Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13409 RESOLUTION NO. 13409 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING RESPONSES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1986-87 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY WHICH REQUIRE RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on September 15,1987, the 1986-87 San Diego County Grand Jury issued its final report, and WHEREAS, the Penal Code requires that no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a report concerning a local public agency, the governing body of the public agency shall comment on the findings and recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the following responses to the recommendations of the 1986-87 San Diego County Grand Jury: #87/125 Support the continued appointment, not election, process of Port Commissioners The Chula Vista City Council concurs with this recommendation. The Council has previously expressed its opposition to any legislation to change the process. #87/126 Create a task force to study the Port District Act, Section 16, with a view to updating the membership requirements of the Port Commission. The Chula Vista City Council supports the current membership apportionment of representatives among the five cities represented on the seven member Board of Port Commissioners. We do not believe there is a need either to change the current apportionment or for any task force to study such. #87/127 Review and update the travel policy of the Port Commission. The Chula Vista City Council would concur with this recommendation. We have been advised that such were updated in August 1987. -1- #87/128 All cities, where appropriate, docket on their City Council agendas time for their respective Port Commissioner appointees to report on the Port District matters. The Chula Vista City Council, sitting as the Redevelopment Agency and/or City Council, has in the past had conferences with their representative on the Board of Port Commissioners. We will continue such meetings in the future. #87/129 Review and update the Temple, Barker, Sloan, Inc. study of January 16, 1984. The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support any reasonable effort to promote maritime trade in the Port of San Diego. #87/130 Amend Section 80 of the Act to establish a special Port District augmentation fund for the purpose of sharing bayfront cities' costs for improvements of public land uses that are contiguous with those of the port. The Chula Vista City Council would concur with this recommendation. We strongly endorse the idea of the Unified Port District providing assistance to bayfront cities in the development of their public lands on the bayfront. #87/131 The Board of Port Commissioners assert an independent leadership with an increased commitment toward a genuine strengthening of an open, working relationship with the community, governmental agencies and customers alike. The Chula Vista City Council would support a strong working relationship by the Unified Port District with the community, etc., but it must be remembered that the Board of Port Commissioners should represent the public interest as reflected through the cities they represent. #87/132 The Harbor Police at the airport take a more active role in improving the traffic flow. The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support any reasonable effort to improve traffic flow at the airport. #87/133 Interior (proximate) parking lots be limited to short-term parking only. -2- The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support any reasonable effort to improve parking at the airport. #87/134 A summary of the Port District's Master Plan be published and given greater distribution. The Chula Vista City Council concurs with this recommendation. Presented by Approved as to form by Allan Borwick, Principal Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney Management Assistant 3716a -3- ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day OE January 19 88 , by the following vote, to--~wit: AYES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Cox, Moore, Nader NAYES: Counci 1 members None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None ABSENT: Counci lmembers McCandliss Ji~~li~Chula Vista ,TE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 134o9 ,and that the same has not been amended or repealed DATED City Clerk CIIY OF CHUI.A VISTA CC-660 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT DATE: December 3, 1987 AGENDASHEET NO. O~j~ 1986-87 GR2~iD JURY REPORT 3JECT: FACTUkLB~CKGROUND: The 1986~87 Grand Jury Annual Report included certain recommendations regarding the San Diego Unified Port District. The governing bodies of all agencies included in a Grand Jury Report are required to comment or respond to those portions of the report directed to that agency. For the Port, the comments and/or responses are to be from the Board of Port Commissioners. ANALYSIS: The portion of the Annual Report dealing with the Port included ten recommendations, numbered 87/125 through and including 87/134. Following is a listing of the recommendations, together with brief possible comments. %87/125: Support the continued appointment, not election, process of Port Commissioners. The appointment process for commissioners is mandated by the legislation creating the District after ratification by the people. %87/126: Create a task force to study the Port District Act, Section 16, with a view to updating the membership requirements of the Port Cemnission. The District's member cities appoint their commissioners based upon criteria established by each city to meet their particular needs. The allocation of commissioners -- 3 to San Diego and 1 to each of the four South Bay cities ~- is mandated by the Port District Act. If such a task force is organized, the District will participate in its work if requested. %87/127: Review and update the travel policy of the Port Commission. The travel policy was revised on August 4, 1987, to further clarify the expense reporting procedures and guidelines. A copy of the revised policy is submitted with this response. SUBJECT: '1986-87 GR~ J'IIRY R..~RT PAGE t87/128: All cities, where appropriate, docket on their City Council agendas time for their respective Port Co~nissioner appointees to report on Port District matters. Commissioners maintain liaison with their city councils and stand ready to address them on any occasions so desired by them. t87/129: Review and update the Temple, Barker, Sloan, Inc., study of January 16~ 1984. The District has contracted with TBS to update this earlier study to identify possible new areas of emphasis for enhancing the Port's maritime trade activities. The Port continues its efforts to increase trade. ~87/130: Amend Section 80 of the Act to establish a special Port District augmentation fund for the purpose of sharing bayfront cities' costs for improvements of public land uses that are contiguous with those of the port. The uses for which the Port may expend funds which are generated from State tidelands held in trust by the Port are specified in the legislation which created the District. The Port will continue to work in close cooperation with its member cities to help insure that adjoining city and Port public lands are developed for the benefit of all concerned. 187/131: The Board of Port Cemnissioners assert an independent leadership with an increased commitment toward a genuine strengthening of an open, working relationship with the community, governmental agencies and customers alike. The Board of Port Commissioners remains committed to managing the Port Trust so as to best serve all citizens. Commissioners welcome comments from the public and encourage constructive participation in the deliberative process. SUBJECT: PAGE 3 t87/132: The Harbor Police at the airport take a more active role in improving the traffic flow. Traffic flow at the airport is a matter of concern to the Board of Port Commissioners. A traffic circulation and parking study is well underway. It is anticipated there will be marked improvement as the study recommendations are finalized and implemented. Harbor Police administration has been directed to evaluate the matter in an effort to identify methods to improve traffic flow. Additionally, new staff positions of Traffic Enforcement Officer have been authorized by the Board. One of the main obligations of these positions is to provide additional traffic control at the airport. ]87/133 Interior [proximate] parking lots be limited to short-termparking only. The variable rate structure at the airport was established in an effort to encourage long-term parkers to use the more remote lots by offering substantially lower daily rates for those lots. Plans are also progressing for the construction of a parking garage which will provide substantially more parking than is presently available on site. t87/134 A summary of the Port District's Master Plan be published and given greater distribution. Copies of the Port's Master Plan are always available for inspection and/or acquisition at the District's administration offices. In addition, copies have been provided in the past to the member cities and public libraries. The Master Plan has been amended from time to time since its certification in 1980. To insure that local agencies have an up-to-date document, copies incorporating all amendments are being distributed at this time. PORT DIRECTOR'S RECOI~g~FDATION: Adopt appropriate language for responses for submittal to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court as specified by State law. UPD FORM NO. 021 8 t SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT App. 1 § 17 n 5 and Library References Navigable ~,v~ters ~=~37(8). C.J.S. 1N'avigable Waters § 107. rotection Notes of Decisions .n Diego :ies spec- strict at ~ 15. Inclusion of unlneorporated terNtory ~e estab- The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego may. by ordinance, include be be,~e~ted by the district. (Stars.1962, ]st E~.Sess., c. 67, p. 365, ~ 1~.)