By Camas Frank ~
It’s that time of year again; San Luis Obispo County’s civil grand jury has issued two reports, this time examining the procedures of for the County’s issuance of minor use permits and a look at bail procedures out of the County Jail.
Predictably the recommendation that Police officers and Sheriff’s deputies across SLO County should be well versed in requesting higher bail amounts for people arrested on suspicion of serious crimes drew the most public attention last week.
The scrutiny and recommendations in the grand jury report, “Keeping Suspects in Custody: When is Scheduled Bail not Enough?” stem from a 2015 case involving an undocumented immigrant arrested in north county on suspicion of felony child abuse.
The victim in the case was transported by air ambulance and the suspect, Francisco Javier Chavez, a Mexican national living in Paso Robles, was able to post bond. He remains at large after fleeing the area.
The grand jury was particularly concerned that individual officers interviewed and deputies did to seem to know the powers available to them in seeking higher bail amounts for offenders with previous felonies or posing a greater risk if released.
In the case of Chavez, he was able to post bond in spite of a U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) request to hold him pending possible deportation proceedings.
As of press time, no local agencies have officially responded to the grand jury findings.
The County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors on the other hand has gotten back to the grand jury regarding the less controversial, but more intricate report, “Minor Use Permits: An Oxymoron.”
The gist of that report, 30- pages longer than it’s more intriguing sounding counterpart, is that “the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building follows a complex and outdated framework.”
While few people that have tried to do business out of their home or buy a home that was formerly in agricultural zoning in the County would disagree with that assessment, no specific incident is seen as the impetus for this report.
Rather the grand jury focused their attention on the matter because the minor use permit process can mean anything from building a small deck extension on a private residence to, “constructing a 5.6-mile oil pipeline of which 3.9 miles are in the County jurisdiction.”
While the grand jury made several recommendations, the Board of Supervisors’ move to approve planning staff responses overwhelmingly included the phrase, “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.”
One that was listed as already implemented included the provision that the filing fees for applying for such a permit should cover all costs of the application process, i.e., no surprises for applicants.
