HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2017_09_19September 19, 2017City Council Agenda
PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE IN CELEBRATION OF ITS
56TH ANNIVERSARY
17-0385D.17-0385
PRESENTATION BY SAN MIGUEL FIRE CHIEF CRISS
BRAINARD REGARDING THE RETURN OF A STAND-
ALONE SAN MIGUEL FIRE DISTRICT
17-0400E.17-0400
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 4)
The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without
discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be
removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a “Request
to Speak” form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items
pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent
Calendar.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 25, 2017.17-04161.17-0416
Council approve the minutes. Staff Recommendation:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; NV5, INC.; RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY; AND T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL
FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECTS AND OTHER CITY PROJECTS
17-01202.17-0120
Engineering Department Department:
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental
Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Notice:
Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation:
Page 2 City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 2
September 19, 2017City Council Agenda
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
CIP BUDGET TO ESTABLISH NEW CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, “RMRA MAJOR PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION FY2017/18” (STM-395) AND “RMRA
MAJOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PHASE 2
FY2017/18” (STM-396), AND APPROPRIATING $1,497,670
BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE ROAD
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA)
IN THE GAS TAX FUND TO STM-395 (4/5 VOTE
REQUIRED)
17-03663.17-0366
Engineering Department Department:
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental
Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Notice:
Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SINGLE TENANT
LEASE-GROSS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
17-03894.17-0389
Economic Development Department Department:
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental
Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Notice:
Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation:
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter
within the Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally
prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda,
but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter
to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
Page 3 City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 3
September 19, 2017City Council Agenda
ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council and
are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill
out a “Request to Speak” form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTER 9.80 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY
RESTRICTIONS (FIRST READING)
17-04115.17-0411
City Attorney & Police Department Department:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the
California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental
review is required.
Environmental Notice:
Council place the ordinance on first reading. Staff Recommendation:
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORTS
COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on
Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney’s office in accordance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(d)(4):
Two (2) Cases.
(This item was continued from 9/12/2017.)
17-03716.17-0371
Page 4 City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 4
September 19, 2017City Council Agenda
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):
One (1) Case.
(This item was continued from 9/12/2017.)
17-03957.17-0395
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING
EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of case: Chula Vista Animal Care Facility & Scripps
Health v. Vernon Coston and Citizens Business Bank, San
Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2015-37598-CU-FR-CTL
17-03838.17-0383
ADJOURNMENT
to the Regular City Council Meeting on September 26, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers.
Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for
public review at the City Clerk’s Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during
normal business hours.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend,
and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (619)
691-5041(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least
forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.
Most Chula Vista City Council meetings, including public comments, are video recorded and aired live
on AT&T U-verse channel 99 (throughout the County), on Cox Cable channel 24 (only in Chula Vista),
and online at www.chulavistaca.gov. Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both
channels) and are archived on the City's website.
Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are
published online.
Page 5 City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 5
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0413, Item#: A.
OATHS OF OFFICE
·David Wynne, Veterans Advisory Commission
·Judy Gallardo, International Friendship Commission
·Timothy McMillin, Sustainability Commission
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 6
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0368, Item#: B.
PRESENTATION OF QUARTERLY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION RECIPIENTS
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 7
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0384, Item#: C.
RECOGNITION OF THE BONITA VALLEY GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE FOR BRINGING HOME
TWO NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 8
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0385, Item#: D.
PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE IN CELEBRATION OF
ITS 56TH ANNIVERSARY
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 9
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0400, Item#: E.
PRESENTATION BY SAN MIGUEL FIRE CHIEF CRISS BRAINARD REGARDING THE RETURN
OF A STAND- ALONE SAN MIGUEL FIRE DISTRICT
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 10
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0416, Item#: 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 25, 2017.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council approve the minutes.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 11
City of Chula Vista
Meeting Minutes - Draft
5:00 PM Council Chambers
276 4th Avenue, Building A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 5:02 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present:Councilmember Aguilar, Councilmember Diaz, Deputy Mayor McCann and
Councilmember Padilla
Absent:Mayor Casillas Salas
Also Present: City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, Acting City Clerk Bigelow, and Records
Manager Turner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Virgil Whitehead led the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A.17-0291 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CHULA VISTA POLICE
AGENT BRENT GLOVER ON 23 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE
Deputy Mayor McCann read the proclamation and Councilmember Padilla presented it to Agent Glover.
B.17-0302 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO VIRGIL WHITEHEAD
PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2017 AS VIRGIL WHITEHEAD DAY
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Deputy Mayor McCann read the proclamation and Councilmember Aguilar presented it to Virgil Whitehead.
C.17-0316 UPDATE BY LIBRARY STAFF ON CURRENT AND UPCOMING LIBRARY
SERVICE INITIATIVES, PRIVATE/PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, NEW
GRANT OPPORTUNITIES, AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
SUPPORT
Senior Librarian Taylor and Senior Librarian Whatley gave a presentation on the item.
Page 1City of Chula Vista
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 12
July 25, 2017City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 7)
1.17-0314 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 16 and 23, and June 6 and 13, 2017.
Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes.
2.17-0318 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter of resignation from Brent Livingston, Board of Ethics.
Recommended Action: Council accept the resignation.
3.17-0200 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 50
MPH SPEED LIMIT AT OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN ALLEN
SCHOOL LANE AND BONITA VIEW TERRACE APARTMENTS (1600
FEET NORTH OF CANYON DRIVE), AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF
THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
TO REFLECT THE ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMIT (FIRST READING)
Recommended Action: Council place the ordinance on first reading.
4.17-0208 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-145 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND TRAFFICWARE GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN
ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT (TF-389)
Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution.
5.17-0281 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-146 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REQUEST OF A $1,400,000
DISBURSEMENT FROM THE CHULA VISTA BILLBOARD RESERVE
FUND HELD IN TRUST BY SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
SYSTEM (MTS) TO FUND ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION AND
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYMENTS IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
CIP PROGRAM BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING A NEW CIP PROJECT,
“ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (TF-409)”; AND APPROPRIATING $1,400,000 TO THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BASED ON REVENUE ASSOCIATED
WITH SAID BILLBOARD FUNDS TO TF-409 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED)
Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 2City of Chula Vista
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 13
July 25, 2017City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft
6.17-0229 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-147 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $275,076 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AUTHORIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO PURCHASE RADIO DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT FROM
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. BASED ON THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO’S CONTRACT NUMBER 553982 PRICING AND TERMS, AND
APPROPRIATING SAID FUNDS TO THE FEDERAL GRANTS FUND
FOR THE URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED)
Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution.
7.17-0298 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-148 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO,
AND M&A GABAEE REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF
ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE SALT BAY PROJECT, LOCATED ON
PROPERTIES SOUTH OF PALOMAR STREET AND WEST OF I-5
Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution.
Approval of the Consent Calendar
A motion was made by Councilmember Padilla, seconded by Councilmember
Diaz, to approve staff's recommendations on the above Consent Calendar items,
with a correction to the spelling of Ashleigh Padilla's name in the minutes of May
16, 2017 (Item 1), headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the
following vote:
ACTION:
Yes:Aguilar, Diaz, McCann and Padilla4 -
No:0
Abstain:0
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steven Pavka, Chula Vista resident, expressed concerns regarding access for seniors to public programs
and he requested information on recovered costs for City services.
Page 3City of Chula Vista
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 14
July 25, 2017City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.17-0290 CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN UPDATE
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-149 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
CONCEPT PLAN UPDATE
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the
date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice.
Principal Planner Donaghe and Senior Planner Walker gave a presentation on the item.
Deputy Mayor McCann opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public who wished to
speak, Deputy Mayor McCann closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Councilmember Diaz, seconded by Deputy Mayor
McCann, to adopt Resolution No. 2017-149, heading read, text waived. The
motion carried by the following vote:
ACTION:
Yes:Aguilar, Diaz, McCann and Padilla4 -
No:0
Abstain:0
ACTION ITEMS
9.17-0303 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE CORKY McMILLIN
COMPANIES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FORM A REIMBURSEMENT
DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE (This
item was continued from 6/20/17.)
Development Services Director Broughton provided information and recommended continuing the item.
There was consensus of the Council to continue the item to the meeting of September 12, 2017.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
There were none.
MAYOR’S REPORTS
There were none.
COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
Deputy Mayor McCann urged residents to be safe while driving with kids returning to schools.
City Attorney Googins announced that the Council would convene in closed session to discuss the item
listed below.
Deputy Mayor McCann recessed the meeting at 5:53 p.m. The Council reconvened in closed session at
5:59 p.m.
Page 4City of Chula Vista
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 15
July 25, 2017City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft
CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346-03, Official Minutes and records of
action taken during Closed Sessions are maintained by the City Attorney.
10.17-0288 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
-Property: Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 643-06-57-00
-Agency Negotiators: Gary Halbert and Eric Crockett
-Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista and Chesnut Properties
-Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Acquisition and
Leaseback
No reportable action.ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:22 p.m., Deputy Mayor McCann adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Workshop on
August 3, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on
August 8, 2017 in the Council Chambers.
_______________________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, Acting City Clerk
Page 5City of Chula Vista
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 16
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0120, Item#: 2.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
AGREEMENTS WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; NV5, INC.; RICK ENGINEERING
COMPANY; AND T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS AND OTHER CITY PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
City staff has identified the need to enlist qualified consultants from time to time to assist with general
civil engineering services. On call consultants would provide timely, as needed, civil engineering
services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Determination
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class
1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The Engineering and Capital Projects staff manages the preliminary engineering, design and delivery
of the city’s CIP projects.
JUSTIFICATION FOR ON-CALL CONSULTANTS
It is critical that the civil engineering work for existing and future CIP projects be performed in a timely
manner so that project delivery is not delayed. Therefore, it would be more efficient to secure the
assistance of general civil engineer consultant teams on an as-needed basis for the following
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 17
File#:17-0120, Item#: 2.
assistance of general civil engineer consultant teams on an as-needed basis for the following
reasons:
1. On a typical fiscal year, the Engineering and Capital Projects Department is responsible for
about $21 million of CIP projects. Due to increase in funding associated with Measure P, the
current fiscal year’s CIP exceeds $90 million.
2. With the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA) funds will also be available for new CIPs beginning on November 1, 2017.
3. Staff anticipates that the increased pace of CIP projects will continue for the next few years.
Some of the large CIP projects include various disciplines such as Drainage, Pavement,
Traffic, and Wastewater.
4. The City made commitments to deliver infrastructure improvements for failed infrastructure
throughout Chula Vista that will take significant effort to plan, fund, and construct.
5. Consultants will be able to assist with project delivery when workload exceeds existing staffing
levels.
The use of outside consultants to provide technical assistance for the short-term needs is a more
efficient way to handle the additional work staff anticipates.
SCOPE OF WORK
Typical services that the City may require during the planning, design, and construction phases of
CIP projects will involve general civil engineering tasks such as:
- Cost estimates
- Drafting
- Engineering studies
- Flow metering
- Improvement plans
- Master Plans
- Processing
- Rate case studies
The proposed contracts include/require the following:
A. General civil engineering services for projects before, during, and after construction
operations. The number and scope of such projects will vary from year to-year.
B. Personnel that are experienced in all areas of Civil Engineering are required to satisfy the
Consultant contract and possess knowledge of City codes, procedures and regulations.
C. Use of software and methodology that is approved by the City.
D. Provide the City all original field notes, data, reports, records, etc. of field and office tasks.
Further, the Consultant shall maintain copies of all records related to the project tasks
performed for a period of five years.
E. Provide the city with all digital files for each project Civil 3D format (AutoCAD), and digital
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 18
File#:17-0120, Item#: 2.
E. Provide the city with all digital files for each project Civil 3D format (AutoCAD), and digital
photos and all other records or material related to each project.
F. Billing forms and procedures acceptable to the City.
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
In June, 2017, the City of Chula Vista issued an RFP to secure General Civil Engineering Consulting
Services for various programs and CIP projects. Thirteen consultant teams responded to the RFP.
It is anticipated that the contract amount for these services will be in excess of $50,000. In
accordance with City ordinances and policies, the Director of Public Works assigned staff to act as a
selection committee to evaluate the proposals and prepare a list ranking the responding firms.
The selection committee evaluated and ranked the proposals. The ranking was based on an
evaluation criteria that included the following: the consultant's experience, the capacity to perform
the work, the quality of the management team, quality and relevancy of sub-consultants, the grasp of
the project requirements, responsiveness to the scope of work, the quality and clarity of the proposal,
familiarity with the local area and the cost proposal.
Seven teams were selected for interviews in July 2017:
1. Dokken Engineering - San Diego, CA
2. Harris & Associates - San Diego, CA
3. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. - San Diego, CA
4. Michael Baker International - Carlsbad, CA
5. NV5, Inc. - San Diego, CA
6. Rick Engineering Company - San Diego, CA
7. T.Y. Lin International - San Diego, CA
Upon the conclusion of the consultant interviews and deliberations by the consultant selection
committee, the committee selected Kimley-Horn and Associates, NV5, Inc., Rick Engineering, and
T.Y. Lin International as the four top ranking teams. Fee schedules and contract details have been
successfully negotiated with the teams (prime and the sub-consultants).
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site
specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section
18702.2(a)(11), is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real
property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100,
et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 19
File#:17-0120, Item#: 2.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy
Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
All fees for Consultant's services will be paid from funds already allocated for CIP or development
funded projects. Each Consultant team may work on several CIP projects of varying size and
complexity. The two year contract will be eligible for two one-year extensions upon mutual
agreement. Should the need arise to contract for consultant services, the costs associated with
delivering a project could increase as staff’s oversight would be required in addition to the consultant
fees.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Kimley-Horn and Associates to provide
Engineering and Consulting Services
2. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and NV5, Inc. to provide Engineering and
Consulting Services
3. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Rick Engineering to provide Engineering and
Consulting Services
4. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and T.Y. Lin International to provide Engineering
and Consulting Services.
Staff Contact: Roberto Yano, Senior Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 20
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 21
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 22
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 23
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 24
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 25
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 26
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 27
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 28
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 29
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 30
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 31
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 32
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 33
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 34
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 35
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 36
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 37
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 38
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 39
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 40
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 41
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 42
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 43
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 44
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 45
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 46
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 47
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 48
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 49
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 50
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 51
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 52
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 53
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 54
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 55
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 56
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 57
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 58
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 59
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 60
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 61
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 62
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 63
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 64
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 65
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 66
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 67
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 68
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 69
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 70
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 71
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 72
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 73
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 74
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 75
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 76
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 77
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 78
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 79
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 80
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 81
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 82
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 83
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 84
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 85
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 86
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 87
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 88
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 89
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 90
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 91
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 92
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 93
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 94
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 95
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 96
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 97
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 98
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 99
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 100
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 101
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 102
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 103
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 104
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 105
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 106
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 107
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 108
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 109
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 110
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 111
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 112
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 113
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 114
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 115
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 116
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 117
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH KIMLEY-
HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; NV5, INC.; RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY; AND T.Y. LIN
INTERNATIONAL FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM PROJECTS AND OTHER CITY PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (City) has identified the need to enlist qualified
consultants to assist City civil engineering design staff due to the current number and pace of
CIP projects and the proposed large infrastructure efforts associated with the recently voter
approved Measure P in Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2017, City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Civil
Engineering Consulting Services; and
WHEREAS, City received thirteen (13) proposals from consultant teams interested in
providing such services; and
WHEREAS, after City completed its review of the proposals, seven (7) teams were
selected for interviews in July 2017; and
WHEREAS, after the interview process for all seven teams, staff recommends
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; NV5, INC.; RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY;
and T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL as the four consultant teams to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, the consultant selection process has been conducted in accordance with
Section 2.56.110C of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City may procure work on zero up to several CIP projects of varying size
and complexity throughout the duration of each consultant agreement; and
WHEREAS, each consultant agreement will be a two-year contract and will be eligible
for two (2) one-year extensions upon mutual agreement of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the combined total of all assigned projects per under each consultant
agreement will not exceed the yearly Authorization Limit of $500,000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that it approves agreements with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; NV5, Inc.; Rick Engineering
Company; and T.Y. Lin International for civil engineering consulting services for various capital
improvement program projects and other City projects.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 118
Presented by Approved as to form by
William S. Valle Glen R. Googins
Director of Engineering & Capital Projects City Attorney
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 119
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0366, Item#: 3.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2017-2018 CIP BUDGET TO ESTABLISH NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS,
“RMRA MAJOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY2017/18” (STM-395) AND “RMRA MAJOR
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PHASE 2 FY2017/18” (STM-396), AND APPROPRIATING
$1,497,670 BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) IN THE GAS TAX FUND TO STM-395 (4/5 VOTE
REQUIRED)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
Beginning on November 1, 2017, a new transportation tax will be allocated to cities and counties
through the Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which allocates revenue from the
Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) for local streets and roads repairs and other
transportation uses. In order to receive RMRA funding, SB1 requires local agencies to submit a
project list from and approved budget to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by October
16, 2017.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Determination
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class
1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes on
gasoline and diesel fuel and registration taxes on motor vehicles with allocations dedicated to
transportation purposes. These allocations flow through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), the
familiar gasoline tax revenues that have been in place for decades, and the new Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which allocates much of the revenue from the Road Repair and
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 120
File#:17-0366, Item#: 3.
and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which allocates much of the revenue from the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall). A portion of these funds are allocated to cities and counties
throughout California to use for street maintenance and rehabilitation and related purposes.
Additional information on both Gas Tax allocations is found in the League of California Cities’ report
(Attachment 1).
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall) is a significant new investment in
California’s transportation systems of about $5.2 billion per year. The Act increases per gallon fuel
excise taxes, diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration taxes, stabilizes the fuel tax rates and
provides for inflationary adjustments to rates in future years. The Act will likely double local streets
and road funds.
RMRA local streets and roads allocations must be used for projects “that includes, but are not limited
to,” the following:
·Road maintenance and rehabilitation
·Safety projects
·Railroad grade separations
·Traffic control devices
·Complete street components, “including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle
safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction
with any other allowable project.”
RMRA funds may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal
funds for eligible projects.
If a city or county has an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) that meets or exceeds 80, the city
or county may spend its RMRA funds on other transportation priorities. Chula Vista’s PCI is currently
at 74, but with additional funding associated with Measure P and traditional TransNet funding, the
PCI is anticipated to improve in the coming years.
Required Annual Authorization
The RMRA requires “that, prior to receiving RMRA funds in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit
to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a project list pursuant to an adopted budget. The
list must include for each project: description, location, schedule and useful life.” This year’s list,
including Council approval, is due to the CTC by October 16, 2017.
Staff proposes to create a separate CIP project under RMRA - Major Pavement Rehabilitation for
Fiscal Year 2017-18. The RMRA street list for this proposed project consists of critical arterial and
collector streets (Attachment 2). Since this fiscal year’s revenue ($1,497,670) is still an estimate and
the number of streets rehabilitated will depend on the treatment method and contractors’ bids, the list
may include some streets that will not be completed with the funding available. The RMRA estimate
for Fiscal Year 2018-19 is $4,492,748. Staff’s preliminary estimate for pavement rehabilitation for the
proposed list of streets is approximately $7.0 million, which covers the estimated funds for Fiscal
Year 2018-19. The proposed guidelines do not limit the list of proposed streets to one fiscal year and
revised lists can be submitted if priorities change as long as the revisions are consistent with RMRA
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 121
File#:17-0366, Item#: 3.
regulations.
Additionally, if there are any agencies who do not submit the required information to the CTC by the
October 16, 2017 due date, RMRA funds that are not distributed to those agencies will be divided
among the compliant agencies. In order to accommodate any additional funds, staff recommends
establishing a second CIP project (STM-396). This project will use the same street list as STM-395
and will only be funded if additional funds are distributed to the City. If no additional funds are
distributed, STM-396 will be funded as part of the Fiscal Year 2018-19 CIP program.
The RMRA also requires that cities and counties submit an annual report of project completion for
projects funded by the RMRA. This report needs to include: description, location, funds expended,
completion date, and useful life of the completed streets. Any changes made to the original list
should be included. A full description of local agencies’ reporting requirements is provided in the
“2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Annual Reporting Guidelines” by the CTC (Attachment 3).
Maintenance of Effort: RMRA [Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2036]
The RMRA contains a local agency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement that applies to funds
allocated through the RMRA, similar to the existing requirements for the Gas Tax and TransNet. The
MOE requirement ensures that these new funds do not supplant existing levels of city and county
general revenue spending on streets and roads. For RMRA, cities and counties must maintain
general fund spending for street, road, and highway purposes at no less than the average of 2009-
10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 fiscal years, excluding one-time funds. The RMRA MOE for Chula Vista is
$4,515,412.
The State Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with these MOE rules. If the State
Controller determines that a city or county has not met its’ MOE, the agency will be required to
reimburse the state for the funds it received during that fiscal year, although the agency may expend
during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total amount that is sufficient to comply. Any
funds withheld or returned as a result of a failure to comply will be reapportioned to the other counties
and cities whose expenditures are in compliance.
Due to this requirement, staff recommends that a separate account be established for RMRA within
the Gas Tax fund.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found that
Councilmember Mike Diaz has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties
which are the subject of this action. However, the decision solely concerns repairs, replacement or
maintenance of existing streets. Consequently, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 2,
sections 18700 and 18702.2(c(1)), this item does not present a real property-related conflict of
interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 122
File#:17-0366, Item#: 3.
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy
Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The goal of the “RMRA
Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2017/18 (STM395 and STM396)” project is to support the Strong
and Secure Neighborhood strategy identified in the City’s Strategic Plan. The maintenance and
rehabilitation of public infrastructure is a key City function in providing a safe and efficient roadway
system for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the resolution will appropriate $1,497,670 from the RMRA Gas Tax Fund to CIP STM-
395. The RMRA allocations will begin to be distributed on a monthly basis beginning on January 1,
2018.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance.
Since the improvements are anticipated to increase the life of the streets included, there should be a
positive long term fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. League of California Cities’ Report (excerpt) Fiscal Year 2017-18
2. List of Streets and Description of Work
3. Annual Reporting Guidelines
Staff Contact: Beth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer
J:\Engineer\ADVPLAN\Gas Tax RMRA 2017\RMRA STM395 agenda statement fxr rev.doc
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 123
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 124
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 125
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 126
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 127
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 128
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 129
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 130
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 131
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 132
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 133
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 134
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 135
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 136
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 137
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 138
Project Name:
Project Description:
Location:
Schedule:
Useful life:
RoadName BegLocation EndLocation
Functional
Classification PCI -2016
E PALOMAR ST HILLTOP DR MELROSE AVE Collector 19
BAY BL I-5 FREEWAY RAMP PALOMAR ST Collector 27
MOSS ST FOURTH AVE THIRD AVE Collector 31
C ST N GLOVER AVE SECOND AVE Collector 33
HILLTOP DR ORANGE AVE EAST MAIN ST Collector 33
E NAPLES ST CRESCENT DR MEDICAL CENTER DR Collector 37
THIRD AV N FOURTH AVE D ST Collector 37
NAPLES ST FOURTH AVE THIRD AVE Collector 37
OXFORD ST TOBIAS DR HILLTOP DR Collector 37
THIRD AV L ST NAPLES ST Collector 39
F ST FOURTH AVE THIRD AVE Collector 40
THIRD AV ORANGE AVE ANITA ST Collector 39
L ST THIRD AVE FIRST AVE Collector 41
FIRST AV H ST I ST Collector 43
HILLTOP DR TELEGRAPH CYN RD L ST EAST Collector 44
I ST SECOND AVE HILLTOP DR Collector 46
BONITA RD CITY LIMIT @ WILLOW ST ALLEN SCHOOL RD Arterial 46
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (RMRA) STREET LIST
RMRA Major Pavement Rehabilitation - Collectors FY2017/18 STM395
Project includes street overlays and street reconstruction on various streets in the
City. The major rehabilitation treatments are based on the recommendations of
the City's Pavement Management System.
See RMRA Street List below.
November 2017-September 2018
This project is estimated to extend the useful life of the pavement to a minimum of
20 years.
8/11/2017 m
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 139
THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
2017 LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
FUNDING
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES
August 2017
California Transportation Commission
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 140
ii
2017 LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
FUNDING
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES
Adopted by the California Transportation Commission on
August 16, 2017
Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 2034
Commissioners
Bob Alvarado – Chair
Fran Inman – Vice Chair
Yvonne B. Burke
Lucetta Dunn
James Earp
James C. Ghielmetti
Carl Guardino
Christine Kehoe
James Madaffer
Joseph Tavaglione
Senator Jim Beall – Ex Officio
Assembly Member Jim Frazier– Ex Officio
Susan Bransen – Executive Director
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 141
i
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
ANNUAL REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines .................................................. 1
2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements .................................................... 1
3. Program Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................... 3
4. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 4
II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 4
5. Source ......................................................................................................................... 4
6. Estimation and Disbursement of Funds .................................................................... 5
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities .................................................................................... 5
7. Eligible Recipients ...................................................................................................... 5
8. Program Priorities and Example Projects ................................................................. 5
IV. Project List Submittal....................................................................................................... 6
9. Content and Format of Project List ........................................................................... 6
10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal ....................................................10
11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office ...........10
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing ................................................................11
12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report ....................................................11
13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal ...............................................13
14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received ........................................13
15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring ....14
16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage.................................16
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form ...................................................17
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form ......19
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule .................................................21
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 142
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
1
I. Introduction
1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines
On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets
and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes
and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller (Controller) will deposit various portions of this
new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A
percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties
pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance,
rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. For a detailed
breakdown of RMRA funding sources and the disbursement of funding please see Sections 5 and
6 of these guidelines.
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s
transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, statute requires
cities and counties to provide basic annual RMRA project reporting to the California
Transportation Commission (Commission).
These guidelines describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the annual RMRA
project reporting requirements for cities and counties and other statutory objectives as outlined in
Section 2 below. The guidelines were developed in consultation with state, regional, and local
government entities and other transportation stakeholders.
The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed
amendments. In order to provide clear and timely guidance, it is the Commission’s policy that a
reasonable effort be made to amend the guidelines prior to the due date for project lists or the
Commission may extend the deadline for project list submission in order to facilitate compliance
with the amended guidelines.
2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements
Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032.5(a) articulates the general intent of the
legislation that recipients of RMRA funding be held accountable for the efficient investment of
public funds to maintain local streets and roads and are accountable to the people through
performance goals that are tracked and reported.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), the objective of the Local Streets and Roads Program is to
address deferred maintenance on the local streets and roads system through the prioritization
and delivery of basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects as well as critical safety
projects.
Cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures. The main requirements for the program are codified in SHC
Sections 2034, 2036, 2037, and 2038 and include the following:
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 143
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
2
• Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year,
a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded
with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in a city or
county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of
supervisors at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
• The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed
project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life
of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content,
and submittal process for project lists prepared by cities and counties is provided in
Sections 9-10.
• The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects
in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent
with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
• The Commission will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have
submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore
eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC
2034(a)(2)].
• The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA
funds to eligible cities and counties pursuant to SHC 2032(h) [SHC 2034(a)(2)].
• For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and
counties must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description
and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project,
the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)].
Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for program
expenditure reports is provided in Sections 12-13.
• A city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a
maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general
fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street,
road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund [SHC 2036].
Monitoring and enforcement of the maintenance of effort requirement for RMRA funds
will be carried out by the Controller and is addressed in more detail in Section 15.
• A city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation
priorities other than priorities outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80 [SHC 2037].
• By July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines
developed by the California Workforce Development Board (Board) that address
participation and investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship
training programs [SHC 2038]. Further information regarding the forthcoming Board
Guidelines and future Board-sponsored grant opportunities is available in Section 16.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 144
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
3
3. Program Roles and Responsibilities
Below is a general outline of the roles and responsibilities of recipient cities/counties, the
Commission, the Controller, and the California Workforce Development Board, in carrying out the
program’s statutory requirements, as well as activities the Commission will undertake to meet the
legislative intent of SB 1:
Recipient Cities/Counties:
• Develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year.
• Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the Commission each fiscal year.
• Comply with all requirements including reporting requirements for RMRA funding.
Commission:
• Provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the preparation of project lists and
reports.
• Receive project lists from cities and counties each fiscal year.
• Provide a comprehensive list to the Controller each fiscal year of cities and counties
eligible to receive RMRA apportionments.
• Receive program expenditure reports from cities and counties each fiscal year and provide
aggregated statewide information regarding use of RMRA funds to the Legislature and the
public (e.g. the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature and a SB 1 Accountability
Website).
Controller:
• Receive list of cities and counties eligible for RMRA apportionments each fiscal year from
the Commission.
• Apportion RMRA funds to cities and counties.
• Oversee Maintenance of Effort and other requirements for RMRA funds including reporting
required pursuant to SHC 2151.
California Workforce Development Board:
• Pursuant to SHC 2038, establish a pre-apprenticeship development and training grant
program beginning January 1, 2019 that local public agencies receiving RMRA funds are
eligible to apply for or partner with other entities to apply for.
• Pursuant to SHC 2038, develop guidelines for public agencies receiving RMRA funds to
participate, invest in, or partner with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs.
Local public agencies receiving RMRA funds must follow the guidelines by no later than
July 1, 2023.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 145
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
4
4. Program Schedule
The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development of the 2017 Local Streets
and Roads Funding Annual Reporting Guidelines, initial submittal of project lists, and transmittal
of eligibility list to the Controller. See Appendix C for a more detailed program schedule.
Draft Guidelines Circulated for Public Review June 19 – July 10, 2017
Commission Adoption of Guidelines August 16-17, 2017
Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – October 16, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission October 16 , 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties December 6-7 , 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller December 6-7, 2017
Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin Mid-January 2018
II. Funding
5. Source
The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes
on diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles and dedicates these revenues to
transportation purposes. Portions of these revenues flow to cities and counties through the
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and the newly established RMRA created by SB 1.
The Local Streets and Roads Funding Program administered by the Commission in partnership
with the Controller is supported by RMRA funding which includes portions of revenues pursuant
to SHC 2031 from the following sources:
• An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1,
2017.
• An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November
1, 2017.
• An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with
rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
• An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of model year
2020 or later effective July 1, 2020.
• Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV
fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA,
after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated for
apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the formula in SHC Section
2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii).
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 146
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
5
6. Estimation and Disbursement of Funds
While neither, the Commission nor the State Controller’s Office prepare formal estimates of
RMRA funds, the Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the total amount of funding that will be
deposited into the RMRA annually. The California State Association of Counties and the League
of California Cities use this information from DOF to develop city and county level estimates of
RMRA funds which are available here:
California State Association of Counties
http://www.counties.org/sb-1-road-repair-and-accountability-act-2017
League of California Cities
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/
Each fiscal year, upon receipt of a list of cities and counties that are eligible to receive an
apportionment of RMRA funds pursuant to SHC 2032(h)(2) from the Commission, the Controller
is required to apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties consistent with the formula
outlined in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). It is expected that the Controller will continuously
apportion RMRA funds on a monthly basis to eligible cities and counties using a process and
system similar to that of HUTA apportionments. RMRA funding is continuously apportioned and
is not provided on a reimbursement basis.
The Commission does not approve project lists and provide authorization to proceed with RMRA
funded projects. The Commission receives project lists, determines they are complete and meet
basic statutory requirements outlined in SHC 2034 and then approves and submits a statewide
list to the Controller of cities and counties that are eligible to begin receiving monthly RMRA
funding apportionments.
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities
7. Eligible Recipients
Eligible recipients of RMRA funding apportionments include cities and counties that have
prepared and submitted a project list to the Commission pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1) and
that have been included in a list of eligible entities submitted by the Commission to the Controller
pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2).
Recipients of RMRA apportionments must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
8. Program Priorities and Example Projects
Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), RMRA funds made available for the Local Streets and Roads
Funding Program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation
projects, and on critical safety projects.
SHC Section 2030(b)(1) provides a number of example projects and uses for RMRA funding that
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
• Safety Projects
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 147
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
6
• Railroad Grade Separations
• Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian
and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture
projects in conjunction with any other allowable project)
• Traffic Control Devices
SHC Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program may also be used to
satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for projects authorized by this
subdivision.
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-
funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible
(as deemed by cities and counties). These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on
transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the city’s or county’s
average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80.
IV. Project List Submittal
9. Content and Format of Project List
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the
State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects
proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget, which may
include pertinent budget amendments.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the project list along with additional
guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability
and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 148
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
7
a.) Included in an Adopted Budget
All proposed projects must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the
applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting.
To ensure transparency and to meet the intent of SHC Section 2034(a)(1) “included in a
city or county budget” can mean either of the following:
a.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding adopted as part of the
city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public
meeting; or
b.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding amended into the
city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public
meeting.
Documentation of Inclusion in an Adopted Budget
A city or county must provide a public record which illustrates that projects proposed for
RMRA funding through the Local Streets and Roads Program have been included in an
adopted city or county operating budget. Examples of an acceptable public record include:
a.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects and an adopting resolution;
b.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects and meeting minutes documenting
approval at a regular public meeting.
c.) An excerpt from the city/county’s amended operating or capital improvement
budget including the relevant list of projects, or the staff report specifying the
projects to be included, as well as an adopting resolution or meeting minutes
documenting approval at a regular public meeting.
Submittal of electronic copies of the relevant excerpts from an operating budget (or
amendment) and support documentation (i.e. resolution or minutes) is encouraged.
Support documentation requirements are further discussed in Appendix A.
b.) List of Projects – Content
Pursuant to SHC 2034(a)(1), the project list must include a description and the location of
each proposed project, a proposed schedule for each project’s completion, and the
estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list is intended to cover, at a
minimum, the applicable fiscal year. Cities and counties may include project information
for future fiscal years but are expected to update the project list as needed every fiscal
year prior to submittal to the Commission.
Development and Content
The Commission recognizes the inherent diversity of road maintenance and rehabilitation
needs among the approximately 540 jurisdictions across the state that may utilize Local
Streets and Roads Program funding.
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, cities and counties are encouraged to clearly
articulate how these funds are being utilized through the development of a robust project
list.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 149
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
8
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information
submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and
Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key
components of the project list. Please note that project lists included in a city or county
budget should, at a minimum, include the elements mandated by statute: description,
location, schedule for completion and useful life. Cities and counties should include more
detailed project information as described below in the project list submitted to the
Commission.
For further assistance, Appendix A has been developed to outline project list content and
format.
Project Description
The list must include a project description for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that
the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need.
Project Location
The list must include a project location for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the
public to clearly understand where within the community the project is being undertaken.
For example, providing specific street names where improvements are being undertaken
and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general information
such as “various” or “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is
available, it is highly encouraged to be included in the project list submitted to the
Commission.
Proposed Schedule for Completion
The list must include a completion schedule for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a high-level timeline that provides a clear picture to the public of
when a project is reasonably expected to be completed. The proposed schedule for
completion should clearly articulate if a project will take multiple years to complete.
Estimated Useful Life
The list must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that is
clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and
design, where applicable.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into
RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective,
and where feasible. These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 150
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
9
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective, and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding.
To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in
addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 10, the standard forms
developed by the Commission will allow cities and counties to report on the inclusion of
these elements.
Other Statutory Considerations for Project Lists
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), the project list shall not limit the flexibility of an
eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so
long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). After submittal of the project
list to the Commission, in the event a city or county elects to make changes to the project
list pursuant to the statutory provision noted above, formal notification of the Commission
is not required. However, standard reporting forms will provide an opportunity for
jurisdictions to annually communicate such changes to the Commission as part of the
regular reporting process.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or
county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This provision
however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare and submit
a list of projects or the requirement to consider technology, climate change, and complete
streets elements to the extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and
development of projects for RMRA funding.
In the event a city or county will spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation
priorities other than those outlined in Section 8 of these guidelines and pursuant to SHC
2037, cities and counties are encouraged to work with its respective Regional
Transportation Planning Agency or Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure that
projects are included in the applicable Regional Transportation Plan.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 151
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
10
c.) List of Projects – Standard Format
Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget should, at a minimum,
include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion
and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project
information in the project list submitted to the Commission.
To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted to the Commission, a
standard project list format is under development and is further explained in Appendix A.
For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the
standard form available. The form will be provided by the Commission to cities and
counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties
can quickly and easily enter project list information and upload support documentation
online.
10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal
A city or county must submit a project list and support documentation by October 16, 2017 to the
Commission. All materials should be provided electronically to: ctc@dot.ca.gov. In the event a
jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at:
Eric Thronson, Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission
Eric.Thronson@dot.ca.gov
(916) 654-7179
11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a), a city or county must submit a project list to the Commission
to be eligible for the receipt of RMRA funds, and the Commission must report to the Controller
the jurisdictions that are eligible to receive funding. Upon receipt of project lists and support
documentation, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. Once a
project list submittal has been received and deemed complete by staff, the city or county will be
added to a list of jurisdictions eligible to receive RMRA funding for that fiscal year as required by
SHC Section 2034(a)(2). All project lists and support documentation submitted by cities and
counties will be posted to the Commission’s website.
The list of eligible cities and counties will be brought forward for Commission consideration at a
regularly scheduled meeting where staff will request Commission direction to transmit the list to
the Controller. Upon direction of the Commission, staff will transmit the list to the Controller
pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2) and the cities and counties included on the list will be deemed
eligible to receive RMRA apportionments for that fiscal year pursuant to SHC Section 2034 (a)(1).
Upon receipt of the list from the Commission, the Controller is expected to apportion funds to the
cities and counties included on the list pursuant to SHC Sections 2034(a)(2) and 2032(h).
In the event a city or county does not provide a complete project list and support documentation
for Commission consideration and eligibility designation pursuant to deadlines established by
these guidelines, cities and counties are expected to work cooperatively with Commission staff
to provide any missing information as soon as possible. Once completed information is
provided, Commission action to establish eligibility will be taken at the next earliest opportunity.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 152
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
11
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing
12. Scope of Completed and In-Progress Project Expenditure Report
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(b), for each fiscal year in which an apportionment of RMRA funds
is received and upon expenditure of funds, cities and counties must submit documentation to the
Commission pertaining to the expenditure of those funds that includes: a description and location
of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date,
and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project expenditure reporting process will
also provide an opportunity for cities and counties to report on the progress and expenditures
associated with multi-year projects that are not yet complete.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the completed project expenditure
report along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and
to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
a.) Completed and In-Progress Project Expenditure Report – Content
Development and Content
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that cities and counties clearly
articulate the public benefit of these funds through the development of a robust project
expenditure report.
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project expenditure
information submitted and to facilitate transparency and robust reporting within the Local
Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key
components of the completed project expenditure report. Additionally, Appendix B has
been developed to provide an example of project expenditure report content and format.
The project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and include projects that
have completed construction and are fully operational. The standard form will also provide
an opportunity for cities and counties to report on the progress and expenditures
associated with multi-year projects that are not yet complete.
Project Description
The report must include a project description for each completed and in-progress project.
The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5
sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily
understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand exactly what work was completed or will be completed in the
future.
Project Location
The report must include a project location for each completed and in-progress project. The
city/county is required to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would
allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project was or will
be constructed. For example, specific street names where improvements were undertaken
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 153
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
12
and project termini should be specified. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it
is highly encouraged to be included.
The Amount of Funds Expended and the Project Completion Date
The report must include the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and its date
of completion or expected date of completion. For the purposes of the project expenditure
report, a project is considered complete when it is operational/open to traffic. Construction
contract close-out is not required to be complete.
Estimated Useful Life
The report must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county
is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that
is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and
design, where applicable.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into
RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective,
and where feasible. These elements are:
• Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
• Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
• Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
• Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding. In the event that completed projects contain technology, climate change,
and complete streets considerations pursuant to SHC 2030(c)-(f). Standard reporting
forms developed by the Commission will allow, cities and counties to report on the
inclusion of these elements in RMRA-funded projects.
Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will also provide space for
supplementary information to be provided regarding the benefits of RMRA funded
projects. Cities and counties should consider providing additional information in the
proposed project list as appropriate in order to clearly communicate how RMRA funding
is being effectively put to use.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 154
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
13
Other Statutory Considerations for Project Expenditure Reports
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030(b) if the
city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This
provision, however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare
and submit a completed project expenditure report or the requirement to consider
technology, climate change, and complete streets elements to the extent possible, cost-
effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding.
b.) Project Expenditure Report – Standard Format
To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted, a standard completed
and in-progress project expenditure report format has been developed and is further
explained in Appendix B.
For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports in 2017, cities and counties are
required to use the standard form available. The form will be provided by the Commission
to cities and counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties
can quickly and easily enter completed and in-progress project information online.
13. Process and Schedule for Project Expenditure Report Submittal
Completed Project Reports must be developed and submitted to the Commission according to
the statutory requirements of SHC Section 2034(b) as outlined above in Section 12.
A city or county must submit a Completed and In-Progress Project Report by October 1, 2018
and October 1st of each subsequent year to the Commission. All materials should be provided
electronically to ctc@dot.ca.gov. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please
contact the program manager at:
Eric Thronson, Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission
Eric.Thronson@dot.ca.gov
(916) 654-7179
14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received
In order to meet the requirements of SB 1 which include accountability and transparency in the
delivery of California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that the Commission clearly
communicate the public benefits achieved by RMRA funds. The Commission intends to articulate
these benefits through the development of an SB 1 accountability website and through other
reporting mechanisms such as the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature.
Upon receipt of project expenditure reports, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure
they are complete. If any critical project information is missing (i.e. SHC 2034(b) requirements
such as project description, location, date of completion, expenditures, and useful life of
improvement) Commission staff will notify city/county staff to complete for resubmittal within 10
working days.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 155
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
14
All completed project expenditure reports submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the
Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website. The Commission will also analyze the completed
project expenditure reports provided by cities and counties and aggregate the project information
to provide both statewide and city/county level summary information such as the number, type,
and location of RMRA funded projects. This information will also be provided on the Commission’s
SB 1 Accountability website by December 1st each year, and included in the Commission’s Annual
Report to the Legislature which is delivered to the Legislature by December 15th each year.
In the event a city or county does not provide a project expenditure report by the deadline
requested (October 1st each year) to allow for Commission analysis and inclusion on the SB 1
accountability website and in the Annual Report to the Legislature, absence of the report will be
noted on the website, in the Annual Report, and may be reported to the State Controller.
15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring
This section provides general information regarding the detailed expenditure reporting and
maintenance of effort requirements that cities and counties are responsible for demonstrating to
the State Controller’s Office. It is important to note that the Commission has no oversight or
authority regarding these provisions. Specific guidance should be sought from the State
Controller’s Office in these areas.
In addition to the RMRA completed project reporting requirements outlined in SHC Section
2034(b), SHC Section 2151 requires each city and county to file an annual report of expenditures
for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office. SHC Section 2153 imposes a
mandatory duty on the State Controller’s Office to ensure that the annual streets and roads
expenditure reports are adequate and accurate. Additional information regarding the preparation
of the annual streets and roads expenditure report is available online in the Guidelines Relating
to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties prepared and maintained by the State
Controller’s Office. These Guidelines were last updated in August 2015 and are anticipated to be
updated again to address new accountability provisions of SB 1.
Expenditure authority for RMRA funding is governed by Article XIX of the California Constitution
as well as Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) of Division 3 of the SHC.
RMRA funds received should be deposited as follows in order to avoid the commingling of those
funds with other local funds:
a.) In the case of a city, into the city account that is designated for the receipt of state funds
allocated for local streets and roads.
b.) In the case of a county, into the county road fund.
c.) In the case of a city and county, into a local account that is designated for the receipt of
state funds allocated for local streets and roads.
RMRA funds are subject to audit by the Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 12410
and SHC Section 2153. Pursuant to SHC 2036, a city or county receiving an apportionment of
RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual
average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years
for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund, Monitoring and
enforcement of the MOE requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 156
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
15
MOE requirements are fully articulated in statute as follows:
Streets and Highways Code Section 2036
(a) cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and
highway purposes in order to remain eligible for RMRA funding apportionment.
(b) In order to receive an allocation or apportionment pursuant to Section 2032, the city or
county shall annually expend from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes an
amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the
2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Section
2151. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund
expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–
12 fiscal years, any unrestricted funds that the city or county may expend at its discretion,
including vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures, expended for
street, road, and highway purposes shall be considered expenditures from the general fund.
One-time allocations that have been expended for street and highway purposes, but which may
not be available on an ongoing basis, including revenue provided under the Teeter Plan Bond
Law of 1994 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of
the Government Code), may not be considered when calculating a city’s or county’s annual
general fund expenditures.
(c) For any city incorporated after July 1, 2009, the Controller shall calculate an annual average
expenditure for the period between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, inclusive, that the city
was incorporated.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Controller may request fiscal data from cities and
counties in addition to data provided pursuant to Section 2151, for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and
2011–12 fiscal years. Each city and county shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than
120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold payment to cities and
counties that do not comply with the request for information or that provide incomplete data.
(e) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with subdivision (b) when deemed
necessary. Any city or county that has not complied with subdivision (b) shall reimburse the
state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds returned as a result of a failure
to comply with subdivision (b) shall be reapportioned to the other counties and cities whose
expenditures are in compliance.
(f) If a city or county fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a particular fiscal
year, the city or county may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total
amount that is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for
purposes of complying with subdivision (b).
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 157
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
16
16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage
Pursuant to SHC Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must
follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address
participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training
programs. Cities and Counties receiving RMRA funds will also be eligible to compete for funding
from the Board’s pre-apprenticeship development and training grant program that includes a focus
on outreach to women, minority participants, underrepresented subgroups, formerly incarcerated
individuals, and local residents to access training and employment opportunities. Upon California
Workforce Development Board adoption of guidelines and grant funding opportunities in this area,
the Commission will update the Local Streets and Roads Program Reporting Guidelines to
incorporate this information by reference.
To demonstrate to the public that RMRA funds are being put to work, cities and counties should
consider including project funding information signage, where feasible and cost-effective, stating
that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 158
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
17
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to
the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding
Program, Appendix A provides the general outline of a standard Project List form that is under
development for cities and counties to use in submitting the proposed list of projects to the
Commission. This will be an electronic form with a series of drop-down menus, check-boxes, and
fillable fields.
For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard
form once available. The form will be provided by the Commission to cities and counties at the
earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines. The Commission intends to make available
an online platform so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter project list information
and upload support documentation online.
Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget should include, at a minimum, the
elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life
elements, while the form below includes more detailed project information.
The nature/type of information that will be included in the standard form is outlined below:
General Info:
• City and County Name
• Project Lead and Department Contact Information
• Legislative District(s)
• Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement
• Fiscal Year
• Supplementary Information 1 (a place for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were
identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and
any additional benefits of the projects).
Proposed Project A
Description:
• Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable
to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g.
replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.)
• Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete
Streets elements (SHC 2030). Space will be provided for cities and counties to provide an
optional narrative description of the additional elements and check boxes for why
additional elements may not have been included i.e. feasibility.
• Local/Regional project number (if applicable)
2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 159
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
18
Location:
• Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
information should be provided if available 2
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
• Anticipated construction year
Estimated Useful Life:
• Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards as applicable.
Support Documentation
• Electronic Copy of excerpt from City/County’s Adopted Budget or Budget Amendment
including proposed list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be
included in a budget amendment
• Adopting resolution or meeting minutes to document budget/amendment approval
• Additional information regarding support documentation is available in Section 10 of the
guidelines
Project Flexibility
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), this project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city
or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects
are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b).
2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 160
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
19
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Project Expenditure Report Form
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project expenditure information
submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads
Funding Program, Appendix B provides the general outline of a standard Project Expenditure
Report form that is under development for cities and counties to use. This will be an electronic
form with a series of drop-down menus, check-boxes, and fillable fields.
For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports to the Commission in 2018, cities and
counties are required to use the standard form once available. The form will be provided by the
Commission to cities and counties at the earliest opportunity after adoption of the guidelines.
The Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties can
quickly and easily enter project expenditure information online.
The nature/type of information that will be included in the standard form is outlined below:
General Info:
• City/County Name
• Project Lead and Department Contact Information
• Legislative District(s)
• Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and year/date of measurement.
• Total Funds Apportioned during the Fiscal Year
• Supplementary Information 3 (a spot for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were
identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any
additional benefits of the projects).
Completed or In Progress Project A
Description:
• Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable
to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g.
replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.)
• Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete
Streets elements (SHC 2034). Space will be provided for cities and counties to provide an
optional narrative description of the additional elements and check boxes for why
additional elements may not have been included i.e. feasibility.
• Local/Regional project number (if applicable)
• Space will be provided for cities and counties to identify any project list changes resulting
from the flexibility afforded by SHC 2034(a)(1) such as projects added, deleted, or
replaced if applicable.
3,4 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 161
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
20
Location:
• Must be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
inform ation is highly encouraged to be provided if available4
Amount of Funds Expended:
• Enter the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and the total project cost
• Enter the amount and type of other funds expended on the project
Completion Date:
• Drop down menu to select the month and year that the project is complete/operational etc.
• Place to enter status update on multi-year projects and expected completion date
Estimated Useful Life:
• Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards as applicable.
Signage:
• Provide a place to report on the inclusion of project funding information signage, if applicable
3,4 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA
projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 162
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program
Annual Reporting Guidelines August 2017
21
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule
FY 17-18
Adoption of Final Guidelines Call for Project Lists August 16-17, 2017
Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – October 16, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission October 16, 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties December 6-7, 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller December 6-7, 2017
Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin Mid-January 2018
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year
October 1, 2018
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online
December 1, 2018
FY 18-19
Guidelines Update as Needed TBD
Call for Project Lists TBD 5
Commission Review, Approval & Adoption of List of
Eligible Cities and Counties
TBD 6
Commission Submits Final List to Controller July 1, 2018
Controller FY 18-19 Apportionments Begin Mid-September 2018
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year October 1, 2019
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online December 1, 2019
5,6 The Commission is working with city and county representatives to develop a schedule for FY 18-19
that accommodates city and county budgeting processes; statutory clarification may be needed in this
area.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 163
RESOLUTION NO. 2017________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 CIP BUDGET TO ESTABLISH
NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, “RMRA MAJOR PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION FY2017-18” (STM-395) AND “RMRA MAJOR
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PHASE 2 FY2017-18 (STM-396)”, AND
APPROPRIATING $1,497,670 BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUE
FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT
(RMRA) IN THE GAS TAX FUND TO STM-395
WHEREAS, the State of California imposes per gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel
fuel, sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles, with
allocations dedicated to transportation purposes. These allocations flow through the Highway
Users Tax Account (HUTA), and a portion of these funds are dedicated to counties and
municipalities based on population and street mileage; and
WHEREAS, in 2017 the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and
Accountability Act (RMRA), which increased the gasoline and diesel excise taxes and the
vehicle registration tax. The increases in the excise tax will take effect on November 1, 2017
and the increase in the registration tax will take effect on January 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, RMRA local streets and roads allocations must be used for projects that include,
but are not limited to, road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, railroad grade
separation, traffic control devices, and complete street components; and
WHEREAS, the State has estimated that the City’s portion of the RMRA for Fiscal Year
2017-18 will be $1,497,670 and $4,492,748 for Fiscal Year 2018-19; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive RMRA funds for a given fiscal year, a city must submit to
the California Transportation Commission a project list pursuant to an adopted budget, with a
current deadline of October 16, 2017. This list must include description, locations, schedule, and
useful life for all projects; and
WHEREAS, an unknown amount of additional revenue may be made available to compliant
cities and counties if some agencies do not supply the required information for Fiscal Year 2017-
18 by the deadline; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City’s RMRA funds for Fiscal Year 2017-18 be used
to finance new major pavement rehabilitation projects, which will provide a useful life of at least
20 years. The list of streets that are proposed to be included in this project are shown on Exhibit
A.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that
it amends the Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget to establish new Capital Improvement Projects,
“RMRA Major Pavement Rehabilitation FY2017-18 (STM-395)” and RMRA Major Pavement
Rehabilitation Phase 2 FY2017-18 (STM-396)”, and appropriates $1,497,670 based on
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 164
unanticipated revenue from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) in the
Gas Tax fund to STM-395.
Presented by:
___________________________________________________
William S. Valle Glen R. Googins
Director of Engineering & Capital City Attorney
Projects/ City Engineer
Exhibit A
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 165
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0389, Item#: 4.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SINGLE TENANT LEASE-GROSS
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
In June 2012 the City entered into a five year lease with South Bay Community Services (South Bay)
for a City owned office building located at 430 F Street (the Ken Lee Building). South Bay exercised
its option for an additional five years in June 2017 and has further expressed a desire amend the
lease to extend the term beyond five years and allow them the option to construct an additional
building on site. Such an Amendment of the Lease requires Council action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Determination
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class
1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
In June 2012 the City entered into a five year lease with South Bay Community Services (South Bay)
for a City owned office building located at 430 F Street (the Ken Lee Building). South Bay exercised
its option for an additional five years in June 2017 and has expressed a desire to design, deliver, and
construct a modular building facility upon the Premises which will consist of a 2-story office building
and all of its component structures, improvements, installations, parts, and materials (collectively, the
“Facility”). Due to the large capital expenditure involved South Bay has requested the term of their
lease be extended. The extension proposed here is to amend the original term and provide for two
additional 15 year options giving the lease the ability to run until 2052. At the conclusion of the lease
or upon early termination South Bay will be required to remove the building and restore the premises.
As a result of the City entering into a long term lease full maintenance responsibility for the property
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 166
File#:17-0389, Item#: 4.
and improvements will become the responsibility of the tenant.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.
Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of
interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11), for purposes of the
Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy
Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The actions proposed
in this agenda support the Economic Vitality goals of the City.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no impact in the current fiscal year as South Bay will continue making lease payments
as provided for in the existing and amended lease.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
This action will have no fiscal impact in the near term as the both the current and proposed amended
lease would remain in effect for five more years. The amendment proposed here will allow the lease
to continue for an additional 30 years of rent that adjust with the cost of living yearly.
ATTACHMENTS
Lease Amendment
Staff Contact: Rick Ryals, real Property Manager
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 167
FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
SINGLE-TENANT LEASE -- GROSS
This First Amendment (“First Amendment”) to the Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-
Tenant Lease -- Gross dated June 5, 2012 (“Lease”) is entered into by and between the City of Chula
Vista (“City” or “Lessor”), a chartered municipal corporation, and South Bay Community Services
(“Lessee”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. Lessor and Lessee may be referred to
herein collectively as the “parties” and individually as a “party”.
Recitals
WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of all interests in thereal property and current improvements
at the Premises (as this term is defined in the Lease);
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into the Lease for the Premises on or about June 5,
2012;
WHEREAS, the Original Term of the Lease is set to expire on June 30, 2017;
WHEREAS, section 47 of the Lease provides that the parties are permitted to modify the
Lease by means of a writing executed by both parties;
WHEREAS, Lessee has informed Lessor of its desire to remain a tenant at the Premises
beyond the Original Term;
WHEREAS, Lessee has further expressed a desire to design, deliver, and construct a modular
building facility upon the Premises which will consist of a 2-story, fifteen thousand square foot
(15,000 sf) office building and all of its component structures, improvements, installations, parts, and
materials (collectively, the “Facility”) subject to all regulatory approval requirements and the terms
and conditions herein; and
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee desire to extend and amend the Lease on the terms and
conditions provided herein.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which the parties
hereby acknowledge, the parties agree to amend the Lease as follows:
Agreement
1. Extension of Original Term. Paragraph 1.3 of the Lease is amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:
“Term: Five (5)Eleven (11)years and 0 months (“Original Term”) commencing on
July 1, 2012 (“Commencement Date”) and ending June 30, 2017 June 30, 2023
(“Expiration Date”). (See also Paragraph 3).”
2. Extension of Rent Adjustment for Original Term. Paragraph 51 (A)(I)(a) of the Lease
isamended and restated in its entirety as follows:
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 168
Page 2 of 7
“On (Fill in COLA Dates): July 1 2013; July 1 2014; July 1 2015 ; July 1 2016; July
1 2017; July 1 2018; July 1 2019 ; July 1 2020; July 1 2021; and July 1 2022
the Base Rent shall be adjusted by the change, if any, from the Base Month specified
below the first month of the term of this Lease as set forth in paragraph 1.3 in the
Consumer Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor for (select one): …CPI U (All Urban Consumers) for San Diego (All
Items1982-1984 = 100), herein referred to as “CPI”.”
3. Option to Extend. Paragraph 52 (A) of the Lease is amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:
“A. OPTION(S) TO EXTEND
Lessor agrees to grants to Lessee the option to extend the term of this Lease for two
(2)additional fifteen (15)year periods commencing when the prior term expires upon
each and all of the following terms and conditions:
(i)Lessee fully and timely completes the Facility in strict accordance
with this First Amendment.
(ii) In order to exercise an option to extend, Lessee must give written
notice of such election to Lessor and Lessor must receive the same at
least 6 but not more than 12 months prior to the date that the option
period would commence time being of the essence. If proper
notification of the exercise of an option is not given and/or received
such option shall automatically expire. Options if there are more than
one may only be exercised consecutively.
(iii) The provisions of paragraph 39 including those relating to Lessee’s
Default set forth in paragraph 39.4 of this Lease are conditions of this
Option.
(iv) Except for the provisions of this Lease granting an option or options to
extend the term, all of the terms and conditions of this Lease except
where specifically modified by this option shall apply.
(v) This Option is personal to the original Lessee and cannot be assigned
or exercised by anyone other than said original Lessee and only while
the original Lessee is in full possession of the Premises and without
the intention of thereafter assigning or subletting.
(vi) The monthly rent for each month of the option period shall be
calculated as follows using the method indicated below: (Check
Method(s) to be Used and Fill in Appropriately)
I. Cost of Living Adjustment(s) (COLA)
a. On (Fill in COLA Dates): July 1 2023; July 1 2024; July
1 2025; July 1 2026; July 1 2027; July 1 2028; July 1
2029; July 1 2030; July 1 2031; July 1 2032; July 1
2033; July 1 2034; July 1 2035; July 1 2036; July 1
2037; July 1 2038; July 1 2039; July 1 2040; July 1
2041, July 1 2042, July 1 2043, July 1 2044, July 1 2045,
July 1 2046, July 1 2047, July 1 2048, July 1 2049, July
1 2050; July 1 2051; July 1 2052
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 169
Page 3 of 7
the Base Rent shall be adjusted by the change if any from the Base Month
specified below in the Consumer Price Index of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the US Department of Labor for (select one): …CPI U (All
Urban Consumers) for (Fill in Urban Area): San Diego (All Items1982-
1984 = 100) herein referred to as CPI.
b. The monthly rent payable in accordance with paragraph
A.I.a of this Addendum shall be calculated as follows the
Base Rent set forth in paragraph 1.5 of the attached Lease,
shall be multiplied by a fraction the numerator of which
shall be the CPI of the calendar month 2 months prior to
the month(s) specified in paragraph A.I.a above during
which the adjustment is to take effect, and the denominator
of which shall be the CPI of the calendar month which is 2
months prior to (select one): the first month of the term of
this Lease as set forth in paragraph 1.3 (“Base Month”) or
… .Thesum so calculated shall constitute the new monthly
rent hereunder but in no event shall any such new monthly
rent be less than the rent payable for the month
immediately preceding the rent adjustment. In no event
shall any adjustment exceed two percent (2%) in any given
year.
c. In the event the completion and/or publication of the CPI
shall be transferred to any other governmental department
or bureau or agency or shall be discontinued then the index
most nearly the same as the CPI shall be used to make
such calculation In the event that he Parties cannot agree
on such alternative index then the matter shall be
submitted for decision to the American Arbitration
Association in accordance with the then rules of said
Association and the decision of the arbitrators shall 6e
binding upon the parties. Thecost of said Arbitration shall
be paid equally by theParties.”
4. Facility. In consideration for and as a condition of entering into this First Amendment,
Lessee agrees to exercise best efforts to construct, maintain, and occupy the Facilityat the Premises at
its sole cost and expense andsubject tothe terms and conditions below:
4.1 Ownership. The Facility shall be the sole property of Lessee, but also
considered as a part of the Premises as defined in the Lease. Fee title in the Premises shall at all times
remain in Lessor and nothing contained in this First Amendment shall be construed to allow or permit
any of Lessee’s interest in the Premises to ripen into a fee ownership interestof the Premises.
4.2 Construction/Regulatory Approvals. Lessee will exercise best efforts to fully
design, construct, and complete the Facility, including but not limited to obtaining all necessary
regulatory approvals and a certificate of occupancy, at its sole cost and expense, by no later than June
30, 2023. Lessee’s failure to timely design, construct, and complete the Facility will prohibit Lessee
from exercising an Option to Extend pursuant to Section 3 of this First Amendment but will not be
considered a default of the Lease.
4.3 Compliance with Prevailing Wages. As the Facility will be wholly owned by
Lessee, subject to removal from the Premises, and constructed and maintained without the use of
public funds or assistance, the parties have initially determined that the construction of the Facility
should not be subject to payment of prevailing wages. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee
acknowledges that the construction and/or maintenance of the Facility may be subject to prevailing
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 170
Page 4 of 7
wage requirements. Lessee agrees to strictly comply with and be responsible for all prevailing wage
requirements as provided by any state or federal law or regulation. To the fullest extent permitted by
law, Lessee further agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, the City and its elected
and appointed officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any and all liability,
claims, costs, expenses (including without limitation legal costs and attorneys’ fees), and damages,
arising from, connected with, incident to, or in any way attributable to a failure by Lessee, its
employees, contractors, or agents to comply with any prevailing wage requirement of any state or
federal law or regulation. Such failures may include but are not limited to a failure to post or provide
required notices, afailure to keep required records or documents, or a failure to pay required wages.
4.4 Additional Access. If an agency with jurisdiction requires additional access
facilities or improvements to be installed or maintained at the Premises as a result of the design,
construction, maintenance, repair, occupation, or operation of the Facility, Lessee agrees to cause all
such facilities and improvements to be installed andmaintained at Lessee’s sole cost and expense.
4.5 Maintenance and Repair. Lessee will maintain, repair, and operatethe Facility
in a clean and safe condition at Lessee’s sole cost and expense.
4.6 Utility Improvements. Lessee will install and maintain all water, gas, heat,
light, power, telephone, and other utility improvements and services forthe Facilityon the Premises at
Lessee’s sole cost and expense.
4.7 Insurance. In addition to other insurance requirements of the Lease, Lessee
will procure and maintain all additional insurance required by Lessor as set forth in Exhibit A.
4.8 Taxes. Lessee will pay all real property, personal property, possessory
interest, and other taxes assessed by reason of or due to the Facility directly to the applicable taxing
authority.
4.9 Removal of Facility. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing prior to expiration
or termination of the Lease, Lessee will remove the Facility from the Premises on or before thedate of
the expiration or termination of the Lease at Lessee’s sole cost and expense. If Lessee fails to remove
the Facility by the date of expiration or termination of the Lease, the City has the right but not
obligation to remove the Facility and store it at an alternate location. Lessee will pay Lessor all actual
and reasonable costs of such removal and storage. If the removal of the Facility results in damage to
the Premises, Lessee will pay to repair such damage or pay Lessor for the actual costs incurred to
repairsuch damage, at Lessor’s option.
4.10 Restoration of Premises. After removal of the Facility from the Premises,
Lessee will restore the Premises to the condition that existed prior to locating the Facility at the
Premises. If Lessee fails to restore the Premises to the condition existing prior to locating the Facility
at the Premises, Lessor has the right but not the obligation to cause the Premises to be restored to the
condition that existed prior to locating the Facility at the Premises and Lessee will pay Lessor the
actual costs incurred for such restoration.
4.11 Liens. Except as explicitly authorized in section 4.12 below, Lessee will
keep the Premises free and clear from any and all liens in connection with any work performed,
material furnished, equipment provided, or other obligations incurred by or for Lessee. Lessee will
inform every contractor, subcontractor, equipment provider, and material supplier that intend to
provide any work, service, equipment, or material to Lessee in connection with the Premises that the
Premises is public property not subject to mechanics’ liens or stop notices for services, equipment, or
materials provided for Lessee. If Lessee does not cause the release of a mechanic’s lien, stop notice,
or other lien purporting to attach to the Premises within thirty (30) days after notice or discovery of the
lien, the City will have the right, but not the obligation, to cause the same to be released by any means
it deems proper in its sole discretion, including payment of the claim giving rise to such lien. Lessee
will reimburse the City for all actual costs incurred in connection with any such lien (including
reasonable attorneys’ fees) within ten (10) days following receipt of the City’s demand together with
copies of invoices or other evidence to document the costs incurred.
4.12 Encumbrance. Lessee will not at any time encumber any of Lessor’s interest
in the real property of the Premises, including but not limited to Lessor’s fee title, or any of Lessor’s
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 171
Page 5 of 7
fixtures, structures, improvements, or other interests in the Premises. Lessee may, subject to the prior
written consent by Lessor, encumber the Facility by means of mortgage or other security interest in
order to finance the design, delivery, and/or construction of the Facility. If Lessee elects to encumber
the Facility, the parties agree to cooperate to negotiate reasonable protections of the parties’ respective
interests in the Premises prior to Lessee entering into any such mortgage or security interest. Such
reasonable protections mustinclude butare not be limited to the following:
i. That any encumbrance will not encumber any of Lessor’s interest in the real
property, including but not limited to Lessor’s fee title, or any of Lessor’s
fixtures, structures, improvements, or other interests in the Premises; and
ii. In the event that the Lessee at any time becomes in default under themortgage
or security instrument, that Lessor has the right but not the obligation to cure
such default and Lessee will pay Lessor the actual costs incurred to cure the
default.
4.13 Compliance With All Laws. Lessee will design, deliver, construct, maintain,
repair, use, operate, and occupy the Facility in strict accordance with all local, state, and federal laws
and regulations including but not limited to CEQA/NEPA, the American Disabilities Act (ADA),
Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 0-17988), Essential Services Building
Seismic Safety Act, and SB 239 & 132, laws prohibiting discrimination, and laws pertaining to the
City of Chula Vista, including its Charter, Municipal Code, and ordinances. Lessee warrants it is
aware of such applicable laws and will strictly conform to said laws.
5. Right of First Offer. Lessee will not dispose of, sell, or agree to sell the Facility
without first offering to sell it to Lessor. The word “sell” includes any transfer, conveyance,
assignment, lease, hypothecation, or pledge of all or any portion of the Facility.
5.1 First Offer. Prior to Lessee entering into an agreement for the marketing of the
Facility or otherwise selling or agreeing to sell the Facility, Lessee will offer in writing (“First Offer”)
to sell the Property to Lessor on the same terms and conditions that Lessee would then be willing to
offer to a third party. The First Offer must, at a minimum, include the following information: (i) the
purchase price; (ii) the method of payment of the purchase price; and (iii) the time and location for the
close of escrow.
5.2 Acceptance Period . Lessor will have sixty (60) calendar days from the date of
the First Offer to accept the First Offer (“Acceptance Period”) by delivering to Lessee acceptance on
or before 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on the last day of the Acceptance Period. If Lessee fails to
accept the First Offer before the Acceptance Period ends, the First Offer will be deemed rejected.
5.3 Closing Period. If Lessor accepts the First Offer, the parties will have thirty
(30) calendar days following acceptance of the First Offer (“Closing Period”) to consummate the
purchase of the Facilitypursuant to the terms and conditions of the First Offer.
5.4 Counter Offer. If Lessor responds to the First Offer with anything other than
an unequivocal, unconditional acceptance or rejection, the right of first offer will terminate and the
response will be deemed an offer to purchase the Facility on the terms and conditions in the response
(“Counter Offer”). Lessee will be entitled to accept or reject the Counter Offer.
6. Broker Fees. Notwithstanding any obligation of Lessor to make payments to Brokers
for services rendered pursuant to the original Lease, Lessor has no further obligations to make any
payments to Brokers and Lessee will be solely responsible for and make all payments to Brokers as
necessitated by the parties entering into this First Amendment.
7. Clarification of “Premises”. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties hereby agree that
the term “Premises” under the Lease shall include all real property, buildings, parking facilities, and
improvements currently located at 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California, 91911 and the Facility.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 172
Page 6 of 7
8. Shared Use of Conference Room. The parties agree that Paragraph 54 (Shared Use of
Conference Room) of the Lease is deleted in its entirety and is no longer of any force or effect.
9. Parking. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties agree that Lessee shall have exclusive
access to parking facilities on the Premises.
10. Additional Breach. Failure to comply with any terms, conditions, or covenants of this
First Amendment, shall constitute a material Breach under the Lease.
11. No Other Changes. This First Amendment incorporates only the changes identified
above. No other changes to the Lease are contemplated or intended by this First Amendment. The
remainder of the Leaseshall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.
The parties hereto have executed this First Amendment in Chula Vista, California effective as of June
30, 2017.
Dated: ___________________, 2017 CITY OF CHULA VISTA
______________________
Gary Halbert, City Manager
Attest:
__________________________
Donna Norris, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
__________________________
Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
Dated: ___________________, 2017 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
______________________
Kathryn Lembo, CEO
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 173
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
ADDITIONAL INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Builder’s Risk (Course of Construction): Lessee will procure and maintain insurance utilizing an
“All Risk” (Special Perils) coverage form, with limits equal to the completed value of the project and
no coinsurance penalty provisions.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 174
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SINGLE
TENANT LEASE-GROSS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (City) owns a property currently designated as San
Diego County Assessor’s Parcel Number 568-181-44, said parcel being located 430 F Street; and
WHEREAS, in June of 2012 the City entered into a lease agreement for said property
with South Bay Community Services for an initial five-year term with an option for a second
five-year term; and
WHEREAS, South Bay Community Services exercised that option but wishes to extend
the term of the Lease and add a structure to the property to expand operations; and
WHEREAS, in order to extend the lease and allow for said construction, the lease needs
to be amended and approved by Council Action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista that it approves the First Amendment To Standard Industrial-Commercial Single Tenant
Lease-Gross (First Amendment) between the City of Chula Vista and South Bay Community
Services in substantial form as presented; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it
authorizes the City Attorney to make such modifications to the First Amendment as deemed
necessary for the benefit of the City, and authorizes the City Manager, of his designee, to execute
the First Amendment on behalf of the City.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Eric C. Crockett Glen R. Googins
Director of Economic Development City Attorney
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 175
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0411, Item#: 5.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.80 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS (FIRST
READING)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council place the ordinance on first reading.
SUMMARY
Recent California court decisions have held that sex offender residency restrictions determined on an
individualized probation or parole basis are permitted, but that laws placing a residency restriction
uniformly on all sex offenders are unconstitutional. As a result, it is necessary and appropriate for the
City to modify chapter 9.80 to remove the blanket residency restriction applicable to all Penal Code
290 registrants.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality
Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
The proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of
the State CEQA Guidelines because the activity consists of administrative/fiscal actions that will not
result in a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
The City of Chula Vista adopted Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) chapter 9.80 in March 2006 to
impose local residency restrictions on sex offenders in the interest of public safety. CVMC chapter
9.80 applies to all individuals who have committed a sexual offense against or involving a minor for
which the person must register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. The chapter
prohibits such individuals from residing within 500 feet of a school (grades K-8) or a park.
In 2015, the California Supreme Court held in In re Taylor, a case involving San Diego County, that
an ordinance placing a blanket residency restriction on all sex offenders was unconstitutional and
adversely impacted public safety. The California Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 176
File#:17-0411, Item#: 5.
adversely impacted public safety. The California Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that
the uniform residency restriction limited available housing for sex offenders; negatively impacted
offender access to transportation, employment, and social services; and resulted in a significant
increase in homelessness among the sex offender population, making them more difficult to track
and monitor. Although the court struck down blanket residency restrictions, the court affirmed that the
California Department of Corrections maintains authority to impose restrictions on registered sex
offenders in the form of discretionary parole conditions, including residency restrictions, as long as
they are based on and supported by the individualized circumstances of each individual parolee.
In 2016, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in People v. Lynch,struck down
application of a blanket residency condition to a probation case involving a sex offender, finding that
the application of a uniform condition interferes with the policies of probation departments to fashion
individual probation conditions based on the specific facts of each individual case and to utilize the
individual expertise of local supervisors familiar with community housing conditions.
Finally, in January 2016, the California Sex Offender Management Board, created by the California
Legislature to study and recommend best policies related to sex offender management issues,
issued a letter and clear recommendations to the California Assembly Public Safety Committee
explaining that research and scientific evidence have concluded that sex offender residency
restrictions are not effective and, in fact, increase the risk of sexual recidivism. The letter and
research summaries submitted to the Assembly are attached to this staff report for the Council’s
further information.
In light of these court decisions and the recommendations of the Sex Offender Management Board, it
is necessary and appropriate for the City to modify Chapter 9.80 to remove its blanket sex offender
residency restriction. Penal Code section 290, which requires sex offenders to register with local law
enforcement, will remain in place. As a result, sex offenders will still be required to register with local
law enforcement when moving into the City, moving out of the City, and during regularly specified
intervals while residing in the City. Registration requirements include an in person appointment at the
police department, collection of housing, employment, and vehicle information, a photograph of the
registrant, and collection of the registrant’s fingerprints. Such information will continue to be uploaded
into several shared law enforcement databases, and the Chula Vista Police Department will continue
to maintain and enforce such registration requirements. The City of Chula Vista Police Department
currently reports a sex-offender registration compliance rate of above 90%. In addition to local
registration and monitoring, individualized probation or parole conditions, including residency
requirements and GPS monitoring as determined by the applicable state or county agency, will
remain in effect for sex offenders living in the City of Chula Vista.
Staff recommend that the City Council amend CVMC 9.80 to remove its blanket residency restriction
provision and to affirm the City’s commitment to public safety by enforcing sex offender registration
requirements, by cooperating with other state and local agencies involved in sex offender monitoring
and enforcement, and by reporting any enforcement issues to the City Manager or City Council.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-
specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section
18702.2(a)(11), is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real
property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100,City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 177
File#:17-0411, Item#: 5.
property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100,
et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Councilmember, of any
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy
Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The amendment of
Chapter 9.80 supports the Operational Excellence goal as it brings the Chula Vista Municipal Code
into compliance with recent state court decisions and reduces potential liability to the City.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The subject amendment to Chapter 9.80 results in no current year fiscal impact to the City.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The subject amendment to Chapter 9.80 results in no ongoing fiscal impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance
2. California Sex Offender Management Board January 6, 2016 Letter and Considerations to the
Assembly Public Safety Committee
Staff Contact: Glen Googins; Roxana Kennedy; Megan McClurg; Kenneth Hicks
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 178
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@600EF4DD\@BCL@600EF4DD.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTER 9.80 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY
RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista adopted Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”)
Chapter 9.80 in March 2006 to impose local residency restrictions on sex offenders in the interest
of public safety;
WHEREAS, CVMC Section 9.80.020 provides that a “Person” who has committed a
sexual offense against or involving a minor that has been required to register as a sex offender
pursuant to Penal Code Section 290 is prohibited from residing within 500 feet of a school
(grades K through 8) or a park;
WHEREAS, recent rulings by the California Supreme Court and the California Court of
Appeals for the Fourth District (which covers San Diego County) have held that residency
restrictions determined on an individualized probation or parole basis are permitted but that
“blanket” sex offender residency restrictions similar to those provided in Chapter 9.80 of the
CVMC are unconstitutional;
WHEREAS, in light of these court decisions, it is necessary and appropriate for the City
to modify Chapter 9.80 to remove the blanket residency restrictions for sex offenders contained
therein;
WHEREAS, existing California law requiring sex offenders to register with local law
enforcement agencies will continue in effect; and
WHEREAS, state or county agencies will continue to have the authority to place further
individualized restrictions and requirements on sex offenders who are on parole or probation,
including GPS monitoring and residency restrictions when appropriate in the interest of public
safety;
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section I.
Chapter 9.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND RESTRICTIONS
Sections:
9.80.010 Findings and Declaration.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 179
Ordinance
Page 2
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.
9.80.010 Findings and Declaration.
The City Council finds and declares that it is in the best interest of the City to monitor
and, whenever possible, cooperate with other local and state agencies to manage the conduct of
convicted sex offenders in the community.
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.
Penal Code section 290 requires sex offenders to register their residency with local law
enforcement agencies. In addition, sex offenders who are on parole or probation with the state or
county are subject to further restrictions and conditions, including residency restrictions and GPS
monitoring as determined on a case-by-case basis. In making case-by-case determinations, state
law currently implements a “Containment Model” approach to sex offender management. The
Containment Model involves collaboration among a team of professionals and the use of
research-based, state-authorized risk assessment tools to evaluate the risk of sexual re-offense
and assist in developing appropriate individualized parole or probation conditions. These
practices may change subject to changes in state or local law.
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.
The Chula Vista Police Department shall actively cooperate with other state and local
agencies to assist in the effective enforcement and management of sex offenders, particularly
with regard to sex offender registration requirements. The Police Department is further directed,
when necessary, to report any enforcement issues to the City Manager or City Council.
Section II. Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses
or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 180
Ordinance
Page 3
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by Approved as to form by
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
[INSERT DEPARTMENT HEAD NAME]Glen R. Googins
[INSERT DEPARTMENT HEAD TITLE]City Attorney
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 181
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 9.80 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND
RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
Page 1/1
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3407, passed July 11, 2017.
Chapter 9.80
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
Sections:
9.80.010 Findings and declarations.
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.9.80.020 Definitions.
9.80.030 Residency restrictions – Schools and parks.
9.80.010 Findings and declarations.
The City Council finds and declares that it is in the best interest of the City to monitor and, whenever possible,
cooperate with other local and state agencies to manage the conduct of convicted sex offenders in the
community.The city of Chula Vista finds and declares each of the following:
A. The city of Chula Vista currently places a high priority on maintaining public safety through a highly skilled and
trained police department as well as laws that deter and punish criminal behavior.
B. It is the intent of the city of Chula Vista in enacting this measure to help its citizens and their children have
additional precautions. It is not the intent of the city to embarrass or harass persons convicted of sex offenses.
C. The city of Chula Vista must take additional steps to monitor sex offenders and protect children. (Ord. 3034,
2006).
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.Definitions.
Penal Code section 290 requires sex offenders to register their residency with local law enforcement agencies. In
addition, sex offenders who are on parole or probation with the state or county are subject to further restrictions and
conditions, including residency restrictions and GPS monitoring as determined on a case-by-case basis. In making
case-by-case determinations, state law currently implements a “Containment Model” approach to sex offender
management. The Containment Model involves collaboration among a team of professionals and the use of
research-based, state-authorized risk assessment tools to evaluate the risk of sexual re-offense and assist in
developing appropriate individualized parole or probation conditions. These practices may change subject to
changes in state or local law.“Park” or “city park” means the land and easements owned or leased by the city of
Chula Vista which, by ordinance, resolution, regulation or agreement, is dedicated to or operated by the city for
purposes of sports and public recreation.
“Person” means a person who has committed a sexual offense against or involving a minor for which the person
must register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290. (Ord. 3034, 2006).
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.Residency restrictions – Schools and parks.
The Chula Vista Police Department shall actively cooperate with other state and local agencies to assist in the
effective enforcement and management of sex offenders, particularly with regard to sex offender registration
requirements. The Police Department is further directed, when necessary, to report any enforcement issues to the
City Manager or City Council.A. A person shall not reside within 500 feet of the real property of a school, grades
kindergarten through eighth.
B. A person shall not reside within 500 feet of the real property of a park.
C. Following notification by the Chula Vista police department of the requirements of this chapter, any violation of
this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to and including $1,000 and/or six months in the county
jail.
D. This section shall not apply to any person who has established a residence (at which this person lists as his or her
address for Penal Code Section 290 registration) prior to July 1, 2006. (Ord. 3034, 2006).
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 182
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 9.80 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND
RESTRICTIONS
Page 1/1
Chapter 9.80
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND RESTRICTIONS
Sections:
9.80.010 Findings and Declaration.
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.
9.80.010 Findings and Declaration.
The City Council finds and declares that it is in the best interest of the City to monitor and, whenever possible,
cooperate with other local and state agencies to manage the conduct of convicted sex offenders in the community.
9.80.020 State Law Registration Requirements and Individualized Conditions.
Penal Code section 290 requires sex offenders to register their residency with local law enforcement agencies. In
addition, sex offenders who are on parole or probation with the state or county are subject to further restrictions and
conditions, including residency restrictions and GPS monitoring as determined on a case-by-case basis. In making
case-by-case determinations, state law currently implements a “Containment Model” approach to sex offender
management. The Containment Model involves collaboration among a team of professionals and the use of
research-based, state-authorized risk assessment tools to evaluate the risk of sexual re-offense and assist in
developing appropriate individualized parole or probation conditions. These practices may change subject to
changes in state or local law.
9.80.030 Police Department Cooperation.
The Chula Vista Police Department shall actively cooperate with other state and local agencies to assist in the
effective enforcement and management of sex offenders, particularly with regard to sex offender registration
requirements. The Police Department is further directed, when necessary, to report any enforcement issues to the
City Manager or City Council.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 183
N
CA
D
Alameda C
To
CAS
Clin
California Co
Gerry D
Licensed Mar
California Co
Rich
Cons
Departm
The Hon
Los Angele
Deput
Office of
As
Division of
California Dep
J
Chief
Los
Rese
Califo
Correctio
L
Registration E
Te
Los Ange
Mountain V
San
Ex
California C
Cou
San
Mic
Di
Ventur
Al
CASOM
Paro
Division of
California Dep
Nancy O’Malley
ASOMB Chair
District Attorney
County District Attorney'
Office
om Tobin, Ph.D.
SOMB Vice-Chair
nical Psychologist
alition on Sexual Offend
D. Blasingame, Psy.D.
rriage and Family Thera
alition on Sexual Offend
hard DaBell, Ph.D.
ulting Psychologist
ment of State Hospitals
orable Peter Espinoza
Judge
es County Superior Cour
Janet Neeley
ty Attorney General
f the Attorney General
Jeff Green
ssociate Director
f Adult Parole Operation
partment of Corrections
Rehabilitation
Jerry Powers
f Probation Officer
s Angeles County
Jay Atkinson
earch Manager III
ornia Department of
ons and Rehabilitation
Lauren Rauch
Detective
Enforcement & Complia
eam Coordinator
eles Police Department
Max Bosel
Police Chief
View Police Departmen
ndra Henriquez
xecutive Director
Coalition Against Sexua
Assault
Monica Nino
unty Administrator
n Joaquin County
chelle Steinberger
ivision Manager
ra County Probation
lma Underwood
MB Board Coordinator
ole Administrator
f Adult Parole Operation
partment of Corrections
Rehabilitation
Calif
1515
Telep
's
ding
pist
ding
rt
ns
and
ance
nt
al
ns
and
Janu
The
Cha
Stat
Sac
Dea
The
asse
som
thro
As y
crea
(Res
CAS
safe
of a
Base
as th
crea
of se
In ad
whic
The
urge
hear
In th
wise
conc
Tha
and
Sinc
Tom
Vice
Calif
fornia Sex
S Street, 2
p hone: (916
uary 6, 2016
Honorable B
air – Assemb
e Capitol
ramento, CA
ar Assemblym
California S
embly Bill 20
me contributio
ugh the Pub
you know, AB
ate their own
sidence Res
SOMB sees
ety of Califor
sex offense
ed upon kno
he ones prop
ating these ty
exual recidiv
ddition, they
ch make the
Board there
es Public Sa
ring.
he hope that
e decision, C
cerns raised
nk you for yo
productive p
cerely,
m Tobin, Ph.D
e-Chair
fornia Sex O
Offender
12‐North, S
6 ) 323‐2660
6
Bill Quirk
bly Committe
A 95814
man Quirk a
Sex Offender
01 and has d
ons to the de
blic Safety C
B 201 is an
n local ordina
strictions) an
this Bill as a
nia citizens
e (Penal Cod
owledge of th
posed by AB
ypes of restr
vism.
y have many
ir implement
efore registe
fety Commit
the informa
CASOMB ha
d by AB 201
our service t
policies.
D.
Offender Man
Managem
S acramento
0 Web: w w
ee on Public
and Members
r Manageme
determined t
eliberations
ommittee.
attempt to a
ances regula
nd where the
a very import
by reducing
de 290 Regis
he research
B 201, CASO
rictions are n
y other conse
tation undes
ers its strong
ttee membe
tion will be o
s prepared a
and has pro
to the citizen
nagement B
ment Board
o , CA 95811
w w.casomb.o
Safety
s of the Ass
ent Board (C
that it would
about wheth
authorize the
ating where
ey may not b
tant and wel
the chances
strants) will c
and scientif
OMB has pre
not effective
equences, s
sirable.
opposition t
rs to vote ag
of assistance
a statement
ovided that d
ns of Californ
Board
d
o rg
embly Comm
CASOMB) ha
be importan
her to pass t
e state’s 540
registered s
be present (E
ll intentioned
s that individ
commit a ne
fic evidence
eviously con
e and, in fact
some intende
to moving th
gainst it in th
e to Commit
reviewing m
document in
nia and your
mittee on Pu
as been follo
nt for CASO
this propose
0 local jurisdi
sex offenders
Exclusion Zo
d effort to co
duals previo
ew sex offen
related to p
ncluded that
t, actually inc
ed and some
his legislatur
he January 1
ttee member
many of the i
the following
r efforts to s
ublic Safety,
owing
MB to offer
ed legislation
ictions to
s may not liv
ones).
ontribute to t
usly convict
se.
policies such
policies
crease the ri
e unintended
re forward an
12, 2016
rs in making
issues and
g pages.
upport wise
n
ve
he
ed
isk
d,
nd
g a
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 184
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
1
CONSIDERATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD (CASOMB)
TO THE
ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REGARDING
ASSEMBLY BILL 201 - LOCAL REGULATIONS CREATING
RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND EXCLUSION ZONES
FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
PART ONE: PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERTS
PART THREE: ASSUMPTIONS APPARENTLY UNDERLYING AB 201
PART FOUR: CONSEQUENCES – INTENDED AND UNINTENDED
PART FIVE: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
PART ONE: PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
The following document presents a written statement provided to the Assembly Public Safety
Committee regarding Assembly Bill 201, a proposed Bill which addresses local regulation of sex
offender residence restrictions and exclusion zones.
Although the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) has not been able to meet at a
time which permitted a direct specific response prior to the January 12 Assembly Public Safety
Committee hearing on AB 201, CASOMB’s published papers and Reports certainly make it
unambiguously evident that the Board does stand in strong opposition to this piece of legislation.
Even though the present document appears lengthy, each of the statements below represents only a
condensed summary of the important points which merit the Committee’s attention as this Bill is
considered. CASOMB is prepared to provide any needed references or additional clarifications.
For the information of any readers who are not aware, the California Sex Offender Management
Board was created by the Legislature nearly ten years ago and has, since then, provided a
substantial number of reports and statements regarding various aspects of sex offender
management in California. CASOMB was created to fill a need, namely that there had been no
forum at the statewide level at which the many perspectives on sex offender management issues
could be considered by and discussed among major stakeholders and experts so that
recommendations on best policies could be provided. CASOMB, housed within CDCR but
independent in its operations, is made up of 17 members who represent the major stakeholders
in sex offender management in California. The Board’s mission is the protection of the state’s
citizens from future victimization by previously convicted sexual offenders. More information is
available at www.CASOMB.org.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 185
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
2
One of the principles under which CASOMB operates is that policies and practices should be guided
by the best available scientific research. Making such research available and recommending policies
and practices consistent with verifiable knowledge and recommending against policies and practices
which the research finds ineffective, useless, or counterproductive is a major part of CASOMB’s efforts
to increase public safety. A national panel of experts on sex offender management issues – convened
by the United States Department of Justice’s SMART Office - stated the following:
Perpetrators of sex crimes are often seen as needing special management practices. As a
result, jurisdictions across the country have implemented laws and policies that focus
specifically on sex offenders, often with extensive public support. At the same time, the
criminal justice community has increasingly recognized that crime control and prevention
strategies—including those targeting sex offenders—are far more likely to work when they are
based on scientific evidence. (Emphasis added.) http://smart.gov/SOMAPI/index.html
CASOMB consistently urges policy makers to be familiar with and follow what is known and supported
by research and, whenever such relevant research is available, not to advance policies which are not
evidence-based.
When it comes to residence restrictions and, to a slightly lesser extent, exclusion zones, the research
and evidence is sufficiently clear. There is no research which supports the use of these strategies,
there is substantial research showing that such policies have no effect on preventing recidivism, and
there is growing body of research which indicates that residence restrictions actually increase sex
offender recidivism and decrease community safety.
In support of the statement that residence restrictions actually make communities less safe because
they increase the risk of sexual recidivism, some yet-unpublished research recently conducted as part
of a 2016 California study provides data showing that about 18% of sexual re-offenses in the probation
group of registered sex offenders were committed by individuals who were registered as transients at
the time of arrest on the new sex offense. Even more striking is the finding that 29% of sexual re-
offenses in the parolee sex offender group were committed by individuals who were registered as
transients at the time of re-arrest. Since transient sex offenders make up only about 8% of the overall
population of sex offenders living in California communities, it is obvious that the rate of reoffending
among those who are transient is quite disproportionately high. (Source: verbal report by California
Department of Justice (DOJ) staff at a CASOMB meeting on November 19, 2015.) A substantial body
of criminal justice research supports the fact that “lifestyle stability” is a “protective factor” and that
anything which undermines such stability amplifies the risk of reoffending.
The proponents of residence restrictions and exclusion zones, as put forth in AB 201, appear to begin
with the premise and assumption that such policies will make California citizens safer. The Analysis of
AB 201 by the Assembly Committee on Local Government provides the following Author’s Statement:
"Prior to this ruling many cities and counties had taken action by enacting ordinances that
would protect their residents. These cities and counties are now faced with the harrowing
choice of repealing local ordinances, compromising the safety of their communities, or face the
excessive cost of litigation. AB 201 restores a jurisdiction issue that has left local governments
unable to protect their communities in an appropriate way. AB 201 will restore authority to local
agencies and authorize the ability to implement their own ordinances to protect their friends
and neighbors from becoming victims of convicted sexual predators."
As articulated in several places in this paper, the claim that residence restrictions make communities
safer is one which has no support in the scientific literature. It is a claim which CASOMB and
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 186
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
3
numerous other authoritative sources strongly reject as untrue. It is not a proper foundation upon
which to build effective policies.
As CASOMB has stated previously, those who are really interested in reducing the risk of recidivism
by registered sex offenders should be raising and addressing the question of where can they safely
live rather than merely creating restrictions on where they cannot live.
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERTS
Whether residence restrictions and exclusion zones are good public policies is not a question which
should be decided by “common sense” or other considerations, including the impulse to further punish
sex offenders because of the damage they have done to innocent victims. The understandable anger
many citizens feel about sex offenders and their crimes makes it difficult to think clearly and legislate
wisely with the goal of preventing future victimization. Therefore the body of knowledge produced by
scientific research should be the guiding force in identifying effective policies.
A number of respected bodies have reviewed the research regarding residence restrictions and
exclusion zones and have published their conclusions. CASOMB is not aware of any similar
statements from experts in support of such policies.
(1) USDOJ SMART Office: A national group of highly respected experts has issued recommendations
against the adoption and continued use of residence restrictions. The United States Department of
Justice under the auspices of the “SMART Office” convened a panel of recognized national experts.
This panel, named the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI),
issued its Report in October of 2014. In that document, the participants recommended against
adopting residence restrictions.
“Finally, the evidence is fairly clear that residence restrictions are not effective. In fact, the
research suggests that residence restrictions may actually increase offender risk by
undermining offender stability and the ability of the offender to obtain housing, work, and family
support. There is nothing to suggest this policy should be used at this time.” “SOMAPI
forum participants do not recommend expanding the residency restriction policy.”
(Emphasis added.) (http://smart.gov/SOMAPI/index.html)
(2) ATSA: The international Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) issued a
statement regarding residence restrictions. In that document, ATSA strongly recommended against
the use of residence restriction policies. The research supporting that conclusion is also provided.
ATSA supports evidence-based public policy and practice. Research consistently shows that
residence restrictions do not reduce sexual reoffending or increase community safety. In
fact, these laws often create more problems than they solve, including homelessness,
transience, and clustering of disproportionate numbers of offenders in areas outside of
restricted zones. Housing instability can exacerbate risk factors for reoffending. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence that these laws accomplish goals of child protection, ATSA does
not support the use of residence restrictions as a feasible strategy for sex offender
management. (Emphasis added.) (www.ATSA.org)
(3) California Supreme Court: In the landmark Taylor case regarding residence restrictions in San
Diego County, the California Supreme Court determined that the restrictions, as applied in San Diego
County, were unconstitutional. The published decision included a number of strong statements about
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 187
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
4
the practice of imposing residence restrictions and the Justices based their decision in part on the “no
rational basis” principle. In other words, the court held that, although the intentions of protecting the
community may have been admirable, there was no reason to think that residence restrictions did
anything meaningful to actually achieve that end. It is difficult to advance a “no rational basis”
argument because the presumption is that the government has implemented a policy which bears
some relationship to the goal it is attempting to achieve. The Taylor decision is believed to be the first
“no rational basis” determination regarding residence restrictions which has been decided against the
government.
The court’s decision, filed on March 2, 2015, included the following language:
“As will be explained, we agree that section 3003.5(b)’s residency restrictions are
unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered
sex offenders on parole in San Diego County. Blanket enforcement of the residency
restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in
compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among them,
and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services,
psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees,
while further hampering the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to
monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety. It thus has
infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational
relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from
sexual predators, and has violated their basic constitutional right to be free of
unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.” (Emphasis added.)
In re WILLIAM TAYLOR et al., on Habeas Corpus. Ct.App. 4/1 D059574 S206143
(4) CASOMB: For many years, CASOMB has recommended against adopting or continuing residence
restrictions in California. These repeated recommendations can be found in papers and Reports
available at www.CASOMB.org, and include numerous research references and facts supporting the
Board’s position.
“CASOMB has … repeatedly stated that the promulgation of conditions which actually create
homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders while producing no discernible
benefit to community safety is counterproductive and continues to be the single most
problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California. CASOMB continues to
recommend the elimination of one-size-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders
may live.”
(www.CASOMB.org Year End Report, February 2015)
It is worth noting that none of the statements and arguments made by proponents and supporters of
this Bill and none of the Analysis provided by the Assembly Committee on Local Government have
made any reference to these highly credible authorities.
PART THREE: ASSUMPTIONS APPARENTLY UNDERLYING AB 201
Assumptions and beliefs and myths
The push to pass AB 201 and thereby empower local jurisdictions to create their own versions of
residence restrictions and exclusion zones appears to be grounded on the acceptance by proponents
of a large number of assumptions which are simply not true.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 188
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
5
ASSUMPTION 1. The foundational assumption which appears to be accepted by the proponents of
this Bill is this: Residence restrictions and exclusion zones are actually effective in preventing the
commission of new sex offenses by previously identified (PC 290 Registrant) individuals. (See the
Author’s statement provided in PART ONE above.) As stated previously, this assumption is not true.
These types of policies simply do not accomplish the purposes for which they have been enacted.
ASSUMPTION 2. All convicted sex offenders are equally likely to reoffend and so it is effective to
develop “one-size-fits-all” policies. This assumption is false. There is a wide range of re-offense risk
among sex offenders. For this reason, California has put a great deal of thought and effort into
developing systems to evaluate the risk level for each PC 290 Registrant and into following the widely
accepted “Risk Principle,” which urges that more effort be put into the management of higher risk
offenders and less into those whose risk to reoffend is lower. Risk levels are determined through a
system developed by the legislatively-created State Authorized Risk Assessment Tools for Sex
Offenders (www.SARATSO.org) committee. The SARATSO system is being effectively used
throughout the state and the various management interventions are calibrated to take that risk into
account. Opening the door to “blanket” one-size-fits-all policies would move the state back in the
opposite direction and would ignore California’s thoughtfully developed risk-based approach.
ASSUMPTION 3. Most convicted sex offenders will reoffend. Therefore extremely robust controls
and restrictions are needed to stop them. This assumption is not supported by the research.
Measuring and accurately stating recidivism rates is very complex. However, all of the various
published studies indicate that the overall rate is considerably lower than is commonly believed. The
largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3
percent for the entire sample of sex offenders based on an arrest during the 3-year follow-up period.
As more time passes, the re-offense rate continues to drop.
Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the
world has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk
assessment instruments (cf. www.SARATSO.org ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2
percent.
ASSUMPTION 4. Every sex offender will continue to be a significant risk to reoffend for the remainder
of his or her life. The research provides ample evidence that this assumption is not true. The longer a
sex offender remains offense-free in the community, the lower the risk that that individual will reoffend
in the future. Because California continues to be one of the four states requiring universal lifetime
registration, many, many thousands of California’s approximately 83,000 registered sex offenders
living in the state’s communities have reached the point where, according to the risk assessment
research, their risk of reoffending is negligible. Yet apparently they would all fall under the scope of
this Bill and, with no scientifically defensible justification, would be subject to residence restrictions and
exclusion zones.
ASSUMPTION 5. Previously convicted sex offenders account for a substantial proportion of the new
sex offenses committed. This assumption is false. The research has found that only about 5% of new
sex offenses were committed by individuals previously convicted of a sex offense. Conversely, almost
all new sex offenses are committed by individuals who have never been previously convicted of a sex
offense. Efforts to prevent new sexual victimizations by focusing on PC 290 Registrants are
misplaced and a waste of resources. Instead, increased attention and resources should be directed
toward broader prevention strategies.
ASSUMPTION 6. Sex offenders are all alike in terms of their potential danger of offending against a
juvenile victim. Therefore all need the same restrictions with respect to limiting their access to
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 189
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
6
children. This assumption is obviously not true. Many sex offenses involve victimization of adult
women or men. When it comes to offenders with no history of victimizing children, community safety is
not improved by regulating their access to places where children gather.
ASSUMPTION 7. Molests perpetrated by persons who are strangers to the victim make up a
substantial portion of sex offenses against children. Sex offenders prowl California communities
looking for children to molest. This assumption is discredited by the research. Although the “stranger
danger” perspective paints compelling images of sex offenders lurking in the bushes in order to snatch
and molest a child, the reality is that sex offenses perpetrated against strangers account for only about
5% of total offenses. In the vast majority of cases, the offender is already known to the victim through
some existing relationship, including being a member of the same family. Formulating policies based
on the belief that “stranger danger” represents much of the problem needing attention diverts attention
from the other types of prevention efforts are needed to attempt to reduce the 95% of actual
victimization events.
ASSUMPTION 8. Sex offenders find their victims and commit their crimes in or around schools or
parks or other places where children gather. This assumption is not correct. Research on these
questions discloses that such scenarios are by far the exception. Most contact with child victims and
most actual offenses occur in the home of the victim or the offender. Of the very small number of sex
offenses actually committed in or around a school, the majority were committed by teachers or staff
who had never been convicted of a prior sex offense. Similarly, very few victims were encountered or
offenses committed occurred in parks or similar locations. Where do sex offenders find their victims
and commit their offenses? In almost all cases, not in the places from which they would be restricted
by this Bill.
(Note that the research upon which each of the above statements is based can be provided upon
request.)
PART FOUR: CONSEQUENCES – INTENDED AND UNINTENDED
ANTICIPATED OVERALL CONSEQUENCES
It is likely that many of California’s 540 local jurisdictions (58 Counties and 482 Municipalities) will
enact some form of residence restriction and exclusion zone regulations. It is impossible to predict
how many will actually do so. Prior to the court ruling determining that they were in violation of the
California constitution, many local ordinances had been put in place. Numbers cited suggest that 70
Municipalities and 5 Counties had restrictions in place. Others were presumably in the process of
being enacted.
Because there is no system in place or anticipated to keep track of all of the possible local ordinances
and regulations, it will be very difficult for anyone governed by or involved with this local-jurisdiction
system to actually know what the rules are. Before the court decision prohibiting such local
regulations was issued, CASOMB staff had made attempts to track the emergence of new local
regulations. Staff found the effort frustrating, challenging, and extremely time-consuming and
eventually were unable to continue the monitoring. This Bill makes no provision for any such tracking
as a new set of regulations begin to roll out across the state.
The Bill also makes no provision for the notification of registered individuals who might be directly
impacted by new local residence restrictions or exclusion zones. If the Bill and the new local
ordinances are written so that they apply to all registrants, then as many as 83,000 individuals could
be impacted. Since it is likely that not all local jurisdictions will create local regulations, the number
would probably not be that high, but could easily be tens of thousands. How would they learn of and
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 190
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
7
be given the specific information which would allow them to follow the proliferation of new restrictions
in their own localities and across the state?
Because the introduction of regulations purporting to prevent sexual reoffending is often – in the view
of some observers – driven more by political factors than by well-informed policy considerations, it
appears quite possible that local jurisdictions, especially those in certain parts of the state where many
smaller jurisdictions are geographically contiguous, will vie with each other to avoid being seen as a
“safe-haven” for sex offenders and will escalate efforts to match or surpass the restrictions imposed by
their neighboring communities. A notorious example of this mentality on the national stage is that
politicians in Georgia openly stated that their intent was to put in place stringent regulations which
would drive sex offenders out of the state. Such a stance reflects an attitude of “we don’t really care
where they go, just get them out of here.”
ANTICIPATED DESIRED CONSEQUENCES
Although, based on the above information, it seems highly unlikely, it is possible that a very small
number of offenses might be prevented by the actions of local jurisdictions made possible by this Bill.
ANTICIPATED UNDESIRED CONSEQUENCES
Since AB 201 would open the door for them to do so, it appears likely that local restrictions will apply
to ALL PC 290 registrants. Because Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law) was completely unclear about the
populations it intended to target, its restrictions were never applied to all registrants. The state’s
previous experience with residence restrictions is based upon their application primarily to those on
state parole – approximately 6,500 individuals. By contrast, ordinances developed under AB 201
could impact as many as 83,000 PC 290 registrants living in California communities, regardless of
whether they are currently under parole or probation supervision or not under any formal criminal
justice system supervision. The number of individuals who might be impacted by AB 201 would be
exponentially larger. The potential for dislocation, loss of previously stable living arrangements,
fragmentation of families, disruptions of children’s lives, loss of jobs due to exclusion zones, and other
foreseeable consequences would be massive.
The consequences of efforts to apply residence restrictions and exclusion zones to all of the state’s
Registrants who live in jurisdictions which would implement AB 201 must be considered. No one
appears to have made any estimate regarding the number of citizens who would be forced by
residence restrictions to move, including those who own their own homes. There is no estimate about
the amount of homelessness and transience which would result. Projections based on the experience
of CDCR in enforcing residence restrictions on parolees suggest that those numbers would be
considerable. There has been no apparent effort to estimate the number of jobs which would be lost
because the place where a Registrant works – and may have worked for many years – happens to be
in an area declared an exclusion zone by the local jurisdiction.
Historically and currently, CDCR Parole Agents have been depending on Global Positioning
Monitoring (GPS Ankle Bracelets) information to monitor exclusion zones. (Such case-specific
exclusion zones can be and frequently are imposed by parole authorities in response to individualized
needs and concerns.) The use of this costly equipment and the supporting tracking systems is now
limited to parolees and some county probationers. The cost of requiring such tracking for all PC 290
registrants would be absolutely prohibitive. Yet without such a system, it would appear impossible to
do any type of consistent enforcement of exclusion zone restrictions. Only if local law enforcement
should happen to find a registrant in an exclusion zone would the presumed effectiveness of creating
such zones have any chance of being realized.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 191
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16
8
PART FIVE: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Experts advise that case-by-case decisions about where sex offenders may live or be present are far
preferable to blanket, one-size-fits-all policies. Fortunately, California’s current system allows such
case-based determinations to be made for individual sex offenders under direct criminal justice system
supervision. The time when convicted sex offenders are most likely to commit a new offense occurs
during the initial period after release. Over time the risk diminishes. It is during this initial period that
authorities have the greatest control over these individuals since they are supervised under the
authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Parole Operations
(CDCR-DAPO) or under one of the state’s 58 County Adult Probation Departments. These
supervising agencies can use case information to impose individually-tailored requirements regarding
where specific offenders may live or may be present during their period of supervision. These periods
of parole or probation vary in length. CDCR parolees are under supervision for periods of 5, 10, or 20
years or, in certain cases, for life. Those on county probation are usually supervised for periods of 3
or 5 years. This system of sex offender management is already in place in California. The Legislature
has included in the Penal Code explicit requirements that sex offenders under supervision be engaged
in a certified specialized treatment program and that supervisors and treatment providers hold regular
meetings and communicate regularly in accord with the “Containment Model.” This sex offender
management approach, including individualized supervision guided by the “Risk Principle” paired with
a specialized rehabilitative treatment program, is viewed by experts as the most effective approach to
reducing sex offender recidivism.
Although it is extremely difficult to estimate the costs involved with implementing, enforcing, and
defending the local ordinances which might be created under this Bill, it is clear that they could be
substantial. It may be true that there would be no direct costs to the state itself. There would definitely
be costs to local government jurisdictions. The costs of filing, pursuing and responding to anticipated
lawsuits would be considerable. It is certain that there would be fiscal impacts on individual citizens,
including potentially tens of thousands of registrants who could lose their housing and, in some cases,
their jobs. Landlords would lose income as tenants were forced to relocate. Whether it would even be
possible to estimate all of the costs is questionable. To pass such legislation without even attempting
to do so seems irresponsible.
Given the history of residence restrictions in California, the proliferation of previous court challenges,
and the decision returned by the California Supreme Court in the Taylor case, it seems predictable
that there will be numerous court cases subsequent to the implementation of this Bill. The process of
bringing lawsuits is, of course, a very costly one and much of the cost would be incurred by local
jurisdictions defending their ordinances. Ultimately, such a process is also likely to take years.
It seems improbable that decision makers in the state’s 540 local jurisdictions would have the internal
expertise or access to such expertise to support the crafting of local ordinances which would really
have some chance of improving sex offender management and reducing recidivism. Based upon past
history, it seems more likely that the local decisions would be influenced by “common sense” and other
considerations which would not be helpful in drafting solid policies. The history of the emergence of
sex offender management policies throughout the United States is filled with experiences of
jurisdictions creating policies which are not grounded in good science and verifiable knowledge.
FINAL NOTE: As CASOMB has stated repeatedly in its Reports and other documents, it is unfortunate
that so much energy goes into introducing and even implementing policies and practices which
research says do not work rather than into actualizing the many possible policies and practices which
could actually reduce sexual victimization in California.
2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 192
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0371, Item#: 6.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4):
Two (2) Cases.
(This item was continued from 9/12/2017.)
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 193
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0395, Item#: 7.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):
One (1) Case.
(This item was continued from 9/12/2017.)
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 194
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0383, Item#: 8.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (d)(1)
Name of case:Chula Vista Animal Care Facility & Scripps Health v. Vernon Coston and Citizens
Business Bank, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2015-37598-CU-FR-
CTL
City of Chula Vista Printed on 9/14/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™2017-09-19 Agenda Packet Page 195