Ventura County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has adopted a “Personnel Rules and Regulations” manual. Article 1, Section 101 states: “This resolution describes the definitive guidelines which are adopted to provide a consistent, equitable, effective and efficient program of personnel administration for management, employees and the citizens of the County of Ventura. This Resolution, along with Memoranda of Understanding and Memoranda of Agreement and [a] separate document for unrepresented employees, describes the employment plan for employees of the County of Ventura and shall be known as the Personnel Rules and Regulations.” While this document defines a myriad of terms, the index reveals that there is no explanation/definition of exempt and non-exempt employees. Chapter VIII (B) – 6 of the County of Ventura 2005 Administrative Policy Manual states: “An exempt salaried employee is an executive, administrative or professional employee as defined by the FLSA….” However, this chapter does not explain the qualifications to be designated as executive, administrative, or professional nor does it mention non- Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave 5 exempt employee. It does not clarify the distinction between exempt and non-exempt employees. In reviewing County documents, the only other mention of exempt and non-exempt employees that could be found was in Section 3-1 of a document titled “County of Ventura County Clerk and Recorder Employee Handbook”, dated October 2012 and imprinted with the General Services Agency emblem. However, relevant County employees interviewed had no knowledge of the document and had to do a Google search to find it. Because the document sometimes refers to the Clerk and Recorder and other times to the GSA Director, it is unclear who was responsible for the document and to whom it applies. The web address for the document includes the phrase “inProgress” so it is unclear whether it was actually approved for issuance. (Ref-08, Ref-09, Ref-10)

F15: The County designates positions (rather than the specific person who fills that position) as exempt or non-exempt. Within the County, similar jobs are categorized in classifications, and whole classifications are designated as exempt or non-exempt. The Human Resources Classification and Compensation (HRCC) group in the County Executive Office utilizes a Position Description Questionnaire to perform an analysis and recommend the FLSA designation. Occasionally a review of an FLSA designation is requested. Individuals currently holding the position complete the Position Description Questionnaire and a full study of the position is conducted by the HRCC. A recommendation is then made and, if necessary, vetted through the appropriate labor organization and/or County executive management. A study has not been done to determine/estimate the financial effects of designating positions as exempt rather than non- exempt.

F16: The County recognizes 10 employee organizations/unions, each of which has a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the County:  Service Employees International Union (SEIU)  Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (VCDSA)  Ventura County Professional Firefighters Association (VCPFA)  International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)  Ventura County Professional Peace Officers Association (VCPPOA)  Specialized Peace Officers Association of Ventura County (SPOAVC)  California Nurses Association (CNA)  Criminal Justice Attorneys’ Association of Ventura County (CJAAVC)  Ventura County Sheriff’s Correctional Officers Association (VCSCOA)  Ventura Employees’ Association (VEA) 6 Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave Additionally, the County has a “Management, Confidential Clerical and Other Unrepresented Employees Resolution” (MCCOUER) dated June 2015 which covers employees not covered by an employee organization and an MOA with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). (Ref 11)

F17: Approximately 85% of all regular County employees are covered either by the MOAs with the three largest employee unions (SEIU, VCDSA, and CNA) or by the MCCOUER.

F18: Roughly 90% of the regular employees covered by the MCCOUER are classified as exempt. Equally important, close to 25% of all regular County employees are classified as exempt employees.

F19: According to Chapter VIII (B) – 3 of the County of Ventura 2005 Administrative Policy Manual, “Administrative leave was created in recognition of a need for an occasional outlet [emphasis added] for exempt employees who, by the nature of the work they do, their training and education as well as the responsibilities and pressures of their positions, are employed to perform a professional or management function.” Among the provisions set forth are the following:  “The agency/department head or his/her representative may grant administrative leave to employees in FLSA exempt classifications. In no event shall any exempt employee accrue any rights inconsistent with the purposes or policies as set forth herein.  Administrative leave shall be granted only to those employees who maintain satisfactory or better performance, such as that reflected in performance reviews, employee development records and other types of performance evaluations.  Administrative leave must be approved by the appointing authority or his/her designated representative prior to being taken.  Under normal circumstances, administrative leave shall be granted for no more than three consecutive days. However, if unusual circumstances exist, the agency/department head may grant approval for longer than three days as long as prior approval of the extended time is obtained.  Employees should use the appropriate hours code for reporting Administrative Leave [taken] on their time cards.” (Ref-12)

F20: Article 10 Administrative Leave of the MCCOUER reads as follows: “Sec. 1001 Purpose: To provide for granting time off with pay for employees who are not eligible to be compensated for overtime. Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave 7 Sec. 1002 Eligible Employees: Any employee whose position is excluded by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from accruing and being compensated for overtime is eligible for administrative leave. Sec. 1003 Granting Of Administrative Leave: Employees shall be granted paid administrative leave in no less than full day increments [emphasis added] upon approval of their supervisor in accordance with the County Administrative Manual. Sec. 1004 Payment For Overtime Worked: Nothing herein shall prevent the payment of straight-time compensation to employees eligible for administrative leave in times of stress or unusual workload situations. Such compensation shall require the authorization of the Board of Supervisors. Sec. 1005 Use, Accruals, And Record Keeping: Employees exempt from overtime shall not accrue or record hours worked beyond the regular workday or biweekly work period. Employees exempt from overtime shall be eligible to receive administrative leave for personal business in addition to vacation, sick leave, annual leave, and holidays. Administrative leave is not an accrual and has no cash value. It is not earned, but is allowed exempt employees, subject to supervisory scheduling.” (Ref-13)

F21: Although Article 11 of the MOA with SEIU contains slight wording differences from the MCCOUER Article 10, the overall meaning is essentially the same. However, one difference is in Sec. 1103 of the MOA which states: “Administrative Leave may be granted in increments not to exceed twelve hours (or the regular shift). For example, an employee who works a 4/10 schedule may be granted 10 hours of Administrative Leave on his/her usual workday.” (Ref-14)

F22: The Administrative Leave provision (Article 12) of the MOA with CNA also essentially duplicates those in the MCCOUER. It states that, “Administrative Leave may only be granted in increments of eight hours (or the regular shift) or more.” Additionally, Sec. 1102 states, “Any employee who is FLSA exempt shall not be paid overtime of any type unless specifically provided herein.” (Ref-15)

F23: Article 10 of the MOA with CJAAVC contains provisions relating to administrative leave which essentially duplicate the MCCOUER with one notable exception – Section 1003 Granting of Administrative Leave makes absolutely no mention of time increments. It simply states, “Employees shall be granted paid administrative leave upon approval of their supervisor.” (Ref-16)

F24: The Administrative Leave provision (Article 12) of the MOA with VEA states, “Administrative Leave may be granted in increments not to exceed twelve hours (or the regular shift). For example, an employee who works a 4/10 schedule may be granted 10 hours of Administrative Leave on his/her usual 8 Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave workday.” Additionally, Section 1105 states, “Employees occupying the classifications designated as exempt in accordance with FLSA as of October 16, 2001 shall not have their pay or their vacation/leave banks reduced by absences of less than one day.” (Ref-17)

F25: While some employees of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) apparently are covered by the MOA with VEA, the APCD also has a separate Management, Confidential Clerical And Other Unrepresented Employees Resolution dated June 2014. Article 10 (Administrative Leave), Section 1003 provides that exempt employees “shall be granted paid administrative leave in no less than full day increments….” (Ref-18, Ref-19)

F26: The MOAs with VCDSA, VCPFA, IUOE, VCPPOA, SPOAVC, and VCSCOA contain no provisions related to administrative leave. (Ref-20, Ref-21, Ref-22, Ref-23, Ref-24, Ref-25, Ref-26) Facts Related to Implementation of FLSA

F27: According to the website HRHero: “The primary advantages [for employers] of classifying employees as exempt are that you don’t have to track their hours or pay them overtime, no matter how many hours they work…However, [employers must be careful when classifying employees because] exemptions from the overtime requirements of the FLSA are just that – exceptions to the rule. They are very narrowly construed, and as the employer, you will always bear the burden of proving that you have correctly classified an employee as exempt…. The provisions of the FLSA are interpreted and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) which investigates complaints and sometimes sues when it finds violations.” Statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts showed that 8,160 FLSA cases were filed between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, an 8.8% increase from the prior 12-month period. (Ref-01, Ref-05)

F28: If the DOL finds that employees have been misclassified as exempt and requires that they be reclassified as non-exempt, the employer may be liable for back pay awards for unpaid overtime, and possibly penalties and interest. Additionally, employees may file lawsuits against employers for incorrect classification and resulting failure to pay overtime [e.g., Little v. Belle Tire Distributors (6th Cir. 10/23/14)]. According to Business Management Daily, “For employers, the stakes are high. Employees misclassified as exempt can be eligible for two years’ worth of back wages (three if the violation was “willful”) at 1.5 times the hourly rate, plus liquidated damages equal to the unpaid wages. This means employees can collect up to three times their regular rate of pay.” (Ref-06, Ref-27) Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave 9

F29: In July 2015 the DOL issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which “…focuses primarily on updating the salary and compensation levels needed for white collar workers to be exempt.” The proposed change, expected to be adopted by July 2016, would more than double the salary threshold that makes “white-collar managers” eligible for overtime pay as well as establishing a mechanism for automatically updating the compensation levels going forward. According to Business & Legal Reports, Inc., “Changing employees from exempt to nonexempt offers overtime options but may appear to be a loss of status to the individual employee. While some employees will welcome the chance to receive overtime pay, others may see the need to track actual hours worked as a loss of executive, administrative, or professional power or recognition.” (Ref-04, Ref-05, Ref-28)

F30: According to Business Management Daily, “Just because a worker is exempt doesn’t mean your company is freed from keeping records on him or her. With exempt employees, you should keep records that describe the workweek and the wages paid for that period…. Your records for exempt employees can also track which days are used for sick days, vacation days or personal days [emphasis added].” (Ref-04)

F31: According to attorney Robin Thomas, “The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations do not specifically prohibit employers from requiring exempt employees to work a particular schedule or to track the hours they work. In fact, the Department of Labor (DOL), in the preamble to revised exemption regulations, stated that employers may require exempt employees to work a specific schedule and to record and track hours without affecting their exempt status…. You generally may track hours worked for purposes unrelated to the employee’s pay…and may record daily attendance.” This holds true as long as the exempt employee’s salary does not fluctuate based on hours worked. “Accordingly, if you require exempt employees to work a specific number of hours or arrive at a specific time (and have them clock in and out to show that they are complying with these requirements)…your best practice…is to show that these job requirements are directly related to the exempt employees’ job duties.” (Ref-29)

F32: According to Business & Legal Reports, Inc., “Employers may require exempt employees to clock in and out for lunch periods and at the beginning and end of their work day. There are a number of reasons why an employer may want to require exempt employees to “punch a time clock” in the same way that non-exempt employees are required to do so. One reason involves the equitable treatment of all employees regardless of level in the company. Another reason is that a time clock provides a record of exempt employees’ attendance. However, in order to continue to be classified as exempt, these employees must be paid…a fixed salary each week…. The amount paid may not be reduced because of a variation in the 10 Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave quality or quantity of the work performed…. Accordingly, if an exempt employee clocks in late to work or leaves early at the end of the day, the employer may not dock his or her pay as it does for a non-exempt, hourly employee.” The question arises, “If an exempt employee comes into work for half an hour and needs to leave due to personal reasons [is the employer] required to pay the employee for the entire day or can [the employer] use available PTO time?” The DOL has issued an Opinion Letter which states, “Where an employer has a benefits plan (e.g., vacation time, sick leave), it is permissible to substitute or reduce accrued leave in the plan for the time an employee is absent from work, whether the absence is a partial day or a full day, without affecting the salary basis of payment, if the employee nevertheless receives in payment his or her guaranteed salary. Payment of the employee’s guaranteed salary must be made, even if an employee has no accrued benefits in the leave plan and the account has a negative balance, where the employee’s absence is for less than a full day…. Thus, if an employee is absent for a day or longer to handle personal affairs, his or her salaried status will not be affected if deductions are made from his or her salary for such absences. If an employee is absent for less than a day, he or she must be paid for the full day.” (Ref-30)

F33: According to Jon Hyman, a labor and employment practice attorney, when deciding whether to classify an employee as exempt or non-exempt, “In close cases, err on the side of caution and classify as non-exempt. You will end up paying more overtime as you go, but will avoid the windfall (and related legal fees) if a court later re-classifies an employee or group of employees.” (Ref-27)

F34: In the event an employee protests his/her classification as exempt, the employer must be able to show that any mistake was made in good faith. Business Management Daily suggests that employers “…host an annual classification review. Have a team compare all employees’ job descriptions (and actual duties) against the FLSA exemption regulations. …your annual classification audit would likely be enough proof of your good-faith efforts to ward off double damages.” (Ref-04)

F35: According to Business & Legal Reports, Inc., “Instituting a formal compensatory time off [comp time] policy for exempt employees is legal…[but] they may create the expectation that exempt employees work set hours and that certain work is “extra.”…Instead, many employers opt to grant additional leave to exempt employees on an individual and discretionary basis, based on exceptional performance [emphasis added].” Among other things, the policy should:  “…limit and define the employees eligible for comp time to those that are exempt from overtime provisions of the FLSA [and] …specifically state nonexempt positions are entitled to overtime pay… Exempt Employees and Administrative Leave 11  State that the employer has no legal requirement or obligation to grant compensatory time off to exempt employees…  Require supervisory approval…. Consider requiring recordkeeping of hours worked, use of timesheets, etc., depending on the work environment…  Set time periods for use of comp time…[and] set limits on when an employee can use comp time  Set limits on the number of hours of comp time an employee can accrue in a set period.” (Ref-30) Findings

May 26, 2016 — Camarillo Congregate Meal Program

13 pages 21 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 21 findings

F01: Seniors in the Camarillo area have less access to congregate meals than those in other areas of the County. (FA-09, FA-10)

F02: The CHCD receives less of the available public funding for the congregate program than other service providers in the County. It only applies for funding to cover costs of a once-a-month congregate meal. (FA-08, FA- 10, FA-11)

F03: The senior population of Camarillo has not been formally surveyed to determine its need for a five-day-a week congregate meal program. (FA-13)

F04: The City of Camarillo allocates limited General Fund support for senior programs when compared with other cities in the County. (FA-14)

F05: The City of Camarillo, the Camarillo Health Care District, and the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District have not adequately collaborated or coordinated efforts to meet the needs of seniors in Camarillo. (FA-11, FA-19, FA-20, FA-21) 4 Camarillo Congregate Meal Program Recommendations

F06: The CHCD is the official “service provider” for publicly funded congregate meals managed by the VCAAA.

F07: The City of Camarillo has no formal relationship with the CHCD and the PVRPD.

F08: According to the Administration for Community Living, the congregate meal program offers meals to seniors in a social setting. It helps “...to keep older Americans healthy and prevent the need for more costly medical interventions....The program presents opportunities for social engagement, information on healthy aging and meaningful volunteer roles, all of which contribute to an older individual’s overall health and well-being.” (Ref-06)

F09: Congregate meal programs are offered Monday through Friday in ten County locations. The Camarillo Health Care District serves a congregate meal one day a month. (Att-01)

F10: The VCAAA and its nutrition service providers throughout the County apply for State and federal funds on a four-year cycle. Service providers responded to VCAAA’s Request for Proposal for fiscal years 2016-2020. On March 9, 2016, the VCAAA Advisory Council approved these plans. Camarillo’s proposal for serving a congregate meal one day per month was approved. (Ref-07)

F11: From 2005 to 2012, the CHCD and the PVRPD had a Memorandum of Understanding for serving a congregate meal to seniors four days a week. The CHCD provided staff and services; the PVRPD provided facilities. (Ref-08)

F12: According to the draft of the VCAAA Master Strategic Plan 2016-2020, Camarillo residents 60 years of age and older make up approximately 23% of the City’s population compared to 18.1% in the County. (Ref-09)

F13: Although residents 60 and older comprise approximately 23% of the City’s population, the Grand Jury could find no evidence that the City has conducted a recent formal comprehensive survey of this population to determine its needs.

F14: The ten cities in the County allocate funding for senior programs through their general funds. This funding ranges from $66.83 per senior in the City of Moorpark to $2.36 per senior in the City of Camarillo. [Note: Some senior programs in the cities are subsidized by funds from other sources.] (Att-02)

F15: As part of the process in developing its draft Master Strategic Plan 2016- 2020, the VCAAA conducted a “Consumers’ Survey” of County senior residents and their caregivers. Access to nutritious food ranked second only to transportation in importance to those seniors who responded. (Ref-09) Camarillo Congregate Meal Program 3

F16: Federal and State funding for the mandated nutrition programs has been stagnant. Service providers are currently responsible for 10% of the cost of the program although this amount can be met with donations “in kind”.

F17: The City of Camarillo is currently in discussion with the PVRPD to allocate funds for increased services for seniors in Camarillo.

F18: The PVRPD, in conjunction with City organizations/businesses, sponsors a senior meal and movie event once a month. According to the PVRPD, seniors have been turned away because the program is so popular and resources are limited.

F19: The PVRPD 2013-2018 Strategic Plan calls for open communication with other districts in the area. According to the plan, “The District will explore partnerships with other local agencies, businesses and non-profits to expand program areas…” including those for seniors. One of the five year goals is to be “…actively engaged with strategic partners in the community.” (Ref-10)

F20: The Grand Jury could find no evidence of strategic planning by CHCD.

F21: The Camarillo City Council has established goals and objectives for 2015- 2016, including:  “…to maintain effective communication with local, state and federal elected representatives and other local agencies including schools, parks and special districts.”  “…to maintain effective communications with the community.” (Ref-11) Findings

May 26, 2016 — Public Access to Conflict of Interest Codes

11 pages 10 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that Conflict of Interest Codes for Ventura County and its 10 cities are not easily accessible to the public. (FA-07, FA-10) (Att-01) Conflict of Interest Codes 3 Recommendations

F02: The Act establishes the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to regulate standards for a Conflict of Interest Code for public officials in State and local governments. The FPPC has posted online the following: “Under the Political Reform Act (‘the Act’), all public agencies are required to adopt a conflict-of-interest code (code). A code designates positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700), and assigns disclosure categories specifying the types of interests to be reported. The Form 700 is a public document intended to alert public officials and members of the public to the types of financial interests that may create conflicts of interests.” (Ref-01, Ref-02)

F03: The FPPC website states that each ”Conflict of Interest Code” must contain the following:  How to report financial interests  The disqualification procedures  The governmental positions subject to Conflict of Interest Code requirements  Disclosure categories FPPC Regulation 18730 contains all of the provisions that must be included in a Conflict of Interest Code. The FPPC recommends that agencies incorporate Regulation 18730, by reference, because the type of information required to be in the main body of the code is complex. (Ref-02)

F04: As stated in the FPPC website: “A primary purpose of the code is to require disclosure of those types of investments, interests in real property, sources of income and business positions that designated positions may affect in their decision-making.” (Ref-02)

F05: The Ventura County Board of Supervisors (BOS) has established a Conflict of Interest Code with standards and requirements for all County agencies and departments. (Ref-03)

F06: The County website includes information on the standards for conflict of interest for the Board of Supervisors. (Ref-03)

F07: Each of the 10 cities in Ventura County has established a Conflict of Interest Code. These Codes may be accessed by official websites, Google search, or request to the city. Conflict of Interest Codes

F08: California Government Code § 6250, also known as the California Public Records Act (CPRA), states: “…access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this State.” (Ref-04)

F09: California Government Code § 6253(e) states that a local agency may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to records than the minimum standards prescribed by State law. (Ref-04)

F10: The Grand Jury searched online for the Conflict of Interest Codes for the County Board of Supervisors and each of the 10 cities within the County. The following summarizes the results of online searches for Conflict of Interest Codes conducted on May 13, 2016:  Ventura County Board of Supervisors requires four steps and a search.  City of Camarillo website requires five steps.  City of Fillmore website does not provide access. A Google search yielded no results.  City of Moorpark website does not provide access. A Google search yielded no results.  City of Ojai website does not provide access. A Google search yielded no results.  City of Oxnard website was offline. However, a Google search yielded a document stating that the Code is available by request from the City Clerk.  City of Port Hueneme website requires three steps to direct the user to a list of “Statutory References for California Cities” which then requires a search of the statutory references.  City of Santa Paula website does not provide access. A Google search yielded no results.  City of Simi Valley website requires five steps to direct the user to a list of “Statutory References for California Cities” which then requires a search of the statutory references.  City of Thousand Oaks website requires six steps and a search.  City of Ventura website requires six steps and a search. (Ref-03) (Att-01) Findings

May 24, 2016 — Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues

19 pages 41 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 41 findings

F01: The Grand Jury rated all holding cells in the County as satisfactory or better for the areas reviewed with the exception of:  The Oxnard Police holding cell area was dirty.  The Moorpark police station internal camera system was inoperative. (FA-01, FA-18, FA-27)

F02: The financial situation of the City of Santa Paula has imposed serious constraints on the functionality and capabilities of its police force which have affected public safety. (FA-21, FA-22, FA-23, FA-24, FA-25, FA-26)

F03: Consistent with the prior grand jury report, this Grand Jury found that the wards and the staff at the VYCF need to be held accountable for the cleanliness of the living quarters. (FA-31)

F04: The VCPAJF padded safety room has areas not visible from the window in the door. This poses a safety risk to youths who may do harm to themselves. (FA-41)

F05: The Grand Jury found that the efforts of the County law enforcement community have been complicated by the combined effects of Realignment (AB 109) and Prop 47. The effects range from continued pressure on jail population to changes in some offender’s behavior by limiting offenses below the Prop 47 felony threshold. These, in turn, may be driving up crime rates in certain categories. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-05, FA-07, FA-09, FA-11)

F06: The Grand Jury found that the law enforcement community has an increased awareness of the magnitude of mental health issues to be addressed. While the addition of the medical/mental health facility at Todd Road will be a valuable asset, the facility cannot, by itself, be the complete solution for the issues posed by the Severe Persistent Mental Illness cases in the jails, let alone the other mental health support challenges. The problem clearly requires continued attention to characterize and identify solutions. (FA-04, FA-08, FA-14, FA-15, FA-35, FA-38, FA-39, FA-40)

F07: The Grand Jury found that, while 12 Step programs are offered in the Ventura County jail system, given the percentage of inmates identified as having substance abuse issues, the opportunity for participation by inmates in these 12 Step meetings needs to increase. (FA-07, FA-08, FA-13, FA- 14, FA-15)

F08: The Grand Jury found that five facilities were noted to have staffing adequacy issues. (FA-04) (Att-01) 10 Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues Recommendations

F09: Originally, the Main Jail was designated for shorter term incarceration while Todd Road Jail was intended for longer term incarceration. Due to capacity limitations, inmates are transferred between these two jails to minimize overcrowding at both facilities.

F10: The staff is fully informed about Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) procedures. The INS has access to the Main Jail system files and runs its own inquiries.

F11: The length of inmate sentences at Todd Road Jail has been increasing due to AB 109 and the effects of Prop 47. Currently the longest sentence at Todd Road is 12 years; the shortest is 30 days.

F12: The medical facility at Todd Road Jail is equivalent to an outpatient clinic. There are two primary care physicians, four days a week; one full time and one part time psychiatrist; two registered nurses 24/7 plus nurse practitioners. Medications are prescribed and dispensed at the medical facility. The inmates may refuse medication.

F13: One major objective of the health professionals at Todd Road Jail is to bridge inmates with medical/mental health issues to a supportive environment by connecting them with transition organizations upon their release. This transitional process includes providing five to seven days of medications upon release.

F14: Todd Road Jail inmate programs include educational/vocational programs, substance abuse treatment and education programs, a re-entry planning program, and religious services. Additionally, the inmates may attend 12 Step program meetings. The Grand Jury learned that the 12 Step program is available to inmates on a limited basis. Where costs are involved, programs are paid for by a fund established through the purchase of phone cards and commissary items by the inmates. The programs are not paid for out of the County General Fund.

F15: The Classification Units at Todd Road Jail and Main Jail determine the classification of each inmate. The factors determining their classification are based on the criminal history, tendency to violent behavior, need for protective custody, need for administrative segregation, and need for 6 Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues medical or other special care. The inmates wear colored wrist bands indicating their classification. Todd Road Jail has become a “de facto mental health facility”. The Sheriff’s Office applied for and recently received a State grant to build a 64-bed medical facility including treatment for physical and mental illness. The cost of the facility is estimated at $64 million. (Ref-13)

F16: A recent policy change made it possible for new graduates from the Sheriff’s Academy to be assigned to the jails for a period of three to four years. Prior to this change, the assignment period was six years. Each new officer is assigned a jail training officer who administers further training relating to the Manual of Procedures and indoctrination in skills needed. Other Detention Facilities

F17: The Grand Jury noted that the City of Oxnard installed benches in one holding cell as had been recommended by previous grand juries.

F18: The City of Oxnard provides maintenance for the police station including the holding cell area; however, it was not very clean. There was toilet paper on the ceiling, dirt in the corners, and cracks in the tile flooring.

F19: As of January 12, 2016, Simi Valley Police Department’s last fire inspection occurred on June 7, 2012. Consequently, the Simi Valley Station does not have a current fire clearance. Fire inspections are required once every two years (Section 1032 Title 15 CCR).

F20: As of January 12, 2016, Simi Valley Police Department’s Station Environmental Health and Medical/Mental Health inspection is overdue. These evaluations must occur annually.

F21: The Santa Paula Police Department’s salaries are on a lower pay scale than the Sheriff’s Office and city police departments within the County. As a consequence, they have a high turnover of officers. As of October 19, 2015, there were 28 sworn officers on staff with four to five on duty each shift. The staffing goal is 30 to 40 sworn officers to increase community presence and to staff special units.

F22: The Santa Paula Police Department’s gang unit has been disbanded due to financial constraints. It was reported that “gangs in the area are out-of- control”. The staffing shortage has forced the Santa Paula Police Department to be reactive versus proactive in their approach to policing.

F23: The Santa Paula Police Department’s station roof leaks. Maintenance of this facility is provided by the City of Santa Paula.

F24: The age of the Santa Paula Police Department’s station, built in the 1930s, inhibits its modification to allow upgrading their technological capabilities. Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues 7

F25: As of January 12, 2016, the Santa Paula Police station’s most recent fire inspection occurred on June 19, 2013. Consequently, the station does not have a current fire clearance. Fire inspections are required once every two years.

F26: As of January 12, 2016, the Santa Paula Police station inspection by the Ventura County Health Department was overdue. These evaluations must occur annually.

F27: Due to a funding issue, the inoperable internal camera system at the Moorpark Police Station has not been repaired for the past three to four years. Juvenile Facilities

F28: The Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF) is the only co-ed facility in the State Juvenile Correction System. The ward’s ages range from 13 to 25. A ward’s stay at the facility averages two to two and one half years (2-2½). At the time of the inspection, the oldest ward was 23; the youngest approximately 15 or 16. The wards at VYCF have committed crimes that are classified by the California Penal Code Section 707(b), as serious violent crimes including murder, kidnapping, grand theft, and sex offenses. (Ref-14)

F29: The VYCF facility was built in 1962 with 38 housing units. As of November 30, 2015, it housed 237 wards; 26 females, 211 males, with three awaiting their transfer to prison. Only 12 of the 38 housing units are being utilized. Each housing unit has a Youth Correctional Counselor (YCC) on duty 24/7.

F30: At VYCF wards may participate in an apprenticeship program to help with the unit renovation. These wards earn program credits and are paid for jobs performed. The pay scale is based on “levels” and is determined by such criteria as overall behavior, school participation, and compliance with the institutional rules.

F31: Part of the responsibility of the VCYF wards is to maintain neatness and cleanliness in their individual cells and surrounding common living areas. One of the YCC’s responsibilities is to oversee their compliance. The rooms were unkempt, floors and walls were dirty, windows were covered, and inappropriate pictures were on the walls.

F32: All VCYF wards are required to work toward receiving a high school diploma or to pass the GED exam. They may attend a high school in the VYCF that is fully-accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges or take online courses to acquire an associate degree. The educational environment is structured to provide separate classes for males and females. Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues

F33: The Ventura Youth Correctional Facility website states: “DJJ [Department of Juvenile Justice] considers a high school diploma or GED equivalent a minimum requirement for parole consideration.” If the ward’s stay at VYCF does not permit completing a formal high school curriculum, they are then “…guided to a General Education Development (GED) program”. A recent bill, Senate Bill 172 (Liu) states that the wards are required to complete the curriculum but do not have to sit for the California High School Exit Examination. (Ref-15, Ref-16)

F34: The wards at the VYCF are directed to participate in the “Impact of Crime on Victims Program” which addresses the effect their crime had on the victims, their families, and the community. (Ref-17)

F35: At the time of the inspection, November 30, 2015, there were 40 wards at the VYCF in the mental health program, 60 on psychotropic medications, and 18 designated as high-risk for suicide.

F36: The Ventura County Probation Agency Juvenile Facility (VCPAJF) is a detention facility for those youths, both male and female, going through the court process or those whose charges have been sustained. These youths are considered delinquent, have committed crimes, or have probation violations. This facility makes heavy use of incentives to help manage the youth’s behavior and personal growth. Each of the 90 youths housed at the VCPAJF maintains his/her own personal cell area and by doing so earns incentive credits. Appropriate behavior allows them to participate in special programs and have additional privileges. These incentives also allow the youth to earn a reduction of time served.

F37: At VCPAJF, programs are offered in trades such as construction, plumbing, electrical wiring, and silk screen printing.

F38: Per the Juvenile Justice Subsystem website, “The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Ventura County Behavioral Health (VCBH) team has training, expertise, and experience in juvenile forensic mental health services, a unique clinical specialty in the behavioral health system of care. JJ VCBH staff work within the Juvenile Facility with youth in detention and partner with Probation in both blending mental health treatment within facility operations, and enhancing the facility’s rehabilitation milieu. JJ VCBH staff have clinical skills specifically honed to work with juvenile offenders.” (Ref-18)

F39: The VCPAJF received a grant to develop an eight-hour version of Crisis Intervention Team training for staff. Subsequently, the original program was expanded to 40 hours for all employees. It is expected that the full cycle for training all the staff will take four years.

F40: At least 75% of the youths housed at the VCPAJF have some type of mental health issue and are either in therapy and/or on medication. Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Issues 9

F41: The VCPAJF has a padded safety room for those individuals who are in crisis. This room has areas that are not visible from the window in the door. Findings

May 03, 2016 — Implementation of Foia within Ventura County

16 pages 14 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that the Ventura administrative policy for public records complies with CPRA and is a system that serves the community well. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-06, FA-08, FA-11)

F02: The Grand Jury found the request for information taken orally or sent by email to a department or individual is not always recorded into the COMCATE system. Therefore, performance statistics are not accurate. (FA-08, FA-09, FA-11)

F03: The Grand Jury found that, subsequent to an initial request and response, communication between the requester and representatives of Ventura may not be transcribed or recorded within the COMCATE system. (FA-06, FA-08)

F04: Ventura’s Administrative Policy & Procedures documents posted online do not indicate the date of current or previous revisions nor the expiration 4 date. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the city of Ventura complies with its Public Record Request Policy in Section No.8.5. (FA-08, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14)

F05: The Grand Jury found that because Policy 1.1 (“Protocols for Issuing, Amending & Deleting Administrative Policies & Procedures”) has a last revision date of April 30, 2002, the policy is not in compliance with itself. (FA-07, FA-08, FA-14) Recommendations

F06: Ventura’s website, VenturaAccess.com (aka: My Ventura Access), links to COMCATE, a hosted software system that provides an application for requesting information and/or records and tracks each request. (Ref-07)

F07: Ventura publishes its “Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual” on the internet through “municode”, a web hosting, codification, and service company acting as an online publisher. (Ref-08)

F08: Ventura’s Public Records Requests Policy (VPRRP) (Section 8.5; item 9.A.3) contains the following options for receiving public records requests: • Ventura’s website, “My Ventura Access” (MVA), is the location that accepts online requests for information. This website connects the online user directly to COMCATE. • Requests at the counter can be made verbally or by filling out a Public Records Request form. 3 • U.S. mail, overnight deliveries, emails, and fax requests are also accepted. The receiving department staff must enter the request into the MVA system. • Item C (under section 8.5 of the VPRRP) states that requests from reporters, attorneys, and advocacy groups are processed in the same manner as all other requests. Additionally, the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office are informed of these requests. • There is no requirement that subsequent communications between the requester and responder be entered into the MVA system. (Ref-08)

F09: If requests for information and/or requests for public records are made involving two or more departments within Ventura, the City Clerk’s Office monitors and tracks these requests and responses for compliance.

F10: In addition to Ventura, other cities also use COMCATE’s “Public Records Manager” software to record and track requests for public records. (Ref- 09)

F11: Ventura’s “Performance Measurement Report” is produced through the COMCATE system and shows that Ventura improved its timely response to records requests from 85% in fiscal year 2014 to 92% by fiscal year 2015. [Note: Any requests not entered in COMCATE will not be reflected in this Performance Measurement Report.] (Att-01, Att-02, Att-03)

F12: The VPRRP has a scheduled review/update frequency of every two years. (Ref-08)

F13: The last recorded VPRRP review/update was September 6, 2012. (Ref-08)

F14: The Ventura policy document, “Protocols for Issuing, Amending & Deleting Administrative Policies & Procedures”, has a date of issue, January 9, 2002. This Policy is required to be reviewed every two years. (Ref-08) Findings

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The City of San Buenaventura’s computer system used for requesting and tracking public records requests CPRA California Public Records Act Deliberative Process If a record exists that contains both facts and Privilege deliberative material, the deliberative material can be redacted. Where the facts and the deliberative material are inextricably intertwined, a determination must be made as to whether the public interest in maintaining the deliberative process privilege outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. FOIA Freedom Of Information Act Infrastructure Underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization) MVA My Ventura Access Recodification The updating of existing code with all subsequent general and permanent legislation State California VPRRP Ventura [San Buenaventura] Public Records Request Policy Work Product The documents created through the attorney/client work process 7 8 Attachment 01 Performance Measures 9 10 Attachment 02 Public Records Request by Types 11 12 Attachment 03 Public Records by Department 13 14

May 03, 2016 — Riverbed Hazardous Vegetation

15 pages 12 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F01: Ventura County is severely limited in its ability to control the growth of Arundo. If left unchecked, Arundo will likely cause riverbank erosion, floodplain inundation, and major damage to infrastructure. (FA-01, FA-02)

F02: Since there is virtually no commercial value to Arundo, there is no way to recover the cost of removing it. (FA-03, FA-04)

F03: In the event of imminent flooding that endangers infrastructure and/or private property, the VCWPD can mitigate the danger by clearing only the dams that form from uprooted plants and other debris. However, this reaction to the problem is not as safe and effective as the proactive approach of removing the Arundo before it can be uprooted by flood waters. (FA-05)

F04: The VCWPD faces four challenges in carrying out its responsibilities in flood prediction and control: • There is a critical need for routine County access to the hydrology equipment in the Los Padres National Forest. • The very steep gradient from the mountains to the coastal plain makes early detection of developing flood conditions of paramount importance to public safety. • The current level of cooperation between the federal government (U.S. Forest Service) and the VCWPD is inadequate for protecting the downstream infrastructure and private property. • Arundo removal efforts are hampered by coexistence with native vegetation that must be preserved. Arundo removal also presents Riverbed Hazardous Invasive Vegetation 5 difficulties in disposal. Both of these issues result in the high cost of control. (FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09)

F05: The needs of the County, the EPA, and the U.S. Forest Service can be met through working agreements. (FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12) Recommendations

F06: Ventura County is unique in its topography. The gradient (slope) between mountains that exceed 8,000 feet in elevation and the coastline that is about 15 miles away is one of the steepest in the nation. The gradient causes flood waters to accelerate rapidly as they make their way down the watershed to the ocean. (Ref-07)

F07: The VCWPD maintains storm warning hydrology gauges throughout the County, including in the Los Padres National Forest. (Ref-08) (Att-02)

F08: Data from the hydrology monitoring stations is collected and evaluated in the Emergency Operating Center. The center is jointly operated by the VCWPD and the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES). This data is used to plan the response to a flood. Responses are laid out in the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) and the Flood Warning Program and Response Annex. (Ref-09, Ref-10)

F09: The U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), states in its own website: • “The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. [Emphasis added]” • The U.S. Forest Service’s motto, “Caring for the Land and Serving People” includes: “Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions. [Emphasis added]” • The U.S. Forest Service has established 13 guiding principles, one of which states: “We strive for quality and excellence … and are sensitive to the effects of our decisions on people and resources. [Emphasis added]” (Ref-11) 4 Riverbed Hazardous Invasive Vegetation

F10: Most of the watershed area of Ventura County is within federally controlled land in the Los Padres National Forest, and most of the hydrology equipment is on these federal lands. The Grand Jury learned that it has been very difficult for the VCWPD to gain access to the Los Padres National Forest for hydrology equipment installation and service.

F11: The Santa Ana Water Protection Agency (SAWPA) has a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Forest Service for gaining access to environmentally sensitive areas to install and conduct maintenance on hydrology equipment used to predict flooding. SAWPA also has a plan for Arundo eradication throughout its area of responsibility. (Ref-12) During fiscal year 2015, SAWPA had a budget of $2.9 million for Arundo removal. To date, SAWPA has spent approximately $30 million to eradicate Arundo from 4,300 acres. It is managing Arundo removal from more than 10,000 acres. (Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15)

F12: As of March 3, 2016, the VCWPD is negotiating with the U.S. Forest Service for responsible access to the Los Padres National Forest for the purpose of installing and maintaining hydrology equipment. Findings

April 28, 2016 — Phoenix School Safety

21 pages 18 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that Phoenix school personnel are well trained and work collaboratively using NCPI protocol and CHAMPS behavioral interventions to teach positive behaviors and to de-escalate volatile situations involving students. (FA-04, FA-05)

F02: The Grand Jury found that the VCOE believes that using NCPI and CHAMPS positive behavioral interventions are preferable strategies to promote school safety rather than having a dedicated SRO on campus. (FA-04, FA- 05, FA-16)

F03: The collaborative relationship between the Ventura County Office of Education and law enforcement is not as strong as the best practice recommended by the National Education Association. (FA-11, FA-16)

F04: Students at Phoenix schools often act out in frustration. Despite the high staff-to-student ratios and the consistent use of positive behavioral interventions, administrators at Phoenix-Airport still call law enforcement on an average of 2-3 times weekly for support with situations they are unable to de-escalate. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10)

F05: School Resource Officers should be dedicated to a particular school in order to work most effectively with both students and faculty. In particular, when working with special education students, it is essential that the SRO focus his/her attention on developing relationships and acting as a mentor and educator rather than exclusively as a law enforcer. (FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-17)

F06: While SROs can be invaluable additions to enhance school safety and support faculty and administration, it may be difficult to justify employing a dedicated SRO at each Phoenix school because of the low enrollments, low number of incidents resulting in serious bodily harm, and the absence of arrests. (FA-03, FA-08, FA-10) 6 Phoenix School Safety

F07: The Grand Jury found that when a school calls for law enforcement support, responding patrol officers may not have CIT training. With seriously emotionally disturbed children, this lack of training may escalate rather than de-escalate a situation and result in violence. (FA-18)

F08: The Grand Jury found that a formally trained and dedicated SRO would be even more effective at preventing or de-escalating volatile situations than a patrol officer with only CIT training. (FA-05, FA-11, FA-12, FA-18) Recommendations

F09: Thirty-one BERs resulted in a call to law enforcement. Twenty-three (74%) were from Phoenix schools.

F10: For the period July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, Phoenix-Airport placed 102 “calls for service” to law enforcement – an average of two to three per school week. Phoenix-Los Nogales made 54 calls and Phoenix-Moorpark made 39 calls for the same period. None of the calls for service resulted in an arrest.

F11: Per the National Education Association, there are best practices for school safety that emphasize “…relationships are key to school safety and [it] advises its members to foster safe schools by creating partnerships with law enforcement and social services agencies.” The VCOE has acknowledged the need for stronger collaboration with law enforcement. (Ref-08)

F12: According to the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), “…school resource officers also known as a “school safety liaison,” or “campus police,” refers to commissioned law-enforcement officers selected, trained, and assigned to protect and serve the education environment.” School Resource Officer (SRO) duties may include acting in the role of mentor, educator, and law enforcer. NASRO training includes 40 hours of classes on a variety of subjects including:  understanding special needs students  SRO as an informal counselor/mentor  threat response: preventing violence in school settings (Ref-08, Ref-09)

F13: According to the National Education Association, “The decision about whether to place an SRO in a school building should be part of an overall community-developed plan to prevent violence against our children and ensure access to counseling, social services, and mental health services for any and all who need them.” (Ref-10)

F14: According to a 2012 study conducted at Mississippi State University and Eastern Kentucky University, “SROs who spend more time as law-related educators have more positive attitudes towards special education students than those who see themselves primarily as law enforcers.” (Ref-11)

F15: As stated by the Los Angeles Times, “Across the nation, campus officers are facing criticism that they’re pushing children into a “school-to-prison- pipeline” with citations, arrests and excessive force for issues that could be resolved by other means. National studies show that one arrest doubles a student’s odds of dropping out.” (Ref-12) Phoenix School Safety 5

F16: The position of the Ventura County Office of Education is that the presence of a dedicated SRO on a Phoenix campus would escalate, rather than defuse, volatile situations and could result in arrests.

F17: An SRO was assigned to the Phoenix-Airport school and a neighboring school for the school year 2009-2010. The SRO position was not a dedicated officer, but was filled by various Camarillo police officers who volunteered to work overtime. (Ref-13)

F18: Approximately 74% of Ventura County Sheriff’s deputies have received 40 hours of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. CIT training is designed to educate officers about mental illness, developmental disability, and conflict resolution skills. This training protects both the mentally ill and responding officers from potential violence. The CIT training is a collaborative effort of Ventura County Behavioral Health and County law enforcement. (Ref-14, Ref-15) Findings

April 12, 2016 — Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines

27 pages 27 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 27 findings

F01: No single government entity has complete regulatory oversight into the condition of the crude oil pipeline array within the County. The following Federal and State agencies have (collectively) the responsibility and authority to provide oversight of crude oil pipelines within the County and within areas where a spill will impact the County. Each agency has its own particular domain of authority and responsibility. Those regulatory agencies and their areas of responsibility are:  United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement – regulates and monitors pipelines from three miles seaward of the mean high tide line to 200 miles at sea  United State Department of Transportation, Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety - sets minimum safety standards for all crude oil pipelines and may delegate its regulatory authority to State entities as negotiated with those entities  California Office of the State Fire Marshal - has accepted the responsibility to regulate and monitor intrastate crude oil transmission pipelines Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 7  California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources – regulates and monitors gathering pipelines. Many entities are involved with the crude oil pipeline permitting process. The following is a partial list of those with permitting authority in areas in or near the County:  California State Lands Commission - issues permits for tidal and submerged lands (from the mean high tide line to three miles out to sea)  California Coastal Commission - issues permits for California Coastal Zone  California Department of Transportation, Bureau of Design - issues permits for crude oil pipelines intruding into highway rights-of-way  County - issues conditional use permits for new pipelines, revisions of existing pipelines in coastal and non-coastal zones, and for surveillance of abandoned pipelines in non-coastal zones of unincorporated areas of the County (FA-01, FA-02, FA-04, FA-08, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19, FA-20, FA-22, FA-23, FA-25, FA-26)

F1: This would remove the need for the County to make its own assessments or do independent analysis and thereby minimize cost. (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03) Responses Responses required from: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03) (R-01) References Ref-01. Hessen, Bruce H., California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, “Overview of Division Programs and Ventura County Activities” presentation on August 7, 2014, http://ventura.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=3634 &meta_id=428175 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-02. U. S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, Pipeline Safety Stakeholder Communications, “Petroleum Pipeline Systems”, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PetroleumPipelineSystems.htm?noc ache=3424 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-03. Ventura County Planning Division, “Oil and Gas Program”, http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/permits/oil-gas/oil-gas.html (accessed February, 2016). Ref-04. Oil Policy Excerpts, Ventura County Coastal Plan (amended September 16, 2008), http://www.countyofventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/permits/oil/Coastal_ Plan_Oil_Policies.pdf (accessed February 24, 2016). Ref-05. Santa Barbara County, Energy Division System Safety and Reliability Committee (SSRRC) charter, http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/permits/ssrrc.asp (accessed February 9, 2016). Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 9 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Ref-06. United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pipelines Safety Stakeholder Communications, “Regulatory Fact Sheet: California”, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/States/CA_State_PL_Saf ety_Regulatory_Fact_Sheet.htm?nocache=9134 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-07. United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Supporting Community Response, “State Programs”, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/stateprograms (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-08. California Office of the State Fire Marshall, Division of Pipeline Safety, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-09. Legislative Information, California Government Code Section 5101051019.1, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=gov&group=51001-52000&file=51010-51019.1 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-10. Salazar, Ken, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, “Order No 3299”, “Establishment of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resource Revenue”, May 19, 2010, http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/0/doc/444/Page1.aspx (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-11. Public Resources Code, Division 20, California Coastal Act (2015), http://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-12. California Department of Transportation, Utility Permits Manual, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/pdf/manual/Ch apter_6.pdf (accessed February 9, 2015). Ref-13. State of California, “California Statutes and Regulations for Conservation of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources”, October 2015, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/laws/PRC10.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-14. Schmick, John T and Strachota, Robert J., Right of Way, March/April 2006, “Appraising Public Utility Easements”, http://www.shenehoncompany.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/AppraisingPublicUtilityEasementsPartI.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-15. State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshall, “Pipeline Safety Division- Hydrostatic Testing”, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline_hydrotest.php (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-16. Ventura County Planning Division, “Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances, Division 8, Chapter 1 of the Ventura County ordinance Code”, last amended September 22, 2015, 10 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/zoning/VCNCZO_current.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-17. Ventura County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services website, https://www.vcsd.org/oes.php (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-18. McGreevy, Patrick, Los Angeles Times, “Gov. Jerry Brown overhauls oil pipeline laws after Santa Barbara spill”, October 8, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-on-oilspills-20151005-story.html (accessed February 22, 2016). Ref-19. California Legislative Information, “SB-295 Pipeline safety: inspections”, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2015 20160SB295 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-20. California Legislative Information, “SB-414 Oil spill response”, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=2015 20160SB414 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-21. California Legislative Information, “AB 864 Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas”, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20152 0160AB864 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-22. Natural Resources Damage Assessment, “Refugio Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Update”, November 2015, https://www.countyofsb.org/asset.c/1741 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-23. Capps, Louis, Representative, California 24th Congressional District, “Letter to the Honorable Hannah Beth Jackson and Honorable Das Williams”, June 26, 2015, http://capps.house.gov/sites/capps.house.gov/files/documents/0625%2 0field%20hearing%20package.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-24. Kacik, Alex, Pacific Coast Times, “Refugio oil spill cleanup costs near $100 million”, June 27, 2015, http://www.pacbiztimes.com/2015/06/27/refugio-oil-spill-cleanupcosts-near-100-million (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-25. Serna, Joseph, Los Angeles Times, “Refugio oil spill may have been costlier, bigger than projected”, August 5, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-refugio-oil-spillprojected-company-says-20150805-story.html (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-26. Alpert Reyes, Emily, Los Angeles Times, “L.A. leaders want someone overseeing oil operations in the city full time”, February 2, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-petroleum-chief20160202-story.html, (accessed February 10, 2016) Attachments Att-01. National Pipeline Mapping System Map of Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 11 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Att-02. Att-03. Att-04. Att-05. Final Report California State Fire Marshal Crude Oil Pipeline Map Ventura County Coastal Zone Map Illustration of Coastal and Seaward Zones Crude Oil Pipeline Responsibilities/Roles in Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Glossary TERM DEFINITION BOS Board of Supervisors, Ventura County BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement, an entity of the United States Department of Interior Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCC California Coastal Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations Common Carrier A pipeline whose owners/operators accept, convey, and transport oil delivered to the pipeline without regard to its source County County of Ventura CUP Conditional Use Permit Custody transfer facility The infrastructure element (valve, fitting, pump, etc.) that represents the interface between one entity’s responsibility and a second entity’s responsibility Deepwater Horizon British Petroleum oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico which exploded and caused a major oil spill on April 20, 2010 DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, an entity of the California Department of Conservation DOI Department of The Interior, an entity of the United States Government DOT Department of Transportation, an entity of the United States Government DPS Division of Pipeline Safety, an entity of the California Office of the State Fire Marshall EHD Environmental Health Division, an entity of the Ventura County Resource Management Agency Federal Refers to the United States Government Governance All processes of governing Grand Jury 2015-2016 Ventura County Grand Jury Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 13 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Mean high tide line The line on a chart or a map which represents the intersection of the land with the water surface at the level of mean high water MMS Mineral Management Service, an entity of the Department of Interior OCS Outer Continental Shelf OES Office of Emergency Services, an entity of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office OPS Office of Pipeline Safety, an entity of the Department of Transportation OSFM Office of the State Fire Marshall, an entity of the State of California PHSMA Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, an entity of the Department of Transportation Private carrier A pipeline built and operated by a company to convey and transport oil from its own source PD Planning Division, an entity of the Ventura County Government RMA Resource Management Agency, an entity of the Ventura County Government SLC State Lands Commission, an entity of the California State Government Smart pig An inspection device that records information about the internal conditions of a pipeline as it is propelled through a pipeline. It is used to detect and measure corrosion and metal loss internally and externally on the pipe wall. State State of California Test validity Current and accepted VCSO Ventura County Sheriff’s Office 14 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Attachment 01 National Pipeline Mapping System Map of Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 15 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury 16 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Attachment 02 California State Fire Marshall Crude Oil Pipeline Map Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 17 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury 18 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Attachment 03 Ventura County Coastal Zone Map Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 19 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury 20 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Attachment 04 Illustration of Coastal and Seaward Zones Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 21 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury 22 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Final Report Attachment 05 Crude Oil Pipeline Responsibilities/Roles in Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 23 Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury 24 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report Ventura County 2015 – 2016 Grand Jury Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Final Report

Page 1

F02: The County does not have a thorough understanding of the state of the total crude oil pipeline array within the County. This would include knowing the validity of testing, the condition and age of the pipelines, the degree of conformance to the regulations/laws/standards, and the risks assessed by regulatory authorities. (FA-09, FA-11, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19, FA-20, FA-21, FA-22, FA-23, Att-05)

F03: The County’s emphasis (other than the permitting process) is on rapid and appropriate response to emergencies, including pipeline failures. The County has a capable infrastructure for responding to a crude oil pipeline spill. That infrastructure is augmented by Federal, State, and private entities as driven by the severity and/or location of the spill. Failures of these pipelines could directly impact County residents, first responders, and the environment. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-09, FA-10, FA-21, FA-24) Recommendations

F04: The State recently enacted three new laws increasing the pipeline oversight and crude oil spill response capabilities of the various entities within the State. (Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21)

F05: The County has several hundred miles of intrastate pipelines and hundreds of miles of gathering pipelines. The County has no interstate pipelines. There are 135 active Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for gas and oil activities within the County. (Ref-01, Ref-03, Att-01, Att-02)

F06: The County is the State‘s third largest oil producer. It has 34 active oil fields (including 2 offshore) and 40 active operators. During calendar year 2013, Ventura County produced 8.9 million barrels of crude oil. (Ref-01)

F07: The website of the Ventura County Resource Management Agency (RMA) includes a description of the County oil infrastructure in the coastal zone: “There are two offshore pipelines and landfall sites on the North Coast. These are the Dos Cuadros Pipeline that transports OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] oil and gas to the Rincon facility. The landfall site is just north of the Seacliff Community in the Rincon area. The other offshore pipeline is the Carpinteria OCS Pipeline with a landfall site about 0.25 miles northwest of the community of La Conchita.” (Ref-04)

F08: Additional key elements of the County’s pipeline coastal zone infrastructure described in the website are “…six onshore pipelines. Five of these are “private carriers” while the sixth is a “common carrier” and subject to the regulation by the PUC. The “common carrier” is a pipeline that connects the La Conchita oil and gas processing facility with the Rincon oil and gas processing facility.” (Ref-04)

F09: Near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, a two-foot diameter interstate crude oil pipeline ruptured on May 19, 2015. Santa Barbara County has a mechanism, the System Safety and Reliability Review Committee, to maintain insight into the status of all crude oil pipelines in Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 3 Santa Barbara County EXCEPT the pipeline that ruptured. As an interstate pipeline, it was excluded from Santa Barbara County insight through a law suit by the (then) pipeline owner. It is estimated that the current pipeline owner, Plains All American, will bear costs in damages, remediation, and fines totaling between $100 and $257 million. There are multiple investigations currently underway examining aspects of the rupture. (Ref- 22, Ref-23, Ref-24, Ref 25)

F10: The effects of the pipeline rupture impacted beaches in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties for months following the rupture. Other impacts included hundreds of oiled and dead animals. (Ref-22) Facts Describing Governance Responsibilities

F11: All pipelines are required to conform to a set of minimum standards set by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), a division of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). “The federal government establishes minimum pipeline safety standards under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49 ‘Transportation,’ Parts 190 - 199. The OPS has overall regulatory responsibility for hazardous liquid and gas pipelines under its jurisdiction in the United States.” (Ref-06)

F12: The PHMSA may delegate its responsibility for oversight to State entities. It provides funds to mitigate the costs to the State of bearing those responsibilities. As stated in the PHMSA website, “Pipeline safety base grants are authorized by Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) Chapter 601 §60107 – State Pipeline Safety Grants. To qualify for federal grant funds a state agency must participate in the pipeline safety program either under certification in accordance with 49 U.S.C. §60105 or under an

F13: The PHMSA has delegated its operational safety oversight authority for intrastate transmission pipelines to California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). This delegation is renewable annually. The State does not have responsibility for interstate pipelines. The OSFM established a Division of Pipeline Safety (DPS) to manage the regulation of the crude oil pipelines. The DPS is also responsible for oversight/regulation of crude oil pipelines in railroad and highway rights-of-way. According to the OSFM website, “In 4 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 1981, the California Legislature established the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act with the intent that the OSFM shall exercise exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority over intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines. The OSFM currently regulates the safety of approximately 4,500 miles of intrastate hazardous liquid transportation pipelines.” (Ref-08, Ref- 09)

F14: The United States Department of Interior (DOI) has the authority over all mineral resource activity between 3 and 200 miles offshore, a zone called the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service (MMS) was responsible for both regulating and encouraging development of oil resources. As a direct result of the Deepwater Horizon event, the MMS was reorganized into three different entities with the intent of removing conflict of interest within the regulating organization. The three new organizations are:  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – responsible for resource evaluation, planning, and leases in the OCS  The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) – responsible for safety, response, and removal preparedness  The Bureau of Natural Resources Revenue – responsible for royalty and revenue collection, distribution, auditing, and compliance investigation (Ref-10)

F15: The RMA website states, “State tide and submerged lands include the area from mean high tide seaward to the three-mile boundary with the Federal OCS. Development of oil and gas resources on existing leases in this area is subject to the regulatory authority of the California State Lands Commission (SLC).” Tidal and submerged lands are part of the coastal zone. (Ref-04, Ref-11) (Att-03, Att-04)

F16: The RMA website further states, “The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is another agency involved in the review of development on State Tidal and Submerged Lands. This review is accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the California Coastal Act, which establishes stringent standards of environmental protection.” The Coastal Zone also includes a strip of land inward from the mean high tide line. (Ref-04, Ref-11) (Att-03)

F17: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has permitting authority for crude oil pipelines that intersect with, cross and/or run longitudinally along State highway rights-of-way. (Ref-12)

F18: The State of California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Oil, Gas and Geophysical Resources (DOGGR) has oversight and regulatory authority over gathering crude oil pipelines that connect facilities within a field to nearby storage facilities or to intrastate and interstate pipelines. (Ref-01, Ref-13) Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 5

F19: Crude oil pipelines are permitted/authorized on railroad rights-of-way by the owners of those rights-of-way. They are regulated by the OSFM/DPS. (Ref-14)

F20: One of the primary ways in which California pipeline safety standards exceed the minimum federal standards is testing for pipeline integrity. Federal regulations mandate that a pipeline system be hydrostatically tested before initial operation begins and periodically thereafter. California laws mandate that each pipeline system be tested by an independent third- party certified by the OSFM. In these hydrostatic tests, the hazardous liquid is removed from the pipe and replaced with water. The pipe is then pressurized to 125% of the maximum pipeline operating pressure and held for eight hours. Testing results are submitted to the OSFM for review and approval. Tests are randomly witnessed by OSFM engineers. In certain cases, OSFM has approved the use of internal inspection tools, "smart pigs", in lieu of hydrostatic testing. In these cases, the test results are also submitted to the OSFM for review and approval. (Ref-15)

F21: On October 8, 2015, Governor Brown signed the following bills into law:  SB 295 which substantially increases the crude oil pipeline responsibilities of the OSFM and increases the frequency of pipeline testing  AB 864 which requires pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas to be equipped with leak detectors and automatic shutoff valves  SB 414 which “…seeks to speed response to spills by enlisting commercial fisherman and other local boat operators to help contain leaks in their area.” (Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21)

F22: The County has the authority to issue permits for pipelines within unincorporated areas of the County. This authority includes inland and coastal areas to the mean high tide line. This permitting authority defines the terms and conditions which must be met by the entity seeking to install, modify, or repair a pipeline and must be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This function is carried out by the Planning Division of the Ventura County Resource Management Agency which issues conditional use permits (CUPs). The County authority does not extend to highway and railroad rights-of-way nor to incorporated cities in the County. (Ref-01, Ref-04, Ref-16)

F23: The County Plan and Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances set forth the regulations for pipelines and facilities. (Ref-04, Ref-16)

F24: The County has initial primary responsibility in the event of a crude oil pipeline spill. The OES has developed an Emergency Response Center, multiagency communications infrastructure, and emergency response plans to allow the County to respond to disasters. In addition to the OES, the primary entities involved are the public safety first responders such as 6 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, local fire departments, and the Environmental Health Division of the RMA. Other entities, including State and Federal, respond as needed. The County conducts drills periodically to test its capability to respond to disasters. (Ref-17)

F25: The pipeline owners have the responsibility to obtain permits for designing, building, operating, maintaining, repairing, upgrading, and shutting down/deactivating the pipelines following the regulatory and permit conditions. The pipeline owners’ role includes (but is not limited to):  Adhering to all conditions established in CUPs  Adhering to all applicable Federal, State, and County regulations regarding gathering and transmission oil pipelines, including California Government Code 5.5 (The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act)  Notifying State and local agencies three days in advance of a scheduled pipeline test  Hiring independent entities to test the pipelines  Submitting the test results to the appropriate government regulatory entity (Ref-09)

F26: Based on recent events and recognizing the complexity of the regulatory structure, the Mayor of Los Angeles will hire an industry expert to serve as the city’s petroleum administrator to act “…as both an expert and a skilled coordinator.” (Ref-26) Findings

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors require the production of an annual report summarizing the state of the crude oil pipelines within the County. This report will be a valuable asset to all entities potentially impacted by a spill. The County entities that are major stakeholders in the event of a pipeline spill, such as the Resource Management Agency/Environmental Health Division, the Sheriff’s Department, the Office of Emergency Services, and the County Fire Department, should be involved in the generation of the report. The report shall, at the least, characterize the inventory of crude oil pipelines in the County, including: 8 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines  identifying current ownership and operators including contact information  highlighting pipelines with outdated tests  identifying pipelines with tests not independently verified  identifying pipelines that do not conform to current regulations  identifying pipelines deemed by regulators to have spill/anomaly risks It shall also describe the spill events in the County since the previous report. These summary reports can be based on the reports/records available from the multiple regulatory entities identified in Finding 1. This would remove the need for the County to make its own assessments or do independent analysis and thereby minimize cost. (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03) Responses Responses required from: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03) (R-01) References Ref-01. Hessen, Bruce H., California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, “Overview of Division Programs and Ventura County Activities” presentation on August 7, 2014, http://ventura.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=3634 &meta_id=428175 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-02. U. S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, Pipeline Safety Stakeholder Communications, “Petroleum Pipeline Systems”, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PetroleumPipelineSystems.htm?noc ache=3424 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-03. Ventura County Planning Division, “Oil and Gas Program”, http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/permits/oil-gas/oil-gas.html (accessed February, 2016). Ref-04. Oil Policy Excerpts, Ventura County Coastal Plan (amended September 16, 2008), http://www.countyofventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/permits/oil/Coastal_ Plan_Oil_Policies.pdf (accessed February 24, 2016). Ref-05. Santa Barbara County, Energy Division System Safety and Reliability Committee (SSRRC) charter, http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/permits/ssrrc.asp (accessed February 9, 2016). Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 9 Ref-06. United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pipelines Safety Stakeholder Communications, “Regulatory Fact Sheet: California”, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/States/CA_State_PL_Saf ety_Regulatory_Fact_Sheet.htm?nocache=9134 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-07. United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Supporting Community Response, “State Programs”, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/stateprograms (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-08. California Office of the State Fire Marshall, Division of Pipeline Safety, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-09. Legislative Information, California Government Code Section 51010- 51019.1, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=51001-52000&file=51010-51019.1 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-10. Salazar, Ken, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, “Order No 3299”, “Establishment of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resource Revenue”, May 19, 2010, http://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/0/doc/444/Page1.aspx (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-11. Public Resources Code, Division 20, California Coastal Act (2015), http://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-12. California Department of Transportation, Utility Permits Manual, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/pdf/manual/Ch apter_6.pdf (accessed February 9, 2015). Ref-13. State of California, “California Statutes and Regulations for Conservation of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources”, October 2015, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/laws/PRC10.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-14. Schmick, John T and Strachota, Robert J., Right of Way, March/April 2006, “Appraising Public Utility Easements”, http://www.shenehoncompany.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/AppraisingPublicUtilityEasementsPartI.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-15. State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshall, “Pipeline Safety Division- Hydrostatic Testing”, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline_hydrotest.php (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-16. Ventura County Planning Division, “Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances, Division 8, Chapter 1 of the Ventura County ordinance Code”, last amended September 22, 2015, 10 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/zoning/VCNCZO_current.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-17. Ventura County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services website, https://www.vcsd.org/oes.php (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-18. McGreevy, Patrick, Los Angeles Times, “Gov. Jerry Brown overhauls oil pipeline laws after Santa Barbara spill”, October 8, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-on-oil- spills-20151005-story.html (accessed February 22, 2016). Ref-19. California Legislative Information, “SB-295 Pipeline safety: inspections”, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2015 20160SB295 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-20. California Legislative Information, “SB-414 Oil spill response”, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=2015 20160SB414 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-21. California Legislative Information, “AB 864 Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas”, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20152 0160AB864 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-22. Natural Resources Damage Assessment, “Refugio Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Update”, November 2015, https://www.countyofsb.org/asset.c/1741 (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-23. Capps, Louis, Representative, California 24th Congressional District, “Letter to the Honorable Hannah Beth Jackson and Honorable Das Williams”, June 26, 2015, http://capps.house.gov/sites/capps.house.gov/files/documents/0625%2 0field%20hearing%20package.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-24. Kacik, Alex, Pacific Coast Times, “Refugio oil spill cleanup costs near $100 million”, June 27, 2015, http://www.pacbiztimes.com/2015/06/27/refugio-oil-spill-cleanup- costs-near-100-million (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-25. Serna, Joseph, Los Angeles Times, “Refugio oil spill may have been costlier, bigger than projected”, August 5, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-refugio-oil-spill- projected-company-says-20150805-story.html (accessed February 9, 2016). Ref-26. Alpert Reyes, Emily, Los Angeles Times, “L.A. leaders want someone overseeing oil operations in the city full time”, February 2, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-petroleum-chief- 20160202-story.html, (accessed February 10, 2016) Attachments Att-01. National Pipeline Mapping System Map of Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 11 Att-02. California State Fire Marshal Crude Oil Pipeline Map Att-03. Ventura County Coastal Zone Map Att-04. Illustration of Coastal and Seaward Zones Att-05. Crude Oil Pipeline Responsibilities/Roles in Ventura County 12 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Glossary TERM DEFINITION BOS Board of Supervisors, Ventura County BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement, an entity of the United States Department of Interior Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCC California Coastal Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations Common Carrier A pipeline whose owners/operators accept, convey, and transport oil delivered to the pipeline without regard to its source County County of Ventura CUP Conditional Use Permit Custody transfer facility The infrastructure element (valve, fitting, pump, etc.) that represents the interface between one entity’s responsibility and a second entity’s responsibility Deepwater Horizon British Petroleum oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico which exploded and caused a major oil spill on April 20, 2010 DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, an entity of the California Department of Conservation DOI Department of The Interior, an entity of the United States Government DOT Department of Transportation, an entity of the United States Government DPS Division of Pipeline Safety, an entity of the California Office of the State Fire Marshall EHD Environmental Health Division, an entity of the Ventura County Resource Management Agency Federal Refers to the United States Government Governance All processes of governing Grand Jury 2015-2016 Ventura County Grand Jury Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 13 Mean high tide line The line on a chart or a map which represents the intersection of the land with the water surface at the level of mean high water MMS Mineral Management Service, an entity of the Department of Interior OCS Outer Continental Shelf OES Office of Emergency Services, an entity of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office OPS Office of Pipeline Safety, an entity of the Department of Transportation OSFM Office of the State Fire Marshall, an entity of the State of California PHSMA Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, an entity of the Department of Transportation Private carrier A pipeline built and operated by a company to convey and transport oil from its own source PD Planning Division, an entity of the Ventura County Government RMA Resource Management Agency, an entity of the Ventura County Government SLC State Lands Commission, an entity of the California State Government Smart pig An inspection device that records information about the internal conditions of a pipeline as it is propelled through a pipeline. It is used to detect and measure corrosion and metal loss internally and externally on the pipe wall. State State of California Test validity Current and accepted VCSO Ventura County Sheriff’s Office 14 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Attachment 01 National Pipeline Mapping System Map of Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 15 16 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Attachment 02 California State Fire Marshall Crude Oil Pipeline Map Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 17 18 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Attachment 03 Ventura County Coastal Zone Map Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 19 20 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Attachment 04 Illustration of Coastal and Seaward Zones Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 21 22 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Attachment 05 Crude Oil Pipeline Responsibilities/Roles in Ventura County Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 23 24 Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines Ventura County Crude Oil Pipelines 25

June 25, 2015 — Grand Jury 800 South Victoria Avenue

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →