4.19 Non-combustible construction shall be as defined by the California Building Code (2022 Edition). Wood frame construction shall be considered combustible construction regardless of materials used for surface covering.
4.20 Sprinklers with a temperature rating of not less than an intermediate temperature rating are required in all main electrical panel and meter rooms. No combustible materials shall be stored in these rooms.
4.21 Light fixtures, soffits and other potential obstructions shall not interfere with the spray patterns of sprinkler heads. The sprinkler contractor shall ensure that the type and location of potential obstructions are considered in the design and installation of the system. The sprinkler contractor is responsible for coordinating and resolving conflicts in coverage patterns.
4.22 Fire sprinklers shall not be installed directly below automatic smoke and heat vents.
4.23 Inspector Test Valve access panels and doors to fire sprinkler riser rooms shall have signs with appropriate descriptions.
4.24 All electrical rooms, upright sprinklers at the roof or in the attic space, nonconditioned rooms or exterior sprinkler heads shall be 200°F – 212°F heads.
4.25 If the attic space is less than thirty-six (36) inches in height and of combustible construction, all upright fire sprinkler heads shall be in accordance with NFPA 13, Section 8.15.1.6.
Plans (NFPA 13)
4.26 Complete detailed work sheets and computer hydraulic calculations as required by NFPA 13 shall be included with all submittals for hydraulically designed sprinkler systems. Calculations shall extend to the point at which the water supply data was determined.
4.27 Water supply curves and system demand curves, including underground friction loss, hose allowance, and applicable in-rack sprinkler demand, shall be computer generated graphs. Sprinkler system design, including hose demand, shall be limited to 90% of the available water supply. Water supply data may be obtained from the Fire Prevention Bureau by calling (760) 323-8186.
4.28 If installed piping is six (6) inches or larger, structural load calculations will be required for the structural elements/systems supporting the load.
4.29 Provide separate drawings for the piping plan and reflective ceiling plan.
4.30 Provide a fire sprinkler legend including sprinkler symbol, manufacturer, Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN), model, style, K-factor, degree, finish, escutcheon and quantity.
4.31 Provide the occupancy type of each room, ceiling heights and ceiling slopes with direction, slope pitch and ceiling height at the beginning of the slope as applicable.
4.32 Provide soffit and ceiling pocket details including widths, depths and heights.
4.33 Provide Seismic Bracing Calculations on the drawings per NFPA 13 using Cp of
0.74 and l/r ratio of 200. Separate Seismic Bracing Calculations shall be provided for lateral and longitudinal braces and each pipe size. Show details of the seismic bracing and branch line restraints on the drawings. Piping individually supported by rods less than six (6) inches long measured between the top of the pipe and the Item 3D - Page 77
point of attachment to the building structure shall not be used in lieu of seismic lateral bracing.
4.34 Hydraulic Plate information shall be included on the drawings.
4.35 Provide calculations of the number of sprinklers to calculate and the number of sprinklers on a branch line and list assumed remote area square feet.
4.36 Mark on the drawings the most hydraulically demanding remote area; and zone of influence for lateral and longitudinal seismic bracing.
4.37 Pipe Schedule Design shall not be used in existing systems, extension of existing systems or new systems.
4.38 Provide the following notes on fire sprinkler plans:
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES (NFPA 13):
1. The installation of the sprinkler system or modifications to existing sprinkler systems shall comply with:
• NFPA 13
• California Building Code (2022 Edition)
• California Fire Code (2022 Edition)
• The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 8, Sections 8.04.500 and 8.04.510
• Palm Springs Fire Department Development Requirements, Appendix “T”
2. The Fire Prevention Bureau will require the following inspections and tests as a minimum:
• Overhead installation and hydrostatic test – 200 psi for 2-hours. • Fire sprinkler system final inspection. A completed and signed "Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping" form as required per NFPA 13.
TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS CALL THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AT (760) 323-8186 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE REQUESTED INSPECTION DATE AND TIME.
3. A dedicated electrical circuit with a circuit breaker lock shall be required for the listed fire alarm control unit.
4. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit and monitored at a UL listed central station service.
5. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (horn/strobe with weather-proof back box) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. Power shall be provided from a listed fire alarm control unit.
Item 3D - Page 78
6. The fire sprinkler branch lines shall be restrained against excessive vertical and lateral movement by use of a wrap-around U-hook or by other approved means per NFPA 13.
5.0 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS – NFPA 13R
Design (NFPA 13R)
5.1 The sprinkler contractor shall calculate the friction loss for all pipes, meters, valves, fittings and other appurtenances when designing the hydraulic calculations for the NFPA 13R fire sprinkler system.
5.2 Fire sprinkler design shall be limited to 90% of the available water supply.
5.3 Fire sprinkler systems shall require a single 2 1/2 inch FDC when the building exceeds 2,000 square feet or is more than one-story.
5.4 An inspector’s test valve must be provided from a remote portion of the system.
Orifice size shall be the smallest orifice of any sprinkler in the system. This valve shall be a full port ball valve with signed access panel and a copper stub outside the wall.
5.5 Access panels for fire sprinkler risers, inspector test valves and doors for fire sprinkler riser rooms, all shall have signs with appropriate descriptions.
5.6 Fire sprinkler protection is required in any size bathroom when a walk-in closet must exit through a bathroom.
5.7 Garages, attics and outside mechanical and/or electrical rooms shall use commercial quick response fire sprinkler heads with a 200°F – 212°F temperature rating. Garage fire sprinkler spacing shall be 130 square feet. Garage fire sprinklers shall be designed for a flow rate of 13 GPM with a 4.2 K-factor head and
14.8 GPM for a 5.6 K-factor head.
5.8 Fire sprinkler protection is required for carports, garages and similar structures, regardless of construction, unless physically separated by a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from dwellings or other structures.
5.9 Minimum piping size shall be one (1) inch nominal.
5.10 Light fixtures, soffits and other potential obstructions shall not interfere with the spray patterns of sprinkler heads. The sprinkler contractor shall ensure that the type and location of potential obstructions are considered in the design and installation of the system. The sprinkler contractor is responsible for coordinating and resolving conflicts in coverage patterns.
5.11 All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit and monitored at a UL listed central station service.
5.12 An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (horn/strobe with weather-proof back box) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location.
5.13 A dedicated electrical circuit with a circuit breaker lock shall be required for the listed fire alarm control unit.
Item 3D - Page 79
5.14 Additional exterior horn/strobes may be required when there are more than four (4) dwelling units per building.
5.15 Contractor shall provide a spare head box with sprinkler wrench and three (3) spare sprinkler heads of each type, unless there are less than three (3) heads of that type.
Plans (NFPA 13R)
5.16 Piping shall be detailed on drawing from public water main to riser including pipe sizes, pipe types, pipe lengths, all fittings, all valves, water meter manufacturer and model, back flow device manufacturer, model and size and elevations of house finished floor relative to fire hydrant outlet where pressures were taken.
5.17 Provide a riser detail on the drawing, including a flow control valve with a tamper switch.
5.18 Provide an inspector test detail on drawing.
5.19 Provide a table on the drawings for piping support spacing and one (1) and two (2) point sprinkler head vertical restraint spacing.
5.20 Provide a fire sprinkler legend including sprinkler symbol, manufacturer, Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN), model, style, K-factor, degree, finish, escutcheon and quantity.
5.21 Provide occupancy type of each room, ceiling heights and ceiling slopes with direction, slope pitch and ceiling height at the beginning of the slope as applicable.
5.22 Provide soffit and ceiling pocket details including widths, depths and heights.
5.23 Provide beam details including widths, heights and spacing.
5.24 Provide location of required horn/strobes.
5.25 Provide the following notes on fire sprinkler plans:
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES (NFPA 13R):
1. The installation of the sprinkler system or modifications to existing sprinkler systems shall comply with:
• NFPA 13R
• California Building Code (2022 Edition)
• California Fire Code (2022 Edition)
• The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 8, Sections 8.04.500 and 8.04.510
• Palm Springs Fire Department Development Requirements, Appendix “T”
2. The Fire Prevention Bureau will require the following inspections and tests as a minimum:
• Overhead installation and hydrostatic test – 200 psi for 2-hours. • Fire sprinkler system final inspection. A completed and signed "Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping" form as required per NFPA 13R.
Item 3D - Page 80
TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS CALL THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AT (760) 323-8186 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE REQUESTED INSPECTION DATE AND TIME.
3. A dedicated electrical circuit with a circuit breaker lock shall be required for the listed fire alarm control unit.
4. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit and monitored at a UL listed central station service.
5. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (horn/strobe with weather-proof back box) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location.
6. Contractor shall supply owner with a copy of the 2013 California Edition of NFPA 25 “Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems.”
6.0 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS – NFPA 13D
Design (NFPA 13D)
6.1 A full port ball valve shall be installed at one- and two-family dwelling units as a shut-off valve for both domestic and fire sprinkler water supply. A shut-off valve shall be installed for the domestic water supply after the fire sprinkler system takeoff.
6.2 The sprinkler system piping shall not have a separate control valve installed.
6.3 Fire sprinkler system design shall be limited to 90% of the available water supply.
Fire sprinkler systems shall be combined domestic and fire sprinkler service to the dwelling. Hydraulic calculations shall include 5 GPM domestic water demand at the domestic water take-off.
6.4 Access panels for fire sprinkler risers shall have a sign with an appropriate description.
6.5 Fire sprinkler protection is required in any size bathroom when a walk-in closet must exit through a bathroom.
6.6 Garages, attics and outside mechanical rooms shall use fire sprinkler heads with a 200°F – 212°F temperature rating.
6.7 A single pilot head shall be installed in attic areas over the forced air unit(s).
6.8 All listed equipment and materials shall be installed in accordance with the terms of their listings and the manufacturer's instructions.
6.9 Fire sprinkler protection is required for garages and similar structures, regardless of construction, unless physically separated by a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from dwellings or other structures.
Item 3D - Page 81
6.10 Piping systems shall be tested in accordance with the California Plumbing Code for multipurpose piping and NFPA 13D and manufacturer’s listing and recommendations for fire sprinkler piping.
6.11 Light fixtures, soffits and other potential obstructions shall not interfere with the spray patterns of sprinkler heads. The sprinkler contractor shall ensure that the type and location of potential obstructions are considered in the design and installation of the system. The sprinkler contractor is responsible for coordinating and resolving conflicts in coverage patterns.
6.12 Water Flow Switch and Alarm. A water flow switch shall be installed with every residential fire sprinkler system. The system shall include:
1. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (horn/strobe with weather-proof back box or equal) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. The horn/strobe shall be outdoor-rated.
2. Residential smoke alarms (relay/power supply module connected to multistation/interconnected smoke alarms and fire sprinkler flow switch) shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke alarm or fire sprinkler flow switch causes all smoke alarms within the dwelling to sound and activate the exterior horn/strobe. The wiring of this system shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
6.13 Contractor shall provide a spare head box with sprinkler wrench and two (2) spare sprinkler heads of each type, unless there is less than two (2) heads of that type.
6.14 Prescriptive pipe size method shall not be used to design fire sprinkler systems.
6.15 Hydraulic calculation procedures in accordance with NFPA 13 shall be used for all types of sprinkler systems.
6.16 Network fire sprinkler systems are prohibited.
Plans (NFPA 13D)
6.17 Piping shall be detailed on drawing from public water main to riser including pipe sizes, pipe types, pipe lengths, all fittings, all valves, water meter manufacturer and model, back flow device manufacturer, model and size and elevations of house finished floor relative to fire hydrant outlet where pressures were taken.
6.18 Provide a riser detail on the drawing.
6.19 Provide a table on the drawings for piping support spacing and one (1) and two (2) point sprinkler head vertical restraint spacing.
6.20 Provide a fire sprinkler legend including sprinkler symbol, manufacturer, Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN), model, style, K-factor, degree, finish, escutcheon and quantity.
6.21 Provide occupancy of each room, ceiling heights and ceiling slopes with direction, slope pitch and ceiling height at the beginning of the slope as applicable.
6.22 Provide soffit and ceiling pocket details including widths, depths and heights.
6.23 Provide beam details including widths, heights and spacing.
6.24 Design a looped fire sprinkler piping system where possible.
Item 3D - Page 82
6.25 Provide the following notes on fire sprinkler plans:
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES (NFPA 13D):
1. The installation of the sprinkler system or modifications to existing sprinkler systems shall comply with:
• NFPA 13D
• California Residential Code (2022 Edition)
• California Fire Code (2022 Edition)
• The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 8, Sections 8.04.500 and 8.04.510
• Palm Springs Fire Department Development Requirements, Appendix “T”
2. Water Flow Switch and Alarm. A water flow switch shall be installed in every dwelling unit fire sprinkler system. The system shall include:
• An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (horn/strobe with weather-proof back box or equal) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. The horn/strobe shall be outdoor-rated. • Residential smoke alarms (relay/power supply module connected to multistation/interconnected smoke alarms and fire sprinkler flow switch) shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke alarm or fire sprinkler flow switch causes all smoke alarms within the dwelling to sound and activate the exterior horn/strobe. The wiring of this system shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
7.0 INSPECTIONS AND TESTS
7.1 The system must pass all the fire protection systems inspections prior to a certificate of occupancy.
7.2 The Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems shall comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 5, and NFPA 25 (2013 Edition).
7.3 Inspection, Flushing, and Hydrostatic Testing of Underground Fire Service Mains.
Note: It is the contractor’s responsibility to notify the AHJ of inspection, performance of tests, and completion of Material and Test certificates (10.10.1).
1. All pipe and fittings shall remain exposed for visual inspection.
2. Flush line until water runs clear and line is free of debris in accordance with NFPA 24 (10.10.2.1).
3. Use chart below (Figure 1.0) to determine appropriate number and size of hose lines for reach desired water flow for proper flushing. Example: a 6” underground fire line requires a flow of 880 GPM for proper flushing. To achieve a proper flow, two (2) – 2 1/2” hoses would need to be attached to the manifold.
Alternately a single 4” hose could be attached to the manifold to achieve the same flow.
Item 3D - Page 83
Suggested Number of Lines to Reach Required Flow - Figure 1.0 Pipe Size Required Flow Rate 2 1/2" 4" 6" 8"
4" 390 GPM 1 - - -
6" 880 GPM 2 1 - -
8" 1,560 GPM 4 2 1 -
10" 2,440 GPM 6 3 1 -
12" 3,520 GPM 8 4 2 1
4. SAFETY IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY. If unsafe conditions are observed, Fire Prevention staff will require that corrective measures are taken. If corrective measures are not sufficient, Fire Prevention staff will end the inspection.
5. All pipes and fittings shall be hydrostatically tested to 200 psi or 50 psi above system working pressure, whichever is greater (10.10.2.2.1). System shall maintain pressure at +/- 5 psi for 2-hours. The trench should be backfilled before testing per NFPA 24 (10.10.2.2.4 and 10.10.2.2.5).
6. At the conclusion of hydrostatic testing, pressure shall be relieved in the presence of Fire Prevention staff to verify proper movement of gauge needle.
7.4 OVERHEAD INSTALLATION.
ALL AREAS MUST BE VISIBLE. Contractor shall schedule inspections before insulating, dry walling or installation of ceilings occurs. Inspection shall review compliance with approved plans, spacing, hangers, seismic bracing, etc. All areas must remain visible for any corrections from this inspection. A REINSPECTION OF CORRECTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED.
All fire sprinklers utilizing CPVC pipe shall be required to have temporary test plugs installed at the time of rough-in inspections and hydrostatic testing. Sprinkler heads shall be installed only after all rough-in inspections and hydrostatic testing are completed satisfactorily.
The following is required prior to fire sprinkler final:
• Approved drawings and hydrostatic calculations available on site. • Water service to sprinkler riser shall be installed and live. • All HVAC registers shall be installed.
• All electrical shall be installed for lights, ceiling fans and smoke detectors.
ALL CORRECTIONS FROM PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF.
7.5 A complete approved set of fire sprinkler system and private fire service main plans stamped approved (wet stamp and signature) by the Fire Prevention Bureau shall Item 3D - Page 84
be kept on the job site at all times. INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE APPROVED PLANS.
7.6 The permit and inspection record card (Job Card) shall be available with the approved plans at the job site. INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE INSPECTION RECORD CARD (Job Card).
7.7 Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this guideline or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.
7.8 The following documents are required completed by the contractor and a copy shall be turned over to the fire department at the time of acceptance testing and final inspection:
(1) Underground Fire Service Mains (NFPA 24)
• Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Underground Piping (2) Fire Sprinkler Systems (NFPA 13 and 13R and 13D)
• Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping (3) Standpipe and Hose Systems (NFPA 14)
• Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping (4) Fire Pump Systems (NFPA 20)
• Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Fire Pump Systems (5) Fire Pump Systems (NFPA 20)
• Contractors Material and Test Certificate for Fire Pump Systems (6) Fire Alarm Systems (NFPA 72)
• Record of Completion
Item 3D - Page 85
8.0 EMERGENCY ACCESS AND GATES
General
8.1 This section has been developed to assist development applicants, architects, contractors, and building/business owners in determining the minimum requirements for Knox switches on powered access gates, Knox boxes for nonpowered gates, Knox box vaults for residential and commercial facilities and minimum access gate requirements for fire department access during emergency responses.
Plans
8.2 Plan submittals must identify all access gates and locations of Knox access switches and Knox boxes.
Gate Access Requirements
8.3 The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire code official during the plan check review. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation.
The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained at all times.
8.4 A Knox key operated switch shall be installed at every automatic gate. Secured automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize a combination of a Tomar Strobeswitch™, or approved equal, and an approved Knox key switch when required by the fire code official. Secured non-automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize an approved padlock or chain (maximum link or lock shackle size of a quarter (1/4) inch) when required by the fire code official.
8.5 Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325.
Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with these requirements.
8.6 In the event of a power failure, the gates shall be defaulted or automatically transferred to a fail-safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or any equipment. If a two-gate system is used, the override switch must open both gates.
8.7 Gate arms securing parking lots and parking structures shall be equipped with a fire department approved dual-keyed Knox key electric switch. When activated, the arm or arms shall open to allow fire and law enforcement access.
8.8 If there is no sensing device that will automatically open the gates for exiting, a fire department approved Knox electrical override switch shall be placed on each side of the gate in an approved location.
8.9 Approved security gates shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet in unobstructed drive width on each side with gate in open position. An unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches shall be provided and maintained at all times.
Building Access Requirements
8.10 Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for emergency responder access, a Knox box vault will be required.
Item 3D - Page 86
8.11 Knox box locations shall be mounted at five (5) feet above grade. Show locations of Knox access controls on plan elevation views. Show requirement in plan notes.
Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau by calling (760) 323-8186 for a Knox Authorization Order Form.
8.12 The Knox key box shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.
8.13 Secured emergency access gates serving apartment, townhome or condominium complex courtyard, must provide a Knox key box in addition to association or facility locks. The nominal height of Knox lock box installations shall be five (5) feet above grade.
Inspection Requirements
8.14 A final field inspection by the fire code official or an authorized representative is required before electronically controlled gates may become operative. Prior to final inspection, electronic gates shall remain in a locked-open position.
8.15 A final field inspection by the fire code official or an authorized representative for the installation of Knox box vaults with appropriate keys is required at time of final inspection.
9.0 FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
General
9.1 This section has been developed to assist development applicants, architects, contractors, and building/business owners in determining the minimum requirements for the design of fire apparatus access roads for consistency with the best practices of the fire code in the interest of public safety.
Plans
9.2 Detailed fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. Plans shall include certification from a Registered Professional Engineer stating the roads are of all-weather construction and capable of supporting fire apparatus weighing 73,000 lbs. G.V.W.
Requirements
9.3 Designated Fire Lanes: In private developments, designated fire lanes shall not be less than twenty-four (24) feet wide (curb face to curb face) with no parking on either side and shall be identified as fire lanes with red curb(s), stating in white lettering “NO PARKING FIRE LANE”, or by approved signage, or by both red curb(s) with white lettering and signage.
Reduced Roadway Width: Areas with reduced roadway width (such as entry and exit gates, entry and exit approach roads, traffic calming areas, etc.) that are under thirty-six (36) feet wide require red painted curb(s) to maintain minimum twenty-four (24) foot clear width. Red curb(s), stating in white lettering “NO PARKING FIRE LANE”, or by approved signage, or by both red curb(s) with white lettering and signage.
Item 3D - Page 87
9.4 The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be within the limits established by the fire code official based on the fire department’s apparatus. No grade shall exceed 12%. Grade transitions shall not exceed maximum angle of approach and angle of departure based on the fire department’s apparatus as determined by the fire code official.
9.5 A secondary access road shall be provided for all developments with thirty (30) or more dwelling units.
9.6 Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The City of Palm Springs has two (2) approved turn around provisions. One is a cul-de-sac with an outside turning radius of forty-five (45) feet from centerline; and the other is a hammerhead turnaround meeting the Palm Springs Public Works and Engineering Department standard dated 8/3/2016.
9.7 Fire department access roads/driveways shall be provided so that no portion of the exterior wall of the first floor of any building will be more than 150 feet from such roads.
9.8 When fences are installed that because the distance from an approved fire department access road to exceed the maximum distance allowed in Section 503 herein, a gate shall be provided in the fence to maintain the required fire department access. The gate shall be a minimum four (4) feet in width and be equipped with a Knox key box and/or Knox lock accessible from both sides in accordance with Section 506 herein.
9.9 Access to building openings and roofs. An approved walkway with a minimum width of forty-eight (48) inches shall be maintained readily accessible to all exterior openings for emergency access by the fire department.
9.10 High-Rise/Mid-Rise: High-rise and mid-rise buildings shall be accessible on a minimum of two (2) sides. Street access shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet or more than thirty (30) feet from the building. Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed or must be maintained around structures in a manner so as not to impair or impede accessibility for firefighting and rescue operations.
Construction Requirements
9.11 Access for firefighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twentyfour (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches.
Item 3D - Page 88
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
12/05/2022
SUBJECT:
REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL OF DECISIONS OF CITY BOARDS/ COMMISSIONS,
AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS BY
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction to City staff and City Attorney.
Attachments
Item 3E
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2022 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL OF DECISIONS OF CITY BOARDS/
COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR REVIEW AND
CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS BY CITY BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
FROM: Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney
SUMMARY:
At the November 10, 2022 Council meeting, it was requested that staff bring back discussion of a potential amendment to City procedures regarding review of decisions made by City Boards and Commissions, and possible changes to the review and consideration of matters by City Boards and Commissions.
Currently, the City’s Municipal Code provides that any member of the City Council may initiate a review of any decision of a City Council appointed commission or board, even if the decision/action would not automatically come before the Council. In order to initiate this review, a Councilmember must submit a written request to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the board’s/commission’s decision. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides that any member of the City Council may initiate a review of any planning or zoning decision of the Planning Commission by giving notice to the City Clerk within the same time. The City’s Planning Department has made a practice of notifying the City Council of planning and zoning decisions of the Planning Commission and the Historic Site Preservation Board, in order to enable the City Councilmembers to carry out this review opportunity, should they wish to do so.
This agenda items provides the City Council with the opportunity to discuss whether to extend this practice to decisions of other City Board and Commissions, as well as to discuss any other issues involving review of matters by City boards and commissions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction to City staff and City Attorney.
BACKGROUND:
The Palm Springs Municipal Code provides,
Item 3E - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
December 5, 2022 -- Page 2
City Council Review of Boards/Commissions Decisions
“(a) Any member of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs may initiate a review of any decision or action of a City Council appointed commission or board that is not otherwise before the City Council by giving notice thereof to the City Clerk. The Notice of Review shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than fifteen days following the date of the action which is the subject of the review.” (Palm Springs Municipal Code (“PSMC”), § 2.06.030.) In addition to this opportunity to review decisions of boards and commissions generally, the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance provides for an opportunity for review by City Councilmembers of planning or zoning decisions of the Planning Commission, even if those decisions would not automatically come to the City Council. Specifically, Palm Springs Municipal Code section 94.10.00 provides:
“Any member of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs may initiate a review of any decision or action of a City Council appointed commission or board that is not otherwise before the City Council by giving notice thereof to the City Clerk. The Notice of Review shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than fifteen days following the date of the action which is the subject of the review.”
City staff has instituted a process of notifying the City Council of planning and zoning decisions by the Planning Commission and the and Historic Site Preservation Board within this timeframe, in order to enable Councilmembers, should they wish to do so, to utilize this review opportunity.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
With the exception of the Administrative Appeals Board, most decisions of City boards and commissions are reviewable by the City Council. With regard to the Administrative Appeals Board, the City’s Municipal Code currently exempts that Board’s decisions from further review by the City Council. Specifically, PSMC section 2.50.100(f) provides, “The [Administrative Appeal] board’s decision shall constitute final administrative action and be effective on the date in which the decision is rendered.” (See also, 2.05.010, exempting AAB decisions from the appeal/review process provided in Chapter 2.05 (“Except in cases involving the administrative appeals board pursuant to Chapter 2.50 or as otherwise specifically provided by this code or other ordinances, all appeals to the City Council otherwise allowed by the code or other ordinances shall be prosecuted in accordance with this chapter [2.05]”.)
Therefore, the City Council may wish to consider extending, either formally or informally, the Planning Department’s practice of Council notification to decisions of other Boards and Commissions. This could be done formally, by means of an ordinance or resolution, or informally, by way of a motion made directing City staff to implement this process.
Item 3E - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
December 5, 2022 -- Page 3
City Council Review of Boards/Commissions Decisions
With regard to decisions of the Administrative Appeals Board, should the Council wish to make those decisions reviewable by the City Council, the City Attorney believes that an ordinance amendment, amending Chapters 2.50 and 2.05, would be necessary. Another option that the City Council has considered with respect to AAB decisions would be to amend the Municipal Code to provide that those decisions can be heard by a hearing officer.
Therefore, City staff seeks direction from Council with regard to extending the noticing procedures currently employed by the Planning Department to other Boards and Commissions, as well as any other direction the Council wishes to provide with regard to review of decisions by City Boards and Commissions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This discussion is exempt from environmental review, since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this discussion, nor any resulting direction, will have any effect on the environment.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This action is consistent with one of the Major Themes/ Principles of the City Council’s 2021/22 Strategic Plan, which is to optimize basic services and facilities. By providing timely notice to City Councilmembers, the services of the City’s boards and commissions can be optimized.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action is not likely to have any significant fiscal impacts.
REVIEWED BY:
City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
Interim City Manager: Teresa Gallavan
Item 3E - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
12/05/2022
SUBJECT:
POTENTIAL CITY ACTION TO INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide Staff direction on further City action to increase the diversity of City boards, commissions, and committees.
Attachments
Item 3F
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2022 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL CITY ACTION TO INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF CITY
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
FROM: Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney
SUMMARY:
The City Council asked the City Attorney’s and City Clerk’s Offices to research options that might be available to the City in order to increase the diversity of City boards, commissions, and committees.
This staff report provides an update on Assembly Bill (“AB”) 931 and discusses potential actions the City of Palm Springs may take to increase the diversity of City boards and commissions independently of AB 931.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Provide Staff direction on further City action to increase the diversity of City boards, commissions, and committees.
BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom approved AB 931, which enacted a new statute, Government Code section 54977. That section provides that, on and after January 1, 2030, for any city with a population of 50,000 or more:
1. The city cannot appoint members of any non-salaried, non-elected board or commission that consists of 5 or more members such that individuals of the same gender identity comprise more than 60 percent of the board or commission’s membership; and
2. Any board or commission of the city with 4 or fewer non-elected and non-salaried members cannot be comprised exclusively of people of the same gender identity.
Because Palm Springs’ population does not exceed 50,000, this State statute, by its terms, does not apply to the City.
However, even if the City Council wished to adopt a similar requirement, two recent California trial courts issued rulings relating to similar laws aimed at increasing gender, Item 3F - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
December 5, 2022 -- Page 2
Increasing Diversity of City Boards and Commissions
racial, and sexual orientation diversity on private, corporate boards cast some doubt on the constitutionality of AB 931.
However, the rulings may not preclude the City from taking other actions on its own to assess or increase the diversity of its boards and commissions.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Under AB 931, covered cities would be required, as of January 1, 2030 and thereafter, to ensure that no more than 60% of an appointed City board or commission with five (5) or more members consist of individuals with the same gender identity. (Gov. Code, § 54977, subd. (a).) Moreover, no appointed City board or commission with four (4) or fewer members could consist exclusively of individuals with the same gender identity. The only exception would be for any City “board or commission that has a primary purpose to address issues of relevance to particular gender identity.” For purposes of the statute, “gender identity” is defined as “the gender or absence of gender with which the board or commission member self-identifies, without regard to the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
The City Attorney’s Office has not yet found any active lawsuit directly challenging the legality of AB 931. However, as noted above, two recent California trial court rulings cast some doubt on the constitutionality of AB 931. Namely, on May 13, 2022, in Crest v.
Padilla, Case No. 19STCV27561 [hereinafter Crest I], a Los Angeles Superior Court judge struck down Senate Bill No. 826 (2018) (“SB 826”). SB 826 required that each publicly held company headquartered in California have at least one woman on its board of directors by the end of 2019. Moreover, shortly before the Crest I ruling, on April 1, 2022, a different Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging a different bill, Assembly Bill No. 979 (2020) (“AB 979”), in Crest v.
Padilla, Case No. 20STCV37513 [hereinafter Crest II]. AB 979 required that companies have at least one individual from an “underrepresented community,” as defined in the statute, on their boards of directors by the end of 2021.
The rulings in Crest I and Crest II were based on similar grounds. In each case, the plaintiffs alleged that the laws in question violated the Equal Protections Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, among other laws, by instituting quotas on the amount of women or other individuals from underrepresented communities that California companies must have on their boards of directors. In each case, the trial court agreed with the plaintiffs. In Crest I, the court struck down SB 826 on the basis that the state failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” because the law sought to remedy “generalized, non-specific allegations of discrimination” against women. Similarly, in Crest II, the trial court struck down AB 979 on the basis that the state did not show sufficient evidence of discrimination in any specific industry or region that could establish a compelling interest in upholding the law.
While it does not appear that AB 931 has been challenged directly yet, the rulings in Crest I and Crest II demonstrate that a court may be inclined to strike down AB 931 if the law is Item 3F - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
December 5, 2022 -- Page 3
Increasing Diversity of City Boards and Commissions
challenged in court. Specifically, a court could find that AB 931 similarly violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions by imposing quotalike rules mandating representation on local boards and commissions. Accordingly, it is possible that AB 931, and any action to directly implement the law or a local ordinance similar to AB 931, may be deemed unlawful.
However, while Crest I and Crest II cast doubt on the quota-like rules contained in AB 931, they do not prohibit the City from taking gender-neutral or race-neutral means to increase the diversity of the City’s boards or commissions. While such gender-neutral and race-neutral means may not be as effective as quota-like rules such as those contained in AB 931 are, they may help to increase representation of underrepresented communities on City boards and commissions without presenting the same constitutional issues.
Neither the City Attorney’s Office nor the City Clerk’s Office was able to locate many resources specifically dealing with methods to increase the diversity of local boards or commissions. In fact, Senate analysis of AB 931 indicated that “[s]ince there are over 500 cities and counties, each with numerous local boards and commissions, the overall gender composition of local boards and commissions is unknown.” (See Senate Rules Committee, Senate Floor Analysis, Third Reading, September 3, 2019.) However, in AB 931, the state legislature cited to an August 2018 report by the Center on Policy Initiatives titled “Community Representation Report: Boards and Commissions in the San Diego Region” (the “CPI Report”) as an example of the research demonstrating that certain local boards and commissions “were disproportionately White, male, economically advantaged, and professionally connected to the established power structure.” (See AB 931, § 1, subd. (e).) Attached to this staff report as Attachment 1 is the CPI Report.
From these resources, the City Attorney’s Office gleans the following potential actions that the City could consider to increase the diversity of City boards and commissions independently of AB 931.
To begin with, the City could conduct a study to determine the current and historical composition of its appointed boards and commissions. This may help the City more effectively evaluate which communities have been and/or are currently underrepresented on City boards and commissions. In turn, this could help the City target future efforts to increase representation more effectively.
Moreover, the CPI Report noted several “structural factors that limited diversity and full representation” on the boards and commissions in the San Diego area that the Center studied. (See CPI Report at pp. 2—3.) These factors are as follows:
1. A strong reliance on informal social networks to secure nominations;
2. Informal preference for professionals from related industries;
3. Disenfranchisement of large populations who are not U.S. citizens but are directly served by the board or commission; and
4. The lack of pay (or little pay) for members serving on boards or commissions that Item 3F - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
December 5, 2022 -- Page 4
Increasing Diversity of City Boards and Commissions
require substantial time commitments, thereby presenting a financial barrier to participation for low-income individuals.
Some of these factors may not be applicable to the City. Indeed, in 2020, the City amended its ordinance dealing with qualifications necessary to serve on City boards and commissions. Namely, the ordinance removed the requirement that City boardmembers/ commissioners be registered voters as well as City residents. Instead, the City opened up service on its boards and commissions to those who live outside the City, so long as they either work or go to school within the City.
However, the CPI Report provides some general guidance on what sorts of things the City should not do, if it wishes to increase diversity among our boards and commissions.
For example, the City Council might want to explore ways to reduce reliance on informal social networks to secure nominations to City boards and commissions. The City Council might also want to formalize a policy, clarifying that professional titles or qualifications are not necessary to serve on City boards and commissions. Finally, as the City has with its City Council salary, the City Council might wish to consider providing stipends or other related compensation to boardmembers/ commissioners, in order to ensure that any financial barriers are reduced.
In addition, the City might wish to undertake further studies to determine if any of these factors do or potentially contribute to limited diversity on City boards or commissions.
Additionally, the City could study whether any other factors not mentioned in the CPI Report contribute to a lack of diversity or representation on the appointed boards or commissions of the City. If these studies reveal that any factors are applicable to the City, the City could then consider more specific and targeted measures to counteract the applicable factors in gender-neutral or race-neutral ways.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This item is consistent with Council’s Strategic Priority under the Good Governance Section. Specifically, this staff report addressed item 4C – Reduce Barriers to Participation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact at this time.
REVIEWED BY:
City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
Interim City Manager: Teresa Gallavan
ATTACHMENTS:
A. CPI Report
Item 3F - Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
Item 3F - Page 5
1 Community Representation Report:
Boards and Commissions in the San Diego Region
A report by the Center on Policy Initiatives
August 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Appointed and elected commissions and boards have the power to make decisions that significantly affect the daily lives, opportunities, and future well-being of people living and working throughout the San Diego region. Some of these entities control millions or even billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Their policy decisions regarding services and programs often directly impact social, economic, and racial equity.
In addition, access to membership on boards and commissions provides a path to other positions in governmental leadership. Therefore, having open and equitable access to board and commission appointments helps build political power for underrepresented communities and long-term community representation at multiple levels.
The purpose of this report is to examine the levels of diversity, inclusion, and community representation on five key boards and commissions, and how successfully they are addressing the needs of underserved communities. Our goal is to present a picture of the 2018 membership and functioning of each of the five decision-making bodies, their responsiveness to the viewpoints of diverse community residents, and how accessible the boards and commissions are to community residents who might seek membership on them.
We sought to answer the following questions about each of the five entities studied:
What types of decisions does it make and what resources does it control? How diverse is the board and how representative of the population it serves? How have the levels of diversity and connection to the community affected decision-making? How are people selected for membership and what barriers exist that affect diversity? How accessible and responsive are the board members to working people and underserved communities?
Two of the five public entities examined in this report are elected boards: the Escondido Union High School District Board and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Two are appointed: the City of San Diego Planning Commission and the Port Commission of San Diego. One, the Metropolitan Transit System Board, is made up of elected officials from local cities and the County.
Item 3F - Page 6
~• --l• SAN DIEGO
~ ,: LEADERS
CENTER ON POLICY INITIATIVES
2 Methodology
The boards and commissions included in this assessment were selected by San Diego Leaders, a San Diego coalition working to empower leaders in underrepresented communities to advance social justice policy agendas and achieve positions of influence. These five boards and commissions vary in size, type and scope of work, geographic representation, and processes for seating members. Therefore, they provide a broad picture of the public leadership landscape in the region. San Diego Leaders sought to understand these five entities in order to help inform its future leadership development work.
The assessment was conducted over a span of five months, from September 2017 to January 2018. We requested interviews with all 38 current members of the five boards and commissions, and were able to conduct in-person or phone interviews with 12 of them. Many of the others, including all members of the two elected boards, ignored or refused our repeated requests for interviews.
In addition, we sought to understand the experiences community organizations and advocates have had with the commissioners and board members. We interviewed leaders of community organizations and labor unions that advocate for policy decisions by the five entities, as well as former board/commission members. All interviewees are listed in Appendix A (Board Members/Commissioners) and Appendix B (Other Interviewees). We gleaned additional information from websites and maps, budgetary information, mission statements, and other documents available online.
Summary of Findings
The 2018 membership of the five elected and appointed boards and commissions studied for this report fails to reflect the rich variety of people, cultures, and experiences that distinguish the San Diego region.
The least representative of their constituencies are the two elected boards, the Escondido Union High School District Board and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Among the entities studied, the County Board has by far the biggest budget, the highest salaries, and the most impact on the largest number of people's lives. The most diverse and representative board studied is the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) board, whose members are already elected officials as a prerequisite for membership.
In terms of race and ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic background, the decision-making bodies we studied are significantly more homogeneous than the communities they are entrusted to represent. They are disproportionately white, male, and economically secure or advantaged. Few of the incumbents on the boards and commissions have the lived experiences to fully understand and connect with the challenges facing people of color, women, low-wage workers, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and other historically underrepresented people, whether in daily life, workplaces, or interactions with local government entities.
Our research identified structural factors that limited diversity and full representation. These barriers include a strong reliance on informal social networks to secure nominations (Planning and Port commissions), informal preference for professionals from related industries (Planning Commission), and disenfranchisement of large populations who are not US citizens but are directly served by the board (Escondido Union High School District Board). In addition, membership on the boards we studied, except Item 3F - Page 7
3 for the highly paid County Board, is unpaid or includes only token pay for a considerable time commitment, presenting a significant financial barrier to participation by low-income working people.
The experience of our researchers revealed that information about how to contact members of some boards and commissions was not readily available to the general public. Even those who make their contact information public often did not respond, not even to tell us they would not participate in the study.
Many of the interviews that we did secure were at least partially due to existing relationships between board/commission members and either CPI staff or third parties who were able to provide personal referrals, indicating the inaccessibility might be even worse for members of the public without such connections.
On a positive note, we found that the Port Commission and the MTS Board have become more diverse in recent years, and that the background and experience of some board members and commissioners has helped them to genuinely listen to testimony from underserved groups and to incorporate those perspectives into their decision-making.
On the whole, our research raises concerns that important policy decisions continue to be made without consideration of diverse viewpoints, which may lead to decisions about public resources and policies that do not benefit, and may cause harm to, members of underrepresented groups and communities. -------------------------------
CONTENTS
Executive summary ........................................................................................................... page 1 City Of San Diego Planning Commission ......................................................................... page 4 Port Commission............................................................................................................... page 10 Escondido Union High School District Board ..................................................................... page 16 San Diego County Board of Supervisors .......................................................................... page 23 Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors ................................................................ page 31 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ page 38 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... page 40 Item 3F - Page 8
4 City Of San Diego Planning Commission
What the Commission Does
The City of San Diego Planning Commission advises the Mayor and City Council on decisions involving development and land use, and has final approval authority on subdivisions and many types of permits.
The commission makes recommendations on changes to the City’s General Plan and community plans, re-zonings, and related land use matters.1 The commission also plays a role in the process for prioritizing capital improvements related to land use and development projects in the City budget. Decisions made by this commission influence the lives of many San Diegans, including those who live near industrial zoning areas, need affordable housing, or hope to see local infrastructure projects funded.
Responsiveness to this Study
Four of the seven current commissioners agreed to be interviewed for this report: Vicki Granowitz, Stephen Haase, Susan Peerson, and James Whalen. The Planning Commission website did not have any contact information available for the commissioners, so we searched the internet to find such information.
We also spoke with two former commissioners and three community advocates. 2018 Members of San Diego Planning Commission
Planning
Commissioner
Council District and
Community of residence
First
appointed
Term
expires
Douglas Austin District 3, East Village 2014 2018
Vicki Granowitz District 3, North Park 2017 2021
Stephen Haase District 7, Lake Murray 2011 2019
William Hofman District 1, Carmel Valley 2016 2020
Dennis Otsuji District 5, Scripps Ranch 2017 2021
Susan Peerson District 2, Point Loma 2012 2020
James Whalen District 2, Ocean Beach 2014 2018
Indicates members who were interviewed
1 City of San Diego Planning Commission website, "About the Commission," https://www.sandiego.gov/planningcommission/about Item 3F - Page 9
Stephen Haase
Chairperson
/(
' (; I
I
~ I> ~ .. ~,
Susan Peerson
Vice-Chairperson
Douglas Austin
!:ti
, ...
...
·-· • .·ti
.:I
.,, . .
t 1 ~ .,.. 'll
~ f
William Hofman Vicki Granowitz Dennis Otsuji James Whalen 5 Membership
The Planning Commission has seven members, who are appointed to four-year terms by the Mayor of San Diego and confirmed by the City Council. The City charter states that the membership of all commissions and boards "should be diverse and reflect the entire community," and that considering the Council District where appointees live is one way to "help achieve geographical diversity."2 However, only five of the nine Council districts are represented on the current Planning Commission, with two commissioners each residing in Districts 2 and 3, and one each in Districts 1, 5, and 7. Districts 4, 6, 8, and 9 are not represented. According
to the interviewees, four of the seven
commissioners are white males, two are
white females, and one is an Asian
American male. When asked about
diversity on the commission, interviewees
also noted that there is one LGBTidentified commissioner, one who identifies as Jewish, and one who
identifies as having a disability and being
an advocate for disability rights.
Diversity and Community
Representation
The current composition of the Planning
Commission lacks diversity in gender and
racial/ethnic background, and in their
communities of residence.
Geographically, the Council districts
represented on the commission are the
northern and coastal districts, as well as
the district (D3) which includes
Downtown, while the southern districts
have no representatives on the
commission.
The commissioners disproportionately
live in neighborhoods with higher median
household income. In fact, not one of the
nine planning commissioners resides in
any of the three council districts with
median household incomes below
2 City of San Diego Council Policy 000-13, "Procedure for Mayor and Council Appointments," http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilpolicies/cpd_000-13.pdf Item 3F - Page 10
lcity of San Dieg~r.x>ndid0
Encinitas
A Planning Commissioner
- $100 ,000 and above
$75,000 - $99,999
D sso.ooo. s14.999
D so . ss9.999
N
A
n__ru-i_____n Miles
00.51 2 3 4
rrJe<: np1 ijuana Playasde
Tiiuono
Winter
Gordens
El Cajon
SO;;wou fS 5" DAG, .Sc.t'IW_!~~EficrtndAprl J, 2018 1AlllO[A'.IJH IIIKOUSZlnl 6 $60,000 (districts 4, 8, and 9) and two of them live in the wealthiest districts where median income is above $100,000 (districts 1 and 5). This lack of representation of lower-income neighborhoods on the Planning Commission suggests that planning decisions may not reflect a lived understanding of the infrastructure and redevelopment needs of poorer communities.
All the commissioners are expected to represent the entire city of San Diego. One commissioner said:
“Our constituency is the entire city, not just one district. I don’t represent one individual community.
I believe our job is to be the voice for the General Plan, to be the keepers of the General Plan, to advocate for its visions from a city-wide perspective.” Another commissioner echoed:
“You represent the entire community, the entire city. When you’re on the Planning Commission, you don’t represent anyone except for the city at large.” However, the lack of representation from lower-income districts or low-income backgrounds affects the perspectives brought to decision-making. This was recognized by one Port commissioner we interviewed, who said that while that commission also has only at-large members, his ethnicity and work background inform his consideration of issues impacting historically underrepresented communities.
Career Experience
The commission is even less diverse in terms of career backgrounds and experience. Six of the seven commissioners have backgrounds in development, and five of them have owned development-related companies, with expertise in areas including landscape architecture, planning, design, and engineering.
Although many of the current planning commissioners have experience on community planning groups, only one current commissioner comes from a background of community activism or advocacy.
Many commissioners have extensive planning experience before joining the Planning Commission. One commissioner said she spent the last 25 years doing community organizing and volunteer work. Five out of the six current and former planning commissioners interviewed had served on the board of a community planning group before being appointed to the Planning Commission.
Selection Process Issues
All seven members of the Planning Commission are appointed by the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, for each term they serve. There is a danger the commissioners therefore feel accountable to the Mayor rather than to impacted communities as they consider proposals for development projects. The current Mayor, Kevin Faulconer, has received large campaign donations from developers,3 and, as
mentioned above, most of his appointees to the Planning Commission have development-related backgrounds.
3 Jim Tinsky and Joe Yerardi, inewsource, "Search San Diego Campaign Contributions," http://data-old.inewsource.org/campaignfinance/?query=&contribution_date=&committee=FAULCONER+FOR+MAYOR+2016&contributor=&contributor_employer=&contri butor_occupation=&q=Search (most recently accessed April 3, 2018) Item 3F - Page 11
7 Interviews revealed that none of the current commissioners sought out the position; instead, all of them had close ties to someone in a position to recommend them to the mayor for the appointment. That insider system, relying on networks, severely limits the access to the commission for individuals who live or work closely with the communities that need representation. Community advocates have been scarce on the commission and the few appointed in recent years have not been reappointed. A former commissioner recalled being denied a second term "in part because I asked the hard questions and too often argued against the position put forward by the Mayor.”
Two community advocates said it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to have greater diversity of expertise, for instance with members who are tenants, environmental experts, or have other relevant community perspectives.
One barrier to membership is that Planning Commission members are not paid. One commissioner said the position requires between 5 and 20 hours a week, depending on what is on the agenda, the length of materials to read, and how long meetings last. The commission usually meets twice a month.
Accessibility to the Public
Community advocates we interviewed said the commission has overlooked community needs. Meetings that relate to a neighborhood project often are not held in the neighborhood that would be impacted.
Meetings are held during daytime work hours, when a majority of the workforce would not able to attend.
Furthermore, although the commissioners interviewed stated that translation services are always available if requested before a meeting, the community advocates interviewed said that in practice, translation services are not made readily available.
San Diego Planning Commission meeting, December 2017. L-R: Commissioners Whalen, Otsuji, Peerson, Granowitz, Austin, Hofman, three staff members, Haase
Item 3F - Page 12
8 The Planning Commission also has more strict rules against communicating with constituents than any of the other boards and commissions featured in this report.4 This, along with the City’s strict disclosure and lobbying rules, leads Planning Commissioners to discourage communication from constituents and to avoid seeking input from the community.
One commissioner said:
“We’re not allowed to actually talk to people who have projects before us, outside of public meetings. That’s considered ex-parte communication. Because of the Brown Act, open government, transparency issues, everything that we do must be in public.” Another commissioner said the rules ensure fairness:
“The rules of the Planning Commission prohibit any ex-parte communication outside of the hearings. Such communication may influence my ability to be fair and impartial. We do not talk to individuals, communities, or applicants. To ensure a fair and transparent process, these communications should occur in a public fashion, either written or at a public hearing. If ex-parte communication inadvertently occurs, we’re required to disclose it at the hearing.” Commissioners base decisions largely on information compiled for them by staff or provided through public testimony. Before the commission votes on a project, there is an opportunity for developers, community planning groups, and members of the public to present their arguments and perspectives at a public meeting. Given the commissioners’ racial, geographic, and professional backgrounds, most of them may be more familiar and comfortable with the arguments and concerns of developers than those expressed by members of underserved communities.
“It’s difficult for them to understand what the community is saying to them,” said a former commissioner. "They’re not bad people. They just work in a field where they understand the issues developers face better than those of the community.”
Impacts on Decisions
The current commissioners are frequently "conflicted out" of voting, meaning they are legally restricted from participating in commission decisions, because their connections to developers or other interested parties create potential conflicts of interest. News coverage noted examples of where such conflicts led commissioners Susan Peerson5 and Douglas Austin to recuse themselves from Planning Commission decisions.6 As one interviewee put it:
“Too many commissioners end up conflicted out. The way that the ethics and city attorney narrowly defines economic interest makes this difficult. It appears only two commissioners will not be conflicted out on the Mission Valley community plan update. That’s a real problem.”
4 “The Permanent Rules of the Planning Commission,” adopted January 29, 2015, states (section 3.2): “it shall be the policy of the Commission to avoid ex parte communication. Contact with applicants, appellants, citizen groups or other parties outside of the noticed hearing is considered ex parte communication.” https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/rules-attach1.pdf 5 Dorian Hargrove, San Diego Reader, "Potential conflict of interest for planning commissioner whose spouse works at land-use consultant firm?," May 2, 2013, https://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/may/02/planning-commissioner-suepeersons-spouse-employme/# 6 Matt Potter, San Diego Reader, "Manchester gets his man on planning commission," April 28, 2014, https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/apr/28/ticker-manchester-gets-his-man-planning-commission/ Item 3F - Page 13
9 At least two projects in 2017 were approved with a bare quorum of four commissioners while three others were recused because of conflicts: the Stone Age Farmacy in Mission Valley and an office complex on Towne Centre Drive.
Not only do direct conflicts of interest sometimes restrict planning commissioners from performing their job, but in other cases their backgrounds and ties to the industry may also influence their perception of testimony and potentially their decisions impacting low-income communities and communities of color.
The commission voted on December 7, 2017, to support the new Pacific Village redevelopment project in Rancho Penasquitos. This redevelopment project, which was subsequently approved by the City Council on March 5, will demolish 332 existing affordable housing units to build more than 600 luxury condos and market-rate apartments. One commissioner said she feared the loss of the affordable apartments could increase homelessness, and several others agreed that San Diego needs more affordable housing. Yet the vote to support the redevelopment was 5-1 with 1 abstention.
A community advocate who engages with the commission on the preservation of affordable housing also said the commissioners’ professional ties to developers have colored their decisions to approve other building projects. "They are very much biased towards development, even if it doesn’t meet the community plan, the needs of our community,” he said. “They’re not supposed to be there to rubberstamp whatever the developers want.”
Item 3F - Page 14
10 Port of San Diego Board of Port Commissioners
What the Commission Does
The Port of San Diego is an independent agency created by state law to manage the tidelands along the bay shore of five cities: San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Coronado, and Imperial Beach.7 The Port Commission is responsible for protecting and administering San Diego Bay and the surrounding waterfront lands, which is among the most industrialized areas of San Diego. Its mission is to provide “economic vitality and community benefit through a balanced approach to maritime industry, tourism, water and land recreation, environmental stewardship and public safety.”8 The Port’s jurisdiction covers 5,408 acres, making it the fourth largest of the 11 ports in California. It includes two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, three shipyards, and 22 public parks. It has about 600 tenants, including 18 hotels and several major industries, with considerable impact on employment and air and water quality.
9 The tidelands are also separated into nine subdivisions, each identified as Port Districts with their own “Precise Plans.”10 A majority of the Port’s total revenue comes from rents, fees, and service charges. These include: rent from tenants and for storage space; concession revenues from hotels, marinas, retail centers, restaurants, and parking lot facilities; parking fees and revenue from meters and citations; passenger security fees, wharfage fees, and dockage fees. A majority of Port expenditures are on salaries and wages for personnel, pension and post-employment benefits, and contractual services. In FY 2018, the Port’s total operating budget was about $223 million dollars.
The Port Commission makes decisions that impact a wide range of concerns including water, land, traffic, and air quality for the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as what industries develop the tidelands space, and how public spaces in the area are used.
7 California Tidelands: Lands Held in the Public Trust, https://www.portofsandiego.org/document/about-port-of-san-diegodocuments/2196-california-tidelands-land-held-in-public-trust/file.html 8 Port of San Diego Overview, https://www.portofsandiego.org/about-us.html 9 Port of San Diego Overview
10 San Diego Unified Port District, "Port Master Plan," 2017, p. 41, https://www.portofsandiego.org/document/environment/landuse-planning/4729-port-master-plan-1/file.html Item 3F - Page 15
Rafael
Castellanos
City of San Diego
Chair
Garry J. Bonelli
City of
Coronado
Vice Chair
Ann Moore
City of Chula
Vista
Secretary
Dan Malcolm
City of Imperial
Beach
Marshall
Merrifield
City of San
Diego
Robert "Dukie•
Valderrama
National City
Mike Zucchet
City of San
Diego
11 Responsiveness to this Study
Four of the seven Port commissioners agreed to be interviewed for this report: Garry Bonelli, Rafael Castellanos, Mike Zucchet, and Robert “Dukie” Valderrama. We also interviewed three former commissioners and staff from two community organizations.
Port Commissioner Community Year Appointed Term Expiration Rafael Castellanos
Chair
City of San Diego, District 8 January 2013
January 2017
January 2017
January 2021
Garry J. Bonelli
Vice Chair
City of Coronado January 2014 January 2018
Ann Moore
Secretary
City of Chula Vista January 2011
January 2015
January 2015
January 2019
Dan Malcolm City of Imperial Beach January 2011
January 2015
January 2015
January 2019
Marshall Merrifield City of San Diego, District 1 January 2013 January 2017
January 2017
January 2021
Robert “Dukie” Valderrama National City February 2005 January 2010
January 2017
January 2009
January 2013
January 2021
Michael Zucchet City of San Diego, District 3 January 2017 January 2019 Indicates members who were interviewed
Membership
The Port Commission has seven members, each appointed to a four-year term. In an attempt to fairly represent the five cities that are impacted by the tidelands, one commissioner is appointed by each of the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, and three are appointed by the San Diego City Council. The Port commissioners must be residents of the cities they represent at the time of appointment and throughout the term of office. They are also expected to report back to their respective city councils.11
Diversity and Community Representation
While the current Port Commission is not fully representative of the diverse communities along the tidelands, the changing demographics on the board increasingly reflect the diversity of the nominating cities. The current board includes four White men, two Latino men, and one mixed-Asian woman,
11 San Diego Unified Port District, "Port Master Plan," 2017, p. 2-3.
Item 3F - Page 16
12 according to interviewees. The three commissioners from the City of San Diego live in Districts 1, 3, and 8; only one of them lives within two miles of lands under Port jurisdiction. None of the other commissioners from Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, or Chula Vista live in or near areas of potential environmental risk from industrial uses of Port-managed lands. However, National City Port Commissioner Valderrama said he has lived and his child attended school near the Port’s working waterfront.
The requirement of having one commissioner appointed from each of four cities (Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City) and three commissioners from the larger City of San Diego produces geographical diversity, but may not result in racial and gender diversity on the board.
Port Commission: Race/Ethnicity of board compared to all cities together and separately The people of color currently on the Port Commission have been appointed by cities that have majority non-White populations and city councils that reflect this diversity. On the other hand, Imperial Beach is majority Latino but has a city council that appears to be all White, and Imperial Beach’s appointee to the Port is also White. Chula Vista and National City also have majority Latino populations,12 a demographic which is well represented in the National City and Chula Vista city councils. The two Latino Port commissioners represent National City (65% Latino population) and San Diego (30% Latino population), while the one commissioner of Asian descent represents Chula Vista (15% Asian population). The City of San Diego has also grown more racially and ethnically diverse. Currently the non-Hispanic White
12 US Census Bureau, 2016 5-year American Community Survey, Table B03002: “HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE” 57%
42%
75%
43%
32%
19%
10%
29%
32%
15%
30% 51%
59%
65%
14%
17%
3%
17%
9%
15% 19%
6% 4% 6% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other Race(s)
African
American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Latino
White
Item 3F - Page 17
•
•
•
•
•
13 population is a minority (43%), while Latinos make up 30%, Asians make up 17%, and African-Americans make up 6% of the population. The San Diego City Council has also grown increasingly diverse, particularly in its representation of Latino/Latinas and Asians.
Career Experience
Three of the seven current Port commissioners are lawyers with practice areas that include commercial real estate, and two of them have worked with both governmental agencies and developers in processing development projects. The other four commissioners include two business owners, a retired Navy SEAL and Rear Admiral, and one labor union representative.
Selection Process Issues
The Port Commission is a highly competitive appointment for the City of San Diego seats. Successful candidates usually have a good working relationship with either city councilmembers or labor leaders. One former commissioner said their appointment was blocked the first time they were up for appointment although they had hundreds of letters of support. “Everyone supported me but labor.” Of the other three interviewees who were appointed to City of San Diego seats, two were supported by labor and the third said they had a good working relationship with a number of city councilmembers. One of them, a firstgeneration college graduate from a working immigrant family, said having mentors and allies was critical to obtaining the appointment.
Port commissioners are not paid, and one commissioner estimated the time required for board duties varies from 5 to 20 hours a week. The board meets monthly.
Accessibility to the Public
The commissioners interviewed for this report acknowledged the importance of engaging and being accessible to community members and advocacy organizations. For instance, they said several Port commissioners meet with the Environmental Health Coalition and their community leaders on a monthly basis, which represents an improvement in community relations since the 1990s.
In another example, one commissioner said he changed his mind to support expansion of National City’s Pepper Park after listening to National City residents and learning that the expansion was a good balance of providing infrastructure for National City’s Marina District and increasing park space access for residents.
We also found a commonality in the interviews with the commissioners on the challenge of accountability to the communities affected by their decisions. They generally agreed that being held accountable to their constituency is difficult because the types of decisions made by the Port Commission are not well known.
One commissioner suggested increased outreach to constituents may help increase accountability. Two commissioners said the challenge stemmed from being an appointed rather than elected position, with one suggesting that it should not be a political appointment.
Item 3F - Page 18
14 Impacts on Decisions
The current Port Commission is more diverse than in the past and there are signs that this change has made their decision-making more responsive to the community. Interviewees said the Port in recent years has improved its efforts to clean up the bay, hold companies responsible for limiting pollution, and require project developers to hire locally.
A current commissioner explained how his life experience shapes his approach to decision-making, acknowledging the importance of representing communities that have been neglected in the past:
“Because of who I am, my background, my origin, I can relate to a particular set of the constituency that has been historically underrepresented. When making all decisions, I am able to take into account the interests of communities that have never had a voice that reflects or addresses their interests. You can’t make decisions for everyone if you don’t take into consideration the most vulnerable.”
Two commissioners said personal
experiences have increased their
understanding of environmental
issues. One commissioner was
exposed to chemicals when working in
the gold mining industry and another
grew up near the tidelands in National
City and has a son with asthma.
Community advocates said the
commission is more responsive now
than it was 20 years ago to the
concerns of the impacted low-income
communities of color, although there is
still room for improvement. Back in
1998, the San Diego grand jury
slammed the Port Commission for a
pattern of promoting waterfront
developments while failing to protect against environmental harms. 13 In 1992, the Port had ignored
objections from Barrio Logan residents and the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) and started fumigating imported fruit at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal with methyl bromide, a toxic pesticide. The terminal is less than a mile from Perkins Elementary School, where many of the 900 students began complaining of headaches, nausea, breathing problems, and other effects of methyl bromide exposure.
The Port installed an emissions control system that never worked, and then sued the school district and the EHC to make them stop complaining.14 The Port finally agreed in 1997 to stop the toxic fumigation at the terminal.15
13 Anthony Millican, “Grand jury accuses port of a lack of focus on environmental issues," The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 18, 1998.
14 Anthony Millican, “Fumigation foes dealt a blow in court”, The San Diego Union Tribune, June 10, 1997 15 Mark Arner, “Neighbors elated by victory over port fumigation”, The San Diego Union Tribune, July 30, 1997 Item 3F - Page 19
15 At that time, an interviewee said, the then-commissioners sometimes questioned the presence of community members, primarily women and children, attending the Port meetings with Spanish translators, and described the translators as a nuisance.
One labor representative we interviewed said the Port Commission still does not provide translation at its meetings, but the commissioners are more accessible than those of many other boards. "We've worked closely with the commissioners," the interviewee said. "I believe they are committed to communities that have higher unemployment and have less access to quality jobs. We can always do better, though." The 2016 proposal to expand the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal is one example of the Port Commission responding to community input. The initial proposal would have increased cargo traffic passing through the terminal by 600%. In response to a petition signed by more than 500 Barrio Logan residents and a threat by EHC to sue over increased pollution, the proposal was modified to limit the traffic increase to 400%, with additional mitigation measures such as electrifying equipment to limit pollution. Neighborhood residents will be negatively affected by that increase, but it is a reduction from the original proposal.
Item 3F - Page 20
16 Escondido Union High School District Board
What the Board Does
The Escondido Union High School District (EUHSD) Board of Trustees is the educational policy-making body for the school district. The district includes seven secondary schools in the Escondido region. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the district had nearly 9,600 students and 412 classroom teachers.16 The five board members are elected to serve four-year terms.
According to the district website, the board is in charge of nine strategic areas of focus: curriculum and instruction, character-building, school climate, personnel and employee relations, management and administration, fiscal planning, maintenance and operations, facilities planning, and community relations.
The primary goal is to: “provide a quality life-long education for all individuals in a safe, harmonious environment. In partnership with the staff, parents, and community, individuals will be guaranteed the opportunity to develop their unique potential.” 17
The District’s budget is based on its annual action plan, which is prepared by the Superintendent and approved by the board each year. Like most California public school districts, a large majority of EUHSD revenue comes from state funding, although the District does receive some federal and local funds.
Similarly, a large majority of expenditures are on personnel costs, including certificated and classified salaries, and employee benefits. The District’s 2016-2017 Estimated Actual Budget indicated $103 million in spending, which is directed by the Board.18
Responsiveness to this Study
None of the Escondido Union High School District Board members could be reached for this study. All five trustees were contacted through their school district email addresses with requests for interviews, and school district staff also were contacted for help in reaching board members.
16 National Center for Education Statistics, “District Directory Information," https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0612910&details=1 (last accessed April 3, 2018) 17 Escondido Union HSD, "Goals for the School District," adopted March 15, 1994, http://www.gamutonline.net/district/escondidohigh/DisplayPolicy/139509/0 18 Escondido Union HSD, “2017-2018 Adopted Budget,” accessed through https://www.euhsd.org/departments/businessservices/finance/budget/ Item 3F - Page 21
Christi Knight,
Trustee Area 3, President
Jon Petersen,
Trustee Area 5,
Vice President
Bill Durney,
Trustee Area 2,
Clerk
Tina Pope,
Trustee Area 1,
Member
Dane White,
Trustee Area 4 , Member
17 We did not receive any
responses from any board
member, despite repeated
attempts throughout the five
months of this research
project. The following
assessment is thus based
entirely on supplementary
research.
Membership
Each of the five board
members is elected by
voters who live in a specific
geographic area within the
district.
The board members are paid
$2,880 a year. In addition,
they each receive about
$20,000 in health insurance
and retirement benefits.19
2018
EUHSD Board Member Community
Year First
elected
Term
Expires
Christi Knight, President Trustee Area 3 2013* 2020
Jon Peterson, Vice President Trustee Area 5 2002 2018
Bill Durney, Clerk Trustee Area 2 2014 2018
Tina Pope Trustee Area 1 2004 2018
Dane White Trustee Area 4 2016 2020
* Appointed to fill a vacancy in 2013.
19 Transparent California, “2016 Salaries For Escondido Union High,” https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2016/schooldistricts/san-diego/escondido-union-high/ Item 3F - Page 22
l
Escondido Union High School District
Trustee Areas
3 r···············
-·:--·: ....
-~.,....;·i
-
0 Tn. A.mu.
I
.
St...-~. ··:c.-... 111-
18 Diversity and Community Representation
The current board composition does not reflect the diversity of its student population or the overall city demographics. All five trustees including three women and two men, appear from photos to be White.
Since none of them agreed to be interviewed, we were unable to ask about their self identification.20 The student population of the district is racially diverse and becoming more so. In the 2016-2017 academic year, a substantial majority (63%) of enrolled students identified as Hispanic/Latino, while 27% identified as White, 3% as Asian, 2% as Black or African American, and 2% as Filipino. 21 Overall in the City of Escondido, 53% of the population identified as Latino, 33% identified as White, 3% as AfricanAmerican, 3% as Filipino, and 6% as other Asian/Pacific Islander. 22 Escondido Union High School District: Race/Ethnicity of Board, Population, and Students The District’s current demographics are the result of a significant transformation over time. The student body was majority White until 2003 and shifted to 63% Latino majority by 2016. Since the demographics of
20 Information was compiled from interviews with local unions and organizations. 21 Kidsdata.org, "Public School Enrollment, by Race/Ethnicity," 2016 data, http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/36/publicschoolenrollmentrace/Bar#fmt=451&loc=1232,368&tf=88&pdist=73&ch=7,11,621,85,10,72,9,73&sort=loc 22 US Census Bureau, 2016 1-year American Community Survey, Table B03002 “HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE” & Table CP05 “Comparative Demographic Estimates”.
27%
33%
100%
63% 53%
3%
6%
3%
3%
2%
3%
2%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Students Escondido
Population
Board of Trustees
African American
Filipino
Other Race(s)
Other Asian/Pacific
Islander
Latino
White
Item 3F - Page 23
•
•
•
•
•
•
19 the Board of Trustees have not undergone similar changes over time, the decisions for how the district will serve its Latino majority student body are made by an all-White board.
Latino and White student populations of Escondido Union High School District, 1994-2016 While the student population has reached 63% Latino and the population of the City of Escondido is 53% Latino, the electorate which selects the school board is, itself, less representative of the Latino population.
Although the boundaries of the city and school district are not exactly the same, we note that data from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters indicates that only 27% of registered voters in the City of Escondido are Latino.23 This is due partly to the fact that 45% of voting age Latinos are not US citizens and thus not eligible to vote in school board elections under current District policies. This is exacerbated by somewhat lower levels of voter registration among Latino voting age US citizens: 65% compared to 85% of nonLatinos.24 As the current Latino student (under 18) population ages, the share of the Latino population eligible to register to vote will increase, as the Latino population under 18 is 94% US citizens.25
23 San Diego County Registrar of Voters, “Report of Registration – Latino/Hispanic Voter Totals” as of April 2, 2018. Available at http://www.sdvote.com/content/rov/en/reportquery.html
24 These figures are based on San Diego County Registrar’s estimates of the number of Latino voters in the City of Escondido.
This data may underestimate the share of registered voters who are Latino, in which case the difference in registration rates would be smaller.
25 US Census Bureau, 2016 5-year American Community Survey, Table B05003I: “SEX BY AGE BY NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS (HISPANIC OR LATINO)”
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Latino White
Item 3F - Page 24
....... .......
20 Career Experience
Though a majority of current board trustees cite the fact that they graduated from the district as a qualification for the board, only one of the five has direct experience in the field of education: Peterson was a principal in Valley Center.26 Knight is the Senior Policy Advisor for County Supervisor Kristin Gaspar27 and previously worked as a policy advisor for County Supervisor Bill Horn.28 Durney is the founder and chief executive of an IT business,29 while Pope works in fundraising for the Palomar Health District and has a history as an active parent volunteer.30 White’s campaign website said he had worked in the construction field and as a manager in substance abuse treatment facilities.31 Selection Process Issues
It is common for Escondido Union trustees to run unopposed for re-election. Three of the five current members have won by default, with the elections cancelled for lack of an opponent: Jon Peterson in 2010, Tina Pope in both 2010 and 2014, and Christi Knight both in 2014 and 2016.32 As with other boards and commissions, networks appear to play an important role in the membership of this board. When Kurt Marler, a practicing dentist and Trustee of Area 3, resigned from the board in 2013 to lead a Mormon missionary in Peru, the board decided to appoint a replacement despite objections from community members who requested a special election to fill the slot. The applicants included two attorneys and Knight. The board selected Knight, who at the time held an associate degree from MiraCosta College and had been working with County Supervisor Horn for five years.33 Accessibility to the Public
The board meets monthly in the evenings, in addition to occasional special meetings. One interviewee who represents a union of district teachers reported very limited access to the board members: "When we reach out to them, they decline to meet with us. I have to go through the superintendent." He also said the board often makes decisions by approving a consent calendar, a term used by many governments for a list of items decided together in a single vote, with no public discussion.
26 League of Women Voters, SmartVoter.org, "Full Biography for John Peterson," 2014. http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/sd/vote/petersen_j/bio.html 27 Supervisor Kristin Gaspar - Third District, homepage, http://www.supervisorkristingaspar.com/content/d3/home/about/staff.html 28 Gary Warth, "Former student rep returns to board," The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 27, 2013. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sdut-christi-knight-escondido-trustee-2013aug27-story.html 29 Rancho Computer Networks website, https://www.ranchocomputers.com/about/ 30 Tanya Rodrigues, "Children, ‘giving back’ focus for Pope," The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 28, 2004. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-children-giving-back-focus-for-pope-2004sep28-story.html 31 Archive of a closed website, https://www.danemwhite.com. A LinkedIn page for Dane White in Escondido lists his occupation as House Manager at Soverign [sic] Health, but staff at Sovereign Health, a treatment facility in Rancho San Diego, said he does not work there. Information on White’s Facebook page says only that he is enrolled at Brigham Young University. 32 Ballotpedia, "Escondido Union High School District elections (2014)," https://ballotpedia.org/Escondido_Union_High_School_District_elections_(2014) 33 Christi Knight LinkedIn page, https://www.linkedin.com/in/christiknight/ Item 3F - Page 25
21 “The problem is, most of the decisions are done on consent calendar," he said. “So I don’t know if there are deliberations. When there are items that they’re discussing, there should be more deliberations in open forums."
Impacts on Decisions
The Escondido Union High School District is a diverse urban school district, yet its board has been less willing than those in similar districts to tackle social issues in the interests of students.
For example, the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) board, which is more diverse than the Escondido board, has taken stances on national policy measures and decisions to better serve the students. The San Diego board released a statement supporting immigrant students and passed a resolution urging the White House to preserve the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects immigrants who were brought to the US as children.
The Sweetwater High School District is another board that has taken actions similar to those in San Diego.
The Sweetwater board passed a resolution in 2016 supporting a safe and inclusive district for all students, supporting DACA recipients, and committing to keep schools free of U.S. Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).34 Following federal threats to DACA this year, the board again stated that
34 Sweetwater Union High School District website, "Board of Trustees sign resolution advocating and protecting all students," December 13, 2016. http://www.sweetwaterschools.org/board-of-trustees-sign-resolution-advocating-and-protecting-all-students/ Escondido Union High School District board members at a meeting in 2018, L-R: Petersen, Durney, White, Pope, and Knight
Item 3F - Page 26
22 students have the right to attend school without the fear of detention and/or deportation. The Sweetwater board includes two Latinos.
However, we could find no record of similar actions by the Escondido board that would reflect the needs and priorities of many of the district’s students and families, despite the fact that 63% of the District’s students are Latino and 30% of residents of the City of Escondido are immigrants.35 Those needs are particularly strong in the City of Escondido because of a record of anti-immigrant policy decisions at the municipal level. The Escondido City Council passed an ordinance outlawing the renting of homes to undocumented people.36 The Escondido Planning Commission also rejected permits to use a former nursing home as a federally-funded shelter for children seeking asylum.37 The City of Escondido later paid $550,00 to settle a discrimination lawsuit over the denial of permits.38 Moreover, the Escondido Police department has agreed to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement to transfer detainees into federal custody.39 Despite operating in a city the San Diego Union-Tribune says “has earned a reputation for being tough on unauthorized immigrants”,
40 the school board has not gone as far as other local districts in adopting policies to support and protect immigrant students and their families.
35 US Census Bureau, 2016 1-year American Community Survey, Table B05003: SEX BY AGE BY NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS
36 David Fried, "Escondido council approves illegal immigrant rental ban," The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 5, 2006. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-escondido-council-approves-illegal-immigrant-2006oct05-story.html 37 Jill Replogle, "Escondido planning commission rejects shelter for immigrant children," KPBS Radio News, June 25, 2014. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jun/25/escondido-planning-commission-votes-down-shelter-i/ 38 Doug Porter, "Discrimination lawsuit over rejecting refugee children taps Escondido treasury," San Diego Free Press, May 26, 2017. https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/05/discrimination-lawsuit-rejecting-refugee-children-taps-escondido-treasury/ 39 Kristina Davis, "Escondido police agreed to cooperate with immigration authorities, win $250K federal grant," The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 6, 2017. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-escondido-grant1-story.html 40 Kristina Davis, "Escondido police agreed to cooperate with immigration authorities, win $250K federal grant," The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 6, 2017. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-escondido-grant1-story.html Item 3F - Page 27
23 San Diego County Board of Supervisors
What the Board Does
The Board of Supervisors, a five-member elected board,41 is the legislative and executive authority of the County of San Diego, which has a population of 3.3 million people. The board oversees most County departments and programs and approves their budgets, controls, land use in unincorporated areas, and appropriates money for programs to provide safety net and other services for county residents. These programs affect everyone living in the county, especially those who live in unincorporated areas around and between city borders.
The County Board controls the budget for all County operations and programs, which totaled $5.79 billion in FY 2017-2018.
42 Major program areas in the budget include Public Safety, Capital Program, General Government, Finance, Health and Human Services, Land Use and Environment, and Community Services.
The County Supervisors are among the most highly paid local officials, with salaries roughly double those of San Diego City Councilmembers.43 Each board member is paid $172,450 a year, since the Supervisors voted themselves a 12.5% raise in 2017 over community objections.44 In addition, the Supervisors receive health insurance and retirement benefits averaging about $69,000 a year as of 2016.45 Responsiveness to this Study
Not one of the five Supervisors agreed to an interview within our five-month study. Repeated attempts were made to contact all of them by email and phone, but three of the supervisors never responded and
41 County of San Diego, “Board of Supervisors,” https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/general/bos.html 42 County of San Diego, “County of San Diego: Adopted Operational Plan, Fiscal Years 2017-18 & 2018-19,” https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_17-19.pdf 43 California State Controller website, “Government Compensation in California,” http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/ElectedOfficials.aspx
44 Allison St. John, “Despite Opposition, County Supervisors Vote to Increase Their Salaries,” KPBS Radio News, January 10, 2017. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jan/10/despite-opposition-county-supervisors-vote-increas/ 45 Transparent California, "2016 Salaries for San Diego County,” https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2016/san-diego-county/ Item 3F - Page 28
Greg Cox
District 1
Dianne Jacob
District 2
Chair
Kristin Gaspar
District 3
Vice Chair
Ron Roberts
District 4
Bill Horn
District 5
24 the other two declined to be interviewed. This report’s analysis is based on interviews with community groups, labor unions, and one Board of Supervisors staff member who requested anonymity.
Membership
The Supervisors are elected by district to four-year terms. Four of the five current supervisors have been on the board for more than 20 years – at least six terms each. In 2010, voters approved a ballot measure limiting county supervisors to two terms, meaning incumbents each were allowed two more terms.
Board Member Community Year Elected Term Expiration
Greg Cox District 1 1995 (6th term) 2020
Dianne Jacob District 2, Chair 1992 (7th term) 2020
Kristin Gaspar District 3, Vice Chair 2017 (1st term) 2020 Ron Roberts District 4 1995 (6th term) 2018
Bill Horn District 5 1995 (6th term) 2018
San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting, February 2018. L-R: Kristin Gaspar, County CAO Helen Robbins-Meyer, Dianne Jacob, Greg Cox, Bill Horn, Ron Roberts Item 3F - Page 29
25 Diversity and Community Representation
The San Diego County Board is all White, and has been for decades. The current membership of the board includes two women and three men.46
While less than half (46%) of the County population is White, the County Board of Supervisors is 100% White.47
The board does not reflect the racial and economic demographics of its constituencies, which include Latino, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander American, and other communities Each of the five supervisors is elected to represent a district of between 600,000 and 631,000 people. Cox represents a variety of multicultural neighborhoods in District 1.48 In District 2, the largest geographically,
46 Information was compiled from interviews.
47 United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, San Diego County, California 2012-2016 48 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Greg Cox,” http://www.gregcox.com/content/d1/en/gregcox/bio.html Item 3F - Page 30
Race/Ethnicity of San Di,ego County Po,pul.atiio•n and Boa1rd of Su1pervisor-s Coun1ty Populiaition IBoard of Supervisoli"S
26 Jacob represents East County residents spread out over 2,000 square miles. District 3, where Gaspar was elected in 2017, includes the coastal cities of Encinitas and Del Mar to Escondido. Roberts’ District 4 is mostly within the City of San Diego, and Roberts’ webpage says it is “considered the most ethnically diverse district.”49 Horn’s District 5 has a diverse population and covers 1,800 square miles of North San Diego County, including Camp Pendleton.
Household income by census tract in San Diego County, and location of Supervisors’ residences Career Experience
The San Diego County Board has been a career for most of its current members, as all but one have been on the board for almost a quarter-century. All five current supervisors have previous experience in elected office: Cox served as Councilmember and Mayor of Chula Vista;50 Jacob was a Jamul-Dulzura Union School District Board Member for 17 years,51 and was Chief of Staff for Supervisor George Bailey52;
49 County of San Diego, “San Diego County Board of Supervisors - Fourth District Profile,” http://www.ronroberts.com/content/d4/en/about/profile.html 50 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Greg Cox,” http://www.gregcox.com/content/d1/en/gregcox/bio.html 51 County of San Diego, “Dianne Jacob, County Supervisor,” http://www.diannejacob.com/content/d2/home/about/her-story.html 52 Anne Krueger, “East County’s elder statesman,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, March 14, 2009. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-1sz14bailey22514-east-countys-elder-statesman-2009mar14-htmlstory.html Item 3F - Page 31
Median Household Income
by Census Tract
D so - ss9,999
D 560,000 - s14 ,999
- 575,000 - 599,999
- S100,000 and above * County Supervisor Residence
N
IU\J""7.....J"7u 012 • e a SoU"CII~ [SRI. SA DAG , U.S. Ceqsus &lrmu I C«!.-cd lf>n1 10. 2018 JhJfla. AnJeert:1 t<wr Sd'I 27 Gaspar was a Councilmember and Mayor of Encinitas53; Roberts was chairperson of the City of San Diego Planning Commission and was a City Councilmember;54 and Horn served as an Escondido Union High School District Board Member for 3 years.55
While the County Board is elected from the five different geographic districts, the board’s socio-economic backgrounds are not representative of the County as a whole. Jacob’s family are ranch landowners in eastern San Diego.56 Cox owned businesses in the private sector.57 Gaspar was Chief Financial Officer of her physical therapy company.58 Horn owns a business and a farm.59 Roberts was managing partner at an architecture firm.60 The Supervisors’ backgrounds are not representative of the occupational distribution of county residents, many of whom work for hourly wages in service industries.
Selection Process Issues
The long tenure of
the supervisors has
been a community
concern - four of the
five Supervisors have
served 23 or more
years on the board,
yet showed no
interest in retiring
until term limits were
imposed by voters in
2010. Community
members who
advocated for limiting
the Supervisors to
two terms argued that the measure would lead to increased diversity on the board, and that new candidates would contribute to the “kind of real discussion about county policy and direction that has been absent in recent years.61
Measure B passed with 68% of county voters in favor, making San Diego the 7th
53 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Kristin Gaspar,”
http://www.supervisorkristingaspar.com/content/d3/home/about/supervisor_gaspar.html 54 Smart Voter, "Full Biography for Ron Roberts,” June 8, 2010. http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/sd/vote/roberts_r/bio.html 55 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Bill Horn-District 5, About Bill Horn” http://www.billhorn.com/content/d5/index/about/billhorn.html 56 County of San Diego, “Dianne Jacob, County Supervisor,” http://www.diannejacob.com/content/d2/home/about/her-story.html 57 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Greg Cox,” http://www.gregcox.com/content/d1/en/gregcox/bio.html 58 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Kristin Gaspar,”
http://www.supervisorkristingaspar.com/content/d3/home/about/supervisor_gaspar.html 59 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Bill Horn- District 5, State of the County Speech,” February 10, 2015. http://www.billhorn.com/content/d5/index/news/news-stories/state-of-the-county.html 60 Smart Voter, "Full Biography for Ron Roberts,” June 8, 2010. http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/sd/vote/roberts_r/bio.html 61 Ballotpedia, “San Diego County Supervisor Term Limits, Measure B (June 2010),” https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_County_Supervisor_Term_Limits,_Measure_B_(June_2010 Item 3F - Page 32
01$lnCI 1 &-.Cm
Dlslricl 2 Dllnne.Jllmb
Pam ... -Prlca OJVC.Roberb t rct'n G.:o p,.,t Ols1ric1 3 1999 2013-2017 20 17-20 20 OislriCI 4 llanllabeds
Distnct 5 • IHam
28 county in California to impose term limits on supervisors. Since this was not retroactive, Supervisors Cox, Jacob, Roberts and Horn are still serving on the board. Gaspar was the first supervisor to beat an incumbent in 32 years.62 The rest of the supervisors will have served for more than 23 years when they are finally legally required to step down.
Accessibility to the Public
Interviewees noted a lack of access to the board meetings due to transportation challenges and the fact that the meetings are scheduled during regular work hours on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. The board held special night hearings on the County budget in 2016 and 2017, so that working people could attend, but will not do so in 2018. At a board meeting in February, Supervisor Bill Horn, who cannot run for reelection because of the term limits, said he opposed having an after-hours hearing because it was inconvenient for him.
“If you’re a concerned citizen … you could make the time to come down here to testify,” Horn said. “I don’t want to sit here at night.”63
Interviewees also said the Supervisors have not been receptive to meetings with nonprofits, faith-based organizations, unions, and community groups outside the regular board meetings.
Impacts on Decisions
While some supervisors cite blue-collar origins, the interviewees reported that the supervisors’ policies have not reflected policy priorities of working families, individuals of color, and marginalized communities.
Research studies,64,65 media investigations,66 and grand jury reports have criticized the County for its record on addressing homelessness, veteran’s services, restorative justice, affordable housing, mental health programs, refugee and immigrant assistance, and access to County services such as CalFresh, MediCal, and Calworks.67
For example, according to research by the Center on Policy Initiatives, these last three programs have continued to be under-enrolled for many years. The under-enrollment has meant that eligible county residents have missed out on about $714 million a year in assistance that would have been available from state and federally-funded programs. If these critical social services had been used, it would have meant the creation of $905 million in economic activity and about 6,450 new jobs in the county.68 For a county
62 County of San Diego, “Supervisor Kristin Gaspar.”
63 Jeff McDonald, “County decides against evening meeting on budget. ‘I don’t want to sit here at night,’ Horn said,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 13, 2018. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-night-meetings-20180213- story.html
64 Open Society Foundations, “P100 Costly Home Searches—Where’s the Fraud?” 2014. http://www.pilpca.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/P100-Final-Report.pdf 65 Food Research and Action Center, “SNAP Access in Urban America,” 2011. http://voiceofsandiego.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/4d472673a130d.pdf.pdf 66 Rose Institute of State and Local Government, “Comparing San Diego County Services: A Twelve-County Analysis,” February 2010. http://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/app/pdf/girardfoundation_finalreport_022010.pdf 67 Center on Policy Initiatives, “The Economic Costs of San Diego County’s Ongoing Safety Net Failure,” 2015. https://www.cpisandiego.org/reports/safety_net_failure/ 68 CPI, "The Economic Costs of San Diego County's Ongoing Safety Net Failure." Item 3F - Page 33
29 with areas of high poverty in San Diego, El Cajon, Vista and Escondido, this aid would have been beneficial in alleviating economic hardships.
The County Board’s budget priorities often have been out of step with the needs identified by community organizations. In the budget for fiscal year 2016, sixty-one percent of spending approved by the board went for the Sheriff's Department, jails, and other parts of the criminal justice system. Community services received only 2% of the budget.
The County has continued to stockpile cash reserves, supposedly for a "rainy day." Even during the Great Recession, during FY 2008 to FY 2009, while many county residents were out of work and in need of services, the County socked away nearly $35 million in additional reserves rather than spending to assist hard-hit households. At the end of FY2016, San Diego County was holding almost $3 billion in fund balances, far more than needed for financial security, including $1.7 billion in unrestricted funds.69 This is disproportionate to other counties in California and greatly exceeds recommendations by non-partisan experts in public finance.70
While a third of working age families in San Diego County have incomes too low to meet basic living expenses without assistance,71 the Supervisors approved a raise for themselves to a salary that is more than 5 times as much as the countywide median annual earnings.
Yet despite their fulltime positions, the supervisors spend little time on developing the County budget.
Instead of holding detailed budget hearings, they usually rely heavily on the non-elected Chief Administrative Officer Helen Robbins-Meyers to decide which programs to prioritize and to present a budget to the board for approval. By comparison, in the City of San Diego, each council member submits a budget memo detailing their own priorities. The Mayor develops a proposed budget, which is then analyzed by the Independent Budget Analyst’s office, and is then the subject of multiple City Council meetings which discuss the details of budgets for each City department. Only after all of these opportunities for public input and detailed analysis by multiple stakeholders is the City budget approved.
Interviewees said the board has been unreceptive to community input, reflected by the policy priorities that are out of touch with most people in the county. For example, all five Supervisors opposed Proposition 47, a 2014 state ballot initiative that reduced penalties for some crimes, while voters in the County approved it by a 56% to 44% margin.
Supervisor Horn, who has ties to developers in North County, in 2015 refused to recuse himself from voting to approve a major proposed development, Lilac Hills Ranch, despite a conflict of interest. The infrastructure development of the massive project would have greatly increased the value of an adjacent 33-acre ranch owned by Horn. After the state Fair Political Practices Commission ruled that Horn could not
69 Center on Policy Initiatives, "Summary of San Diego County fund balances 2017 report," https://www.cpisandiego.org/reports/summary-san-diego-county-fund-balances-2017-report/ 70 Government Finance Officers Association, "GFOA Best Practice: Determining the Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund (CAAFR, Budget) (2015)." http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/AppropriateLevelFundBalance.pdf 71 Center on Policy Initiatives, Making Ends Meet in San Diego County, 2017. https://www.cpisandiego.org/reports/making-endsmeet-2/ Item 3F - Page 34
30 provide the deciding vote on Lilac Hills, the developers tried a ballot initiative. County voters overwhelmingly rejected the development, 63% voting against it. 72
72 Maya Srikrishnan, "Lilac Hills Ranch is still alive," Voice of San Diego, April 27, 2017. https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/lilac-hills-ranch-is-still-alive/ Item 3F - Page 35
31 Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors
What the Board Does
The Board of Directors for the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) serves as the decisionmaking board for both the San Diego Transit Corporation and San Diego Trolley, Inc.73 The board oversees the major public transit services in 10 cities and unincorporated areas of San Diego County, including operation of 95 bus routes and three trolley lines running on 53 miles of railway. MTS services provide about 300,000 passenger trips every weekday, with a total of about 88 million rides in fiscal year 2017. MTS also regulates and licenses taxis and other private passenger transportation services within seven of the cities.74
73 Metropolitan Transit System website, "Board Members," https://www.sdmts.com/about-mts-organization-charts/board-directors 74 Metropolitan Transit System website, "About MTS,” https://www.sdmts.com/about-mts Item 3F - Page 36
Georgette Gomez Mona Rios
San Diego City Council National City Council
Chair of MTS Vice-Chair of MTS
Jim Cunnin~ham
Poway City
Council
I
..
Ronn HaJI
Santee City
Council
Myrtle Cole
San Diego City
Council
Guy Mcwhirter
La Mesa City
Council
David Alvarez
San Diego City
Council
Mike Diaz
Chula Vista City
Council
Ron Robert
Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
David Arambula
Lemon Grove
CityCounil
Kevin Faulconer
Mayor, City of
San Diego
Mary Casillas Salas
Mayor, Chula Vista
Lorie Bragg
Imperial Beach
City Council
Bill Sandke
Coronado City Council
32 The MTS Board controls an annual operating budget of $278 million, of which $96 million comes from fares. MTS also is funded by various federal, state, and local transportation taxes and sales taxes.75 Responsiveness to this Study
Only four of the 15 MTS Board members were available for interviews: Georgette Gomez, Mary Salas, Mona Rios, and David Arambula. The other 11 board members all were contacted through email; five did not respond at all, two said they did not have time, three discussed scheduling interviews but could not find time, and one declined to participate, citing fear that information from the study would be used "to embarrass the MTS organization." We also interviewed leaders of community groups about their work with the board.
Membership
The membership of the MTS Board is drawn from among elected officials of governments within the Metropolitan Transit District. The board consists of: the Mayor and three Council members of the City of San Diego (currently from Council Districts 4, 8, and 9); the Mayor and one Council member from Chula Vista, and one member each from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee.76
All board members have four-year terms. There are no term limits for the MTS Board, although the table below identifies two board members who will reach term limits in their city or county position prior to the end of their MTS term.
The structure of the MTS Board changed during the course of research for this study. A state law (AB 805) passed in 2017 to reorganize the troubled San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and also made changes to the MTS Board. Among other changes, it required that the MTS Board include the San Diego mayor and two members from Chula Vista, so Mayor Kevin Faulconer replaced San Diego Councilmember Lori Zapf and Chula Vista City Councilmember Mike Diaz joined the board. Since Faulconer and Diaz were not board members until January, they were not asked for interviews.
Most importantly, the new law also required that the board chair be a member of the board rather than an at-large resident of the community. San Diego City Councilmember Georgette Gomez, who joined the MTS Board in January 2017, was unanimously chosen by her board colleagues for a two-year term as chair that began in January 2018. Gomez replaced Harry Mathis, a retired San Diego councilmember who had chaired MTS for 12 years.
75 Metropolitan Transit System website, "About MTS”
76 Metropolitan Transit System website, "About MTS”
Item 3F - Page 37
33 MTS Board Member Community
Year
Appointed
David Alvarez San Diego, City Council District 8 2012
David Arambula Lemon Grove, City Council 2017
Lorie Bragg Imperial Beach, City Council 2012
Myrtle Cole San Diego, City Council District 4 2013
Jim Cunningham Poway, City Council 2009
Mike Diaz Chula Vista, City Council 2018
Kevin Faulconer San Diego, Mayor 2018
Georgette Gomez San Diego, City Council District 9 2017 Ronn Hall Santee, City Council 2017
Bob McClellan El Cajon, City Council 2008
Guy McWhirter La Mesa, City Council 2015
Ron Roberts County, Board of Supervisors 1989
Mona Rios National City, City Council 2011
Mary Salas Chula Vista, Mayor 2013
Bill Sandke Coronado, City Council 2017
Indicates members who were interviewed
Diversity and Community Representation
The MTS Board has become more representative of the county's racial and ethnic diversity in recent years, although it lags in gender equity. Only five of the 15 current members are women.
Regarding race and ethnicity, the make-up of the current MTS Board slightly overrepresents the White and Latino populations of the region defined as the MTS service area, is consistent with the African-American population, and underrepresents the Asian/Pacific Islander population.77 Eight (53%) of the 15 members are White, including seven White men.
77 Title VI Triennial Program Update for Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District, page 6. SANDAG, June 2015. https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/JUNE18-15.16.AttB_.FY15TitleVITriennialProgramUpdateforMTSandNCTD.pdf Item 3F - Page 38
34 Several interviewees noted that the board should have more diversity to be representative of the communities with the greatest need for public transportation, rather than simply the general population.
The four board members who agreed to interviews for this study all identified as Mexican-American or Hispanic. All four also said they grew up in working class households.
As reported in local news media, the selection of Georgette Gomez as Chair was a significant shift for MTS: "She is a woman, an LGBTQ leader, a Latina, and she represents City Heights, which has historically been underserved. She also made her name in local politics as an environmental activist in a tense standoff with the city’s business interests.”78
Career Experience
By definition, all members of the MTS Board are elected officials of local cities or the county. Several interviewees noted that the board members are not regular riders of public transit, so they may have trouble understanding the issues faced by the people they serve unless they actively seek out conversations with transit users.
Selection Process Issues
The selection of MTS Board members is up to the city council and/or mayor of each city, so there is no voting constituency to which they are directly accountable on transit issues, interviewees said. In the case of some smaller cities, the selection is essentially made by the mayor and can be biased by political considerations, one interviewee said.
And selection is limited to those who have been elected to a city council or the County Board, as required by state law. As one MTS Board member said:
“Places like El Cajon have a strong Chaldean community, but you can’t have that representation on the MTS Board if there’s none on the city council. Proportionally, you’d think you’d see more Asians, more African Americans… but if the city council doesn’t reflect (community diversity), then you definitely won’t see it on the MTS Board."
MTS pays each board member $150 per meeting, including subcommittee meetings. Especially since they must be elected officials, the stipend is probably not a significant factor in encouraging or discouraging a diverse board.
Accessibility to the Public
The monthly MTS Board meetings always are on Thursday mornings, which makes it difficult for many working people to attend. The meetings are at the 12th and Imperial Transit Center on the east side of
78 Andrew Keatts, "Sign of the Times: Progressive Gomez Takes over at Stodgy MTS," Voice of San Diego, January 18, 2018. https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/sign-times-progressive-gomez-takes-stodgy-mts/ Item 3F - Page 39
35 downtown. Time is allotted at the meetings for members of the public to make 3-minute statements, but one board member expressed concern that people who make the effort to address the board are not always respected:
“What I witness is the lack of attention that’s paid to members (of the public) that come up and speak. Not listening. Playing on your phone instead of listening to testimony of people coming forward. Snarky comments under their breath – that really annoys me. (I see some board members) viewing the public as a nuisance as opposed to individuals that have a right to express their opinions.”
A community advocate agreed that MTS lacks working groups or other mechanisms for public input on policy – other than the brief testimony at monthly meetings – so "there's no opportunity to give meaningful feedback."
One interviewee recalled that one of the White male board members responded to Spanish-speaking constituents at a meeting by saying "Well, we speak English in this country." The change in MTS leadership in January 2018 has improved accessibility, because the previous chair, Harry Mathis, had no contact information available to the public. Our researchers were unable to reach him. Contact information for Gomez, the new chair, is readily available on her page of the City of San Diego website.
Some of the MTS board members listening to testimony at a board meeting in February 2018.
Item 3F - Page 40
36 Impacts on Decisions
Community advocates said the MTS Board in past years has failed to prioritize the needs of low-income riders. For example, they said the board has denied proposals for adequate discounts on bus passes.
One interviewee said:
"Youth passes are $36 per month. For a family with several children that is way too high, it's unaffordable. I hear about families struggling between paying the electricity bill and (buying) bus passes."
MTS monthly passes cost $72 for adults, $36 for youth aged 18 and under, and $18 for people with disabilities and seniors aged 60 and up.79
One advocate said MTS also has failed to adequately inform the public or seek community input on reviews of whether the agency equitably serves minority, low income, and limited-English populations, as required by the Civil Rights Act. As a recipient of federal funds, MTS must:
Ensure equal levels and quality of transportation services regardless of race, color, or national origin.
Avoid disproportionately causing social, economic, health, or environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations.
Promote participation by "all affected populations in transportation decision-making." Ensure that people with limited English can access programs and activities of the agency.80 Many MTS policy decisions are strongly influenced by staff, especially Chief Executive Officer Paul Jablonski, several board members and advocates said. One member said the board previously served mostly as a rubberstamp for the CEO but is now raising more challenges, such as countering his resistance to electric buses. Jablonski, a White man who has been CEO since 2003, is paid about $540,000 a year in salary and benefits, which is $85,000 more than even the County of San Diego’s top administrator receives.81
As the diversity of the board is gradually improving, advocates said there have been signs of increased attention to the needs of low-income communities. One Latina board member said her personal background played a role, for instance, in a decision against a budget proposal to reduce bus routes in low-income areas.
Board members and community advocates alike pointed to the Transit Optimization Plan, a review of bus services designed to increase ridership, as an example of MTS paying greater attention to community concerns. Hundreds of people came to a series of workshops and provided input on needed enhancements of bus routes, they said. In January 2018, MTS began to implement the resulting changes,
79 Metropolitan Transit System website, "Fares & Passes," https://www.sdmts.com/fares-passes 80 Federal Transit Administration, “San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Title VI Compliance Review Final Report,” December 2012. https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/san-diego-mts-title-vi-compliance 81 Figures are as of 2016. Transparent California, “2016 Salaries for San Diego Metropolitan Transit System,” https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/san-diego-metropolitan-transit-system/ Item 3F - Page 41
37 which will add $2 million in services, increase the frequency of some routes and shorten some travel times.
Along with enthusiasm about the fresh leadership provided by Gomez, interviewees expressed optimism that the MTS Board will be able to improve the equity of its services because passage of AB 805 gave MTS the ability to raise revenue directly through taxes, rather than relying on allocations of tax revenue from SANDAG. They said the potential funding increase could speed the shift to environmentally responsible electric buses, expand bus services focus on students, reduce fares, or pass other policies to increase ridership and get more people to stop using cars.
Item 3F - Page 42
38 Conclusion
The examination of boards and commissions studied and described in this report demonstrates a serious deficiency in the diversity and representation on decision-making bodies in the San Diego region. The membership on the five entities we studied tends to be disproportionately White, male, economically advantaged, and professionally or politically connected to the established power structure. For the most part, historically underrepresented communities continue to be underrepresented.
The results of this deficiency appear to include a track record of decisions and practices that do not meet the needs of underprivileged, working-class, and racially/ethnically diverse communities. In addition, membership on appointed commissions and local level elected boards provides an important pathway to higher elected office, so barriers that block access to membership for the full range of community residents also are contributing to a lack of diversity throughout higher levels of government.
The two elected boards included in our study – the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Escondido Union High School District Board – have considerable power to make decisions that greatly impact the lives of their constituents. In the most stark finding of this study, both of those boards are completely White, while the White residents have become a numerical minority among the constituencies they serve. People of color make up 54% of the population of San Diego County and 73% of the Escondido school district student population, yet they have zero representation on the governing boards.82 The multiple factors affecting the candidacy pools and elections for these and other local boards require much more attention. Until those core issues can be resolved, new policies and practices may be able to improve the consideration of perspectives from underrepresented communities.
Diversity and accessibility vary on the two appointed commissions we studied – the City of San Diego Planning Commission and the Port of San Diego Board of Port Commissioners. Both are appointed by the relevant city councils and mayors. The Planning Commission in particular is dominated by people with professional connections to the industry it regulates, in this case the real estate development industry.
While we found a profound lack of diversity on the two elected boards studied, it's interesting that the membership of the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Board is the most representative of the community it serves. The MTS Board is made up of elected officials from city councils, plus one member of the County Board. Although it was beyond the scope of our research to determine whether diversity is improving on those elected councils or whether people of color serving on city councils are more likely to choose or be selected for duty on the transit board, it appears likely that both factors are playing some role.
This study raises concerns that policy decisions on many issues in the San Diego region may be made without due consideration of the perspectives and challenges familiar to people of color, women, low-wage workers, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and other disadvantaged segments of the population. In addition to
82 If any members of these two boards have non-White identities that are not apparent, we were unable to discover that because they all declined our requests for interviews.
Item 3F - Page 43
39 a lack of equitable representation on the boards and commissions, advocates for those underrepresented communities reported barriers facing constituents who seek to have their voices heard.
We have examined only five of dozens of boards and commissions whose decision-making processes affect life in the San Diego region. More thorough and wide-reaching investigation is needed into the varied and complex arrangements for determining who makes public policy decisions and whether they incorporate the viewpoints and needs of the people they are entrusted to serve. In 2018, the San Diego area continues to deny equitable representation on public boards and commissions to historically underprivileged communities.
Item 3F - Page 44
40 Appendices
Appendix A: Board Members/Commissioners
Appendix B: Other Interviewees
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Board Members/Commissioners Appendix D: Interview Questions for Organizations
Appendix E: Geographic Jurisdiction - City of San Diego Planning Commission Appendix F: Geographic Jurisdiction - Port of San Diego Appendix G: Geographic Jurisdiction - Escondido Union High School District Appendix H: Geographic Jurisdiction - San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Appendix I: Geographic Jurisdiction - San Diego County, Board of Supervisors Appendix J: MTS weighted vote
Item 3F - Page 45
41 Appendix A: Board Members and Commissioners
**bolded names mean they were interviewed for this report Planning Commission
Stephen Haase
Susan Peerson
Vicki Granowitz
James Whalen
Douglas Austin
William Hofman
Dennis Otsuji
Port Commission
Rafael Castellanos
Garry J. Bonelli
Michael Zucchet
Robert "Dukie" Valderrama
Ann Moore
Dan Malcolm
Marshall Merrifield
Escondido Union High School District
Christi Knight
Jon Petersen
Bill Durney
Tina Pope
Dane White
MTS Board
Georgette Gomez
Mary Salas
Mona Rios
David Arambula
Ron Roberts
Guy McWhirter
Ronn Hall
David Alvarez
Myrtle Cole
Bob McClellan
Bill Sandke
Lorie Bragg
Jim Cunningham
Kevin Faulconer
Mike Diaz
Board of Supervisors
Kristin Gaspar
Bill Horn
Greg Cox
Dianne Jacobs
Ron Roberts
Item 3F - Page 46
42 Appendix B: Other Interviewees
Past Commissioners
Laurie Black, Port
Steve Padilla, Port
Scott Peters, Port
Eric Naslund, Planning
Theresa Quiroz, Planning
Organizations
Employee Rights Center
Environmental Health Coalition
City Councilmember Georgette Gomez (former staffer with Environmental Health Coalition) Mid-City CAN
SEIU Local 221
United Taxi Workers of San Diego
San Diego Organizing Project
Save PQ Village Team
Escondido Secondary Teachers Association
IBEW Local 569
UNITE HERE Local 30
Item 3F - Page 47
43 Appendix C: Interview Questions for Board Members/Commissioners
1. Demographics:
a. What gender do you identify as?
b. Do you identify as part of the LGBTQ community? Would you say that you are an ally of the LGBTQ community?
c. What race and/or ethnicities to you identify with? Please feel free to state more than one. d. Did you grow up in a two-parent household?
e. Are you originally from San Diego County? What neighborhood(s) did you primarily grow up in?
f. How would you describe the socio-economic status of the household you grew up in? g. Can you describe what each of your parents did for a living during your teenage years? Can you describe the level of educational attainment, of each of your parents? h. Were you or your parents born in another country? Which country/countries? i. What is the highest level of education you have completed? j. How old were you when you first got appointed and what year? How long have you been serving for?
2. Who would you describe as your allies or mentors that helped you get on to this board/commission? Can you explain a little bit about who they are, and how they helped you?
3. How would you briefly describe your experiences working with your constituents, before you were elected/appointed to this position? Can you describe some of the experiences that led you here?
4. Based on your experiences working with your constituency, how would you describe the community you represent?
a. In your tenure as a board member/commissioner, would you say that you’ve taken steps to hear from diverse voices in your constituency? Can you describe what steps you’ve taken? b. Can you describe a specific instance when you heard input from constituents and it changed your position on an issue before the board/commission?
5. At first glance, would you say that the composition of your board is reflective of its constituency? a. Would you say that you consider a lack of diversity in this board/commission’s composition to be a problem? Can you explain why or why not you believe this is important? b. What sorts of challenges do you feel this board/commission faces in representing and understanding diversity/equity?
6. Can you give an example of a time when your personal history or background helped to inform you in making an important decision on a matter before your board/commission?
7. What would you describe as your board’s/commission’s major challenges when it comes to being accessible to a diverse constituency?
8. Has your board/commission taken steps to become more accessible to your constituency? For example, offering translation services and/or childcare services, hosting community meetings at different times, or working with organizations that are trusted in the community? Item 3F - Page 48
44 a. Which of those things would you say you were a part of? Were any of those changes you initiated? Have you seen any positive results because of your efforts?
9. Do you have a vision of how the decisions your board/commission make can promote equity in your community?
10. Can you also describe some of the concrete goals you are hoping to achieve in your time as a _________?
11. If you were to take on the goal of promotion of equity through the decision-making of your board/commission, what challenges would you face or anticipate? Non-priority Questions (if there’s time):
12. More generally, as a board member/commissioner, what decisions have been the most difficult to make?
13. Based on your experiences, would you say this is a board/commission that effectively carries out its mission? What strengths would you identify, and what would you say are potential areas for improvement?
14. What would you recommend to people who are interested in learning more about your board? What resources would you recommend?
Item 3F - Page 49
45 Appendix D: Interview Questions for Organizations
1. What is your experience with this board/commission?
2. What kinds of decisions do you need from the board? What policies are you trying to move? (to understand authority of board)
a. Decisions that influence money?
b. Decisions that influence policy? (affect/create policy?) c. Are they advisory vs. final/binding decisions
i. If advisory, is the status quo that their recommendation is always approved or not
3. Which social equity issues does this board/commission impact and how? Explaining equity a. Examples of past and current policies that affect equity b. Opportunities for future policies that can go through this board/commission
4. How do you influence this board/commission? What wins have you had? Please provide examples.
If you feel like you don’t have influence, what do you feel are barriers to that? What are your strategies?
5. Is this a board that carries out its mission based on your experience? Explain.
6. How accessible is the board/commission to the community members you work with? (think of translation, access to members and meetings)
7. How representative is the board/commission to the constituents you work with?
8. What commissioners align with your values (past and current)? a. Who can you connect us with for an interview to learn more? Non-priority Questions (if there’s time):
9. Who else is interested in the issues related to this board/commission?
10. Are you familiar if they have staff assigned to support the board/commission? a. If so, list position(s) of staff that influence the board/commission.
Item 3F - Page 50
46 Appendix E: Geographic Jurisdiction
Item 3F - Page 51
I City of San Diego Planning Commission I
Map Features
• CIP project status: Post-construction
• CIP project status: Planning
• CIP project status: Equipment Acquisition
o CIP project status: Design
0 •
Cl P project status: C onstruc lion
CIP project status: Bid/Award
47 Appendix F: Geographic Jurisdiction
Item 3F - Page 52
I Port of San Diego I
_,., """"''"'°"' t-t., _ ...
Map Features
D Port of San Diego
l
~ San Diego County boundary
,..t,rb4
~ ...... ,.,. .. , Hr••H
\
rt... ~M+ iles
0 2 4 8 12 16
Sources: ESRI. SANQl.G I Creaed October -5. 20171 Cert• on Pottcy lnllatiVes, Artleena Kour Sahri 48 Appendix G: Geographic Jurisdiction
Item 3F - Page 53
!Escondido Union High School District!
) I 111 1ft
- .~~•r:r '·-
Map Features
LJ EUHSD
L--.1l,o·l 1 ,,,. , ...,,_,.
..
•, an Diego
LJ San Diego County Boundary
+ Source.- ESRI. SANDAG I Created O<lober 5, 2017 10enter on Policy lnioalives. Anj eena Kour Sahni 49 Appendix H: Geographic Jurisdiction
Item 3F - Page 54
I San Diego Metropolitan Transit System I
.L.
\.,,_ l•'11Gl'1te
... .. ,_ ~- tlc:md
,an Diego L-l r,"'1
Map Features
CJ MTS Transit District
CJ San Diego County boundary
lijuoM
+
"'"
Sources:ESRJ, SAN°"-G I Created Oaober 5, 20171 Cerier on Polky lntiatiYes. AnJteena Kaur Sahli 50 Appendix I: Geographic Jurisdiction
Item 3F - Page 55
I San Diego Cormty, Board of Supervisors I
l .. ., I I 111< t•
N
Map Features llJl.f""7__f""" + Miles
D Supervisorial Districts
01_53 6 9 12
' <
Sources.: ESRI, SAN DAG I Created October 2, 2017 1 Center on Polley lnmat,ves, AnJleena Kour Sahni 51 Appendix J: MTS WEIGHTED VOTE
Effective January 1, 2018, California Assembly Bill (AB) 805 impacts MTS’s legislation:
1. The public chairperson position is eliminated. The 15th board seat goes to the City of Chula Vista.
2. The MTS voting procedure allows for a quorum of at least 8 board members, and then only a majority of those present is required for board action.
3. A “skilled labor” requirement is added to contracts more than $1,000,000.
4. MTS has authority to impose a sales tax in MTS jurisdiction.
In order to comply with Public Utilities Code sections 120000, et. seq., the Board of Directors approved a revised weighted voting process, on November 9, 2017.18 The representation requirements for this board aims to ensure proportional representation based on population in each municipality; a weighted vote does not allocate the same amount of influence to each seat.
Procedurally, a quorum is a majority of the 15 members of the board, and then all official acts require a majority the members present at the meeting.19 At least three municipalities must contribute to the fiftyone percent (51%) vote in favor of an official act. In the absence of the weighted majority, the original decision remains.
The weighted vote is recalculated on July 1st every year, and current values are attributed as:
Representatives from the San Diego City Council have the only majority, with four members, 12.5 votes each. Although this allows for a stronger voice representing the City of San Diego, these members constitute less than one-third of the full board. If San Diego City Council members gain votes from two other cities, like Coronado and Santee, a small handful of jurisdictions could have significant impacts on a decision affecting transit throughout the County.
Item 3F - Page 56
City of San Diego 50
County of San Diego 14
Chula Vista 14
El Cajon 5
National City 3
La Mesa 3
Santee 3
Poway 3
Imperial Beach 2
Lemon Grove 2
Coronado 1
TOTAL 100