📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Diego County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

Downtown Area Public Restrooms in the City of SAN Diego Stop Kicking the Can Down the Road

Published: May 24, 2023 15 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 8 findings

F01 Page 18

Current restroom facilities in the downtown San Diego area are inadequate to provide 24/7 public access.

F02 Page 18

There is no comprehensive plan for restroom siting or assuring best practices are instituted for current and future restroom facilities in the downtown San Diego area. Fact: Academic institutions, such as SDSU and UCSD, have capacity to engage with government and to assist in development of data-driven plans for restrooms. Fact: Downtown groups representing businesses, residents and economic development have interest in working with government to develop workable plans for downtown public restrooms. Fact: Advocacy groups for unsheltered populations have lived experience that add value to planning for access to public restrooms. San Diego leaders looking to lift state ban on pay toilets, CBS 8 San Diego, Jan 23, 2023, https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/san-diego-looking-to-lift-state-ban-on-pay-toilets/509-e29e4ecd-60f4- 4bc4-b019-e51036eebf1f 18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023) Fact: The last effort to bring together a wide array of stakeholders on the issue of downtown public restrooms was in 2013.

F03 Page 19

The City has not recently brought together partners including academia, private business groups, community associations, or homeless individuals/advocates to explore solutions for better access to public restrooms. Fact: The 2009-2010 GJ report, Homeless in San Diego, warned of disease outbreaks due to lack of adequate public restrooms, Fact: Poor sanitation is linked to spread of several infectious pathogens and has been cited as contributing to the hepatitis A and shigella outbreaks since the last Grand Jury report. Fact: The hepatitis A outbreak in 2017 was a factor in the deaths of twenty people. Fact: The hepatitis A outbreak cost over $12 million dollars and required ad hoc sanitation equipment rental, enhanced environmental cleaning and other costs.

F04 Page 19

Adequate public restrooms may help mitigate outbreaks such as hepatitis A, shigella, and COVID-19. Fact: Access to convenient, safe, and well-maintained restrooms in the downtown area is important to tourists, local visitors, persons experiencing homelessness, and families. Fact: It is difficult to locate clean, open public restrooms in downtown San Diego due to the lack of adequate signage. Fact: The City’s web-based information regarding public restrooms is not updated often enough and does not contain enough information to reflect conditions in the field.

F05 Page 19

Open, clean, and secure public restrooms are hard to locate throughout the San Diego downtown area. Fact: The 2014-2015 GJ recommend, develop, fund and implement a plan for additional 24-hour downtown public restrooms, establish and implement an adequate budget for safety and maintenance, and to establish a way-finding system.

F06 Page 19

The City has encountered barriers in following its 1987 policy to site and encourage public restrooms in specific types of facilities in the downtown area. Fact: Private developers are not proactively siting, maintaining, and providing safe access to 24/7 public restrooms. 19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023)

F07 Page 20

City policies and agreements need to be followed and enforced to assure accessible and adequate public restrooms. Fact: There is no average cost per restroom available, since different public restroom facilities have varying structures and services (i.e., security or not, city vs contract staff, maintenance needs, private agreements). Fact: City of San Diego restroom costs are hard to evaluate since expenditures are spread over different line items and different departments.

F08 Page 20

The City has not performed a comprehensive economic analysis on the costs of constructing, securing, and maintaining public restrooms, which would include current costs attributable to not having adequate restrooms (e.g., sidewalk cleaning, municipal code enforcement)

Recommendations 5

R1
Page 21

Standardizing signage elements throughout the downtown area via collaboration with the County, Port, MTS and other relevant partners.
R2
Page 21

Adding resources for sign development and maintenance in contracts with partnering groups and working with them to facilitate approval for new signs. 23-37: Enhance the City restroom/hand-washing wayfinding system to direct the public to available restrooms, which includes the following:
R3
Page 21

Regularly updating the City’s restroom website information, including days/hours of operation and points of contact for problems with usage.
R4
Page 21

Assure access in at least English and Spanish.
R5
Page 21

Leverage existing wayfinding systems, e.g., MTS PRONTO application. 23-38: Explore and create financial incentives or other innovative mechanisms for business owners to make their restroom facilities available to all persons upon request. 23-39: Explore mechanisms to fund public restroom infrastructure including development impact fees. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 21 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023) (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 time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 time frame 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) 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 the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations______________ Date___ City of San Diego, Mayor 23-32 through 23-39 7/24/2023 City of San Diego, City Council 23-32 through 23-39 7/24/2023 22 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023)