San Luis Obispo County

Grand Jury

2005- 2006 Final Report

San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury

P. O. Box 4910

San Luis Obispo, California 93403

Telephone: 805- 781- 5188

www. slocourts. net/ grandjury/

The 2005- 06 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury

Hedy Damery, Foreperson Sy Bensky, Pro- tem Pat Albertini Don Anderson Diane Dell’Era

Anthony Flores Theodore Gauldin Gail Gresham Joanna Hamburg Sue Hartman

Lynne Levine Doug Marks Marguerite Maxwell Val McClure Dennis Palm

Kenneth Scotland Marilyn Stein Anthony Toomey Sylvia Martinez

Administrative Asst.

The Honorable Roger T. Picquet

Presiding Judge, Superior Court

Page 1 of 252

San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury

2005- 2006 FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTORY LETTER............................................................................................. 3

Special Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 6

AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES............................................................ 8

AUTHORITY FOR AGENCY RESPONSES.................................................................. 10

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES - AKA: Deadbeat Parents ............. 11

ARE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIZENS SAFE? ................................................. 14

RED LIGHT – GREEN LIGHT....................................................................................... 16

COUNTY HARBORS .................................................................................................... 22

PESTICIDE USE AT THE AGRICULTURAL/ URBAN INTERFACE.............................. 32

THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE............................................ 46

THE CUESTA COLLEGE NURSING PROGRAM AND THE NURSING SHORTAGE IN

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY....................................................................................... 51

THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ................................... 56

ADDENDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT................................................ 67

SHELTER FROM THE STORM - An Inquiry Into Resources for Battered Women in San

Luis Obispo County....................................................................................................... 71

LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT........................................................ 75

AREA ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION................................................................ 81

BICYCLE RIDING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: “ Sharing the Road”................... 100

ATASCADERO HIGH SCHOOL: Racial Issues .......................................................... 112

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS............................................................................................ 123

OAK TREE PRESERVATION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ................................ 133

AGING OUT: The Future of Foster Children ............................................................... 143

RESTRAINING ORDERS: “ Paper Thin Protection” .................................................... 152

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLEET GARAGE......................................................... 179

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS .............................................................. 201

Page 2 of 252

GRAND JURY INSPECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY ..................... 210

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL AND HONOR FARM........................................... 214

JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER: “ Juvenile Hall”........................................................ 218

EL PASO DE ROBLES YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.................................... 225

Follow- up to 2002– 2003 Grand Jury Recommendations ............................................ 229

Follow– up to 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Recommendations ............................................ 240

Page 3 of 252

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

To the People of San Luis Obispo County: June 2006

Each year in June, nineteen people are selected by the Superior Court from among citizen

volunteers in San Luis Obispo County to serve for a full year as members of the Grand Jury.

They come from all walks of life, bringing unique perspectives, interests and skills. Once sworn

in, they begin training. During this period, they become acquainted, and, ideally, the kind of

cohesive group, which allows for the flexibility needed to carry out their primary charge: to cast

a ‘ spotlight’ on local government.

Grand juries receive and respond to written complaints. They also carry out ‘ self- initiated’

investigations, depending on the interests of the jurors. Underpinning each grand jury’s work is

the excellent support received from the Superior Court and county staff from the County

Administrative Office, County Counsel, District Attorney, Auditor- Controller, and General

Services Department. These agencies participate in training, provide technical and

administrative support, cooperate in investigations and/ or serve as consultants to the Grand Jury

throughout the year.

Members of the 2005- 06 Grand Jury were drawn from all areas of San Luis Obispo County,

bringing diverse educational and professional experiences. The resulting mix of ideas and

talents, combined with a high level of dedication and energy, produced reports of depth and

scope. This was, also, a grand jury in which all members were computer literate.

This Grand Jury reached consensus early on that we wanted to improve relations with the media

and gain additional coverage for reports. In this way, we were able to provide more timely and

useful information to the public. Typically, when reports are published in a single document at

the end of the year, only a few get media attention. A broad- based email group containing all

local media outlets was established; each report was released as soon as it was completed,

beginning in January. The response from local media was gratifying. We also began posting the

reports on the grand jury’s web site as each was released. Thanks to the skill of this year’s

foreperson pro- tem, our web site has been redesigned and is now much easier to navigate.

Page 4 of 252

Many citizens are understandably uninformed about how a grand jury operates. The following

text is taken from an op- ed column published in The SLO Tribune in April 2006. It is repeated

here for the benefit of readers who wish to know how grand jury reports are generated, or who

may have an interest in serving on a future grand jury.

When citizens of the county apply for grand jury duty, they are interviewed by a judge before

their name is forwarded for inclusion in the annual grand jury lottery. Questions about ‘ personal

agenda’ are part of that interview process. After the random selection process is complete, the

jurors are sworn in and instructed in their charge by the presiding judge.

Jurors take an oath, which binds them to confidentiality regarding any grand jury matters, not

just during their term, but for the rest of their lives. Grand jury confidentiality is required by

law, ( California Penal Code Section 924.1), and any juror willfully violating this law is guilty of

a misdemeanor. Grand juries conduct proceedings behind closed doors, exactly as the law

requires, primarily for the protection of people who come to grand juries with complaints or who

testify during investigations. Each juror must also complete and sign a Form 700, Statement of

Economic Interest.

Once a new grand jury is seated, the jurors spend about six weeks in training with various county

and court officials, including the District Attorney, County Counsel, County Auditor, County

Administrator and the Superior Court’s Administrator and Jury Commissioner. Before jurors

begin any investigations they also receive many hours of training on the grand jury handbook

and attend an American Grand Jury Foundation workshop. Each grand jury sets up its own rules

of proceeding and creates committees as appropriate for its scope of work. The current

handbook and penal codes ( including sections relevant to both civil and criminal grand juries)

can be found on the grand jury’s web site at www. slocourts. net/ grandjury/

After the jurors’ training is complete, usually by mid- August, they begin work by reviewing any

complaints received and also hold a brainstorming session to identify areas of common interest

that might be the subject of self- initiated investigations ( as opposed to complaint- driven

Page 5 of 252

investigations). Typically, a review is also done to learn what agencies of local government have

not been looked at by prior grand juries in the recent past. In addition, each grand jury carries

out inspections and reports on conditions in local prisons in the county.

The process of completing a grand jury report has a number of safeguards:

1. A committee must first develop an action plan, and present it to the full grand jury for

review and approval. ( Note: jurors with a conflict of interest are required to absent

themselves from all activities on that topic of inquiry, and recuse themselves from all

votes on the subsequent report.)

2. Once an investigation is complete, committees typically go through a number of drafts

before bringing a final draft to the full grand jury for its review, input and eventual

approval. This may take several passes.

3. The full grand jury must approve the final draft by at least 12 out of its 19 members.

4. As an extra precaution, the report is next forwarded to County Counsel for legal review

and advice.

5. The report is then normally taken to the responsible government department for a review

of the report’s ‘ factual accuracy.’ Input from this step is carefully considered and

corrections are made as appropriate.

6. The final draft of the report is then submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court

for review, and, subsequently, released.

7. When the grand jury’s term is ended all of their files and documents are sealed by the

court. Open investigations are never carried over from one grand jury to another.

Finally, while a report’s findings are based on facts gathered by a grand jury, the conclusions and

recommendations are the result of a grand jury’s agreed- upon opinion and are presented as such

for the consideration of the department or agency, which must respond within 60 days. No later

than 90 days after the jury submits a final report, the governing body of the public agency must

comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations in

the report.

Page 6 of 252

Serving as a member of a grand jury is not for everyone. There is a need for diversity in both

education and experience, but mostly there is a need to attract people with an interest in how

government works, a willingness to spend the time and energy to do a good job working as a

member of a team, and a capacity to listen and keep an open mind until all the facts are in. It is

both a challenging and rewarding experience to serve as a member of a grand jury. Each grand

jury leaves its own unique mark on the life of our community. The members of the 2005- 06

Grand Jury hope that readers find this Final Report both informative and thought- provoking.

Special Acknowledgements

o The Grand Jury wishes to thank the members of our local and regional media outlets for their

valuable assistance in publicizing our reports. Without their interest and support, only a

fraction of the public would be aware of our work.

o We express our appreciation to former Presiding Judge Michael Duffy and current Presiding

Judge Roger Picquet for their excellent guidance and support during this Grand Jury’s term.

o We thank the staff members of local government agencies for their cooperation and

assistance to the Grand Jury in carrying out our inquiries. The Grand Jury believes that the

county agencies we reviewed this year are, on the whole, serving the public with efficiency

and dedication.

o We thank AGP Video of Morro Bay for providing the Grand Jury, free of charge, tapes of the

weekly Board of Supervisors’ meetings.

o We express special thanks to Sylvia Martinez, Administrative Assistant to the Grand Jury,

for her able and unfailingly cheerful support of all of us during the past year.

Page 7 of 252

Page 8 of 252

AUTHORITIES FOR GRAND JURY INQUIRIES

The authority for our inquiries is sanctioned by one or more of the following sections of the

California Penal Code:

§ 919( b): “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons

within the county.”

§ 925: “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the

officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and

records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state

law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the

districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand

jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been performed by or

for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the Government Code; this provision

shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the

operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county”.

§ 925( a): “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated

city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers

granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts,

and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the

duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem

proper and fit. The grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all joint powers

agencies in the county, including the abolition or creation of agencies and the equipment for, or

the method or system of performing the duties of, the several agencies. It shall cause a copy of

any such report to be transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency. As used in this

section, " joint powers agency" means an agency described in Section 6506 of the Government

Code whose jurisdiction encompasses all or part of a county.”

§ 928: “ Every grand jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the

county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or

system of performing the duties of, the several offices. Such investigation and report shall be

conducted selectively each year. The grand jury shall cause a copy of such report to be

transmitted to each member of the board of supervisors of the county.”

§ 933.5: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any special- purpose

assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency formation

commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this

chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of such

district or commission.”

§ 933.6: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any nonprofit

corporation established by or operated on behalf of a public entity the books and records of

which it is authorized by law to examine, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers

Page 9 of 252

granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the

duties of such nonprofit corporation.” ( emphasis added)

Page 10 of 252

AUTHORITY FOR AGENCY RESPONSES

The following section of the California Penal Code is cited as the authority under which each

agency must respond to the Superior Court:

§ 933.05 ( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the

responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the

response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an

explanation of the reasons therefore.

( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the

responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the

implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the

future, with a timeframe for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope

and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared

for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated

or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable.

This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand

jury report.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not

reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel

matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or

department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but

the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters

over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or

department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her

agency or department.

( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the

purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person

or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.

( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation

regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of

the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.

( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury

report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the

approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public

agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Page 11 of 252

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES - AKA:

Deadbeat Parents

What is Child Support?

In a case of parents living apart, both parents have a legal responsibility to provide for the

financial support of their children. The Department of Child Support Services ( DCSS) is

empowered to establish, enforce and arrange payment to bring “ deadbeat parents” into

compliance with court orders. DCSS receives orders from the court in cases of divorce, or when

a child is born out of wedlock, if the child is residing with the custodial parent and support is

ordered from the non- custodial parent. The Grand Jury reviewed DCSS procedures and

effectiveness in the collection of child support payments and in the recovery of payments in

arrears from the non- custodial parent to insure that the financial needs of the child are met.

ORIGIN

The Grand Jury selected the Department of Child Support Services from among San Luis Obispo

County agencies that have not been reviewed within the last five years.

METHOD

The Grand Jury interviewed the Director of Child Support Services, and reviewed documents,

brochures, organizational chart, budgets and performance measures. In addition, the Grand Jury

consulted the California Family Code, Section 17304, which prescribes the duties and powers of

county departments of child support services ( See Appendix A).

NARRATIVE

The Role of the Court:

When a child is living with the custodial parent, that parent can petition the court to order the

legal non- custodial parent to make payments for the support of their child. These payments may

be based on the income of both parents and the amount of time each parent spends with the child.

Payments also include factors such as cost of living and expenses, e. g. childcare, medical and

dental services, transportation and health insurance. When payments are in dispute, an appeals

process allows for the non- custodial parent to petition the court for new orders.

Page 12 of 252

Services of DCSS:

The role of DCSS is to carry out court orders for payments of child support. In some cases,

spousal support may also be included. DCSS may be required to locate a missing parent, to

establish legal paternity and to collect and distribute payments. DCSS may request modification

of orders if either parent’s financial situation changes. If necessary, DCSS can impose

enforcement measures on the uncooperative parent including garnishment of wages, suspension

of driver’s license and, as a last resort, imprisonment. The District Attorney prosecutes

approximately twenty parents per month for nonpayment of child support.

Deadbeat Parents:

Locating missing parents involves the use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, a database that

tracks all new employment nationwide. A Federal Case Registry is being compiled to locate

missing parents. DCSS can use Social Security numbers, driver license applications, law

enforcement records, military service records, and credit reports in the search. They may also

contact current and previous employers. Although there is interstate cooperation for the

collection and location of assets through the Uniform Interstate Family Act, if a parent leaves the

country, it compounds the problem. Once a parent is found, paternity must be established in

every case in which the father is named. DCSS uses all means available including DNA testing

to establish legal paternity.

CONCLUSION

DCSS acts responsibly and in the best interests of the child, by promptly and effectively locating

missing parents and establishing, collecting and distributing the support ordered by the court

from the non- custodial parent.

DCSS will seek to modify payments as situations change or as disputes arise. Every effort is

made by the department to settle disputes before bringing the case back to the court.

Based upon a limited examination of the DCSS budget, it appears that this department manages

its financial resources responsibly. According to data provided by the director, San Luis Obispo

Page 13 of 252

County’s DCSS ranks among the highest in California for the recovery of child support

payments based on statewide reporting standards.

REQUIRED RESPONSE

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

Page 14 of 252

ARE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIZENS SAFE?

ORIGIN

After the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, prisoners escaped or just walked away

from local jails and prisons during the chaos that ensued. The Grand Jury examined the

evacuation plans of locked facilities in San Luis Obispo County.

METHOD

Members of the grand jury interviewed authorities of the locked facilities, reviewed written

evacuation plans and made site visits to the California Men’s Colony ( CMC), El Paso de Robles

Youth Correctional Authority ( CDCR- DJJ, California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation - Division of Juvenile Justice), County Juvenile Services Center ( JSC), County

Jail, and Atascadero State Hospital ( ASH). Due to the nature and need for security in each of the

locked facilities, the Grand Jury has agreed not to reveal specific emergency plan details.

Note: The Grand Jury acknowledges that the Atascadero State Hospital ( ASH) does not fall

under the definition of ‘ public prisons’ as defined by the California Attorney General. The

Grand Jury wishes to thank ASH for their voluntary cooperation in the preparation of the report

on his report.

NARRATIVE

Safety of the citizens is a high priority. Because San Luis Obispo County has potential for

earthquakes, fires, mudslides, releases of hazardous materials, a major concern of locked

facilities is for the protection of the community residents.

There are disaster plans in effect at all the locked facilities in the county for internal and external

emergencies. They include instructions for minor localized emergencies such as a small fire in a

specific housing unit, to a disaster such as a major earthquake. Each facility has its own

emergency disaster plan. If an emergency occurs in one or more areas of an institution, inmates

may be housed in alternate locations within the facility.

Page 15 of 252

The facilities’ disaster plans identify the hierarchy of personnel in charge and their specific

duties and responsibilities within the institution. Some of the locked facilities have their own

police force and fire fighters to maintain safety and order within the facility.

The institutions have back- up generators, hand- held radios for communicating when telephones

are down. Necessary food, water, blankets, tents, medications, etc., to last several days to weeks

is available for use.

If evacuation is necessary, the facilities have mutual aid agreements with locked institutions

throughout the state. Local facilities coordinate with the Office of Emergency Services as part of

disaster planning.

During an emergency, staff remains within the institution until relieved by incoming staff.

Visitors within the facility will also remain until it is safe to exit. The personnel in charge have

authority during crises and will notify staff and visitors of the plans.

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury recognized the extensive disaster planning that has gone into protecting residents

of the county by all of the locked facilities. The Grand Jury is satisfied that plans are in place to

protect the citizens of San Luis Obispo County in the event of a disaster.

REQUIRED RESPONSE

This is an informational report. A formal response is not required.

Page 16 of 252

RED LIGHT – GREEN LIGHT

The increase in traffic within the County of San Luis Obispo has created problems for drivers

throughout the County. The specific concern is the traffic lights at the intersection of Highway

101 and Tefft Avenue in Nipomo. Members of the Grand Jury did a drive- through test at that

intersection to ascertain what the problems are and sought to determine if a plan was in place to

remedy this situation.

ORIGIN

The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the ongoing traffic problem at Highway 101 and

Tefft Street in Nipomo. The Grand Jury was asked to look into the feasibility of synchronizing

the stoplights at those intersections.

METHOD

We evaluated the traffic flow through the intersection and observed the timing and

synchronization of the traffic signals. Members of a grand jury sub- committee drove through

the intersection and held follow- up discussions with the San Luis Obispo County Traffic Control

Manager. Information reviewed included the circulation plan from the “ West Tefft Street

Corridor Study” prepared by TPG Consulting, Inc. in May of 2003.

NARRATIVE

The existing conditions at this intersection show that the volume of traffic is significant and

creates problems at certain times of the day. Two factors contribute to this congestion: the first

is the volume of the on and off traffic from Highway 101. It is important that vehicles exit the

freeway as quickly as possible and not be allowed to back up into the freeway lanes. The second

contributing factor occurs on Tefft Street when vehicles enter or exit businesses and residential

neighborhoods.

Regarding the synchronizing of the stoplights at this intersection, the County Traffic Control

Manager explained that two of the signals were Caltrans- owned and operated and two others

were San Luis Obispo County- owned and operated. Each agency has different priorities. The

county’s priority is traffic flow on Tefft and the state’s priority is moving traffic off the freeway.

Page 17 of 252

They are cooperating to coordinate the signals. SLO County has acquired and installed the state’s

traffic signal control software program. The signals are now compatible and synchronized. A

copy of the “ West Tefft Corridor Design Plan”

obtained by the Grand Jury includes

recommendations to improve traffic flow ( see

Appendix A). The principle recommendation

is to extend Mary Avenue to Hill Street with

an on- ramp to the Southbound 101 Freeway.

This will siphon off much of the congestion at

Tefft and 101 ( see map in Appendix B).

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury is satisfied that the County of SLO is aware of the traffic congestion problem in

Nipomo and plans to alleviate it as soon as possible. A complete and detailed plan, the “ West

Tefft Corridor Design Plan,” developed by the Department of Planning and Building, is available

for public inspection and will be implemented.

The County Traffic Department is working on solutions in anticipation of traffic problems as the

County continues to grow.

REQUIRED RESPONSE

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

Page 18 of 252

Appendix A

Excerpt from the West Tefft Street Corridor Study

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following improvements are recommended in order to improve the traffic flow in the area

and to maintain the adopted level of service.

1. Extend Mary Street to Hill Street - as soon as possible

2. Install a median from Highway 101 to Pomeroy in phases, as illustrated in Figure 3- 1.

a. Initial. phase from Highway 101 to west of Mary - as soon as possible

b. Second phase from west of Mary to west of Blume - in conjunction with the

construction of the Blume intersection

c. Final phase from west of Blume to Pomeroy - with the signalization of Gardenia

Street

As the median is introduced, full median breaks should be placed - at the following

locations. Each location should be designed according to the California Highway

Design Manual ( see Appendix H)

1., At the Mary intersection

2. At the future Blume alignment ( new intersection)

3. At the Gardenia intersection

4. At the Pomeroy intersection

5. At the Orchard intersection

In addition to these intersections, partial median breaks ( worms) should be placed at the

following locations to facilitate access and circulation. Each location should be

designed according to the California Highway Design Manual.

1. At the Elvira intersection

2. At approximately mid- point between the intersections of Mary and Blume

( approximately Station @ 43+ 85)

These partial median breaks should be evaluated for closure after the planned street

system is completed or as growth in traffic volumes on West Tefft Street necessitate

increasing capacity of the arterial. The Circulation Plan in Figure 3- 2 delineates these

concepts graphically. The proposed typical street section in Figure 3- 3 should guide

lane configuration and median layout for West Tefft Street between U. S. 101 and

Orchard.

3. Develop a coordinated traffic signal system in phases:

a. Install the initial coordination system for the intersections of Oakglen,

Northbound ramps, Southbound off- ramp/ Frontage Road and Mary with

installation of the median

Page 19 of 252

b. Second phase for Blume, Promeroy and Orchard - with the installation of the

new signal at Blume and the median

4. Relocate the southbound on- ramp to the Hill Street intersection - as soon as possible

5. Use design standards and guidelines in installing street improvements for West Teffft

Street which follow the California Highway Design Manual,

6. The County of San Luis Obispo should adopt Arterial Street Standards for use in

urban areas to facilitate their proper operation.

Pg 22 of 252

COUNTY HARBORS

The county's two harbors, Morro Bay and Port San Luis, have long played a major role in the

economic evolution of San Luis Obispo County. From the old train that chugged onto Harford

Pier at the turn of the last century to the familiar fishing fleet that called each harbor home for

many years, the role of these two harbors has never been static. But now, the train is only a page

in the county's history book and the fishing fleet, along with the seafood processing plants, has

become the subject of the latest chapter in that history.

NARRATIVE

Administratively the two harbor facilities are completely separate. The Morro Bay Harbor

Department is a component of the Morro Bay City Government and is controlled by the Morro

Bay City Council. Port San Luis Harbor District is a general purpose local special district as

authorized by state law and is governed by an elected Board of Commissioners. Although both

harbors are jurisdictionally and administratively separate, they have long shared much in

common in their relationship to the county and to each other. For this reason we have chosen to

treat both facilities in the same report.

Both harbors appear to be well run and managed by dedicated and professional staff and

management. They maintain close cooperation with each other and regularly confer on questions

of common interest. Both also face some common problems.

Commercial fishing and seafood processing have been an economic mainstay at both harbors for

many years. Boats docked and moored, loaded and offloaded regularly. Many fishermen made

their living from the sea and called these harbors ‘ home port’. They also lived in the community

and called it home. They raised families here and generations followed in the family business.

But, that's all changing now. Fishing has become a highly regulated business – so much so that

it has been largely regulated out of existence on the Central Coast. The economics of the fishing

industry are such that many commercial boats are either gone, or very shortly will be gone.

Pg 23 of 252

The decline of commercial fishing has forced a change in the character of the harbors. It has

removed what many tourists, and many locals, have come to appreciate as the “ quaint” nature of

these “ fishing villages.” It has also taken a toll on the level of economic activity and revenue for

each harbor. This is not to say that the character and economic stability of Morro Bay and Port

San Luis are, nor have they been for many years, entirely dependent on the commercial fishing

fleets. Nevertheless, the fleets have been an important part of the character and lure of the ports.

Charter fishing boats catering to the public have also played a measurable role in attracting the

tourist trade. These charter fishing boats are now forced to close during a large part of the year

and their future is open to question.

When Avila Beach was virtually destroyed for removal of polluted soils, the “ funky beach town”

character the community had enjoyed for so many years was also removed. It is now necessary

for Avila Beach to reinvent itself. Rebuilding the community and Avila's new character will

surely have a major impact and play a major role in the future of Port San Luis.

Morro Bay Harbor Department:

What the future holds for Morro Bay and its

harbor will be largely determined by market

conditions and the natural evolution of the

character of life on the Central Coast. Housing

will continue to appreciate at an accelerated pace,

especially water view properties, and the tourist

industry will continue to grow, even without the

fishing fleet's presence. As the nature of the area

changes with the influx of retirees from major

metropolitan areas, Morro Bay will simply be swept up in the tidewater of this change. Although

there is much that must be done to preserve and protect the estuary, and the future of the power

plant is unclear, there is probably little that needs to be done, or even can be done, to change

what is inevitable for the future of Morro Bay’s harbor.

Pg 24 of 252

The Harbor as an Asset - During World War II the Navy created what is now known as the

Embarcadero by placing fill below the bluffs at the edge of the bay. In 1947, under the State

Tidelands Grant, the newly created land became the property of the city and was eventually

developed into what is today's Embarcadero. This entire area, including the boat slips, piers, and

all the commercial property on the seaward side of the Embarcadero is now owned by the city

and operated by the Harbor Department. The lease and rental revenue from some 50 commercial

establishments, approximately one million dollars per year, is placed in a dedicated fund to be

used for maintenance and operation of the harbor.

In addition to operation of the Embarcadero area and all harbor facilities, the Harbor Department

also operates the Morro Bay Harbor Patrol. The Harbor Patrol provides search and rescue

services and boater assistance in the harbor and out to the three- mile state water limit parallel to

the city's coastline, and occasionally beyond. The Harbor Patrol provides approximately 300

boater assists plus 150 emergency responses each year. The Harbor Patrol's officers also enforce

harbor regulations but are not sworn peace officers and do not exercise arrest powers. The US

Coast Guard based in Morro Bay has enforcement authority for vessels under way and provides

supplemental assistance to the Harbor Patrol when required.

Because Morro Bay's harbor has a stable flow of

income from rents and leases along the

Embarcadero and from boat slip rentals, loss of

the fishing fleet does not result in a critical loss of

revenue.

The Future – If Morro Bay Harbor faces any

problem in the future, we feel it is most likely to

be a question of how to re- invent itself as a burgeoning tourist destination. This is not an

altogether unenviable problem to have. We feel that the future of the Morro Bay Harbor is

secure, promising, and bright. As concerns the Morro Bay Harbor, this is a informational report

only and no response is required.

Pg 25 of 252

Port San Luis Harbor District:

Port San Luis' future is closely tied to the future of Avila Beach – and Avila Beach is well on the

path to becoming one of California's premier beach resorts. The redevelopment of Avila has

created a tourist destination to rival the finest along California's 1100- mile coastline. It is

reasonable to expect the economic impact of Avila to become increasingly important to both San

Luis Obispo County and the Port San Luis Harbor District in the immediate future. The Harbor

District provides many of the functions ( i. e. lifeguards and restrooms) and attractions which

Avila businesses will use and rely on to attract patrons, yet does not share in the resulting

revenue ( e. g. bed taxes). While the entire cost for provision of the facilities and services in the

District falls on the taxpayers who live in the District, the commercial enterprises who benefit

directly from the facilities of the Harbor District do not share proportionately in the cost of

providing the services and facilities which benefit them directly.

Although the physical Harbor District is confined to the San Luis Obispo Bay area, the Port San

Luis Harbor District, for tax and election purposes, is formed from a vast area in the south

county. Generally, the Harbor District tax area is the same as the two south county Supervisors’

districts ( 3rd and 4th Supervisorial Districts). Revenue for operation of the District comes both

from operations and from property taxes collected in the District, in approximately equal

amounts from each source according to the 2005- 06 budget. The District is governed by a board

of Commissioners generally elected from the 3rd and 4th Supervisorial Districts, with overlap into

other supervisorial districts in the City of San Luis Obispo.

The District owns the entire beach area from the Harford Pier to the end of the beach at Sunset

Palisades, the major public parking facility in Avila, the Avila and Harford piers, the Avila Yacht

Club, the camp ground and trailer park above the Avila Beach drive, 24 acres at Point San Luis

including the former US Coast Guard lighthouse, the boat haul- out area and maintenance yard,

and the water seaward to three miles from the beach totaling roughly 2,500 acres of water and

125 land acres.

Pg 26 of 252

The District's Harbor Patrol provides boater assistance, medical, limited law enforcement, and

search and rescue services in the port waters and the adjacent ocean. The District also provides

lifeguards at the beaches during summer months.

The camping spots above the harbor are currently undeveloped and are used mainly as storage

areas. However, the District has applied to the Coastal Commission for permits to develop and

use these spots for improved storage, open space, transient accommodation, administrative

offices, camping and RV overnighting. When fully developed, these sites will provide

unsurpassed views of the coast from Avila to Point Sal and many miles seaward.

The lighthouse is now in the process of restoration and

will be a significant tourist attraction when finished.

Restoration is provided by the Lighthouse Keepers, a

volunteer organization, which has been working on the

project for the past ten years. In coordination with the

District, the Keepers handle a large volume of paperwork

required by various governmental agencies, including the

Federal Government, concerning the restoration of the historic landmark. In addition to

restoration of one of the rooms in the keeper’s quarters, they also have accomplished a number

of other tasks required for the restoration process. The District spends $ 20,000 to $ 30,000

annually on upkeep and maintenance of the grounds and facilities at the lighthouse. Once the

lighthouse is open to tourism all revenue from lighthouse tours and other uses must be placed in

a trust fund to be used exclusively for the benefit and maintenance of the lighthouse. All of the

revenue generated from the lighthouse may only be used for lighthouse properties and is not

available for general use by the District.

The District’s plans call for a new pier to be built just inside the breakwater for landing visitors

at the lighthouse who have been ferried from the Harford Pier. Additional access will be via a

road across PG& E's Diablo Power Plant property in escorted vehicles. This road currently

exists, but is only a rough ‘ jeep trail’ and requires extensive improvement before regular use to

transport visitors. At this time the District has approximately 1.25 million dollars either

Pg 27 of 252

promised or currently available for improvement of the road and a tentative agreement with

PG& E to allow access via the road. Approximately $ 700,000 of that amount is in the form of a

promised grant from PG& E. However, because the County Planning Commission placed

additional restrictions on PG& E’s application for additional buildings, this amount may now be

in jeopardy ( January 2006).

The District's operating revenue includes fees from operation of the public parking facility at

Avila. This parking lot is located at the lowest point in Avila, which is below sea level, and is

the point toward which all drainage in the newly built- up area now flows. Prior to the

redevelopment of Avila this vacant property was not paved and water could percolate into the

soil. Today, almost the entire area of Avila is paved. Herein lie three potential problems the

Grand Jury has identified.

First, there is a potential for flooding. Water which collects in the parking lot flows into a

drainage ditch located between the parking lot and Avila Beach Drive. The water then flows

from the ditch under Avila Beach Drive into San Luis Creek during periods of low tide. The

outlet to the creek is controlled by a flapper valve, which will open when the tide is low. While

tidal back- pressure on the valve at high tide prevents the valve from opening, it also prevents

water in the drainage ditch from being expelled to the ocean.

Due to the extensive paving now in Avila it is possible that a combination of heavy rain, together

with a high tide – which prevents the valve from opening – could force the drainage ditch to fill

to the point of flooding in the parking lot and nearby structures. The damage resulting from this

scenario could be extensive.

The communities’ drainage into the ditch and outflow from the ditch under Avila Beach Drive is

through a pipe controlled by the county's flood control district, which also controls and is

responsible for the flapper valve. This leaves the Harbor District responsible for the portion of

the Avila drainage system most likely to flood but unable to exercise control over the causes of

the flooding.

Pg 28 of 252

The flood control district is part of the county's Public Works Department. The Harbor District

has made attempts to deed the drainage ditch to the county’s flood control district, since it is a

major component in the overall Avila flood control system. The Harbor District has taken the

position that, since the flood control district is responsible for flood control in Avila Beach, it

should assume responsibility for the entire drainage and flood control system in Avila Beach.

The second problem results from the fact that water often stands in this ditch and creates a

mosquito breeding ground and a potential health hazard.

Finally, since the ditch is open and unprotected, it also represents a potential safety problem.

As mentioned above, the Harbor District also owns and maintains the beach at Avila and

employs lifeguards during the summer months. The beach, including lifeguards, operations, and

maintenance, constitutes a major expense for the District. According to District management the

total cost of the beach area operations is approximately $ 400,000, while revenue from the

parking facility and other beach resources is only about $ 100,000.

The Harford Pier is an old ( 1873) wooden structure, which has withstood many years of

relentless challenges from the sea. It is a constant battle to maintain the pier in safe and

serviceable condition. The District does this well, but at great expense.

METHOD

Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the annual reports of both harbors, toured the harbors and

the lighthouse, interviewed the harbor masters of both harbors, and conducted interviews with

harbor staff. We also examined various developments in Avila Beach as well as the parking

facility operated by Port San Luis and the adjoining drainage ditch.

FINDINGS

Finding 1: While major economic benefits of the beach, pier, and other District facilities accrue

to the complex of new, luxury resorts and hotels at Avila Beach, and to the county treasury

Pg 29 of 252

through bed taxes, the excess cost of operations must be born by the residents of the District

through their property taxes.

Finding 2: The drainage ditch at the parking lot represents a potential flooding hazard.

Finding 3: The drainage ditch presents a potential health hazard due to mosquito breeding.

Finding 4: A safety problem also results from the ditch being uncovered and unprotected.

Finding 5: PG& E’s cooperation in development of the lighthouse project is commendable.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: A portion of the bed tax collected from the hotels, motels, and resorts in

Avila should be shared with the Harbor District for its operation and maintenance of the beaches

and other facilities, which benefit these same enterprises. ( Finding 1)

Recommendation 2: Whereas the county benefits economically from the development of Avila

and the future revenues generated thereby, and whereas the county has approved the plans and

granted the permits for building and paving in Avila, and whereas the county's flood control

district is responsible for flood control in Avila, and whereas the county must share in the

potential burden and liability for any damage resulting from flooding of the drainage ditch in its

flood control district, the county should therefore assume responsibility for designing, providing,

and maintaining a solution to the potential overflow and flooding problems at the drainage ditch.

( Finding 2)

Recommendation 3: The county should undertake regular mosquito abatement at the drainage

ditch, or other appropriate measures, to prevent mosquito larvae from developing. ( Finding 3)

Recommendation 4: The ditch should be fenced and access restricted for safety reasons.

( Finding 4)

AUTHORITY

California Penal Code § 925 states: “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations,

accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those

operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county

created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio

Pg 30 of 252

capacity as officers of the districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis

each year, but the grand jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which

has been performed by or for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the

Government Code; this provision shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand jury to

investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or

functions of the county. The grand jury may enter into a joint contract with the board of

supervisors to employ the services of an expert as provided for in Section 926.”

California Penal Code § 925( a) states: “ The grand jury may at any time examine the books and

records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any

other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report

upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the

method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make

such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The grand jury may investigate and report

upon the needs of all joint powers agencies in the county, including the abolition or creation of

agencies and the equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of, the several

agencies. It shall cause a copy of any such report to be transmitted to the governing body of any

affected agency. As used in this section, " joint powers agency" means an agency described in

Section 6506 of the Government Code whose jurisdiction encompasses all or part of a county.”

California Penal Code § 933.5 states: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and

records of any special- purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county

or the local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other

investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or

system of performing the duties of such district or commission.”

REQUIRED RESPONSES

• The Port San Luis Harbor District, Due: April 25, 2006 ( Findings 1, 2, 3 & 4,

Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Pg 31 of 252

• The San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department, Due: April 25, 2006

( Findings 2, 3 & 4, and Recommendations 2, 3 & 4)

• The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, Due: May 30, 2006 ( Findings 1,

2, 3 & 4 and Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Pg 32 of 252

PESTICIDE USE AT THE AGRICULTURAL/ URBAN

INTERFACE

“ Grassroots Effort Yields Promising Crops”

The use of pesticides on agricultural lands has a direct effect on the quality of life of residents in

surrounding neighborhoods, particularly on children who attend schools nearby. The Grand Jury

reviewed reports from concerned citizens and measures that were adopted as a result. We also

reviewed health and safety concerns regarding those living and working within the

agricultural/ urban interface.

ORIGIN

The Grand Jury recognizes that as San Luis Obispo County continues to expand its population,

there will inevitably be conflicts between the agricultural community and developing residential

areas. This study was initiated to explore safety concerns inherent in this growth.

METHOD

The Grand Jury took the following steps in conducting this inquiry:

1. Interviewed the County Agricultural Commissioner ( CAC) and staff from the

department, together with staff from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation

( DPR);

2. Reviewed information concerning pesticides, application methods, and the effects of

specific chemicals on human health;

3. Interviewed members of Neighbors - At - Risk ( NAR), a grassroots organization;

4. Viewed a presentation by the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo ( ECOSLO), a

local environmental action group, on pesticide exposure and school safety issues;

5. Studied the recommendations of the Pesticide Task Force and the responses generated by

CAC;

6. Examined a current map of school buffer zones prepared by CAC ( Appendix A); and

7. Reviewed legislation and regulations governing pesticide use in California;

( Appendix B).

Pg 33 of 252

NARRATIVE

Between 1998 and 1999, a residential community of 27 homes was established in the community

of Oceano at South Elm and Lower Pike, adjacent to a 30- acre strawberry field about a mile from

the ocean. Within the ensuing year, many residents reported respiratory illnesses, asthma,

rashes, headaches, and other flu- like symptoms. They suspected they had been exposed to the

pesticide methyl bromide, which they learned was being applied to the adjacent strawberry field.

In February 2002, a grassroots organization, NAR was formed. Its goal was to monitor pesticide

use and community reaction and report the findings to the CAC and the Public Health

Department.

Partly as a result of NAR’s concerns, the San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department,

with the Health Commission, formed the Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use. The task

force was composed of Health Commission members, agricultural representatives, and

community members who met over a period of almost two years. While acknowledging the

importance of supporting and preserving agricultural land in the county, the task force also

recognized the problems inherent in the ag/ urban interface. The result was a series of

recommendations, which are paraphrased below:

I. There is a need for a simple and sensitive protocol to respond to complaints from private

citizens who believe they have been exposed to pesticides.

II. The CAC should continue to mediate concerns between local growers and neighbors and

provide opportunities for growers and neighbors to meet in non- adversarial settings, such

as Open Farm events.

III. The CAC and the Public Health Department should jointly identify every educational and

childcare facility within 500 feet of agricultural fields. A protocol of voluntary

notification was established in which a grower or groundskeeper must alert a neighboring

institution whenever they are planning to fumigate the soil or spray pesticides.

IV. The Health Commission was urged to contact the Department of Pesticide Regulation to

support standardization of pesticide drift testing at the state level.

Pg 34 of 252

V. As methyl bromide is replaced with less toxic alternatives, the CAC should carefully

monitor the new generation of pesticides.

VI. The Health Department should take a more visible role in pesticide exposure cases and

provide education about rights, resources, symptoms and medical options in cases of

pesticide exposure.

VII. The CAC’s current “ Train- the- Trainer” program to ensure the safety of workers in the

fields was commended and should continue on a regular basis.

VIII. The Integrated Pest Management program adopted by the CAC was commended. It was

recommended that all Parks and Recreation Departments adopt a similar protocol and that

the County Superintendent of Schools monitor each school district for compliance with

the Healthy Schools Act.

IX. The Task Force supported the Montreal Protocol, which will lead to the worldwide ban

of methyl bromide.

X. It was recommended that the Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use be revived every

three years as a necessary guardian of the public’s wellbeing.

The CAC has been responsive to the Health Commission, the Task Force on Health and Pesticide

Use and the public in general. The CAC has authority and responsibility regarding pesticide

application in San Luis Obispo County. The CAC can enforce rules and regulations authorized

by the state ( DPR) regarding the use of pesticides, but cannot deny legal pesticide applications.

It has the authority to place conditions on the use of restricted pesticides, but has limited

authority when considering the use of non- restricted pesticides. San Luis Obispo County and the

State of California have agreed to maintain a balance between agriculture and population growth.

With that agreement comes the responsibility to monitor growing methods, which will minimize

hazards to public safety.

School Safety: The threat of pesticide exposure to children is of particular concern. The CAC

works with the Public Health Department to maintain a database and map of all schools and

licensed childcare facilities within 500 feet of an agricultural field. In February 2004, the CAC

Pg 35 of 252

mailed a good neighbor policy to all identified growers and applicators. The “ Suggestions for

Pesticide Applications Near Schools” handout (( Appendix C) continues to be distributed. The

concern is that these measures are, by definition, “ suggestions” and compliance is voluntary.

In 1999, the Cuyama Elementary School in Santa Barbara was evacuated and closed as a result

of pesticide drift involving metam sodium, a highly volatile and toxic pesticide. Staff and

children developed symptoms of pesticide exposure from its application to a nearby carrot field.

In 2000, Mound Elementary School in Ventura County experienced drift from an adjacent

orchard where another pesticide, Lorsban, was applied. This school was also evacuated and

temporarily closed. Schools in San Luis Obispo County are also subject to methyl bromide

applications ( Appendix D).

In October 2005, 60 people in the Creekbridge neighborhood of Salinas in Monterey County

experienced eye and throat irritations. A fumigant pesticide, chloropicrin, had been applied

through drip irrigation to a strawberry field about 1200 feet from the homes. The Monterey

CAC said that a mistake was made causing the chemical to spread through the air. The California

DPR has documented 142 ag- related pesticide illnesses in Monterey County between 2000 and

2003. Cases in San Luis Obispo County have been documented at 53 during the same time

period.

FINDINGS

Finding 1: California grows more than 85% of the nation’s strawberries and other methyl-bromide

dependent crops. San Luis Obispo County growers planted 800 acres of strawberries in

2004. In 2005, 18 restricted materials permits were issued for the use of methyl bromide.

Besides its toxicity, methyl bromide is a significant contributor to the ozone depletion in the

atmosphere. The use of this pesticide continues despite the fact that the U. S. has signed the

Montreal Protocol treaty, which promised to ban the use of methyl bromide by 2005. Efforts are

still in progress on both the federal and the state levels.

Finding 2: Growers are subject to obtaining use permit, being inspected and fined for violations

ranging from fifty to many thousands of dollars depending on the nature of the non- compliance.

Pg 36 of 252

Finding 3: All schools are considered “ sensitive sites”. School safety issues that have been

addressed include parental information regarding spraying schedules, the creation of buffer zones

around schools and childcare centers and mandatory conditions on restricted pesticide

application when children are present.

Finding 4: The CAC and Public Health Department have coordinated efforts to update their

database of childcare facilities in order to prevent pesticide exposure to this most vulnerable

Finding 5: The Environmental Resource Section ( land use) of CAC’s office is periodically

requested by the Planning Department to provide input regarding a suitable location for a new

school. This information, which takes into consideration the proximity to existing commercial

agriculture, is often disregarded. New schools continue to be placed near large agricultural

venues.

Finding 6: The Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use recommended that they meet every

three years.

Finding 7: Legislation at the state level seeks to protect all citizens against pesticide drift, and

recently SB 391 was introduced to provide for medical reimbursement for pesticide- related

illnesses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury strongly recommends that less toxic materials be used to

replace methyl bromide and that the Board of Supervisors actively support the Montreal

Protocol. ( Finding 1)

Recommendation 2: Fines imposed on growers should be reviewed and made stringent enough

to deter infractions of all regulations. ( Finding 2)

Recommendation 3: Restricted pesticides should be prohibited on school grounds. School

officials should adhere to the principles outlined in the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 ( AB 2260

and AB 1006) until the long- range effects of pesticides on children’s growth patterns can be

documented. Buffer zones around schools should be broadened beyond those specified on the

manufacturer’s label. ( Finding 3)

Pg 37 of 252

Recommendation 4: The annual updating of childcare locations is an important part of

protecting children. Mandatory annual updating should be the responsibility of the office of the

CAC. ( Finding 4)

Recommendation 5: Recommendations from Environmental Resource Section should be an

essential part of any new school project’s planning. ( Finding 5)

Recommendation 6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Task Force on Health and Pesticide

Use meet annually for the purpose of review and recommendations. ( Finding 6)

Recommendation 7: The Grand Jury urges all concerned citizens to contact their local

representatives and urge them to enact and support legislation that will further protect school

sites and the surrounding residents from future exposure and contamination. ( Finding 7)

CONCLUSION

The Grand Jury would like to commend the CAC for its outreach to the public: the creation of a

HOTLINE and the distribution of handouts describing how pesticides are regulated, how to

report complaints, and measures to reduce pesticide use in the home. This agency performs the

important job of bringing neighbors and growers together to cooperate on common problems. In

addition, CAC coordinates with Santa Barbara County to maintain consistency in regulating

pesticide use throughout the region.

The Grand Jury would like to acknowledge the grassroots efforts of Neighbors- At- Risk for

taking a proactive stance on this issue as well as ECOSLO for their work in increasing public

awareness. We also commend the Public Health Department for creating the task force, for

working with CAC, and for providing training to medical professionals in schools and hospitals.

As the county’s population increases, the agricultural/ urban clash will intensify. Land use

decisions, which ensure both the grower’s “ right to farm” and the public’s health, need to be

protected. California’s goal is to protect commercial agriculture as an essential component of the

state’s economy. The Grand Jury hopes this county is committed to maintaining a balance

between growing crops and a growing population.

Pg 38 of 252

REQUIRED RESPONSES

o The San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner: Due 05/ 03/ 06 ( Findings 2, 3

& 4 and Recommendations 2, 3 & 4)

o The San Luis Obispo County Planning Department: Due 05/ 03/ 06 ( Finding 5 and

Recommendation 5)

o The San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department: Due 05/ 03/ 06 ( Finding 6 and

Recommendation 6)

o The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Due 06/ 07/ 06 ( Findings 1 through

6 and Recommendations 1 through 6)

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Map of School Buffer Zones

Appendix B – Legislation Governing Pesticide Use in California

Appendix C – “ Suggestions for Pesticide Applications Near Schools”

Appendix D - @ RISK Chart

Pg 39 of 252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. REGULATING PESTICIDES: The California Story. California Department of Pesticide

Regulation, 2001.

2. PESTICIDE USE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. San Luis Obispo County Department

of Agriculture/ Measure Standards, 2003.

3. SECOND HAND PESTICIDE; Airborne Pesticide Drift in California, ( Executive Summary).

Kegley, Pesticide Action Network, Kalten, California Rural Assistance Foundation, Moses,

Pesticide Education Center.

4. PESTICIDES AND HUMAN HEALTH; A Resource for Healthcare Professionals.

Solomon, University of California, San Francisco, et al.

5. PESTICIDE BATTLES ON THE RISE IN THE USA. USA Today, 4/ 12/ 05, Ritter.

6. STRAWBERRY FIELDS IN SALINAS. Associated Press, 10/ 9/ 05.

7. @ RISK. Environmental Working Group, Press Release.

8. PESTICIDES AND FOOD; How Government Regulates Pesticides. U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Press Release.

9. WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW COULD HURT YOU. ( Executive Summary), Environmental

Working Group, Press Release.

10. THE THREAT OF PESTICIDES IN OUR AIR. California Department of Pesticide

Regulation.

Pg 40 of 252

Appendix A

Pg 41 of 252

Appendix B

Legislation Governing Pesticide Use in California

1. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LAW, 1984. This law requires DPR to access all

pesticides as potential air contaminants and regulate them to protect public health.

2. HEALTHY SCHOOL ACT. This law advocates use of Integrated Pest Management

programs to reduce chemical toxins in and around school grounds in order to minimize

biological risk to children.

3. ABP 947, 2002. County Agriculture Commissioners may mandate buffer zones of one-half

mile around sensitive sites, i. e. schools and hospitals.

4. CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE, Section 12972.

The code expressly states measures should be taken to prevent substantial drifts to non-targeted

areas.

Pg 42 of 252

Appendix C

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Department of Agriculture/ Measurement Standards

2156 SIERRA WAY, SUITE A - SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 934016

ROBERT F. LILLEY ( 805) 781- 5910

AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/ SEALER FAX ( 805) 781- 1035

AgCommSLO@ co. sio. ca. us

♦ PUBLIC RELATIONS - NEIGHBORS AND SENSITIVE SITES ♦

SUGGESTIONS FOR PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS MADE NEAR HOMES, SCHOOLS,

AND OTHER SENSITIVE SITES

Agriculturalists in San Luis Obispo County face many challenges in producing food and

horticultural products that benefit everyone. Some of the greatest challenges are land use issues

involving urban and rural residents and the farming community. A pesticide application near

residents intensifies this challenge and often results in complaints and animosity between

neighbors. It is our goal to assist pesticide applicators in developing ways to be sensitive to

neighbors' concerns when using pesticides. The intent of these recomnendations is to increase

awareness and to encourage the safe use of pesticides in all settings.

♦ Suggestions and Possible Voluntary Solutions Concerning Pesticide Use in General:

1. Take the first step to talk with neighbors! Explain your agricultural operation: what you do,

when you do things and why you do them. Explain the seasonal nature of possible increased

traffic, noise, dust and pesticide use. If you use pesticides, voluntarily give your neighbors

notification of pending applications. Explain that weather conditions usually dictate your

schedule and predicting the exact time of a particular application may be difficult. If you

make applications at night, notify your neighbors so they don't think you are hiding from

them or anyone else. An easy way to provide notification to several neighbors is to help

them develop a " phone tree call- down list" which means applicators call one neighbor and

that person calls the rest of the neighbors. Voluntary notification is intended to keep

neighbors informed and may also address the non- pesticide nuisance complaints such as

early morning noise. Notification DOES NOT preclude mitigation of off- site drift. Explain

to neighbors the reasons applicators wear protective clothing. If you hire applicators keep

them informed of any arrangements you have made with neighbors.

Pg 43 of 252

2. Some complaints we receive involve odors from pesticide applications. Be aware if your

pesticide has an obnoxious chemical odor. Though an odor may not be actual physical drift

off your property, the smell can travel a long way, effecting multiple neighbors. Your

smelly application at the very least can cause your neighbors to be awakened in the middle

of the night or worse to have headaches and other illnesses. It is best to make your

applications when there is some wind blowing away from neighbors and other sensitive

areas. Be aware of weather conditions creating temperature inversions which restrict

vertical air mixing causing both odors and small suspended droplets to remain close to the

ground and move laterally off target in a concentrated cloud. We are obligated to respond to

all complaints from the public.

3. Consider making applications when neighbors are normally gone for the day. Avoid making

applications on weekends, holidays, or adjacent to roads during high traffic periods or

during local events or festivals that may bring large numbers of bicyclists or joggers near

your property.

4. Establish a relationship with the administrative staff of any nearby schools or other similar

institutions. Keeping open communication lines can prevent many problems from

occurring.

5. Explore alternative pest control methods that may reduce or eliminate the need for

pesticides. Let your neighbors know the positive things you are doing like incorporating

Integrated Pest Management strategies.

6. Ask your chemical supplier or PCA about new chemicals or alternative formulations that

reduce the potential for off- site drift. For example, switch from a dusting formulation of

sulfur to a wettable sulfur.

7. Consider planting a vegetative screen adjacent to neighboring property or leave an

unplanted/ untreated buffer area. If the topography and culture of the crop allows, change

the planting direction of rows: it may be better to have length of rows rather than ends of

rows along neighboring property lines.

8. For liquid applications, upgrade your spray equipment with nozzles that are designed to reduce

drift. Make applications when airflow is away from neighboring property. Consider the use of

hand- held spray equipment as a substitute to power equipment particularly in buffer zones.

10. If you would like some assistance, an Inspector from our office can conduct inspections of your

pesticide applications, which may help verify the application was done in a safe and legal manner.

Call us to request a " Voluntary Compliance Inspection" which gives you the opportunity to work

with an Inspector to verify compliance and to discuss voluntary neighbor notification issues.

11. Get involved in land use planning processes that may affect your farming activities.

Pg 44 of 252

♦ Restricted Pesticides:

The County Agricultural Commissioner has the authority to condition the use of restricted material

pesticides. Placing special conditions on Restricted Material Permits does this. In the development of

permit conditions, County Ag Inspectors usually visit sites to be treated and work closely with applicators

to evaluate and address sensitive sites. The proximity of occupied dwellings, application methods and

equipment ( aerial verses ground applications for example), alternative methods, topography of the site,

and weather conditions are examples of factors evaluated. A sensitive site" designation by the Ag

Inspector indicates a situation exists that may warrant extra precautions such as additional permit

conditions. Neighbor notification may be required to inform the public about pesticide applications

which are close to occupied dwellings, schools, etc. Applicators or growers, not staff from the

Agricultural Commissioner's office, are responsible for neighbor notification.

♦ Non- Restricted Pesticides:

The County Agricultural Commissioner does not generally condition the use of non- restricted materials,

unless the Commissioner determines that its use will present an undue hazard when used under local

conditions. As with any pesticides, applicators are responsible to follow all label requirements and to

avoid off- site drift. At times it may be necessary or just a good, neighborly approach for applicators to go

beyond normal precautions including notification of neighbors of pending pesticide applications.

Growers that have used this approach have had good success. Contact your industry association for

linkage to peers that may assist you.

♦ The California Public Records Act:

The County Agricultural Commissioner frequently receives requests from the public for information

about pesticide applications. Examples of commonly requested documents include copies of growers'

Restricted Materials Permits, pending Notices of Intent, Use Reports, records of enforcement action and

investigations. These documents, and many others, are considered " public records". The California

Public Records Act, ( Government Code Section 6250- 6268), mandates the Commissioner provide public

records upon request. The requests must be made in writing. The cost for completion of these requests is

recovered through a fee for computer time and photocopies. ( In some situations, the Commissioner may

notify you of documents that were released in response to a request).

Please let us know about creative solutions you have developed so we may pass them along to others. For

more information contact one of our offices:

Arroyo Grande District Office: 473- 7090 ♦ Templeton District Office: 434- 5950

San Luis Obispo Main Office: 781- 5910

S: PUEFORM@ rmit Issuance Documents @ neigh 05 Rev. 10/ 05jc

Pg 45 of 252

Appendix D

Pg 46 of 252

THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE

The San Luis Obispo County Gang Task Force is an information- gathering and enforcement unit

created to aid city and county law enforcement agencies. This is accomplished by monitoring

gang- related activities and proactive contacts with identified gang members, often through

probation compliance contacts. Task force responsibilities include identifying the various gangs

and their members, assisting narcotics officers investigating the trafficking of illegal drugs by

criminal street gangs, and aiding prosecutors in obtaining enhancement penalties for individuals

convicted of gang- related offenses.

ORIGIN

The Grand Jury elected to inquire into the task force’s operations in order to inform the county’s

residents of the extent of the area’s criminal street gang problem and the ways in which local law

enforcement is dealing with it.

METHOD

Grand jurors interviewed the Sheriff’s Department’s Chief Deputy along with three present

members and one former member of the task force, and collected current and historical data on

the county’s gang problem and task force operations.

NARRATIVE

The Gang Task Force was formed in 1987 in response to a noticeable rise in gang activity in the

county and a realization by law enforcement personnel that gangs were becoming increasingly

involved in drug trafficking. This was the impetus for obtaining a federal grant which funded the

task force’s original complement: one deputy sheriff, one probation officer, one deputy district

attorney ( half- time), and one clerical employee.

As the county’s population has continued to increase, so has the number of street gangs and gang

members. According to the most recent data available, there are 31 different gangs in the county

with a total of nearly 1100 members. The typical gang member is a 14 to 25 year- old male,

although there are some older members. Many of the gangs are composed primarily of Hispanic

Pg 47 of 252

youths. Of particular concern to the task force, however, is a recent marked increase in the

number of white supremacist or “ white power” gangs whose members tend to engage in hate

crimes.

Criminal gang activity is certainly not unique to, or even most prevalent in, this county; it is a

problem throughout the state, especially in large urban areas, and has been for several decades.

To address the issue, the California legislature, in 1988, enacted the Street Terrorism

Enforcement and Prevention ( STEP) Act. The intent of the law was to prevent or reduce

criminal street gang activity by enhancing the penalties for individuals convicted of gang- related

offenses.

The California Penal Code defines a criminal street gang as any ongoing organization of three or

more people with a common sign or symbol, which has as one of its primary activities the

commission of one or more of 25 specified crimes, and which engages in a pattern of criminal

gang activity.

Enhancement penalties under the STEP Act can add considerable time to a convicted offender’s

sentence. For example, a less serious felony, which normally carries a sentence of 16 months to

three years, is enhanced by an additional two to four years. Five years are added to serious

felonies, and ten years to violent ones. Enhancement can extend to a life sentence for crimes

such as home- invasion robbery or shooting from a vehicle, which results in injury. Witness

intimidation, because of its prevalent use by gangs, can also be enhanced to a term of life in

prison.

For individuals convicted of gang- related misdemeanors, enhancement penalties can result in a

state prison sentence for what would have otherwise been a county jail sentence.

In order to add enhancement penalties, it must be shown at trial that a defendant’s criminal

actions promoted or benefited a street gang, and input from the task force has been instrumental

in assisting prosecutors toward this end. Intelligence information from the task force is also

Pg 48 of 252

essential to local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to investigate and arrest criminal

street gang members.

The sheriff recognizes the value of the task force and its contributions to public safety. Criminal

street gangs and their associates are the primary players in illegal drug activity in the local area.

Methamphetamine use, especially crystal methamphetamine ( ice), is at near epidemic

proportions in this county. Criminal street gangs, along with using methamphetamine, also

manufacture, transport, and sell it. By assisting sheriff’s narcotics officers and personnel from

other law enforcement agencies, the task force significantly impacts narcotics trafficking in San

Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas. The contributions of the task force can be illustrated by

citing a few examples of their more recent activities:

θ The Gang Task Force joined with the Sheriff’s Narcotics Unit, County Probation

Department, California State Parole, and police departments from Paso Robles,

Atascadero, and Grover Beach in an operation focused on 37 residences in the northern

portion of the county. Eight adults and four juveniles were arrested, and seizures included

methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, counterfeit ID’s and social security

cards, and a .45 caliber handgun with ammunition.

θ The task force assisted the Sheriff’s Narcotics Unit in locating three marijuana cultivation

locations from which 11,865 plants were seized.

θ The task force worked with the Sheriff’s Narcotics Unit and U. S. Customs in

investigating criminal street gang members who were importing large quantities of

crystal methamphetamine from Mexico and trafficking drugs throughout the county. The

investigation culminated in 19 federal and five local convictions.

θ The task force assisted the San Luis Obispo County Auto Theft Team in a multi-jurisdictional

case in Monterey County which targeted several known “ Sureno” gang

members who were engaged in drug trafficking and auto theft. Approximately 20 search

warrants were served which resulted in eleven arrests and the recovery of 48 vehicles.

Pg 49 of 252

θ As a result of a task force investigation into gang and narcotics activities in the southern

portion of the county, 17 known gang members and associates were arrested. The

charges included parole/ probation violations, felony evasion of a police officer, and

possession of narcotics for sale.

θ Additionally, the Gang Task Force’s quantifiable achievements relative to arrests,

convictions, seizures, and other pertinent areas have through the years consistently

exceeded the projected figures delineated in the grant application documents.

These examples are just a few of the Gang Task Force’s accomplishments and serve to highlight

their important contributions to law enforcement and public safety in San Luis Obispo County.

It should also be mentioned that task force members regularly participate in drug and gang

prevention programs at local schools and at meetings attended by parents, community leaders,

and the general public.

Although the number of gang members in the county has increased nearly tenfold in the past two

decades, the make- up of the task force has remained as initially constituted until very recently,

when the sheriff added one additional deputy. Since federal monies partially fund the unit with

no guarantees for the future, the sheriff would like to see the grant- funded expenditures

converted to permanent county funding, and the Grand Jury agrees with him.

CONCLUSION

In the opinion of the Grand Jury, the members of the Gang Task Force are dedicated and

professional officers and a genuine asset to county law enforcement.

FINDING

A federal grant, which is subject to withdrawal at any time, continues to be the primary funding

source for the Gang Task Force.

Pg 50 of 252

RECOMMENDATION

The expenditures for the Gang Task Force should be permanently funded as part of the annual

San Luis Obispo County budget.

REQUIRED RESPONSES

o The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department: Due 05/ 05/ 06 ( Finding and

Recommendation)

o The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Due 06/ 02/ 06 ( Finding and

Recommendation)

Pg 51 of 252

THE CUESTA COLLEGE NURSING PROGRAM AND THE

NURSING SHORTAGE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

According to local medical professionals, there are insufficient numbers of registered nurses to

fill the existing vacancies in San Luis Obispo County’s four hospitals ( Arroyo Grande Medical

Center, French Hospital, Sierra Vista Hospital, and Twin Cities Hospital).

ORIGIN

The Grand Jury chose to inquire into the nursing shortage in order to increase public awareness

of the issue and to ascertain which, if any, remedial measures might be taken to alleviate the

problem.

METHOD

Grand jury members reviewed available literature on the nursing shortage and interviewed

nursing and human resources managers at the four hospitals in the county, along with

administrators of the nursing program at Cuesta College.

NARRATIVE

The nursing shortage was addressed in a San Luis Obispo Tribune article of November 3, 2005,

which discussed an expansion of the number of nursing students enrolled in the two- year

associate degree program at Cuesta College from 46 to 56.

The expansion was made possible by a $ 15,000 donation from each of the four hospitals in the

county, the Marion Medical Center in Santa Maria, the George Mee Memorial Hospital in

Monterey County, and the Cuesta College Foundation. Similar amounts have been pledged for

next year ( 2007) to continue funding the expansion through the two- year associate degree

program. The donations have allowed Cuesta to employ another instructor to accommodate the

ten additional students. Ten additional nursing graduates every two years, however, will not

eliminate the shortage in our hospitals.

Pg 52 of 252

Cuesta also plans to begin a Licensed Vocational Nurse ( LVN) training program, which will be

one year in length. This program will be partially funded by a $ 150,000 private donation from

Compass Health. It will not significantly impact the nursing shortage locally, however, since

only a limited number of LVNs work at local hospitals. Most are employed by nursing homes

and assisted living facilities.

The nursing shortage extends nationwide, although it is particularly acute in California. Among

the 50 states, California ranks last in the number of RNs per 100,000 population; and this in a

state where 70% of RNs are the products of associate degree programs in community colleges,

whereas in many other states emphasis is on baccalaureate degrees from four- year universities or

programs of similar length in hospital nursing schools.

The number of young people entering the nursing profession has been steadily declining, and the

nursing workforce across the United States is rapidly aging. One third of American nurses are

more than fifty years of age, and nursing is a physically demanding profession.

The disinclination among young people to seek a career in nursing is not difficult to understand.

Given the current low unemployment rate, many other jobs are available to those entering the

workforce. Although the number of male nurses has increased in recent years, nursing remains a

predominantly female profession, and young women today have a much greater range of career

choices open to them than did their mothers and grandmothers. These factors, coupled with the

demands of the job - shift work, weekend assignments, exposure to potentially contagious

diseases, and the physical labor involved - compound the problem of attracting an adequate

number of qualified people to the nursing ranks.

An additional factor in most parts of California is the cost of housing. Nurses or nursing

graduates from many other states are reluctant to relocate to California, especially the coastal

areas, because of high real estate prices and rental rates. In some areas of the state - Santa

Barbara, for example - hospitals and educational institutions working together have addressed

this issue by providing subsidized housing for nurses and other hospital employees.

Pg 53 of 252

Locally, salaries are also a concern. The average pay for a nurse with 20 years experience in one

of the hospitals in San Luis Obispo County is $ 37 per hour, while in San Francisco and

Sacramento the rates are $ 50 and $ 60, respectively.

Hospitals have implemented various strategies to attract qualified personnel, such as sign- on

bonuses and relocation reimbursement for nurses already employed by other entities. But these

tactics merely redistribute the existing supply of nurses rather than increase it. In some

instances, nurses have left one local hospital for another because of such incentives.

Traveling nurses are sometimes utilized by local hospitals to alleviate the shortage. These nurses

may reside in other areas of California or in other states. They are employed by traveling nurse

agencies, which assign them to requesting hospitals on a contractual basis for 13- week periods.

The nurses are paid by the agencies and are also provided with living quarters or are reimbursed

for lodging expenses. All of the costs are part of the contractual agreements with the hospitals.

But this is neither a long- term nor a cost- effective remedy. Most traveling nurses prefer that

lifestyle to a permanent position, especially since all their moving expenses are paid; and the cost

to hospitals for a traveling nurse is approximately twice that of a full- time nursing employee.

Hospital monies might be better spent on programs intended to retain good employees. For

example, retention bonuses might be offered to current employees rather than sign- on bonuses to

new hires.

The working environment for nurses could also be improved where necessary. The use of

Certified Nursing Assistants to reduce the RN workload could be expanded. Some of the

concepts associated with “ magnet hospitals”, where nurses have a greater degree of autonomy

and increased involvement in the decision- making process, might also be explored.

While San Luis Obispo County shares the nursing shortage with the rest of the state and nation,

we are in one sense better off than many other areas. At the present time there is no serious

recruitment problem here. Cuesta College, the only institution in the county offering a degree

program for RNs, has a waiting list of qualified candidates, sometimes numbering as many as

Pg 54 of 252

200. Moreover, the vast majority of those on the waiting list are local residents, which mitigates

to some extent the housing- cost issue as a negative recruiting factor.

Local hospital administrators would like to see Cuesta initiate a second concurrent nursing class,

which could effectively double the number of RNs graduating from the college. This, of course,

would require a considerable expenditure of additional funds. More money from the state in the

form of grants, more from the state budget, more in the way of donations from local hospitals, or

probably all three, would be necessary.

Money alone, however, will not eliminate the nursing shortage in the county. Adding a second

RN class at Cuesta would require a substantial increase in the number of instructors, and

according to program administrators there, such personnel are in short supply. Additionally,

there is insufficient clinical space available to expand the program to any significant degree. The

RN training curriculum requires that nursing students receive clinical experience working in

acute care facilities, such as hospitals. The four relatively small hospitals in the county could not

accommodate the increase in students resulting from a second class at the college without

assigning them to later shifts, and Cuesta officials believe students need exposure to dayshift

work when most of the hospitals’ activities take place. And there are no large hospitals or other

acute care facilities within reasonable traveling distance where students can gain this experience.

CONCLUSION

The nurses training program at Cuesta College compares favorably with any other in California.

Despite a change in admission requirements, which was mandated by the state several years ago,

Cuesta has continued to maintain a very low attrition rate for the program. For example, of the

46 students who began the 2004/ 2005 class, 44 are expected to graduate this year.

Local hospitals have expressed their satisfaction with the Cuesta graduates they employ - they

would just like to have more of them. Their support of the college’s program is evidenced by the

donations made this year - and pledged for next year - to assist in funding the ten- student

increase in the current nursing class.

Pg 55 of 252

The Grand Jury hopes that the spirit of cooperation between our practicing health professionals

and educators continues, and that as a result of that cooperation, creative solutions to the nursing

shortage can be found.

REQUIRED RESPONSE

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

Pg 56 of 252

THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

AN ADVISORY BODY - NOT A LEGISLATIVE BODY

The Grand Jury has examined the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission and reviewed

certain of its recent actions. The current structure and operating rules of the Planning

Commission allow its decision- making process to be manipulated by personal agenda.

We have also reviewed the legal basis for the Commission and the county's ordinances regarding

establishment and operation of the Commission. ( Please see Appendix A for excerpts of relevant

sections of California laws.) The Grand Jury performed its inquiry with an eye toward

examining the Commission's objectivity, accountability, consistency, responsibility, fairness, and

the relationship of their actions to housing affordability. Following are our observations,

findings, and recommendations regarding the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND

What a Planning Commission IS NOT

The planning commission, as constituted in San Luis Obispo County, is NOT a legislative body.

Members are not chosen by the electorate, have no legislative, regulatory, or rule making

authority, and each member serves in an advisory capacity at the pleasure of the Board of

Supervisors. A planning commission is NOT a pulpit for pursuit of personal agendas and it is not

a regulatory body.

What a Planning Commission IS

California counties are not required by state law to establish planning commissions. California

law requires only that each county have a “ planning agency.” The planning agency may be

composed of the Board of Supervisors, a planning department, a planning commission, or any

combination thereof.

California Government Code Section 65101 allows the formation of planning commissions for

the purpose of advising the Board of Supervisors on issues in the unincorporated areas of the

county:

Pg 57 of 252

From California Government Code § 65101( a): “ The legislative body may create one or more

planning commissions each of which shall report directly to the legislative body. The legislative

body shall specify the membership of the commission or commissions. In any event, each

planning commission shall consist of at least five members, all of whom shall act in the public

interest….” [ emphasis added]

Planning commissions are just such advisory bodies. Although Government Code Sections

65102 through 65106 describe certain functions to be performed by planning agencies, neither

the maximum size, nor the functions and duties of a planning commission, are dictated by state

law.

The Board of Supervisors has wide discretion in assigning the functions and duties of a planning

commission:

From California Government Code § 65102: “ A legislative body may establish for its planning

agency any rules, procedures, or standards which do not conflict with state or federal laws.”

Because a planning commission is appointed and has official status as an agency of a county,

commissioners are subject to all the rules and regulations which govern all public bodies in

California including, but not limited to, rules regarding conflicts of interest, laws such as the

Brown Act, and “ sunshine” rules. In San Luis Obispo County each member's term on the

commission coincides with the term of the Supervisor who nominated them and commissioners

serve at the pleasure of the entire Board of Supervisors. Commissioners are required to “ act in

the public interest.” They are also subject to conflict of interest rules as set forth in the Fair

Political Practices Act.

State law requires that certain decisions of a planning commission must be subject to appeal to

the Board of Supervisors. Additional remedies for adverse actions of a planning commission are

also provided by both codified law and common law.

Pg 58 of 252

NARRATIVE

Genesis of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission

The current San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission was established by County

Ordinance Number 2692 in 1994. Two earlier ordinances preceded the current ordinance with

the earliest dating from 1966. While the current Commission is composed of only five members,

one from each Supervisor's district, the 1966 ordinance authorized a total of nine members,

including one at- large member to represent agricultural interests.

Rules of the Planning Commission

The Planning Commission has adopted rules for its meetings and proceedings. These rules are

stated in the “ RULES OF PROCEDURE” dated 11/ 15/ 99. This document is available for public

use and review.

The Planning Commission meets regularly in open, public sessions to discuss matters brought

before it. These matters concern such issues as zoning, general plan revisions, and applications

for discretionary permits. County Counsel and representative of the planning department staff

are available at each meeting to advise and present issues. Members of the public may be

recognized and speak at meetings.

The number of voting members needed to take action on an item depends on the issue to be

decided. Votes on the General Plan, Land Use Ordinances, and Coastal Zone Land Use require

at least three votes in the affirmative to pass. All other issues may be decided by a simple

majority where only three members are present.

All business of the Planning Commission must be conducted in open sessions and, to avoid the

appearance of bias, commissioners are not to participate in ex parte contacts when deliberating

and making decisions. According to the Government Code, any such ex parte contacts “… shall

be reported to the Commission in open public session, including sufficient detail so as to provide

adequate information to the other Commissioners and the public as to the substance of the

contact.”

Pg 59 of 252

Commissioners must not meet in a succession of “ smaller than a quorum” meetings to discuss

Commission business. This is defined as a “ serial meeting” in the Brown Act. In other words,

commissioners shall not confer with each other, one- on- one, outside public meetings to plan

actions to be taken at public meetings.

It is the duty of the Commission to consider the evidence concerning issues brought before it and

to deliberate only the issues at hand. It should not stray from examination of the facts of the

issue under consideration into other areas of interest to individual members. Nor should the

issues become a stepping- stone to pursue personal agenda. It is the duty of the Commission's

members to consider the issues before it by fairly and impartially applying the requirements of

county rules, regulations, ordinances, general plan requirements, and rules of the Board of

Supervisors to make decisions on the project in question.

Types of Permits

There are two main categories of permit applications. Permit applications, which require only

staff review and which do not require a public hearing, are referred to as “ ministerial.”

Applications for permits requiring only ministerial action can be approved and permits issued

without Commission review or other public hearings. When an applicant has met the

requirements of a ministerial review issuance of the permit is required.

The second category is referred to as “ discretionary” and involves the application of established

policy. Discretionary review is required when the issues surrounding an application are not

clearly defined and gray areas exist: e. g., cases involving zoning variances, tract maps, and

larger commercial and residential projects. In the case of discretionary permits the applicant

must present plans and may make adjustments requested by the Planning Department staff before

the staff can recommend approval of the application. This can be, and usually is, a long and

expensive process. Once the staff has made a recommendation for approval, the application

must then be evaluated by the Planning Commission. The Commission must decide if the facts

of the case warrant issuance of the permit. If the Commission denies the permit the applicant can

then appeal to the Board of Supervisors.

Pg 60 of 252

The process of obtaining a discretionary permit often adds costs in excess of tens of thousands of

dollars to the base cost of a project. When the project is for housing, this additional cost must be

recovered by building it into the price of the homes. It is also not uncommon for an applicant to

spend large sums of money meeting the requirements of the planning staff review only to have

the project rejected by the Planning Commission, or conditionally approved with expensive and,

at times, onerous conditions attached to the approval. The applicant's options are then to either

accept the conditions or, if denied, to drop the project, or appeal to the Board of Supervisors to

override the Commission. This is definitely a contributing factor to the affordability of housing

in this county.

Some Examples of Recent Actions of the Commission

The Grand Jury reviewed several recent actions of the Planning Commission where the

Commission's actions either came under unusual public scrutiny, or where they were the subject

of specific complaints received by the Grand Jury. Following are brief summaries and comments

regarding select cases:

Cambria/ San Simeon Plan – The Planning Commission and staff worked for several months

prior to November 2005 to prepare the Cambria/ San Simeon Community Plan Update. A

number of issues, which might be of concern to the California Coastal Commission had been

raised by one Planning Commissioner during the study period and had been either rejected or

voted down by the other Commissioners. The day before the plan was scheduled for final action

by the Planning Commission ( an action which would eventually send the plan to the Board of

Supervisors), the Planning Department received a letter from the Coastal Commission stating it

had the same concerns which the Planning Commission had already discussed and rejected. A

question arose as to whether there may have been a request to the Coastal Commission to

intervene in the process in a effort to revive discussion of these already rejected issues.

On January 10, 2006, grand jury members contacted the Coastal Commission office to inquire

whether there had been contact with any local Planning Commissioner and to question the timing

of these last minute concerns. The grand jury members were told there was an order from

Pg 61 of 252

Coastal Commission management to put the issues before the Planning Commission post haste.

However, when we attempted to discover who was behind the order and how the timing came

about, we were unable to obtain definitive answers from the Coastal Commission staff and

management.

Nipomo Housing Project – In this case the Planning Commission staff worked for some time

with a developer to evaluate a proposed housing project in Nipomo. The project was for 38

homes spaced at ten homes per acre – exactly the density which local zoning called for. The

developer had invested thousands of dollars in the design and approval process. He complied

with all requirements set forth by the staff, conformed to all zoning regulations, met all other

requirements and the planning staff had recommended approval of the project.

At a Commission hearing where the agenda called for discussion of this project only three of the

five Commissioner members were present. The Commissioner from the South County ( Nipomo)

area was absent from the meeting. Two of the Commissioners present wanted to bring the

project to a vote while the third Commissioner felt the vote should be delayed since the member

from the Nipomo area was absent. Both the staff and the applicant also requested that the

Commission not vote on the project at that meeting. However, with only three of the five

Commissioners present, two Commissioners were able to force the issue to a vote and voted to

deny the project. In this case these two Commissioners were able to kill a project, which, had

the full Commission been present, might have been approved.

Based on a review of the transcript of this meeting, in the Grand Jury’s opinion, it indicates that

the insistence of these two Commissioners to rush the project to a vote while the Commissioner

from the Nipomo area was absent appeared to be arbitrary, apparently preordained, and a

deliberate attempt to exclude the absent Commissioner from voting on the issue. In the Grand

Jury’s opinion it also appears, based on the transcript, that discussions between Commission

members and third parties may have taken place prior to the public hearing. If so, this could

constitute a “ serial meeting” as defined in the California Government Code. Upon appeal to the

Board of Supervisors, the vote of the two Commissioners was overturned, the project was

reinstated, and the permits granted.

Pg 62 of 252

PG& E and California PUC – The California Public Utilities Commission ( PUC) reviewed a

PG& E application for replacement of steam generator and support equipment at the Diablo

Canyon Nuclear power plant. The role of the PUC in this case was to determine whether the

replacement was justified and whether PG& E could recover the costs from ratepayers. The

project required a complete environmental impact report ( EIR) for approval by the PUC which

was the lead agency for creating this EIR. The PUC's final EIR was sent to the Planning

Commission for use in its decision- making process regarding replacement of the steam

generators.

The county's role in the process was to evaluate land use issues such as transport and storage of

the generators, and construction of facilities to accommodate the replacement work. The only

application pending with the county at this time concerned these issues integral to the planned

replacement of the steam generators. The Planning Commission's discussions should have been

limited to these land use issues.

In the opinion of the Grand Jury, it appeared that an attempt to turn this application into an issue

of license renewal for Diablo ( scheduled for the year 2014) was made by two Commissioners.

Re- licensing of Diablo was not the issue before the Planning Commission and it is an issue over

which the Planning Commission has no authority in any event. There was no application

pending regarding re- licensing of the Diablo facility. It was not appropriate to attempt to turn

this application hearing into an issue regarding possible future re- licensing of Diablo. One

Commissioner's refusal to ultimately deal with the issue in a proper manner, and to create an

issue regarding re- licensing, resulted in denial of the project and forced the entire issue to be

appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the Planning Commission has attempted to interject itself into matters over which

it has no authority and, in the Grand Jury’s opinion, has become a vehicle for pursuing the

personal agenda of some of its members. Further, decisions often do not appear to be made in a

fair, consistent, and impartial manner and appear to reflect personal bias rather than a fair and

Pg 63 of 252

impartial review of the facts. The definition of “ review of the facts” often seems to be

selectively tailored to support a preconceived viewpoint rather than a search for the best and

fairest solution to a problem. Decisions often appear arbitrary.

Applicants often do not have a clear understanding of the rules governing the Planning

Commission’s actions regarding issuance of permits. These rules and requirements for issuing

permits often are a moving target and Planning Commission decisions do not reflect consistent

application of the rules between different cases for the same or similar issues.

There appears also to be a lack of accountability for the Commission inasmuch as rules may have

been broken and conflicts of interest may exist.

There is the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not an actual conflict, when the jurisdiction of

the Coastal Commission extends to matters before the Planning Commission and one of the

Commissioners is also an employee of the Coastal Commission.

The rules under which the Commission operates are vague, insufficient, often irrelevant, and are

in need of substantial clarification and revision.

FINDINGS

Finding 1: Although each Planning Commission member is appointed by, and serves the Board

of Supervisors as a whole, each individual Commissioner is, presumably, most aware of and

most closely involved in, issues regarding the district represented by the Supervisor who

nominated the individual member. Therefore, that member is the person most likely to be

representative of the consensus of the majority of their district.

Finding 2: Under the present five- member structure of the Planning Commission it is possible,

when only three Commissioners are present at a meeting, for two Commissioners to rule by

simple majority vote in a manner contrary to the will of the majority of Commissioners were all

five Commissioners present. This creates the opportunity for personal agenda to rule where

fairness might otherwise dictate a different outcome.

Pg 64 of 252

Finding 3: An applicant for a discretionary permit has a reasonable expectation ( albeit not a

guarantee) that the requested permit shall be granted when all the County's published and stated

requirements for that permit have been fulfilled and the Planning Department staff has

recommended that the permit be issued.

Finding 4: Conflicts of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict, can arise when

Commissioners are asked to decide issues where the best interest of the County, and its citizens,

may conflict with the interest, intent, or desires of a Commissioner's employer. This is

especially true where the Commissioner's employer can exercise regulatory authority in the

County over issues coming before the county’s Planning Commission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: The Board of Supervisors should require that the Planning Commission

make every reasonable effort to consider the opinion of the Commissioner in whose district a

project is located when deciding an issue regarding that project in that Commissioner's absence.

( Finding 1)

Recommendation 2: The Board of Supervisors should increase membership on the Planning

Commission to seven members from the current five members. The two additional members

should be appointed at large from the county. A unanimous vote of the entire Board of

Supervisors should be required for each at large appointee. A quorum of the Planning

Commission shall then be not less than four members. Binding votes of the Planning

Commission must be by a majority of eligible voting members. ( Finding 2)

Recommendation 3: The Board of Supervisors should implement the following rules regarding

Planning Commission decisions:

In a case where the Planning Commission votes to deny issuance of a discretionary permit and

the applicant has met each of the following three conditions:

¬ The applicant has met each of the requirements and conditions of the County as set forth

by the Planning Department staff for issuance of the permit( s) during the review process

and,

Pg 65 of 252

¬ The applicant has complied with all published rules, regulations, and ordinances required

for issuance of the permit( s) and,

¬ The County Planning Department staff has recommended that the permit( s) be granted.

If the applicant then appeals the denial to the Board of Supervisors, the current rules should be

changed to reflect the following conditions:

¬ No charge shall be levied for the applicant's appeal.

¬ The Director of the Planning Department as an “ interested person adversely affected,” ( as

defined in section 66452.5, subdivision ( d) of the California Government Code) may file

the appeal with the Board of Supervisors to overturn the Planning Commission's decision.

( See also Attorney General's Opinion No. 88- 803 – December 1, 1998).

¬ The Planning Department shall not be required to prepare new findings to support the

Commission's position in denying the application and the Board of Supervisors shall

review the decision based on the original findings and the stated reasons for denial by the

Commission.

These rules should have effect only where the above three conditions has been met. To be

binding the vote of the Board of Supervisors must be by a majority of eligible voting

members. ( Finding 3)

Recommendation 4: To avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, and to assure the

Commission puts the interest of the citizens of San Luis Obispo County first, the Board of

Supervisors should implement the following rule:

When a Commissioner is confronted with an issue before the Planning Commission

which same issue is subject to authority, or other direct interest of the Commissioner's

employer, or in which that Commissioner could otherwise have a personal interest, that

Commissioner must refrain from participating in the discussions and deliberations

concerning that issue and must not cast a vote on any question concerning that issue. Nor

should Recommendation # 1 above be operative in this instance. ( Finding 4)

Recommendation 5: The Board of Supervisors should implement the following rule regarding

Planning Commission members:

Pg 66 of 252

Each Commissioner should be required to sign a “ Conflict of Interest Statement” which

would operate to prevent conflicts of interest of an economic nature, conflicts resulting

from incompatible offices, or the appearance thereof. The Statement should reference the

FPPC Form 700 disclosure of economic interests of the Commissioner and should state

who the Commissioner's employer is as well as any other economic interests relevant to a

potential conflict. This Statement should be in addition to the requirements for filing of

the Form 700. The Commissioner should agree in the Statement to refrain from

participating in any issue before the Commission in which either they or their employer

has an interest. Violation of the terms of the Statement should be grounds for immediate

discharge from the Planning Commission. ( See Appendix ' A' for a discussion and

reference to the California Government Code regarding this Recommendation.) ( Finding

4)

REQUIRED RESPONSES

θ The San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building: Due 05/ 25/ 06

( Findings 1 through 4 and Recommendations 1 through 5)

θ The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Due 06/ 26/ 06 ( Findings 1 through

4 and Recommendations 1 through 5)

Pg 67 of 252

ADDENDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

The method used in developing the Planning Commission Report was omitted from the original

release of the report. Factual elements of this report were verified with both County Counsel and

Planning Department.

METHOD

The Grand Jury:

• Obtained and listened to the recorded transcript of the Planning Commission session during

which the Gray Trust project in Nipomo was rejected by the Planning Commission,

• Reviewed votes by the Board of Supervisors upholding appeals from Planning Commission

decisions,

• Reviewed public records containing statements of Planning Commission members,

• Reviewed and verified with Planning Department staff the actions of the Planning

Commission, and the public record of those actions, during sessions where the following

items were docketed for action:

o Gray Trust Nipomo project

o Cambria/ San Simeon Plan

o PG& E application for replacement of steam generators

• Received explanations and guidance from County Counsel regarding interpretation of laws

regarding planning commission functions and rules, differences between ministerial and

discretionary permits, and the requirements for each,

• Reviewed and analyzed the letter from the California Coastal Commission regarding

appointment of, and participation by, one of its employees on the San Luis Obispo County

Planning Commission,

• Reviewed with county counsel the county's policy on conflict of interest statements and

reasons for the county's policy of not advising commissioners regarding conflicts of interest,

• Obtained testimony from witnesses and subpoenaed documents,

Pg 68 of 252

• Reviewed California Government Code regarding establishment, status, authority, duties,

definitions, and use of planning commissions as a part of the legally required Planning

Agency of counties,

• Reviewed county ordinances, copies of which were supplied to us by the County

Administrator, establishing planning commissions and the history of planning commission

use in San Luis Obispo County,

• Reviewed with County Counsel portions of the Map Act regarding required procedures and

appeals from Planning Commission decisions, including this county's election to make

planning commission decisions subject to appeal,

• Reviewed with County Counsel portions of the Fair Political Practices Act, and California

Government Code, regarding planning commissions and their members,

• Reviewed the Fair Political Practices Act, and California Government Code, regarding

conflicts of interest ( especially CGC § 87103, ( c)), and open meeting laws,

• Reviewed the Planning Commission's own rules for operation,

• Obtained from and reviewed with County Counsel an Attorney General opinion regarding the

authority of the Planning Director to act as an “ interested person” adversely effected when

making an appeal,

• Reviewed current county practices as regards the appointment of planning commission

members,

• Interviewed, by telephone, Coastal Commission employees regarding contact with Planning

Commission members, and

• Questioned Planning Department staff regarding reasons for extraordinary delays in

obtaining permits,

Pg 69 of 252

APPENDIX A:

REFERENCE EXCERPTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

66452.5 . . .

( a) through ( c) . . .

( d) Any interested person adversely affected by a decision of the advisory agency or

appeal board may file an appeal with the governing body concerning any decision of the

advisory agency or appeal board. ( See also Attorney General's Opinion No. 88-

803 – December 1, 1998.)

. 82041. " Local government agency" means a county, city or district of any kind

including school district, or any other local or regional political subdivision, or any

department, division, bureau, office, board, commission or other agency of the

foregoing.

87100. No public official at any level of state or local government shall make,

participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a

governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial

interest.

87103. A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of

Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material

financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a

member of his or her immediate family, or on any of the following:

( a) . . .

( b) Any real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth

two thousand dollars ($ 2,000) or more.

( c) Any source of income , except gifts or loans by a commercial lending institution

made in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard

to official status, aggregating five hundred dollars ($ 500) or more in value provided or

promised to, received by, the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the

decision is made.

87105. ( a) A public official who holds an office specified in Section 87200 who has a

financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 shall, upon

identifying a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest and immediately prior

to the consideration of the matter, do all of the following:

( 1) Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict of interest or

potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that

disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required.

( 2) Recuse himself or herself from discussing and voting on the matter, or otherwise

acting in violation of Section 87100.

( 3) Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the

matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda

reserved for uncontested matters.

Pg 70 of 252

87200. This article is applicable to elected state officers, judges and commissioners of

courts of the judicial branch of government, members of the Public Utilities Commission,

members of the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,

members of the Fair Political Practices Commission, members of the California Coastal

Commission, members of planning commissions, members of the board of

supervisors, district attorneys, county counsels, county treasurers, and chief

administrative officers of counties, mayors, city managers, city attorneys, city treasurers,

chief administrative officers and members of city councils of cities, and other public

officials who manage public investments, and to candidates for any of these offices at

any election.

87300. Every agency shall adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code

pursuant to the provisions of this article. A Conflict of Interest Code shall have the

force of law and any violation of a Conflict of Interest Code by a designated employee

shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.

87500. Statements of economic interests required by this chapter shall be filed as

follows:

( g) Members of the Public Utilities Commission, members of the State Energy

Resources Conservation and Development Commission, planning commissioners,

and members of the California Coastal Commission- one original with the agency

which shall make and retain a copy and forward the original to the commission which

shall be the filing officer.

( emphasis added)

Pg 71 of 252

SHELTER FROM THE STORM - An Inquiry Into Resources for

Battered Women in San Luis Obispo County

INTRODUCTION

Women’s shelters are safe havens where women and children can go when conditions in their

homes become dangerous and may even be life- threatening. These emergency facilities provide

room, board, clothing, and support services, for a limited time, to victims of domestic violence.

Domestic violence covers a multitude of behavior ranging from verbal abuse and intimidation to

life- threatening physical assault. Battered women often experience many episodes of abuse

before they seek help at a shelter. Any woman can get services from a shelter. Rules for

acceptance and participation in the programs are the same for everyone, without regard to race,

national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability, or marital status.

ORIGIN

Recent surveys estimate that violence exists in 35% of all domestic relationships. Many cases go

unreported because of denial, shame, fear, a reluctance to involve police, and a hesitancy by

observers to interfere in the relationships of others. The Grand Jury examined the resources

available to victims of domestic violence to discover how these programs are reaching those in

need in this county.

METHOD

The Grand Jury gathered the information for this report from interviews with the executive

directors of the Women’s Shelter Program of San Luis Obispo County and the North County

Women’s Shelter Program. These meetings provided an understanding of the needs of victims

of violence and the way the women’s shelter programs help individuals and families insure their

safety and regain their self- confidence. In addition, the Grand Jury invited the volunteer

coordinator of the San Luis Obispo program to present a video tape describing the work of the

shelter.

Pg 72 of 252

NARRATIVE

There are two non- profit agencies in San Luis Obispo County providing temporary shelters for

women and their children who are victims of domestic violence. The Women’s Shelter of San

Luis Obispo County serves both the City of San Luis Obispo and south county, and the North

County Women’s Shelter and Resource Center serves the needs of victims in north county

communities.

The San Luis Obispo Women’s Shelter Program is a United Way partner agency: Fifty- one

percent of their funding is community- based, with additional funding from public and private

grants. Their paid staff includes an executive director, and a volunteer coordinator who

supervises 19 volunteers who have completed 40 hours of training. The location of a shelter

house is kept confidential to protect its residents from those who have threatened to harm them.

The North County Women’s Shelter and Resource Center operates two safe houses, employs

nine full- time workers, and 21 part- time counselors and therapists. Frequently, both agencies

work together to insure client access to available emergency shelter and other services on a

short- term basis. If families need longer- term accommodations, they can move into transitional

housing for six months to two years at a reasonable rate.

Services

Both of these agencies are pr