Grand Jury 2018-2019

R1

If an impasse still exists between SWD and OC Parks on basic terms of water-based recreation rights the parties should use a neutral outside resource such as solution focused good faith mediation by September 30, 2019, to achieve resolution. (F1, F2, F3 & F6)

R2

If an impasse still exists between SWD and OC Parks on basic terms of water-based recreation rights OC Parks should, by September 30, 2019, request from TIC a separation of those rights described in the IOD from the remaining road parcels, easements and Recreation Land Parcel and a transfer of all but the water recreation rights to OC Parks. (F1, F2, F3 & F6)

R3

By September 30, 2019, SWD should provide full financial disclosure of historical operating information for water-based recreational activity, at a minimum for the period 2011-2016, in sufficient detail to allow OC Parks to evaluate any recreation rights buyout offer or other specific management proposal. Absent such information, SWD and OC Parks should negotiate and present to their respective governing bodies a management agreement to continue operating water-based recreation at Irvine Lake and share revenue, expenses and net profits (F3)

R4

If by December 31, 2019 resolution has not been reached as to the reopening of Irvine Lake for water recreation, staff for SWD, IRWD, and OC Parks should post on their respective websites and submit to their governing body for discussion in a public meeting their perspective as to the obstacles to reopening the lake and what plan they have to resolve the issue. (F4)

R5

By December 31, 2019, SWD, IRWD and OC Parks should explore the economic feasibility of establishing and maintaining Irvine Lake at a minimum water level based on expected income and other potential cost offsets. (F5 & F6)

R6

By March 31, 2020, once recreation rights are determined, OC Parks should hold open public planning meetings to address possible uses and activities, and their location at Irvine Lake, that result in the development of a multi-year Recreational Master Plan. This planning would include examining other public/private models within Orange County and Southern California for covering future capital costs and minimizing any liability associated with boating. This also would include general cost benefit or financial feasibility analysis for the recreational uses under consideration. (F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . ..” §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 therefor. (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 therefor. (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.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: OC Parks responds to Findings 1-7 and Recommendations 1-6 SWD responds to Findings1-6 and Recommendations 1-5 IRWD responds to Findings 4-6 Recommendation 4 and 5 Responses Requested: TIC responds to Recommendation 2