San Diego County 2024-2025 - California Grand Jury Reports

May 22, 2025 — Never Been Challenged City of San Diego Development Impact Fee Program Redux

43 pages 9 findings 13 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F01: The City has not filed DIF Annual Reports in accordance with § 66006(b) for the last four fiscal years including FY 2021 through FY 2024.

F02: The City has been chronically late publishing Annual DIF Reports in violation of MFA § 66006(b) since FY 2015. Fact: MFA § 66006(a) provides that “the local agency receiving the [development impact] fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency.” Fact: MFA § 66006(e) provides that “funds held longer than five years must be refunded when a legitimate need for the funds can no longer be justified.” Fact: The City publishes on its website the Annual DIF Report each fiscal year.

F03: The City does not comply with MFA §§ 66006(b)(1) and 66006(b)(1)(E) annual and § 66001(d)(1)(D) five-year reporting requirements. Reporting detail, including yearly fund balances, expenditures, and fees collected, and the five-year reporting requirements do not provide timely, objective, substantive and accurate data that meets all MFA requirements. Fact: The MFA five-year finding requirement imposes a duty on the City to reexamine the nexus for each fee to justify the continuing need for the funds collected. Fact: If the fee can no longer be justified, the local agency shall refund the moneys in the account or fund per MFA § 66001(d)(2). Fact: MFA § 66008 requires that “[a] local agency shall expend a fee for public improvements, as accounted for pursuant to § 66006, solely and exclusively for the purpose or purposes, as identified in § 66006, for which the fee was collected. The fee shall not be levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes.” Fact: San Diego has fifty-two individual community-based DIF Fund “Legacy” Accounts. Fact: The City’s DIF Annual Reports rely on the financing plans for each of the fifty-two communities to justify nexus for the mitigation fees collected. Fact: The City Attorney has advised on two separate occasions the requirement for community plans and financing plans to be updated annually.

F04: The City’s Community Plans and Financing Plans are outdated – some in excess of 10 years, or more. Fact: The City charges each community DIF fund an administration fee to cover the costs of managing the funds. Fact: Maximum administration fees are established in each individual community nexus study (Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) or Impact Fee Study (IFS)). Fact: The City has targeted a maximum of 5% - 8% cumulative administration fees be charged to each DIF account over the full life of each account.

F05: There are instances where administration charges exceed the target percentages documented in each community PFFP or IFS. For example, one DIF account has been charged 18%. This exceeds the City’s established maximum for administrative charges. Fact: MFA § 66001(g) provides that DIF fees shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities. 34

F06: Community-based DIF funds have been spent by the City to develop the Citywide Build Better SD DIF program, in violation of § 66001(g).

F07: The City used fees collected and deposited in twenty-two of the fifty-two legacy DIF accounts, totaling $720,159.87, titled “DIF Rebuild,” for administrative use to create the Build Better SD program.

F08: The cost of developing the Build Better SD program structure should have been borne by the City’s General Fund. Fact: MFA § 66023(a)(1) provides that “a person may request an independent audit if a local agency does not comply with § 66006(b)(1) for three consecutive years both of the following shall apply: (1) The local agency shall pay the cost of the audit. (2) The independent audit conducted shall include each consecutive year the local agency did not comply with § 66006(b). Fact: MFA § 66023(f) intent is clear: “The Legislature finds and declares that oversight of local agency fees is a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities.” Fact: The 2018 Confidential Audit Memorandum revealed areas in which the City was noncompliant to the requirements of the MFA. Fact: There are red flags from as far back as 2011 that alerted City management of the potential legal compliance deficiencies in administration of the City’s DIF Program. Fact: The GJ interviewed City Management staff from the 2018-2019 timeframe and all interviewees either did not recall the Confidential Audit Memorandum, could not remember what actions were recommended or taken by Management, or claimed they were not involved in any actions taken. Fact: The GJ interviewed City employees, who are involved in direct administration of the DIF Program, who demonstrated little knowledge or awareness of MFA requirements or the severity of the consequences for non-compliance.

F09: The GJ investigation concluded that despite warning signs, the City has failed to take appropriate actions to correct problems or take corrective action in administering the DIF program.

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R10: Task the City’s Planning Department to establish necessary processes and procedures to ensure compliant management of DIF funds and timely generation of DIF Annual Reports to comply with the MFA requirement for publication within 180 days of each fiscal year end.

R11: Initiate a return of the $720,159.87 in funds that were expended to develop Build Better SD to their respective community DIF accounts.

R12: Ensure that moving forward the Build Better SD administration and Nexus study updates are paid from the City’s General Fund.

R14: Direct the Planning Department to develop and initiate an education and training program for all City Management and staff employees who are charged with administering the City’s DIF programs. 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 within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal 38 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: (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 Mayor, City of San Diego R-01 through R-14 9/30/25 City Council, City San Diego R-01 through R-14 9/30/25 39 1 CA Govt Code §§ 66000 et seq., https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter- 5/section-66000/ 2 The exact amount is difficult to glean as financial reports available on the City’s website are no longer available. 3 “Redux” refers to the fact that the subject matter of the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report is being brought back with additional information and confirmation of issues initially raised, which appear historically to have been known and disregarded (or ignored) by City management (Management), legal counsel and staff.] 4 City of San Diego Development Impact Fees - What’s the DIF?, San Diego County Grand Jury, May 30, 2023, https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/grandjury/reports/2022- 2023/City%20Of%20San%20Diego%20Development%20Impact%20Fees.pdf 5 The GJ recommended the San Diego City Attorney perform a legal compliance review, and the Office of the City Auditor perform a Financial and Performance Audit of the City’s DIF program for strict compliance with the annual and five-year nexus reporting requirements of the MFA. City of San Diego Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report Titled “City of San Diego Development Impact Fees - What’s the DIF?, November 14, 2023, p.2, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/gjr- cr-development-impact-fees.pdf 7 Performance Audit of Development Impact Fees, OCA 18-022, June 2018, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/18-022_development_impact_fee_0.pdf 8 The 2024-2025 Grand Jury reviewed a copy of the Confidential Audit Memorandum, referred to hereinafter as the Confidential Audit Memorandum. This Memorandum is not publicly available. 9 “Management” refers to City staff who have supervisory or administrative responsibility for administering the City’s DIF Program. MFA § 66006(a) restricts expenditure of those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. A Priority 1 recommendation is made when fraud or serious violations are being committed; significant fiscal and/or equivalent non-fiscal losses are occurring, costly and/or detrimental operational inefficiencies are taking place, a significant internal control weakness has been identified and the potential for incurring significant fiscal and/or equivalent non-fiscal losses exists. Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Pet. for Rev. denied, Nov. 10, 2015), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 13 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528 (Pet. for Rev. denied, July 19, 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/h049425m.html 14 Proposed Updates to Facilities Benefit Assessment and Development Impact Fee Ordinances, RC-2011-28, Office of the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, July 19, 2011, https://docs.sandiego.gov/cityattorneyreports/RC-2011-28.pdf , at pp. 2, 5-7. An FBA is a Facilities Benefit Assessment and for all practical purposes, including this Report, as the same as a DIF. Note: seven years later this is one of the findings in the 2018 Confidential Audit Memorandum. 17 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter-5/section-66000/ 18 San Diego Municipal Code § 61.2212 Annual Adjustment of Facilities Benefit Assessments (Added 8–25–1980 by O–15318 N.S.) (Repealed 4-6-2016 by O-20627 N.S.; effective 5-6-2016.) https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode_history/Chpt%2006%20History%20Tables.pdf 19 Requirements for Annual Adjustment of Facilities Benefit Assessments and Prepayment of Assessments, Council Policy N. 600-36, https://docs.sandiego.gov/councilpolicies/cpd_600-36.pdf 20 Proposed Updates to Facilities Benefit Assessment and Development Impact Fee Ordinances, RC-2011-28, Office of the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, July 19, 2011, https://docs.sandiego.gov/cityattorneyreports/RC-2011-28.pdf , at pp. 2, 5-7. 21 https://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_ordinance/rao2012/R-307565.pdf 22 Currently the City makes updates to individual community plans on roughly a ten-year cycle. Of the fifty-two community plans there are usually, at any given time, approximately five plans in the update process. Public Facilities Financing Plan Update Considerations, RC-2013-14, Office of the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, September 6, 2013, https://docs.sandiego.gov/cityattorneyreports/RC-2013-14.pdf 40 24 San Diego Municipal Code § 61.2212 dealt with the process of adjusting the amount of facilities benefit assessments on an annual basis. Repealed 4-6-2016 by O-20627 N.S.; effective 5-6-2016. Note: The repeal of San Diego Municipal Code § 61.2212 occurred soon after the Walker v. San Clemente decision was published. 26 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter-5/section-66000/ 27 This was also identified as an issue in the 2018 Confidential Audit Memorandum to Management. Overview and Challenges Related to Public Facilities Financing Plan Updates, IBA Report 14-23, June 2014, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/14_23_140609.pdf, pp. 4-5. Walker v. City of San Clemente, supra, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 30 Technical Analysis – Evaluation of DIF Methodologies, Prepared for The City of San Diego. This document is not published on the City’s website but was reviewed by the 2024-2025 Grand Jury. City of San Diego Development Impact Fees - What’s the DIF?, San Diego County Grand Jury, May 30, 2023, https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/grandjury/reports/2022- 2023/City%20Of%20San%20Diego%20Development%20Impact%20Fees.pdf 32 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto, 2023, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/2193685.html 33 The appellate court in Hamilton ruled DIF funds must be refunded but did not determine how much or what method. The specific amount and methodology of return was remanded to the trial court to decide. City of San Diego Community Planning Groups, https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community-plans 35 These are the PFFP and IFS documents. This report is limited to community-based legacy/lockbox funds – this GJ is not challenging how DIF fees were established, the amount of the fees or the nexus findings which support the legacy/lockbox DIF. 37 https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/work/public-spaces/reports 38 The City of San Diego’s Fiscal Year ends June 30th. 180 days hence is December 28th. City of San Diego Build Better SD, https://www.sandiego.gov/buildbettersd 40 Total funds include citywide DIF funds collected to date plus the legacy community-based funds. City of San Diego Development Impact Fees Funds Report, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2024, (FY2024), https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/funds-report.pdf 42 The Development Impact Fee Annual Report, FY2024, overdue since December 28, 2024, had not been published as of the date of this Report. City of San Diego Development Impact Fees Funds Report for The Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023, Issued March 13, 2024, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/development-impact-fees-funds-report-fiscal- year-2023.pdf 44 The report does not differentiate the sub-account in which the five-year funds reside, i.e., one cannot tell whether the funds are for Parks, Fire, Library or Streets. 45 § 66006(b)(1)(E) requires “identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.” 46 § 66006(b)(1)(F)(i) requires “identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence…” 47 According to California Government Code, General Provisions, § 14 the term “’shall’ is mandatory and may’ is permissive.” Additionally, San Diego Municipal Code §11.0209, General Rules of Interpretation of Ordinances, parrots the same California Government Code definition. 48 “If the administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues…exceed the amount to be refunded, the local agency, after a public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant to § 6061 and posted in three prominent places within the area of the development project, may determine that the revenues shall be allocated for some other purpose for which fees are collected subject to this chapter and which serves the project on which the fee was originally imposed.” 49 San Diego’s Fiscal Year is July 1st through June 30th. For San Diego, 180 days from fiscal year end is December 28th each year. This finding of noncompliance was confirmed by the independent Auditor. The DIF Annual Report for FY 2023 was approved by City Council March 5, 2025, via Resolution R-316039. 41 52 City of San Diego development Impact Fees FY 2015 Annual Report, December 31, 2015, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/development_impact_fees_annual_report_-_fiscal_year_2015.pdf 53 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto, 2023, supra, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of- appeal/2023/h049425m.html (Pet. for Review denied, July 2023). Walker v. City of San Clemente, supra, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 55 https://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/council-resolutions- ordinances#:~:text=What%20are%20Resolutions%20and%20Ordinances,the%20date%20of%20final%20passage. A Resolution of The Council of the City of San Diego Accepting the Development Impact Fee Annual Report for FY 2023, March 5, 2025, https://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_ordinance/rao2025/R-316039.pdf 57 City of San Diego City Charter, § 40 (City Attorney), https://docs.sandiego.gov/citycharter/Article%20V.pdf 58 CA Govt Code §§ 66000 (2024), https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter- 5/section-66000/ 59 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 6, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 60 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 17, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 61 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 3, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 62 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528 (Pet. for Rev. denied, July 19, 2023) https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/h049425m.html 63 Refunds would be made to either the developer paying the DIF or to the then current record owner or owners of the lots or units, as identified on the last equalized assessment roll, of the development project or projects on a prorated basis. Walker v. City of San Clemente, 239 Cal.App.4th, 2015, P.13, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of- appeal/2015/g050552.html 65 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P.16, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 66 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 16, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 67 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528 (Pet. for Rev. denied, July 19, 2023), P 49, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/h049425m.html 68 Beach Parking Impact Fee, City of San Clemente, November 23, 2022, https://www.san-clemente.org/about- us/city-news/beach-parking-impact- fee#:~:text=After%20refunding%20over%2081%25%20of,such%20claims%20with%20the%20City. Development Impact Fee Funds Report as of Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/development-impact-fees-funds-report-fiscal-year-2023.pdf 70 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528 (Pet. for Rev. denied, July 19, 2023). P. 39, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/h049425m.html 71 Hamilton & High v. City of Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528 (Pet. for Rev. denied, July 19, 2023), P 38, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/h049425m.html 72 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 20, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 73 Walker v. City of San Clemente (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 1350, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of- appeal/2015/g050552.html 74 Walker v. City of San Clemente, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 635, P. 15, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 75 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 15,16, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 76 Walker v. City of San Clemente, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1350, P. 20, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/g050552.html 77 CA Govt Code § 66000 (2024), https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter- 5/section-66000/ 42 78 Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/3d/216/1208.html 79 San Diego Municipal Code, § 142.0640, Development Impact Fees for Public Spaces, February 2025, https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/municodechapter14/ch14art02division06.pdf 80 Municipal Code need not explicitly include MFA provisions, as the MFA is State Legislation which supersedes the municipal code. FY 2021 through 2023 according to the Audit; and FY 2024 is currently overdue. 43

May 21, 2025 — The Gaslamp Enforcement Team Needs the Community’s Help!

20 pages 3 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F01: Building confidence in public safety in the Gaslamp requires a concerted effort by day and nighttime Gaslamp Enforcement Teams. Fact: According to media reports, some members of the public perceive Gaslamp Enforcement Team officers as overly aggressive when responding to crime in the Gaslamp area. Fact: Frequently, perception is reality, and consequently, negative publicity coupled with a negative perception can make it more difficult for police officers to do their job.

F02: By adhering to the Neighborhood Policing policy and patrolling on bicycles during daylight hours, the Gaslamp Enforcement Team has the opportunity through community outreach to build the types of relationships with residents, visitors, and businesses that lead to crime reduction and trust in law enforcement. Fact: Crimes against persons and society have increased in the Gaslamp Quarter in the past three years. Fact: The San Diego Police Department is experiencing staff shortages.

F03: The rise in crime combined with SDPD staff shortages make it even more critical for SDPD to garner the help of community members in reducing crime in the Gaslamp Quarter.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Direct the Gaslamp Enforcement Team to build trust by being more approachable and available to Gaslamp Quarter residents, visitors, and business owners with the objectives of deterring and preventing crime. The 2024/2025 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that City Council and Mayor of San Diego:

R5: Appropriate additional funding and resources to the SDPD to allow maximization of the number of officers patrolling on bicycles in the Gaslamp to include a dayshift, five days a week and on weekends and holidays. 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 13 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 within 60 days 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: (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 14

May 15, 2025 — Fire Country By: T. Cutts, Deputy Forging a United Defense in the Backcountry*

15 pages 4 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F01: FPDs should expect to require increased resources to effectively prevent and respond to wildfires in the unincorporated areas given rising costs of personnel, construction, and equipment. Fact: Since 2008 SDCF has consolidated operational responsibility for fire services from multiple FPDs into what is currently known as the SDCFPD.51

F02: Consolidation has improved response times, upgraded equipment, augmented staff, and in other ways improved fire prevention and response across SDCFPD's area of responsibility. Fact: Not all FPDs have the same standards for defensible space and controlled burn permits. 52

F03: Uniform defensible space and burn permit codes contribute to fire prevention efforts across unincorporated San Diego County. Fact: In response to Board of Supervisors' concern, SDCF has designated one SDCFPD official to help homeowners access the Wildfire Prepared Home program53

F04: Homeowner participation in the Firewise, Fire Risk Reduction Community and potentially the Wildfire Prepared Home program enhance community fire safety and improve potential access to fire insurance.

May 14, 2025 — The Tangled Web of Sdusd Bond Initiatives

19 pages 8 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F01: SDUSD has not always complied with this requirement, either in voter information materials or proposed ballot summary language. Fact: The California Election Code sets as a standard “ . . . good faith in presenting to voters the most accurate available information for their use in effecting comparisons and exercising judgment in casting their ballots.”

F02: SDUSD has consistently failed to inform voters of previous property tax rate increases associated with prior SDUSD voter-approved bonds when placing new bond initiatives before voters.

F03: SDUSD has not informed voters of total accrued debt service for all bonds previously approved by voters for which payment is still outstanding when presenting new bond initiatives for voter consideration. Fact: The California Election Code requires school districts to provide voters with an estimate of total debt service associated with bond initiatives.

F04: SDUSD has failed to provide total debt service in some bond initiatives placed before voters, and in summary ballot language has obscured the total amount of debt service by providing an annual estimate only. Fact: The California Constitution requires school districts seeking voter support for bond initiatives to provide, “ [a] list of the specific school facilities projects” to be supported by the bonds.

F05: SDUSD has not provided meaningful, specific lists of projects to be funded by bond proceeds to voters. Fact: Ballot summaries are a key source of information for voters.

F06: Ballot summaries do not highlight debt service and property tax rate increase information as well as new initiatives voters are being asked to approve. Fact: SDUSD has repeatedly proposed new bond initiatives before bonds previously authorized by voters have been exhausted. 11

F07: Voters are not informed of any outstanding unissued bonds before being asked to authorize new ones. Fact: The State sets a limit of 2.5 percent of assessed property values for the value of all bonds actually issued by a unified school district.

F08: SDUSD indicated in 2022’s Measure U that a “yes” vote indicated support for SDUSD to seek a waiver of the 2.5 percent limit, suggesting it anticipates exceeding it.

April 24, 2025 — Performance Indicators Displayed on a Publicly Accessible Dashboard May Be Beneficial in Lowering Death Rate in Jails

17 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F01: Performance indicators of jail functioning presented in a dashboard display accessible to the public over the internet improve jail functioning and promotes transparency and accountability. Fact: SDSO policy requires a nurse to conduct a face-to-face interview with an incarcerated person within twenty-four hours of submission of a request for medical/mental health services. Fact: SDSO officials estimate only 75% to 85% of requests for medical/mental health services are followed up within twenty-four hours of submission. Fact: The DRC Report found the failure to follow up in a timely manner to requests for medical/mental health services may have contributed to the deaths of individuals housed in San Diego County jails. Fact: SDSO officials state there are no metrics tracking requests for medical/mental health services.

F02: SDSO lacks performance indicators of medical/mental health services requests displayed in a dashboard accessible to the public which, if implemented, should improve response time to requests for services and decrease health acuity and deaths. Fact: SDSO established an MAT module at the Vista Detention Facility in January 2023. Fact: Since the establishment of MAT programming in January 2023 total suspected opioid overdoses have decreased significantly. Fact: Incarcerated persons throughout the SDSO jail system may receive MAT medication and depending on mental health clinician availability, also receive individual counseling. Fact: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends sixteen specific metrics which should be collected for the monitoring and evaluation of a correctional MAT program. Fact: SDSO does not collect metrics to track MAT programming.

F03: No metrics are being collected by the SDSO to be used as performance indicators for CQI purposes targeting MAT programming which, if implemented, may decrease mortality and high-risk behaviors and move individuals toward recovery. Fact: SDSO grievance policies and procedures are consistent with the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities. Fact: Healthcare grievances are one of the 286 performance indicators which appear on the CDCR/CCHCS dashboard available to the public on the internet. Fact: SDSO does not collect metrics that can be used as performance indicators for CQI purposes targeting grievances.

F04: SDSO does not collect metrics targeting grievances for CQI purposes which if implemented, could provide management with a review of SDSO policies, conditions, or omissions that have an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of incarcerated persons. Fact: SDSO’s policies and procedures for conducting and reviewing safety checks are consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 15 requirements. Fact: At the facility commander level, the SDSO review of safety checks is not a complete review. The location of the review rotates each month, only conducting a partial review of all safety checks. Video footage of safety checks is sometimes chosen to be used in this review, however, there is not always video footage available. Fact: SDSO safety check review data are used only at the individual facility level and not reviewed and utilized as jail system-wide aggregate data and no metrics are collected for CQI purposes.

F05: SDSO does not have metrics that can be used as performance indicators for CQI purposes targeting safety checks which, if implemented, could improve deputy compliance to conducting meaningful safety checks thus decreasing both medical distress and crime occurring in the jails.

January 08, 2025 — Parking Roulette in the City of San Diego

16 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F01: Community Parking Districts generally do not operate as independent and accountable entities, do not meet the stipulated transparency requirements of their agreements with the City of San Diego, spend a significant percentage of allotted revenues on administrative costs, and create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Fact: The City of San Diego uses both single and multi-space parking meters which accept different modes of payment. 9

F02: As indicated in the January 2025 Parking Demand Management Study as well as Community Parking District meeting notes, parking meter signage could be improved, especially in areas relying on multi-space meters. Fact: The January 2025 Parking Demand Management Study reported that private parking lot charges vary dramatically across the City.

F03: Not all private parking lots clearly advertise their prices so drivers can see them from the street. Fact: Parking around Petco Park during special events is subject to a special agreement, the 2015 Petco Park Event Transportation and Parking Management Plan. Fact: Neither the Municipal Code nor the 2015 Petco Park Event Transportation and Parking Management Plan exempt Petco Park from the signage requirements associated with special events City-wide.

F04: Signage associated with Petco events is not consistent with City standards for special events concerning type, placement, and information displayed. Fact: In 2017 the City Attorney advised that parking meter fees “cannot be levied for general revenue purposes,” referencing California state code.

F05: The City has not been transparent about its own handling of parking meter revenues collected directly by the City outside of the Community Parking Districts.

December 13, 2024 — Fit To Be Tied! Why Are So Many Dogs Running Wild in San Diego Parks?

27 pages 14 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F01: SDHS often has fewer than four Park Patrol Officers on duty and two patrol vehicles in use in the City, which fails to meet requirements of the Park Officer Program encompassed in the Agreement between the City and SDHS.

F02: SDHS relies on Park Rangers to support its efforts in leash enforcement. Fact: City established Park of the Month as part of its effort to achieve fair animal enforcement, focusing on select parks within a different supervisorial district each month. Fact: There are no SDHS officer-initiated patrols at parks outside of Park of the Month, ostensibly giving dog owners outside the Park of the Month district a free pass for eight months of the year. Complaints from other areas are placed in a queue.

F03: The City’s Park of the Month Program does not clearly set forth expectations on enforcement requirements outside the designated Park. Fact: SDHS is required to submit to the City quarterly and annually written reports including number and type of incidents investigated. Fact: SDHS is required to keep records on all applicable statistics. Fact: Multiple reports by Parks and Recreation state SDHS issued 9,000 citations and warnings during the five-year initial Agreement (2018-2023). Fact: There were 208 animal enforcement citations issued during the first year of the current Agreement (July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024) covering all animal control violations. Fact: There were 25 “Notices to Appear” and 150 verbal warnings issued during 1,693 SDHS “routine inspections” at City parks between January 2024 and February 2025. 21

F04: The City failed to keep track (or documentation) of the number of leash-law citations issued the first year (July1 2023-June 30, 2024) of the current Agreement with SDHS.

F05: There was a significant, 90% drop in all animal control citation/warning issuance during the first year of the current Agreement. Fact: The City is not receiving any revenue from leash-law citations. Fact: Leash-law violations in City parks and joint-use areas are cited only as violations of County Code §62.669 Restraint of Dog by Owner, rather than as violations of SDMC §63.0102 (c)(2), “Use of Public Parks and Beaches Regulated.” Fact: Agreement’s Animal Field Services Requirement, Item 12, requires off-leash violations be cited under San Diego Municipal Code.

F06: Citation issuance using County Code does not meet the requirements of the Agreement.

F07: Fines collected by the Courts for leash-law violations within the City are not being paid to the City General Fund. Fact: County Code states if a leash is not being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the animal, the animal is “at large.” Fact: Current Agreement between the City and SDHS defines dogs running-at-large, in progress, as a Priority 2 Fact: SDHS Animal Enforcement classifies leash-law incidents as Priority 3 or Priority 5. Fact: SDHS is inconsistent in how it classifies leash-law violations.

F08: The City has not adequately monitored SDHS citations. Fact: Animal field services required response times for Priority Levels 2-5 have increased by hours and even days during Fiscal Year 2024. Fact: SDHS has failed to meet required response time for Priorities 2-5. Finding09: The City has not adequately monitored SDHS response times. Fact: Leash-law signs posted at San Diego City Parks and joint-use areas are not consistent in the information they provide. Fact: Leash-law signs do not include SDMC §63.0102 (c)(2), or reference penalties for violations.

F10: Leash-law signs in City parks are often confusing, contradictory, or display outdated information.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Standardize wording of signs regarding prohibition of off-leash dogs to include correct telephone numbers, Municipal Code citation, and potential (or minimum) fine amounts for violators.

F11: Leash-law signs in City parks do not provide information regarding potential monetary fines for violations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Standardize wording of signs regarding prohibition of off-leash dogs to include correct telephone numbers, Municipal Code citation, and potential (or minimum) fine amounts for violators.

F12: Leash-law signs in City parks do not deter many pet owners from running their dogs off leash in parks. Fact: Areas designated by the City as “Joint-Use” allow SDHS to exercise community outreach, goodwill, and education prior to issuing citations. Fact: Discretionary citation issuance for other than joint-use areas is not defined in the Agreement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Require SDHS to rigorously enforce leash-law citation issuance, including effective tracking for repeat offenders, with judicious use of education and acts of goodwill limited to joint-use areas.

F13: Leash enforcement on City property often takes the form of verbal written warnings and education from Park Officers even when the incidents do not occur in joint-use areas.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Require SDHS to rigorously enforce leash-law citation issuance, including effective tracking for repeat offenders, with judicious use of education and acts of goodwill limited to joint-use areas.

F14: Humane Law Enforcement Officers scarcely enforce the City’s leash laws. Fact: The Current Agreement stipulates contract performance evaluations may be issued by City as often as City deems necessary. Fact: Performance evaluations are based on criteria including the quality and timeliness of performance.

F15: A regression in SDHS performance measures warrants a City performance evaluation.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R9: Launch a performance audit and evaluation of SDHS leash law and broader animal enforcement responsibilities to focus on incident response times, use of proper Municipal or County Code citations, and overall citation issuance. 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 within 60 days to the 24 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: (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 therefore. (c) If a

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.