Compilation Document of Responses

03-12

Expand Grossmont Middle College High School to Cuyamaca Community College. In response to the

03-13

Provide additional funding from high school and community college districts to ensure that longitudinal research studies are continued to measure the overall effectiveness of Grossmont Middle College High School. In response to this recommendation, the Grossmont-Cuyamaca College District has already offered the expertise and services of Dr. Brad Phillips Senior Director of Institutional Research, Planning & Academic Services. With the help of Dr. Phillips, Grossmont Middle College High School has operationally defined the data to be used in the longitudinal research studies, and has begun construction of the database for storing the data. Grossmont Middle College High Office of the Chancellor 8800 Grossmont College Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020-1799 Phone 619-644-7569 Fax 619-644-7936 San Diego County Grand Jury July 24, 2003 School presents its performance data annually to the Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District, and to the academic senate of Grossmont College. The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College and the Grossmont Union High School Districts want to thank the San Diego County Grand Jury for recognizing our efforts to provide a valuable service to the students of East San Diego County. We pledge our willingness to critically evaluate opportunities to expand, whenever possible, this proven effective model of education. Sincerely, Junes Sware Terry Ryan Dr. Omero Suarez Dr. Terry Ryan Superintendent Chancellor Grossmont Union High School District Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Handling of Citizens Comp. VPS SD County Sheriff's Department 7/7 v . . ١, . . . COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2003 June 25, 2003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY TO: Honorable Richard E.L. Strauss, Presiding Judge <math>(C-44)</math> San Diego Superior Court FROM: William B. Kolender, Sheriff <math>(0-41)</math> San Diego County Sheriff's Department Response to Grand Jury Report "Handling of Citizen Complaints by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, Vista Patrol Station" In accordance with California Penal Code §933(c), the following is the San Diego County Sheriff's Department's response to the Grand Jury's

03-14

That the San Diego County Probation Department and the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) create another Experimental Group (II) to compare the results when using certificated teachers versus Lindamood-Bell (LMB) clinicians when the student-teacher ratio is a constant. The LMB process would continue to be taught to the original Experimental Group; while Experimental Group II would be taught by San Diego County certificated teachers. In this experiment, the factor to be compared would be the results when the student-teacher ratios are equivalent. SDCOE Response: The Grand Jury's recommendation to create a second Experimental Group II at a teacher- student 1:3 ratio using certificated teachers is not financially feasible for the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE), Juvenile Court and Community Schools (JCCS) and therefore will not be implemented. The SDCOE/JCCS receives state revenue to provide educational services for students referred to the program by the Juvenile Court or local school districts. These services must consist of a core academic curriculum leading to a high school diploma. The use of these funds for research purposes as described in the recommendation is not consistent with state requirements. The LMB process is a research-based program with years of documented success in raising the literacy levels of low-achieving students. Private donations that cannot be used for the general education program purposes were solicited to fund the implementation of the LMB process at Rancho del Campo and Camp Barrett. SDCOE Response to Recommendation 03-14 Representatives met with Presiding Juvenile Court Judge James R. Milliken on March 12, 2003, to review LMB Literacy Project student assessment data collected during the first six months of implementation. Data indicate statistically significant reading gains in every area after only eight weeks of instruction. At the conclusion of this meeting, all representatives indicated a commitment to continue the project at Rancho del Campo and Camp Barrett for year two. In addition, it was agreed that the LMB Literacy Project at Rancho del Campo and Camp Barrett will serve as the "training ground" for two additional SDCOE teachers who, once certified in LMB methodologies, will move to two other sites as part of a collaborative, systematic effort to increase the opportunities for our most disabled readers to improve their literacy levels. In order to accomplish these goals, funds to implement year two must first be secured from community donors.

03-15

That the San Diego County Probation Department and the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) compare cost effectiveness of the Lindamood-Bell (LMB) clinicians versus San Diego County certificated teachers at the end of six months (as described above in 03-14:) when the student- teacher ratio remains constant. SDCOE Response: The Grand Jury recommendation to compare the effectiveness of the LMB clinicians versus San Diego County teachers will not be implemented as proposed. Representatives from the SDCOE. San Diego County Probation Department, and LMB met with Presiding Juvenile Court Judge James R. Milliken on March 12, 2003, and agreed that any funds raised will be used to maintain the LMB Literacy Project at Rancho del Campo and Camp Barrett for year two and to expand the program to other SDCOE school sites rather than add an additional experimental group to the research project. - GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS on GARY CASS JIM KELLY THOMAS A. PAGE PRISCILLA SCHREIBER EVELYN WILLS • SUPERINTENDENT TERRY RYAN High School District COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE<br>5 1 N C E 1 9 2 0 JUL 29 ZUUJ July 24, 2003 and the second section of the second The Honorable Richard Strauss Presiding Judge of Superior Court 220 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Re: The Grand Jury Report on Innovations in Education, March 13, 2003 Dear Judge Strauss: I have examined the thoughtful report of the 2002-2003 Grand Jury and agree with its

03-17

Direct the designated stewards of Mission Bay to apply the local ordinances

03-18

Authorize also the lifeguards to be responsible for the enforcement of

03-19

their accompanying ordinance(s) and resolutions, any known, specific provisions

03-20

policy and procedures. The objective is to ensure that all department sections and

03-21

Environmental Health (DEH) so that in future development projects involving

03-22

Determine an appropriate course of action for implementing the

03-23

Work with the Equestrian Center's manager to achieve consistent and

03-24

appropriate implementation of the site's fly control, dust control, rodent control,

03-25

Work, in consultation with Sandown Way and Rider Place residents whose

03-26

The San Diego Grand Jury Recommends that the Director, Department of Environmental Health: Recommend to the City Council an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 4: Health and Sanitation Article 4: Disease Control-Nuisance Division 3: Animals 44.0308 Horses by: 1. Replacing the words stable, corral and pasture with the phrase "equestrian uses." The intent of this change is to include nighttime and daytime activities as well as permanent and non-permanent equine and equine-related structures and facilities. 2. Clarifying the meaning, intent and use of the words, "dwelling," "residence," "corral," and "pasture." 3. Changing section (d) to read that the 75-foot wide belt extends from the outer edge of any equestrian use and terminates at the homeowner property line. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not within the County of San Diego's jurisdiction. Sections 1 and 2 are City of San Diego zoning issues, wholly under the jurisdiction of the City and, as such, should be considered by the City. Regarding Section 3, County DEH believes the 75-foot buffer, as interpreted by the City (and as applied in this case by the City and by County DEH) adequately protects public health and safety. At present, the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code 44.0308 is at the discretion of the City of San Diego. The County's interest is the protection of public health and safety, which the 75-foot buffer provides.

03-27

Work with the Equestrian Center's manager to achieve consistent and appropriate implementation of the site's manure management program. County Response: The action described in this recommendation has been taken. County Environmental Health staff advised Seabreeze Farms that they are available for consultation on all aspects of manure and vector control during a February 7, 2003 inspection. Staff from Seabreeze Farms did subsequently contact County DEH in May 2002 for recommendations on manure management and County staff provided Seabreeze Farms with manure disposal procedures, and instructions on transporting manure, fly control and water runoff.

03-28

Work with the Equestrian Center's manager to achieve consistent and appropriate implementation of the sites fly control, dust control, rodent control and vector control programs. County Response: The action described in this recommendation has been taken. Like Recommendation 03-27, Recommendation 03-28 has also already been implemented. The County DEH, during its February 7, 2003 inspection, advised Seabreeze Farms that it would be available for consultation on all aspects of manure and vector control issues. This was also discussed at the request of Seabreeze staff in May 2002.

03-29

Work in consultation with Sandown Way and Rider Place residents whose properties abut the equestrian center's boundary, to: 1. Relocate the horse wash racks (a visual nuisance) to another location, Relocate the dressage arena (a noise and dirt nuisance behind the Rider Place residents) in accord with the conceptual layout. County Response: The recommendations will not be implemented as they are not public health and safety issues. Visual nuisances and compliance or non-compliance with conceptual plans are concerns that are not regulated by the County within the city limits of San Diego. Noise issues within the city limits are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports

03-30

Perform the measurements specified in the San Diego Municipal Code 44.0308 (a) and (d) (i.e., one-fourth mile and 75-foot wide belt measures) at the Seabreeze Farms Equestrian Center owner's expense and take whatever action is necessary as a result. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it would establish a new set of measurements to be performed by County DEH, even though the City and County have already confirmed compliance with the section 44.0308(d) 75-foot buffer zone requirement as established by the City. The existing interpretation protects public health and safety. As stated above, the County considers the section 44.0308(a) requirement to be a local land use matter, not a public health and safety matter. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports ATTACHMENT C "FOSTER CARE IMPROVING? COUNTY LEADS THE WAY TOWARD EXPANDING INTERAGENCY COOPERATION" Issued May 6, 2003

03-31

Assure that the Director, Department of Environmental Health and Director,

03-32

Otherwise, order reasonable restoration or mitigation as authorized by San Diego

03-42

Assess and re-evaluate the current methods and procedures for

03-43

County Counsel is alerted to the fact that an ordinance may be out of compliance with controlling documents that County Counsel should, , investigate the situation, take appropriate action, and provide written documentation. County Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Except as stated in the last two sentences in this reply, Recommendation No. 03-43 describes actions that County Counsel has performed, presently performs, and will continue to perform with respect to County ordinances that may be out of compliance with other controlling laws. In this regard, we agree County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports with this recommendation. However, there will be circumstances in which such actions cannot be completed due to the complexity of a particular issue. Therefore, while we agree with the intent of the recommendation, we would not impose a fixed time limit, 30-day or otherwise, on this activity as some situations will require more time to resolve than others.

03-44

County Counsel renders an opinion, stating that an ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors contains ambiguous language or possibly violates San Diego County Charter provisions or State law, that opinion is copied to the San Diego County Chief Administrative Officer and all of the Director(s) of the department or agency(ies) involved. All parties must then respond, in writing, to the situation (sending copies to all involved along the way). County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. It should be noted, however, that Counsel will take this course of action only when the circumstances of a situation warrant such action and are appropriate, based on the legal issues and needs of the particular County clients. While Recommendation No. 03-44 may be an appropriate response in certain circumstances, agreement with this recommendation is limited to only those circumstances where the recommended action is appropriate based upon the facts of the situation. To the extent that the legal needs of the County require County Counsel to take a different approach to address a legal issue, Counsel opinions are copied as appropriate to the situation, and only to those on a "need to know" basis since County Counsel's legal advice constitutes confidential attorney-client communications. There may be legitimate legal reasons that Counsel will limit confidential legal advice given to the Board of Supervisors and the CAO, without copying other Directors of a department or agency involved. In addition, requiring formal written responses to every possible situation may not be the most efficient use of County resources in all circumstances.

03-45

An ordinance directs that a County officer assume responsibilities associated with a specific position, that officer should act immediately to comply with the ordinance or notify the Chief Administrative Officer, in writing, , stating the reasons s/he could or should not comply. County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. While we agree that a County officer, under the circumstances described in this recommendation, should either comply with the ordinance or notify the CAO of his/her reasons for non-compliance, we do not agree that the notice always be in writing, always be , or always be provided to the CAO. It may be that such a notice cannot and should not (1) be in writing, (2) be provided in 30 days, or (3) be provided to the CAO in every instance. Rather, it may be that, under certain circumstances, such notice should be verbal, cannot be provided , or should be provided to another County body or officer, such as the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, or the Chief Financial Officer, for example. As noted in the response to

03-46

Immediately form a task force to develop within six to eight months, a uniform mandate that clearly defines policy and procedures to ensure continuity across agencies and school districts in order to provide quality educational outcomes for San Diego County foster youth. The mandate would include uniform procedures for schools, Health and Human Services, Probation, the Courts and substitute care providers to assure the complete and timely transfer of school and medical records of children who are dependents of the Court. The policies would be developed in conjunction with the San Diego County Office of Education's Foster Youth Services Program. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because there is already a committee in place to ensure continuity of policies and procedures across agencies and school districts. The Education Committee, chaired by Judge Susan Huguenor, includes the County Office of Education, the courts, the Health and Human Services Agency, Voices For Children, and several other agencies that are committed to ensuring continuity with regard to policies and procedures. In addition to the Education Committee, the Foster Youth Services Advisory Committee is committed to facilitating the exchange of health and education information among agencies providing services to foster youth. This committee is also committed to overcoming obstacles related to sharing information while maintaining confidentiality. There is also a Health and Human Services Agency policy (Children's Services Special Notice #12 - 03), which ensures that children are properly dis-enrolled from school when appropriate. The policy provides that a transfer form be sent to the new Substitute Care Provider, the new school, and copied to the regional Health and Education Passport (HEP). This transfer form documents all relevant information about the child's previous school and credits earned.

03-47

In partnership with the San Diego County Superintendent of Schools, establish a task force to ensure shared responsibility and accountability for all San Diego County foster care children. County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because there is an existing agreement between the Health and Human Services Agency and the County Superintendent of Schools in which all parties agree to continue developing a collaborative relationship using resources to best meet the educational and mental health needs of our children/youth and families. The Education Committee and the Foster County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports Youth Advisory Committee meet each month to work on collaborative problem solving methods. Each school district in San Diego County has appointed a liaison to assist with problem solving in this area. In addition, San Diego Unified School District has also assigned a liaison to work with HHSA for the benefit of foster children.

03-48

Seek legislation to modify the licensing requirements for the unique situations at San Pasqual Academy to reflect the realities of a boarding school as compared to a group home. These modifications would remove barriers that prevent youth from participating in enrichment activities due to licensing regulations. County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because staff is already working with State and federal agencies to assure the needs of the Academy students are addressed. To meet the needs of the adolescent foster youth at the San Pasqual Academy, the County is pursuing regulation changes that would take into consideration the Academy's focus on independent living skills.

03-49

Consider establishing a second San Pasqual Academy type of facility to accept middle-school aged youth as well as high school students, not only to service more students but to intervene earlier in this educational life. County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because research has shown that the emphasis for younger and middle school-aged youth should be placed on

03-50

Provide each school-age foster child with multiple copies of his/her HEP before a placement change. County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because the action recommended is already being taken. The children's Substitute Care Providers (foster parent, relative or group home) are currently provided with this information when a placement change occurs. Division 31 regulations of the California Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Manual require that a health and education summary be provided to the Substitute Care Provider 30 days after the initial placement or 48 hours after a change of placement. The Health and Human Services Agency policy (Children's Services Special Notice #09-02) reiterates this for social workers. This special notice County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports also emphasizes the importance of providing the caregiver the health and education summary at the time of placement.

03-51

Require that social workers document the record transfer of both education and medical records whenever there is a change of placement, whether the change involves group or individual homes. County Response: The County will not implement this recommendation because it has already implemented a procedure for this documentation. Social workers are already required to document the record transfer of both education and medical records whenever there is a change of placement. The social worker is responsible for ensuring documentation of the date the Substitute Care Provider was given the health and education information. The social worker must document all known health and education information or complete a Health and Education Passport. Division 31 regulations of the California Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Manual also require this documentation. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports ATTACHMENT D "THE TIA JUANA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: WHY?" Issued June 27, 2003 The 2002-2003 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego County Board of Supervisors:

03-60

Ensure that there are policies and procedures in place requiring the use of outside investigators (San Diego County Internal Affairs Department or some other objective, impartial group) in all San Diego County Department disputes involving large-scale investigations, which could ultimately result in the discharge of multiple employees. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The San Diego County Office of Internal Affairs investigates allegations of improper county government activities, discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability, and protects the complainant from any act of reprisal for reporting such allegations. They do not investigate allegations of law enforcement misconduct.

03-61

Ensure that investigations are conducted in a fair and consistent manner. A thorough investigation would require that all shifts be reviewed - especially since shifts rotated every 3 months. It is possible that other people may have made the same mistakes as those for which people were discharged on the late night shift. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Probation Department conducts fair and consistent investigations. Each investigation is conducted based on the merit of the case. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports

03-62

Amend the Juvenile Hall Policy and Procedures Manual to include a more definitive statement emphasizing the importance of hall check and log-in procedures. For example: "A hall check must be recorded when completed." County Response: The recommendation has been implemented and the action recommended has already been taken. The Policy and Procedures Manual was revised in October of 2002, to re-emphasize the importance of hall checks and proper documentation.

03-63

Provide Core Training to all new hires within at least 90 days after employment rather than within the first year. Policies and procedures must be fully understood prior to placing officers in charge of juvenile wards in all Juvenile facilities. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Board of Corrections regulations require CORE training to be completed within the first year of employment. They recognize after 20 years of monitoring that it is unrealistic to make a requirement that departments complete CORE training within the first 90 days. Our Department does not hire enough employees to conduct Core Training within the first 90 days. However, all new employees receive forty to eighty hours of training prior to being assigned to a Unit.

03-64

Conduct a comprehensive retraining of all supervisory personnel and management at Juvenile Hall in order that they become more aware and responsible for the performance of the officers in their charge. Given the systemic nature of the problem (over 60 percent of one shift being found guilty of similar offenses) the situation may be more widespread then the firings represent. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Supervisors and management personnel attend a minimum of forty hours training annually. Probationary Supervisors attend an eighty hour training course during their first year that is mandated by Standards and Training for Corrections (STC). Additionally, the Probation Department provides a twenty-four hour Supervisor Development Academy for new Supervisors that emphasizes personnel matters. Juvenile Hall Supervisors receive on-going training regarding institutional policies and procedures, as well as department wide topics.

03-65

Post all regulations dealing with hall checks and login procedures in the Command Center of each cellblock. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Policy and Procedures Manual has been revised; in-house training has been expanded; and staff is reminded about hall check policies on an on-going basis through training and at meetings. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports •

03-66

Amend the Juvenile Hall Policy and Procedures Manual to contain specific provisions that violation of hall checks and login rules will subject the wrongdoers to a specific punishment such as discharge. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. As stated in this Grand Jury Report, in Facts and

03-67

Amend the Juvenile Hall Policy and Procedures Manual to contain specific provisions that lying and/or falsifying records of any document will result in immediate termination. Specify that the supervisors will be held accountable for the actions of those in their charge. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The San Diego Probation Department's Administrative Manual Section 1306 Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, is required reading for all employees. This policy states, "The Department expects its employees to adhere to the standards and procedures described below. In the case of misconduct, appropriate action including discipline will be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding any particular incident."

03-68

Provide every Probation Officer and Supervisor with a personal Manual, which they can keep in their possession. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each employee receives a manual for thirty days, or longer if needed. The Staff is informed/reminded that the Manual is available to review at their convenience. The manual is available on-line for easy access by staff. COURTNEY ANN COYLE RECEIVED ATTORNEY AT LAW JUL 2 1 2003 HELD-PALMER HOUSE SAN DIEGO 1609 SOLEDAD AVENUE COUNTY GRAND JURY LA JOLLA, CA USA 92037-3817 E-MAIL: COURTCOYLE@AOL.COM FACSIMILE: 858-454-8493 TELEPHONE: 858-454-8687 Marcia Gravette Jespersen, Foreperson, County of San Diego Grand Jury 2002-2003 Thomas E. McCarthy, Foreperson, County of San Diego Grand Jury 2003-2004 330 West Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 July 17, 2003 Re: Response to San Diego County Grand Jury - Seabreeze Farms "City of San Diego Development Services Department, A Case Study in Complaint- Resolution (Gone Awry)" Dear Forepersons: This letter is being sent on behalf of my client, the La Jolla Farms Homeowners. We have read the above captioned San Diego County Grand Jury Report 2002-2003 (April 16, 2003) and the City of San Diego Response (July 16, 2003). We also have read the June 30, 2003 City Manager report on Substantial Conformance Review and attended and testified at the July 2, 2003 City Land Use & Housing Committee hearing on proposed revisions to the SCR process. While we applaud the work of the City to respond to the concerns raised regarding the SCR as applied to Seabreeze Farms and to generally improve its SCR process city-wide, additional concerns remain. These concerns are illustrated in the enclosed materials and informed by the cumulative SCRs sought by the Salk Institute over the last decade. They include the application of the SCR process: in mixed or multiple use areas, to areas in which multiple planning group jurisdictions may lie, to ancient/old permits without respect to lack of a project phasing plan and where the adequacy of neighborhood noticing is a concern. We are hopeful that the City will consider these issues and adopt solutions as part of their revised SCR General Staff Review Guidelines to be considered by City Council. This letter is sent to you to thank you for addressing the complex issue of SCR and to inform you that the issue is indeed one of city-wide concern, and not isolated to one project example. If appropriate, please forward this letter and its attachments to the Honorable Richard E.L. Strauss, Presiding Judge. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Very_truly yours = - Courtney Ann Coyle Attorney at Law CC: Client File City Manager Encis. (Development Services Memo, May 9, 2001, Salk SCR history; Planning Commission transcript excerpts, May 17, 2001; LUH Committee hearing minutes, July 2, 2003; Coyle letter, July 3, 2003; Peters memo, July 10, 2003). CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Planning Commission Jeannette Temple, Development Project Manager FROM: Salk Institute North Parking Lot Expansion, SDP/CDP/CUP No. 40-0595 SUBJECT: On April 19, 2001, the Salk Institute North Parking Lot Expansion project was continued to the meeting of May 17, 2001. During the granting of the request for continuance, staff was directed by the Planning Commission to give a history of recent permit approvals for the Salk Institute, and to address Ms. Pearson's additional concerns as presented since the original appeal was filed on March 14, 2001. A brief discretionary permit history for the Salk Institute since the Amendment CDP/HRP/CUP No. 90-1140 is as follows: CDP/HRP/CUP No. 90-1140 approved at Planning Commission to May 30, 1991 allow the construction of an East Building and off-street parking. Subsequent Building Permit Plan File No. A005843-91 was approved for this work. Substantial Conformance Review (SCR) approved for landscaping January 12, 1993 changes near the East Building. SCR approved for a 3'-6" wall and a 7'-0" wall to be constructed on October 26, 1995 site near the East Building. Subsequent Building Permit Plan File No. A107644-95 was approved for this work SCR approved for the vivarium expansion on the south side of the May 8, 1998 Salk site. Subsequent Building Permit Plan File No. A103323-00 was approved for this work. Applicant applied for a grading permit to expand the north parking December 12, 1999 lot in the same manner which is now under consideration. The permit was not approved and the applicant was informed that the work would require an amendment to CDP/HRP/CUP No.90-1140 MAY17, uti<br>T CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 – SALK PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROPOSAL SIDE B 3 STEELE: WE'LL TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES BREAK AND COME BACK 4 FOR ITEM 8. OH I NEED TO READ BY THE WAY THIS DECISION BY THE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION IS FINAL. ʼn STEELE: WELCOME BACK EVERYONE. WE'LL GET OUR 7 COMMISSIONERS IN HERE IN A MINUTE, I'M SURE OF IT. THE NEXT ITEM IS 8 ITEM 8 AND THIS IS A NEW CODE 3, THIS IS A NEW CODE RIGHT? 9 FEMALE: YES. STEELE: THIS IS A PROCESS 3 APPEAL FROM A HEARING OFFICER DECISION. ANY INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF THIS FILL 11 OUT AND SUBMIT A SPEAKER SLIP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12 SECRETARY, IT TAKES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR THE COMMISSION TO 13 AFFIRM, REVERSE OR MODIFY IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE DECISION OF THE 14 HEARING OFFICER. I'D REMIND EVERYONE ALSO THAT IN NEW CODE ITEM 3 15 THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE FINAL. JEANETTE 16 TEMPLE. TEMPLE: GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STEELE AND MEMBERS OF THE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION, I AM JEANETTE TEMPLE WITH DEVELOPMENT 19 SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THE SALK INSTITUTE NORTH PARKING LOT 20 EXPANSION PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S FEBRUARY 28TH APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. SITE 21 DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 22 PARKING LOT TO ACCOMMODATE 110 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. THE 23 PROJECT IS AN AMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT HILLSIDE REVIEW 24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-1140 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3841. THE WETLANDS WERE TO BE PROTECTED. WE'VE SPOKEN WITH SUE ANN KAHN 1 AND NATHANIEL KAHN, DAUGHTERS OF LOUIS KAHN TO ASK ABOUT 2 CONSISTENCY OF THIS PROPOSAL WITH THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF A 3 MASTER PLAN AND IT WAS THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 91 DECISION -1 FATALLY KILLED THE KAHN MASTER PLAN. WE'VE SPOKEN WITH JEFFREY 5 SHORN WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THIS DEEMED HISTORIC WHO 6 REFERRED US TO DAVID REINHART WHO HAD INDICATED HE WOULD SET UP A 7 MEETING WITH US ONCE THE SALK PEOPLE GOT BACK IN TOWN AND 8 UNFORTUNATELY THAT APPARENTLY NEVER HAPPENED. THE MAJOR ISSUES 9 CORRECTLY ARE THIS WETLAND AND IT'S ASTONISHING IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU GOT ON MAY 9TH THAT THE CITY ITSELF AFTER THREE YEARS OF 10 THE FIVE YEAR REQUIRED MITIGATION UNILATERALLY SUSPENDED IT AND 11 SAID OH WELL WE NOW HAVE 1993 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERING 12 STANDARDS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN 1991 WHEN THE PERMIT CONDITIONS 13 WERE PUT ON SO WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO IT 14 ANYMORE. YOU HAVE IN YOUR LETTERS FROM STATE PARK RESOURCE 15 PERSON MIKE WELLS, YOU HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM ISABEL KAY WHO 16 MANAGES THE UCSD RESERVES INDICATING THAT THERE ARE WETLANDS ON 17 THIS SITE AND HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN. THE MAJOR ISSUES ARE WHETHER 18 PARKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FURTHER IMPACT THESE HEAVILY 19 IMPORTANT SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OFI 20 ALTERNATIVES. THE CITY'S USE OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIONABLE. AS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE 21 HOW CAN I SAY IT? SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE, THE LIST OF ITEMS ON 22 THE FRONT OF THE MAY 9^TH CITY STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT MANY 23 ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THIS SITE THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL 24 CONFORMANCE REVIEW AND IN FACT THIS PROJECT BEFORE US NOW WAS I PARKING ARE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW PROCESS, AND, THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS 2 PROJECT. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES, IT IS A SOCCER FIELD THAT PEOPLE. KIDS PLAY ON IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IT'S A GRASSY AREA, THE 4 POSSIBILITY HAS TO BE REVIEWED FOR AN UNDERGROUND PARKING 5 STRUCTURE BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A TEMPORARY INTERIM FIX WE 6 UNDERSTAND. WE ASKED FOR A MASTER PLAN ORIGINALLY, WHAT WE NEED 7 IS NOT TO BE DOING THIS PIECE MEAL THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL 8 CONFORMANCE AND THROUGH ELIMINATION WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE 9 PUBLIC OF PRIOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. THANK 10 YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU AND YOUR TIMING WAS PERFECT. THERE ARE STEELE: Н WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER SPEAKER SLIPS. DANA MANVAZO FROM THE 12 SIERRA CLUB, HOPE I PRONOUNCED THAT RIGHT. MANVAZO: HI GOOD MORNING. STEELE: CAN YOU SAY WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN TWO MINUTES? 15 MANVAZO: YEAH. STEELE: OKAY. MANVAZO: YEAH. DANA MANVAZO AT P.O. BOX 4426, CARLSBAD, 18 CALIFORNIA. TODAY I JUST KIND OF WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN SOME OF 19 THE MAIN POINTS AND ASK YOU TO PLEASE REJECT THIS PROJECT. SOME OF 20 THE MAIN POINTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED ARE THE VERNAL POOLS THAT THEY ARE IN FACT VERNAL POOLS. AS A BIOLOGIST I'VE LOOKED AT 21 THOSE AND I HAVE SEEN THE (FAUNA) THAT MAKES THEM BE VERNAL POOLS. AS WELL AS GNAT CATCHER SIGHTINGS FREQUENTLY OUT THERE AND 23 THEY'RE ALL ENJOYING THE HEALTHY COASTAL SAGE SCRUB THAT'S 24 PRESENT ON SITE, AND AS WELL AS THE BLUFF EROSIONS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THANKS. ARE YOU GONNA BE JOINING US THIS BUTLER: Į AFTERNOON WHEN WE DISCUSS REVISIONS TO THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 2 ORDINANCE? 3 BOLLING: UNFORTUNATELY I'M NOT. I HAVE A SPEECH I'VE GOTTA 4 THE AMERICAN PLANNING GET READY TO PREPARE TOMORROW. ASSOCIATION IS HAVING A STORM WATER QUALITY WORKSHOP AND I'M ONE 6 OF THE SPEAKERS AND IF I DON'T GET MY SPEECH TOGETHER I MIGHT GET IN 7 TROUBLE TOMORROW. I'D LIKE TO THOUGH. BUTLER: THANKS. WE ARE A COUPLE OF MINUTES AWAY FROM NOON, WHICH STEELE: 10 IS TWO THINGS, ONE IS LUNCH AND THE OTHER IS I HAVE TO LEAVE TO CATCH A PLAIN. IS THERE A... BUTLER: MR. CHAIRMAN I'LL MAKE A MOTION. STEELE: A MOTION? 13 (INAUDIBLE) I'M GONNA MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE BUTLER: 14 APPEAL AND DENIAL OF THE PROJECT. STRIKER: I'LL SECOND THAT. AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE SOME OF MY REASONS. I AM NOT AT BUTLER: i 7 ALL CONVINCED THAT ALTERNATIVES HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED AT AS WAYS 18 TO NUMBER ONE, MAXIMIZE THE PARKING EFFICIENCY IN YOUR EXISTING 19 PARKING LOTS AND NUMBER TWO, OTHER ALTERNATIVES NON PARKING LOT 20 ALTERNATIVES TO MEET YOUR PARKING NEEDS AND AGAIN I CAN SEE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING AND OPTIMIZING THE 21 EFFICIENCY IN YOUR EXISTING LOTS. YOU PROBABLY COULD PICK UP AT 22 LEAST 15 PERCENT MORE SPACES THAN YOU HAVE NOW WHICH IS ALMOST 23 100 SPACES. SECONDLY, MY FEELING IS THAT THIS IS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE 24 AND THE PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO GIFTED THIS PROPERTY TO THE SALK 1 HNOT CONVINCED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED AN OVERRIDING NEED THAT WARRANTS TAKING IT OUT. GRANTED IT'S ONLY AN ACRE BUT ∄IT'S AN ACRE IN A VERY SPECIAL AND UNIQUE LOCATION AND I CAN'T SUPPORT PAVING IT OVER (INAUDIBLE). STRIKER: AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BUTLER ON THE 5 QUESTION OF ALTERNATIVES, HAVING WORKED FOR 25 YEARS IN THE 6 TRANSPORTATION FIELD, I GUESS I'D EXPECTED TO MAYBE EVEN SEE THE SHEET OF PAPER YOU WERE WAIVING AROUND IN OUR PACKET, WHICH IS 8 PROOF THAT NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES WORK AND THIS WAS YOUR LAST Q OPPORTUNITY, YOUR LAST RESOURCE TO PAVE THIS HABITAT. AND AGAIN Ю WHETHER IT'S VERNAL POOL OR NOT IT'S A HABITAT AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT SALK DOES, SALK INSTITUTE DOES, I THINK THEY'RE A VERY 11 GOOD INSTITUTE BUT I THINK THEY NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE, PUT A LITTLE 12 MORE EFFORT IN DEVELOPING A MASTER PLAN TO FOCUS ON WHAT THEY 13 WANT TO DO WITH ALL OF THE PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD BEST SERVE BOTH 14 THEM, THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND THE VISITING PEOPLE THAT COME TO 15 YOUR INSTITUTE. AND THE PARKING REASSESS...I MEAN PAVING OVER A 16 PARKING LOT AND MAYBE DOING NEW DESIGN THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT, YOU . KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN IN OUR PACKAGE THAT THAT WAS EVEN LOOKED AT. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT I FEEL NEED TO BE LOOKED AT 19 BEFORE WE WOULD, BEFORE I COULD GIVE AN APPROVAL OF PAVING OVER A 20 HABITAT IN AN AREA LIKE THIS. I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION TOO BECAUSE I, WHETHER OR MALE: NOT IT'S A HABITAT IT'S ALSO APPARENTLY IMPORTANT VISUAL OPEN SPACE ຼາ TO PEOPLE. I THINK ANY TIME AN INSTITUTION PROPOSES SOMETHING 23 ALONG THE SENSITIVE COASTAL AREA, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT 24 ALTERNATIVES. I'M KIND OF SURPRISED THAT IT'S JUST A NEG DEC FOR COMPREHENSIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE 1 | SENSITIVE LOCATION OF THIS SITE. 2 ! STEELE: I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION AS WELL, I'VE BEEN 3 SORT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THIS ONE IN MY MIND, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT 4 ONE FOR ME BECAUSE I SEE THE ISSUES OF BOTH SIDES. I THINK THAT 5 HOWEVER AS SORT OF MUNDANE AS THIS ISSUE IS IN TERMS OF JUST 6 PARKING AND PRACTICALITY OF IT, I THINK THAT MAYBE MORE INNOVATION 7 THAT'S EQUAL TO THE INNOVATION THAT YOU ALL SHOWED IN SCIENTIFIC 8 MATTERS AND THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN ARCHITECTURALLY IS PROBABLY 9 SOMETHING WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR, SOMEBODY TO REALLY SOLVE ALL 10 THESE PROBLEMS TOGETHER AND I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A SOLUTION IN THERE THAT JUST HADN'T BEEN EXPLORED (INAUDIBLE). IT IS A TOUGH ON던 11 BUT IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY SENSITIVE PIECE OF LAND AND I THINK WE 12 HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THOSE (INAUDIBLE). IF THERE ARE NO OTHER 13 DISCUSSIONS... FEMALE: OUR ATTORNEY IS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING. ATTORNEY: YEAH, I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO PUT WORDS IN ANY 16 OF THE COMMISSIONERS' MOUTHS BU I WANT TO BE SURE THAT POINTS YOU 17 ARE MAKING ADDRESS THE REQUISITE

03-69

General Services to ensure that Facilities Operations Division staff perform their duties in County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports an efficient, timely and professional manner, and that the County departments served by the Memorandum of Agreement continue to be satisfied with such efforts. County Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Department of General Services has provided the Sheriff's Department with access to the Facility Center Computer Maintenance Management System. Upgrades to the system are being implemented to provide enhanced access, data loading and status reporting via the WEB. This system is the single point of entry for execution of all work on County Facilities. It also provides the basis for budget development and identifies fiscal requirements based on a priority system. Allocations of funds via the Capital Improvement Plan are made annually or, for emergent issues, special funding can be identified via the newly established Facility Planning Board. In addition to the condition Assessments discussed in the May 30, 2002 report, the Department of General Services has instituted an internal quarterly Facility Assessment Program to provide documentation for the Annual Inspection Summary (AIS). The AIS provides the basis for fund allocations under the Capital Improvement Plan process. This program will also identify those assets, whose functional life cycle is at an end, eligible for replacement under the Capital Renewal Plan. This plan focuses on planned, predictive replacement versus replace upon failure thereby limiting impacts of facility operations and performance of mission. Routine meetings occur between the Sheriff's Department and Department of General Services to review ongoing issues and identify upcoming needs. Requirements to support the program are being addressed through a combination of these routine meetings, Sheriff Department direct access to the CMMS for project & work order loading and via the Annual Inspection Summary. These efforts combine to become part of the Capital Improvement Plan where funding requirements are identified for prioritization and allocation during the budget process. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports ATTACHMENT F "WRONG PLACE? WRONG TIME? FALSIFIED HALL CHECKS BY SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION OFFICERS AT JUVENILE HALL" Issued May 14, 2003

03-70

Make assigned parking available nearby for San Diego Central Jail professional staff members that currently do not have assigned space at the facility. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented due to insufficient available funding. However, a Sheriff's Department Process Improvement Team is currently analyzing this issue.

03-71

Provide free shuttle or carpool service from a designated parking lot or facility to and from the San Diego Central Jail facility for its sworn staff members and all other employees of the San Diego Central Jail Facility. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented due to insufficient available funding. However, a Sheriff's Department Process Improvement Team is currently analyzing this issue. LAS COLINAS DETENTION FACILITY

03-72

Proceed with construction of a new women's detention facility as soon as possible. County Response: The recommendation is in the process of being implemented. The property for the new facility has been acquired, plans are being assembled, and County staff members are engaged in the pursuit of funding. Construction costs are estimated to be $158 million.

03-73

Expand all existing programs that have to do with any form of rehabilitation that could provide skills that will enhance the ability of inmates who complete their sentences to obtain and hold jobs. County Response: The recommendation has been implemented with the addition of the Prisoner Re-entry Education Program (PREP). This program provides pre and post release assessment and provision of job skills training, employment assistance, transitional housing, and substance abuse and mental health services. Such services will be expanded in September 2003 with the addition of the City Heights Community Re- entry Project. This project will provide pre-release planning in the form of employment assistance, supportive community resources, housing, substance abuse treatment, vocational and continuing education, financial assistance for special needs, support groups, and mental health services.

03-74

Establish classes, taught by professionals, on non-violent conflict resolution both in societal and family relations. County Response: The recommendation has been implemented with the establishment of the Domestic Violence/Relationship class conducted by the Correctional Counselors. VISTA DETENTION FACILITY

03-75

Establish classes, taught by professionals, on non-violent conflict resolution both in societal and family relations. County Response: The recommendation is in the process of being implemented with the planned expansion, in September 2003, of the Correctional Counseling program to include Domestic Violence/Anger Management and Parenting classes.

03-76

Expand the use of athletic areas as well as increase other exercise areas for use in non-contact, non-confrontational athletic programs. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The current exercise areas meet or exceed state standards. PROBATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES JUVENILE HALL

03-77

Expand and increase the use of existing athletic areas as well as other potential exercise areas in a non-contact, non-confrontational sports programs. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. All detainees who are physically capable of exercising participate in organized long muscle exercise twice a day per Title 15 California Code of Regulations standards. JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY

03-78

Where practical and applicable, increase the use of voluntary inmate labor in the maintenance and construction of any appropriate buildings or athletic areas. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The wards do perform very minor building maintenance. San Diego County Department of General Services is responsible for the building, upgrade and maintenance of the buildings and facilities. The General Services personnel are not instructors and it is not reasonable to expect them to teach a vocation to the wards, as that is not their job function. Without proper instruction and supervision, it would not be safe for wards to participate in major maintenance or construction.

03-79

Continue and expand the pilot literacy programs. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Lindamood-Bell (LMB) process used in this effort is a research-based program with years of documented success in raising the literacy levels of low-achieving students. Private donations that cannot be used for the general education program were solicited to fund the implementation of the LMB process at Probation facilities. The current level of funding does not allow for expansion. CAMP BARRETT

03-80

</b> Continue and expand the pilot literacy programs. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Lindamood-Bell (LMB) process used in this effort is a research-based program with years of documented success in raising the literacy levels of low-achieving students. Private donations that cannot be used for the general education program were solicited to fund the implementation of the LMB process at Probation facilities. The current level of funding does not allow for expansion.

03-81

Where practical and applicable, increase the use of voluntary inmate labor in the maintenance and construction of any appropriate buildings or athletic areas. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The wards do perform very minor building maintenance. San Diego County Department of General Services is responsible for the building, upgrade and maintenance of the buildings and facilities. The General Services personnel are not instructors and it is not reasonable to expect them to teach a vocation to the wards, as that is not their job function. Without proper instruction and supervision, it would not be safe for wards to participate in major maintenance or construction. ٠, RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 County of San Miego WALTER F. EKARD CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (619) 531-6226 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FAX: (619) 557-4060 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, STE. 209, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2472 July 29, 2003 The Honorable Richard E. L. Strauss San Diego Superior Court, Presiding Dept. West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 RESPONSE FROM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ON 2002-2003 GRAND JURY REPORTS Dear Judge Strauss: Attached, please find the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors' responses to six reports issued by the 2002-2003 San Diego County Grand Jury addressing County government issues and operations, for your transmittal to the Grand Jury. The attached material was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 29, 2003 and addresses the following reports: 1.) Delay in Correcting an Ambiguous Ordinance: Public Administrator/Public Guardian 'Homeless' for Twenty Months, 2.) City of San Diego Development Services Department: A Case Study in Complaint-Resolution (Gone Awry), 3.) Foster Care Improving? County Leads the Way Toward Expanding Interagency Cooperation, 4.) The Tia Juana Valley County Water District: Why? 5.) San Diego County Department of General Services: Redirecting the Facilities Operations Division, 6.) Wrong Place? Wrong Time? Falsified Hall Checks by San Diego County Probation Officers at Juvenile Hall. . The Honorable Richard E. L. Strauss 2002-2003 County Grand Jury Report Responses The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the Grand Jury's seventh and final report on County operations on August 12, 2003 and that report will be forwarded to you, as well, after that date. If you have any questions concerning the attachments or any related matter, please contact me at (619) 531-6226. Sincerely, WALTER F. EKARD Chief Administrative Officer Attachment • BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GREG COX First District DIANNE JACOB AGENDA ITEM Second District PAM SLATER Third District RON ROBERTS Fourth District BILL HORN Fifth District DATE: July 29, 2003 TO: Board of Supervisors RESPONSE TO 2002-2003 GRAND JURY REPORTS (District: All) SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Overview On June 27, 2003, the 2002-2003 Grand Jury issued its Final Report. Included in this Final Report are seven individual reports containing recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and County departments on various subjects, including ordinance changes, foster care, probation officer investigations, city development services, facility maintenance and the Tia Juana Valley County Water District. This is a request for your Board to review the draft responses prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer that respond to the

03-82

Review the activities of the Tia Juana Valley County Water District and initiate proceedings for the dissolution of the District, so that District tax payers are freed from an unnecessary, open-ended tax assessment. County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented by the County because it would be more appropriate for a dissolution request to be initiated by the City of San Diego or the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 allows local agencies to apply for dissolution of a district when there is a successor agency to assume all assets and liabilities. In this case, virtually all properties in the Tia Juana Water District receive water and sanitation services from the City of San Diego which, as the most logical successor agency, would be the most significantly impacted by such an action. County of San Diego Response to 2002-03 Grand Jury Reports ATTACHMENT E "SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES: REDIRECTING THE FACILITIES OPERATIONS DIVISION" <b>Issued June 27, 2003</b>

03-83

Educate other public agencies Councilmember City of San Diego and the public about the non-effective and costly efforts of the Tia Juana Valley County Water District to provide water to District home Betty Rexford Councilmember and property owners. City of Poway Andrew J. Menshek LAFCO Response: The Grand Jury report states that the District was Padre Dam formed to "...provide water services for home and property owners in the Municipal Water District river valley." However, according to the original formation petition from Harry Mathis 1946, the District was established to protect the aquifer from intrusion of Public Member saltwater from the ocean, represent farmers and residents, and defend Executive Officer water rights of the entire Tia Juana River Valley. One function that the District never has provided is water service. In responding to a LAFCO Michael D. Olt survey, a district representative indicated that the District provides Counsel "...groundwater supply research and development, and flood management services." This matter has been a source of ongoing confusion for the William D. Smith Grand Jury, because the Grand Jury has assumed that the sole purpose Thomas E. McCarthy September 11, 2003 of the Tia Juana Valley CWD is to provide water service. State Law (Water Code Sections 30000-33900) permits county water districts to provide services other than the delivery of water (e.g., electric power, wastewater and storm water management, fire protection, etc.). Accordingly, the services purportedly provided by the Tia Juana Valley CWD do represent legitimate services authorized under the California Water Code, even though the District does not actually provide water service. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that comprehensive studies, known as Municipal Service Reviews (MSR), be conducted for all cities and special districts that provide municipal services to county residents. The term "municipal services" generally refers to the full range of services that a public agency provides or is authorized to provide. MSRs are studies that evaluate certain functional and operational aspects of service delivery. While LAFCO's statutory responsibilities now include reviewing how public agencies function, the focus is to be on service provision. The goal of this review process is to assess the adequacy of public services within a specific geographic region or area. The MSR has educational value and will be made available to the public and governmental agencies for informational purposes. At this time, LAFCO is finalizing the MSR that includes the services provided by the Tia Juana Valley CWD. The MSR will be considered by the San Diego LAFCO in the fall of 2003. When the MSR report is completed, the results will be published and made available by request to all public agencies as well as interested citizens. Therefore, the MSR process will effectively address Grand Jury Recommendation 03-83 regarding public outreach/education. Grand Jury

03-84

Review the activities of the Tia Juana Valley County Water District and initiate proceedings for the dissolution of the District, so that District taxpayers are freed from an unnecessary, open-ended tax assessment. LAFCO Response: With commencement of the MSR that includes the Tia Juana Valley CWD, an evaluation of agency operations and functions will be conducted. When completed, the MSR will contain a review and analysis of the agency's service delivery, fiscal, and governance activities. In addition, based upon the information gathered and analyzed in conjunction with the MSR, the Commission is required to approve nine specific determinations, covering: infrastructure needs or deficiencies; growth and population projections for the affected area; financing constraints and opportunities; cost avoidance opportunities; opportunities for rate restructuring; opportunities for shared facilities; government structure options; evaluation of management efficiencies; and local accountability and governance. One of the specific determinations that the Commission must make addresses government structure options. This determination involves an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization (including dissolution) of service providers. Initiating dissolution proceedings could be a recommended option once the MSR has been completed. However, initiating District dissolution would be at the Commission's discretion and based upon compelling justification. It also will be necessary to determine if a successor agency exists for the Tia Juana Valley CWD's assets and liabilities. As of this writing, no successor agency has Thomas E. McCarthy September 11, 2003 been identified. The Cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach both overlay the Tia Juana Valley CWD. Per Government Code Section 57451(c), the successor would be the city having the greater assessed value of all taxable property within the territory of the dissolved district. Although the highest value of taxable property within the Tia Juana CWD is located in the City of San Diego, the City has indicated that it does not wish to be the successor agency. A copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Wastewater Department of San Diego is attached for review by the Grand Jury. Furthermore, if citizens wish to be relieved of the tax assessment, alternatives to dissolution should be explored. Imposition of the assessment results from the annual adoption of a District resolution authorizing the County Assessor to collect this fee. Dissatisfied residents can utilize the election process to remove seated members of the Board and install Directors who would not support the continuation of the tax assessment. The MSR has not yet been finalized because further analysis is required. While the Grand Jury's concerns may be valid, dissolving a district needs to be based on compelling reasons that are supported by evidence. The option of dissolving the District, per Grand Jury Recommendation 03-84, will be clarified and addressed once the MSR is completed and the final required LAFCO determinations are approved in the fall of 2003. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL D. OTT <b>Executive Officer</b> MDO:IEH:jb Attachment: August 8, 2003 City of San Diego Correspondence LAFCO Chairwoman Dianne Jacob CC: Supervisor Greg Cox THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO August 8, 2003 - 2003008821 Mr. Michael D. Ott, Executive Officer RECEIVED San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 452 SEP 0 4 2003 San Diego, CA 92101 SAN DIEGO LAFCO Reference: LAFCO letter dated August 1, 2002 Mr. Ott: Subject: Municipal Service Review: Agencies Providing Floodwater and Sewage Control, Waterworks Construction, and Groundwater Management and Protection in the Tijuana Watershed In response to your letter of August 1, 2002; the following are the City of San Diego responses to your questions. 1. Does the City already provide flood control services and have existing facilities in the area depicted on the attached Map? (See Attachment No. 1). Please list facilities and services provided. Has your agency received any funding or assistance from any other local agency in planning, constructing and/or operating those services and facilities? The City's Transportation Department/Streets Division provides flood Response: control maintenance for the following three channel sections within the Watershed: I. Pilot Channel - Grading - Hollister St. to 5000' w/o same. 2. Northern Channel - Hand cleaning of vegetation - Pilot Channel to Saturn Blvd. Smugglers Gulch – Grading – Monument Rd. to 1000' n/o same. No funding or assistance has been provided from any other agency. 2. Does the City provide sewer services or own/operate any facilities relating to sewer service in the geographic area defined for study? Response: The City's Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) does provide sewer services in portions of the Tijuana River Watershed as indicated in Attachment No. 2. MWWD owns/operates sewer mains, trunk sewers, pump stations, a wastewater treatment facility and land/ocean outfall in the area. Metropolitan Wastewater Department 9192 Topoz Way • San Diego, CA 92123 Tel (858) 292-6300 Fox (858) 292-6310 ' Mr. Michael D. Ott August 8, 2003 3. Does the City or your water provider operate any wells in this area? If yes, how many? What facilities relating to water service provision does the City own or operate there? Response: The City's Water Department does not own or operate any wells within the area. Water service provided within the Tijuana Watershed consists of water mains, pressure regulating valves, pump stations, and raw water reservoirs and their appurtenances, as indicated on Attachment No. 3. 4. What past and current efforts has the City undertaken to protect groundwater within the city boundary that is located in the Tijuana Watershed? Response: No current or past efforts have been undertaken by the City for groundwater protection within the City boundary that is located within the Tijuana Watershed. 5. Does the City own water rights in the area? Does the City own property in the area? If yes, please indicate its location on the attached map, and return the map to LAFCO. Response: The City's Water Department owns water rights within the Tijuana The City owns property within the Tijuana Watershed, as indicated in Watershed. Attachments No. 2 through No. 5. 6. What parks and/or recreation services and facilities does the City currently provide in the Tijuana Watershed area? Response: The City has a number of parks and recreational facilities as shown on Attachment No. 4. 7. How does the City fund new infrastructure? Response: The City funds new infrastructure in a number of different ways. Some is funded on a cash basis and some on a debt basis. Funding sources include the City's General Fund and a number of Enterprise Funds. 8. What is the maximum monthly compensation each City Council member receives? Response: Each City council member receives an annual salary of $75,386.00, which provides an average monthly salary of $6,282.17. Mr. Michael D. Ott August 8, 2003 9. Does the City use lobbyists to advocate for border issues, protection of groundwater, sewage contamination prevention, or other issues? Response: The City has retained the services of representatives in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. 10. While conducting a MSR, LAFCO is obligated to examine and make a determination regarding potential government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers. If the Tia Juana Valley CWD were dissolved in the future, would the City by willing and able to assume existing infrastructure as well as other assets and liabilities for the portion of the district within San Diego? What terms and conditions need to be developed to address the transfer of service responsibility from the Tia Juana Valley CWD to the City? Please explain how the City would view the transfer of service responsibility. The City has no interest in assuming existing infrastructure or other assets Response: and liabilities for the portion of the Tia Juana Valley County Waster District within the City. If you have any questions concerning the City's responses, please contact Bill Hanley, at (858) 292-6384 Sincerely, George I. Loveland Senior Deputy City Manager WJH/aw Attachments: 1. Municipal Service Review: Tijuana Watershed Agencies 2. Tijuana Watershed Sewer Facilities Tijuana Watershed Water Facilities (2 sheets) 4. City of San Diego Park & Recreation Facilities in the Tijuana River Watershed 5. City of San Diego Property and Facilities in the Tijuana River Watershed Michael T. Uberuaga, City Manager, MS 9B cc: Bill Hanley, Deputy Director, Services & Contracts Division, MWWD, MS 901 G:\contract\dawn williams\Municipal Service Review (LAFCO).doc FILE COPY GRAND JURY County of San Diego Hall of Justice 330 W. Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 (619) 515-8707 Fax (619) 515-8696 Thomas E. McCarthy, Foreman September 16, 2003 Chief Duane White Escondido Police Department 700 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 Re: 2002-03 Grand Jury Report entitled: "Unserved Felony Warrants Issued By The San Diego Superior Court". Dear Chief White: A review by the 2003-2004 San Diego County Grand Jury Continuity Committee of responses to the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommendations contained in the above-referenced report (copy attached) indicates that no response has been received from your agency. California Penal Code §933(c) requires comment on