Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1991/01/08 "I (.,:-_'.:.....~~ !...":-~t'...;, '-"".'''''~f'.' ,...,e '~""':;"r" t!,,~.~ I .., \ "~. _ _. _ _ I'...". -.1 ,~. J.. ~'. J ..<,;;~ i uin ( . C.: '>,'.:; :;, \:~3 .) -:- Tuesday, January 8, 1991 6:00 p.m. '\ 0,(\"1 , ,........ C ,~~,. Council Chambers Public Services Building Re5[Ular Meetin5!: CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Malcolm _, Moore ~ Nader _, Rindone _ and Mayor McCandliss _' 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI-IE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINlITES: November 13, November 29, and December 4, 1990 That Council grant permission to Mayor Gayle McCandliss to be absent from meeting. 4. RECOMMENDATION: 5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TI-IE DAY: a. RESOLUTION 16005 EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF PARTIOPATION IN TI-IE ODAWARA OTY TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY RELAY RACE - (Council) CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 6 through 17) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Couru:il by one motion witlwut discussion unless a Couru:iImember or a member of the pub/u; requests that the item be pulled 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 CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Any items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed under the subsequent agenda item entitled "Items Pulled from the Consent Calendar." 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Request for left turn signal at the comers of"L" Street and Hilltop Drive - Cynthia Ranyak, 2265 Manzana Way, San Diego, California. Staff recommends request be sent to the Safety Commission. b. Request for Council to consider appropriate measure to conserve water and promote water reclamation - San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California. Staff recommends letter be sent stating what is being done. c. Request for interpretation of City Business License Ordinance - Youmans, Braithwaite, & Rechif, 4045 Bonita Road, Suite 305, Bonita, California, 92002. AGENDA -2- January 8, 1991 d. Claims against the City: Claimant No.1, Ellen and John Manti, c/o Glenn L. Gearhart, Attorney at Law, 13141 Central Avenue, Suite H, Chino, California 91710; Claimant No. 2, Mark Garcia, c/o Michael R. Marrinan, Esq., Law Offices of Adler & Marrinan, 401 West A Street, Suite 1300, San Diego, CA 92101-7906. Staff recommends denial of claims. 7. ORDINANCE 2433 ESTABUSHING A MORATORIUM ON AU. LAND USE APPROVALS ON THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC PROPER1Y IN THE VIClNI1Y OF "L" STREET (second readin~ and adoption) - Staff recommends that Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney) 8.A. ORDINANCE 2430 REPEAIlNG CHAPTER 2.02 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONFUCf OF INTEREST (second readin~ and adoption) - Government Code Section 87300 et seq. requires public agencies, including the City and Redevelopment Agency, to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. By this action, Council repeals the Municipal Code provisions for a conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1984, and replaces it with one adopted by resolution which specifically meets the statutory requirement and updates the list of "designated employees" to reflect additional positions and/or changes in duties since 1984. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney) B. RESOLUTION 15998 AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 15961 TO ADD DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES TO THE CONFUCf OF INTEREST CODE - Council directed that the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code be amended to add the Board of Library Trustees, the Charter Review Committee, and staff felt the Senior Planners should be included. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 9. ORDINANCE 2416 AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.020 AND 2.04.090 AND REPEAIlNG SECTION 2.04.050, 2.04.480 AND 2.04.590 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL MEETINGS, NOTICE AND COMPENSATION (first readin~) - At one of its December 1990 meetings, Council discussed the possibility of making Council Conferences full meetings for all purposes so that Council could take action. The issue was referred to staff for preparation of an appropriate change to the ordinance. Review of Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code revealed other technical changes with which the Council has been concerned relating to the beginning of public hearings and two sections which are historic anomalies. The proposed ordinance will make the Council Conference on the fourth Thursday of each month a regular meeting for all purposes. It will also direct staff to set matters for the beginning of the meeting at which a public hearing will be considered in notices of public hearings and to repeal the compensation sections which are no longer necessary due to the Charter provisions controlling Mayor and Council salaries. Staff recommends that Council place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney) 10. RESOLUTION 15999 ACCEPTING IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD Cl1Y HARMLESS - In October 1990, Woodcrest Development, Inc., in connection with the Terra Nova Subdivision, gave the City a quitclaim deed conveying AGENDA -3- January 8, 1991 open space and other lots which were also conveyed to the City by the subdivision map approved by the City Council at the same time. The quitclaim deed has had an erroneous reference to an earlier map, which was recorded with that mistake and without the City Clerk's certification of Council acceptance of the map. A corrected map has been prepared and recorded after affixing the Clerk's certification of acceptance following City Manager and City Attorney approval as authorized by Council Resolution 15645. As a condition to allowing recordation of the corrected map, the City Attorney required the developer to execute this irrevocable offer in order to protect the City from any potential liability arising out of the appearance of ttansfer of title by the erroneous deed. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution to accept the irrevocable offer and provide the City with protection from potential liability. (City Attorney) 11. RESOLlJIlON 16000 WAIVING BID REQillREMENTS AND APPROVING EXEClJIlON OF A FIVE YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 1WO KODAK EKTAPRINT 225 COPY DUPUCATOR MACHINES - In June 1988, the City leased two IBM copiers for a maximum term of five years. Due to extremely high usage, both machines are experiencing considerable down time and are currently incapable of providing satisfactory service for the remaining two-plus years of their five year term. Kodak acquired the lease interest of IBM in these two machines but due to the maintenance difficulties the machines are causing Kodak, they desire to replace these machines with new state-of-the- art equipment at this time. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 12. RESOLlJIlON 16001 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BE1WEEN TI-IE OTY OF CHULA VISTA AND TI-IE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION MAINTENANCE AT TI-IE "J" STREET MARINA BAYSIDE PARK AND ADJACENT LANDSCAPE MEDIANS - Resolution Number 15185 authorized the 13th amendment to an agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and comfort station maintenance at "J" Street Marina Bayside Park and the landscape medians on Tidelands during fiscal year 1990-91. Staff recommends that Council approve the 14th amendment to the agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 13. RESOLlJIlON 16002 WAIVING BID REQillREMENTS AND APPROVING TI-IE TI-IIRD AMENDMENT TO TI-IE AGREEMENT BE1WEEN TI-IE OTY AND TI-IE WYATT COMPANY FOR BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES - The third amendment extends the agreement for one year, until 1/11/92. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) 14. RESOLlJIlON 16003 AMENDING RESOLlJIlON 8202 BY ADDING TO TI-IE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUP TI-IE POSITION OF DEPUTY OTY CLERK - It is recommended that the classification of Deputy City Clerk be placed in the Mid-Management group effective January 1, 1991. (Director of Personnel) AGENDA -4- January 8, 1991 15. RESOLUTION 16004 GMNG CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO FORMATION OF A SPEOAL Acr DISTRIcr (SAD) FOR OPERATION OF TIiE <LEAN WATER PROGRAM - The City of San Diego has been planning modifications to the sewer treatment system for three years. As part of that process a Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) was established to develop an organization, ownership, and management structure to own and operate the Clean Water Program. Since formation in April 1990, GAG has dealt with issues of type of ownership, voting structure, policy direction, and legislation packet to form a Special Act District (SAD). At it's last meeting on 12/9/90, GAG agreed that the District should be formed by the State Legislature and that the package be sent back to each participating agency's governing body for input at GAG's January 18th meeting. It is recommended that Council accept staffs recommendation and: (1) direct staff and consultants to continue negotiations on legislation being developed; (2) direct staff to obtain legal and financial expertise to work with staff, consultants, and to advise Council during next phase of negotiations; and (3) direct staff to send a letter to GAG, under the City Manager's signature, giving the City's conceptual approval for SAD (Special Act District), contingent on adding provisions to the legislation that any member agency can withdraw /Tom the District without penalty if done so within one year from fOnTIation, or until major funding obligations are made for construction regional facilities. (Director of Public Works) 16. REPORT REGARDING REQUEST FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND HIlLTOP DRIVE - Staff compared the subject intersection for a traffic signal with other locations throughout the City. The intersection placed 15th out of 18 candidate locations. Therefore a traffic signal is not recommended at this time. Staff recommends that Council deny the request for a traffic signal at Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive. (Director of Public Works) 17. REPORT MODIFICATIONS TO BONITA LONG CANYON PARK - Report on the five alternatives for modifying Bonita Long Canyon Park to better serve the needs of all user groups and residents adjacent to the park. Staff recommends the Council approve alternative five which eliminates the western backstop and provides for a soccer field overlay. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Continued from the 11/20/90 meeting. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as publit: hearings as required by law. If you wish 10 speak to any item, please fill out the "/1equi!st to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prinrOto the meeting. (Complete the green form 10 speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in oppositinn to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited 10 five minutes per individual AGENDA -5- January 8, 1991 18. RESOLUTION 15990 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENrAL IMPACf REPORT, EIR-89-10 RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III PLAN - The resolution does not require a public hearing but is related to the following items. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 12/18/90 meeting. A. PUBUC HEARING GPA-91-2: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TIlE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF TIlE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING REDESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF EAST"J" STREET FROM A CLASS II COlLECfOR ROAD TO A CLASS III - CIlY INITIATED - Rancho Del Rey Partnership has submitted a Sectional Planning Area Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA III. Part of the land use and circulation planning within the SPA included re-addressing the need for a connection of East "J" Street and Buena Vista Way as shown in the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 12/18/90 meeting. RESOLUTION 15991 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TIlE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF TIlE GENERAL PLAN B. PUBUC HEARING PCM-90-6: CONSIDERATION OF RANCHO DEL REY SPA III PLAN, PUBUC FACIUTIES FINANCING PLAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULATIONS - RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP - The applicant has submitted a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and related items for a 404.9 acre property, located between East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, immediately south of Rancho Del Rey SPA I. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 12/18/90 meeting. RESOLUTION 15992 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TIlE RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION 15993 APPROVING TIlE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III PLAN, PUBUC FACIUTIES FINANCING PLAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULATIONS RESOLUTION 15994 ADOPTING TIlE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR EIR-89-10, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III RESOLUTION 15995 ADOPTING TIlE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR-89-1O, RANCHO DEL REY SPA III 19. PUBUC HEARING ORDINANCE 2431 FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF HEARING ANY PROTESTS ON TIlE UPDATE OF TIlE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEE AS OUTLINED BY ORDINANCE 2431 AMENDING ORDINANCE 2251 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEES TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES IN TIlE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES (OPTIONAL) (first readinsd On December 11, 1990, Council adopted Ordinance 2431 amending Ordinance 2251 which established the Transportation Development Impact Fee. Subsequent to that action, the City Attorney opined that a public hearing should be held AGENDA -6- January 8, 1991 to hear any protests prior to effecting any increase in the fees. If no protests are made at this time, the City Attorney recommends that Ordinance 2431 remain in effect as adopted. However, if any protests are made, the City Attorney recommends that the ordinance be re-introduced for its first reading. Staff recommends that Council conduct the public hearing and hear any protests. If no protests are made, the City Attorney recommends that Ordinance Number 2431 remain in effect as adopted on December 11, 1990, and that Council deny the above listed ordinance. Otherwise, staff recommends that the first reading of the ordinance take place at this meeting. However, if Council recommends changing the ordinance as a result of the public hearing, staff will return to Council with a revised ordinance and first reading. (Director of Public Works) 20. PUBUC HEARING AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2320 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBUC FAOUTIES WITHIN THE OTY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY ORDINANCE 2432 AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2320 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBUC FAOUTIES WITHIN THE OTY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY (first readinst) - In August 1989, the Council adopted a Public Facilities DIF. The study recommending the DIF also recommended that the Master Fee be referred to an accountant for fine tuning. Wildan and Associates has returned the study and prepared the report. Staff recommends that Council place ordinance on first reading. (Budget Officer) Continued from the 12/18/90 meeting. OTHER BUSINESS 21. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - this is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Oral Communications are limited to three minutes per individual. 22. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - this is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 23. OTY MANAGER'S REPORTCS) a. Scheduling of meetings. b. Status of defibulator. AGENDA -7- January 8, 1991 24. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Appoinnnent to Boards and Commissions: Charter Review Committee 25. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. Councilman Rindone: Placement of Mayor's Portraits b. Councilman Malcolm: Scheduling of Public Hearings at 6:00 p.m. c. Councilman Nader: Request for letter to be sent to the representatives of Congress regarding cost of living raises for disabled veterans 26. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss: Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Larry Johnson v. City of Chula Vista, et al. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Jose Arreano v. City of Chula Vista, et al. The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on January 15, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. January 3, 1991 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: E. R. Asmus, Assistant City Manager ~ SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of January 8, 1991 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting scheduled for January 8, 1991. Comments regarding the Written Communication is as follows: 5a. This letter is from Ms. Cynthia Ranyak, 2265 Manzana Way, San Diego, California, 92139 regarding the increased traffic at the intersection of "L" Street and Hilltop Drive. Ms. Ranyak is requesting that a traffic signal be installed at this intersection. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE LETTER BE REFERRED TO STAFF AND THE SAFETY COMMISSION. 5b. This letter is from Leon L. Williams, Chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors requesting that the Chula Vista City Council consider adopting appropriate measures to conserve water and promote water reclamation. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF INFORM THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHAT WE HAVE AND ARE DOING IN THIS CITY TOWARD CONSERVATION EFFORTS. 5c. This letter is from Richard H. Rechif, Jr. of Youmans, Braithwaite and Rechif, Certified Public Accountants, requesting that the City make a determination as to their appropriate business license fee. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MR. RECHIF BE ADVISED THAT ALL "PROFESSIONALS" AS LISTED IN THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE ARE TREATED AS SUCH AND ARE REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE OF $50.00 AS A PROFESSIONAL (copy of pertinent section attached). While it may be argued that some may view your certified public accountants as "employees" over the years, registered civil engineers, doctors, attorneys, etc., that may be viewed as "employees" by their employer are not treated as such under the specific language of the ordinance but are clearly treated as "professionals" for licensing purposes. The ordinance per the City Attorney is interpreted correctly and would require an amendment if certified public accountants and other "professionals" were to be treated as employees. 5d. This is a claim from Ms. Ellen Manti and Mr. John Manti, clo Glenn L. Gearhart and a claim from Mr. Mark Garcia clo Michael R. Marrinan, Esquire. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE CLAIMS BE DENIED. translc RESOLUTION OF THE CIIT COUNCIL OF THE CIIT OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE ODAWARA CIIT TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY RELAY RACE WHEREAS, the City of Odawara, Kanagawa, Japan, has requested the City of Chula Vista to participate in its Tenth Odawara City School Children's Marathon Relay Race to be held in Odawara, Japan, on February 3, 1991; and WHEREAS, seven students from Halecrest Elementary School have been selected by the International Friendship Commission to participate in the marathon event and will travel to Odawara on February 1, 1991, with their trainer, courtesy of Odawara City, Japan; and WHEREAS, four other countries, Australia, China, Japan and Sri Lanka will take part in this special event; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Odawara and Chula Vista have been united through a Sister City bond by Resolution No. 10660 since November, 1981, and have shared cultural exchanges, established a greater friendship and mutual understanding between the people of Odawara and Chula Vista; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that Neal Rogers, Willie Wilson, Kasey Kasem, Nathan Simmons, Rudy Ricco, Ruben Arechigol and Colin Sokolare are congratulated on their opportunity to participate in the event as the guests of our Sister City, Odawara, and are encouraged to do their best as representatives of the City of Chula Vista and the United States of America. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 8th day of January, 1991, by the following vote: Presented by Approved as to form by d' I J' l' L. , GaYl~~ 11 Mcc~nd~s~ dh ,<- L ~? Mayor - . ' (l :~L,k \.. ~ V 11,,1 I {>11c B~ce M. Boogaard City Attorney 5-/ r<'So 11dD~ Resolution No. Page 2 AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilrnembers: Gayle L. McCandliss, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHUIA VISTA) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15952 was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 8th day of January, 1991. Executed this 8th day of January, 1991. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 05'.~ Special Orders of the Day Attending: Neal Rogers Willie Wilson Kasey Kasem Nathan Simmons Rudy Ricco Ruben Arechigol Colin Sokol Trainer: Lisa Campbell Advisor: John Rittenhouse Frank Fujikawa 5-3> December 11, 1990 Cynthia Ranyak 2265 Manzano Way, San Diego, CA 92139 Telephone (619) 267.8175 FI! ... o R rnrnrnow~r: -\: ;1 DEC I 4 i9~U '~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Chula Vista City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 CITY COUNCil OFFICES CHULA VISTA. CA Honorable Mayor and City Council members: This letter is to request that a left turn signal be installed at the comers of 'L' Street and Hilltop Drive. The traffic at this intersection has increased along with the development of Chula Vista. At certain times there are many cars waiting to make this left turn at the light, while only one car gets through on each green light. I am one of many parents who drive their children to preschool through this intersection, and the Presbyterian Church on Hilltop Drive also relies on this left turn. Earlier this year I was almost hit by a truck while making a left turn from west- bound 'L' Street onto Hilltop Drive. We realize that the cost of such an installation is great, but the new growth in Chula Vista should provide a source of funding for such problems. Although this is an older section of town, it is effected by the cross-town traffic. It is evident that a left turn signal has been needed here for some time. We ask that you refer this request to the Safety Commission. Also, we would like to be notified of the Safety Commission meeting when this request can be discussed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, q~~ (, ~ Cynthia L. Ranyak Vfr/;"Ir'f"") I\'",.",'::"",.,'~ tl W~'i'.1 H !i t'''' Ii"'1 ., it.......,;} I.ii ::.. ~~~ f?'c.J::;:~ r ,(\ !\{~, ~ f;"'~ .~. :$~('~-i P, i:~';:0 ,;:6....,\ ih,,~e ~~';~~;;1I" L;~'u"~ ~.~ ~"'t: t1~{e:1-'.:i. 9: :.0 "'~;:,P:(";J~ /1 ) \ 60. - J I IIIr , y..''v If i I \ ,}' " :t I,'J , , " r --..- .;,., /"j' L ..t :,,~~// '....' "<-" NATIONAL & STATE BOARDS: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES COllNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REGIONAL BOARDS. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD SAN DIEGO WATER AUTHORITY WATER RECLAMATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGIONAL TASK FORCE ON THE HOMELESS CiTY / COUNTY REINVESTMENT TASK FORCE PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT TRAINING CONSORTIUM POLICY BOARD SERVICE AlITHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES C ;;t\\ '(fCf' (~,) - I r: (-:hi Ft\+f--o -y '\Qb r;>jt;.J SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEON L WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN December 20, 1990 Honorable Gayle McCan Mayor, City of Chula P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 920 Dear Mayor McCandlis . ~ As you know, San D~eg years of drought, and that dry conditions migh year. I. erienced four easing concern ue into a fifth The Board of Supervisors has directed that I write you requesting your council to consider appropriate measures to conserve water and promote water reclamation. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors have taken several actions during the past twelve months to foster increased awareness of our water problem. These have consisted of both regulatory and nonregulatory measures and are summarized below for your information: o Adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance which requires submission and approval of landscape plans for all commercial, industrial, mUlti-family residential, and single family residential developments with common landscaped areas (single family residential without common landscaped areas are exempt from the regulations). The intent of the ordinance is to encourage use of water conserving "xeriscape" landscape methods in new developments in the unincorporated area. An advisory plant list has been developed listing acceptable landscape material for each climate zone in the county. ~!'.,"C:~'T':,....\. i:':';,", ,j "'~t;,j 1t.:.1 I' ~J r~ t;l,"I~"",~ w ~'~d ~ ~ 1f...:.J;" ';";: 0.... .' r.~ ,. M! ," ;1,~ .- ~,i .~'..:~ "1 f:'-~:-~ t<F~ r'>- ms /,,,"l<.~;.. ~',' (.,'... < ""., ',.,It' ~"""> d,.." 'j..,:1.;'.',tJ l , J .,", ' f'~' " ..," . '" ", ". '.. '. ,-j ~.. ~ ,'" ."', \'\._',~\.....,r).\,::.~ ';'~'.;~~ ~~";~' '0;. ,,:!.), ':ii'!!1E>'. ~ U ~\lLJ~ . ~ ~;;"';7 .... ..., <.<:,..... .... -, .,~ - -.... - l-b- , 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY' SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 . (619) 531-5544 2 o Adopted Low Flow (1.6 gallon) Toilet Ordinance which becomes effective throughout the unincorporated area on January 1, 1991, fully one year before similar statewide legislation takes effect. The county's ordinance, in fact, will go beyond the state toilet measure in that it proposes to require installation of the new toilet, or an acceptable conservation retrofit device, in various remodel and renovation projects. o Adopted a Water Reclamation Ordinance which will require new projects to consider and, where appropriate, to install water reclamation facilities as a condition of project approval. This ordinance is similar to others that have been adopted or are currently under consideration in several local jurisdictions. Related to this is the County's Uniform Sanitation Ordinance which prohibits the use of self regenerating water softeners in areas where water reclamation activities exist or are planned. o Adopted a POlicy and Action Plan to reduce water use throughout all County owned and operated facilities by 10%, including high water use park and recreation areas. This plan requires periodic reporting to the Board on actual water usage and, to date, reduction of 15% has been achieved. If the drought should continue into a fifth year, the Chief Administrative Officer has been directed to immediately increase the water use reduction program from 10% to 20%. o Directed the County's Office of Disaster Preparedness to work closely with the San Diego County Water Authority in development of emergency water allocation measures in the event of prolonged drought or catastrophic interruption of the water supply system. o Included water conservation saving tips as a payroll insert to each of the County's 17,000 employees. o will soon consider a groundwater management ordinance designed to preserve and conserve limited underground supplies in the unincorporated area. Because of our mutual reliance on imported water supplies, and the need to manage this resource with increasing care, the Board is requesting each of the region's municipal governments and members of the legislative and congressional delegations to consider actions similar to those taken by the county, as may be appropriate. By acting together, we believe that a mutual water conservation effort will have a very positive impact on our water situation now, and in the future. ~b-~ 3 If you wish to obtain further information on any of the programs and actions summarized above, or if you wish to receive a more formal presentation, please feel free to contact Mr. Norman W. Hickey, Chief Administrative Officer, who will be happy to respond to your request. Sincerely, ILLIAMS, Cha~-/~/ f Supervisors "-3 DAVID R. BRAITHWAITE, C.P.A RICHARD H. RECHIF JR., C.P A. E. GLENN YOUMANS, C,P.A. (1952-1988) YOUMANS, BRAITHWAITE, & RECHIF Certified Public Accountants 4045 BONITA ROAD, SUITE 305 P.O. BOX 605 BONITA, CALIFORNIA 92002 TELEPHONE (619) 479-8728 FAX (619) 479-2505 MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNT ANTS CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CERTifiED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS December 27, 1990 I W ~ 00] I 00 OEC3119OO Honorable Mayor McCandliss and the City Council of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, California 92012 ClTYCHCOUNCll OffiCES UlA VISTA. CA Re: City Business License Dear Mr. McCandliss and Council Members: Our firm employs seventeen (17) people, including the two (2) partners. Of these, seven (7) are certified public accountants. In prior years, we have licensed each certified public accountant. I recently analyzed Chapter 5, Section 5.42.010 and believe we have made a mistake. The section states that "every person conducting, managing, carrying on or engaged in any business.... shall pay a license fee..." As the firm is the only one conducting a business, I believe only the firm should be subject to the license fee. The certified public accountants (other than the partners) are strictly employees. They are subject to the firms policies. The firm pays their salaries, payroll taxes, medical insurance, workman's compensation insurance, and retirement benefits. They are not independent contractors like real estate sales agents. Are all of the engineers, chemists, auditors and accountants at Rohr required to obtain their own business licenses? Please advise us of your interpretation of this section. As we wish to timely pay the proper license fee by January 31, 1991, your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Very trul: ~u:s: a.~, · ~f'- I~H. Rechif Jr. RHR: sa cc: Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance 01227AR ~,. \\' . \ I,...... 1<) 1..0.. .\ 'f~' . \..J \ "(' n c_ \ ....~ . V\', "..-\. - . \:..-- '.~. '\:Lv', ' \!> '- I")' , r .,. '-- ~c-I I '/'<:"," ,. '-{t-"-- I Of - \) . " COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 1/8/91 ITEM TITLE: Claims Against the City SUBMITTED BY: r) fA Director of Personnel ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No~) REVIEWED BY: City Manager}~ Ms. Ellen Manti and Mr. John Manti c/o Glenn L. Gearhart Attorney at Law 13141 Central Avenue, suite H Chino, CA 91710 Claimant No.1: On December 3, 1990, a claim within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court was filed against the City of Chula Vista, by Ms. Ellen Manti and Mr. John Manti. The claim alleged the City of Chula Vista caused damages to claimants for failure to comply with commitments, mis- representations, deceit, etc. Documents filed with the claim outline the claimants' efforts to obtain a business license and permit to sell used automobiles at 3232 Main street; an area within the I-L zone and in which that activity is not a permitted use. Claimants have not completed all the administrative steps available to them, such as filing for a conditional use permit; therefore this claim is premature. Because administrative remedies are still available, it is the recommendation of Risk Management and our claims administrators, Carl Warren & Company, that this claim be denied. Claimant No.2: Mr. Mark Garcia c/o Michael R. Marrinan, Esq. Law Offices cf Adler & Marrinan 401 West A street, suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101-7906 On November 29, 1990, Mr. Mark Garcia filed a claim for an amount within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. The claim alleged false arrest, negligent supervision of police officers, and civil rights violations in connection with an incident that occurred on September 9, 1990. Due to remote liability on the part of the City, it is the recommen- dation of the City's claims administrators, Carl Warren & Company, concur- red in by Risk Management, that the claim be denied. RECOMMENDATION: The above two claims be denied. J Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) ~d-' uo pan~wqns pa4~~++V :lN3Wn30a lVlN3WNOMIAN3 ..Ia4+0 +S~l uO~+~~~J~+ON -----+~Ld -----a~u~u~p..lO -----uo~+nLosaM -----+uawaa..l6V SlIBIHX3 AGENDA STATEMENT ~\O~ (;. "'~o ",t/5 Meeting Date 12/18/90 ITEM TITLE~'tJ'O~dinance 2430 Repealing Chapter 2.02 of the Chula Vista ~~O Municipal Code Relating to Conflict of Interest C;,~'v"'" Item fuAt& fA Resolution 15961 Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code SUBMITrED BY: "~~sistant City Attorney Rudolf (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) - - Government Code Section 87300 et seg. requires public agencies, including the City and the Redevelopment Agency, to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. The model code promulgated by the FPPC regulations, along with a locally prepared specifically tailored Appendix, can constitute that code. By this action, you repeal the Municipal Code provisions for a Conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1984, and replace it with one adopted by resolution which specifically meets the statutory requirement and updates the list of "designated employees" to reflect additional positions and/or changes in duties since 1984. After your December 4, 1990 meeting, the 58 employees affected by the changes were asked for input. Changes were made in the appendix to correct erroneous class titles, but no complaints were received. Persons listed as "designated <emrl" oyees under the present Code were not asked for input, since t.hey have heen reporting financial interests for years. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Introduce the ordinance for first reading. 2. Adopt the resolution establ iShing the new Conflict of Interest Code, effective upon repeal of the existing ordinance. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Ethics reviewed and approved the proposed Conflict of Interest Code, 4-0, at its meeting on August 20, 1990. Member McNUtt's suggestion that the disclosure categories for the Purchasing Agent and Buyer should be the same was accepted by the Director of Finance, and the change is incorporated in the proposed Code. All department heads staffing an advisory body provided their comments on earlier drafts after June 25,1990. Subsequent to October 4, 1990, all other advisory boards and commissions were asked for their comments. The minutes of those advisory boards acting on the item, recommending approval, are attached. Many only were asked for individual comments, without the matter going on their agenda. No comments were reported or received other than the attached letter from the chairperson of the Board of Library Trustees. We concur with the recommendation of the Board, and have deleted the Board from the Appendix. The Economic Development Commission approved the proposed Code, and requested it be required to report in the broadest possible categories. We concur and have so changed their disclosure categories. r-{g_ r!,4-1 . I, ~.~ . Agenda Item No. C . I Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Two SA DISCUSSION: Original Conflict of Interest Code In .June 1980, by Resolution No. 10141, the COLlncil adopted a Conflict of Interest Code for the City. It adopted the "model code" promulgated by regulation by the FPPC, and added the required "Appendix". The Appendix sets forth with specificity the "designated employees" and requires disclosure of the types of economic interests which foreseeably could result in a conflict of interest. As required, it established disclosure categories making a differentiation between designated employees wi th different powers and responsibilities. Existing Ordinance In 1984, the Council enacted a Conflict of Interest Code by ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 2.02), but the ordinance did not contain the required "Appendix" and did not set forth with specificity the disclosure categories for designated employees. The Redevelopment Agency never adopted a code, but- the City Code was amended in 1987 to add Project Area Committee members. The City Code allows the City Clerk and City Attorney to jointly require others to file disclosure statements, including consultants, and some consultants and advisory committee members have historically been required to file disclosure statements under this provision. Since there is nO Appendix with specification of disclosure categories tailored to specific designated employees, the City Clerk has required all designated employees to file all the forms of all types of interests, whether or not they would disclose potential conflicts of interest. For these reasons, we recommend repeal of the existing Municipal Code provisions. Since the Conflict of Interest Code is required by law, but need not be in ordinance form, and it is easier to amend a resolution, we recommend the new Code be adopted in resolution form, by both the Council and (by a companion item) the Agency. Proposed Resolution The new Conflict of Interest Code resolution adopts the "model code" (attached as Exhibit "A" to Code) by reference (except Section 8.5 which refers only to state officers) and makes the City Clerk the filing officer Eor both City and Agency designated employees. The Appendix lists all those employees who have' been determined to make or part icipate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect On their financial interests. It designates members of the Council (Agency) for disqualification purposes only. Disclosure requirements for Council, the City Manager, City Attorney and other persons required to disclose by Government Code Section 87200 are different from other designated employees, and are set forth in that section, not in the Conflict of Interest Code. f .;). OA-2 :,/.1 IJ ~ . J' g,.. Agenda I tern No. :..., I" ,r C> Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Three Chan'jes include deletion of Associate Planners; a tiUe change from Plan Chpcker "0 Plans Examiner; and addition of the following positions: Redevelopment Agency members; Assistant City Manager; and some Assistant Department Heads not previously listed so that all are now listed; Associate Civil Engineer, Battalion Chief, Building & Housing Inspectors (Senior, I & II), BUilding Services Superintendent, Budget Officer, Buyer, Chief Plans Examiners, City Landscape Architect, Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Housing Coordinator, open Space Coordinator, open Space Inspector, Permit Engineer, Principal Management Assistant, Public Information Coordinator, Public Works Inspector (Senior, I & II), Public Works Maintenance Superintendent, Risk Manager, Senior Accountant, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Senior Community Development Specialist, Transit Coordinator and Traffic Engineer. Some are new positions which did not exist when the ordinance was last reviewed, others reflect the organizational structure of the department and/or the independence or level of supervision involved in the person's work. Each department head reviewed bat-h the positions to be listed and the disclosure cat-egories for those positions, and approved those listed. Each person holding a position in a newly designated class was asked for input regarding being designated, and advised of tonight's meeting. No responses were received. Advisory Committee Members Members of advisory committees required to be included by state law are also listed. One category of such members is those who have decision-making power by "making substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification." We have reviewed each baard, commission, or cOmmittee with the department staffing them to determine whether that standard has been met. All of t-he City's advisory boards and commissions are included, except some of rhose roo new to have a "track record" of regular approval, or those without a hist-ory of substant-ive recommendations. The previous Code listed only the Board of Appeals, Design Review Committee, the Project Area Committees, and the Montgomery Planning COmmittee. The proposed new Code adds the Board of Ethics, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Aging, Economic Development Commission, Growth Management Oversight Committee, Human Relation Commission, International Friendship Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, Safety Commission, and the Southwest Project Area COmmittee. Although newly created, because of the importance of its recommendations, the City Attorney and Director of Community Development recommend inclusion of the Economic Development Commission members now. Not included are the Board of Library Trustees, Youth Commission, and the new cOmmissions on Child Care, Cultural Arts, and the Charter Review Committee. City Attorney and Library Director _~ 3 !A-"3 Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Four r .1\ ....-,' . 1'~gA review of previous staff and/or Council action on substantive recommendations concluded a 50/50 .batt ing average., which does not meet the regulatory t-e,-;t. They will be added if and when they meet the test stated above. Council, as the Code Reviewing Body, ultimately decides whether the test is met by including or excluding any particular board, commission or committee. Other San Diego County Cities are advising their Councils to include all advisory committees, except those which are short term, ad hoc, single purpose committees. Consultants A new provision requires .consultants. to be called out as .designated employees. in their contracts when engaged to perform services for the City (Agency). Due to the restrictive state definition of .consultant., most independent contractors are not covered. If they meet the definition, the new code requires their disclosure categories to be set forth in the agreement. The City Manager, City AUorney and City Clerk will establish administrative procedures to effectuate these provisions. John Pavlicek is the only current independent contractor to be so designated, and Tony Ciotti will be so designated when his contract comes up for renewal. Disqualification Section 9 of the model code provides a procedure for disqualification when a designated employee has a conflict of interest. For members of Council (Agency), the Planning Commission and all other boards and commissions (.voting bodies.), this requires disclosure of the disqualifying interest on the record. For employees, disclosure must be in writing to the immediate supervisor. Consequences Violations of the disclosure or disqualification prOV1Slons in the Conflict of Interest Code are also violations of state law. Enforcement could include criminal misdemeanor conviction (Government Code ~91000) and the imposition of discipline (Government Code ~91003.5). FISCAL IMPACT: None 6822a -(~, <gA- ~ 4- / / / / / / j _, 7-<g/lr-'7 ~ , AGENDA STATEMENT ~\O~ (;. "'~o ",t/5 Meeting Date 12/18/90 ITEM TITLE~'tJ'O~dinance 2430 Repealing Chapter 2.02 of the Chula Vista ~~O Municipal Code Relating to Conflict of Interest C;,~'v"'" Item fuAt& fA Resolution 15961 Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code SUBMITrED BY: "~~sistant City Attorney Rudolf (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) - - Government Code Section 87300 et seg. requires public agencies, including the City and the Redevelopment Agency, to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. The model code promulgated by the FPPC regulations, along with a locally prepared specifically tailored Appendix, can constitute that code. By this action, you repeal the Municipal Code provisions for a Conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1984, and replace it with one adopted by resolution which specifically meets the statutory requirement and updates the list of "designated employees" to reflect additional positions and/or changes in duties since 1984. After your December 4, 1990 meeting, the 58 employees affected by the changes were asked for input. Changes were made in the appendix to correct erroneous class titles, but no complaints were received. Persons listed as "designated <emrl" oyees under the present Code were not asked for input, since t.hey have heen reporting financial interests for years. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Introduce the ordinance for first reading. 2. Adopt the resolution establ iShing the new Conflict of Interest Code, effective upon repeal of the existing ordinance. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Ethics reviewed and approved the proposed Conflict of Interest Code, 4-0, at its meeting on August 20, 1990. Member McNUtt's suggestion that the disclosure categories for the Purchasing Agent and Buyer should be the same was accepted by the Director of Finance, and the change is incorporated in the proposed Code. All department heads staffing an advisory body provided their comments on earlier drafts after June 25,1990. Subsequent to October 4, 1990, all other advisory boards and commissions were asked for their comments. The minutes of those advisory boards acting on the item, recommending approval, are attached. Many only were asked for individual comments, without the matter going on their agenda. No comments were reported or received other than the attached letter from the chairperson of the Board of Library Trustees. We concur with the recommendation of the Board, and have deleted the Board from the Appendix. The Economic Development Commission approved the proposed Code, and requested it be required to report in the broadest possible categories. We concur and have so changed their disclosure categories. r-{g_ r!,4-1 . I, ~.~ . Agenda Item No. C . I Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Two SA DISCUSSION: Original Conflict of Interest Code In .June 1980, by Resolution No. 10141, the COLlncil adopted a Conflict of Interest Code for the City. It adopted the "model code" promulgated by regulation by the FPPC, and added the required "Appendix". The Appendix sets forth with specificity the "designated employees" and requires disclosure of the types of economic interests which foreseeably could result in a conflict of interest. As required, it established disclosure categories making a differentiation between designated employees wi th different powers and responsibilities. Existing Ordinance In 1984, the Council enacted a Conflict of Interest Code by ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 2.02), but the ordinance did not contain the required "Appendix" and did not set forth with specificity the disclosure categories for designated employees. The Redevelopment Agency never adopted a code, but- the City Code was amended in 1987 to add Project Area Committee members. The City Code allows the City Clerk and City Attorney to jointly require others to file disclosure statements, including consultants, and some consultants and advisory committee members have historically been required to file disclosure statements under this provision. Since there is nO Appendix with specification of disclosure categories tailored to specific designated employees, the City Clerk has required all designated employees to file all the forms of all types of interests, whether or not they would disclose potential conflicts of interest. For these reasons, we recommend repeal of the existing Municipal Code provisions. Since the Conflict of Interest Code is required by law, but need not be in ordinance form, and it is easier to amend a resolution, we recommend the new Code be adopted in resolution form, by both the Council and (by a companion item) the Agency. Proposed Resolution The new Conflict of Interest Code resolution adopts the "model code" (attached as Exhibit "A" to Code) by reference (except Section 8.5 which refers only to state officers) and makes the City Clerk the filing officer Eor both City and Agency designated employees. The Appendix lists all those employees who have' been determined to make or part icipate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect On their financial interests. It designates members of the Council (Agency) for disqualification purposes only. Disclosure requirements for Council, the City Manager, City Attorney and other persons required to disclose by Government Code Section 87200 are different from other designated employees, and are set forth in that section, not in the Conflict of Interest Code. f .;). OA-2 :,/.1 IJ ~ . J' g,.. Agenda I tern No. :..., I" ,r C> Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Three Chan'jes include deletion of Associate Planners; a tiUe change from Plan Chpcker "0 Plans Examiner; and addition of the following positions: Redevelopment Agency members; Assistant City Manager; and some Assistant Department Heads not previously listed so that all are now listed; Associate Civil Engineer, Battalion Chief, Building & Housing Inspectors (Senior, I & II), BUilding Services Superintendent, Budget Officer, Buyer, Chief Plans Examiners, City Landscape Architect, Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Housing Coordinator, open Space Coordinator, open Space Inspector, Permit Engineer, Principal Management Assistant, Public Information Coordinator, Public Works Inspector (Senior, I & II), Public Works Maintenance Superintendent, Risk Manager, Senior Accountant, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Senior Community Development Specialist, Transit Coordinator and Traffic Engineer. Some are new positions which did not exist when the ordinance was last reviewed, others reflect the organizational structure of the department and/or the independence or level of supervision involved in the person's work. Each department head reviewed bat-h the positions to be listed and the disclosure cat-egories for those positions, and approved those listed. Each person holding a position in a newly designated class was asked for input regarding being designated, and advised of tonight's meeting. No responses were received. Advisory Committee Members Members of advisory committees required to be included by state law are also listed. One category of such members is those who have decision-making power by "making substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification." We have reviewed each baard, commission, or cOmmittee with the department staffing them to determine whether that standard has been met. All of t-he City's advisory boards and commissions are included, except some of rhose roo new to have a "track record" of regular approval, or those without a hist-ory of substant-ive recommendations. The previous Code listed only the Board of Appeals, Design Review Committee, the Project Area Committees, and the Montgomery Planning COmmittee. The proposed new Code adds the Board of Ethics, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Aging, Economic Development Commission, Growth Management Oversight Committee, Human Relation Commission, International Friendship Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, Safety Commission, and the Southwest Project Area COmmittee. Although newly created, because of the importance of its recommendations, the City Attorney and Director of Community Development recommend inclusion of the Economic Development Commission members now. Not included are the Board of Library Trustees, Youth Commission, and the new cOmmissions on Child Care, Cultural Arts, and the Charter Review Committee. City Attorney and Library Director _~ 3 !A-"3 Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Four r .1\ ....-,' . 1'~gA review of previous staff and/or Council action on substantive recommendations concluded a 50/50 .batt ing average., which does not meet the regulatory t-e,-;t. They will be added if and when they meet the test stated above. Council, as the Code Reviewing Body, ultimately decides whether the test is met by including or excluding any particular board, commission or committee. Other San Diego County Cities are advising their Councils to include all advisory committees, except those which are short term, ad hoc, single purpose committees. Consultants A new provision requires .consultants. to be called out as .designated employees. in their contracts when engaged to perform services for the City (Agency). Due to the restrictive state definition of .consultant., most independent contractors are not covered. If they meet the definition, the new code requires their disclosure categories to be set forth in the agreement. The City Manager, City AUorney and City Clerk will establish administrative procedures to effectuate these provisions. John Pavlicek is the only current independent contractor to be so designated, and Tony Ciotti will be so designated when his contract comes up for renewal. Disqualification Section 9 of the model code provides a procedure for disqualification when a designated employee has a conflict of interest. For members of Council (Agency), the Planning Commission and all other boards and commissions (.voting bodies.), this requires disclosure of the disqualifying interest on the record. For employees, disclosure must be in writing to the immediate supervisor. Consequences Violations of the disclosure or disqualification prOV1Slons in the Conflict of Interest Code are also violations of state law. Enforcement could include criminal misdemeanor conviction (Government Code ~91000) and the imposition of discipline (Government Code ~91003.5). FISCAL IMPACT: None 6822a -(~, <gA- ~ 4- / / / / / / j _, 7-<g/lr-'7 ~ , CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SECTION I. PURPOSE. This Code is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 87300 et seq. to provide for the disclosure or prevention of all foreseeable potential conflict of interest; to provide affected persons with clear and specific statements of their duties under the Code; and to differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. The requirements hereof are in addition to the other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act and other state and local laws pertaining to conflict of interests, including the general prohibition against conflicts of interest found in Government Code Section 87100. SECTION II. Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, except Section 8.5 thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", are hereby incorporated by this reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the Ci ty of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III. Section 4 of the Code found in 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 is replaced with the fOllo.wing Section 4 : Section 4. All designated employees shall file the statements of economic interests required herein with the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista. Where the person filing such statements is required to file in both City and Agency capacities, said filing may be made on a single form(s), specifying therein that it is filed in both capacities (e.g. City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director). APPENDIX A. Persons holding posi t ions listed below are required to file the initial, annual, and leaving office statements of financial interest required by this Code for the types of interests in the categories set forth in the column "Disclosure Categories" opposite the column "Designated Positions". It has been determined that these persons make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on such financial interests. B. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of interests in real property, the designated employee need only disclose real property which is located in whole or in part wi thin or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the local government agency. -1- " -- .",.. f.' fA-g CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SECTION I. PURPOSE. This Code is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 87300 et seq. to provide for the disclosure or prevention of all foreseeable potential conflict of interest; to provide affected persons with clear and specific statements of their duties under the Code; and to differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. The requirements hereof are in addition to the other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act and other state and local laws pertaining to conflict of interests, including the general prohibition against conflicts of interest found in Government Code Section 87100. SECTION II. Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, except Section 8.5 thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", are hereby incorporated by this reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the Ci ty of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III. Section 4 of the Code found in 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 is replaced with the fOllo.wing Section 4 : Section 4. All designated employees shall file the statements of economic interests required herein with the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista. Where the person filing such statements is required to file in both City and Agency capacities, said filing may be made on a single form(s), specifying therein that it is filed in both capacities (e.g. City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director). APPENDIX A. Persons holding posi t ions listed below are required to file the initial, annual, and leaving office statements of financial interest required by this Code for the types of interests in the categories set forth in the column "Disclosure Categories" opposite the column "Designated Positions". It has been determined that these persons make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on such financial interests. B. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of interests in real property, the designated employee need only disclose real property which is located in whole or in part wi thin or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the local government agency. -1- " -- .",.. f.' fA-g C. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of investments or sources of income, the designated employee need only disclose investments in business entities and sources of income which do business in the jurisdiction, plan ro do business in the lurisdiction or have done business in rhe jurisdiction within the past rwo years. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing business within the jurisdicrion if it owns real property within the jurisdiction. D. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of business pos i tions, the designated employee need only disclose positions of director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management in organizations or enterprises operated for profit. E. The Disclosure Categories are: CATEGORY 1: Investments and sources of income. CATEGORY 2: Interests in real property. CATEGORY 3: Investments, interests sources of income subject to the licensing authority of the department. in real property regula tory, permi t and or CATEGORY 4: Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. C.o.TEGORY 5: Investments in income of the type which, contracted with the city .I\gency) to provide services, or equipment. business entities and sources of within the past two years, have of Chula Vista (Redevelopment supplies, materials, machinery CATEGORY 6: Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. C.o.TEGORY 7: Business positions. -2- f6f} - q <f- m-to ~ DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES 1. Mayor, Councilmembers/Chairman Members of Redevelopment Agency -:.../ 2. City Manager/Executive Director */ 3. City Attorney/Agency Attorney */ 4. Finance Director/Chief Financial Officer */ 5. Assistant Finance Director/ Agency Investor -:.../ 6. Members of the Planning Commission -:.../ 7. Director of Community Development/ Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency 1,2,7 8. City Clerk 1,2,7 9. Deputy City Clerk 1,2,7 10. Assistant City Attorneys 1,2,7 11. All other Department Heads, Assistant and Deputy City Managers and Assistant and Deputy Department Heads 1,2,7 12. Associate Civil Engineer 3,4,5 13. Battalion Chief 3,6 14. Building and Housing Inspectors (Senior, II and I) 3,7 15. Building Services Superintendent 3,5,6 16. Budget Officer 5 17. Buyer 1,7 18. Chief Plans Examiner 3 -:.../ As required by Government Code ~~87200-87210. Included for disqualification purposes only. See Government Code ~87200 for disclosure requirements. -3- J , ~A-IO " ';.; 19. Environmental Review Coordinator 3,4 20. Equipment Maintenance Superintendent 5,6 21. Fire Marshal 3,6 22. Flo!J!~inq Coordinator 3,4,7 23. Open Space Coordinator 24. Open Space Inspector 25. Landscape Architect 26. Parks Superintendent 4, 6 4,6 2,4,7 3,6 27. Permit Engineer 3,4,6 28. Police Captain 1,2,7 29. Plans Examiner 1,2,7 30. Principal Community Development specialist 31. Principal Librarian 32. Principal Management Assistant 33. Principa1. Planner 3,4,6,7 6 5,7 1.,2,7 34. Public Information Coordinator 4,5 35. Public Works Inspector (Senior, I and II) 3,4 36. Public Works Maintenance Superintendent 3,5,6 37. purchasing Agent 1,7 38. Recreation Superintendent 3,6 39. Redevelopment Coordinator 3,4,6,7 40. Revenue and Recovery Officer 3 41. Risk Manager 1,7 42. Senior Accountant 3 43 . Senior Code Enforcement Officer 44. Senior Civil Engineer 45. Senior Commun ity Development Specialist 3,7 3,4,5 3,4,6,7 -4- ~ tf ffA- II 46. Transit Coordinator 47. Traffic Engineer 48. Zoning Enforcement Officer 49. Board of Appeals and Advisors Members 50. Board of Ethics Members 51. Civil Service Commission Members 52. Commission on Aging 53. Design Review Committee Members 54. Economic Development Commission Members 55. Growth Management Oversight Committee Members 56. Human Relations Commission 57. International Friendship Commission Members 58. Montgomery Community Planning Committee Members 59. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Members 60. Parks and Recreation Commission Members 61. Resource Conservation Commission Members 62. Safety Commission Members 63. Southwest Project Area Committee Members 64. Town Centre Project Area Committee 11ember s 65. Consultants 6568a / ,1(+.f'- >,",,-. -5- 5,7 3,4,5 3,7 2,5 1,2,7 3 1,7 2,4,7 1, 2, 7 2,4,7 2,7 1,7 2,4,7 3,7 2,4,7 2,4,7 2,7 3,7 3,7 If designated in their contracts, for the categories speci- fied in their con- tracts by Council, the Agency, City Manager/Executive Director, or Pur- chasing Agent AGENDA STATEMENT ~\O~ (;. "'~o ",t/5 Meeting Date 12/18/90 ITEM TITLE~'tJ'O~dinance 2430 Repealing Chapter 2.02 of the Chula Vista ~~O Municipal Code Relating to Conflict of Interest C;,~'v"'" Item fuAt& fA Resolution 15961 Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code SUBMITrED BY: "~~sistant City Attorney Rudolf (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) - - Government Code Section 87300 et seg. requires public agencies, including the City and the Redevelopment Agency, to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. The model code promulgated by the FPPC regulations, along with a locally prepared specifically tailored Appendix, can constitute that code. By this action, you repeal the Municipal Code provisions for a Conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1984, and replace it with one adopted by resolution which specifically meets the statutory requirement and updates the list of "designated employees" to reflect additional positions and/or changes in duties since 1984. After your December 4, 1990 meeting, the 58 employees affected by the changes were asked for input. Changes were made in the appendix to correct erroneous class titles, but no complaints were received. Persons listed as "designated <emrl" oyees under the present Code were not asked for input, since t.hey have heen reporting financial interests for years. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Introduce the ordinance for first reading. 2. Adopt the resolution establ iShing the new Conflict of Interest Code, effective upon repeal of the existing ordinance. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Ethics reviewed and approved the proposed Conflict of Interest Code, 4-0, at its meeting on August 20, 1990. Member McNUtt's suggestion that the disclosure categories for the Purchasing Agent and Buyer should be the same was accepted by the Director of Finance, and the change is incorporated in the proposed Code. All department heads staffing an advisory body provided their comments on earlier drafts after June 25,1990. Subsequent to October 4, 1990, all other advisory boards and commissions were asked for their comments. The minutes of those advisory boards acting on the item, recommending approval, are attached. Many only were asked for individual comments, without the matter going on their agenda. No comments were reported or received other than the attached letter from the chairperson of the Board of Library Trustees. We concur with the recommendation of the Board, and have deleted the Board from the Appendix. The Economic Development Commission approved the proposed Code, and requested it be required to report in the broadest possible categories. We concur and have so changed their disclosure categories. r-{g_ r!,4-1 . I, ~.~ . Agenda Item No. C . I Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Two SA DISCUSSION: Original Conflict of Interest Code In .June 1980, by Resolution No. 10141, the COLlncil adopted a Conflict of Interest Code for the City. It adopted the "model code" promulgated by regulation by the FPPC, and added the required "Appendix". The Appendix sets forth with specificity the "designated employees" and requires disclosure of the types of economic interests which foreseeably could result in a conflict of interest. As required, it established disclosure categories making a differentiation between designated employees wi th different powers and responsibilities. Existing Ordinance In 1984, the Council enacted a Conflict of Interest Code by ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 2.02), but the ordinance did not contain the required "Appendix" and did not set forth with specificity the disclosure categories for designated employees. The Redevelopment Agency never adopted a code, but- the City Code was amended in 1987 to add Project Area Committee members. The City Code allows the City Clerk and City Attorney to jointly require others to file disclosure statements, including consultants, and some consultants and advisory committee members have historically been required to file disclosure statements under this provision. Since there is nO Appendix with specification of disclosure categories tailored to specific designated employees, the City Clerk has required all designated employees to file all the forms of all types of interests, whether or not they would disclose potential conflicts of interest. For these reasons, we recommend repeal of the existing Municipal Code provisions. Since the Conflict of Interest Code is required by law, but need not be in ordinance form, and it is easier to amend a resolution, we recommend the new Code be adopted in resolution form, by both the Council and (by a companion item) the Agency. Proposed Resolution The new Conflict of Interest Code resolution adopts the "model code" (attached as Exhibit "A" to Code) by reference (except Section 8.5 which refers only to state officers) and makes the City Clerk the filing officer Eor both City and Agency designated employees. The Appendix lists all those employees who have' been determined to make or part icipate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect On their financial interests. It designates members of the Council (Agency) for disqualification purposes only. Disclosure requirements for Council, the City Manager, City Attorney and other persons required to disclose by Government Code Section 87200 are different from other designated employees, and are set forth in that section, not in the Conflict of Interest Code. f .;). OA-2 :,/.1 IJ ~ . J' g,.. Agenda I tern No. :..., I" ,r C> Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Three Chan'jes include deletion of Associate Planners; a tiUe change from Plan Chpcker "0 Plans Examiner; and addition of the following positions: Redevelopment Agency members; Assistant City Manager; and some Assistant Department Heads not previously listed so that all are now listed; Associate Civil Engineer, Battalion Chief, Building & Housing Inspectors (Senior, I & II), BUilding Services Superintendent, Budget Officer, Buyer, Chief Plans Examiners, City Landscape Architect, Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Housing Coordinator, open Space Coordinator, open Space Inspector, Permit Engineer, Principal Management Assistant, Public Information Coordinator, Public Works Inspector (Senior, I & II), Public Works Maintenance Superintendent, Risk Manager, Senior Accountant, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Senior Community Development Specialist, Transit Coordinator and Traffic Engineer. Some are new positions which did not exist when the ordinance was last reviewed, others reflect the organizational structure of the department and/or the independence or level of supervision involved in the person's work. Each department head reviewed bat-h the positions to be listed and the disclosure cat-egories for those positions, and approved those listed. Each person holding a position in a newly designated class was asked for input regarding being designated, and advised of tonight's meeting. No responses were received. Advisory Committee Members Members of advisory committees required to be included by state law are also listed. One category of such members is those who have decision-making power by "making substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification." We have reviewed each baard, commission, or cOmmittee with the department staffing them to determine whether that standard has been met. All of t-he City's advisory boards and commissions are included, except some of rhose roo new to have a "track record" of regular approval, or those without a hist-ory of substant-ive recommendations. The previous Code listed only the Board of Appeals, Design Review Committee, the Project Area Committees, and the Montgomery Planning COmmittee. The proposed new Code adds the Board of Ethics, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Aging, Economic Development Commission, Growth Management Oversight Committee, Human Relation Commission, International Friendship Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, Safety Commission, and the Southwest Project Area COmmittee. Although newly created, because of the importance of its recommendations, the City Attorney and Director of Community Development recommend inclusion of the Economic Development Commission members now. Not included are the Board of Library Trustees, Youth Commission, and the new cOmmissions on Child Care, Cultural Arts, and the Charter Review Committee. City Attorney and Library Director _~ 3 !A-"3 Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: 12/18/90 Page Four r .1\ ....-,' . 1'~gA review of previous staff and/or Council action on substantive recommendations concluded a 50/50 .batt ing average., which does not meet the regulatory t-e,-;t. They will be added if and when they meet the test stated above. Council, as the Code Reviewing Body, ultimately decides whether the test is met by including or excluding any particular board, commission or committee. Other San Diego County Cities are advising their Councils to include all advisory committees, except those which are short term, ad hoc, single purpose committees. Consultants A new provision requires .consultants. to be called out as .designated employees. in their contracts when engaged to perform services for the City (Agency). Due to the restrictive state definition of .consultant., most independent contractors are not covered. If they meet the definition, the new code requires their disclosure categories to be set forth in the agreement. The City Manager, City AUorney and City Clerk will establish administrative procedures to effectuate these provisions. John Pavlicek is the only current independent contractor to be so designated, and Tony Ciotti will be so designated when his contract comes up for renewal. Disqualification Section 9 of the model code provides a procedure for disqualification when a designated employee has a conflict of interest. For members of Council (Agency), the Planning Commission and all other boards and commissions (.voting bodies.), this requires disclosure of the disqualifying interest on the record. For employees, disclosure must be in writing to the immediate supervisor. Consequences Violations of the disclosure or disqualification prOV1Slons in the Conflict of Interest Code are also violations of state law. Enforcement could include criminal misdemeanor conviction (Government Code ~91000) and the imposition of discipline (Government Code ~91003.5). FISCAL IMPACT: None 6822a -(~, <gA- ~ 4- / / / / / / j _, 7-<g/lr-'7 ~ , CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SECTION I. PURPOSE. This Code is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 87300 et seq. to provide for the disclosure or prevention of all foreseeable potential conflict of interest; to provide affected persons with clear and specific statements of their duties under the Code; and to differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. The requirements hereof are in addition to the other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act and other state and local laws pertaining to conflict of interests, including the general prohibition against conflicts of interest found in Government Code Section 87100. SECTION II. Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, except Section 8.5 thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", are hereby incorporated by this reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the Ci ty of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III. Section 4 of the Code found in 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 is replaced with the fOllo.wing Section 4 : Section 4. All designated employees shall file the statements of economic interests required herein with the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista. Where the person filing such statements is required to file in both City and Agency capacities, said filing may be made on a single form(s), specifying therein that it is filed in both capacities (e.g. City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director). APPENDIX A. Persons holding posi t ions listed below are required to file the initial, annual, and leaving office statements of financial interest required by this Code for the types of interests in the categories set forth in the column "Disclosure Categories" opposite the column "Designated Positions". It has been determined that these persons make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on such financial interests. B. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of interests in real property, the designated employee need only disclose real property which is located in whole or in part wi thin or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the local government agency. -1- " -- .",.. f.' fA-g CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SECTION I. PURPOSE. This Code is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 87300 et seq. to provide for the disclosure or prevention of all foreseeable potential conflict of interest; to provide affected persons with clear and specific statements of their duties under the Code; and to differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. The requirements hereof are in addition to the other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act and other state and local laws pertaining to conflict of interests, including the general prohibition against conflicts of interest found in Government Code Section 87100. SECTION II. Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, except Section 8.5 thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", are hereby incorporated by this reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the Ci ty of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III. Section 4 of the Code found in 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 is replaced with the fOllo.wing Section 4 : Section 4. All designated employees shall file the statements of economic interests required herein with the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista. Where the person filing such statements is required to file in both City and Agency capacities, said filing may be made on a single form(s), specifying therein that it is filed in both capacities (e.g. City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director). APPENDIX A. Persons holding posi t ions listed below are required to file the initial, annual, and leaving office statements of financial interest required by this Code for the types of interests in the categories set forth in the column "Disclosure Categories" opposite the column "Designated Positions". It has been determined that these persons make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on such financial interests. B. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of interests in real property, the designated employee need only disclose real property which is located in whole or in part wi thin or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the local government agency. -1- " -- .",.. f.' fA-g C. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of investments or sources of income, the designated employee need only disclose investments in business entities and sources of income which do business in the jurisdiction, plan ro do business in the lurisdiction or have done business in rhe jurisdiction within the past rwo years. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing business within the jurisdicrion if it owns real property within the jurisdiction. D. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of business pos i tions, the designated employee need only disclose positions of director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management in organizations or enterprises operated for profit. E. The Disclosure Categories are: CATEGORY 1: Investments and sources of income. CATEGORY 2: Interests in real property. CATEGORY 3: Investments, interests sources of income subject to the licensing authority of the department. in real property regula tory, permi t and or CATEGORY 4: Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. C.o.TEGORY 5: Investments in income of the type which, contracted with the city .I\gency) to provide services, or equipment. business entities and sources of within the past two years, have of Chula Vista (Redevelopment supplies, materials, machinery CATEGORY 6: Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. C.o.TEGORY 7: Business positions. -2- f6f} - q <f- m-to ~ DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES 1. Mayor, Councilmembers/Chairman Members of Redevelopment Agency -:.../ 2. City Manager/Executive Director */ 3. City Attorney/Agency Attorney */ 4. Finance Director/Chief Financial Officer */ 5. Assistant Finance Director/ Agency Investor -:.../ 6. Members of the Planning Commission -:.../ 7. Director of Community Development/ Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency 1,2,7 8. City Clerk 1,2,7 9. Deputy City Clerk 1,2,7 10. Assistant City Attorneys 1,2,7 11. All other Department Heads, Assistant and Deputy City Managers and Assistant and Deputy Department Heads 1,2,7 12. Associate Civil Engineer 3,4,5 13. Battalion Chief 3,6 14. Building and Housing Inspectors (Senior, II and I) 3,7 15. Building Services Superintendent 3,5,6 16. Budget Officer 5 17. Buyer 1,7 18. Chief Plans Examiner 3 -:.../ As required by Government Code ~~87200-87210. Included for disqualification purposes only. See Government Code ~87200 for disclosure requirements. -3- J , ~A-IO " ';.; 19. Environmental Review Coordinator 3,4 20. Equipment Maintenance Superintendent 5,6 21. Fire Marshal 3,6 22. Flo!J!~inq Coordinator 3,4,7 23. Open Space Coordinator 24. Open Space Inspector 25. Landscape Architect 26. Parks Superintendent 4, 6 4,6 2,4,7 3,6 27. Permit Engineer 3,4,6 28. Police Captain 1,2,7 29. Plans Examiner 1,2,7 30. Principal Community Development specialist 31. Principal Librarian 32. Principal Management Assistant 33. Principa1. Planner 3,4,6,7 6 5,7 1.,2,7 34. Public Information Coordinator 4,5 35. Public Works Inspector (Senior, I and II) 3,4 36. Public Works Maintenance Superintendent 3,5,6 37. purchasing Agent 1,7 38. Recreation Superintendent 3,6 39. Redevelopment Coordinator 3,4,6,7 40. Revenue and Recovery Officer 3 41. Risk Manager 1,7 42. Senior Accountant 3 43 . Senior Code Enforcement Officer 44. Senior Civil Engineer 45. Senior Commun ity Development Specialist 3,7 3,4,5 3,4,6,7 -4- ~ tf ffA- II 46. Transit Coordinator 47. Traffic Engineer 48. Zoning Enforcement Officer 49. Board of Appeals and Advisors Members 50. Board of Ethics Members 51. Civil Service Commission Members 52. Commission on Aging 53. Design Review Committee Members 54. Economic Development Commission Members 55. Growth Management Oversight Committee Members 56. Human Relations Commission 57. International Friendship Commission Members 58. Montgomery Community Planning Committee Members 59. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Members 60. Parks and Recreation Commission Members 61. Resource Conservation Commission Members 62. Safety Commission Members 63. Southwest Project Area Committee Members 64. Town Centre Project Area Committee 11ember s 65. Consultants 6568a / ,1(+.f'- >,",,-. -5- 5,7 3,4,5 3,7 2,5 1,2,7 3 1,7 2,4,7 1, 2, 7 2,4,7 2,7 1,7 2,4,7 3,7 2,4,7 2,4,7 2,7 3,7 3,7 If designated in their contracts, for the categories speci- fied in their con- tracts by Council, the Agency, City Manager/Executive Director, or Pur- chasing Agent '\ (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Dlvisian fi of the c}lifc'rni~ Code of Rcqul<1tions) .lB~O. ~Fovisions of Conflict_2-f Inte~~~~s (a) Incorporation by reference of the terms of this regulation along with the designation of employees and the formulation of disclosure categories in the Appendix referred to below constitute the adoption and promulgation of a Conflict of Interest Code within the meaning of Government Code Section 87300 or the amendment of a Conflict of Interest Code within the meaning of Government Code Section 87307 if the terms of this regulation are substituted for terms of a Conflict of Interest Code ~lready in effect. A code so amended or adopted and promulgated requires the reporting of reportable items in a ) manner substantially equivalent to the 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political Reform requirements of Article Act, Government Code Sections 81000, et~. The requirements of a Conflict of Interest Code are in addition to other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act, such as the general prohibition against conflicts of interest contained in Government Code Section 87100, and to other state or local laws pertaining to conflicts of interest. (b) The terms of a Conflict of Interest Code amended or adopted and promulgated pursuant to this regulation are as tollows: 1 18730 l(CES 6189) ~~ '" ,~ -'1-H- to 8 ~ -"!:~~:""~ 1.1\1 1m IT A ( ( e- '\ (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Dlvisian fi of the c}lifc'rni~ Code of Rcqul<1tions) .lB~O. ~Fovisions of Conflict_2-f Inte~~~~s (a) Incorporation by reference of the terms of this regulation along with the designation of employees and the formulation of disclosure categories in the Appendix referred to below constitute the adoption and promulgation of a Conflict of Interest Code within the meaning of Government Code Section 87300 or the amendment of a Conflict of Interest Code within the meaning of Government Code Section 87307 if the terms of this regulation are substituted for terms of a Conflict of Interest Code ~lready in effect. A code so amended or adopted and promulgated requires the reporting of reportable items in a ) manner substantially equivalent to the 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political Reform requirements of Article Act, Government Code Sections 81000, et~. The requirements of a Conflict of Interest Code are in addition to other requirements of the POlitical Reform Act, such as the general prohibition against conflicts of interest contained in Government Code Section 87100, and to other state or local laws pertaining to conflicts of interest. (b) The terms of a Conflict of Interest Code amended or adopted and promulgated pursuant to this regulation are as tollows: 1 18730 l(CES 6189) ~~ '" ,~ -'1-H- to 8 ~ -"!:~~:""~ 1.1\1 1m IT A ( ( e- ( ( L (1) Section 1. Definitions. The definitions contained in the POlitical Reform Act of 1974, regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 18100, et !!go), and any amendments to the Act or regulations, are incorporated by reference into this Conflict of Interest Code. (2) Section 2. Desiqnated Emplovees. The persons hOlding positions listed in the Appendix are designated employees. It has been determined that these persons make or participate in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on financial interests. (3) Section 3. Disclosure Cateqories. This Code does not establish any disclosure obligation for those designated employees who are also specified in Government Code Section 87200 if they are designated in this Code in that same capacity or if the geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction in which those persons must report their financial interests pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the 2 18730 (CED 6/89) g~ -It! ~ (_/II ,-(.1- ,{ " J ) ) - i I i --1 .. ) POlitical Reform Act, Government Code Sections 87200, ( et ~.l/ Such persons are covered by this Code for disqualification purposes only. With respect to all other designated employees, the di~closure categories set forth in the Appendix specify which kinds of financial interests are reportable. Such a designated employee shall disclose in his or her statement of economic interests those financial interests he or she has which are of the kind described in the disclosure categories to which he or she is assigned in the Appendix. It has been determined that the financial interests set forth in a designated employee's disclosure categories are the kinds of financial ) interests which he or she foreseeably can affect materially through the conduct of his or her office. (4) Section 4. Statements of Economic Interests: Place of Filinq. The code reviewing body shall instruct all designated employees within its code to tile ( Y Desig.1ated employees who are required to file statements of economic interests under any other agency's Conflict of Interest Code, or under Article 2 for a different jurisdiction, may expand their statement of economic interests to cover reportable interests in both jurisdictions, and file copies at this expanded statement with both entities in lieu of filing separate and distinct statements, provided that each copy of such expanded statement filed in place of an original is signed and verified by the designated employee as if it Were an original. See Government Code Section 8100~. ) 18730 ) (CEE 6/89) -f( ,,, -/~ IE""' ~ '& ( (- I (J ( l. statements of economic interests with the agency or with the code reviewing body, as provided by the code reviewing body in the agencyls conflict of interest code.Y (5) Section 5. Statements of Economic Interests: Time of Filinq. (A) Initial statements. All designated employees employed by the agency on the effective date of this Code, as originally adopted, promulgated and approved by the code reviewing body, shall file statements within thirty days after the effective date Of this Code. Thereafter, each person already in a position when it is designated by an amendment to this Code shall tile an initial statement within thirty days after the effective date of the alUendment. (8) Assuminq Office Statements. All persons assuming designated positions after the effective date ot this Code shall file statements within thirty days after assuming the designated ~ See Government Code Section BI010 and 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section IB115 for the duties of filing officers and persons in agencies who make and retain Copies of statements and forward the originals to the filing officer. 4 IB730 tCE8 6/89) R'~ -If. -9-f~ I -..~! ~ ") ) ) - ) ) ) ICEI< 6/891 \ ..... .~ ~ ~ positions, or if sUbject to State Senate ( confirmation, thirty days after being nominatp.d or appointed. (C) Annual Statements. All designated employees shall file statements no later than April 1. (D) Leaving Office Statements. All persons who leave designated positions shall file statements within thirty days after leaving office. (5.5) Section 5.5. Statements for Persons Who Resiqn 30 Days After Appointment. Persons who resign within 30 days of initial appointment are not deemed to have assumed office or left office provided they did not make or participate in the making of, or use their position to influence any decision and did not receive or become entitled to receive any form of payment as a result ot their appointment. Such persons shall not tile either an ( assuming or leaving office statement. (6) Section 6. Contents of and Period Covered by Statements ot Economic Interests. (A) Contents ot Initial Statements. Initial statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and 5 18730 e -f'flL 17 (A-I? { <.. ( ICES 6,'89) business positions held on the effective date of the Code. (8) Contents of AssumlnQ Office Statements. Assuming office statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the date of assuming office or, if subject to State Senate confirmation or apPointment, on the date of nomination. (C) Contents of Annual Statements. Annual statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the previous calendar year provided, however, that the period covered by an employee's first annual statement shall begin on the effective date ot the Code or the date of assuming office whichever is later. (D) Contents of Leavinq Office Statements. Leavi~g office statements shall disclose reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the period between the closing date of the last statement filed and the date of leaving oftice. 6 187)0 ["/18 -'Hf ' J 1 ) ;' - ) I (7) Sl;>ction 7. Manner of Reportinq. Statements of economic interests shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and SUpplied by the agency. and shall contain the following information: (A.) IJ.1vr:!:';~m~n~_~_..'n-E:~R!,~"..!_~rop~F!:Y Dis~lD5~. When an investment or an interest in real propertyV is required to be reported,Y the statement shall contain the fOllowing: l. A statement of the nature of the investment or interest; 2. The name ot the business entity in ) which each investment is held, and a general description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged: 3. The address or other precise location ot the real property; 21 For the purpose of disclosure only (not disquali- fication), an interest in real property does not include the principal residence of the filer. !I Investments and interests in real property which have a fair market value of less than $1,000 are not investments and interests in real property within the meaning of the Political Reform Act. However, investments or interests in real property of an individual include those held by the individual's spouse and dependent children as well as a pro rata share of any investment or interest in real property of any business entity or trust in which the individual, spOUse and dependent children own, in the aggregate, a direct, indirect or beneficial interest of 10 percent or greater. ) 7 18730 ICEE 6/89) ~ - ). r; ~ I., g A .." . ~ )~"" ~ ( ( E:- ( ( l. 4. A statement whether the fair market value of the investment or interest in real property exceeds one thousand dollars (Sl,OOO), exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). (8) Personal Income Disclosure. When personal income is required to be reported,~ the statement shall contain: 1. The name and address of each source ot income Aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value or fifty dollars ($50) or more in value if the income was a gift, and a general description of the business activity, if any, of each source; 2. A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source, or 1n the case of a loan, the highest amount owed to each source, was one thousand dollars ($1,000) or less, greater than one thousand ~ A desiqnated employee's income includes his or her commu~ity property interest in the income of his or her spOuse but does not include salary or reimbursement for expenses received trom a state, local or federal qovernment aqency. . 18730 (CEB 6/89) g".4.20 -9-2+ ~ -~ ., ) ) -- ) dollars ($1,000). or greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); 3. A description ot the consideration, if any, tor which the income was received; 4. In the case ot a gitt, the name, address and business activity of the donor and any intermediary through which the gift Was made; a description or the gift; the amount or value ot the gift; and the date on which the g1ft was received; 5. In the case ot a loan, the annual interest rate and the security, it any, given tor the loan. ) iC) Business Entity Income Disclosure. When income of a business entity, including income of a sole proprietorship, is required to be reported,~ the statement shall contain: 1. The name, address, and a general description of the business activity ot the business entity; !I Income of a business entity is reportable it the direct, indirect or beneficial interest of the filer and the filer's spouse in the business entity aggregates a 10 percent or greater interest. In addition, the disclosure of persons who are clients or Customers ot a business entity is required only if the clients or Customers are within one of the disclosure categories of the tiler. ) 9 18730 (CEB 6/89) VA -~, - 9-2'2. ~ :A t ( ( ~ ( l. ( 2. The name of every person from whom the business entity received payments if the filer's pro rata share of gross receipts from such person was equal to or greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (D) Business Position Disclosure. When business positions are required to be reported, a designated employee shall list the name and address of each business entity in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or in which he or she holds any position of management, a description ot the business activity in which the business entity is engaged, and the designated employee's Position with the business entity. (E) Acquisition or Disposal Durinq Reportinq Period. In the case of an annual or leavinq office statement, it an investment or an interest in real property was partially or Wholly acquired or disposed of durinq the period COvered by the statement, the statement shall contain the date of acquisition or disposal. (8) Section 8. Disqualification. No desiqnated employee shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her 10 18730 (CES 6/89) y/t .tt. r - z.~ (~- ;). d... ., ) ) - ) ofticial position to influence the making of any governmental decision which he or she knows or has reason to know will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official or a member of his or her immediate family or on: (A) Any business entity in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect investment worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more; (B) Any real property in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect interest worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or ) more; (C) Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating two hUndred fifty dollars ($2S0) or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the designated employee within twelve months prior to the time when the decision is made; 11 187)0 ) (Cl::B 6/89) {( 21 ~~) ( ( E= ( ( ~ CD) Any business entity in which the designated employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position or management; or (E) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts Aggregating $250 or more in value provided to; received by, or promised to the designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (8.3) Section 8.3. LeQallv Required Partici:patlon. No designated employee shall be preVented from making or participating in the making ot any decision to the extent his or her participation is legally required tor the decision to be made. The tact that the vote of a designated employee who 1s on a voting bOdy i. needed to break a tie does not make his or her participation legally required fOr purposes ot this section. (8.S) Section 8.5. Disqualification of State Officers and EmDlovees. In addition to the qeneral disqualification provisions of Section 8, no state administrative official ~hall make, participate in making, or use his 12 18730 (CEB 6/89) 8'A .-." 9-~~-~ .1'+ ----- J ) ) - ) or her official position to influence any governmental decision directly relating to any contract where the state administrative official knows or has reason to know that any party to the contract is a person with whom the state administrative official, or any member ot his or her immediate family has, within 12 months prior to the time when the official action is to be taken: (A) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public, regarding any investment or interest ) In real property; or (B) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public regarding the rendering of goods or services totaling in value one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. (9) Section 9. Manner of Disqualification. When a designated employee determines that he or she should not make a governmental decision because he or she has a disqualifying interest in it, the determination not to act must be accompanied by disclosure at the disqualifying interest. In the case ot a voting body, this determination and disclosure shall be made part of the agency's official record; in 13 18730 ) (CEB 6/89) ~~ ~~~~ ( ( ~ ( ( l the case ot a designated employee who is the head of an agency, this determination and disclosure shall be made in writing to his or her appointing authority; and in the case of other designated employees, this determination and disclosure shall be made in writing to the designated employee's supervisor. (10) Section 10. Assistance of the ~~ission and Counsel. Any designated employee who is unsure of his or her duties under this Code may request assistance trom the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to government Code Section 83114 or trom the attorney tor his or her agency, provided that nothing in this section requires the attorney for the agency to issue any tormal or informal opinion. (11) Section 11. violations. This Code has the force and effect of law. Desiqnated employees violatinq any provision of this Code are subject to the administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 - 91014. In addition, a decision in relation to which a violation of the disqualification provisions of this Code or of Government Code Section 87100 or 87450 has oCcurred 14 (CEB 6/89) 18730 yA "~6 I --_._~ -., ) ) ) ) ") may be set aside as void pursuant to Government Code Section 91003. (GOV. Code Sections 87300 and 87302) History; (1) New section filed 4/2/80 as an emergency; effective upon filing. (2) Editorial correction. (3) Atnendrnent filed 1/9/81; effective 2/8/8l. (4) Amendment filed 1/26/83 ; effective 2/25/83- (5) Amendment tiled 11/10/83 : effective 12/12/83. (6) Amendment filed 4/1:)/87 ; effective 5/13/87. (7) A1nendment flIed 10/21/88; etfectiv~ 11/20/88. 15 18730 fCES 6/89) ~ (+ -~..., , Ji ~ -cl. 7 ( ( E= (~ ( L Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes October 18, 1990 Commissioner Hall recommended that they support the second recommendation made by the Department. MSC Hall/Willett 4-0 d. BOARDS & COMMSSIONS AGENDA SUfHUTTALS Director Valenzuela explained the background on the Memorandum from the City Attorney, Mr. Bruce Boogaard, to establish a formal mechanism for the commissione to place an item on the Council Agenda. Motion to support this and the Department staff to initiate a letter that this commission concurs. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 e. CIP STATUS REPORT - INFORMATIONAL Director Valenzuela shared with the Commission the major Capital Improvement Programs that the Department is currently involved in. They are: Norman Park Center reconstruction to begin on December 3, 1990 and end on December 1, 1991, Rohr Park construction to begin January 7, 1991 and end mid- September 1991, Memorial Park construction is currently going on and is set for completion in early December 1990 with a dedication on December 2, 1990 to coincide with the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and the Starlight Yule Parade, Parkway Pool mechanical system replastering project construction to begin mid-January 1991 with completion in mid-March 1991, and Marina View Park construction to begin in early summer 1991. f. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Director Valenzuela explained that the City Attorney would like to amend the Conflict of Interest List. Each year the commissioners would have to sign a statement that they do not have a conflict of interest with the city. Motion to support the City Attorney's recommendation in implementing a Conflict of Interest Policy that would add the names of Commissioners to the Conflict of Interest list. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 g. EMERGENCY AG[:NDA ITEM: HILLTOP DRIVE WALKWAY Motion to accept this emergency item on the agenda. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 Mr. Frank explained pedestrian Rivera, from City Traffic Engineering Division, the proposed pedestrian walkway between the signal at Hilltop Drive near Lorna Verde Elementary q :l1 Y'IJ"o1f' I ~ ",.. -. \~ \. flinutes - 2 - November I. 1990 ( a. That the permit be val id for two years from the date of final installation of the trailer with the provision that the applicant may request at the end of the second year an extension for not more than one additional year. The request for additional time will be reviewed by the Project Area Committee and subject to the approval of the Redevelopment Agency. b. That approval of the land use permit be subject to the County's compl iance with the design conditions imposed by the Design Review Commit tee. c. That the adjacent residents be notified of this project to ensure that they are aware of the proposal. 4. REPORT ON THE TOWN MANAGER Senior Community Development Specialist, Buchan and Community Development Specialist, Rogers indicated that a joint meeting between the Downtown Business Association and the Town Center Project Area Committee has been set for Tuesday, November 6, at 7:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers to speak about the proposed Town Manager program. Vicky Beringer, Vista's Town Manager has also been invited to this meeting so that she can talk to both committees about Vista's Town Manager Program. The committee was also informed that Town Planner, Luis Hernandez will be giving a presentation to the committee L" the Town Manager Program in the City of Portland, Oregon. A few weeks ago, he attend a conference on that subject and would like to convey some of the ideas discussed at this conference to the committee. ( 5. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Staff indicated that the Assistant City Attorney had submitted a report on the proposed confl ict of interest code for the committee's review. The Assistant Attorney would like to have the feedback from the committee in relation to two questions. One is whether the Town Center Project Area Committee bel ieves that this committee meets the tests set forth in the regulations. That is, whether the committee members feel that they can be categorized as public officials and therefore be subject to disclosure of their financial interest. The second question is whether the committee feels that categories 3 and 7 are applicable to this committee and whether the other categories are appropriate so as not to be too broad or too narrow. The committee members response was that they felt that the committee meets the tests and that the members can be considered as public officials and be subject to disclosure of their interest. They also felt the categories are appropriate. They indicated, however, that there are questions among the members as to the amount of financial involvement that might be a matter of concern to the committee. They would 1 ike to have the City Attorney attend one of the committee meetings and advised E= them on this matter. 9-YJ (., ~ 'i gA--C\.' ( Safety Commission Meeting Minutes October 11, 1990 (3C) Board and Commission Recommendations on Council A enda Items (A-ll3s) This item covered two topics: · Board and Commission recommendations on Council Agenda items (A-I Bs), and · Conflict of Interest Code - Advisory Boards, Committees and Commissions ( Chair Braden informed the members that on page 5, item #62, addresses Safety Commission members. The part that applies to us is paragraph 2 and 7. This is a lengthy document, but I guess there wasn't much choice. It is just a mailer if any of us have rental property or own a business that there is any possible potential we would solicit the City for business in some way, that would create a conflict. You can take your time and read this. I talked to Mr. Rudolf and he said that we should just notify him that yes, we are not going to struggle against this. On page 2, I'll read it to you. where it says Category 2--interest in real estate property, does not include residence, and Category 7 is business positions. They will distribute all these forms, so when it gets to category 2 and 7 we are just going to say N/A, doesn't appJy, unless it does apply, then you need to fill in the detail. Commissioner Chidester asked if the Commission had been processed through the Conflict of Interest. Commissioner Arnold responded that yes, we have to sign every year. Chair Braden stated that we have done it in the past, yes. Chair Braden continued, stating that all you have to do is confirm your name, your address, your phone number and then say not applicable (to numbers 2 and 7). They do not want 'a financial statement, they do not ask for one. I brought up to him (Mr. Rudolf) your protest (referring to Commissioner Militscher not desiring to me a financiaJ statement) and he said this is a different form. They are also contemplating Selling up a class to explain this to people. Commissioner Militscher reiterated his position against furnishing a financial statement as he believes it is not necessary as the Safety Commission is an advisory body only. Commissioner Chidester asked what is involved in this particular thing we are speaking of now, what will a Commissioner be required to sign or do. l. ?A.so --f-3-H.i-3o 27 Safet)' Commission Meeting Minutes October II, 1990 ( Chair Braden responded, saying she asked him (Mr. Rudolf) specifically, in my own case I have an old house and a vehicle or two, they are not interested in my savings account or my stocks or bonds or anything, I don't own a business so the only thing I am going to do is put my name, address, phone number and say I have no contlict. Chair Braden, in response to Commissioner Militscher statement that the Safety Commission is an advisory committee, not a decision making body and that we have no intluence on the issuance of COntracts and the like, said, suppose I own a business that I might go to the Purchasing Department of the City and attempt to do business with them. Now that would be contlict, using my connections. Berlin Bosworth, in response to Chair Braden's question if he knew anything about this, responded no other than that they want all Commissioners to sign. The conflict could be that that if you owned a piece of property (other than your residence) and you wanted a stop sign placed near there, then you could recommend that to the Council. That would be a contlict of interest. Mr. Rivera clarified the point by stating that in the case of a stop sign or traffic control device where you have a say so in the recommendation process that that Safety Commissioner which would be affected or benefit from a recommendation ( made by themselves, that they would have to excuse themselves from voting. They can make the request, we (staff) would evaluate the request, if we denied the request and the Safety Commissioner wants the stop sign in there, they would not be allowed to vote. Chair Braden responded to Commissioner questions about being provided with forms, saying that it will be on the City Council Agenda November 6 or 13, approximately one month from now. Commissioner Thomas asked the recording secretary what specifically are they asking for. Mr. Bosworth responded saying he believed each Commissioner will receive a form and as Chair Braden said, if you have a business position, you will stated that your business position will not interfere with any decisions or recOmmendations that you make as the Safety Commission to the City Council and that you have no other property other than your homes. If there was something in there that was not applicable to Gene (or any other Commissioner) he would put N/A and sign it and that is it. Just say N/A and you would have to excuse yourself from voting on something that would be of confJict, i.e., Frank Rivera's explanation. Mr. Bosworth informed Chair Braden that the Commission would need to act on the first pan of 3C. e - r 32. ~'31 (,4--31 28 ( Safety Commission Meeting Minutes October 11, 1990 Mr. Rivera stated that is the one that would have the Safety Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt an ordinance, recommending amending Section 2.040.U90 which will require the Chairperson of any Council approved board, commission. or committee of the City--such as the Safety Commission--upon a majority vote of such body to place matters on the City Council's Agenda. There will be a separate section for boards, commissions, and committee items on the City Council Agenda if it is the desire of the Safety Commission. They could place items on the Agenda under their own separa te heading. MOTION That Safety Commission accept item 3C. MSUC, [Thomas/Koester] 6-0, approved. 5. STAFF REPORTS (SA) c.r.P. Status Report IT 1989-90. As contained in the Commissioners' packet. ( (5B) Chura Vista Police Department Trame Summarv for AUl!'ust 1990 The Police summary for August is not available. This month has been very busy for the Police Department with a lot of the types of accidents we have had. We expect this list to come back next month and possibly the September statistics. They have been reorganizing personnel and changing personnel that worked on this report and so this report was not completed on time. Commissioner Thomas alluded to the fatality on "E" Street by Eucalyptus, near Flower Street. Would that he something to put under study. Could that have heen avoided. Sergeant Tom Schaefer said that he thought it inappropriate for him to discuss it at this point because the investigation has nO! been completed yet. 6. COMMUNICATIONS (6A) Public Remarks None. 16B) Commissioner Comments <... None. VA-.32 9.3J-C~ ~2.. 29 , MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE ( November 12, 1990 9:00 a.m. 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Conference Roonu 2 & 3 Public Services Buildinq Members Olguin, Palumbo and Hall Chairman Casillas, Member McMahon STAFF PRESENT: Redevelopment Coordinator, Pl anner, Frank Herrera; Maryann Mi 11 er Fred Kassman; Associate Environmental Consultant, OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Leonard Moore, Property Owner Tom Davies 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October B, 1990 Member Hall indicated that reference to illegally parked trucks on the "north" side of Brandywine Avenue as stated on page 4 of the minutes is incorrect. This should read "east" side of Brandywine Avenue. A motion was made by Member Hall and seconded by Member Olguin to approve ( the minutes as amended. Member Palumbo indicated that he would have to abstain sir. ~ he was not at the last meeting and could not vote on the minutes. Since there were only two members present to vote on the minutes, and since two votes do not constitute a quorum, the vote on the minutes was continued to the next meeting. 3. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Redevelopment Coordinator, Fred Kassman described the proposal to amend the City's Conflict of Interest Code which included members of the Project Area Committee. Mr. Kassman indicated that the Project Area Committee, as a recommending body, would be required to report potential conflict of interests as indicated under Categories 3 and 7 of the proposed regulat ions. These regul at ions i ncl ude: investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permitting or licensing authority of the City, and also business positions which might pose a conflict of interest. Member Palumbo questioned conflicts of interests concerning voting on projects located within close proximity to his business. Mr. Kassman indicated that the City Attorney's office recommended that Project Area Committee members do not vote on projects located within 300 feet of their property or place of business which might have a financial impact on their property values or business income. ~ ~.JY ~. 33 ~A-.33 ., ( MINUTES - 2 . November 12. 19iJ.Q The committee had no further questions on the proposed Confl ict of Interest Codes. 4. PROJECT UPDATE REPORT Environmental Review Consultant Maryann Miller gave an update on the status of the AS TECH II application for the expansion of facilities to treat hazardous wastes at their facility located in the Otay Landfill. Ms. Miller indicated that the environmental impact report is being prepared on the proposal to increase storage facil ities on the present site and also to treat cyanide waste. Staff have been reviewing and commenting on the draft EIR. There was a public hearing at the Valley Lindo School adjacent to the project area where a number of issues were discussed. These include the proximity of the eXisting treatment facility to residences, the need for such facilities, and the question as to where they would most appropriately be located. City staff is putting together comments to submit to the State. Initial comments indicate that City staff have serious concerns and would ultimatley like to see the facil ity relocated to another site away from residences. ( Member Olguin questioned how seriously the State would consider the City'S recommendations. Ms. Miller indicated that the State is the lead agency and can issue permits, but they have to take the City'S concerns seriously. Member Olguin questioned whether the State has considered local comments and turned down permits in the past. Ms. Miller indicated she was not sure. Associate Planner, Frank Herrera, stated that the State did turn down development permits in the case of the Omar Rendering Site. Member Hall commented that the State has to address all concerns that they receive in writing. He indicated that there have been over 170 residents saying that they did not want the project in their neighborhood. Residents who wish to comment on the proposal should request forms from the State and submit them before November 26, 1990. Member Hall further commented that the State has been very receptive to comments from neighborhood residents and has been very cooperative. City Councilman Leonard Moore indicated that the State needs these types of plants and that the State is lOoking for anything they can do to make sure that all adverse items are addressed. AS TECH have been talking about the new project and have not resolved all their eXisting problems as yet. There is no relocation plan as yet. The Project Area Committee should make a motion to ensure that there are checks and balances. The license for AS TECH to operate is temporary and has expired. They have to reapply for a license to continue operating. Relocation plans should be a condition of any new license. L v~ . 3'1 9-Jr(-~ ~{f~ =--.~ ......~~~ ~....................... .-....--- C/1Y OF ~Err:-I\'r:D CHUIA VISfA ' , n - . '- ( CHULA VISTA PUBLIC ~~JA~~'I 28 ?:;:23 C:, r' _- ("",,:,',1 '" .',j November 28, 1990 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Ci ty Hall Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mayor Cox: This is in response tc your request for information from the Library Board of Trustees regarding the Conflict of Interest Code. You have asked that we examine our history to determine whether or not we m~et the criteria set forth. ( As to the first criteria, whether recommendations are regularly approved without significant amendment over an extended period of time. We believe we have not had our suggestions "regularly approved." We have reviewed eighty-six sets of minutes (time- line attached) and we see significant rejection of major issues. If there is rejection, then there is no routine approval, hence no history of routine approval. As to the second criteria, "without significant amendment," we ask you, have any City staff, paid consultants, or Council members ever given the Library Board issues to consider with suggestions or recommendations? Have they ever provided input before the Library Board's recommendation so that the recommendation could be acted on without formal amendment or alteration? Has no staff, consultant or Council member ever sought to suggest, encourage, assist or otherwise provide input before the Library Board's recommendation. We believe there exists a pre-recommendation amendment, if you will. We never operate alone. We weigh and measure all information. ~~..~ 9 3" ~ 3~ ~ :165 f .'1THf f1 CHilL A VJ~;TA CAt rronNIA !<201U(619t 6915168 ( The Honorable Mayor and Council Page Two As to the third criteria, we ask, what is an extended period of time? Ive are aware that it is a matter of pUblic record as to our individual land holdings in the City proper. We believe that the oath of office is sufficient, yet it does not seem to satisfy. The Library Board is proud to be "only advisory' and understands that it operates best within the system of checks and balances that operates within the City government. We have a few suggestions. A history for a particular Board might be maintained by category. 1. Land and buildings 2. Employee salary/benefits 3. Inventory 4. Other ( Consider common sense questions about the Board's activities. Does its recommendations affect directly and immediatelv sUbstantial private interests or rights or obligations, e.g., fire department, services, police services and a host of other substantial private and public interests and expenditures. We further suggest that if you decide to enforce this "across the board", you might consider its effect on future volunteer ism in Chula Vista. We hope that if you adopt these new guidelines, that future new Board and Commission members will be apprised of the conflict of interest form before they are chosen to serve. We would like to thank his support and help. helpful and practical. Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, for His attention to detail has been most Sin<;::erely ,A~Jll~,-0 Sue Miller Chairman Library Board of Trustees <- ~A ..J c. -t;-3/ (~- 3 <.0 CITY OF CHUlA VISTA - ~~~~ ( " I > ~- " .. .. ~: ."'\.j :: d 't lme 1 int: ~ C - ::... ~" -\ t:. (' 1." ~.:~) u ~ ::':" _ In :<::' ~ ct. U r ~ d ~ J" I :~'3.r.~~~11 LUt-Ci, tih.: L~atd :.cpo..:-\~ :.>~, ~!,1ild a~mt'nt Revif'W ::'!;J!Jrt. :..; t,_" [ : I .j' i.', .-j lsc:j;...;.... j'lil11': ~': I (dOS on i. ,:pm~-; un -t!1U ,':h...; >::~i.~ '\.-:.: rt_):'!1~t: nt 1~...TL;3.ji ~IJ .'11 ~"1dnd'jement :\t::Vil~'''', f~~:..; v/i~ 1 b~ 1r1l~r~~d.....~d. ?1."')f-;I..~,~.'d :)y t1rs. Lan'~. i. i Ile:~ fnd 1 ':' _ 11 R""trd bt"Jd'" ';:''-''h,,]''n "n [,ibr.IrY ''''''''L '>nd d(:<'or. 'jri'll"al pLIO" ,:u::J(j,j{.,; ',.'il,'r ~".l:'llrl'. ..( -"l.>llHoittet: d,,{ "jt..:d UII '11e ;,1e.::t ,~:!.jJIL~' wiJlo:..'~1 '... i..i ](}cdL,'d uehinr1 iJ~) Librdry. 1,/.i.rlolJs ide.]::> ,"{'r.e rrc>sent~d :)}' t.he I:i t:z.' ;tl"~r the 3Dd.rd J:~J.::I~d what Council ;'::: '.~ i l~ r r e tJ . 2-32 'of _ "c .~cnIietL ...d.. ')PO~;(:t" , :-C)6~ I1df'n dnd the Bl),jrd \/ ~ l'" we,! ~ t favorably. ., -'J,: '('>!Jt.,l ""'c;. .-,,1;.,o:t ['.'Ii "l'.I'I1.;~<.'d, 7heo ;,ibrac/, prop"""d Y"j"l!Jq lh" ::o~~ ,:t ".1ui~i"J '"'"U.ii:I., "opi..'~ l>! be~l ,"l:'er~ I,ll '.0 ( patrons by credtinq ~ rental book collection. This will 1~nerate ,c:V":'/!!lt:" :I~: :.il(~ Licr....1ry' ~ :..uuj.; bLII..h1et. Mr~. Lane tell:; Avard ('LSA mOilcl' c...Jn L>~ u:':'t.'J. t ""t ()CLC ind Eclipse CPU ,HI' L.H':J.:ttt~ ('r.uvrsed her dppeal. need"d ,Hid 6 A;> MSC ~o~rd rliti not dlJgy~sted rose G0ds. Sl1pp~)r::' 'L 'N'dlf:r fCtltllrL' .,t. ,'/!:-'f;t ',nd 'Iud Reserve fee for books. ,.~rs~1';1~' :ug~~~tcJ :.:0. BOdrd recommended $.25 dnd Library sLatf "l.~ir~ SI.:'J.,1"L.J wilh thAir recommendation. ~-82 Rose garden installed at no C03t to city, Library starte:j ~ book reserve ~ysteln ~t ~.50 per r~~~rvp. 10-82 ,;irector Lan", t-!aupret RlII", ,'Iary 'Iancini ,Ino .:t"ff "'/ldly:;t !'[.Hilyn Leuck presented inforlliati<J/I on Lull C03t recovery as it ~lf""l~ tho. Library. '\3 L; eViol,"'t, I'ur Libr"ry wa,; being a"KE!d to pull it's own weight, and as the City and Library staff seemed La support it, the Board recommended to Council thnt fines dnd chdrges be inc~easeJ, ; 1..82 E::: Discu:=-sion IJf librdry parkinlJ bf'fJdn. q-38 (., -"3 7 ~~"31 ( (.!-'nt. --lD-i?: ;'!~etiny rOf_JTn ~chedult~ and C::ldrqeS d i:Jc;~~.;:':\(~d revL~w jn 'Jpr.i.:lg of ~(13. Council IJCj 11-17 did :.~h_~ ;,1 bra!"}' \:hctrg2 fur meet: nq ":'\"-iln~:;. and l€~[t:'.r:i:ed to not take position 1:-82 'ISC IJo.uJ for j\~nd~llip jrnuncls. r\'("omm(~nU~i t;hat Councli r\.'("on:::;id1~r \h,~ P,]rJ.:. More tll:lillq ill Civic Quad ,j,nd relocallon q[ 110t on 1 ihr.:t!y . ....., 'J -.} ;> ?.i.r::~ilq :..::it1.!dy-..t:~.lffic OntJi:'H_~er ;u'.1fJc:.:L, .! IIOIJ!: r)drktn~i. 20IlCltr.:=>. UCd!'"U (; . ,13 fI.tsc'lssed refurbishing of the Library tor ttle first !.:ime. 8-83 Hed,:'velopment !)ir~r.to.c .-t(lviscrJ ,~ hour: parkinq. Aft~r (.:on3ider:lh],.~ ~Lae ;;md ,'irort i:r:>!ll ri;-~cUluml~nd:J nu puhlic :icces.i computer. 3ugge3tion. L lIH d t / Th i:; ; ~:a f f I En.: luws Boar.d :;taff ( Contlnl:~d ~tu~y on refurbi5hinry. to the Co U Ill:: i: . ~pnt d ~)rioritized needs list tl-a~ Coltllci 1 west t!nd rf!qUt't:its to PJdnniJltJ."R,.'qdrdinfj .] water fountain dt of the Lil)rdr~'." the Water feature ref,.:rred to lanrl::___r;J[JP arch! tpct. 1-84 Director renovation Lane Guggested the LiL>rary Buard suumit projects to the City during eIP reviews. building 2-84 Friendship C<Jmmisslon re,>u.."L:.; t.hi.lt Si,:ter r.ity matl'rid15 he kept at Library. Staff cOllcern::; about ;';p,lce dllJ extril time warrant::; the Board to refer items to City Hall for display. Board rf::;commCiH],:j Gr~g R,;qer:3 !IOIl:..;t:o ~e moved to EUCd lyptus Park. 6. 84 HOded receives HLJtory Room. propOSQ() policy [ruin Library 3tilff Approves ~Ilqgestcd policit~~ in J'Jly, 04. on loedl 8-84 First Eastlake plan with Bud Gray ~nd Dab Santos. (. "se Not to impiement an AV insurance fee. 9-84 First discussion on financial disclosure. Board displeased. ~ ~ 3~ B'A-3P ( ','" C 4-, 'i1 t, , "'i~~.,';,t_~ d :t!I..:','L:dt; rO\JHI ~'l)! ;ry ,. .!II ~,ibr,Jry .Jt,...tf. f l~.; ; t- ..L11,d:j. ,~ r. '.'..J :.1.-.~~,t:t:r Plan :,vp.rvi,-~w ',J1 tll G('orCJt~ Krl.~!!Ipl .\nd 3t..J '~r':IY. .~ - :~ S ~~irt", rOI I.".lrl\' : tit: ,ht~ 'tll1 {1.;',"rJlI1Tl!\:tld r:il.'r....;inq I,j ~~ . :", U :: I) i. .11 J c', ''; ;.:.j:~.. r ~ '-1 L, j 11 1. U t U 1: '! f. 11 :; . .) . 1~;l1rdn("I.. ;l"~ r;t .1--:;') 3o~rd '.,'uted l (j .:tccept Lh~ IuS'; 'l~t(.jt"n. pl:!i1 ..t~; ~)r'~....,('lit,.'d :."1i" Cl ty }\nalyst Morris, 5-85 Llb;.3.ry 1)1rt~ctor .,:::;k'::,cl F-h)ard :(rr (-0ntinI1ed :-.;utJP'Jrt .~nl"" hours. 'xtp.nded ;- ill) ~fr. ;:,.~JJnctt. brj[,<J:.> d new (;o!1Cept ~;u ~o:ird J:or .~rt~d )q',Lh;",,:.;;t oL "';1,~ l,.i.iJ{.J'i. ;\ C.J.;\-,jdi/1'~ ~/dL('r :,~.iI.:.:;:!~. '~!,.:iir:~ .:,.~, :'/ C]lle:it:3 COUJiL:i 1 tu dpprove concF-~t ~:q it !lkiY be COfuplpten bJ Li!:;.r,-,ry .::..nd City hirthdaY3, July '36. ( 9 - 8 ~J ?ir~;L '.1i:.~cu::,sj\)n "11 lilHit.in~ '-hI' rJlITnh.'r of !>nuk.; :ti1d .'.;horLelliCifj t 11.= loa n Pl~ r i od . l1'-8~, Cost of propc,sed water fedLu~e, Krempl and Mr. Sennett. Z91l,OOO, :u 1J! 8:i"ntc,d by Mr. Montgomery annexation a lit! :1aster Plan dL-;cussed. City plans to continul2 :::::upport for maillt.Jintj two County branches. Council dbcussed l,rl:s"ntlng water Anniversary gift. fedture as City's 75 3-86 Board QPposed to Garrett as a one-way ~treet. ~-8G fountain biJ ~l ~9~,OOO,OO. Counc i 1 rl~ j("~Ct3 bid. Dir,~(:tor Lane requests we support her rpcommendatlon to close the Library for two week:> cluri",] rl:cdrp"tin<j. r. -:)6 Librdry Board a libr,uian : ibrary. recommendA to the Council a proposal for fund~ to teach school chilclren the proper n~e of for the ~ ~~ ~ ~ i"A-3Co} , '- ( ( <.. ..'j., "!~C ;!(I<lrd~1: 1","3 n0:.,e .1nd """d'/lor q:tidejin23 cc'r t.!H LH,!. ,",:' ,j -:~ [. 1!.~C j.'reil,jr,'~ ,; lj !. t .;tL ~ ,-' .;: :1::;. 1 ~ , " ~:l...2r ;:-,eatjn'i 'd.iLh .1 -;t~.l~lJrl':.i.1. ..:;t:une (olIn!~di!: ',v't:":-,t; ,~nd. tl,)w~r bpd . :.. t und d 1..,J'1 l'rpl~cati'Jn pre:3l~nt.::r. t.: ~'r; !., ;~dult: Lll'~r.IC'Y ~y ~i!)r~ry ~t~tf, DOdrd , ,,, .. ..J' ,:;r:lnt. .\.tte.r hdC';<;:J '][Ji.-': lr:-at iOII. prUp()8o..l :~ibr':I!:: ,[)'J.i.~!' ... .iL'.L '2..t.'>r::: . tr..iV.::' bUdgc.t reduct'd (i ft~:r rt2que::>t to ("ouncI 1 to 5...Q7 Ci ty ..;'Ilppcrt:; Oppl)~~e SE5 ~nd SI35(.:cnsorship-j),'Jdeh) , iny form of cen3or3tlip. :'!ll' LiLrdry Hoard illust :~O-G7 :.,~ ,:. l 10<.1 n C!I,J.11'''J~.~ ~)l~ ;":0u;';;., '-\,~ L:'.! l;"'i: r 1 :Ill " ~~ r..1 i I1cd . :lmitinq Ult~ :'~,:HI c;Il-'(~k~d vul. Lib!'"r y ['1f~T j \...11.1 Vic"":LtUL "':C'.:~; .;..JL )l~h,port vi: limiting Lh(~ uU:l:br:r of : ~ .:j? Boar.d o9pO;JC:.'<1 ::se df ;~[, C"vuntry :...~1ulJ (t:..i .ll!....7dry. 1::>.37 LL:liL'1d ~ltjmbor ;di ~)odk~} ch~c};~(1 ..H1t: from 99 to 25. A3k,:,] ~0C ~~,j""": :)udJ',L :,':- b" increased to include aLtel,r.cillce at l\LA. 1-88 Handyman site affirmed ciS numIJ'=r one choice of Lhe Board for a new library. 6-88 At request of Director Lane, Board reviewed the book bUdget for'S9 and decided to attend hearing on June 8 to support need for maintenance of book budget. '1'hrL!shold 3tand...rdu h,lve muved belouw ';!:.illddrd ..."d we Jee n""r! for agreement by Council to maintain :otilndards uS previoUsly .1fjreed. 6,,88 I1ejection of Handyman site by Council. City ,\dministration will try to persu,ide County to ')per"t:e MontgoH:ery ~'ranche5 past 6--89 dead li ne. 10-8$ W.~st; i':nd Library Patio dedicated. Director Lane disCu:3sed Prop 85. This is of particular interest -f'-'{+ ~,' 'fe ~A ...lIO , '~i) t!:i! ci~~~.?ns ,)f C:111]~ ViSt,3. Rell~)Vati0n .;11,1 COtl~trll(~tion ::1onies. ( :>r'.:liminary :~:i5t.:.! [,lall A'Jr~ement fl'l Hetmo",,, ',,',d Or<.J"'3e at City SaIl. Board :~:rprised. First we've heard. ':'::-Ust2e H(~glaflll request3 additional Library Staff fruJO Cuuncil. l~n.3bll2 to .-;ppr~)v>? >!SC t:D limit:: r;;inq In lot to 2 hours. ~rsc 3carrl :ji?PCS~;:; nlaking D.J.vidso!l one-w.'3Y. l:'~-'88 "orkshap an ;arking. Proposal to limit for 3 hour5-patrons only. :1SC Al~ern,;;::i"~ parking ror staff dnd voluCite~r3. MSC To build ~n adequ~t;e lot for 3t~ff. 12-SS !\ss istant City t1a n.:::i~jer" bt:: 1:. r;7\''7 7:he ~!ont';,,::",\-:.:y LiLr.:.ir 5,,,:-s," Manager A5mu~ jnJi~ate9 both he and the City that it i5S in the best interest of the City and Community t.o oper~lle the Mont.gomcry Branch Msue To follow recommendations of the Assistant City Manager and t~,,: !)ir'=ctor )[ the Libr.:!ry concerning taking over operation of Branches on 7-1-89. ( Special Meeting-12-0a. Library Board asking in budget for funds to send a member to ALA in Chicago. 1-89 S ha una Hermosa stakes, Analyst with Parks and Rec, presented and Orange site for a park-library, etc. info on 3-89 Conditions report from City indicate original preference Sweetwater/Bonita site. Southwestern College area is not available. Site C will be preferred site(Paseo Ranchero and East HJ. Not Board's original 9ite recommendation. HSue Focu~ area 1, Lauderbach and Third is the preferrnd Montgomery Library site. MSC Recommenc~d to Council that all referonce books continue to be targeted. Need to update security system. 4-89 lirs. Lane announced that this year's CIP budget proposal would include ~ new circulation system and on-line catalog. 5-89 After reports from City Planning and Montgomery Planning, the CVPL Board supported a Library at Orange and Hermosa. p- 'Ill. - Cu-lff' cg' A- -4' < ~ ,'. .?< .- :. , " (, ( ( ::.:1 y-:~ '1 -'.: ~'L~' . '~.sth.: ;' :U"F': ,::')j):-; ~;}i"" '-!'I~' :!J~~:.<I :'~d. p.r OJ.'t: _ ~_). ; ; ., 1.11)$ :;: ~ 1;.1 ,_~ ~ :;.;::..:.,,;::- .' ~ -'.. 11 ::" 'I.,:": ,:'lr~;)LI\C','~: : :1,.t~: ~~'--~;,J~: t1 ",~'~,~"'~'.~, ,. , . .~. ..",:nc:. ... nfJl. ~ i/,'"l [('qi~l"::\ t . ' ,.", '!i)gru(,Je ~.h..~ ~~>~Ci::Ii':rLend(.:j t!l',:~ L1~:' ::idrii.'J 1.imit:: .;[ ',:~ 1,~>:la:: 1)( .) ~-' l .:: i.' 1 '~ilL'':: i~ ~ r: ,: . : ~ ~.=1 n p~ r : n(~ I.~ :,; ::!':: ~ :L'teLT"l " . ~-: .j J l,;.., .,1 :"""oIj~rh':H:h '-:-:\3J1L(.r '.i.:~ f: '". ~-':..~;;:., lb!e L : ~.L' it- Y .;.; 1 :~ ':! . i; ~-~ d -; n,~:.) ~ ,np .~, ::11-:;' .1.' i ()r. ,[ , : ; ~'. ,., 1 , ' i1. JC fUlldL'd ll,:, ~)y ~; ~H~ . r l,1 !; J ,- j';.,- , \ '. . ~ ; I'. - City ~3n\t'-J(:L i::r;~i.:-J.~~t? .:, :;it= ,"1:;:':'\:.1 L1:J.I:"..I1.: . .. ", :1 _ ~ I - '.'.' . ~ ~,'J u I.: 1./1..;11 :;:Jr .J. l)i: Ui);.";;1 ,i ..to. ~... ~ :) r j -: :,. ,t ~jlld~rLac:1 .~itc. ;')irt":!c'..:,>r :unJs t\J f...:~n..:.' ~):.ti 1 .; .>.:lid pl':'ifl::\ 'n ~ ;'!.': ;.') ,1ki.do "" .':1 L~!JJ:,;:trj' in :';'::ll'J"';U!.::!(l' Irl!...l, ~.,J ~ 1 ~' ~.: 8P -'r :: ~, :, 0 ._~~? :-':rt'l~r.,'r ~,tlH' .,'v:., \oJ~d ,~\Jv'-1r.::,HJ~";+" .Uti! ~..i.jd\l,jr;:,':4:1C.;. .,!, ,:ht:! :.:;1J'. ~ ibr.Jry ~.\)cJ.ti(,:J;: ('~'''t:::~tw.:tt.=~'/BtJn i ta are.) ).:]!1J . ~3tc:d ;:~~~!,.L:;ons '.-lhy fIve of Jix 3ites are fit' :0ng(!~ viable. Thp Director ..-il.:;n informed t.he Bo.srl1 :::I!e .y,)ul J dnd Faseo Ean\...:.t.'r~l ~..., ('0:';;',(':: 'li1d ..lsked ~(1.r. :.;1(' r.;,'JUc '.:.,) :':;1.ltJport ::h(: Dir~~ctf'l:'~. :t':'Cr)i'[lm~ndd.t. .J!";. ': 1::':,:')mmr:'i"14.1 Eaz t So.:;; r~:. g ~; uppor. t . .. A"!ii:3tant Dir!'ctor Palm','T informed the 1J".~rd intent to 3pp:i.}' for :::2CJ,OD:J ..11 fede:r.1J r,CS,\ Lib~rac:y Projec'L:. . l1SUC to ~ndor:>p i,lh;:.]ry .:; lH:':~III:. of th", 'jrant Library's fUllcl:=-: for Staff announr:<>d that tn.' City is moving forward to ''':quire 5.5 .3CJ:e p.Jrce: ('I:: ,')canqe nd Hel.::no.::ia. rootpr i n:': wi 1 J be ava i l....tble in :;ov ~or ,:1 Libr.::iry ~:!Jd .~(,>ni(Jr Cj li~en..~ I::,:'nt':~l {Mlchuel Fe.~~rel: COil;';!..! 1 tant3) >-90 The ;"'-tudl'lrb.ic:h ~ite L) :..ill 11 .l i.~.j:~E.iiblj,tiL:i 1;,.1 L!:f.: ~;":"~:11 dsked for d recowJuen(~.~t lon. Non~ rll;:id~ because fur Input f,i:ti;n Montgorut.ry rl~tnHll1<.J, P.ILk~ dIU.! Hopc, Sel,:ct[on C.:mmitt.ee :;tiJl Lavore Or,Jllye dnd 11;"l11o::;a. '( Do,.Ira ~I:I:~ Board wished Th~ :; ite C.-90 r n for mert tJ.d t '1SUC' A jf)int 11ontgoln"T}' <'].Innllltj back::; O(..mg" dr...! HlJr.mo::;a. 1I\".:Lin'J ""twe"lI f1ontgomery Planning, Parks and , RcC' f Y3~ VA-eft ; ''i' , ... ~;.C , ., t'.. : 11~r.Jr~' I r~, ;1.:t : .;0 :?,-,,) (d: ?;:).lrd '"i 1 ~ !1~ 3chfo'!1.l:t.,j t.0 ,j i3C1J,-:i3 .J~\.:i3ion C.1t: .~" !\dct-:o. a new Libr..1:y -:' - : ~ Mr3. L,tnc ::-:~\'il'wt:'d COllnci: !cferr,'il. Preliminar~1 \vori'. ,~I!d ~,::.j~i;.,' ~ ~ly i"..:[.iort ,)f ,:) .:3iL,-, ~Jl,.t,i ;."... :t n."'\v [.".I1,)11c r",lbrdr:t d~. L."ll....lL,rb.:tch 'Z'drk. ~~~l(: ,,:coffilnended !,~';L'1J C'J~UJlY0 dlHl Ii\J1HCh 0:1:"; th(~ rno~t viable contender ror PriJ;) :]~ ~u;l'id. MSC Appruval of Orange dnd Fo~rth ~5 th~ site for a new Library. MSUC convey 31,).3rd conern about ~~::0 Cheney Cup to the r:-'" Yacht -....~ . >~S1:C T,) .,;!!ppor:. Ll~~~~r}" .:, ...1pplic.'ltiun for f~;de.rdl Lii:t::racy Gri:tllt :Uilds. ,~ l...-.. . .'.gainst recommendation of Lib,car.i' 90,1::'~, ("onnel: ,;wdr.rJ~~d to th~ ~Jl~ney cup to tile CV YaC!lt Clllh(privatre entity). ~; i t 1 t~ T:..,(;: Library 0()..'1rU hOPC0 that d3 you have redO thL.~ lime 1 inc the r'~111:.;atll'll~ ILl';:; set in, thut on major ::;j':):H,~': .:u' ~1 a.:3 !...1nd l:se 1nd [!~es ~nd fines, we h;1ve disa'Jreed wilh 3t.Jff and Counci I ...\nd o!lly :1:.=; we lldve bc...~en d,<.h :3e,j by Staff Ot c'Jn3ulL,.....r,~3 !I,)VI;' ''''e come tl) agreement \<J~ th the Cvltnr:.i 1. ~.:8'A;:'ls 7 ,.-:;"J_ .. ,~ ~ c ( ~ " ; , .~" UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Economic Development Commission Minutes -6- December 5. 1990 Mr. Compton stated he would like to see ex-officio members be in a position to communicate with other organizations that have a similar interest. Mr. Gustafson stated that no formal requests for eX-Officio membership have been received. He is aware that Ross Spalding is an individual who is very interested in this Commission. Mr. Tuchscher noted the Commission may want to revisit the issue of whether or not to have ex-officio membership after all the information is evaluated and goals are established. Mr. Gerber commented it is important to maintain communication with the South County Economic Development Council. Mr. Tuchscher stated he would like to have someone from the South County Economic Development Council present their plan to this Commission. Mr. Gustafson stated he will invite a representative from that organization to attend a Commission meeting as well as include them as part of the mailing list to receive agendas of this Commission. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. IX. MEMBER COMMENTS Discussion followed concerning whether or not to meet on the regularly scheduled meeting date of January 2 due to the holidays. It was determined that a majority of the Commission members could be present and that they would meet on January 2. IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Mr. Gustafson stated that the City Council considered an amendment on December 4 to Municipal Code Section 2.02 wi th regard to Conflict of Interest to make it more in line with FPPC requirements. The Council continued the item to December 18. The code as amended addresses Boards and Commissions. FPPC regulations would suggest that the Conflict of Interest Code would be applicable to the Commission in terms of making disclosure statements about potential conflicts. It is anticipated that this Commission will be making recommendations that in large measure will be accepted by the City Council. Mr. Gustafson asked the Commission if (1) they were in concurrence with the City Attorney's Office position that the Conflict of Interest Code is applicable to this Commission; (2) are they comfortable with the two disclosure categories recommended by the City Attorney; and (3) does the Commission UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Economic Development Commission Minutes -7- December 5~0 feel it would be appropriate to report in any of the other disclosure categories? Ms. Allen commented that she believes it is important for Commission members to be above reproach and she would like to see the members report whatever the City Attorney requests for them to report. Mr. Compton commented that he believes it would be important for Commission members to report under every category. MSUC (Compton/Allen) to concur with the City Attorney's Office position that the Conflict of Interest Code is applicable to this Commission and that the Economic Development Commission should report under all seven categories on the Disclosure statement. X. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment at 1: 36 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 1991 at 12:00 noon. Respectfully Submitted, Sandra S. Chase Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency (EDMinl) t ~~"4S- 4;-;)" This Page Blank < ~A - C/fo ~fo AGENDA srATEMENT Item 'b Meeting Date 1/8/91 ITEM TITLE: Resolution 15'cr& Amending Resolution No. 15961 Designated Employees to the Conflict of Interest Code ~ssistant City Attorney Rudolf to Add SUBMITTED BY: (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) -- At its meeting of December 18, 1990, the Council introduced for first reading Ordinance No. 2430 repealing the Conflict of Interest Code currently found in the Chula Vista Municipal Code. That ordinance is on for second reading tonight. Simultaneously, Council adopted Resolution No. 15961 which adopted a new Conflict of Interest Code, in resolution form so it could be more easily amended. Council directed that the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code be amended to add the Board of Library Trustees, and the Charter Review Committee. In addition, the Planning Department felt that senior Planners should have been included and the City Attorney concurs. Adoption of the resolution before you will accomplish those changes. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The opposition of the Library Board of Trustees to their inclusion in the Conflict of Interest Code was provided to the Council with the backup for the December 18, 1990 item. As related at that time, staff agreed with the conclusion of the Chairperson of the Library Board of Trustees and recommended Council not include the Library Board of Trustees in the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code. The Charter Review Committee has not yet been formed, so it has not reviewed Council's proposal to include them in the Appendix. The Senior Planners were added at the request of the Department Head at the very last minute during the final review prior to the December 18th meeting. The affected employees have been informed of the proposed addition and have no comments. DISCUSSION: The City Council is the 'Code Reviewing Body' which ultimately determines which positions are to be 'designated' under the local Conflict of Interest Code. You are guided in your determination as to designated employees by the statute and regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The term 'designated employee' includes by statute any officer, employee, member or consultant of any agency whose position is designated in the Conflict of Interest Code because the position entails the making or participating in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest of that person (Government Code Section 820l9(c)). The statutory term specifically excludes 'any unsalaried member of any board or commission which serves a solely advisory function..... Both the statute (Government Code section 82048) and its implementing regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section l8700(a)) define the term 'public official' as including 'unsalaried members of boards or commissions with decision-making authority.' ,b-I Page 2, Item tb Meeting Date 1/8/91 The focus thus is on whether or not an advisory board or commission has decision-making authority or is solely advisory. The regulations specify that "decision-making authority" includes either: making a final governmental decision; or, if the board of commission "makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another governmental agency." (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18700{a}(l}(C)). As we have previously advised Council, that requires that you make a case-by-case determination of whether the committee, board or commission decisions are (a) substantive, (b) approved without significant amendment, and (c) are so approved over an extended period of time. An informal advice letter from the FPPC to the City of Carlsbad dated November 28, 1989 (1-89-671) stated: "Once there is a history of a particular advisory board's recommendations being routinely accepted without amendment or modifications, the board does convert from a solely advisory function to one making or participating in the making of a governmental decision and would be covered by the Conflict of Interest Code. We have in the past advised new advisory commissions that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of recommendations has been established." Notwithstanding this advice, the other cities in the San Diego County have advised their City Councils that members of all boards and commissions should be listed in the Conflict of Interest Code unless they are short term, single purpose, ad hoc committees. Additionally, when you adopted Resolution No. 15961 on December 18, 1990, the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code adopted thereby included several new commissions with no "track record" which were recommended and accepted by the Council as being included because of their clear future potential for significant input to Council decisions. Adoption of the resolution will amend the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code to add Senior Planners with disclosure categories 2, 4 and 7; Board of Library Trustee Members with disclosure categories 2, 6 and 7; and Charter Review Committee Members with disclosure categories 1, 2 and 7. The changes will be effective when the original Resolution No. 15961 becomes effective, on February 7, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: None 8346a ~b - ;l... RESOLUTION NO.~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 15961 TO ADD DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE APPENDIX The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on December 18, 1990, the City Council approved a new Conflict of Interest Code in resolution form by Resolution No. 15961, to be effective upon repeal of the existing ordinance version of the Conflict of Interest Code for the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that Senior Planners should be designated employees with disclosure categories 2, 4 and 7; Board of Library Trustees Members should be designated employees with disclosure categories 2, 6 and 7; and Charter Review Committee Members should be designated employees with disclosure categories 1, 2 and 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that Resolution No. 15961 of December 18, 1990 is amended in the above-stated respects so that the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code now reads as shown on the attached Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments effected by this resolution shall become effective when Resolution No. 15961 becomes effective (February 7, 1991). Presented by and approved as to form by 8347a ib.. -; ~CoIVD '?€"ID1/vC "I/vD "IDopr,OIV or~DINAUCE NO. ~~ ~O _ ~N ORSTNMIO: (),O 'fifE CITY ()F CHilLA VIS'fi\ REPEALING CHAeTr__;\ 2.1/2 tJF THE CI-{'TL/\ IJr~~TA rv:rJNI('IPAL COOP. ~F~L)\Tj~H; ';'0 ('()tJFLIC'T ()F INTEREST The City Council of tne rity of Chula Vista does orddin as f~l:ows: 3ECTIO:1 I: C~apter 2.(12 (Jf the Chula 'Vista Municipal Code is hereby rep~aled. SE(::TIO:J I I: :'his ordincln(~(-" :'>hall tak> effect and be in full forc;e on the thirtieth day fr()Jfl and after it.') adoption. Pre~~t"l1r2d by and ci0prov':,.>rj as to f()rf!: IJY " l D. Richard L..-_-',--~ r ' Rudolf, ASSistant City Attorney 6565a 2>1-f / , Q2S0L1JTION WI._L~__ doC's hert-by 2ESOL:'TI,jtJ Of' THE CI~Y ('()11~J(::IL OF 1'11:: V:STA ADOPTING A ("'0IF;,ICT OF The ('ity (~()l1ncil of lh!-~ "it', of r~sol\'0 as fol OWS: ......1!~F?E;S, !Jursuant to GO'I"rnment ;() ~ S'::'clion 87300, part of thoe POlitical Reform Act ['--(}!lirl?s a 1 local government:il age~cies (including harter CitiC!,; ,ncJ Red 'elopment Agencies) to adopt Con:lict of In erest Codes ~ppli ble to e';ery officer, employee, member or nsultant v: thi agency whose position entails the makir.g, or p rticipatirlq, in( ~.he mc~king of decisio!'lf) '"'~i,ci- may foresee.1C1ly ha' a m~l"rla financial "ffect 'In any finar'."al intere,.t, and w ceh ,"',d,' r.o'l'Jire.; :;Ucr, designarc'd empLy",,,s to ';:sc;o,Sp 1nd i,s'~""1 i i thC'msC!'v'"" from makin1, partic:pating i~, or attempting to luence such decisions, and v.1HF:REAS, new assj'Jnerl to exi~~tinq to the Code, and position rJJ.VI. hE'P cJesiq:la 0d posi tions adupted a Conflict of Chuld Vista Municipal op a Code appl icable to its cnn;-3U tants, and \'IHEREAS, UH~ City has pr Interest Code throuyr; Chapter 2. Code and the AGency needs to officers, employei~s, members anl] redt!,:d c..tnd rt':'qujring n(~w c]utiE-:'~; amendments into a lJfficE':r WHEREAS, it is des'r.1b!e to consolidat. single ,'ode '.Hh rldde to a (the City rlpr~). the requirements 'ngle reporting ,ICiEREAS, tlte 1'0 fiiet 'v'ista r"1unicipal ('u(~e ," aptPf des} rable to .suP(); :;;."'r)(" t ',.,rj th of T r:U?re..3t !-:ou':': provi 'E::d by 2. U2 nas been rt-'plO.:a led nd thp att-acht-:d r'odt". Chula it i c; NOt'l, THF~EF(I! B~: IT f<ES()L'/ED that th.:." Ci ty Coun i1 of th~ City of C~ul~?i do.?s hprebj' adopt thr' attached Con lict of Interest Code who h shall b" eff.octive on thp date the rel\eal of Chapter 2.02 bpc me~ effective. ~ \ '-. proved as to form by Presented by 1\.. t-' L D. Richard / , i! . ( I 1,,/, J' RUjflf, Arsistant City Attorney /' 6566a 11 -,' g'.A." ~. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SECTION I. PURPOSE. This Code is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 87300 et seq. to provide for the disclosure or prevention of all foreseeable potential conflict of interest; to provide affected persons with clear and specific statements of their duties under the Code; and to differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. The requirements hereof are in addition to the other requirements of the Political Reform Act and other state and local laws pertaining to conflict of interests, including the general prohibition against conflicts of interest found in Government Code Section 87100. SECTION II. Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730, except Section 8.5 thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", are hereby incorporated by this reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION III. section 4 of the Code found in 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730 is replaced with the following section 4 : Section 4. All designated employees shall file the statements of economic interests required herein with the City Clerk for the City of Chula Vista. Where the person filing such statements is required to file in both City and Agency capacities, said filing may be made on a single form(s), specifying therein that it is filed in both capacities (e.g. City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director). APPENDIX A. Persons holding positions listed below are required to file the initial, annual, and leaving office statements of financial interest required by this Code for the types of interests in the categories set forth in the column "Disclosure Categories" opposite the column "Designated positions". It has been determined that these persons make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on such financial interests. B. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of interests in real property, the designated employee need only disclose real property which is located in whole or in par t wi thin or not more than two mi les outs ide the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the local government agency. -1- ~b..S- C. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of investments or sources of income, the designated employee need only disclose investments in business entities and sources of income which do business in the jurisdiction, plan to do business in the jurisdiction or have done business in the jurisdiction within the past two years. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing business within the jurisdiction if it owns real property within the jur isdiction. D. Where the disclosure category requires disclosure of business positions, the designated employee need only disclose positions of director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management in organizations or enterprises operated for profit. E. The Disclosure Categories are: CATEGORY 1: Investments and sources of income. CATEGORY 2: Interests in real property. CATEGORY 3: Investments, interests sources of income subject to the licensing authority of the department. in real property regulatory, permit and or CATEGORY 4: Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. CATEGORY 5: Investments in income of the type which, contracted with the City Agency) to provide services, or equipment. business entities and sources of within the past two years, have of Chula Vista (Redevelopment supplies, materials, machinery CATEGORY 6: Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. CATEGORY 7: Business positions. -2- s..-~ DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES 1. Mayor, Councilmembers/Chairman Members of Redevelopment Agency */ 2. City Manager/Executive Director */ 3. City Attorney/Agency Attorney */ 4. Finance Director/Chief Financial Officer */ 5. Assistant Finance Director/ Agency Investor */ 6. Members of the Planning Commission */ 7. Director of Community Development/ Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency 1,2,7 8. City Clerk 1,2,7 9. Deputy City Clerk 1,2,7 10. Assistant City Attorneys 1,2,7 11. All other Department Heads, Assistant and Deputy City Managers and Assistant and Deputy Department Heads 1,2,7 12. Associate Civil Engineer 3,4,5 13. Battalion Chief 3,6 14. Building and Housing Inspectors (Senior, II and I) 3,7 15. Building Services Superintendent 3,5,6 16. Budget Officer 5 17. Buyer 1,7 18. Chief Plans Examiner 3 ':.../ As required by Government Code ~~87200-87210. Included for disquali fica tion purposes only. See Gover nment Code ~8 7 20 0 for disclosure requirements. -3- ~b-'1 19. Environmental Review Coordinator 20. Equipment Maintenance Superintendent 21. Fire Marshal 22. Housing Coordinator 23. Open Space Coordinator 24. Open Space Inspector 25. Landscape Architect 26. Parks Superintendent 27. Permit Engineer 28. Police Captain 29. Plans Examiner 30. Principal Community Development Specialist 31. Principal Librarian 32. Principal Management Assistant 33. Principal Planner 34. Public Information Coordinator 35. Public Works Inspector (Senior, I and II) 36. Public Works Maintenance Superintendent 37. Purchasing Agent 38. Recreation Superintendent 39. Redevelopment Coordinator 40. Revenue and Recovery Officer 41. Risk Manager 42. Senior Accountant 43. Senior Code Enforcement Officer 44. Senior Civil Engineer 45. Senior Community Development Specialist -4- <ll> -g 3,4 5,6 3,6 3,4,7 4, 6 4,6 2,4,7 3,6 3,4,6 1,2,7 1,2,7 3,4,6,7 6 5,7 1,2,7 4,5 3,4 3,5,6 1,7 3,6 3,4,6,7 3 1,7 3 3,7 3,4,5 3,4,6,7 46. Senior Planner 47. Transit Coordinator 48. Traffic Engineer 49. Zoning Enforcement Officer 50. Board of Appeals and Advisors Members 51. Board of Ethics Members 52. Board of Library Trustees 53. Charter Review Committee 54. Civil Service Commission Members 55. Commission on Aging 56. Design Review Committee Members 57. Economic Development Commission Members 58. Growth Management Oversight Committee Members 59. Human Relations Commission 60. International Friendship Commission Members 61. Montgomery Community Planning Committee Members 62. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Members 63. Parks and Recreation Commission Members 64. Resource Conservation Commission Members 65. Safety Commission Members 66. Southwest Project Area Committee Members 67. Town Centre Project Area Committee Members -5- Sb.q 2,4,7 5,7 3,4,5 3,7 2,5 1,2,7 2,6,7 1,2,7 3 1,7 2,4,7 1, 2, 7 2,4,7 2,7 1,7 2,4,7 3,7 2,4,7 2,4,7 2,7 3,7 3,7 68. Consultants If designated in their contracts, for the categories speci- fied in their con- tracts by Council, the Agency, City Manager/Executive Director, or Pur- chasing Agent 6568a -6- f b- /0 AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Item-L Meeting Date 1/8/91 Ordinance 2'1 It> Amending Sections 2.04.020 and 2.04.090 and Repealing Sections 2.04.050, 2.04.480 and 2.04.590 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Relating to Council Meetings, Notice and Compensation ~Nv '''Assistant City Attorney Rudolf SUBMITTED BY: (4/5ths Vote: YeS_No~) At one of its December, 1990 meetings, Council discussed the possibility of making Council Conferences full meetings for all purposes so the Council could take action, and referred the issue to staff for preparation of an appropriate change to the ordinance. Review of Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code revealed other technical changes with which the Council has been concerned relating to the beginning of public hearings, and two sections which are historic anomalies relating to Mayor and Council compensation. The proposed ordinance will make the Council Conference on the fourth Thursday of each month a regular meeting for all purposes, direct staff to set matters for the beginning of the meeting at which a public hearing will be considered in their notices of such pUblic hearings, and repeal the compensation sections which are no longer necessary due to the Charter provisions controlling Mayor and Council salaries. RECOMMENDATION: Place the ordinance on first reading. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Section I of the ordinance amends the provision relating to regular meetings of the City Council to include the fourth Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m., and deletes the obsolete language relating to closed sessions commencing one-half hour prior to meeting times. Section II repeals Section 2.04.050 of the Code, which section created the Council Conferences and prohibited the Council from taking action at such conferences. In combination, the two sections will now allow the Council to hold regular meetings on the fourth Thursday of each month at 4 :00 p.m. without other notice being required, and will allow the Council to take action on whatever matters are lawfully on an agenda for such regular meeting. Section I II of the ordinance amends Section 2.04.090 of the Code to add a sentence directing staff to set public hearings for the beginning of the meeting at which they will be considered in any public notices sent or published with regard to such a public hearing. When such notices are sent or q-r Page 2, Item Meeting Date q 1/8/91 published, the Council need not delay its consideration of scheduled public hearings until later in the meeting, but can take them as soon as it meets their pleasure if the matter is on the agenda as a public hearing for that meeting. Section IV of the ordinance repeals Sections 2.04.580 and 2.04.590 of the Code which set forth the compensation for the Mayor and Councilmembers. That language is obsolete and can be repealed, since Charter Sections 302 and 304(c) already provide, in self-executing provisions, for compensation for the Mayor and members of Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None by this action. 8355a q -2.. ORDINANCE NO.~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.020 AND 2.04.090 AND REPEALING SECTIONS 2.04.050, 2.04.480 AND 2.04.590 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL MEETINGS, NOTICE AND COMPENSATION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: Section 2.04.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read: Sec. 2.04.020 Meetings-Time and place. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 306 of the Charter, the council shall hold regular meetings in the council chambers of the Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue in the city, or in such other place as may be determined by the council, on the first Tuesday and fourth Thursday of each month at four p. m. and on the second, thi rd and fourth Tuesday of each month at six p.m. a~w~w~t, t~~~ZAt/~/~~~XX/~p~~/qd~~~Yf/~p~t/~V~/K~ K~~//~pft~///~~~//~V~~//t~t//~/~~~//qf//tZ~~~~ ~~~~l~~~//qiYY//c01/~~~//~~~tt~~~//fqt/~qW/A6tA~~//~t ~~i~//qVq~~~/~~~~l~~//V~/~tft~~//qd/t~//~ii~~~/~/At 2i~i~/~~~~/~p~t~//ptiqt/~/~~/~~~tt~~j When the day for any regular meeting of the council falls on a legal holiday, no meeting shall be held on such hOliday. It shall be the general policy of the City Council to cancel any meetings in the last week of June and the first week of July, the Tuesday following the Thanksgi ving hol iday, the week pr ior to Easter, and the week of Christmas and New Year's. Any of these meetings may be reinstituted if necessary by a majority of the Council. SECTION II: Section 2.04.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is repealed: $~ij/2J0~J0$0//~~~t~t~~i~~j 1~~//ii~y//q~VV/~//~~tA~Zl~~'/~Y/AV~//t~/tl~~ A~~///FX~ii///fqv//~~//~~//pt///t~~~ZAt///ip~~itZ ip~t~t~~i~~j///~q~ii~/fi1~VV~~~/~//~p~~4AZ//ip~~ilZ ip~t~t~~i~~//~~~XX/fif~/~~/~/AS//t~~~//tpt//~p~itAZ ip~~iiZ///~~~tl~~~J////1~~///p~tpp~~///pt///t~~///ip~~ilZ ip~t~t~~i~~/~~AZZ/~~/tp/~l~i~~~/lK~m~/App~Atl~~/p~/t~~ -1- q-~ t~~rltiX/~/f~'/t~~At//dv/tp~tlAJ//d~dv.v/m~~ttrl~t Arl~//t~~//~i$t~$$i~rl//pt//ArlY//~~$trl~$$//mAtt~t$//~f//t~~ titYJ///~if/~/t~~rlttX//qddfividqi$I/Aftf~/~//ip~rlitX ~Ai/~~AV/~~/Att~rl~Arii~/p4!/~~WV~v~/pf/~/fitd~v~~/pt t~mmt$$t~rl$j//~t//m~m~~t$//~t//t~~//A~~trlt$ttAtt*~//$tAtt t~t/~~/p~tP~$~/Irl!/$i$t~$$irl@/~w~/it~~$/~/App~At ~rl//t~~//t~~rlttX//t~rlt~t~rlt~//A~~rl~AJ///~t//$~i~//ip~rlitX iprlf~t~rli~$j//Ap//~AV/~~~//~~Y//~i//A~ppt~~ ~tt~~t//fity//~~//~t///t~$dY~ifidd///dV//~///tlty t~~rlilXJ//AYGttvqWw/~t/~~/iitY//d~dv.v/At//~qV/i~~rltlX t~rlt~t~rlt~$///~~YY//~//t~$tttit~~///ifd//~~//f~t trlt~tmAtt~rl//ft~~/AAf~/~AtB//mArlA~~t//~t/~~~d~/p~//t~~ A~mlrlt$ttAtift~///$tAttj///t~mml$$l~rl$///~t///~~At~$j///~t ~tt~ttt~rl$/~/ti~f~~/~B//~if/A~~lrlltttAtlft~//~~j//~~ ~ttiitAX///t~tptAAfi~///~///AI~~qtr~VqW///df///i~~rlitX t~rlt~t~rlt~$/$~AXX/~~/t~~~lt~$J SECTION III: Section 2.04.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read: Sec. 2.04.090 Agenda-Submission of items- Preparation- Effect. An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed, and shall provide an item for members of the public to directly address the Council on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. I terns of bus iness may be placed on the agenda by the direction of a majority of the council, the city manager, the city clerk, or the city attorney. For items to be considered at a noticed public heari~ staff shall cause the matter to be set at the beginning hour of the meeting at which it will be considered. Agenda items, i. e. , background and requests for particular actions or reports, shall be delivered to the city clerk not later than ten a.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting. The clerk shall thereafter prepare the agenda under the direction of the city manager. Whenever feasible, each item on the agenda shall contain a staff recommendation and the specific action requested to be taken by the council. The agenda, together with all reports, resolutions and ordinances pertaining thereto, shall be delivered to the councilmembers on the Friday preceding the regular meeting. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting, shall be posted at least seventy-two hours before the regular meeting in a location freely accessible to the public, and be made available to the public as soon as practicable. No -2- 'i-~ matters other than those listed on the agenda shall be acted upon by the council, except as provided in Section 2.04.010. A direction by the council to refer a matter not on the posted agenda raised by a member of the Councilor of the pUblic, to staff for a report or to place a matter on a future agenda shall not constitute action. SECTION IV: Sections 2.04.580 and 2.04.590 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are repealed: l'0J'$g011~~~ritiX~~~~~t$f~~~p~ri$~ti~riJ t~~/~/~flt~/qvifYltpArittJII~~/t~~~ip~/~~/$~~ pfll~Atll~~/~~~II~qYY~v?llt~~llfiftif~i~~t t~rit$llf~i~'/~~YII~ifvIAV~/~/~pAP~A~AtApAlltptllt~~tt $~tpit~$jlll~?II~~~llirilll$1q~Y~~II~llp~lllt~~ ~~p~tri~~ritll~q~111~V/~/$t~t~jll~Yq~II~~/~~/~~ p~i~~Ji/~~/~d~/~ft~t/~/VvV?iflp~i/~~/vdIJ~ri~~ti pfllvr~~/htVlt~~II?~~if/~II~$II~~~II~~V~~/pA4A1ltp pt~~t/~/t~~/~~A6Bkk~llqVlt~~II~~/tplf<0f~/~ritiX $~ttiprillr~~Y~/~/$~~JllqV/~/~PP~tri~iritll~q~1It0jlt~~ $t~tillptlltAAAlptAAAII~II~/~~~~~/II~d~II~~~II~itt ~p~ritiXII~~~~/t~t~llqV~vd~dqifIAfVltqq~t~t~q~/~/$~t~ ~~~ri~~~rit$IAiVliril/cY~~~~~iflwit~ll-V~qV~/~%$X%IAYVlt~~ ~pp~tri~~ritlltpA~II~~~/~llt~~vtYII~p$tfpffXipiri~ iM:ti~$~$J/I $~tJI1'0J'$~011~~tptf~p~p~ri$~tipri/. t~ill~~yqvlt0jlt~illqYVY/~/tit~ip~IIV~ill~/ptlltwp t~P~$~ri~IIVvvif/~~/fiftiftwpll~qYY~v?/~/fiftif$ii ~~rit$llf~l/~~l/~iYII~ifv/~/~/~pAP~A~AtApAlltptllt~~ ~~iptr$II~~tyrq~~II~?/~~V~~~/htVl$k~ApfV/~~Allptllt~~ ~~~ttitll~fll~iflA1~/~/~/PA~tA/I#~A~~llt~~JJII~~ p~i~~Xi/~~/~d~/~tt~t/~/Vvv?Vlp~i/~~/vdIJ~ri~~ti pfll~~~III~lltqqqv~t~q11Iwit~ll$k~tApfV/~llqfllt~~ ~pp~tri~~ritll~p~~llpfllt~~II$t~t~llpfll~~Xifptrii~jll~$1lit pt~$~ritXi/~/qt/~IIYV/~Adlfti~/A~~ri~~~/~~V~~~/fpt ~riri~~Xltp$tfpffXipiri~/iri~t~~$~$J SECTION V: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented and Approved as to form by (WLlJ D. Rlchard RUdolf, 8349a -3- 9 - r AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Item ID Meeting Date 1/8/91 Resolution 15qqq Accepting Irrevocable Offer to Indemnify and Hold City Harmless Assistant City Attorney RUdo1i7.~ 6~ l~5ths Vote: Yes No X) SUBMITTED BY: In October 1990, Woodcrest Development, Inc., in connection with the Terra Nova Subdivision, gave the City a quitclaim deed conveying open space and other lots which were also conveyed to the City by the subdivision map approved by the City Council at the same time. The quitclaim deed had an erroneous reference to an earlier map, and was recorded with that mistake and without the City Clerk's certification of Council acceptance of the map. A corrected map has been prepared and recorded after affixing of the Clerk's certification of acceptance fOllowing City Manager and City Attorney approval as authorized by Council Resolution No. 15645. As a condition to allowing recordation of the corrected map, the City Attorney required the developer to execute this irrevocable offer in order to protect the City from any potential liability arising out of the appearance of transfer of title by the erroneous deed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution to accept the irrevocable offer and provide the City with protection from potential liability. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: In October 1990, the City Council approved the subdivision map for the Terra Nova Subdivision 89-06, which was recorded as Map Number 12732. Along with the documents in the Council package was a quitclaim deed from the developer, Woodcrest, conveying title to the open space lots and easements for sewage and other public purposes. However, that quitclaim deed had a blank space for the number of the map relating to the subdivision. It was inadvertently filled in by someone with number 10051. Map 10051 was for Subdivision 80-15, in which Woodcrest had granted different lots A, B, C, D (among many others) in connection with the entire Terra Nova development. Essentially, Lot D of Map 10051 is the entire development covered by Map 12735, Subdivision 89-06. Thus, by just the erroneous map reference, it appeared Woodcrest granted the entire subdivision to the City. Rather than the City reconveying to Woodcrest and accepting a correct conveyance, further confusing the chain of title, the parties agreed to "reform" the original by filing a corrected quitclaim deed which would be certified to the Clerk as having been accepted by the City Council. However, any conveyance may have exposed the City to possible property liabilities for property ownership. Therefore, the City Attorney directed that the corrected Ii) -I Page 2, Item Meeting Date 10 1/8/91 map not be accepted by the Clerk on behalf of the City and recorded unless and until the developer provided an irrevocable offer to hold the City harmless from any potential liability (however small) arising out of the appearance of conveyance of the property to the City. The City was a conduit for the purchase of this property from the school district by the developer, and obtained similar indemnification protection at the time of the sale to prevent any liability attaching to the City for merely being in the technical chain of title. Acceptance of the irrevocable offer will finalize this transaction and provide similar protection for the City. 8345a 10 -i- RESOLUTION NO. I~~~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING INDEMNIFY AND HOLD CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY IRREVOCABLE OFFER HARMLESS OF TO The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, in October 1990, Woodcrest Developers, Inc., in connection with the Terra Nova Subdivision, gave the City a quitclaim deed conveying open space and other lots which were already conveyed by the subdivision map approved by the City Council at that time; and WHEREAS, the quitclaim deed had an erroneous reference to a map, and was recorded with that mistake and without the City Clerk's certification of Council acceptance of the map; and WHEREAS, a corrected map has been prepared and recorded after affixing of the Clerk's certification of acceptance following Ci ty Manager and Ci ty Attorney approval as author i zed by Council Resolution No. 15645; and WHEREAS, as a condition to allowing recordation of the corrected map, the City Attorney required the developer to execute this irrevocable offer in order to protect the City from any potential liability arising out of the appearance of transfer of title by the erroneous deed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept Irrevocable Offer to Indemnify and Hold City Harmless, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Presented and Approved as to form by ,J) ILL} /~ l'ft/~P D. Rlchard Rudolf, ~ssis ant City Attorney 8350a ~ /o-~ /to - 'f IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF WAIVER ANO INDEMNIFICATION IN CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A CORRECTION DEED DESCRIBING LOTS A, B, C AND D OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-06, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 12732, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, IN LIEU OF THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 20, 1990 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 90-626018 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, WHICH CONTAINED AN ERRONEOUS REFERENCE TO ~~P NO. 10051 INSTEAD OF ~P NO. 12732, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY IRREVOCABLY OFFER TO JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY COVENANT AND AGREE TO WAIVE ALL EXISTING OR FUTURE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHICH ARISE OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, SALE, OCCUPANCY OR USE OF THE SAID REAL PROPERTY, AND FURTHERMORE, AGREE TO AT ALL TIMES INDEMNIFY AND HOLD AND SAVE THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL ACTIONS OR CAUSES OF ACTION, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, LIABILITIES, LOSS, DAMAGES OR EXPENSE OF WHATSOEVER KIND AND NATURE, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING ALL CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OR BY ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES EXCEPT THOSE CAUSED BY THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF SAID ~ITY OR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WHICH SAID CITY MAY AT ANY TIME SUSTAIN OR INCUR BY REASON OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, SALE, OCCUPANCY, OR USE OF THE ABOVE SAID REAL PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF THE GIVING AND RECORDING OF SAID ERRONEOUS DEED. EXECUTED THIS ;2./s:..!: DAY OF DECEMBER, 1990 AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. TERRA NOVA ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, GENERAL P NER BY: ...-- 10 - '::> COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item II Meeting Date 1-8-90 ITEM TITLE Resolution I~- Waiving Bid Requirements and Approving Execution of a Five-Year Lease Agreement for Two Kodak Ektaprint 225 Copy Duplicator Machines Assistant City Manager (P City Manager)~/ 4/5ths Vote: Yes No x - - SUBMITTED BY REVIEWED BY In June 1988, the City leased two IBM copiers for a maximum term of five years. One machine was placed in the PUblic Services Building for use by Engineering, Planning, Building and Housing, Finance and Community Development. The other machine was placed in City Hall for use by those departments located therein. Due to the extremely high usage, both machines are experiencing considerable down time and are currently incapable of providing satisfactory service for the remaining two-plus years of their five-year term. Kodak acquired the lease interest of IBM in these two machines, but due to the maintenance difficulties the machines are causing Kodak, they desire to replace these machines with new state-of-the-art equipment at this time. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A. DISCUSSION The City's need for reliable copiers is a given. The present equipment malfunctions almost on a daily basis and consequently is not cost effective from either the City's perspective or Kodak's. Consequently, Kodak, who acquired the lease interest in the two IBM copiers, is offering to "buyout" the City's $27,000+ lease interest liability still outstanding on the two IBM units. They are also willing to provide the two new units with no maintenance or copier charges for the first year of a new five-year lease term. In view of the inability of any other equipment supplier to "buyout" the $27,000+ lease term liability, we are recommending the City Council waive the bid requirement. Informal contact with two other copier suppliers indicates that neither of them in the bid process could come close to matching Kodak's proposed five-year lease terms. /1.. I Under the proposal offered by Kodak, the City would save $6,487 on each unit during the first year and in year two through five, each machine would cost the City an additional $429.39 per month more than the current units. If we take into account the $6,487.68 savings during the first year on each machine and apply that savings to the 48 months remaining on the five-year lease term, the actual monthly increase for the new state-of-the-art equipment is $294.23 per month. FISCAL IMPACT Funds to cover the cost of this new equipment through the end of this fiscal year are more than adequate since the City will actually experience a savings while the additional cost of approximately $429.39 per month per machine will be provided for in the 1991-92 operating budget. ERA1231/c n-~ RESOLUTION NO. I f#ooCJ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING BID REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A FIVE-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT FOR TWO KODAK EKTAPRINT 225 DUPLICATOR COPIERS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City currently has two IBM copiers, both rented from IBM originally for a period of five years; and WHEREAS, in order to improve the Ci ty' s copier efficiency, staff has negotiated a new five-year lease with Kodak which will allow provide for the replacement of these units with two Kodak Ektaprint 225 copiers at a first year cost of $6,487.68 per machine less than our current cost; and WHEREAS, Section 2.56.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code authorizes the purchasing Agent to dispense with the requirements of bidding when the City Council determines that due to special circumstances, it is to the City's best interest to purchase a commodity or enter into a contract without compliance with the bidding procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the bidding requirements and approve a five-year lease agreement for two Kodak Ektaprint 225 Duplicator machines for the City of Chula Vista. E. R. Asmus, Assistant City Manager :v Presented by AP?t:"" co f ity Attorney 5651a J/~~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item IL ITEM TITLE: Meeting Date 1/8/91 Reso 1 ut i on 1(,.00 I Approvi ng an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and comfort stat ion maintenance at the "J" Street Marina Bayside Park and adjaCent~andscape medians Director of Parks and Recreation~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Manager j b-j~,) (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) Reso 1 ut i on No. 15185 authori zed the 13th amendment to an agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and comfort station maintenance at "J" Street Marina, Bayside Park, and the landscape medians on Tidelands during fiscal year 1990-91. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the 14th amendment to the agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The "J" Street Marina and Bayside Park FY 1990-91 budget of $259,660 was approved and adopted by Council on June 19, 1990. The new agreement for FY 1990-91 has been reviewed by Port District manager who recommended approval to the Port District Commission for adoption at the November 26, 1990 meeting. The agreement for 1990-91 provides the same level of maintenance with an administrative overhead charge of $78,290 negotiated by Management Services. The agreement requi res the Port Di stri ct to reimburse the City the approved budget amount on a quarterly basis beginning on July 1, 1990. Attached is a copy of the budget approved by Council on June 19, 1990, and the agreement to cover the 12-month period from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: revenue above cont ract. This agreement will provide the City $78,290 in additional the operating cost to reimburse the administrative cost of WPC 1588R 12.. - I j 12 - z. RESOLUTION NO. It. 00' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION MAINTENANCE AT THE "J" STREET MARINA, BAYSIDE PARK AND ADJACENT MEDIANS IN SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT PROPERTY The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the "J" 1990-91 budget of $259,660 June 19, 1990, and Street Marina and Bayside Park was approved and adopted by Council FY on WHEREAS, the new agreement for FY 1990-91 has been reviewed by Port District managers who will recommend approval to the Port District Commission for adoption at the earliest meeting possible, and WHEREAS, said agreement for 1990-91 level of maintenance with an administrative $78,290 negotiated by Management Services, and provides overhead the same charge of WHEREAS, the agreement requires the Port reimburse the City the approved budget amount on basis beginning on July 1, 1990. District to a quarterly NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Fourteenth Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District for grounds and comfort station maintnenance at the "J" street Marina, Bayside Park and adjacent medians in San Diego Unified Port District property, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE Chula Vista agreement for IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is hereby authorized and and on behalf of the City the Mayor of the Ci ty of directed to execute said of Chula Vista. Presented by Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation 5929a r , City Attorney /2.."3 / I ;. - 'f (8) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR GROUNDS AND COMFORT STATION MAINTENANCE AT THE "J" STREET MARINA, BAYSIDE PARK AND ADJACENT MEDIANS IN SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT PROPERTY THIS AMENDED AGREEMENT, made and entered into thi s -,()/. '".(day 001 ^",/~~_L L' ,1990, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY", and THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "DISTRICT"; h'lINI~~IIH: WHEREAS, the San Di ego Uni fi ed Port Di stri ct and the City of Chul a Vista executed an agreement for maintenance of Port District property at the "J" Street Marina on September 28, 1977, and WHEREAS, said agreement provided for the extension and amendment of the agreement when mutually consented to by the parties, and WHEREAS, both parties mutually agree to extend said agreement and to expand the maintenance area. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the parties as follows: 1. MAINTENANCE TO BE PROVIDED See attached Exhibit A. 2. AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED. See attached Exhibit B. 3. EXCEPTIONS TO DUTIES. It is understood and agreed that the cost for maintenance as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this agreement does not cover materials, or labor, or repairs of the structures, building or landscaping as a result of major vandalism or destruction from any cause whatsoever. Such repairs or replacements shall be considered to be over and above ordinary maintenance and will be performed by City forces only after approval by the District and actual costs for material and labor involved in such repairs will be billed to the District. Major vandalism shall be defined as anyone-time cost (including material and labor) amounting to more than $500.00. -1- SAN D:rn:;o UNIFIED PORr DISTRIcr Document No. 2 t) m5 6 Filed Office of the Clerk /"L- S- I / 4. CONSIDERATION In cons i derat i on for the City's mai ntenance of the area defi ned in attached Exhibit B for fiscal year 1990-91, the District shall pay to the City $259,660. Payment to be made quarterly on July 1 and October 1, 1990 and January 1 and April 1, 1991. 5. TERM AND TERMINATION The term of this amendment shall be for the fiscal year from July 1, 1990 to and including June 30, 1991, provided, however, either party may termi nate thi s agreement at any time by gi vi ng the other party not ice in writing sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. It is further provided that said agreement may be renewed each fiscal year subject to the same si xty (60) day termi nat i on provi s i on and subject to mutual agreement between the parties as to the annual consideration to be paid by District for said services for said fiscal year. In the event that employee salaries have not been established for the fiscal year, the parties agree that the consideration shall be adjusted retroactively from July 1 to the time salaries are established. Said retroactive adjustment shall be effective upon written notice by the Director of Parks and Recreation to the Port District. 6. HOLD HARMLESS District agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Chula Vista against and from any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the City, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or ari sing out of the negl igent or intent i ona 1 acts, errors or omi ssi ons of the District or any of its officers, agents, or employees. City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the San Diego Unified Port District against and from any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including employees or agents of the District, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees. 7. INSURANCE A. District shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement mai nta in comprehens i ve general 1 i abi 1 ity and property damage insurance covering all operations hereunder of District, its agents and employees including but not limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form of a letter indicating self-insurance shall be submitted to the City Clerk at 276 Fourth Avenue. -2- /?.-fo 2t30Ljo ~ I Said Policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice to the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista of cancellation or material change. City shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement maintain comprehensive general 1 iabil ity and property damage insurance covering all operat ions hereunder of City, its agents and employees i ncl udi ng but not 1 imited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of One Mill ion Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form of a Certificate of Insurance and Policy Endorsement which names the District as Additional Insured, shall be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District, P. O. Box 488, San Diego, CA 92112. Said Policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice to the San Diego Unified Port District of cancellation or material change. B. City shall also carry Worker's Compensation insurance in the statutory amount and Employer's Liability coverage in the amount of $500,000; evi dence of whi ch is to be furni shed to Di stri ct in the form of Certificate of Insurance. 8. ATTORNEYS FEES In the event of any dispute between the parties, the prevailing party shall recover its attorney fees, and any costs and expenses incurred by reason of such dispute. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT irector Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ATTEST City Clerk Approved as to form by ~/.4 Joseph D. Patello, Port Attorney WPC 1245R -3- p..-7 2G056 3 1. EXHIBIT 'A' MAINTENANCE PROVIDED FOR "J" STREET MARINA, BAYSIDE PARK, LANDSCAPE MEDIANS Employee Service Proposed 1989-90 1990-91 5101 5103 5105 5131 5141 5142 5144 Salaries & Wages Overtime Hourly wages Sick Leave Pay-in-Lieu Retirement Contribution Employee Benefit Plan Worker's Compensation 98,040 1,170 9,920 510 11,750 12,990 70 134,450 II. Supplies & Services 5252 5253 5268 5269 5270 5281 5298 5302 5304 5341 5351 5362 5398 Telephone Trash Collection Service to Maintain-Other Equipment Equipment Maintenance-City Forces Equipment Replacement Charges Laundry & Cleaning Services Other Contractual Services Janitorial Supplies Wearing Apparel Small Tools Landscape Supplies Materials to Maintain Buildings, Streets & Grounds Other Equipment 240 3,640 740 6,570 o 950 8,000 1,740 360 200 7,560 5,970 820 36,790 II 1. Capital Equi pment 5568 Other Equipment 23.350 23,350 194,590 TOTAL IV. Administrative Overhead (.7827 x 100,030) WPC 1246R GRAND TOTAL 194,590 /,l. - i' 100,030 1,660 9,700 420 12,910 14,380 60 139,060 250 5,420 400 11,760 o 950 5,280 2,340 460 200 7,710 6,090 1. 450 42,310 78,290 259,660 ,. " ~(D" " ... ..... f .f ~~AD~D .A~EAS INDICATE ,.: ,('..I> AINTENANCE AREAS . - "-"."",,'. ...~....-. ..,----. ........~...... -':..:' _... ;. " I.. ~ i' . ......~. -. ,. '" ", \ ,J'4 . ". -~ .-. @~ ~@) F,STREEl ~ . - .." - :z -I :-m ::::J en "- -I :t> --I m n C1 U H STREE' ~~ ." ::u m m .- ~ :t> -< 'Gi STREET.. .,.. o ::i o ~ :m " ir- m 'I> = 12 - 0 WAYcn .. --=--.. ',. . ". '.;" ", . '''." . . San' Diego .Bay tiJ ~ -< to o c: r- ...m < )> :t1 o STREET MARINA VIEW.. PARK I COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM 13 MEETING DATE JANUARY 8. 1991 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION I~J. Waiving bid requirements and approving the third amendment to the agreement between the City and The Wyatt Company for benefit consulting services. Director of personnel~ City Manage~ (4/5's Vote: Yes___ No~) SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: The City has been contracting with The Wyatt Company for employee benefit consulting services since January 12, 1988. This amendment will extend the existing contract for one year, to January 11, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving amendment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The City Council approved $25,0000 in the 1988-89 budget and another $25,000 in the 1989-90 budget to continue contracting with The Wyatt Company for employee benefit consulting services. The annual contract term runs from January 12 to January 11 of each year. The Wyatt Company provides the city with ongoing assistance related to health plan rate and benefit development as well as assistance in highly specialized areas such as those resulting from legislation. Staff has been pleased with the level and quality of service delivered by The Wyatt Company and feels it is in the City's best interests to waive bid requirements and renew the contract at this time. Staff will issue a Request for Proposals at the end of this year to determine if the City is getting the best level of service at the best cost. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are contained in the budget to continue this contract. /3-1/13-2.. RESOLUTION NO.~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING BID REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE WYATT COMPANY FOR BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City has been contracting with The wyatt Company for health and welfare benefit consulting services since January 12, 1988; and WHEREAS, this amendment contract for one year; and will extend the existing WHEREAS, it would be impractical to go out to bid for another contractor due to The wyatt Company's knowledge and experience with our benefits program and a new company would have to come up to speed in this area which would be neither efficient nor cost effective; and WHEREAS, Section 2.56.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispense with the requirements of bidding when the City Council determines that due to special circumstances, it is to the City's best interest to purchase a commodity or enter into a contract without compliance with the bidding procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the bidding requirements and approve the Third Amendment to the agreement between the City of Chula Vista, and The Wyatt Company for benefit consulting services, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Third Amendment for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by ~ Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel 835la Bruce r , City Attorney /3 - 3 / / 3 - 'f Third Amendment to Agreement Between the city of Chula vista and The Wyatt Company WHEREAS, on January 12, 1988, the City and The Wyatt Company entered into an agreement for the performance of Employee Benefits Consulting Services, and WHEREAS, on January 24, 1989, the City ratified the First Amendment to the agreement which extended the agreement for one year, and WHEREAS, on February 6, 1990, the City ratified the Second Amendment to the agreement which extended the agreement for one year, and that additional compensation be added, and WHEREAS, it is now desirable that said agreement be extended, and that additional compensation be paid. NOW, THEREFORE, City and The Wyatt Company (Consultant) agree as follows: 1. Term. The Term of the Agreement is hereby extended one year to January 11, 1992. II. Compensation. City will pay Consultant for the work required of Consultant by this Agreement during the one year extension hereinabove authorized by this Amendment according to the following hourly billing rates, billed and paid quarterly, but in no event to exceed $25,570.00: Project Manager Actuary & Underwriter Actuarial Assistant $145 $160 $100 All other provisions of the Agreement dated January 12, 1988, will remain in full force and effect during the term of this agreement. Dated: City of Chula vista by Mayor O~J2 The Wyatt Company by Consultant Il-S- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item It! Meeting Date Januarv 8. 1991 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION/~~ Amending Resolution #8202 by adding to the Middle Management group the position of Deputy City Clerk. IP-- Director of Personnel- City Manager;ff1~ (4/5th's Vote: Yes___ No~) SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: When the Deputy City Clerk was hired on October 16, 1989 the City Clerk had only been in the Department for 2-1/2 months. As a result, there was some uncertainty as to whether to place the classification in the Unrepresented group or at the Mid-Management level. Since Ms. Authelet had relatively little time to evaluate the appropriateness of the group to which this position would be assigned, it made the most sense to place it in the Unrepresented group and take the time to evaluate the position, considering level of responsibility, scope of responsibility and number of overtime hours spent--all factors playing in to the decision of where to place a classification. DISCUSSION: According to the City Clerk, sufficient time has passed to fully evaluate the position and its incumbent, and Ms. Authelet and the Director of Personnel have determined that the level and scope of responsibility is at the Mid-Management rather than at the Unrepresented level. The Deputy City Clerk has a wide variety of duties and responsibilities at that higher level encompassing supervisory responsibility for subordinate staff, taking and transcribing minutes of City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings and acting as the City Clerk in her absence. The Deputy assumes the full range of responsibilities of the "second in command" in a City department and should be placed in a representation group commensurate with those responsibilities--in this case the Mid-Management group. A change from the Unrepresented to the Mid-Management group carries with it relatively few changes; however, resulting changes will be a $230 increase in the Flex Plan and administrative leave in the amount of 40 hours with the option of two additional days to be granted by the City Clerk should she choose to do so next fiscal year (the Deputy City Clerk will lose all rights to overtime compensation). At this point there has been no request for increase in salary, and therefore none is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Place the classification of Deputy City Clerk in the Mid-Management group effective January 1, 1991 and revise all benefits accordingly. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The increase in Flex Plan amount is offset by a reduction in overtime costs. A113\DEPCITY.CLK Ii -( / 14-2.. RESOLUTION NO. I "'OO':!,. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8202 BY ADDING TO THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUP THE POSITION OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, October, 1989, the 2-1/2 months; and when the Deputy City Clerk was hired in City Clerk had only been in the Department for WHEREAS, as a result there was some uncertainty as to whether to place the classification in the Unrepresented group or at the Mid-Management level; and WHEREAS, since the City Clerk had relatively little to evaluate the appropriateness of the group to which position would be assigned, the position was placed in Unrepresented group; and time this the WHEREAS, sufficient time has passed to fully evaluate the position and the City Clerk and Director of Personnel have determined that the level and scope of responsibility is at the Mid-Management rather than at the Unrepresented level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Resolution No. 8202 by adding to the Middle Management group the position of Deputy City Clerk effective January 1, 1991. Presented by Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel 836la /'1-3 , COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item J5 Meeting Date 1/8/91 SUBMITIED BY: ., RESOLUTION '~Ving Conditional Approval to Formation of a Special Act District (SAD) for Operation of the Clean Water Program Director of Public Works';' 1. City ManageM U ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXJ BACKGROUND: Council has been given a notebook with information and reports on the Clean Water Program. This notebook has several items as outlined in the Transmittal Memorandum at the front of the book. It is requested that Councilmembers keep this book for future reference, and as a binder for future staff reports on this issues. The primary request at this time is to get direction from Council on the Special Act District (SAD) legislation which will be considered at the next Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) meeting on January 18, 1991. Later meetings, or Council conferences, as information becomes available could be used to discuss other related items primarily involving the decision on whether Chula Vista will join the Special Act District or provide for its own sewerage treatment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: (1) direct staff and consultants to continue negotiations on legislation being developed; (2) direct staff to obtain legal and financial expertise to work with staff, consultants, and to advIse Council during next phase of negotiations; and (3) direct staff to send a letter to the Governmental Advisory Group giving the City's conceptual approval for a Special Act Distric+), contingent on adding provisions to the legislation (Bill to Legislature) that any member agency can withdraw from the District without penalty if done so within one year from formation, or until major district- wide funding obligations are made for constructing regional facilities. The letter should also state other concerns that the Council and staff will hm e and will express in the attached reports and at the meeting. JS'- , Page 2, Item Meeting Date I~ 118/91 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A DISCUSSION: Chula Vista has been studying the impacts and alternatives available to us as a consequence of the City of San Diego's requirement to convert the Point Loma treatment plant to secondary level treatment. The notebook, distributed to Council last week, will have nine (9) sections when all the items completed to date are inserted in the notebook. · The first six (6) items are pertinent to the Special Act District legislation and the contractual relationships between the participating agencies and the City of San Diego. · The next three (3) items include: a staff report giving the background and sewerage issues facing ChuIa Vista; an Executive Summary of the Dudek Associates study; and, an Executive Summary prepared by the City of San Diego consultant for the Clean Water Program. Those last three items are primarily for Council's information and review, but it is not necessary at this time that they be addressed. Because of the uncertainty of future costs, based on the items still being addressed in court, staff is not ready to make a final recommendation on the question of: Should Chula VISta stay with the regional system? A brief staff analysis of the issues and concerns for the SAD legislative packet are included as Item #1 in the notebook. Because of the issues discussed in that memorandum, staff is recommending that ChuIa Vista approve submittal of a legislative packet to Sacramento for creation of the District, but that any member agency be allowed to withdraw from the District, if it chooses to, within one year without penalty. This would give time for the member agencies and the SAD and the City of San Diego to work out issues of major concern. A SAD as proposed will be a governmental entity in itself (similar in respects to the County Water Authority, or the Port District). The District will have the powers to make decisions--both policy and financial, be able to float debt, and be able to charge fees to sewer customers for its services and connections. The cities will have, in effect, gone out of the sewer treatment business; however, they will have policy input by being able to appoint members to the Board of Directors of the District. This appears as an adequate means for a region to handle sewerage treatment. However, because we are changing from a contractual relationship where Chula Vista has certain rights and privileges, and given the fact that we have existing extra capacity in the City of Say; Diego system, there may still need to be a contractual relationship in the future. There are other items discussed in staffs report (item 1) that should be addressed before final commitment is made by Chula Vista to stay with the SAD. Therefore, staff believes it is inappropriate at this time to make a final commitment to the SAD, but would recommend staffs recommendation listed above. It should be noted, /5"1- Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 118/91 however, that the City of Chula Vista will not be out of the sewer business entirely because we will still be responsible for the collection and distribution of the sewerage as well as the transportation of it to the SAD facilities. It is also likely since much of the financing will probably be collected on the water bill, that the cities and member agencies will be involved in the collection of the funds to operate the system. Personnel from the City of San Diego Clean Water Program will be present to answer questions if the Council so chooses. Also, the consultant for the City (Frank Dudek of Dudek Associates) will be present to discuss issues in his study. However, since the final comparative costs for the Clean Water Program are not yet available, staff would suggest that Council may wish to hold over cost issues for the Clean Water Program and City of Chula Vista alternatives until a later date. Another reason to hold off detailed discussion is that Judge Brewster has set February 5, 1991, as a Hearing date to make a determination on whether the City of San Diego should re-apply for the Waiver. If a waiver is approved, or if San Diego is allowed to re-apply and has a chance of obtaining the waiver, there could be considerable cost savings which Chula Vista would experience if it remains with the SAD. In the meantime, staff will be keeping Council informed of technical and cost issues as presented by the City of San Diego and Councilman Moore will be keeping the Council informed of issues that arise at the Governmental Advisory Group meetings. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS: The c.I.P. program provided funding for additional consulting services to aid the City in dealing with the issue and negotiating with the City of San Diego for changes to its agreements. It is the intention of the City Manager to obtain legal and financial assistance to work with the City staff and the City's engineering consultant during the next several months. Staff will return to Council with contracts to hire these consultants when selected. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for the final decision to be made by Chula Vista could be very significant. However, there is no fiscal impact for the action being requested this evening. [Al13\A-1l3-16.WP] /5-3/IS-if RESOLUTION No.lfDOO,", RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GIVING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO FORMATION OF A SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT (SAD) FOR OPERATION OF THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, Council has been given information and reports on the Clean Water Program; and WHEREAS, at this time, staff is requesting direction from Council for Councilman Moore to adequately represent the City's position on the Special Act District (SAD) legislation at the next Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) meeting on January 18, 1991; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council: (1) direct staff and consultants to continue negotiations on legislation being developed; (2) direct staff to obtain legal and financial expertise to work with staff, consultants, and to advise Counci 1 dur ing next phase of negotiations; and (3) di rect staff to send a letter to the Governmental Advisory Group giving the City's conceptual approval for a Special Act District, contingent on adding provisions to the legislation (Bill to Legislature) that any member agency can withdraw from the District without penalty if done so within one year from formation, or until major district-wide funding obligations are made for constructing regional facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize its representative on the Governmental Advisory Group, Councilmember Leonard Moore, to issue, acknowledge and grant the City's conditional consent to the formation of a Special Act District, and for the City of Chula Vista's participation therein, for the implementation of the Clean Water Program, on such conditions as he shall determine, after consultation with the City Manager, are just, but which conditions shall include, at a minimum, that said Special Act District legislation be amended to provide that any member agency can withdraw from said District without penalty or consequence if done within the sooner of (a) one year from formation, or (b) until major district-wide funding obligations are made for constructing regional facilities. Presented by ed as to rm by A.~ Bruce M. Boogaar , ey John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works 8363a I$'.S- //5- 0 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Beverly Authelet, City Clerk I S-- r PLEASE REPLACE THE TRANSMITTAL MEMO dated December 27,1990 THAT IS IN YOUR BINDER WITH THIS UPDATED TRANSMITTAL MEMO TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM REVISED AND UPDATED: January 2,1990 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Manage~ Director of ~liC Works ryrr VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Meeting on Sewer Issues Staff is proposing to set a meeting to discuss sewer issues dealing with the Clean Water Program. The item will be on the Agenda for the first meeting in January (January 8, 1991) but Council may wish to continue the item to a Conference to hear a full presentation from staff and consultants. We have included, as an attachment to this updated Transmittal Memorandum, "Bullets", which encapsulates items of consideration. In addition, "**" indicates new material being included with this transmittal that should be placed in your notebook, i.e., Item #7, Item #8, and Item #9. It is important that a response to the City's position on the new Organization or Special Act District be made in January prior to the next Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) meeting on January 18, 1991. In that regard, staff has attached to this memo: 1. Staff memo: Special Act District (SAD) Legislation (Sewer). 2. Letter from San Diego Deputy City Manager to GAG Members and Alternates. 3. Proposed Special Act District Bill (Draft dated 12/12/90) to be submitted to State Legislature. 4. Memo from San Diego Attorney's Office on Memorandum of Law regarding Assignment and Delegation of Sewage Disposal Agreements. /5- t Honorable Mayor and City Council -2- Revised and Updated: January 2, 1991 5. One page table comparing Special Act District to current contractual relationship with City of San Diego. 6. Memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney of the City of San Diego regarding U.S.A. v. City--Order Regarding Consent Decree. As stated, we have included Items 7, 8, and 9 for Council information. These item should be considered at a later meeting and are not necessary to consider prior to the January 18 GAG meeting. **7. Memorandum from John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, via John Goss, City Manager, regarding Sewage Issues Facing Chula Vista **8. Executive Summary from Dudek Associates. **9. Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego Project Report for Modifications to the Metropolitan Sewerage System - Executive Summary, May 1990. (Included for information purposes. ) [JPL3\SEW1227.MEM] /5 - q Attachment BULLETS CHULA VISTA SEWER DECISION January 3, 1991 SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT 1. Decision # 1. Special Act District -versus- Contract. 2. For Chula Vista in SAD, need modifications or a Contract. 3. San Diego has 2/3 of flow, and 50 percent in weighted vote. 4. Call for weighted vote requires one large or two smaller agencies to second. 5. Issues to be resolved: . Cost-sharing formula. . Leaving the District (costs) . Capacity rights (new and past) . Water reclamation (cost-share between water user and sewer user) 6. WE SHOULD SUPPORT THE SAD WITH THE CONDITION THAT ANY AGENCY CAN WITHDRAW WITHOUT PENALTY WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM FORMATION OR UNTIL MAJOR FINANCING HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REGIONAL FACILITIES. DUDEK ASSOCIATES STUDY 1. Looked at several alternatives and costs for Chula Vista: A. Stay 100 percent with Regional system. B. Build own system. C. Stay with Metro for current capacity rights and build own plant for additional flows. 2. Checked markets for water reclamation and found them to be there. Found water reclamation to be feasible within costs parameters compared to San Diego's Plan. 3. Based on capital costs known at time, more feasible to go on our own. However, when comparing operation costs, not a significant difference between going on own or staying with Regional system. 4. Newer costs data to come from San Diego in January should be compared to original reports. These costs may substantially lower our costs to stay in Region. 15 -10 BULLETS (continued) CHULA VISTA SEWER DECISION 5. If Judge Brewster allows San Diego to re-apply for Waiver, could be more advantageous to stay with Regional system. 6. Both Chula Vista and the Regional system are looking at the Otay Valley as a site for a plant. Thus, water reclamation could be accommodated whichever agency served. 7. Financing and rate setting for reclaimed water could be very complex and political, based on differing water and sewer agencies serving same areas. Also, some agencies will not be set up to receive reclaimed water, so should they help pay? 8. The Dudek Associates Study did not look at Chula Vista sharing the IBWC Outfall. This should be looked at if we are still seriously considering our own system. IS~II //5 -/2... TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM December 27, 1990 TO: Honorable Mayo~ a~~council City Manager#, ~ Director of Public Works~ Council Meeting on Sewer Issues VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff is proposing to set a meeting to discuss sewer isslles dealing with the Clean Water Program. The item will be on the Agenda for the first meeting in January (January 8, 1991) but Council may wish to continue the item to a Conference to hear a full presentation from staff and consultants. It is important that a response to the City's position on the new Organization or Special Act District be made in January prior to the next Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) meeting on January 18, 1991. In that regard, staff has attached to this memo: 1. Staff memo: Special Act District (SAD) Legislation (Sewer). 2. Letter from San Diego Deputy City Manager to GAG Members and Alternates. 3. Proposed Special Act District Bill (Draft dated 12/12/90) to be submitted to State Legislature. 4. Memo from San Diego Attorney's Office on Memorandum of Law regarding Assignment and Delegation of Sewage Disposal Agreements. 5. One page table comparing Special Act District to current contractual relationship with City of San Diego. 6. Memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney of the City of San Diego regarding U.S.A. v. City--Order Regarding Consent Decree. Next week staff will distribute additional information (#7 for insertion in the binder) consisting of an executive summary of the Dudek & Associates report and also deal with the question of: SHOUW CHULA VISTA STAY WITH THE '?EGIONAL SYSTEM OR PROVIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT ON OUR OWN? [JPL3\SEW1227.MEM] /5 -/~ MEMORANDUM December 21, 1990 TO: VIA: Honorable Mayo: a~ Council Ci~~anager~~ ~l~ Director of Public Works ~rv FROM: SUBJECT: Special Act District (SAD) Legislation (Sewer) The Ci~ of San Diego has been planning modifications to the sewer treatment system for three years. As part of that process, a Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) was established to development an organization, ownership, and management structure to own and operate the Clean Water Program. This Group (GAG) is composed of elected members from each of the participating agencies and the Ci~ of San Diego. Chula Vista's representative is Councilman Moore. Since formation in April 1990, the Group has dealt with issues of type of ownership, voting structure, policy direction, and legislation packet to form a Special Act District (SAD). Staff has attempted to list the pertinent changes betw"en a Special Act District and the current contractual relationship between the participaling agencies and the Ci~ of San Diego. At the last GAG meeting, December 9, 1990, the group agreed that the District should be formed by the State Legislature without a vote of the people, but that any financing using property as security, i.e., General Obligation Bonds, should require a two-thirds vote of the people in the District. It was requested that the package be brought back to each participating agency's governing body, and return at the January meeting with input from each agency. Councilman Moore, Chula Vista's representative on GAG, would like direction from the Council on issues so that he can represent the City's interest at the January 18, 1991 meeting. To date, two cities (El Cajon and Lemon Grove) have opposed a Special Act District. Two cities (Chula Vista and National City) have not taken <in official position. The remaining participating agencies have approved a SAD, although some agencies including the County, approved in concept, reserving final approval to the details of the legislative packet. TWO MAJOR ISSUES 1. Should Chula Vista support a Special Act District? 2. Should Chula Vista remain part of Metro? This report will concentrate on the first question. However, another report gives a historical picture of our involvement in the Metro system, and discdsses the issues staff believes should be considered. /5-/3 Honorable Mayor and City Council -2- December 21, 1990 CURRENT CONTRACT WITH CITY OF SAN DIEGO (METRO I) METRO I are the facilities, (Point Lorna treatment plant and necessary pumping stations, and trunk lines) to treat 234 miJIion gallons per day (mgd) to the level of Advanced Primary. These facilities have not been fully constructed by San Diego. Our use of those facilities are covered in the contract between Chula Vista and City of San Diego. The City Attorney's Office of San Diego has written an opinion on the contractual obligations of San Diego, and the ability of the SAD to assume these provisions (copy attached). My understanding of the memo is that the SAD can take over assignment of the contract but would not necessarily have to be delegated all of City of San Diego's responsibilities. This is an important distinction because San Diego is required to provide capacity to the contracting (participating) agencies when needed. That mainly affects Chula Vista and National City, since we both have more capacity in the system than we are currently using. Furthermore, the plant has not been fully constructed to handle the original design flows (234 mgd). So San Diego has to expand the Point Lorna plant to accept our expanded flows, at the sole expense of San Diego. Staff is obviously concerned that if the SAD assumes the obligations of the City of San Diego in the above matter, wiJI the region be required to expand the plant or will San Diego be required to expand the Metro 1 system at San Diego's sole expense? The City of San Diego's Attorney has indicated that in order to meet the State Legislature requirement time frame to make a District effective this year, they need to submit the packet as a Spot Bill in early January. As wiJI be discussed in this memo Staff believes that more time is needed to evaluate the issues. Therefore, staff and Councilman Moore agree that there should be a provision in the legislation to allow any agency to back out of the District within one year of formation or until major district-wide funding commitments are made for construction without penalty. If Chula Vista were to back out, we would either: 1. Keep with existing contract provisions 2. Go entirely on our own, or 3. Go partially on our own. The group that developed the SAD Legislation Packet kept it f1exible and broad so as not to tie the hands of the new Board inordinately. However, because this is made complex by the previous contractual agreements, and because two agencies want to remain under the contractual arrangement, and the fact that San Diego and two small agencies, (or one small agency and CW A) or San Diego and one larger agency could carry a weighted vote, staff believes that it is the best interest of Chula Vista to work out many of the cost sharing and previous contract arrangements before we are fully committed to the SAD. IS -/~ Honorable Mayor and City Council -3- December 21, 1990 ITEMS NOT COVERED IN LEGISLATION 1. If the SAD is formed and some agencies remain under the contractual arrangement, will the City of San Diego be responsible to cover the obligations originally their responsibility, (creating Advanced Primary capacity) or will the combined SAD have that responsibility? 2. How will agencies, especially GROWfH agencies, obtain additional capacity? This is complicated because it involves General Plans for an agency and properties that are not now in the agencies' jurisdiction. Under the contractual arrangement Chula Vista reserved and paid for much more capacity than we originally used. This issue is not covered in the legislation. 3. When new member agencies or existing member agencies add territory, how will the existing members get reimbursed for providing extra capacity. I realize exact numbers will continually change, but the formula, should be in the legislation. 4. Because we are CHANGING from a contractual relationship with the City of San Diego and each participating agency to a different relationship, where each agency has the ability to appoint a voice in the decision-making process, maybe there should still be a contractual relationship with each agency and the SAD. 5. There is mention that the District can have water reclamation as a function. However, it does not discuss how it will be financed, and what the sewer user should pay versus the water user. This is important because water reclamation is not now cost effective from a pure economic pricing model. There are benefits that are more related to water scarcity issues, and costs differences should be subsidized regionally, not just by the sewer user that happens to produce reclaimed water. The law now is proposed that a weighted vote is carried by a simple majority, after being seconded by one larger agency or two smaller agencies, (including County Water Authority as one smaller agency). We favored the 60% requirement because San Diego would still have veto power, but they could not force a major decision on the participating agencies without convincing at least 20% (by flow) of the participating agencies. Since the City of San Diego will easily be able to carry a weighted vote, staff believes it imperative that important cost issues be resolved before we make a final commitment to SAD. /5 -15 Honorable Mayor and City Council -4- December 21, 1990 ITEMS IN SAD LEGISLATION Para2raph 90. pa2e 22 This section deals with security for Bonds and what happens if the District disbands or (more probably) if an area de-annexes. It provides that all the properties in the District will continue to bear debt responsibilities for bonds. This should be modified to allow buyout of responsibility, or resale of capacity, that the de-annexed agency might wish to sell. This District is building capacity for member agencies. This issue further points out the importance to us of Capacity Rights as a concept. Chapter 6. Taxes and Fees This section allows the District to levy taxes and fees directly against properties in the District. The issue of direct charges versus member agency charges to the ratepayer should be settled prior to the final commitment of Chula Vista. In the past, treatment costs were charged to each agency, then that agency set the fee to the ratepayer. This section also allows a standby tax on vacant lands in the District. This process needs to be worked out because most large areas not developed, will not be in any District, and therefore would not be subject to this standby tax. This would appear to be inequitable. Chapter 7-Chan2es in Or2anization. pa2es 31.32 This section covers areas annexing to the District. Giving certain duties to LAFCO, and also briefly discussing consolidation of member agencies, and withdrawal from the District. Again, Capacity Rights should be provided for and are not. CONCLUSION In staffs opinion, more work needs to be done on the legislation before Chula Vista should be willing to join the District. This work will take several months of negotiation with the staffs and consultants for the member agencies. Chula Vista should obtain legal and financial expertise to work with the staff and current engineering consultants to advise the staff and Council during this next phase of negotiations. Chula Vista should send a letter to the GAG giving our conceptual approval for a SAD, contingent on adding provisions to the Bill, that any member agency can withdraw from the District without penalty if done so within one year from formation, or until major district-wide funding obligations are made for constructing regional facilities. [JPL3\GAG1227.MEM) IS -/~ < , . THE CITY OF -SAN--DIEGO - , CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. 202 C STREET. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92101 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER December 13, 1990 Dear Governance Advisory Group Members and Alternates: Attached hereto is the draft legislative language which would be used' to create the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District. This draft is dated December 12, 1990, and incorporates recommendations made at the Clean Water Program Governance Advisory Group (CWPGAG) meeting of December 7, 1990. The recommendations which are incorporated in this draft address the issues of: Title of the district; how the district should be formed; financing and taxation powers of the district. Specifically, CWPGAG recommended the district be entitled San Diego Area Wastewater Management District. Regarding formation, it was recommended that the district be formed by act of the state legislature, rather than by vote of the electorate. It was 'recommended that the legislative language contain enabling provisions authorizing accessibility to the broadest selection of financing options. These options should include general obligation bonds (to be issued only upon receiving requisite two-thirds voter approval), revenue bonds up to $3.95 billion without'voter approval, and revenue bonds in excess of $3.95 billion upon receiving majority voter approval. The $3.95 billion reflects: 1) the $2.4 billion present date project cost inflated over time, which totals $4.2 billion; 2) 80% debt financing on the entire project, which is equal to $3.36 billion; and 3) an allowance for a reserve fund and costs of debt issuance. It was also recommended 'to enable the district to levy a tax (upon two-thirds voter approval) specifically for the purpose of paying debt service on general obligation bonds, so as to have the flexibility to secure general obligation bonds by the taxing power of the district (and revenues raised thereby) or by a pledge of revenues. In addition to incorporating recommendations from CWPGAG, this draft deletes the City of Lemon Grove and the city of El Cajon from the "member agencies." Accordingly, the number of board members has been adjusted to reflect these deletions. 12. ~ As you review this package, please be mindful that it is our intention to submit the legislation to our legislati~e lObbYist~ ' 1. WOv( d Rec 11 (>.}(J..{.) ~fWil,'ilfli -10, /71(ov,) C',. rf,,/M;(,'.JCt~<J,~ ~f C;J~I/)j ,(~~ / /:.1, ~:> ':.. ~ jJ)tS;,):;IC{. WI?6/NN j{ 6" S'cmk4Y{P:{ a::/o~{""/~. f <>J};d'Vt.y-o ~1<.&W1l:L"1A. V", ,j( R . ~ "~, 'f"nfA>. ])(S'fl,'IC ' ., ,1// i\ .JL' '/ tI~AJbwuJov1d 61t<fi f1<.( ,(.': -fp C3jdl <'0 'J,.ft W-''''f;; ~ ,I-rhlcr t1 vI (I(,ct"' 'J,f0 { <A d'lfff/tflt<-.J',I- <1'1 (f~(' /LO.<""'" //, A ,J, OPriol'd'.~<Ycl'd..~i{~ '3<;5"' O/(t;V'I 1!5{o~.v~, . tJ(c I~'{ C I "fdziJ.. gdl-tf/..t Ck~tJ..n/ (,H/~"';tU> 1j~ .~ WI /) J IN f\J>f/mllI V~<'\9" - - 71J <' . P> I ilL."",.> d.~ (01"-'-'0,/ <ldTA~~ . o -c.1Jf't. 15-/~ "..../. ....,...." ). .1 rLJ ('1 'ft" ,C/~/#.. r/-kUOY v< / . I r . !:-j 2 -- the end of the first week of:January 1991. Your cOIn1nents can be sent directly to the city Manager's Office at: Office of the city Manager City of San Diego City Administration Building 202 "c" street, Ninth Floor San Diego, CA 92101 ATTN: H. R. Frauenfelder Deputy City Manager Any recommended revisions received after the first week in January, including changes recommended by the Governance Advisory Group at its January 18 meeting,-will have to be added to the legislation after it has been introduced to the state legislative offices. Sincerely, ;t/;2. ~-6: ,.. "~ 1''"'~V1. H. R. F UENFELD~ Deputy city Manager Attachments cc: city of San Diego Mayor and Councilmembers /5 - /1 ", . fi,RA,fT , DECEnBER 12,"1990 SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 5 1. This act shall be known as the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District Act. S 2. It is hereby declared the policy of the State of California to develop interurban wastewater transportation and disposal systems, non-point source collection, treatment and disposal systems, water reclamation and reuse systems and refuse/sludge transfer and disposal systems wi thin the various metropoli tan areas within the state for the benefit of the people. A necessi ty exi sts wi thin San Diego County for such development. Because of the several separate cities and unincorporated populated areas in the area hereinafter described, only a specially created district can operate effectively in the transportation, treatment and disposal or reuse of wastewa te rand its rela ted by-products. Because of the unique problems presented by this area, and the facts and circumstances relative to the facilities required for transportation, treatment and -PAGE 1 OF 32- /5 -/1 . . disposal or reuse of wastewater and its by-products, adoption of a special act and the creation of a special district is required. S 3. Definitions: For the purposes of this act the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) "Act" means the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District Act. (b) "Board" or "board of directors' means the board of Directors of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District. (c) "Board of supervisors" means the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego. (d) "Chairperson" means the chairperson of the board of directors of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District. (e) "county" means the County of San Diego. (f) "District" means the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District. -PAGE 2 OF 32- IS - 20 . . " (g) "Membe r agency" means the Ci ty of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, the City of Coronado, the City of Del Mar, the City of Imperial Beach, the City of La Mesa, the City of National City, the City of Poway, the County of San Diego, the Otay Water District, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the San Diego County Water Authority, (h) "United States" means the United States of America or department or agency thereof; (i) "Refuse" means materials ~pecifically suitable for composting sludge. CHAPTER 2. FORMATION. S 11. There is hereby created the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District and as so created is subject to and has the powers granted or necessarily implied by this act. S 12. The area embraced in the district shall include all of the corporate areas of the City of San Diego, City of Chula vista, City of Coronado, City of Del Mar, City of Imperial Beach, City of La Mesa, City of National City, -PAGE 3 OF 32- /5-2/ , " . . City of Poway, Lakeside sanitation District, Alpine Sanitation District, Spring Valley Sanitation District, Winte rgardens Sewe r Maintenance Di strict, Improvement Districts A and B of the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and otay Water District: Assessment District 4, Improvement Districts 14 and 18 and the Willow Glen Drive Trunk Service Area as described on the map dated March 12, 1984, on file w.ith the otay Water District. S 13. The district shall be a public corporation created for the purposes set forth herein. CHAPTER 3. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION. S 21. The district shall be governed by a board of directors. The board shall be composed of nineteen (19) members of which six (6) shall be appointed by the Ci ty of San Diego, two (2) each by the City of Chula Vista, and the County of San Diego, and one (1) each shall be appointed by each of the remaining member agencies as defined in S 3( g). S 22. The governing body of each member agency shall appoint the directors or directors to which it is entitled to represent that member agency of the board. A board member may be an elected or appointed official of the -PAGE 4 OF 32- /5-22 ,.. . - S 23. 24. member agency making the appointment, provided that at least three (3) of the board members appointed by the Ci ty of San Diego shall not be elected officials. No incompatibility of office shall result from an elected official serving on the board and on the governing body of a member agency. A board member may vote on contracts or other matters involving the member agency that he or she represents. The governing body of each member agency may designate alternate members for each member of the board to act in the. place of the member in such member's absence or inability to act. The term of each director shall be for four (4) years, except that the initial term shall be two (2) years for one-half (1/2) of the first directors appointed by the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego, and for one-half (1/2) of the remaining directors as determined by lot at the first meeting of the board. Any vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governing body of the member agency from which the vacancy occurred. Any appointment to fill a vacancy during the term of a director shall be for the unexpired term. Each director before entering upon the duties of his or her office shall take and subscribe the oath as .. -PAGE 5 or 32- IS ... 2 3 .... S 25. S 26. S 27. provided in Section 1360 of the Government Code, and a certificate of the same shall be filed with the clerk of the member agency from which the director shall have been appointed, and a copy of which shall be filed with the district. A director may be removed from the board by the governing body of the member agency which appointed such director. Immediately after their appointment, the directors shall enter upon the performance of their duties. The board shall annually elect one (1) of its members as chairperson and another as vice-chairperson, and shall also elect annually a secretary, who mayor may not be a member of the board. A quorum necessary for the transaction of business at any meeting of the board exists whenever a majority of the membership of the board is present. However, any regular or special meeting of the board in which a quorum is not present may be continued from time to time until a quorum is present to transact the business of the board. The board shall make rules and regulations for its governance and procedure. It shall call and hold regular and special meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. -PAGE 6 OF 32- /5.2.f . .' S 28. S 29. S 30. S 31. Each director shall receive compensation in an amount not to exceed $100 per day, or a portion thereof, for attendance at meetings of the board and for service rendered as a director by request to the board, not to exceed a total of six (6) days in any calendar month, and each director shall be entitled to reimbursement for necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of his or her duties. The compensation of directors may be increased in the manner provided in Sections 20200 to 20207 of the Water Code, and the district shall be deemed a "water district" for the purpose of such sections. The board shall act only by ordinance, resolution or motion. The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the board shall be in substantially the following form: "The Board of Directors of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District ordains as follows:" Each ordinance and resolution shall be signed by the chairperson and attested by the secretary. A summary of each ordinance shall be published, within fifteen (15) days from its adoption, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the district, and a copy of -PAGE 7 OF 32- " 15.25 ,. . . S 32. S 33. S 34. shall be posted in the office of the secretary. An ordinance shall not go into effect until the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption except an ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election, an ordinance fixing the amount of money to be raised by taxes, or the rate thereof, or an ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which ordinance shall contain a specific statement showing its urgency and shall be passed by a two-thirds vote of the membership of board. Ordin~nces may be passed by the voters of the district in accordance with the methods provided in the Elections Code for direct l.egislation in ci ties. Ordinances may be disapproved and thereby vetoed by the voters of the district in accordance with the methods provided in the Elections Code for protesting against legislation in cities. Each board member appointed to the district board shall have one (1) vote on any motion, resolution or ordinance coming before the board and a majority of the membership of the board shall be required to carry any motion, resolution or ordinance, except when weighted voting is utilized. -PAGE 8 OF 32- /5-2(,) ,- S 35. S 36. Any board member may call for utilization of weighted voting. The call must be seconded by a board member representing a different member agency than the board member making the call. If the call is seconded by a board membe r from the Ci ty of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, or the County of San Diego, or if such call is seconded by two board members representing other member agencies, weighted voting shall be utilized. Weighted voting shall be based upon the average daily flow ?f wastewater discharged by all member agencies, except the City of San Diego, into facilities of the district, as determined and established at the first meeting in July of each year by resolution of the board. When the weighted vote is taken there shall be a total of one hundred (100) possible votes. Fifty (50) of those votes shall be allocated to the Ci ty of San Diego, irrespective of its average daily flow. The allocation to the remaining member agencies of the balance of fifty (50) votes shall be determined in the following manner: The average daily flow of the remaining member agencies shall be totaled and the ratio of each agency's portion to this total shall be calculated and this resulting fraction shall be multiplied by fifty, with decimals of .50 or greater rounded up to the next whole number, -PAGE 9 OF 32- -/5 -;2 r S 37. S 38. S 39. thereby determining the number of the remaining fifty (50) votes to be allocated to each agency. The number of votes to be allocated to the San Diego County Water Authority shall be equal to the number of votes allocated to the member agency with the smallest flow, but in no event will be less than one. If a member agency has more than one (1) representative on the boa rd, the representatives of the member agency shall cast the vote(s) allocated to the member agency as a unit and as a majo ri ty of the representa ti ve s present shall determine. The affirmative vote of members representing more than fifty (50%) percent of the total number of votes of all members shall be necessary and, except otherwise herein provided, shall be sufficient to carry any motion, resolution or ordinance coming before the board. The board shall establish a fiscal year for its operations. The board shall adopt a budget for each fiscal year. The accounts of the district shall be audited annually in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by independent certified public accountants, and a copy of the audit report shall be filed with the secretary and -PAGE 10 OF 32- /5-:2 t S 40. S 41. S 42. S 43. with each member agency. The board shall appoint a general manager, who shall not be a member. of :the board, to hold office during the pleasure of the board. The general manager shall have management of the properties and business of the district and its employees, subject to the general control of the board and, subject to provisions made by the board, shall direct the enforcement of all ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of the board, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the board. The board shall provide for the appointment of other officers, attorneys, engineers, consultants, advisors, fiscal agents, and employees as it may deem necessary. The board may delegate any executive, administrative and ministerial powers to the general manager or to any other officer of the district. The salary ranges of the officers and employees shall be approved by the board. All officers and employees shall give such bond as is prescribed by the board. The premium on all bonds on officers and employees shall be paid by the district. -PAGE 11 OF 32- /5-,,2 , CHAPTER 4. POWERS AND PURPOSES. S 51. The district may, by contract assume assets and 'obligations incurred for development and on going operation of sewage treatment and related facilities by any member agency, such as: (a) The consent decree ordered and filed in the case of United States of America and State of California v. Citv of San Dieoo, Case No. 88-1101-B (IEG). (b) the sewage disposal agreements between the City of San Diego and the participating agencies of the areas described in Section 16 hereof. (c) Evidences of indebtedness from any interim financing undertaken by the City of San Diego. As to the above referenced rights, contracts and obligations, the district may accept the assignment of rights and delegations of duties contained in the above- referenced documents according to the terms and conditions therein stated, and if so, shall agree to indemnify the City of San Diego against any liability arising from the performance or nonperformance of such obligations. -PAGE 12 OF 32- 15-30 .' Ii 52. Ii 53. Ii 54. .__._~ -~ Notwithstanding the foregoing, any and all monetary damages, penalties or fines, agreed to or imposed on the City of San Diego as a result of its performance or nonperformance of any legal obligation prior to the effective date of this act shall be the sole responsibility of the City of San Diego. The district may sue and be sued in all actions and proceedings in all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction. All claims for money for damages against the district are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code. An action to determine the validity of any contract, bond, warrant, obligation, or other evidence of indebtedness, or the levy of any tax, charge, or assessment, including whether or not bonds when delivered to the person enti tied to them under the terms of a contract will or do constitute valid obligations of the district as against all persons, may be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. -PAGE 13 OF 32- /5-.3/ S 55. S 56. S 57. S 58. All acts, proceedings, conclusions and findings of fact, including .the levy of taxes, charges or assessments, by the board shall be conclusive except in an action or proceeding instituted within six (6) months after the acts, proceedings, conclusions or findings were had or made. The district may take by grant, purchase, gift, devise, lease, or otherwise acquire, hold and enjoy and lease and dispose of real and personal property of every kind, within or without the district, necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. The district may exercise the right of eminent domain in the manner provided by law to take any property, within or without the district, necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. The district may acquire, operate, construct, complete, make contracts regarding and operate, within or without the district, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal works, including treatment plants, water reclamation plants, storm water facilities, outfallsi intercepting, collecting and lateral sewers, pipes, pumps, machinery, easements, rights of way, refuse/sludge transport, treatment and disposal facilities, and other -PAGE 14 OF 32- /5 -.3:< S 59. S 60. S 61. works, property or structures necessary or convenient for wastewater collection, treatment, storage, disposal and reuse, and may process, sell, and transport reclaimed water, sludge and other by-products. The district may construct, operate and maintain water and sewer lines and other underground facilities in any street, highway or other public right of way. when the board determines that any property of the district is no longer necessary for district purposes, or that such sale or lease will benefit the district, the district may sell or lease the property upon terms that appear to the board to be for the best interests of the district. Sales and leases authorized under this section include sales and leases to the State and to cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the State. The district shall have the right to enter into any contract or lease for any property necessary or convenient for any of the uses or purposes of the district and by the contract or lease, to bind the district for the payment of the consideration specified therein. -PAGE 15 OF 32- /5-33 j S 62. S 63. S 64. S 65. The district may contract with any other district, city, public agency or person for the handling, treatment or disposal of refuse, sludge, wastewater or industrial wastes originating within or without the district. The district may make and perform any agreement with any public or private corporation of any kind or any person for the joint construction, acquisition, disposition or operation of any property or works of a kind which might be constructed, acquired, disposed of or operated by the district, including facilities for the treatment and disposal of refuse/sludge and works for reclaimed water production, transmission and distribution facilities and related facilities for the treatment, disposal and reuse of solid was tes. The district may sell, or otherwise dispose of, any water,. wastewater effluent, fertilizer or other by- product resulting from the operation of a wastewater system, wastewater disposal plant, water reclamation plant or process or treatment plant, and construct, maintain and operate pipelines and other works for that purpose. The district pipelines or may construct, maintain other works to conserve and and operate put to -PAGE 16 OF 32- 15-.3'-1 S 66. S 67. S 68. beneficial use any water or wastewater effluent recovered from the operation of the wastewater system, plant or works, by sale disposition for municipal, or agricultural, industrial or other beneficial purposes, or by discharging or spreading the water or wastewater effluent in such a manner as to percolate into the underground and replenish the natural water resources. The district may, by agreement with any city or other public agency, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and take possession of, any wastewater system or any wastewater treatment plant, or related facilities, to carry out any of the objects of the district, or may acquire by agreement the right to use them, and any city or other public agency may enter into such an agreement with the district. The district may do work and make improvements with its own forces. The district may enter into contracts for the construction, reconstruction, repair of any works, facilities, and replacement of buildings, utilities, and other public works, and such contracts shall be let in accordance with such procedures as may be established by the board. . -PAGE 17 OF 32- /5-.35 't.....- ,. . . S 69. S 70. S 71. The district may contract with the united states for the purpose of assisting the district in the performance of any of the work authorized by this act, and the district may contribute to the United States all or any portion of the estimated cost of any work authorized by this act which is to be done by or under contract with the united states. The district may contribute money to the United States, the State of California or the county or to any member agency within the district for the purpose of defraying the whole or a portion of the cost and expenses of any work or improvement to be ,performed, either within or without the district, by the United states, State, county or member agency, in improving the transportation or treatment of wastewater or disposing or reusing of any by-products thereof. Any person who violates the provisions of any ordinance of the district shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The prosecution shall be conducted by the District Attorney of San Diego County. The complaint shall be filed in the judicial district within which the offense occurred. -PAGE 18 OF 32- IS-3ft, '.' CHAPTER 5. BONDS AND OTHER INDEBTEDNESS. S 81. The district may issue bonds, notes, borrow money and incur indebtedness as provided in this act or as otherwise authorized by law. S 82. The district may refund any indebtedness issued by any of its members for the purposes for which the district was established, or any indebtedness as provided in this act or in any other applicable law, and may also refund, by the issuance of the same type of obligations as those refun~ed and following the same procedure as at that time may be applicable to the issuance of such obligations, and may retire any indebtedness or lien that may exist against the district or its property. S 83. The district may issue general obligation bonds in accordance with the manner prescribed by Articles 5 and 5.6 of the County Sanitation District Act, as amended from time to time. S 84. (a) The district may issue revenue bonds in accordance with the manner prescribed by the provisions of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, as amended from time to time, with exceptions as provided herein. -PAGE 19 OF 32- 15 -3=1- S 85. (b) .The district may issue revenue bonds in a total amount not to exceed $3,950,000,000, upon resolution of the board to take effect on its adoption, except that the provisions of the Revenue Bond law of 1941, Article 3 (commencing with Section 54380) of Chapter. 6 of the Government Code shall not be applicable to the issuance of such revenue bonds. (c) If the district issues revenue bonds in excess of the total amount of $3,950,000,000, all provisions of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, including Article 3 (commencing with Section 54380) of Chapter 6 of the Government Code, shall be applicable. (d) Nothing herein shall prohibi t the issuance of revenue bonds pursuant to section 54307.1(b) of the Government Code: (a) The district may issue bonds for the purpose of refunding any revenue bonds of the district, whether due or not due, or which have or which may hereafter become payable at the option of the district, by consent of the bondholders, or by any lawful means. (b) Any refunding bonds may be outstanding at the same time as the revenue bonds for which the refunding bonds -PAGE 20 OF 32- /5 - 3V are issued, subject. to any contractual limitations created in the proceedings for the issuance of the revenue bonds, and may be on a parity with, or subordinate to, the revenue bonds. (c) The re funding bonds may be issued upon resolution of the board, and shall be deemed issued for a valid public purpose and a proper bond purpose under Article 11 (commencing with Section 53580 of the Government Code) or the applicable revenue bond law, and interest upon the refunding bonds or the bonds to be refunded from the date thereof to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded or the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holders of the bonds may be paid from the proceeds of the refunding bonds or the investment of the proceeds. (d) In connection with the issuance of refunding bonds, the district may declare the proceeds of such refunding bonds to be a revenue producing public facility, including an enterprise under the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, or may declare such proceeds to be part of such revenue producing public facility or enterprise, or may otherwise declare such proceeds to be held, in whole or in part, and for such time as the local agency may deem advisable, in trust for the protection of holders of the -PAGE 21 OF 32- . > /5-$9 S 86. S 87. S 88. S 89. S 90. bonds or of the refunding bonds. The district may incur indebtedness by the issuance of negotiable promissory notes to acquire funds for any district purpose. The notes may be general or revenue obligations of the district, shall mature no later than ten (10) years from the date thereof, and shall be payable as provided therein. The Improvement Act of 1911, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, and the Mello7Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 are applicable for any district purpose. The district may apply for and accept grants and loans from the United States, the state of California, and from any other governmental agency. .. The district may establish, use and dissolve improvement districts within its area, in the manner provided by Water Code Sections 71870 through 72031, and may authorize and issue bonds as provided therein. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act or any other law, the provisions of all ordinances, resolutions and other proceedings in the issuance by the district of -PAGE 22 OF 32- /5- ~() ,. any general obligation bonds, general obligation bonds with a pledge of revenues, revenue bonds, negotiable promissory notes and any and all other evidences of indebtedness or liability shall constitute a contract between the district and the holders of such bonds, notes, or evidences of indebtedness or liability, and the provisions thereof and the provisions of this act shall be enforceable against the district and any or all of its successors or assigns, by mandamus or any other appropriate suit, action or proceeding in law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this act or any other law shall be held to relieve the district or the territory included within it from any bonded or other debt or liability contracted by the district. Upon dissolution of the district or upon withdrawal of territory therefrom, the property formerly included within the district or withdrawn therefrom shall continue to be liable for the payment of all bonded and other indebtedness or liabilities outstanding at the time of such dissolution or withdrawal the same as if the district had not been so dissolved or the territory withdrawn therefrom, and it shall be the duty .of the successors or assigns to provide for the payment of such bonded and other indebtedness and liabilities. Except as may otherwise be provided in the proceedings for the authorization, issuance and sale of any revenue bonds or , -PAGE 23 OF 32- .~ : 15-~/ .; S 91. general obligation bonds secured by a pledge of revenues, revenues of any kind or nature derived from any revenue- producing improvements, works, facilities or property owned, operated o~ controlled by the district shall be pledged, charged, assigned and have a lien thereon for payment of such bonds as long as same are outstanding, regardless of any change in ownership, operation or control of such revenue producing improvements, works, facilities or property, and it shall, in such later event or events, be the duty of the assigns or successors to continue to maintain and operate such revenue-producing improyements, works, facilities or property as long as such bonds are outstanding. - Bonds and other evidences of indebtedness issued by the district pursuant to this act are legal investments for all trust funds, and for funds of all insurers, banks, both commercial and savings, trust companies, and state school funds, ~nd whenever any money or funds may, by law now or hereafter enacted, be invested in bonds of cities, cities and counties, counties, school districts or municipalities in this state, such money or funds may be invested in bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of the district. ,. -PAGE 24 OF 32- " 15 - ~ 2.. CHAPTER 6.. S 101. S 102. S 103. TAXES AND FEES. The board may, by ordinance, fix and impose rates, fees and charges for use of any facilities owned or operated or services furnished or provided by the district, and may establish different rates, fees and charges for different classes or conditions of service. The board may, by ordinance, fix and impose connection charges and capacity charges for the use of any facilities owned or operated or services furnished or provi?ed by the district. (a) The board may, by ordinance, fix on or before the thi rd Monday of August in each fiscal year, a sewer standby availability charge on land within the boundaries of the district to which sewer services are made available by the district, whether the service is actually used or not. (b) The sewer standby availability charge shall be adopted by the board only after adoption of a resolution setting forth the particular schedule or schedules of charges proposed to be established by ordinance and after a public hearing on the resolution. The secretary shall cause notice of a time and place of hearing to be -PAGE 25 OF 32- 1.s-~.3 \< published pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code prior to the date set for the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the district. At the time stated in the notice, the board shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the resolution referred to in the notice and may continue the hearing from time to time. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the board may adopt, revise, charge, reduce or modify a proposed charge or overrule any or all objections. The board shall make its determination upon each charge as described in the resolution, which deter~ination shall be final. (c) On or before the third Monday of August, the board shall furnish in writing to the board of supervisors and the county auditor a description of each parcel of land c within the district upon which the sewer standby availability charge is to be levied and collected for the current fiscal year, together with the amount of the sewer standby availability charge fixed by the district on each parcel of land which is to be added to the assessment roll. (d) The district shall direct that, at the time and in the manner required by law for levying of taxes for county purposes, the board of supervisors shall levy, in -PAGE 26 OF 32- J 5 - ~Y ,. S 104. addi tion to any other taxes levied, the sewer standby availability charges in the amounts for the respective parcels fixed by the district. (e) All county officers charged with the duties of collecting taxes shall collect the district's sewer standby availability charges with the regular tax payments to the county. The sewer standby availability charges shall be collected in the same form and manner as county taxes are collected, including procedures in the event of delinquency. Upon collection of the sewer stand~y availability charges by the tax collector, the collections shall be paid to the district. The county may deduct its reasonable administrative costs incurred in levying and collecting the sewer standby availability charge. (a) The board shall determine the amounts necessary to be raised by taxation during the fiscal year, and shall, on or before the first day of September, furnish to the board of supervisors and the county auditor a written statement of the amount necessary to pay the interest on general obligation bonds for that year, and the portion of the principal that is to become due before the time for making the next general tax levy, and shall fix the rate or rates of tax to be levied which will raise the -PAGE 27 OF 32- ";;'" I 5 - ~S .. amount of money required by the district, provided that the levy shall not exceed the amount permitted by any maximum property tax rate limitation set forth in the consti tution or in the Revenue and Taxation Code and shall be in conformance with the restrictions therein. (b) On or before September 1 of each year, the board shall certify to the board of supervisors and the county auditor the tax rate or rates fixed for the district. The county auditor shall compute and enter in the county assessment roll the respective sums to be paid as a district tax on the property in the district, using the rate or rates of levy as fixed by the board and the assessed value as found on the assessment roll for the property subject to the particular tax. (c) Taxes for the payment of the interest on or principal of any general obligation bonds shall be levied on the property in the district, or improvement district therein, that is benefitted by the bonded debt, as determined by the board in the resolution declaring the necessity to incur the debt. (d) All county officers charged with the duty of collecting taxes shall collect district taxes at the same time and in the same form and manner as county taxes are -PAGE 28 OF 32- 15-~(tJ " collected, and shall pay the collected district taxes to the district. (e) Taxes for the payment of general obligation bonds and the interest thereon shall be a lien on all property benefitted thereby as stated in the resolutio~ of the board declaring the necessity to incur the debt. All taxes for other purposes of the district shall be a lien on all the property in the district- subject to the particular tax. (f) Liens for district taxes, whether for payment of general obligation bonds and the interest thereon or for other purposes, shall be of the same force and effect as other liens for taxes, and their collection may be enforced by the same means as provided by the enforcement of liens for state and county taxes. S 10S. The collection of all fees and charges imposed by the district pursuant to this act, shall be performed in a manner as determined by the board, including that: (a) The district may direct that, at the time and in the manner required by law for levying of taxes for county purposes, the board of supervisors shall levy, in addition to any taxes levied, the fees and charges in the -PAGE 29 OF 32- IS -~ ~ ,- amounts for the respective parcels fixed by the district. (b) All county officers charged with the duties of collecting taxes may collect the district's fees and cha'rges wi th the regular tax payments to the county. The fees and charges may be collected in the same form and manner as county taxes are 'collected, including procedures in the event of delinquency. Upon collection of the fees and charges by the tax collector, the collections shall be paid to the district. The county may deduct its reasonable administrative costs incurred in le~ying and collecting the fees and charges. CHAPTER 7. CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION. S 111. Any territory annexed to or detached from an entity or service area described in section 16, other than the San Diego County Water Authority, shall, upon completion of such annexation or detachment, be deemed incorporated into and annexed to or detached from the district. The executive officer of the local agency formation commission of the county shall file with the district a copy of the executive officer's certificate of completion certifying the annexation to or detachment from the member agency. -PAGE 30 OF 32- /5 -'I? ; S 112. A city or special district situated in the county may become a member agency of the district by one of the following procedures: (a) By consolidation, merger or reorganization with an existing member agency which results in the existing member agency's corporate existence ceasing and the sewer and wastewater facilities of that agency being acquired by the city or special district. The new member agency shall have the same number of directors as the replaced member agency. (b) By annexation to the district, subject to such terms and condi tions as the district may determine, if approved by a majority of those voting in an election held within the area to be annexed. The new member agency shall have the number of directors as fixed by the district's terms and conditions. S 113. A member agency may withdraw or detach from the district pursuant to such terms and conditions as the district may determine. CHAPTER 8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. S 121. The provisions of this act shall apply to any municipal -PAGE 31 or 32- 15-~Cj , S 122. RLP:jrl:400 12/12/90 '" " corporation which is governed under a freeholders' charter even if such provisions are inconsistent with the charter or its amendments, it being hereby declared that such provisions are a matter of statewide concern and are to prevail over any inconsistent provisions in any such charter. . If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phra"se of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the act or the application of such provi~ion to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. The Legislature hereby declares tha tit would have passed thi s act and each section, subdi vi sion, section, clause and phrase the reof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid. -PAGE 32 OF 32- 15 -50 OFFlC.EOF RONALD L rOH~SO~ ASSlSTA.''TC~~''''fY THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAN DIEGO JOHN W. WITT CITY ATTOk.'-:EY CrTY .o\DMI~ISTMT::J~ BCIL!)I~C 202 -C ~rr .s..:..,= DIECO.CALIF~~\,"'A 92~OI'3863 TELE?H:JNE 16i.,236-5220 FAX 1-(619) 2~o-72J5 mAR.T H. ~tTT UN:101. c.Hll~ DU'.'tT CITY AJ'TOANfY lACK KATZ KSICI. CHJU D11t.'tT CITY AJTO-""'EY CURTI5 ~, FITZPATRICK -,"ISTA.''TCITT.o.1TC.\.'!Y UI'1CIAL'!\.)I~ MEMORANDUM OF LAW DATE: December 11, 1990 TO: Roger Frauenfelder, Deputy City Manager and the Clean Water Program Governance Advisory Group FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Assignment and Delegation of Sewage Disposal Agreements With the formation pending of a regional wastewater district, it has been contemplated by The City of San Diego ("city") that the city's rights and duties under the ex~sting sewage disposal contracts between the city and each of the participating agencies would be assigned and delegated to the new district. By this anticipated transfer, it is foreseen that the new district would effectively stand in the shoes of the city. You and the Governance Advisory Group have asked about the legal implications of such a transfer. For reasons which will be more fully explained, it is our belief that an assignment can be made and that the new district would acquire all of the city's rights under the existing contracts. The area of paramount concern to the participating agencies is whether the new district woulq also acquire all of the city's duties under the existing contracts. A related concern is whether a participating agency has a legal basis for preventing the city from assigning its rights or delegating its duties under the existing contracts to the new district. Assiqnment "Assignment" and "delegation" are terms of art and frequently referred to in tandem. Unfortunately, assignment is often unartfully used as including the concept of delegation. Assignment and delegation are legally independent actions and evaluating the ability to accomplish either involves separate analyses. An assignment of a right is "a manifestation of the assignor's intention to transfer it by virtue of which the assignor's right to performance by the obligor is extinguished in /5-5/ . Roger Frauenfelder -2- December 11, 1990 whole or in part and the assignee acquires a right to such performance." Restatement of the Law of Contracts, 2d, section 317(1). It is a unilateral expression of the assignor. A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, S 866, (1952). "The current sewage disposal agreements between The City of San Diego and each of the participating agencies are bilateral contracts in that they involve both rights and duties for each party. A bilateral contract makes each party both an obligor and an obligee. An obligor is a party with a duty and an obligee is a party with a right. In simplified terms, as an obligor the city has the duty to provide sewage treatment capacity, and as an obligee has the right to collect money; the participating agency, as an obligee, has the right to a quantified capacity in the city's sewerage system, and as an obligor has the duty to pay. Initially, we must address whether the city, as an obligee, may assign its rights under the existing contracts, thereby becoming an assignor. At early cQmmon law the was ordinarily ineffective. between the original obligor part of the obligation which other term of the obligation S 405 (3d ed. 1960). assignment of a right in contract This was because "the relation and obligee was regarded as a vital could no more be changed than any . . . .n S. Williston on Contracts, In 1872, section 1472 of the Cal. Civil Code was enacted, thereby breaking from the common law. This statute remains unchanged and provides: "A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such." Conceivably, an assignment can be examined from t.he perspective of any of the three participants -- assignor, assignee or obligor. The Restatement of the Law of Contracts, 2d (Restatement 2d) takes a narrow view and formulates the principles of assignment by emphasizing how the assignment impacts the obligor. As used in this context, the obligor would be the participating agency. Section 317(2) of the Restatement 2d states: A contractual right can be assigned unless (a) the substitution of a right of the assignee for the right of the assignor would materially change the duty of the obligor, or materially increase the burden or risk imposed on him by "his contract, or materially impair his chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce its value to him, or IS -52. Roger Frauenfelder -3- December 11, 1990 (b) the assignment is forbidden by statute or is otherwise inoperative on grounds of public policy, or (c) assignment is validly precluded by contract. Under the existing sewage disposal agreements, each participating agency has the duty to pay capacity fees, reimbursement for maintenance and operation, reimbursement for new construction, or rent for use thereof. The substitution of the right of the new district to receive these payments for the right of the city would not materially change the duty of the participating agency. The duty to pay would remain the same;, the only change would be the recipient of the payment. Similarly, the substitution of the right of the new district for the right of the city would not increase the participating agency's risk, materially impair'the agency's chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the contract rights held by the agency. If anything, these concerns would be minimized by the fact that the new district (assignee) will be a legis1ative special act district, formed by the legislature or by vote of the electorate, with a board of directors comprised of members representing each of the participating agencies, thus affording each agency more control over performance. Additionally, as part of the special act district legislation, there will be a statutory provision enabling the new district to assume all of the city's rights and duties under the existing contracts. Hence we have found no law nor identified any public policy which would forbid this assignment. California law enables the transfer of rights arising out-of an obligation. The legal treatment of the rights and obligations embodied in the sewage disposal agreements should not be an exception carved from the rules merely because the parties are governmental entities. Contracts entered into by the state or its agencies or subdivisions are governed by the orqinary law of contracts. Holtzendorff v. Housinq Authoritv, 250 Cal. App. 2d 596, 607 (1967). Having examined the law, and finding no basis for prohibiting an assignment, the only other basis would be provision in the contracts themselves. No preclusion of assignment (or delegation) is expressed or implied anywhere in the sewage disposal agreements. Delegation 'Having concluded that the city 'can assign its rights under the sewage disposal agreements, we have introduced two additional sets of relationships into the initial agreement between the city and the participating agency. The city now has an assignor-- /5-53 ~ . Roger Frauenfelder -4- December 11, 1990 assignee relationship with the new district, and the district has an assignee-obligor relationship with the participating agency. However, there is yet to be a readjustment of rights and duties under the sewage disposal agreements to produce a bilateral relationship between the new district and' the participating agency. The assignment of the city's rights does not extinguish the performance of the city's duties. . section 1457 of the civil Code addresses the delegation of duty, and states in pertinent part, "The burden of an obligation may be transferred with the consent of the party entitled to its benefit, but not otherwise. . . ." Viewed restrictively, this section would hold that the city cannot delegate the performance of its duties to the new district without the consent of the participating agency(ices). Under this interpretation any or all of the participating agencies would be in a position to demand that performance be made only by the city, preventing any delegation of the city's duties to the new district. The courts have not viewed section 1457 in this manner. In Baer v. 'Associated Life Ins. Co., 202 Cal, App. 3d 117 (1988), the court elaborated on section 1457, and stated: This section was enacted in 1872, and from its inception has been interpreted to mean that the assignor of the contract cannot be released from his/her burden of obligation to the other contracting party absent a novation. (Citations omitted.) Throughout the years our courts have interpreted this statute liberally and held that: "The obligations ~f an assignor of a contract continue to rest upon him and he will be required to respond to the other party to the contract in the event of a default on the part of the assignee." (Citations omitted.) Id. at 123. section .1457 of the Civil Code does not prohibit the new. district from assuming and performing the contractual obligations imposed upon the city, it merely prohibits the district from relieving the city of the duty to perform, without the consent of the participating agency(ices). ~ La Rue v. Groezinqer, 84 Cal, 281 (1890) and Cuttinq packinq Co. v. Packers' EXchanqe, 86 Cal, 574 (1890). In this sense, the contractual duty to perform can be differentiated from the actual rendering of performance; although the latter can be assumed by the new district, the assumption will not operate to relieve the city of the .former. while the legal distinctions are subtle, the practical effect is direct. The new district will be performing under the terms of the contracts; the participating agency(ices) will be receiving the benefit of that ~erformance; and, because of the IS-59 ~ Roger Frauenfelder -5- December 11, 1990 assignment of the city's rights, the new district will be entitled to the benefit of the participating agency(ices) performance of their reciprocal duty to pay. Although direct privity of contract is lacking between them, there is nonetheless created a de facto bilateral relationship between the new district and the participating agency(ices), since each has acquired the role of both "obligor" and "obligee." In the final analysis, the rights and remedies of the participating agencies which are embodied in their contracts with the city are not threatened or" impaired. Assuming the city has not been relieved of its duty to perform, if the new district fails to perform, the participating agency(ices) may demand performance from the city and bring an action against the city for lack thereof. ~ Bradv v. Fowler, 45 Cal. App. 592, 595 (1920). Similarly, the new district is not without its rights and remedies. By operation of the assignment, the district has all the same remedies against a non-performing agency that the city would have had.. See Chatten v. Martell, 166 Cal. App. 2d 545 (1959). Finally, the city is not without its rights and remedies. Should the city incur damages resulting from the district's failure to perform, the city may bring an action against the district. ~ Cuttinq Packinq Co. v. Packers' Exchanqe, 86 Cal. 574, 577 (1890), The de facto relationship between the new district and the participating agency(ices) could continue in force until the expiration of the original contracts, or until a novation occurred. Novation is the substitution of duty or party by agreement with the intent to eliminate the original party or duty. Hence the complexities of assignment and delegation can be completely avoided by way of a novation reDlacinq the new district for the city. Novation differs from assignment and delegation in that the city would be eliminated as a party to the original contract, and replaced by the district. As such, novation requires the assent of the city, new district and participating agency(ices), and it would also enable the renegotiation of terms between the new parties. CONCLUSION Both by the nature of the existing contracts and the contemplated manner of assignment and delegation, we conclude that the city may by assignment and delegation transfer the existing agreements between it and the participating agencies to /5-~~ '. Roger Frauenfelder -6- December 11, 1990 the special act district with no adverse consequences to the participating agencies. Such a substitution could be also accomplished by novation, but is not legally required. JOHN W. WITT, City Attorney ~ By Richard L. pinckard Deputy City Attorney RLP:jrl:400(x043.2) ML-90-l03 15-S~ ~ COMPARISON OF SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT (SAD) TO CONTRACT ARRANGEMENT Issue Decision-making Liability Representation Participating Agency involvement (control, regress) Weighted vote by flow Call weighted vote Pass weighted vote How to determine agencies' vote? Existing assets of agencies Regional costs Water Reclamation Costs (sewer portion) [JI'L3\SAD TBL) Contract San Diego City Council (Final) City of San Diego Participating agency through contract with City of San Diego. Through contract negotiations with San Diego. San Diego has final decision, but contract rights to agency. None None Not Applicable Stay as with current contract. Agency has capacity right~ to Year 2014. Per contract negotiation San Diego pays all costs unless re-negotiate contract. IS -5-r- SAD Board of Directors of SAD SAD (itself) Direct from public to Board. Council appoints representative. Right to appoint 2 members on 22 member Board. San Diego has 6 members. San Diego has 50 % of control. Any agency plus two seconds, or any agency plus one second of large agency. Majority measured by flow. Each Board member assigned flow percent? or each agency one vote. ? How Board allocates. Probably by Capacity Rights (capital), and tlow (0 & M). Probably shared by region. J . . Office of The City Attorney City of San Diego MEMORANDUM 236-6220 DATE: December 12, 1990 TO: Distribution (see below) FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: U.S.A. v. Citv: Order Regarding Consent Decree Attached is the Order of Judge Brewster setting the parameters of the upcoming February 5, 1991 hearing on issues of environmental harm and evalua~ion of penalties for past acts. Of significance to metro agencies is page 3 that allows the City to seek to reactivate its waiver application under section 301(h) thirty (30) days after the Court's decision assuming the City can show no significant injury to the marine environment. The Court cautions, however, on page 4 that ~ deferred consid- erations are contingent on the City's meeting all non-Point Loma related improvements. Hence all reclamation, pretreatment, Ocean plan and operations and maintenance deadlines must be adhered to. JOHN W. WITT, City Attorney ~ Ted Bromfield Chief Deputy Ci y Attorney TB:mb:452.1.1 Attachment:1 Distribution: Governance Advisory Group Metro City Managers Clean Water Program Is-sf . .' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 --10 11 12 13 .- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ';;; . ~FILED _LODGED _RECEIVED_ENTERED I DEC--- 419r1 I I .~! . ',p ~. ~ ., J _ 1\ , I .. . . :..._C ~ , .., ..: ) CLER!(. L:.~;. D'S-:-'1:cr :OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT C:: CALIFORNIA BY DEPUTY / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UtJ;I:TEP _STA'I'J;$__OF. _AMERI ~"d~.I19. ____L__ __ _________ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -----. ~--- Plaintiffs, civil No. 88-1101-B(IEG) vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ORDER RE LIMITED DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, - Defendant. SIERRA CLUB, EMILY DURBIN, and BRUCE HENDERSON, Intervenors. Th~ above captioned matter came on regularly for hearing -on I 21 November 1, 1990 before the Honorable Rudi M. Brewster. James J. 22 Dragna, Esq. , and Ted Bromfield, Esq. , appeared for Defendant City 23 of San Diego ("City"); Gerald F. George, Esq. , and Karen S. 24 Dworkin, Esq. , appeared for Plaintiff United States; David A. 25 Eissler, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff S~ate ~f C~~i=~~nia: Robert 26 L. Simmons, Esq. , and William M. Benjamin appeared for Intervenor 27 Sierra Club and Emil y Durbin; and Mark S. Pulliam, Esq. , and 28 / / / / 15-59 ".. .--_.. " . 12 13 .-- 14 15 16 17 18 1 Richard w. Raushenbush, Esq., appeared for Proposed Intervenor 2 Bruce Henderson. 3 I. Motion to Intervene 4 Upon consideration of the Motion to Intervene brought by Bruce 5 Henderson, and the oral argument thereon, it is hereby ordered: 6 1. The Motion to Intervene is granted. The court finds that 7 Intervenor Henderson has an unconditional right of intervention 8 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 24(a)(1) and JJ U.S.C. 9 lJ65(b)(1)(B). 9 Alternatively, the court finds that Intervenor Henderson may 10 intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 24(a)(2), which provides for 11 intervention of right. 2. Intervention is granted only for the limited purpose of allowing Intervenor Henderson to present arguments and briefs on the issues already before the~ourt. The Complaint in Interven- tion submitted by Intervenor Henderson will not be considered by the court, and no answers thereto may be filed. The issues raised in the Complaint in Intervention are already before the court. The court notes that this limited intervention is consistent with the 19 rights previously affordea the sierra Club upon the granting of its 20 Motion to Intervene. 21 22 II. Deferral of Consideration of the ProDosed Consent Decree 23 Upon consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties on 24 the jurisdictional issues raised by the court during the August 29, ~5 1990 hearing, and the oral argument thereon, the court finds that 26 it has no jurisdiction to exempt the City from compliance with the 27 secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. 28//// 2 /5-'0 -._- .- . 1 However, because the court wishes to ensure that the proposed 2 Consent Decree. is in the public interest, t.1e court on its own 3 motion will. defer consideration of said Decree until after the 4 court has conducted a hearing on February 5, 1991, so that evidence 5 may be presented as to whether pursuit of a ~ 301(h) waiver by the 6 City is itself in the public interest. The court finds that the 7 waiver, if granted, would significantly affect the proposed Consent 8 Decree and the court's consideration of whether said Decree is 9 truly in the pUblic interest. This limited deferral is ordered by 10 the court pursuant to its equitable authority with respect to the 11 proposed Consent Decree. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 12 1. In order to determine whether a ~ 301(h) waiver would be 13 in the public interest, the court will hear evidence from all 14 parties as to whether the disQharge from the Point Lorna plant is 15 significantly injurious to the marine environment, i.e., whether 16 such discharge causes significant harm to said environment. 17 2. The burden is on the City to prove by a preponderance of 18 the evidence that the Point Lorna discharge is not significantly 19 injurious to the marine environment. If the City proves by a 20 prepond6ra~ce of the evidence that the Point Lorna discharge is not 21 significantly injurious to the marine environment, then the court 22 will defer consideration of the proposed Consent Decree until such 23 time as the City has completed its pursuit of a ~ 301(h) waiver 24 from the Environmental Protection Agency ("E.P.A."). 25 3. Upon such deferral, the City shall have thirty days from 26 the date of the court's decision to reactivate its waiver applica- 27 tion. While the court recognizes that an earlier deadline for such 28 action was contemplated during the November 1, 1990 hearing, the 3 IS -~I . , . 1 court finds that the city should be allowed to present the E.P.A. 2 with a full record of the February 5, 1991 hearing as part of its 3 request for reactivation. 4 4. The court's decision to defer consideration of the 5 consent decree until after the February 5, 1991 hearing, and any 6 subsequent decisions ordering further deferral, are contingent upon 7 the City's continued compliance with those terms of the Proposed 8 Consent Decree unaffected by the Point Loma upgrade. 9 5. The trial of the damages issues in this case shall 10 commence on February 5, 1991, simultaneously with the environmental 11 impact evidence relating to deferral of consideration of the 12 Proposed Consent Decree. Any evidence regarding environmental 13 impact will be received for all purposes. .s>- 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. - 15 DATED: DEC 04, 1991) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -~~'2r~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 /5-(,2- _.n _____.. 3 Copies to: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . I 1 United states. California vs. citv of San Dieao; civil No. 88-ll0l-B(IEG) 2 Order Granting Motion to Intervene and Order Re Limited Deferral of Consideration of-the Proposed Consent Decree GERALD F. GEORGE, Esq. KAREN S. DWORKIN, Esq. Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. -Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 DAVID EISSLER, Esq. Deputy Attorney General 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 JAMES DRAGNA, Esq. Pepper, Hamilton, & Scheetz 444 South Flower Street 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 .. TED BROMFIELD, Esq. 202 C Street, 3rd Floor San Diego, CA 92101 ROBERT SIMMONS, Esq. U.S.D. School of Law P.O. Box 19932 San Diego, CA 92119 WILLIAM M. BENJAMIN, Esq. Benjamin & Sutton The Chamber Building, Suite 2020 110 West C Street San Diego, CA 92101 DAVID L. MULLIKEN, Esq. 701 B street, Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101-8197 5 /5- 143 " -..-- _",UUUL..I..J .. . RECEIVED , ENTERED ? ~ AO 450 (Rev. 5/851 Judgment in a Civil Case e , . 8::C 591) . I ~uit2a ~hd2S, ~i~t:vdEf~~tOL~~{", c:()n'T'~'PI1N DISTRICT OF ,. CALIF0RIHA USA AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO CASE NUMBER: 88-1101 B(IEGJ o Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. GZxRecision by Court. This action came to t~!IIOOearin9 before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a' decision has been rendered. . that the motion to intervene is granted........... IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED ................................7....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... / DECEMBER 6,1990 Date WILLIIAM LUDDY Clerk S.ADKINS ; ~ , (By J Deputy Clerk , /5 ::-~-1- ,. MEMORANDUM December 28, 1990 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Managerfj' John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works 7/f/ SUBJECT: Sewage Issues Facing Chula Vista VIA: FROM: BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista is approaching the time when a decision will have to be made about our future in sewage treatment. Nearly 30 years ago the City decided to not do its own sewage treatment (at the foot of "J" Street) and, instead, contracted with the City of San Diego for treatment. In 1963 Chula Vista purchased 27 million gallons per day (mgld) capacity in the Point Lorna Treatment Plant and ancillary facilities. About that same time the Montgomery Sanitation District was formed to provide sewage service to the Montgomery area and Chula Vista transferred 4 mgld to them since they were in our sphere of influence. Over the years additional capacity was sold because: 1) it was estimated that our original growth projections were too high and we would not use up our capacity by the time the contract was over (2004) and, 2) General Plan modifications lowered ultimate flow requirements on the Bayfront. Our capacity rights dropped to a low of 17 mgld and are now at 19.2 mgld. (2 mgld transferred from Montgomery annexation). For about 25 years, the contract arrangement worked satisfactorily. San Diego owned the system, treated their sewage as well as sewage from the participating agencies, and spread the cost to the users based on flow. At least once a year San Diego sent all the agencies the budget for the new year, held meetings with an Advisory Group (senior staff members of the participating agencies), and billed each agency quarterly. Fifteen years ago the cost to treat 1 mg was approximately $150. It is now around $600, and the new Clean Water Program will increase that amount significantly. The main issues that the participating agencies dealt with were contractual items, mostly dealing with money. For instance, three major issues were: 1. How should the overhead charges be cal ;ulated for Metro Sewer and what should the City of San Diego rightly charge the agencies for administration of the program. 2. What was the true flow through the Point Lorna plant? This was important because our costs were based on flow. Each agency had meters measuring the flows into the Metro System, IS -f45 Honorable Mayor and City Council -2- December 28, 1990 but City of San Diego flows were not measured. Therefore San Diego's share was calculated by the formula: TotaljWw (at Point Lorna) - Total of Participating Agency Flows = City of San DiegojTows This issue took six or seven years to resolve, but resulted in a payment to Chula Vista of nearly $1,000,000. 3. The group is constantly reviewing the costs to determine if they are proper charges based on the categories, maintenance, betterment, or expansion. Chu]a Vista and other original participating agencies are not responsible for expansion costs since we have been paying our share of total plant for years. When the Metro system was constructed in the early 1960's, The Point Lorna plant was not built out to its permitted capacity of 234 mg/d. The major infrastructure of pump stations and trunk lines were sized for ultimate flows, but not the plant. The Agreements provided that San Diego was responsible to provide us capacity at no additional costs to us when we needed it. The agencies were responsible to pay San Diego, when billed, their proportionate share, based on flow, for operation costs. We also paid for capita] costs, on an annual cash basis, for replacements, and betterment. Betterment is for those items that were required to improve the plant's performance as required by governmental agencies, or for other reasons that did not increase the capacity of the plant. San Diego now has to bring the Point Lorna plant up to its original capacity for advanced primary treatment of 234 mg/d. This would be at no additional cost to Chu]a Vista. WAIVER Since the late 1970's, San Diego has been applying for a waiver to the Clean Water Act minimum treatment standards of secondary treatment. The waiver requirements were lengthy and I do not know all the details, but they are based on extensive tests near the ocean outfall, to demonstrate that the ocean environment met the Ocean Plan standards approved by the Water Qua]ity Board. In February 1987, the City Council of San Diego, against the advice of the City Manager, voted to drop the waiver request. This vote was taken without requesting input from the participating agencies. Because secondary treatment is much more expensive than advanced primary, and further, because there is not enough land at Point Lorna to expand the plant for full capacity of 234 mg/d, of secondary treatment, San Diego hired Montgomery Engineers to develop alternatives to bring San Diego region in compliance with the law. The City Council has had several presentations from the City of San Diego and their consultants, on the Recommended Plan. This Plan provides for: IS-II/,tJ Honorable Mayor and City Council -3- December 28, 1990 1. The Point Lorna plant to be upgraded to secondary treatment by the year 2003. This plant, however, will only treat 150 mg/d, not 234; 2. A large South Bay Secondary plant and a Water Reclamation plant (70 mg/d) near the Border and an Ocean Outfall to be shared with the proposed Border Commission Outfall; 3. A Water Reclamation plant in the Otay Valley to handle flows that gravity past there; and 4. Other Water Reclamation plants scattered throughout the region. It is anticipated that the region will reclaim about 120 mg/d of water for use on irrigation of open areas. DUDEK STUDY Chula Vista hired Dudek and Associates to do a study which would look at several issues: 1. Evaluate alternatives for Chula Vista including: · Go 100 percent on our own for treatment · Existing capacity with San Diego, (19.2 mgd) Chula Vista owned plant for expanded flows (15mgd) · Stay with San Diego (or SAD) for entire flow. 2. Evaluate water reclamation feasibility. 3. Cost estimate on three alternatives (#1). An Executive Summary of the Study is attached. If you would like a copy of the entire report please notify staff. Frank Dudek, President of the firm, will be at the Council meeting on January 8 to answer any questions. The Dudek report states that water reclamation is feasible, i.e., there are adequate markets in the area to use reclaimed water. The report also states that from a Capital Cost standpoint, we could build our own sewage treatment system at a lower cost than having San Diego do it for us. However, when considering the annual cost of operating the plant, it would about equal the costs of staying with San Diego. This may be because we would have to treat our sewage to Reclamation Standards (Title 22) which is more expensive than even secondary treatment. If Point Lorna is allowed to remain at advanced primary, then it could be decidedly less expensive to stay with San Diego, or the New Special Act District. 15- ~:r Honorable Mayor and City Council -4- December 28, 1990 SPECIAL ACT DISTRICT (SAD) (GAG) As part of the participation process that the City of San Diego went through, a consultant, Touche Ross, was selected to make recommendations on organizational and ownership issues. An Oversight Committee was formed to assist the consultant. John Goss was one of the members on the Committee as well as Jim Bowersox, City Manager of Poway; Granville Bowman, County Public Works Director; John Pizza to, Public Works Director, EI Cajon; and Roger Frauenfelder, Deputy City Manager of San Diego. The consultant looked at several alternatives including: 1. Modified Contractual Arrangement 2. County Sanitation District 3. Joint Powers Authority 4. Special Act District (SAD). The Special Act District was recommended because it was the most flexible, but yet could have all the bonding advantages of a County Sanitation District. In April 1990, the Governmental Advisory Group (GAG) was formed to address the issues of organization, ownership and representation. This group was comprised of an elected representative from the City of San Diego and from each participating agency. They have met several times over the last eight months and have decided on a voting structure, type of organization (SAD), composition of membership, use of weighted voting, and now they are in the process of approving a legislative package to be introduced in Sacramento, to form the District. The advisors to the Group have included the Project Manager from Touche Ross, and a representative from the City's Financial Advisor. The latter was requested to advise the Group on the financial impacts of their decisions. A copy of the draft legislative package is enclosed (see Item #3) for your review as well as a table (see Item #5) prepared by staff, illustrating the difference between a SAD and the existing contractual arrangements with the City of San Diego. A primary goal of the Organization and Ownership study, was to give the participating agencies more of a say in the decision-making process. The SAD will not be an entity of the City of San Diego. Another change is the relationship between the ratepayer >-member agency >-treatment agency. Under existing arrangements the ratepayer in Chula Vista would take a grievance to the City Council of Chula Vista, who would then deal with the City of San Diego. Under the new arrangement, the SAD will have its own Governing Board and be able to deal with the ratepayer directly. IS - 6J g Honorable Mayor and City Council -5- December 28, 1990 Annual costs are now charged by San Diego to the member agency who then considers these costs in setting sewer rates. It has not been decided yet how the billing will be accomplished, i.e., directly from SAD to ratepayer, or from SAD to agency to ratepayer. FURTHER ITEMS 1. Judge Brewster, on November 5, 1990, gave the City of San Diego another chance to review the requirement to convert Point Lorna, to secondary treatment. A date has been set for February 5, 1991, to hear this item. If it is decided to re-seek the waiver, this could have substantial impacts on the costs to Chula Vista for our present 19.2 mgd capacity. 2. The Public Works Directors and/or senior staff members from the participating agencies have been meeting monthly to look at the upgrade costs. There has already been tentative agreement by San Diego staff that the cost originally proposed for existing users should be lowered by about 30 percent. 3. In order for Chula Vista to be able to make a decision on whether we should stay with a regional system, we need to know what our costs will be. Because of the uncertainty of the Court, the rights we have for Metro I, and how a SAD will distribute the costs, Chula Vista will not be in an informed position for several months. [JPL3\SEW AGE.MEMJ 1.5 - ~ 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Prepared For: Mr. John Lippitt Director of Public Works City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Prepared By: Dudek & Associates, Inc. 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 January 1991 /s-:r{) Executive Summary This report Is organized to Investigate the feasibility of the options the City of Chu!a Vista for wastewater collection, treatment, disposal, and reuse. Chapters 1 through 4 discuss existing and future settings within the City of Chula Vista's planning areas and existing and future interactions with the City and the Metropolitan Sewerage system. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss reclaimed water markets and alternative distribution systems. Chapter 9, 10, 11, and 12 discuss the recommended alternative and actions for the City of Chula Vista to make. The Appendices A through J are primarily regulatory documents the City needs to consider when making a decision. METRO's financial estimates to upgrade the METRO system by 2005 were used to compare alternatives. Chapter 1: Introduction This study was prepared to investigate and evaluate for the City of Chula Vista all reasonable options for wastewater collection, treatment, disposal and reuse. The City of Chula Vista is a member of the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System (METRO) and has a strong Interest in treating its sewage and using the treated effluent to meet the region's non-potable water needs. The preparation of this study was authorized by the City of Chula Vista by a contract signed September 15, 1989. This study was funded by the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego County Water Authority. Chapter 2: Existing Selting The study area is identified and described in this report as the area designated by the City of Chuia Vista's General Plan as the City's ultimate service area. The study area is shown on Figure 2-1. The estimated population as of 1988 was 139,400 within the study area. Figures 2-2 thru 2-6 depict the service areas of the water and sewer agencies within the study area as well as depicting the water distribution within the study area and the sewer collection system. As a member of METRO, the City of Chula Vista contributes an average 11.8 MGD of wastewater to the Point Lama Wastewater Treatment Plant. Chapter 3: Future Selting The ultimate build-out year of the study area is 2050. Population projections for the year 2005 indicate that the population would be approximately 209,400. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 depict future water and wastewater systems within the study area. As the population increases, the need for more water and increased sewer capacity increases. The City of Chula Vista is projected to have an increased wastewater flow of approximately 34.8 MGD at the build-out year 2050. Chapter 4: Metropolitan Sewerage System Planning In 1961 the City of Chula Vista entered into the initial agreement with the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System (METRO) to provide facilities for transmission, treatment, and disposal of 26.2 MGD of wastewater. The agreement was amended seven times. Currentiy, the City of Chula Vista has capacity rights for 19.2 MGD. As part of the agreement with METRO, Chula Vista must pay an annual service charge and O&M expenses based on the pro rata share of the capacity of wastewater in METRO attributed to Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista pays operating charges based on flow and capacity charges based on capacity. New construction, additional capacity, exceeding permitted flows, reclamation, use of digested sludge, and capacity exchanges with participating agencies are also parts of the agreement with METRO that affect Chula Vista's payments and use of METRO. /5"-1-/ S-1 Table 1 1961 METRO System Ownership Participating Agency Flow (MGD) Percentage of Total Flow City of Chula Vista City of Coronado City of EI Cajon City of Imperial Beach City of La Mesa City of National City City of Poway City of Del Mar Lemon Grove Sanitation District Lakeside/Alpine Sanitation District Spring Valley Santtation District Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance Padre Dam Municipal Water District 19.2 3.0 10.0 3.5 6.3 8.3 5.0 0.8 2.8 3.68 9.7 1.0 6.18 8.2% 1.3 4.3 1.5 2.7 3.5 2.1 0.3 1.2 1.6 4.1 0.4 2.6 Total Member Agencies 80.66 34.4% City of San Diego 153.46 65.6 Total Capacity 234.12 100.0% Figure 4-2 is a conceptual layout of Alternative IV, the recommended Alternative from the CWP, to improving and upgrading the METRO System to secondary treatment. This includes water reclamation. Alternative IV recommends a South Bay 75 to 125 MGD secondary treatment plant, a 70 MGD reclamation facility, and a 12 MGD reclamation facility in Otay Valley. Figure 4-3 shows these recommended reclamation facility sttes in relation to the City of Chula Vista. Chapter 5: Wastewater Treatment Criteria and Methods Flow Summarv The 1989 existing average daily flow (ADF) for Chula Vista is approximately 13.0 MGD. The 13.0 MGD of flow includes flows from Chula Vista into the Spring Valley Trunk Sewer. The total projected ultimate average daily flow for Chula Vista area in the year 2050 is 34.8 MGD. The breakdown of the ADF from Chula Vista and the City of San Diego are summarized on Table 5-1 and shown on Figure 5-1. The total ADF from Chula Vista and City of San Diego of 40.2 MGD was used to size the treatment facilities. The treatment level required for municipal wastewater can be either primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment. The treatment level required is dependent on the influent removal percentage required of BOD and suspended solids, nutrients, disposal method, and whether or not the effluent will be used as reclaimed water and what type of reuse. In aJllevels of treatment, the impurities removed from the wastewater (sludge) need to be treated and disposed of as well. IS -~:{ S-2 Table 2 Study Area Wastewater Flows Average Daily Flow Basin or Subbasin (MGD) Drainage Area Concentration Point 1989 2050 CHULA VISTA AREA FLOWS Bay Front Basin 1 4 1.031 "G" Street Basin 2 2.67 2.001 Telegraph Canyon Basin 3 4.37 6.541 Sweetwater Basin 4 2.1 ' 7.681 Date/Faivre Basin 5 12.73 Main Street South Subbasin 5a 4 (1.68) 1 Poggi Canyon Subbasin 5b 4 (2.60) 1 Salt Creek Subbasin 5c 4 (2.94) 1 Olay River Subbasin 5d 4 (1.89) 2 Wolf Canyon Subbasin 5e 4 (2.65) 2 Olay River South Subbasin 5f 4 (2.17) 2 Main Street Basin 6 4.06.7 3.611 Subtotal (rounded) 13.0 34.8 CITY OF SAN DIEGO FLOWS Otay Valley Basin 7 4 5.41 Prisons Subbasin 7a 1.0 (2.08) 3 Olay Mesa Subbasin 7b 4 (0.57) 3 Olay Valley Subbasin 7c 4 (2.76) 3 Subtotai (rounded) 1.0 5.4 Total Flows 40.2 1 Data obtained from .Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan-, Engineering Science, 1989. Maximum Density Data was used. 2 Data obtained from -Otay Ranch Master Plan of Water and Sewage-, Wilson Engineering, October, 1989. 3 Data obtained from Rick Engineering "OIay Mesa Mester Plan Report". In FY 1994. sewer connecting North and South OIay Mesa Basin will be abandoned, as shown on Rgure 5-1. 4 Data not available. 5 See Figure 5-1 for location of concentration points. 6 Includes existing flows from areas tributary to METRO at Main Street 7 From 1990 ADS flow metering Failsafe Effluent DisDosal There are three discharge alternatives: ocean discharge. surface water discharge. and reclamation reuse. Ocean discharge alternatives considered for this study are either nearshore (1 mile outfall) or offshore (5 . mile outfall). Ocean discharges must meet regulatory requirements of the current Ocean Plan. Offshore discharge Is assumed to require secondary treatment while nearshore discharge is assumed to require secondary treatment plus advanced wastewater treatment. 15 - r..3 S-3 Surface water and groundwater discharge is regulated by the Basin Plan that has established specific numerical water quality objectives for both ground and surface waters. The Basin Plan is a document prepard and implemented by the Regional Board as a guideline for water quality control. Effluent from a treatment facility cannot degrade water quality or designated beneficial uses. Under consideration for surface water discharge for this study Is live stream discharge. Groundwater discharge would be irrigation w~h reclaimed water. Both of these disposal options would require advanced wastewater treatment as dictated by regulatory policies. Wastewater Treatment Levels There are three treatment levels Identified for the facilities based on offshore ocean discharge, nearshore ocean discharge, or onshore stream discharge. The offshore ocean discharge requires conventional secondary treatment. The process sequence diagram for this is shown on Figure 5-2. The nearshore ocean discharge requires Title 22 tertiary treatment for non-restricted use. The process sequence diagram is shown on Figure 5-3. The onshore stream discharge is a biological nutrient removal water reclamation facility. The process sequence diagram is shown on Figure 5-4. Chapter 6: Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives The treatment facility capacity was based on projected wastewater fiows of 40 MGD total from the City of Chula Vista (34 MGD) and the City of San Diego (6 MGD). Of the 40 MGD, 25 MGD will be from areas west of 1-805 and areas east of 1-805 that are tributary to existing sewers. Approximately 15 MGD will be generated by Otay Mesa and the planning area known as the eastern territories. Sizing for a 15 MGD, 25 MGD, and 40 MGD treatment facilities were considered. The treatment facility sites considered were coastal locations in Imperial Beach and Chula Vista for a 25 MGD facility and a site in Otay Mesa for the 15 and 40 MGD facil~y. There were five alternatives identified in this study. Four of the five alternatives were developed such that Chula Vista could treat its sewage independently of METRO or that participation would be minimal. The fifth alternative is a no project alternative. Figures 6-1 through 6-4 show the alternatives. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 show capital and annual O&M costs for Alternatives I through IV. The lowest cap~al and annual costs are summarized here in Table 3. All of the Alternatives have on-site sludge handling and disposal of the siudge to a regional iandfill facility. Capital costs range from $70,900,000 to $227,500,000 for the various plant sizes, treatment alternatives and effluent disposal. O&M annual costs range from $17,800,000 to $47,900,000 for Alternatives I through IV. Table 3 Capital Costs Annual Costs Alternative I-C 25 MGD WPCF and 15 MGD WRF Alternative II-C 25 MGD WPCF and 15 MGD WRF Alternative III-C 40 MGD WPCF Alternative IV-C 15 MGD WRF only Alternative V - No Project $199,700,000 $198,600,000 $186,400,000 $70,900,000 $0 $46,300,000 $46,200,000 $45,100,000 $17,900,000 $260,000,000 Alternative I: Alternative I has a 25 MGD WPCF near the coast in Chula Vista and a 15 MGD WRF in Otay Mesa. The 25 MGD would be a conventional secondary with Title 22. The 15 MGD WRF could be either secondary w~h Title 22 or secondary w~h both Title 22 and nutrient removal. 15 -~'I $-4 Alternative II: Alternative II consists of a 25 MGD WPCF located in Imperial Beach near the coast and a 15 MGD WRF in Otay Valley. The treatment alternatives are the same as for Alternative I. Alternative III: Alternative 111 consists of a 40 MGD treatment facility in Otay Mesa with the same treatment alternatives as Alternatives I and II. Alternative IV: Alternative IV consists of a 40 MGD facility in Otay Mesa with the same treatment alternatives as Alternatives I, II, and III. Alternative I: Alternative V is the no project alternative. Chapter 7: Reclaimed Water Distribution Criteria Chapter 7 identifies planning and design criteria for a water reclamation distribution system. Reclaimed water markets were identified in an area that included the City of Chula Vista, its planning areas, and east Otay Mesa. The specific markets identified in this area are shown on Figure 7-1 and tabulated on Table 7- 1. This information is summarized here as Table 4. The majority of the markets would use reclaimed water for irrigation of landscaping and crops. Some other reclaimed water uses by identified markets are commercial/industrial, stream and estuary enhancement, and groundwater recharge. The total average day use is 20.23 MGD and the peak day use is 38.83 MGD. The use of reclaimed water is reguiated by the California Water Code, State Department of Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Basin Plan. The study area for this report is within HSU 9.12,9.11, and 10.20 as designated by the Basin Plan. These HSUs are shown on Figure 7-2. Reclaimed water quality for classes of reclaimed water use are developed. Since the majority of use is iandscape irrigation, the criteria for this is outlined in Section 7.4. Salinity, Boron, Chloride, and permeability are all factors that plants are sensitive too and need to be factored in when considering treatment options. Raw wastewater quality from various tributary sewers to the potential water reclamation facilities indicated that 6 of the 8 samplings were suitable wastewater sources for reclaimed water. Tributary protection measures are recommended to control wastewater quality in areas tributary to the potential water reclamation facilities. Some of these measures are inflow and infiltration protection, industrial waste reguiation, regulation of self re-generating water softeners, retrofit, and coordinated discharge operation. Distribution of reclaimed water is dependent on the demand variation. Since the majority of the identified reclaimed water markets are irrigation use markets. The water demands vary seasonally as well as diurnally and the irrigation period is assumed to be 8 to 10 hours. Seasonal storage for the identified markets Is needed to match the seasonal demand. Reclaimed water would also be delivered to the market areas at pressures equal to potable water pressure (typically 40 to 75 psi). Pumping would be at a constant rate over 24 hours. 15-:r5 S-5 Table 4 Average Peak Day Irrigable Annual Use Use Acres (AF jYR) . (MGD) Potential Reclaimed Water Markets 161 Markets identified on Figure 7-1 6,408 15,687 34.6 Markets not identified on Figure 7-1 2,432 364 4.3 Total 8,840 16,051 38.9 Potential Reclaimed Water Markets bv Group Group 1: EastLake 512 1,259 2,4 Group 2: Otay Ranch 831 2,035 3.9 Group 3: Otay Mesa East 2,027 5,068 9.6 Group 4: Chula Vista North West 179 437 0.9 Group 5: Chula Vista North Central 266 658 1.2 Group 6: Chula Vista North East 892 2,082 3.9 Group 7: Chula Vista South West 71 163 0.3 Group 8: Chula Vista South Central 188 470 0.9 Group 9: Chula Vista South East 236 567 1.1 Group 10: Otay Mesa West 1,205 2,949 10,4 Total 6,408 15,687 34.6 Chapter 8: Reclaimed Water Distribution Alternatives In this chapter, distribution alternatives are presented for each of the four alternatives outlined in Chapter 6. The reclaimed water markets identified in Chapter 7 were split up into 10 group areas. These groups are shown and identified on Figure 8-1. Figures 8-2 through 8-5 illustrate the different distribution Alternatives I through IV. Alternative I: Alternative I reclaimed water sources are a 25 MGD WPCF located near San Diego Bay and a 15 MGD WRF in Otay Valley. Alternative I serves Market Groups 1 through 10 with an average reclaimed water demand of 9.2 MGD. Total capital cost for facilities that include pump stations, reservoirs, and pipelines is $55,578,000. Annual O&M Costs are $1,150,000. Alternative II: Alternative II reclaimed water sources are a 25 MGD WPCF near the coast in Imperial Beach and a 15 MGD WRF. in Otay Valley. Alternative II serves Groups 1 through 10. Total capital cost is $55,251,400 and annual O&M cost is $1,150,000. J5-T(" S-6 Alternative III: Alternative III has as a reclaimed water source the 40 MGD WRF in Otay Valley. Alternative III serves all 10 market groups. The capital costs for the distribution system Is $48.825,500. Annual O&M cost Is $1,035,000. Alternative IV: Alternative IV has as a reclaimed water source a 15 MGD WRF in Otay Valley. Alternative IV serves groups 1, 2, and 3. Capnal costs for the distribution system are $21,671,600. Annual O&M costs are $442,000. Chapter 9: Organization and Ownership Alternatives Chapter 9 discusses METRO's current future organizational structure as well as Chula Vista's ownership options within the METRO System. . Touche Ross Management and Organization Study Recommendations The Touche Ross Management and Organization Study, done in April, 1989 under direction of the Joint Oversight Committee to compare aiternative ownership and organizational structures for METRO in the future and to address locai policy objectives for additional system capacity and water reclamation. The study recommends full member agency participation, a METRO organizational structure that facilitates member agency participation, and greater involvement of member agencies in METRO decisions. The study also recommended representation, shared authority, and a voting structure for member agencies. Currently, member agencies are restricted to an advisory role. The study recommends several options for future ownership of METRO that involve part ownership of METRO by member agencies. The City of Chula Vista has severai options. The City of Chula Vista may opt to construct, operate and maintain future wastewater treatment and disposal facilities within its boundaries. This gives the City the most control of wastewater collection within its sphere of influence. Or, Chula Vista may opt to contract the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities to another agency, or privatize it. Chula Vista may also want to coordinate with future METRO planning and ultimately become part of METRO. Another consideration for Chula Vista may be a joint powers agreement with other agencies. Water reclamation distribution facilities ownership and operation should be separate from wastewater treatment and disposal facilities innially. Chapter 10: Recommended Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Program 10.1 GENERAL The purpose of this chapter is to present a recommended wastewater treatment and reclamation program for the cny of Chula Vista. The alternatives and cost estimates developed in previous chapters are used to compare the options available to the City. These options include: . The City constructing its own wastewater treatment and water reclamation facilities and being independent of METRO. . Continued full participation in METRO, or . A combination of City treatment facilities and some continued participation in METRO. Table 10-1 shows Chula Vista's current and estimated ultimate (year 2050) treatment capacity relative to the total METRO flows. While the City's current contract capacity is 8.2 percent of METRO, the City's S-7 /5- T~ ultimate capacity of 34.8 MGD will be over 10 percent of METRO, making the City the largest single member of METRO outside the City of San Diego. Chapters 1 through 9 of this report address the wastewater treatment and reclamation alternatives which could allow the City of Chula Vista to construct its own wastewater treatment and water reclamation facilities. Based strictly on cost, without considering the social, political, siting, scheduling, phasing, and financial issues, the recommended alternative is a single combined Title 22 wastewater treatment/water reclamation facility in Otay Valley with a short ocean outfall. Table 10-2 shows the capital cost estimates for the three options listed above. The costs are divided into two phases: Phase I is for 19.2 MGD, which is the current contracted capacity with METRO, and is compared to the "upgrade" portion of the CWP cost estimate; Phase II is for 15.6 MGD, which is the additional capac~y required by the City of Chula Vista to meet its ultimate year 2050 flow of 34.8 MGD, and is compared to the "expansion" portion of the CWP cost estimate. The costs and required treatment capacity for the alternatives shown in this chapter are different from those used in other sections of this study. As the study progressed and the cost estimates for the new CWP facilities were continuously updated, it became clear that the costs as presented in Chapter 6 could not be compared directly with the available CWP costs. Chapter 6 was prepared before detailed CWP costs were made available to Chula Vista. The costs shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 can not be compared directly with the latest CWP costs because different facilities are included, different contingencies are used, different levels of treatment are presented, and different methods for caiculating the annuai costs are used. The costs shown in Table 10-2 and Table 10-3 are from the Project Reports for Modifications to the Metropolitan Sewerage System, May 1990. The total ultimate flow of 34.8 MGD is for the City of Chula Vista and its sphere of infiuence only; it does not include flows from Otay Mesa and Otay Valley which rnay be tributary to a proposed treatment facility in Otay Valley. The additional 5.4 MGD from County and City of San Diego areas was not included to avoid potential conflict and overlap with other studies, and to present only Chula Vista's potential cost. The costs shown for Chula Vista constructing its own facilities are based on the cost estimates presented in Chapter 6, but are adjusted for the different capacities. The METRO costs are Chula Vista's pro rata share of the costs in the May 1990 Project Reports. 10.2 RECOMMENDED APPROACH The direction that Chula Vista takes for the future treatment of its wastewater is dependent to a great ex1ent on the cost of the proposed new Chula Vista facilities compared to the cost of continued participation in METRO. Chula Vista has three basic options for treatment of its existing and future wastewater: 1) fully participate in the program now proposed in the CWP, 2) construct and operate new treatment and disposal facilities and be mostly independent of METRO, and 3) participate in METRO to some degree, such as for a portion of the treatment and disposal needed up to existing flows, or for sludge disposal, and construct and operate new treatment and disposal facilities for future capacity. 1. Particioate in METRO. Chula Vista will continue as they have in the past, with full participation in METRO. Chula Vista will pay its share of costs, based primarily on its 19.2 MGD contracted capacity with METRO, and pay its share of the expansion cost for the increase from 19.2 MGD to the ultimate 2050 capacity of 34.8 MGD. The CWP share of the cost for Chula Vista's existing 19.2 MGD of METRO capacity is about $151.7 million (about $7.90 per gallon). Chula Vista's share of the Expanded METRO treatment facilities are $79.0 million, or about $5.06 per gallon of capacity, which seems low compared to the quoted betterment and upgrade costs above. Chula Vista's pro rata share of the total CWP cost is approximately $230.7 million, or $6.63 per gallon. 2. Mostlv IndeDendent from METRO. Chula Vista will construct a new Title 22 wastewater treatment facility with an ultimate capacity of 34.8 MGD to 40 MGD (depending on whether Otay Mesa flows S-8 J ~ - r i are included) with a short ocean outfal/ for excess effluent disposal. The 34.8 MGD facility is estimated to cost about $173 mill/on to construct, or $4.97 per gal/on. The cost includes the collection system, pumping stations, treatment plant, land Outfal/, short ocean outfall, and sludge processing facilities. Sludge disposal will be at the proposed regional Otay Mesa facility, and will require payment of fees to METRO. 3. ta in METRO for th 1 .2 MGD ontract ca c but onstruct new 1 .6 MGD WP F for reauired eXDansion. Chula Vista wil/ participate in the METRO Upgrade and Betterment costs based on their existing 19.2 MGD contract capacity. But, instead of participating in the METRO expansion plans, Chula Vista will construct its own 15.6 MGD WPCF to reach the required ultimate 2050 capacity of 34.8 MGD. Although the capital costs shown in Table 10-2 indicate that the option of Chula Vista constructing its own treatment facilities is less costly than the City's pro rata share of the CWP costs by about 25 percent, when the annual costs are considered. all three options are almost equal in cost. Table 10-3 shows the estimated total annual costs varying by only 7 percent from the least costly option of staying with METRO ($39.1 million), to the most costly option of partial participation in METRO ($41.8 million). This is well within the range of accuracy of the cost estimates, and the costs can be considered equal. Therefore, no conclusion or recommendation can be made based strictly on the costs presented. The costs used here for METRO participation are incomplete and unverified, and could change as more detailed costs and back up information is made available. It is still unclear at this time how much of the METRO cost is for improvements needed to meet the EPA requirements for secondary treatment upgrades, and how much is for other facilities not directly related to upgrading the treatment to secondary. Discussions with METRO could result in costs to the City of Chula Vista which are lower than the METRO costs presented here. Thus, it is recommended that Chula Vista staff continue to diligently analyze METRO costs and negotiate with CWP staff and City of San Diego officials. Prior to making a decision on the best treatment alternative, the City of Chula Vista should prepare a site-specific plan which presents a detailed cost estimate of the selected independent alternative. This Phase 1/ Study will compare the resulting economic and financial costs and potential benefits to the costs of continued participation in METRO. The Phase 1/ Study should cover the following items: Additional Information or Analyses . Identify new options, such as participation in new IBWC/METRO ocean outfall. . Define selected project in more site-specific detail. . Prepare a detailed capital and O&M cost estimate for selected option. . Prepare detailed economic and financial analyses compatible with CWP methodology. . Identify latest CWP cost allocation methods. . Participation in regional solids handling and disposal faciiities. Issues to be Addressed . Environmental Constraints . Political Issues . Financing Options 5-9 /5 - '=1-9 . Regional Sewer District or Regional Facility . Non-Quantifiable Benefits . Phasing or Timing Issues 10.3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE As discussed in Chapter 9, the Clean Water Program Governance Advisory Group (CWPGAG) has recently been formed by the City of San Diego and the METRO member agencies. CWPGAG voted in March 1989 to proceed with the formation of a State Special Act District to deal with the METRO governance, management, and organization. Until Chula Vista's negotiations with San Diego progress further, and until the details of the proposed Special Act District are further discussed, analyzed and understood by all parties, no clear recommendation for project organizational Structure can be made. It is advised that Chula Vista staff and its consultants continue to monitor the progress made by CWPGAG, as well as meet with neighboring agencies to discuss possible future relationships for the treatment and disposal of sewage and the distribution of reclaimed water. Should Chula Vista decide to proceed independently of the proposed METRO II organizational structure, the information provided in Chapter 9, coupled with research of other agencies' goals and needs, can be used to decide what organizational structure is most feasible for Chula Vista. An option that has become more interesting recently is a South Bay Act District which would be made up of Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, County of San Diego and perhaps the Otay Water District and City of San Diego. This type of agency structure would provide several advantages to Chula Vista including more control of future sewerage capacity in the City; sharing of cost with neighboring agencies and a pooled bonding capacity; opportunities to build or contract regional facilities for solids handling, effluent disposal, and reclamation; and contract operations and maintenance with a member agency that wishes to provide such services. Table 10-1 Estimated Flows from METRO Contracted Ultimate 1990 Average Capacity Capacity (2050) Flow MGD % MGD % MGD % Chula Vista 19.2 1 8.2 34.8 2 10.2 13.0 2 6.2 METRO Total 233.9 1 100.0 340.0 3 100.0 190.03 100.0 Sources: 1 Sewage DisposaJ Agreement of 1960 2 Total metered flow for City of Chula Vista portion of flow from Chula Vista that is in the Spring Valley Trunk Sewer, per City of Chula Vista Depl. of Engineering 1/3/91. 3 Table 3-4, Framework Plan Report for MOdifications to the Metropolitan Sewerage System, Volume 1, Clean Water Program, July 1989. S-10 15- gO Table 10-2 Construction Costs ($1000) Phase I (Upgrade) (19.2 MGD) Phase II (Expansion) (15.6 MGD) Total (34.8 MGD) METRO Costs for Chula Vista Only' $151,700; $7.90/gal. 6 $79,000; $5.06/gal. 6 $230,700; $6.63/gal. Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Reclamation Feasibility Study 2 $95,500; $4.97/gal. $77,600; $4.97/gal. $173,100; $4.97/gal. METRO Total' $1,847,900; $7.90/gal. ',6 $536,700; $5.06/gal. 4,6 $2,384,600; $7.01/gal.' '990 ENR CCI = 6,000 Includes reclamation projects costs; Source: Project Reports for Modifications to the Metropolitan Sewerage System. May 1990, Table 6-3. 2 Includes full Title 22 Treatment for non.restricted use tor water reclamation; costs based on estimates in Chapter 6. Table 6-1. 3 Upgrade and betterment for 233,9 MGD. 4 For expansion of 106 MGD from 233.9 MGD to 340 MGD. 5 Total 2050 capacity of 340 MGD. 6 Based on recent discussions between the METRO agencies and the CWP staft, the upgrade costs may decrease and the expansion costs may increase in the future. $-11 /5 -~I M , o - .. :c ~ en c:: o :;: 0. o c:: .2_ -0 "'0 0.0 "u .,.: 0- <It '!:~ '" c.. o c:: I- W :;: catV!!! _0::> .. c:: 0 I-.:iu en .. c;:fi ca:1~ 'Ocm I-C::.c:: <(U ~ '" .c:: U 0; ::> c:: c:: <( " .. N- == 0 ..- " .. c:: 0 c::U <( c:: o U 'ii21n --0 ~~U o U -: 0 g en c:= :;:!l..... [ en LLJ._ '" 0:;: (.) "3U...:e .c:: 0", U -c.. en -", U; :::g >~~15 co 0 ... 'u "SUo", .c:: -u. U o 1'2 0;; ~ o 1'2 M - .,. . :;: ~ o o o "" M o o o o Iii N .,. M N o o "" o CO) N .,. M N o o "" o CO) N .,. o .,. c:: o :;: 0. o > o-'E a: II! t;:;g. :;:u .c::0 .~ (9 ;;:2 >co II! . -..,. WCO) o o '"' ci ~ o g o N .,. ~ o o '"' o N .,. o o "" 0;; o M N o o - M "" - .,. o .,. N o o CO) "" - .,. u. o "- 3: o ""<9 EO~ Q)a:"" -gt;:;CI:! Q)~ ..,. Q. "" CO) Q) E ;; "OQ) E.::z N o ~ - ..,. .,. o o co cD - .,. ~ .. o o co cD o o o co ..,.- N .,. o o CO) ci N N .,. N o o "" ~ o N o o '"' r-: "" .,. ;; Q) 15= >0 ......":::!. :J .E~~.~ o g.g'U r::~~~ wQ)oo :2u<9<9 .f: ~ ~::2: >-EC\JID co 0 . . (;500')1,{) M 8-12 /5 -8';), ~ ~. ~ ~ " .5 ~ ~ M ~ B .5 >- M E J'J o g JI c o 'in c M e. x ~ ~ " "C C M ~ o M ~ B ~ "C >- M E J'J o o " ~ "C M C, e. o ~ '" -_1: ",0 Me. 1;;,j> ~13 lJ.~ ~ e ",,,- ;;"- c;; MlJ o _ ~M "0 Lb :5~ 0>.0 M M 01- a: a: ~~ ~D "'C:> ~::;; ~"'''' ~- <b 1;oQ) ~-- .c0.c (I)(Q <<I cgl- .Q E 0::;; 0 ~ 00';: "00 !<* :6c2 OU')C\I_OO cD~6~~~ ntO.....~~o/S _41.....00 [)<<IDC c: O~~O$O CI:~ ~E11 Z >oE (/J'- (II ~~~~;yjci3 ...........N(")'\:tll) '" '" o o " "- a: lJ Chapter 11: Interagency Coordination Chapter 11 summarizes input from local wastewater agencies, water agencies, regulatory agencies, and major developers within Chula Vista's planning areas regarding Chula Vista's involvement in wastewater and water reclamation. METRO would prefer to own and operate the proposed wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities. The County is interested in operating and selling the Otay Valley WRF effluent to a water purveyor. The San Diego County Water Authority does not want to own or operate any regional water reclamation facilities, but would like to participate in planning. The OWD would like to see an additional WRF in the upper Salt Creek for areas that are to be developed Northeast of the study area. OWD would like to be responsible for distribution and operation of reclaimed water within its boundary. The Sweetwater Authority would also like to be responsible for distribution of reciaimed water within its jurisdiction, but not for operation and maintenance. Eastlake would like the source of reclaimed water to be reliable and the Baldwin Company is concerned that the treatment capacity and the system be available when they need it. The Regional Board feels that Basin Planning Is not a problem for the Chula Vista area for water reclamation projects. The Regional Board also feels that new outfalls in the South Bay are not a realistic option. Instead, the Regional Board encourages the use of the proposed iBWC outfall as a failsafe. The Department of Health Services would like to see a hard connection to METRO as a failsafe. They would support live stream discharge for the WRF if management plans for mosquito controi were done as well as a detailed study of the impact on the riparian habitat the WRF would affect. Chapter 12: Implementation Chapter 12 discusses implementation of the planning discussed in this report. The planning is directly dependent on the results of negotiations between Chula Vista and the City of San Diego. Before the projects can be started wastewater treatment, live-stream discharge and reclaimed water use permits need to be obtained. A water reclamation ordinance needs to be obtained and adopted to protect the proposed reclaimed water supply in the area and to provide an agency with a mechanism to reasonably require the use of reclaimed water. Legal requirements and environmental issues need to be considered. Of special concern are live-stream discharge into the San Diego Bay. Effluent water quality needs to comply with Title 22 requirements and NPDES permits need to be issued for surface water discharges. Coordination for vector control needs to be arranged. The implementation schedule in Table 12-1 identifies an appropriate time line for environmentai, financing, reclaimed water, and design and construction issues to complete the proj ect. S-13 15-83 239-01 UST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADWF AF AFfYR APCD AWWF B Basin Plan BOD BODs C oC CALTRANS CCP CEQA CF cfs City CI CML&C County DHS DIP DO DWR EDU(s) EIR EPA OF Fe ft. gpd gpm hr. HSA HSU IRWD IWCD JPA kWh LAFCO Luke-Dudek LVMWD MCRT METRO Average Dry Weather Flow acre-foot (acre-feet) acre-feet per year Air Pollution Control District Average Wet Weather Flow Boron Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan Report. San Diego Region biochemical oxygen demand 5-day BOD Hazon William Friction Coefficient degrees Centigrade California Department of Transportation concrete cylinder pipe California Environmental Quality Act cubic feet cubic feet per second City of Chula Vista Chloride cement mortar lined and coated San Diego County California Department of Health Services ductile iron pipe dissolved oxygen Calnornia Department of Water Resources equivalent dwelling unit(s) environmental impact report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency degrees Farenheit Iron foot gallons per day gallons per minute hour hydrographic subarea hydrographic subunit Irvine Ranch Water District Industrial Water Control Division. City of San Diego Joint Power Authority kilowatt-hour Local Agency Formation Committee Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers. Inc. Los Virgenes Municipal Water District Mean cell residence time San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System x 15 -fl/ 09/19/90 239-Q1 MG MGD mg/I ml Mn MPN MSTF MWD N Na NMFS No. N03 N03-N N:P NPC NPDES NTU O&M OWD P PDWF pH Porter-Cologne Act ppt Program Manager psi PWWF PVC Regional Board SANDAG SAR SBID SDCHD SCWD SDCWA SDLAC SDRB SMWD S04 State Board Study TCSD 09/19/90 LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued) million gallons million gallons per day milligrams per I~er millil~er Manganese Most Probable Number Metropolitan Sewer Task Force Metropol~n Water District of Southern Calnornia n~rogen Sodium National Marine Fisheries Service Number n~rate nitrate nitrogen Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio Non-profIT Corporation National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nephelometric Turbidity Un~ operation and maintenance Otay Water District phosphorous Peak dry weather flow degree of acid~ or alkalin~ Porter-Cologne Water Qual~ Act parts per thousand C~ of San Diego Clean Water Program Manager - James M. Montgomery pounds per square inch Peak wet weather flow Polyvinyl chloride California Regional Water Qual~y Control Board - San Diego Region San Diego Association of Governments sodium absorption ratio South Bay Irrigation District San Diego County Department of Health Services South Coast Water District San Diego County Water Author~ San~ation Districts of Los Angeles County San Diego River Basin Santa Margar~ Water District Sulfate Calnornia State Water Resources Control Board Management & Organization Study Triunfo County San~tion District xi /5-8'5 239-{)1 09/19/90 LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued) TDH TDS Title 22 Total Dynamic Head total dissolved solids Wastewater Reclamation Criteria California Administrative Code Title 22, Division 4 Environmental Health total suspended solids U.S. Department of Agriculture United States Geological Survey Virginia Initiative Plant volatile suspended solids Water Authority Reclamation Advisory Committee Water Pollution Control Facility Water Reclamation Facility TSS USDA USGS VIP VSS WARAC WPCF WRF xii /5-'6" r La Jolla San Diego ^'J I -;;-/ " \ , ~ -- / r=~ .,<r ~~~' / O( _ " <> -.!i'. Q- I ./ Lake Murratt EI Cajon \' - " ./ / / / STUDY AREA Imperial Beach '- ~ LEGEND NO SCALE RECLAIMED WATER MARKET STUDY AREA ......... TRIBUTARY SEWER AREA FIGURE 1-1 VICINITY MAP LUKE-DUDEK /~-'ly.. 0 a: ~ w ::. >- 0 ~ z "'u.. >- ::J ~'-' '-' 0 0- > z'" '-' za: Ww >- "'w>- "'- CD "''''a: ",a: '" 0 u.::;'" a:0 w OWO Wz > I-Z ~::J a: >-",::J wO w !::>-O "'CD '" U(I)f:C '" z Ow ;:" 0(0( 0C1: ....,; i:ZW c:: u -~ w '" ClUJ t- I..L.. a:: OCf.) <( ~ w ::;Z ~ Z ~ a:<.Z UJ'~ w 0:: <~ ~gco :~ U-....J1.U0) W t-O) I-O~_ .<_aJ Z- a:o."'" woO) >-a:-::>" 00- I-Z 00. a.CC'< <). u< Wl--I~ >-Wa: :::E a:WO. 0 ::;>::; a:a:W '" ~ ~W~< ~O:: ~~ () WJ:WCI: ZIL.O -u a: 't-I-C) OZ...J Oz ::::> 0 eno u<(I) ZW o a:O>-a: UJ...JCII <'-' en 0.1- Cf.)a. cna.Z (f.)c( '" w .... 0=- f/) ~ ~ W ~ 0( ~ () ~ '" :L > Z , w ~ '" ....J ..J C) ::J < J: '-' W u. '" C) 0 I < >- C\I ~ ... U UJ W c:: :) f/) (!J < LL. W a: < > Q ;:) l- f/) ~ \ ::;:-:::::;.. u~ :~ ......,..'.....'......_...... ............... .............. .... ....... .............. ............-.. ............... .............. ............... .............. ............... .........~. g;:,: "I ....:" 11\ '. , " ~ ! ~! ~ I % i '() l~~, 'II T ~<~{~~;;~i 'r///// //.:-' ~<oo~~~/i/ //;;w(:,'~~ 1 /8. ;>-'OJ/ /r?'<..... ~ I..... \Y: I \:::" ~.3~v.....::..J~ \ ~;>-,<V \ - ::JOP::: r:,:. I ~j:2 ,~~P'~ 'i ~ ~I _/-". _.,~--\ " / \. ffr-/"~~ '/<'" '\ 1.-1 'J I ! '---', : .-'. /./'-.-/\-." A \~'>\' /{ ~ \ ,-_\, ,/ '. ~~ " , i J' ~_,___-,,_,,__'1,' \../ );f \,~ V"', _-:-----d---~----i .---.-1 ~ '/L.- ....,t"""':0:--- \ " _ ,,.: '~/- :.:a .t>",,,:, I \ \' ," ,'; '\ ~17)1 3G W~L\\ /~-'-----\ \, \,,/ \\0 I I ,..__~_ :..__/ \ 't ',- ~ - - - --I _ ~ I ,,'" (~) ~ /, \"--- '1/ -- ,.. - . / " \ ,,---' /~ \\ /\: (-, \ )! ~ ~';2 ,o."":::::~-:' \\ / . ". /\ \, ! ( ...;lt5f~F3 (\ X " \<.-----..-,..~--1 ~ / j.fii"~M,~~ (0/<.". '_h?~\~~~~/~ ';' I J ,(~~:(\;{,(t;Sf~ / ? ~ :,~,' ; 0) \, r- , ;::> 1 , " ::r:: / I \~~(-f ; '\ I >~.' tx:~ ..:::::. / I \ I 1 I I 1 1 1 \ <&J 1 10 '" 12 1~ 1 I' I 1 < ~ W ~ > < " 0 .' ~\ ~\ \ J 0 I \ 0 I I UJ I C Ii \ Z "., "" II) LL. 0 0 > , . !:: (J . , 0 . ! i :::,":',iiilillllllllll ~ ah - . ,.; u. W 8 0 ~<> ..J ... '" (j'0 ~; 0 0 '" '" .(..r:.. ~~c," '" a: " 0 z o .... <c .... '" a. ::;: ::J a. o W '" o a. o 0: a. ::;: W .... '" >- '" o 0: .... W ::;: o Z .... '" X W 0: W So W '" '" Z ::J 0: .... o W '" o a. o 0: a. 0: W So W '" '" Z ::J 0: .... o Z .... '" X 'W Z o .... <c .... '" a. ::;: ::J a. o Z ;:: '" X W 0: W .... ~ ~cO ; '" ...JOO a. 0> 0:- W.... ....'" ",::J <c-O ::;:~ 0: wO So;!; wo: "'w <cW ",;!; wO ::;:ijJ >-", <Co ....- 00: z o .... o W z Z o o O~ Z.... -W ~::;: xo W.... ,,; '" '" <c .... '" > <c ...J ::J J: o U. o >- .... o :E W I- U) 0>- wU) U)c:: OW 0.1- 0<( c:::= Q.W I- U) <( := ::;: W .... '" >- '" 0: W .... <c So W .... '" <c So 0-' WZ ",0 WOO ivt~ 0: U. W o CD Z 0 <c .... ...J 0 a. 0 0: 0 ~ ~ '" 0: <c W :?:.a~ J:W - 000 z<cZ <cSoW o:wZ >-"'0 <co'" I-z= O<cSo ~ f I ~ '~ . z>- <C...J -'::J a...., 0: - WW ....0 "'z <c!!! ::;:0 '" ffio ....z <c- Soffi WW ....z ",- <cOJ SoijJ '" I CO) W a: ::> <.') u.. t I I I I la , \ I 1 - I \ - <8J 1 ~\ I" I~ I~ I~ I' 1 \ 1 < I ~ 1 ~ , ! ... n""OOM , . 'oA1. W\j.... o i ! ...,.' , H:'~- J i ~...o,._ i : '" ",:::,:k" ...J ., -'" 0:" ~., "to -'" / I ~ ~nnn\. . ""UUU' - .<> c:f-o ...: u. 0 0 W 0 ...J ... <c ~; 0 0 "' '" <c a: 0 0 :~..v </'~ :.G ~ ~ ~ LU :.G ::J ....J ~ I \t) - Z 0 a: W ::;: ,.. :: a: Z "- <( W W I- W 0 a: a: ,.. '" '" :: ;:: z W :: '" 0 0:: ~ W <( a. '" '" '" ;:: I-W a: ::;: z ,.. ::> 0 '" '" 0 '" 0 ::> a: a: z W Z", a. a. Z ~z "- I- I- ::> ::;: Oz C W a: z 1-::> W 0 ::;: ,.. ::> 0 Oa: 0.0 '" W a. 0 WI- ::- 0 '" ~ ~ ~ ~O ZC I- 0 Z Z C<( a. a. ;:: ;:: z z:= Zw wO 0 0 '" I- ;::W 0'" "'0 a: '" uo a. a: x X '" ",::;: 0-' a. W X XO ::0. a. W W wO OW t w,.. zif a:!: CI I a.'" Z I t w 1 CJ w I 0 ..J J . ~ --- -~ <( I- '" :;: <( -' ::> I o "- o ~ !:: o 1 CD W a: :J CJ IJ.. t- Z w ::E t- w < > W _ a: t- t- < Z a: a: W W t- t- < ...I == < W t- (/) < == I 1\ 'I / I I 1 I 1 I I <ID \ 1- o '" I~ Ig \' I 1 \ < ~ ~ . ~ o l ,I " Ii ~ I cO I : z ~ '0:1' I I J<C6~~'/ I - =_z-~/ <( I- 0 . I I 00( c,er:: " ::E I- z> I W en c(...J ~~ () Q.IIJ< ',,- a: ::;: <( 0 o :::J W CI) f u. a. CD ~ ,. < ~ o .,. ~....,oo", i , . . ~f /. 0 . " ~ '" Ci > z . < en 0 { . .1 ..J :S ",x ",0 ,.: 0.< :s'" ... -'" w 0 ) / ..J 0 ~ <( 0 I @; ... I 0 :.......~( / 0 :~..." 0 < ~..).,", 0 z /' '" " '" ~ 3 u <( a: CJ 0 :.L -'.J ~ ~ r c1J :.L ~ ...J ..... a--- I U) - z cr: u.. :.L 0 w ::E cr: z cr: cr: ~ ... ::: w w 0 z w ::: < w ... ::: ... 0 0::: :=J ... m cr: m w < ...w I- ~ m >- ... ... m 0 Z '" m m 0 < "- m z", u.. u.J ::E z 0 '" w Oz ... W ::> oz :.L ::> cr: z "- z ;::::> m :!: cr: ... ::> ::E z "-0 ;:; :=J "- ... w cr: ::> 0 ocr: :::- I- w'" - -' 0 ::E ... "- 00 ... < 0 Zo 0< w <I: w w " " -' m m " "cr: Zw wo ::> > W 0 0 z Z z z... Om mO :x: '" "- "- ;:: ;:: ;:: -w 00 0-' 0 I l- ce 0 0 m m m ~::E :::~ "-w u.. CD I- cr: cr: X X x xO 0... 0 w <I: "- "- w w wcr: cr:_ ce w w... z"- ,,-m >- a: Z ... ::J ce w f I f 0 (!J w l- e <I: z I LL. I- ~ W ....J (!J I . . W <I: w I I- ...J (f) I <I: '----./l ~ , - --- :! , i I ~, 1 ' \ I I \ I 1 1 I I , I \\ , <ID ';,.......... I Ie --, I- -- , ,k, e I~ , , (!J I~ \ I' , :ELL. I \ \I') a: I < ...::: 1 00 I ~ ~ < ~ 0 '~...ro~ ~~ ~..: '\\ i ~ '1 'x , , ,; , , \ ~ 'I II J;!'~~\ , :.~.. ~ "~o...~ :; ". " '._ N~"OOO'" ; . \ \ o o I 11 Ii '[ , , j ! <i.~ ';;\? I { . ~I ~ I --' ~ I It) - . '/3>' .c,r{,O <;f' "'~<> ,.: u.. W 0 ...J 0 ~<> <( 0 (j'< 0 ... @~ 0 0 "' '" <( a: (!J 0 ..r---'--_ o Q ., Z o '" " '-' ~/'-< '" r: ,/7 - ,/ ~, / " ' \ / ;' /' / / (, / .\,c, --./ ",ll>'--'" j z 0 a: ;:: w ::;; Z "- ;: w a: a: a: < w .... w 0 Z W ;: .... '" '" ;: ;:: 0 0;: :L '" >- w < ....w a: a. '" '" '" .... I- '" 0 ;::' ::;; z 0 '" () z", ::;) '" w "- I- ::J ::;) a: a: z a. z Oz a. ::;; ()z < Z I- .... ::;) Z ;::::;) a.0 0 w a: ::;) 0 ()a: I- W 0 ::;; I- a. ;:- '" WJ w w () WI- .... ~ ~ '" '" 0 0 0 00 ZO 0< > - ::J 0 0 Z Z Z Zg: Zw w() < I- a. a. ;:: ;:: I- -w 0", "'0 -' <I: ...J 0 0 '" '" '" ~::;; ()O 0-' ::;) W a: a: X ;:~ a.W I W a. X () C') > a. w W X xO 0.... 1 a: W WI- Wa: a:_ "- <D I- Za. a.", 0 I- 0 f , I 1 >- w <I: z ~ l- e: Z a: w I () ::> a: w CJ 1 ~ . CJ W I- w j I- <I: ..J I u. ..J == <I: W '-.-/1 I- , (J) , <I: '-- ~ == - '~>~~" ., ~" oo~~ " 1\, j I 1 ! I / J \ / I , I 1 , 1 -:,..rO<l 1 s~~ I "~) I II ~, <ID I " I;; \ '" I~ I~ I' 1 I I I < 00 w ~ < ~ 0 0 \\ \ ,. ; . 0 ...~o~ ; ". " ".. H~"OOO" -- I I .. ....IIOJ.,y~ I ! ....: I/i I"'''' ff W ~ ~~ I "",.yo:>.,," /:;::. o ) ~ , !\ Z , ii \' I-w Ii! : ~\.; ! ":;\f. , . o i ! "" ;::' ~ , \0 - ~i ~.;,. o~' "'''~\ ~ ' ;;; :.;:~: d ..J < -", gju 0.< ~~ '- .....""~.,.-;:::::" <...~,"""'" V.........,',.'.." .""""""", / ,;pr , ":::' { /~/ .<- O"~ ,.: "- W 0 ..J 0 ..: 0 @; .... 0 0 '" '" ..: e: CJ 0 ~ ( ~ / .\.,..... ~,~,:,... > "- -"'- z 0 a: ;:: w ::; u. :;: a: z < w w 0 a: a: w .... w .... e/) en :;: ;:: 0 0:;: :;: I en >- w < 0.. '" en en .... .... ....w a: :L ::; Z en 0 en 0 JJ :J :J 0 '" w z", a: a: z 0.. z Oz u. 0.. .... .... :J ::; Oz I- ~ w a: :J z ;:::J 0..0 < Z -' eo eo ::; 0 oa: .... ;-. .... 0.. :;:- W W 0 w.... .... en W ~ en en " " " ,,0 Zeo 0 z eo< > :i: :L 0 z z zg: Zw wO > 0.. 0.. ;:: ;:: Oen < I- :J 0 ;:: eno a: 0 en ~ en ;:ow 00 0-' -' < ..-J 0.. a: X x en::; ::~ 0.. :J W 0.. X I '<t W w w xO OW > w w.... wa: a::: 0 I ex: Zo.. <D - + 0.. en u. l- I- 0 ! 0 z I 1 w < >- a: ex: w ! ~ .... ::) Z w CJ j 0 CJ ex: I- w j . . W ..J , I I LL. I- < ..J == < W ~ - I- ~ (/) < ~. == ~I) , I , 1 I ( / j , ! ~ r II \' I I i I I 'I : tl ~'fl Ig t I' ! i I: ,I I :1 .' I .' o ,\\ eo.... '" J' \ z Z eo OJ < UJ en I z9z-/ - ~ 0 . I < c( c a: ::E .- z > I w U'J <...J 'i~r ua.a:Jc:C ~ a::::E<U Q::JWcn u.a.CDU:: ,. ; . 0 /~o :: "" :; '0 '" '\ ,. n""O(>M , o .... o w' !\ z , ~~ \' <a: :Jw ::;::; ....w : <\~ ! ~.~ ; ~-; ~ ~.o ~,..."", ~~ .---: r"?/ ~' /7 , ,// ",,:::"IIIIIIiIiI:: ~ 0"- I 'Q -- co'''' ,',',;',.,1,'" ..... <( 00'" .,U 0.< ~~ (~,. " '-. " , \ I ,J ~' '" 0".- W ..J < @; < a: CJ ..: IL o o o .... o o '" '" , .' .~'.'v '{11-".... ~' o .-- ~ .... rn -' ~ ;:c" CJ) - ~ ~ ~ < W .... ~ UJ rn ~ > a: ::J < <I: ...J -' :t ::> J: ~ -I a: U I <l:w u. ..... i=~ 0 >- w Z<l: .... a: W:= U ::J ~ CJ 00 u. c..W :t < -I U W a: J: 0 U UJ - , ~ J:.... <rn ;:UJ -'.... 0:-' UUJ UJ'" UJ", ",< 0:0: ::;.... -'< ::>0 :>::; z.... ....0: om ZUJ zo: UJ.... UJUJ ....< "u. ~;: UJUJ 0 -,0: Z W CJ - w - -' UJ .... UJ 0: -' UJ 0- .... ::; < .0 3:zu c3:o: UJOO ::;J:u. _rn < - -,UJ, uo:.... UJ< 0: UJ rn-' j....m ,,<w< UJ "'.... ........Cl:w OO<UJ zz::;rn ~. . /\ .\. T' \ I: ') , ? .I 1 i '~, I '- >'.J:, \\ .0' ~'" " 0..;,-----.. "'. ~ II , I'1I I ~~~\' ,I ~ II ~ I I I <ID I I~ I~ I~ I~ -, "11 ~~"ooo.. , . , . ! , .~ "'0 / ~A (\\\0 -ii: .// /"'.'.~'.. \~ \;V..f , //';r \.... '.il . ~. ". . ........\,1\..1. ..::t.' I /i .,:;1:.::..:.... . .... .- ~~,.: " , 'I! ~ ;" ;';':>:':':i ~-; / / I::.':':"" 'e.~O / (" '\5' \ _..~" I 'I" .0;.::: ;\; , o -- I , I , "'" --' < -", "'" !;:< ::s"' -"' '() 0"- f IC\ ..... , ,;. \"" :: ~ : : : ; --,,- : i "'~~ '- 0-: u. , W 0 " -' 0 <:f-.' <( 0 . @; .... ! 0 , 0 / .(..c, '" 0 "X,':>"'''' <? Q < ,-l z <( 0 a: '" I 0 . ",----) 0 I CJ " o z w <.9 w --' i ~ l 'I II , ~~;;\ , ' j '" >, jO,'"._ " i .~ "....'00.. , T ~~' -- , . :/./ "--1 i, i/ 'i V I ; /~ I ! (' {/ ~;? ~fJrJ1S.< i ~ ; , <( >- '"' > <( ...J '" :t:>- ()a: u.<( 00 >-z >-'" _0 ()CD Q WO ::Ow -0: <(W ,...J _ UJ()~ >-UJ::E <(a:'" ~a::Z XOZ Ou.- a: 0 a."'W a.'> <("'a: ,",OW WZ,", -<('" a: ,......... <('UJ o CD", Z",a: "'UJ<( O...J::O CDCD - ..<a:cri WI-W< bwl-w zw;;a: _en>< :L ~ ~, ~' ~, -, <( ~I >- ~ ;:)1 > a:::::t ....J <( W~ ...J '" :I: f-(I)(I) () <>< u. ~ :=(I)W 0 I >- CO CZa:: >- w wO< () a: :::t-a.. :J _f-:;) <.9 <:;) u:: ...JlnO Ua:a:: Wf-O a::!!2 C a: UJ CD ::E' ::J Z a. ::J o a: " EJ , i 1'1 \( ( \ \.q )1 \ /1 ~ I~' , \ ) ,,' -'~ ),) ~)- :,,"IIL~~ . ~,=-,~~,,;,; ~>.~, ':' C::':.: ' ~:3 ~',' "",y ~'" "" ~o~" ~ , _A ( '-........ , , " / / I I 1 I I I I ~ I 18 I~ 12 I~ B I' 1 1 I < ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ < 1 ~ 1 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I ; / , , ' 'Y' , .- ---^'-- I , , , , ~ ............. \ , .....c;r \ ~--8--r/ ----\\.% I \ N \ \ ,,'" 10>: --~-~ \ \ \ // : ,; ~ I -----, \ \"/ \:0 / I \ '? \ " ~...---_ \ 1.. _ / \ --\~----~ , , , , ~',.,'"'",.,, ,,,'" --. . --sa 0"- I ';Q _..- "",,' ~'\ ~,,::iI::':'~:':,(: \t""", ' ~ ..J <( -", :;jU 0.< ::S"' -'" " . " ' : : : : : : : ~ \,,' "",,,, 'e,~O <;f' '1'<> . " ~~~,,~,~r~":::: ~~" (" ' Y"'" ~~~ ,/ &,>'" ) / /" / II '!....." 0' / ~~ ,.--/"; ,..: u. o o o ... W ...J <( @; <( a: " o o "' '" o ;' , z z ... 0 < a: ~ c a: :::E ~ :,;,! ... Cz W 0 < ~ :::E ... wo a: :J > '" :::E- O ~ < a: -... < c: -'... w a. <:::> ... ... ccW cO ()w '" :::E -'m ()z '" ()- 0.0 WI- ><:: w", w :::> wa: > a: a: a: a. a:'" ~- 1-'" :J ... < C< '" '" "'~ 0< -' W <> ....J w:::E w w wC w() :::> N > ~'" "'a: '" '" "'a: "'0 J: I Ow 0 0 Ow 0-' () <0 I- Z a.... a. a. a.... o.w CO 0< 0 0 ... w ex: g:~ a: a: 0< 0.... 0 W- Oo a. g:~ a:_ a: Z ::!:I- 0 a.'" >- :::> cc z t: CJ -:::I I ~ W <to LU u u.. I- ...J- CJ . 'Y ...J Ucc LU ..J < WI- ,1 CC!a I f \ C I ( , '---../'l \ , I"> , ( ~ " ' --- I ' ,,' '? II, " ',I, " '0 > ~ \ ~~z~ ~ ,\, '~~ o " , , ,I . /, 0 ~l 0 ~ '" il '" ,\ is J[ z jl < 00 I I . I " ~ <e1"~' ~~/ .0- ~~';:./ \ f:>C/ " p',,'. 7/~.'~ ~., , , """,.,' '"' ., -'" "'" :;:., ::0'" -'" .~'toO '" e;;>~ ,..; ... o o o ... LU ..J <( @: a. <( a: CJ o , /If; \1<1010..... ~ ~..... '.(" "- ~ ) / ( / '.J// ,j , :...(...c, ~'~... o o Ol) '" /f"-'-..... i ,,~ .\', " , \ \ \ '\' 0 <. . ,n"" ;:i; , i I ,:;;:";:;idU!;)WI)I N- O' j \0 - COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ItD Meeting Date 1/8/91 ITEM TITLE: Report regardi ng request for a traffi c signal at Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive Director of Public wor~~ City Manager :::J /4,J ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..lL) J v~ Council Referral #2175 SU8MITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On November 6, 1990, staff received a letter from Mr. Cory English requesting that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny Mr. English's request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission at the December 13, 1990 meet i ng voted 7 -0 to deny the request for a traffi c signal and an all-way stop at the intersection of Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road. DISCUSSION: Staff received a letter from Mr. English requesting a traffic signal at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive. Mr. English uses the painted crosswalk located on the east leg of the intersection of Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. English travels to school by way of a motori zed wheel chai r and has mentioned that he and other students must wa it for a break in traffic in order to cross the street. Typically, he crosses daily at approximately 7:25 a.m. while on his way to school. He has stated that on some morn i ngs his mother has counted up to 10 westbound veh i c 1 es backlogged at the stop sign waiting to make a turn. Staff has evaluated this intersection and placed it on the traffic signal priority list. The list compares the subject intersection with other intersections throughout the City for possible future traffic signal installation. This intersection received a total score of 6 points which placed it 15th out of 18 candidate locations on the 1991 intersection evaluation list (see attachment). The subject intersection when compared with the overall 1 i st, recei ves a fairly low placement on the 1 i st due to not meeting any State warrants. Staff has also completed an all-way stop evaluation for the subject intersection to determine if this intersection justifies an all-way stop. An intersection must receive a minimum point score of 30 out of a possible 50, to warrant installation of an all-way stop. This intersection received a total of 21 points thereby not meeting the minimum requirements. Ie- ..I Page 2, Item_/~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 By comp 1 et i ng the study, we have not iced that thi s intersect i on recei ves a fair amount of traffic during peak hours, but fairly light traffic throughout the rest of the day. During most of the day, there are sufficient gaps in the traffi c flow for vehi cl es and pedestri ans to pass through the intersect i on without much delay. Staff, therefore, recommends that the City Council deny Mr. English's request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Ori ve. Staff will continue to moni tor the intersect i on for an all-way stop and a traffic signal. Mr. Cory English and all area residents have been notified of tonight's City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: If the City Council decides to install a traffic signal, it will cost approximately $65,000 the first year and approximately $2,500 a year thereafter for energy cost. F i 1 e: KY -119/KY -158 WPC 5365E Attachments: All-Way Stop Evaluation Area Plat Excerpt Safety Commission Minutes dated 12/13/89 (draft) ,~<i "',c, '" ,c Letter from Mr. C. English received 11/6/90 1991 Traffic Signal Priority List (draft) ",' 'u' i'o,( 1,,-2- - .. --'--... '.'- .' .1' _.~_. ,-_._---~ "--'- .-., ---_._- l...::-C'::~.:...;;,:, "c --_ C'"___, CITY OF CHULA VISTA POLICY AU-WAL~lU~ LUf'JJ IHJL _____._______ ---...- ( -'-~'- ---- Date: I;).) I 1"'70 Tota 1 Poi nts ;+ \ INTERSECnOW~EL--E /,~;;'Pw- c.--"I",y() V PO-<1D / .<.ULLr-oP DJ2. PURPOSE: A fully justified, properly installed four-way stop can effectively assign right of way, reduce -\l~G1-e--de1 aY-.-iII1d dec.rease acci dents. Generally, a four-way stop is reserved for use at the intersection of two_J;):1ro1l9h high~ays, and only as an interim traffic control measure prior to signalization. GENERAL-:- "- _... . The posting of an intersection for four-way stop control should be based on factual data. Warrants to be considered include: 1. Through street conditions. 2. Accident records. 3. Traffic and pedestrian volumes. 4. Volume splits. 5. Unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire stations, vision obscurement, etc. ( Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total possible points is 50. installation of four-way stop control is justified with a total of 30 points. The THROUGH STREET WARRANT: One of the approaching streets to the intersection must be a through highway before the intersecti on can be consi dered for four-way stop control. A through highway shall extend at least one mile in both directions from the intersection under consideration and shall meet condi ti ons set forth on Page 8, Secti on 2f of the Hi ghway Capacity Manual, 1965. A. If only one of the intersecting streets is a through highway B. If both streets are through highways 1-3 Points 3-5 Points Maximum 5 Points SCORE: 4- Points ACCIDENT WARRANT: Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by four-way stop control during one full year prior to the investigation. Total number of accidents correctible by four-way stop: / Maximum 14 Points SCORE: ,~ Points UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT: Where unusual conditions exist at the intersection such as a scl1001, fire station, L playground, vision obscurement, etc., points are assigned on the basis of engineering judqment. Unusual conditions shall be considered only if within 500 feet of the i ntersecti on: .J- _ .s Co'~ cO- Maximum 10 Points .).. - , - j'--;"'1;.L;L. ~"''"3 ,,27"'1 ~ "1.:... ,,-<.} L-J G'V,I"'"y1 L;:- ,;../ r SCORE: /10-3 r. Points - . . / -2- ( VOLUME WARRANT: A. Total entering vehicle volume must equal 2,000 vehicles for four highest hours in average day. B. Ninimum side street vehicular and pedestrian volume must equal 600 vehicles during same four hour period. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables: MINOR STREET PEDESTRIAN & VEHICLE VOLUME (BOTH APPROACHES) ALL APPROACHES Highest Four Hour Volume Points Highest Four Hour Volume Points 330"1 o - 1400 1401 - 1700 1701 - 2000 2001 - 2300 2301 - 2600 2601 - 2900 2901 - 3200 ~~nn 3501 3800 3801 4100 4101 - 4400 4401 - 4700 4701 - 5000 5001 - 5300 5301 - 5600 5601 - 5900 Over 5900 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7! 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o 8-44 600 - 800 C801 - 1200 1201 - 14UU 1401 - 1600 1601 - Over 1 2~ 3 4 5 ( Maximum 13 Points SCORE 1 Poi nts VOLUME SPLIT WARRANT: Four-way stops operate best where the minor approach volume and the major approach volume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following table: 24-Hour Minor St. Volumes 24-Hour Major St. Volumes % Points L 95+ 35 - 94 75 - 84 65 - 74 55 - 64 45 - 54 35 - 44 ;. "/L' (25 34 o - 24 ---- -.--.- --- 8 7 S 5 4 3 2 1 ) o l1axi mum 8 Poi nts SCOPE: Points If. .. V -," J -3- ( ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY INTERSECTION: DATE INVESTIGATION COt1PLETED: 1;).../0) '10 TOTAL SCORE: ,,)..\ points out of a possible total 50. r~inimum score for four-way stop control is 3U pOlnts. REMARKS: - --- _._--,._--~ '-- ~_.--. /y ~ ( -- --~- - ~ ------= ~- ---' RECOMt1ENDATIOtJ.S: __~ ...,./"'- .~ -- jy ..-- ---- \ - .-<:) N .-<:} L.L - tV -1 'y ~5 7LJ}-") , s ,~ 0 -;- rv' K .E D E... D p~? ~ ....s-~y_ 'r~^,/.f: ',IPC 3287E P,i-E-23 L I' - S- -q,.- ..,.-..-,...." .E '" ~NGIt-JEE:RIN6 DIVI5/0f\) CITY OF CHU LA VISTA 'TYPE O~ CONiRO\..- PERIOD 7'-- ( DAY 7/.; rA.' P<; 1:) fJ ~ I/VE~r73" "..,,,,,d ::-1i-?__.-..T,L,,1- - -r;~"o A~ DATE A/ClV 2-9 !9'0o . VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSeCTION of J<1-,Il../E",.........~ Y (177)0_0 ) ~.... ~V It.lDICATE NORTH I ~ IS' I ~ I~ I; I~ :r. 1<; I~ I .3 I~ @1 r5r) ~1B ( 1'1 (,2-( ]"6~7 "\ I I '" ~ I . '- ~\J f ~~ ' I '- '< 'J 10: I ,--; I-. I -( '.1.1 f-il_i ;-; r :--I~ i l/,"'_ J- , I )-1 ,.\ ,~\ IT- <) "\ '-G, "."1((" ",,;,.. ; "" ,~ . Ffh/),c- (7 '. )[ ~ jl/L,C/I ~ r' -. -.-, \-1' . \ '~-''-=--t ~_. c_ ";';j';;'~' ~~~l ~:~ [J '~:Jhr-.~_ ~.,~. ~~.l' : i I / ,\~ ""10. r;=1 - ~f-_ -. "-\/\ Y __7 C" _ ", \ ' , ,__ . --" I ~- '> r-- _ ::: ' '~c c- ~ 0 'Q -- I ' C> >-- -,~ I .... 'I-t- ,; <r ~ , :--- -, '\ -..,~, ~ 15 0 --r-- I , "'I - ~- ----, -'" -# c--- ; ----;---1 !:' / It ~ , , : r · ,C', "/ _, >, G " '- --'. -~ ,- ,;: I (J ~ ~ 0, , Ju l I , !~, -r-\ \ .J --'\ ' ~O ~ '.../ ..L ~ -- . "'"""," VI \ , ). .." ;>;;\--- O",G~ I I I I I I 1 J r- ~1 <.? ,,-' L , I c- /.' " II I I I' ~ ~^,i l";"r" I I I I I 1 {~"?' I~/ / ~ I ' ~ " I" ~ ' > /,.~__: I ~ /;~ 1m --~ ! ~ I { 0::~ <=:: \-- h~_ _J ~ I~ ~. "'" ~ . ~ ~ ~ID ~ ~ --, --- :J '< ! ~ If) i Ii I ~! r-' >C 0",- o u - ILIC- >r- ~r- >- 0:_ <( :2;- 0_ ..J <(- n._ f-- ~ ;J~I I H .. .... '- ~ '\ ,~~ T Jr--- ~ ;:: ~~;;:::.:f'; '" J../ ILIr- "^~a 1 !d::'"1t~~~1& i~;~~ ~ _ ;~ f-~- , I.:.!;. ~~' ~ :> <r w , , , '. ___'." w : , I '-'0.;, _ 0: · II I ' Y't,';o;;O:"i - _ __ in > : ~, :;; : ~I II, "??:a:it-"r- -.:- ~ 'otiV.' l '1 -! '(-:::;::..', :f'- ,,1--__. P': I - , '.".,. ~'-- ' , " - -- ---, I r--c-.""" "0/ -" c. -- ~ 'I - ., -- - t....~ : t::'o.' '~~_):; f-'; -' ?: r- ~ -"--...., " -",""..J) _ ___ ,.. - -' - - I-J -.I. 'I', ,'!"i;' ,...J""r-- ;" 'Li"Y -c__ ' _Y,.', : .- '''"r(___"___ 1-' - "....v~, ---;- - - r-----.:......-'--!o,."., p'-"- ,- -\ I -. ''7 '2lLl ' 1 ,--; 1,.'~~\,--"',J-~,~; ~ __ _____ _. i - . , 'L ,.~ - / t--- I~r- '~ - It- ITh lli a.. ~ A...GJ ...J I z <<'--- <( U i en f- '" < ILl 1 ] !-c .L ~ I- <C ..J a. <C w a: <C ~ ~ M 0 ""') t- oo C\J ~ c: .. J'.: II> '" ... ... '" Q . I ~ql/~ --,;::-~~~ /-.~~.~ .~~......., . - "'-............ ----~~....... -. ( CllY OF CHUIA VISTA .~ OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL November 30, 1990 Mr. Cory English 22 El Capitan Drive Chula Vista, CA 92011 Dear M~~~, In response to your letter to the Chula Vista City Council, at the regular meeting of November 13, 1990, the Council took action to refer your letter to the City's Safety Commission. The Safety Commission will consider your request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Hilltop Dr. and Telegraph Canyon Rd. and will so advise you of the date that it meets inviting you attend to give input. ~ If you have questions regarding the process of the S~fety Commission, please contact thc"raffic Engineering Division of the PUblic Works Department at 691-5026. Thank you for writing to the City Council. "";!LY' Gregor~. Cox MAYOR 'Vi.'.. GRC:NW:dv English cc: Hal Rosenberg, PUblic Works Dept. 0)' i' ~f /v{;~ /., /J~~ I r;& J,~ ~ 1(' 7~ L /fI - ~ 276 FOURTH AVENUE"CHULA VISTA. CALIFOR~IA g201n,(619) 691-50.14 Calc (YJrp Ck Date Date IZ/5/9o . , TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST ( :Intersection: Najar Street JIll/fop j);-;..~ , (No. n7S0) Minor Street T<!:./e JrCl.fJ., Cc, "'tOrI , ~ 1" . eM~Ir\~ J\DT ( 9+'08 ) ~ 7 OS- /(d .3-tft./ o Is 85th percentile speed greater than 40 MPH on Najor Street? Yes_ NO$.- (Note: If yes, use Rural values) o At T intersections, where it is possible to separate turning move- ments, right turn volumes shall not be included in warrant calcu- lations. 1. Vehicular Volume \'Iarrant U R Ii U R I TI:U:: ADDroach lanes 1 i 2 or mo:-e I 7-'Z g-'? n-I 2-3 ,-'/ /I-S' ;;;--.. to-, ., Ito9 '(P9 (,.00 <l3b Maior Street 500 350 ~ 600 420 '1",'0 -77 7'17 -loti !, -' Minor Street 150 105 I 200 140 75'2 /b'l 117 In 16Z /29 JbC" 1D7 ( Note: 'Circle. hours when satisfied Number of hours satisfied -3 (maxi~~um 8 hours) x x x x 1.5 Points/hr. = '/,s- 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant I u R r, U R I TI:.1E l\pproac~ lanes 1 1 ~ 2 17- f , .2' I :> - ~, 1-~ - .=.- -.; ~-? or !TIo::.-e ...J - s Haior Street I 750 525 ij 900 630 IbOY I.J :;:; " ()'J ~73 bOO 7'17 7Q'I 1/5(" Minor Stre",t I 75 53 II 100 70 1 2.:; Z II:, :J 117 187 /6.2- /29 If);;' /0 ? Note: Circle hours when satisfied Number of hours satisfied (maximum 8 hours) (lj / x 1.0 Points/hr. = ~ / 3. pedestrian Volume Warrant IJ H II I I Major Street ~:o :\"C: '--.\n IJl)() <-1 ~ ~ l J II i Vol\lrne h(~(ll2.n . 1000 'i1)1I Pedestrian I Crossing Naior Street 150 105 I THIE l. Numb~r of hours s~tisfied (maximum 8 nours) @ x 0.5 Foints/hr. = e /'-9 r-- I{ II u Major Street Volume 500 350 II - School Age Pedestrians Crossing lIa"io:r St:reet 100 70 ( Number of hours satisfied ,;3 / x 2.0 Points/hr. = (/" / 5. Accidents I'/arrant Number of accidents by traffic signal. g / (Pen.od: (in previous 12 months) susceptible to correction (See attached CO?y of ^ccident Record). 6. Special Conditions - Engineering jUdgment shall points based on special conditions. (Naxium of Yes accidents x 2.0 Points/ace = C://!R9 to 3-/31/10 ,. , , (;)' Progression School Hospital Sight Distance Other be used to award 5 points may be awardee ria --X- ~ ...x.. - -K ~ ~ Total ),5" 7. Summary a. Volume l'larrant b. Interruption I'/arrant ( c. Pedestrial' I~arran t d. School Crossing Warrant e. Accidents t~arran t f. Special Conditions 8. Remarks: Points '1.5 -=f= g I) I. .s- Total ~.o l ...------. /{; ..../0 -.------ c c , c c c c c c .~-- 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ._---~ ~ ~ . ::; ~ ~ ~ "-u "- "-u a.. a.. a. a. a. "- "-u "-u "-u "-u "- "- u "-"-"- 0 u 0 0 u : 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 0 u 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ , .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. 0 ~ .. 0 .. C '" ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u c u_ .. >-~ >- >-~ . >-)..>-)..>. >-~ >-~ >-~ >-~ >-~ >- >-~ >->->- E 0 ~ ~ C ~ ~ C , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ C ~ C .. C ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ U ~- ~ U 3.- 3 3.- , :a::z:w: ::w: 3 3.- 3.- 3._ :X._ :I.-:w: :a:._ ]I :a: :a: > ( (11_ ...._ , . . , , , , I I , , , , , 'I " . , , I I 0 U ~ C > ~~ 0 ~~ : O~__..... 0 U~ U~ U~ 4>_.....-..... G.>_-'__..... E E ~ ~ 0 u C 3 C 3:................ 3 C C C C C ~ LIJ_uc 0 ~ 0 -<<<- 0 0 0 0 < <0 <<< u~ > 0 Safety Commission Meeting December 13, 1990 Minutes (3D) Request for a traffic sie:nal at the intersection of Hilltop Drive and Telee:raph Canvon Road Mr. Rivera presented staffs report. Staff received a letter from Mr. (Cory) English requesting a traffic signal at this intersection. Mr. English uses it to go to and from school each day in the morning. He has mentioned that at 7:25 a.m., the a.m. peak period, he has to wait for a gap in traffic in order to cross. We did do an investigation at that time in the morning and we do notice that, very surprisingly, that in that 15 to 20 minute period there are quite a number of vehicles on Telegraph Canyon Road westbound, making a left or right turn onto Hilltop Drive. A few minutes before and a few minutes after that, the traffic volume is reduced. We did evaluate this intersection with other intersections in the City to see where it would rank for a traffic signal and it placed 15 out of 18 locations. The list is included as an attachment and is also another item which the Safety Commission would be required to act on tonight. We are not recommending that a traffic signal be installed at this intersection and we are also not recommending that an all-way stop be installed at this intersection. Besides the a.m. peak period and the p.m. peak period, the volumes on these streets and the gaps in traffic do provide the motorists an adequate opportunity to make their left and right turns off of Telegraph Canyon Road. We, therefore, do not recommend that the signal nor the all-way stop be installed. That completes staffs report. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Koester asked if there were a crosswalk at this intersection where the Mr. English crosses. Mr. Rivera noted that there is a crosswalk along the east leg of the intersection on Telegraph Canyon Road, with a wheelchair ramp. Commissioner Arnold stated that he noticed that one of the figure diagram showing turn movements and traffic through the intersection was omitted from the packet. The left hand turn of southbound traffic showing 100, should be 118 going east. Mr. Rivera acknowledged that Commissioner Arnold was correct, it is 118 vehicles total, going eastbound on that intersection. Commissioner Arnold asked if that omission would have any impact. Mr. Rivera said no, the number of vehicles turning in the time period that you are looking at is for a one-hour time period. So, we are looking at two to three vehicles per minute if you average it out. But there was that concentration of time between 7:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. where we did have more traffic travelling through that -1- I' --/2.. Safety Commission Meeting December 13, 1990 Minutes intersection. We did take that into account and on our traffic signal evaluation, the morning peak period from 7:00 to 8:00 and from 2:00 through 4:00, if we had those conditions throughout the day, we would then recommend that a traffic signal be installed. But for three hours out of a 24-hour time period, we do not feel that it is justified to spend the money involved for installing a traffic signal at this location. There are other intersections throughout the City which have a higher priority or have more hours during the day with a need for a traffic signal and therefore, those were the intersections that we recommended the funds for the traffic signals to be constructed at. Commissioner Arnold asked if there were student patrols at this intersection. Mr. Rivera responded, saying no, this location is not controlled by a safety patrol. The school safety patrol operates at Hilltop Elementary School, north of "J" Street and west of Hilltop Drive in that area with Murray Street and Corte Marie Avenue. There are no safety patrol officers at this particular intersection. Chair Braden noted that there was no one attending to address Item 3D before the Safety Commission. MOTION Commissioner Thomas made the motion that the Safety Commission accept staffs proposal: That the Safety Commission deny Mr. English's request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop Drive. MSUC, [ThomaslKoester] 7-0, approved. -2-/ (, -/3 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 ITEM TITLE: Report: Modifications to Bonitfrtong Canyon Park Director of Parks and Recreatio~ City ManagerJL~~i (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Bonita Long Canyon Park, a 12.5 acre neighborhood park, was dedicated to the City by McMillin Communities in November 1988. The park contains 6 acres of act i ve use area and 6.5 acres of natural open space area. The act i ve park area contains two softball fields with a soccer field overlay, tot lot, restroom, parking lot, security lighting, walkways and picnic tables/benches. Since the dedication of the park, the ball fields and soccer fields have been used by organized sports teams for practice and league play. Specifically, the fields are used by Bonita Valley Girls Softball Association (BVGSA) and the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO). Neighborhood residents have expressed concern regarding noise, traffic generation and use of the fields by these organized groups. On July 13, 1990, the Department received a letter from a resident, Mr. Stephen Grisell, who lives adjacent to the park outlining his concerns and those of other families regarding the location of the ball fields and their use by sports leagues (See Attachment A). The Department responded with a letter dated August 17, 1990, which identified potential alternatives to mitigate or eliminate the identified problems (See Attachment B). In addition, the Department prepared five alternatives (Attachment C) for the Parks and Recreation Commission to review at their October 17, 1990 meeting. RECOMMENDATION. That Council approve alternative #5 eliminating the western backstop and provide for a soccer field overlay. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission at their October 18, 1990 meeting, supported alternative #5. The Safety Commission, at their December 13, 1990 meeting, accepted the Traffic Engineer's staff report to eliminate one parking stall in the parking lot to allow vehi cl es to turn around when the lot is full and to proh i bit parking on Coltridge Lane in the vicinity of park entrance and intersection with Galveston Way (Attachment G). DISCUSSION: In late October 1989, the Department received a letter from Mr. Grisell express i ng hi s concern regardi ng use of the park by organi zed sports 1 eagues and the result i ng parki ng probl ems, traffi c congest i on, no; se, and percei ved property devaluation potential. Accompanying his letter was a petition signed /7-1 Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 by approximately 100 residents of the area (See Attachment Dj. The Department outlined in a letter to Mr. Grisell, the steps that would be taken to reduce the congestion and parking problems (See Attachment E). Specifically, the AYSO and BVGSA were directed to make changes to their practice times and/or game locations. The July 1990 1 etter deals with apparent vi 01 at ions by the 1 eagues of the conditions placed by the Department on their use of the fields. More importantly, however, this letter raises concerns regarding the layout of the ballfields and resulting safety, noise and 1 iabil ity issues, and the overall question of use of this neighborhood park for organized sports. The Department prepared the foll owi ng fi ve a lternat i ves for the Parks and Recreation Commission to review and address the residents concerns: Alternative #1: Retain the park in its existing configuration and attempt to control the use of the ballfields by the issuance of permits to specific user groups and i nsta 11 s ignage to ident i fy the necess ity for ball fi e 1 d permits. The Department is not in favor of this alternative since it does not address the problem of stray balls being hit into residents' yards by non-organized users. Cost Estimate for Alternative #1: $1,000 Alternative #2: Installation of a 15' high galvanized chain link fence for 300 feet along the property 1 ine adjacent to the existing residences in an attempt to contain balls hit toward the residences. The Department is not support i ve of thi s a lternat i ve because the fence woul d be vi sua lly unattractive, detract from the park setting and negatively impact the views of the adjacent residents. Cost Estimate for Alternative #2: $16,000 Alternative #3: Relocate the western ballfield to the southwest corner of the park, adjacent to the existing concrete walkway and modify the backstop at the eastern ballfield so that the field would only be used for 'Tee' Ball age groups. This reconfiguration of the western field would provide a 260' radius for the ballfield, except at the left field foul line. The eastern field modification would reduce the scale of the backstop to make it appropriate for 'Tee' ball league play. This use would prevent any balls from being hit into the adjacent residents' yards. Signage would be provided at the eastern field identifying the acceptable user groups and the need for a use permit from this Department. Modifications to the existing lawn areas and irrigation system for the western field relocation would be required, in addition to installation of supplemental 'in-field' mix, top soil fill, i nsta 11 at i on of sod or seed, and re 1 ocat i on or fabri cat i on of a new backstop for the western field. The Department initially supported this alternative since it would greatly minimize the number of balls being hit toward the rear yards of the residences that are adjacent to the southern perimeter of the park, and still allow for usage of the park by organi zed sports teams. However, the Gi rl s Softball /7-2 Page 3, Item Jf} Meeting Date~ Organi zat i on withdrew thei r support for two fi e 1 ds when accommodat ions at Discovery Park were made available for their games. Cost Estimate for Alternative #3: $17,250 Alternative #4: Deletion of both ballfields from the park. The only active use in the park woul d then be soccer. Landscape modifi cat ions woul d i ncl ude remova 1 of the backstops, benches and 'i n-fi el d I mi x, i nsta 11 at i on of new top-soil and sod or seed and revisions to irrigation systems to provide for the new landscaped areas. Signage would also be included to identify unacceptable park uses. The Department is not in favor of this alternative since it would el iminate needed softball fields, of which the City is very deficient. Cost Estimate for Alternative #4: $20,000 Alternative #5: Deletion of the western ballfield and modification to the Eastern backstop to eliminate the obstructive appearance. A soccer field overlay on turf would be accommodated as well. This would satisfy the needs of the girls softball league. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted (3-1) to support alternative #5. In addition, the newly formed Youth Sports Council, at their October 11, 1990 meeting unanimously supported this alternative (Attachment F). At the Commission meeting, the residents objected to the soccer overlay field. They were particularly concerned about the traffic congestion impacting their neighborhood on Saturdays. In real ity this has not occurred this soccer season because games were not schedul ed at the Park. Last year, games were played there due to the shortage of fields for the AYSO program when they lost playing time at Bonita Vista High School. Cost Estimate for Alternative #5: Minor staff and equipment cost. At the Safety Commi ssi on meet i ng of November 8, 1990, the Safety Commi ss i on directed the Traffic Engineering staff to meet with Parks and Recreation staff to discuss increasing parking and improving traffic conditions for Bonita Long Canyon Park neighborhood. Traffic Engineering and Parks and Recreation staff met to di scuss a lternat i ves to reduce traffi c congestion in and around the park. Issues discussed were: a. Construction of another entrance to the Dark. It was the consensus by both staffs, the elevation of the park made it impractical because of extensive grading which would be required for a new driveway. b. Enlarqinq of Darkinq lot. Any enlargement to the existing parking lot would infringe upon the playing area or the adjacent parking lot. Staff agreed to eliminate two ends and to allow incoming vehicles to turnaround. c. Reducinq the orqanized sDorts use of the Dark. Parks and Recreation staff informed Traffic Engineering that accommodations have been made to transfer some activities to Discovery Park. The amount of intensive youth sport activity will be drastically reduced. /7-3 Page 4, Item 1'7 Meeting Date~ CONCLUSION: The Department is supportive of continuing organized sports activities at Bonita Long Canyon Park and addressing the concerns of the residents regarding noise, safety and traffic problems. Implementation of Alternative #5 will ensure the safety problems with stray balls are minimized. The Department's ongoing dialogue with the various sports team organizations will reduce these impacts to residents from organized team play, but still allow for continued enjoyment of the ballfields by these leagues. The Department conducted preliminary discussion with McMillin Development regarding the problem and they have indicated a willingness to assist the City in resolution of the problems. McMillin representatives have committed their staff to provide labor and equipment to make the changes in Alternative #5. FISCAL IMPACT: Some minor staff time and equipment cost will be required to reconfigure the ballfields. WPC 1587R !7-Y . ATTACHMENT A Stephen J. Grisell 1735 Col tr idge Ln. Bonita, Ca 92002 Ph: 482-9789 July 18, 1990 Dear Mr. Valenzuela, Would like to drop you this note to bring you up to speed regarding the current status regarding the use of the Bonita Long Canyon Park. As was previously discussed in your letter of November 21 of 1989, the Girls Softball Association did in fact use the park :as wa~ indicated in your letter, with the exception of the playing game~, during ):/lte evening. If you check with John Gates, of your depait~ent, hewilt.ve~ify that I was calling in April and May, and questioning the pl~ying of these games in the evening. The league was playing,offichl'l games ( unless you need uni formed umpires for practice) . an'd I am sure if you were to check, this would be verified. Whem~I di~ check with john, the department could not find the use permit, so ~e could not tell me whether or not there were any restrictions applied to the use permit. I did not pursue the ma t ter any further. The point is, if we had - an understanding between ourselves, obviously the sports association chose to ignore the restr;;i:,t;!-t;icin.,.';or 'it was an administrative oversight that happens to aU. "PJ~.; 6's:~ ~ '~a1l understand the adminis trati ve error, but do not condone 'disr'ega't;~ if this,is the case. , Jhe parking ~Jt~ation'd~ not improve. The police were around, althou,gh I do nQ't4'know';1if" thera. visits were because of the activities present,' 9J;:.,;,/j'Li~~"t"'andOm' patrols. I did not see them ticket ~ny parking v i,o!l''7!'O;J;'. " I., found this yery in~eresting, since I have l.n my possessl.pl1f{a:".,o .'~ of ,,;.the parkl.ng ordl.nances. I guess we have differing view~:;o/.t'~f,hat is a violation and what is not. A community service Qff,j.i:;e'r~dId;-show up on one Saturday, but I had to prompt her to w~t~~sp~,e:~'lckets, I am not sure she understood all of the parking "r,(iQuJ,;ff.flons. I would like to think that the check in the " check and;' b'alance " system that we both know and 'enjoy is not a citi~~n calling the police to come out and write traffic citations. ~:~~\?;~ike to think that this can be avoided. I do not want to rev'.eN;:~xiia.k t.Q soccer season where numerous calls prompted numerous ~tkqk~t~. ~roper planning should avoid this 't t' .;.yO.' , 52 ua l.on. ,,;,,~". 't~..-.' :.J I have contac.e'.eirll:tl:1.e;tcit)! traffic engineers and discussed the situation with themf1:~'~'i"'h'!Y.e agreed that we, as a neighborhood, have a p;oblem, an9l~y~~t~tep is to inyestigate the proc7dures and requuements ne'C'~s~a~y 1f,5 get curbs pal.nted red. Once agal.n, let me remind you that tlle~par~!s minuscule parking lot entry and exit releases traffic dnt.~' th~ only entrance and exit into the communi ty. I still fe'E?1 t"l1'is arrangement is unique and should require closer scrutinY' when evaluating organized use that attracts heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic. /7~S- I disagree with your risk manager. I do not believe a risk rating system should be applied to any life, especially children's.The first pedestrian/automobile accident will determine who was right, and then the court system and the financial award will define an "acceptable risk " I would like to make you aware of situation that recently happened to me. This situation is being relayed to you because I feel it may verify how the lack of planning that went into this park can have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. On July 9, 1990, I was in my backyard cutting my grass. There were some men playing softball in the park. As I was nearing the end of my chore, a softball came over the wall on the fly, flew in front of my face, ( missed me by about 2 feet, I could have -caught it) bounced on the ground, and then bounced into my sliding glass door on my house. I would like to say this event is a fluke and has only happened once, but this is not the case. I have at least a dozen balls in my possession ( 3 of which are hard balls ), and this does not count the ones that I have thrown back. I can only ask you one question, does it make sense to plan, approve, and install a backstop where it is possible, and not remotely so, to launch balls over the wall ? In my way of thinking, and I realize I am not a ci ty 0 fficial, I cannot believe that distances and citizen's right's to privacy were not considered during the planning stages. For those that say these issues were addressed, then I would have to ask, " Why am I getting these balls ( and almost hit ) in my backyard ? " To me the only answer is one of lack of planning and not considering all of the consequences of the decision. Distances and impact on adjoining homes were not considered. I would prefer to think this was an oversight rather than a "so what". In fact, I know the distance from home plate to left field wall is right at 300 ft. or less. I have walked it. I still find it difficult to believe that this backstop would consciously be constructed after evaluating these distances. The reason I pass this on-is to impress upon you that I feel we are both stuck with a red herring. TQe city is determining park use, for what I feel it was never intended to be used for, and now "informal" activities are beginning to cause problems. I know there are some people that will say that I should not have bought the house, or if I do not like it I should move. I find both statements unacceptable. I have bought, I am a tax payer, and in defense of my decision, I still have confidence in the city officials that once they recognize this problem, they will attempt to rectify it. 17- (p . In deciding next year's activities, I would ask the fOllowing of yourself and all other's that might be involved in the decision making process: a. The Park is not really adequately designed for organized activities. b. The layout of the park parking lot is such that all traffic conges ts right a t the entry and exi t to the park. Entry and entrance to the community use the same road, which passes directly in front of the park and its parking lot. Residents cannot exit the community via an alternate route. I believe this is unique at this point in time. c. Noise. Private residences are within 300 ft. of the Weekend activities are noisy enough, all noise from the park right into my bedroom window. I believe this should consideration for any week day activity. d. Property De-valuation. My neighbor recently sold his house. As part of the process he had it appraised. The appraisal came in lower, to the tune of $10,000.00. The reason for the lower appraisal was not so much the park, but its use. The noise, traffic congestion, and neighborhood impact on the weekend were reasons sighted for the lower appraisal. I think the city should view the park as an attraction for a neighborhood, but not assign use that is detrimental to property values. park. feeds be a e. Over-all impact on the neighborhoOd. f. Some giving on the sports activities. Perhaps different days, extending season, games at other parks where neighborhood parks have adequate off road parking and the park is not backed up to pr i va te residences. Not just because "they do not like that park". g. Recommendation from your department for prevention of balls in my back yard. Please don't tell me to move. I have not started on the history of the park from the planning stages to implementation, but I intend to do so. This might help explain why the backstops are in such close proximity to private property. I would appreciate some assistance on this idea. I have saved the balls, my wife and I are both witnesses to the kids coming over the wall to retrieve the balls ( I believe this is trespassing ), and if you interviewed ball players, they would attest to the lost balls. I do have some ideas that might help. My first one is to remove one of the backstops. /7-7 . h. Copy of city policy regarding park use. What factors do or do not weigh heavily on your decisions when reviewing applicants. What considerations are given to neighborhood impact? Noise, risk assessment, ( is one park riskier than others) traffic problems, noise, parking ordinances, etc. i. A copy of permits granted to organized activities for the next year. Last but not least, I would request that you respect the integrity of the neighborhood and the property owners before approvlng any organized sports. The users of the park can come and go, we the residents have to stay and are subject to your decision. Looking forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, _ ~J:~~ 17-~ ATTACHMENT B ~Jft... :--.....~~ -...~.................. ~~~ Jtl/c'd- erN OF CHUlA VISfA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT August 17, 1990 Stephen J. Grisell 1735 Coltridge Lane Bonita, CA 92002 Dear Mr. Grisell: Thank you for informing me about your ongoing concerns with the activities at Bonita Long Canyon Community Park. Some of the points you raised in your letter are well taken and are within the purview of this Department to handle. However, there are other items you mentioned that the Department of Parks and Recreation has little, if any, control over. Since your letter is rather extensive and touches on several issues, I will attempt to address the more pertinent concerns that affect you and this Department. I would first like to apologize about the fact that the Girls' Softball League did not take heed to the conditions placed upon them prior to the use of the Park. Last year, I personally informed the League president that practices must be conducted during week days and games played only on Saturdays. Obviously, the League did not follow my directions. In placing conditions on the League's permit for the next year, the Department will maintain the requirement that no games will be allowed during the week. I have attached a letter that my sports supervisor has forwarded to the League informing them of this condition. On the subject of parking, I realize there are a limited amount of parking stalls available within the park. When scheduling organized use of this park, staff takes into account the overflow parking available in the neighborhood. According to your letter, this has led to several problems. In order to minimize the parking problems, I will make it a point to inform both the soccer leagues and the softball leagues to be courteous and conscientious of parking within the neighborhood. I would also encourage you to continue to contact the police if you happen to see any parking violations. Overall, it appears as though the thrust of your concerns deals specifically with the park's design. In particular, whether this park should be deemed a community park with active recreational facilities, or whether this park was designed to accommodate passive uses. Obviously, we are in agreement that this is a rather complicated issue, but I believe that we can reach some consensus 17-Cf ")76 FCllJfHH AVfNllF 'C:HlIL'~ \lIST ,\ (','\llrr"'.F<NI^ nn10 1619\ 69'-5071 I on what can be accomplished with this park. The first step process will be to conduct a site visitation with the Landscape Architect, the Park Superintendent and myself. study will be five alternatives. in the City's Under /' Keep the park as status quo. Perhaps the only change to this alternative would be to add signage informing the public about the fact that there would be no hardball allowed on both fields. 2. Installation of a 15 foot fence along the perimeter of the west field that would restrict balls from landing in your backyard. 3. Relocation of both backstops. This would include redirecting the west backstop to the far southwest corner of the Park and relocating the east backstop to the southeastern part of the park next to the restroom. This reconfiguration would result in both backstops facing north. 5. Eliminate all the fields. 4. Eliminate the west field and keep the east field status quo. Within the next four weeks the Department will be formulating a report for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider. This report will address some or all of the aforementioned alternatives. Included as part of these alternatives will be cost considerations and other impacts such as any negative or positive effects these alternatives would have on park users and the Colton Trails residents. As I pointed out to you last year, the Department attempts to balance the various needs and interests of many community groups. In the case of homeowners residing by the park, there appears to be an interest in requesting action in eliminating active sports programs at the Park. Whereas, in the Youth Sports group scenario the Department has been hard pressed to find active recreational spaces to schedule league practices and games. In attempting to aChieve that fine balance there need to be a "win-win" strategy employed while tackling this park concern. I am confident that you would agree with me on_this point. I would like to reassure you that the Department has made a conscientious effort to maximize the amount of communication taking place with the City's Youth Sports groups. This has been achieved through the formation of a Youth Sports Council. Since this group has been formed, I believe that many of the problems that you noted such as parking, noise and scheduling of games and practices can be minimized. Every month a Department staff member meets with representatives from soccer groups, softball groups and other sports groups. At that meeting concerns are discussed and conditions set for the use of each respective athletic facility. /7-/tJ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the bylaws and POlicies of the Youth Sports Council. This policy informs the youth groups about the "good neighbor pOlicy" and other park rules and regulations. I hope this information satisfies your request to receive a copy of the City's policy about park uses. Mr. Grisell, I will be in touch with you once the report to the Parks and Recreation Commission is completed and prior to its presentation before the Commission. I thank you for the time you spent informing me of your park concerns and I hope that my response addresses most of the issues raised in your letter. Z1e~fUllY , Jess va~ Acting Department of Parks and Director Recreation JV:CC 11-1/ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ,..... . .,~ ~ << ~ . . !\ ~ ~ " J! u ~ <' I .. ATTACHMENT C ,J " tJ '" ~,.. ,.-AV e.~ r /) , " ~ ~ f!!" ~~ (/ ",' ~~ II !:", , -- ' ~~ I: '~--------,' \VI I',: 1\ \ ) 'j /nl I : ........ ..11 1/ \\ !: ~\ ...... II; ~!/ \\ I,c, I . I ' ! n \ ,1 .. \\ ;1 1! \ 1\ j: :,,' \ '" . . " " / H i~-----<':' ,\ " ': I' - I I ,. \ " '\' rvr( f ~i I I ~ :, ,\ . ,I : ~ .go I I, . ,\ , . {: If{ !i III i! )'" L~,~~~~--~~J,. ~[i : I: ;'. :. .' ,f H~ IIi': i, f ~o~ I' , . f ' H~ \ i:' - , - "{ , ' I ! ~n \ \ ( ,/" ,;1 \ \ I! ,: I /) \ ,\, :' /;/ )/:/ :(/ 'Iii I I ' . , I II i .' i .I j ~ I i ~ I i 11-/2- /" /"" 6)I~ ... " ~~ '" .--- 'Al .:! .. '- I- ~ o \I _ill ZZ .:' o-l t\I _ >- ~ I- l- T- 0 II: - Z ill ill 0 a.. > () 0 I- (!) II: <( Z a.. Z _~. II: I- \::,I ill CI) ill I- X () -l ill Z <( - ill u.. ATTACHMENT C 6):r~ .... . ~~ z~ ..,oH All ~ ,..-e."",p 1-'" ..r~ I . o '.. .... "_ '. J;,. . '.' '. .": '. . . (II:.' ..... ". \ '" I ... .. _ \~" ( / '''c- --"-:~~ H r-' ""~ / / I>. . . ..... ...1 . z ~/ ! I' .....\ ~ ;) \ i " \ ... .... .' .1\':. .. g /\ \ (.'-' .'. .... . .. . ......... ~ ~ ~I \\ il.}..,. . \. ~ ~ /( \ I I' \r . .. .1, '~t;; i I 'I : I. . . ....\ ffi 5 If If 1\ j...n'::i.t .. .. I. ........ ~ ~ ;1 H II \ I: : 1... ~ _~ ..... " c><J I n \ ii ; ....-cc . \ 1 r I I! \ \1 i........ ...... , i J f h \ '1:-----</.. 'I / I ~~ \ \ .: : ." n I', 'I I { [jjij [ .:, ,.: I I \ II: / i /~ \ )1:/ 'i // ( II /7-13 III1 r Ii i r ~ ~ ~ I -I I i :i , - . / . / ~ v ~ I ,,~ 6 . r:-h . .' '.. '.' . ))' ..' '., '.. \ (/Ii ..... '. .'. . . ..' ~ '" I I '. . '.' ...... ..' '.' .... .-__ "~~:\ / / [r7":-,'C~-l'\ '\ J/ Ii;. '.. . i\ ) I I t ..'\' \ .~ t. . .I: , / /\ I' "" .\ /1 \\ .: ':'t. ......:.:.:..':..1. / / \ \ I::'L. '. .' '.' .' : . .. . ':::'. / I f-C~: \'" '" '.\., II \ \ 1 , .I.... ...r: I 11 .1' ", I . .. '\ .- /1 f II L,-1 ti\ ;1 j II t : t . . > 1 .: ". / i 1\ ji ~..' L '~'~~'~." .. ~ I i \ i ;.-"C'.. . llJ i \ \ ~ ! ..' ..' i 'I i IIJ-r. II !Ii \ I f, j . If \ \ ./: / ..... ) I \ /u I) , 1/' ;} ill 17- /<( i (, II, 'II ATTACHMENT C Irt) ,..0 "( 0" . ,.~ ~ .' / .. / t;) %~ ..' ~~ \t ~ , .. t \- ~ . ,) z o .:' I- :::t <t: W Z > ::'2: I- - <t: ....J Z W a: 0 w ....J I- !:!:! ....J LL <t: - . \ '. ..~ ~ <( ~ ~'" ,.,p IJ .., oN .:--A .&.1<" ,...~ GO I /) !i ,\" ( ! i I "'~ 1/ [ i ~~ 1/ ! :i \V/! \ : /~\ i:~ I I ,j ;1 \ \ I: '" . .. \ : I ~ I \ \ r;\ \i I II ~ II -I \ \ \ : 'I (Ii I\!\.. I II i ( I IJ II f': I I i'V1j ( :r~ \ \ [: \ \ ~ ~ . \" I l _-- 'I ( I !I \ \ i ! -- CC ill ,I \ \ ii ! ' I h \" I I / I H I \ I: - - - - 'j . 'I I f il! n!. / ! ) ! \ \1 i / ,I J) \)1':/ 'j / / ( , I! II \(1 ill 17-/r' , , / /" CY~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ \:> ~ .... '- \... ~ t \j :J <( > ..0 - 1:: !:f) w w 0: > 0.. I- 0 ,<( I- Z (f) 0: ~ w 0 I- <( ....J co <(- \ . , .--- '" . '" ATTACHMENT D October 24, 1989 Stephen J. Grisell 1735 Coltridge Ln. Bonita, Ca 92002 Ph: 482-9789 LviF.l '; wl'- tt- SIT - o-v'12..- G<..w'rtR. Mr. Manuel Mollinedo Director of Parks & Recreation City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 .... L\ ~-z.. - '1r(e1" J,'IA., e...riMA-J Dear Mr. Mollinedo: This letter and the attac~ed petition containing more than 100 signatures is forwarded to you to respectfully request that the City of Chula Vista prohibit all organized sports activities in the Colton Trails Community Park and that a sign prohibiting such activities be posted in the Park. Our concerns are: 1) Inadequate Parking & Congestion 2) Safety, 3) Noise, and 4) Potential Property Devaluation. Inadeauate Parkin!! & Con!!estion With the limited amount of available designated parking, it is clear that the Park was not originally designed to accommodate it's present useage. Within the confines of the Park there are only 24 designated parking spots, two of which are identified as handicap parking. (Please see the attached plot map). Overflow parking is then forced to park along Corral Canyon Road, where the speed limit of 40 mph is rarely adhered to and along the residential streets within the Colton Trails Community. The park's physical Location is less than 100 ft. from the main access road, Corral Canyon, and is adjacent to the Q!l!y entry and exit in to and out of the Colton Trails Development. As cars enter and exit the Colton Trails T velopment, cars enter and exit the Park's tiny parking lot. (The el; .ry to the park is in and out of the same access). When cars entering the parking lot see that it is full, they back out into traffic entering and exiting the Colton Trails Community. This hazardous situation has on many occassions nearly resulted in an accident. 17-/~ /~ '-.. ... Safety ..- . Given the above scenario, safety within the Colton Trails Community on any Saturday is best described as an accident waiting to happen. The increased traffic in our neighborhood, congestion at the corner, people making V-Turns, blocking fire hydrants and handicap zones, and backing in and out of driveways greatly increases the probability that a young child will get hurt. Residents, who have young children and live in close proximity to the park are afraid to let their children walk, play, or ride bikes in their own neighborhood on Saturday. Fearful of our own safety as well as that of others, residents of Colton Trails have continually called police to ticket .~ violators. The Police have even agreed that the current situation is unsatisfactory. It is not surprising then that our residents are concerned that they might be required to respond to a needless tragedy. And one has to wonder, given the litigious society we live in, if the City might find themselves having to respond to a needless law suit. Noise The .first.s_o~c_er_.ga!l1e_gets _underway at 8:00 a.m and, unfortunately, so does the yelIing and screaming from loyal fans who have come to watch the game. It should be pointed out that some homes are as close as 100 ft. from the park:, but the noise evidently echoes throughout the community as we have received complaints from many residents as far as two blocks away. The luxury of spending a nice quiet week-end in the Colton Trails community has truly become a thing of the past. Potential Propertv Devaluation Comments from neighbors who's homes are for sale and from real estate personnel have raised the issue. of potentiaLproperty devaluation. Potential buyers have expressed concern regarding the noise and congestion in the park. Since the noise and activity take place at the entry and exit point to the development, property devaluation could affect all residents. On some occassions realtors have had difficulty parking near a listing that he or she is trying to sell. 17-/7 -. . 4. In approving the park for organized sports, residents in and around the area of Bonita Long Canyon have been denied use of their "community" park on Saturday as well as two afternoons during the week while the park is used for games and practices. Residents have expressed anger that their children cannot utilize the park in their own neighborhood during these times. In the case of the Colton Trails Park, the developer provided the land while the City evidently determined it's use. It appears as though the City had some obligation to disclose to the Developer the intended use of the park so that that the information could then be passed onto the potential homebuyer, thus allowing the homebuyer to make an informed choice regarding home selection. In order to fully appreciate the concerns of the residents of Colton Trails, we strongly encourage that representatives from the City visit our "Community" park between 10:00 and 4:00 p.m. on any Saturday. In doing so, we are certain that the City will agree with the local residents who have signed the attached petition and thus, prohibit all organized sports activities in the Colton Trails "Community" Park. We look forward to an expeditious resolution to this problem. Sincerely, Stephen J. Grisell Resident Colton Trails Community end: 1) Petition -Nor SI!I'JAJN f.~ 2) Pictures 3) Diagram /7- /'1/11- 29 . IP~lrIITlf(Q)N . I We, the citizens of the Colton Trails Development located in Bonita Long Canyon, do hereby respectively request that the City of Chula Vista take the appropriate action to remove all organized sports activities from the Colton Trails Park and relocate such activities to a playing area that better suits the sport and ensures the safety and welfare of the residents of Colton Trails. Name (Please sign) Name (Please print) 11-/1 Address /7' .3 Coc.T/2/L>4€ LANi. Il~ {!ot.r7Z//JG.C ,(.4ue. I 713 CD(..'RI])~E LA N~ .. /)\' . . \I~\\ L:U '"~~ o~C \_'^- 173+ CcY-l-n'rJ.;? Q, VIJ~d,j '" /73 s- COLf.'?..IPCl; !.,oh'/:.... ,~..r/.? r::4LH~~n/l/ ((/~~) -*1 f.;/lt.-v'c"':f77J II) 1)//1<;' J'M). Cv/In/1u ~JrJC: 17t/~ (Jdlrt 5f- rM. . -fa/, /~ ~ :1f)",) -E:. MJE:. 17s:f) to/-./ I? I tJ6./!Lt:r.AI ~ IIJ)" CoH"'t~e Ll'ttle /73~- ~~ CJ;L ;C,,~ / r s: I ~Lc,,, .~ / . /7 ~/ ~LrR.(1)GC tN, . 5~ Il2ft/LR!DCF' DR.- I 1:110 t<, he '<\"""-'- L "', ." /7J-t CtJii '/1. -7-;/ I 50~ -P-Lil'/n',1'J'e I ( It- .. . ';.;., <'~ <':---CJ '\ "'" \ ___ J r ..2 2 ~ ' \ '-, '. \ '.., a~ ,\- u,.: / >,., fi./'-' ~ . lID lK lI'JI 1['JI <Q) W . ~ --'- . I We, the citizens of the Colton Trails Development located in Bonita Long Canyon, do hereby respectively request that the City of Chula Vista take the appropriate action to remove', 'all organized' sports activities from the Colton Trails Park and relocate such activities, to a playing area that better suits the sport and ensures the safety and, welfare of the residents of Colton Trails. h' ~._ Name (Please sign) Name (Please print) ':; -, 1 /1- 2() Address ~ TftAil2,o4E vr: -' A S-"l~ =rifmf-rn:>l-1e.---ur:---~"-- " '),. '57S""'-~J",,-d 1'~ '-'D F--- ti y-G4z'7TfTr;;'1-t.VA'F~ , I , 5-;9-.Jj.d~,0:7~~ " :- ~::::; '; 11=~ . ' ~ ' ?, Gpr-L ,n ~- ,..C.4f.J/t"?'7(.,-J -,'-'4V -v f \ I I r:, ~S" (..-Allle'S\r,10 lD~ r-=--. .. "&-.c..L ' - ---~~ -,. ~~"--.J~V. StJ~ {ja/u,Mlo r> .va--{ DLf-04C~.s~-C,..j. - A " ," \-J ~ '\ \ \i "-i,': ,..-- '." ~\~ S~u..lt:JToI" V . r1-~- f,A LV E..llo }J WA.f 5'6? (;-IJ'- V;;:s'70~ wA /!- 1/ c:5...h 4 ,..... -~ s~~ . -' ~;; . -..'; . ~. ,. ~"', - - ~~'?5'} - ,.- \ ~ ',_' '0, " .. . We, the cItIZens of the Colton, Trails Develop~ent lo~d in Bonita Long Canyon. do. hereby respectively request ihat the"City of Chula Vista take the appropriate'act~on tore~l?xe.all organized sports activities from the Colton TrailsParkand.relocate- such 'ac'tivitiisO(fo- 'a playing area that better suits the . . '-J ,., sport and ensures the safety' and 'w'elfare of the residents of Colton Trails.' \. .... v: il""'.l1..:iUa.....Jr........-- Name (Please sign) Name (Please . print) r.{1 I \ -' ..... "',-" 17- ;21 I -- " " Address s5'"'1lr~,'!iAlr!.5.-C Or. . , , . J;"5~IL<2-\"~ -;:.. \J~' 5~+~~';lf6 ,p Q--,- 5<)1 ,Jilll (/~ rdc;f' V<- - / ( 9i1---h[rlr KII-I<;/C ,,~ 5'1777?Il/tlf./D61! lJ.R. Jt/'7 7R/J/L!fID6.E lJ~, " II '1 III II II ~.::iu2rAi [Rit\4~ \)~.- , S;3''l~/l2ld \D"~-e. r- "> If" <J ---.:>~./ .. ,'- '.,. .s- ) '1. ' -.51.%_ } I " 11-- ..--:-- --:-->c--: 51 ft.',_ /OlJ"tIl..P,J()f-&' ~~' ~ __ 5.lK':!2-,ci ( . (l "'; of '3~. ',,' ~~~?/?/d~f!~ /):~::;~i: L";-~'. ./ 0 ';".' /. ...~, .. _.J1.4)9i~'4, ',' :,;.~.:" '/70Cf-!J.or-SfShC'C C+': ..- T /701 J!oxeSf-.o:-C:/- .j )61- /;0H(cc,io<t)~~c~ . ' : ;:;'ib~;;~ .;~,~~{~:~;=- ~,:~ " ,',' ":'~;t~1~~.!~ . . I / J.t' il1 11 11 11 11 'UJ ! " We, the' citizens of the Colton Trails Development located in Bonita Long Canyon, do hereby respectively request that the City of Chula Vista take the appropriate 'action to remove all or~anized rsp.orts activities from the Colton Trails Park and relocate such activities to a' playing area that better suits the- sport and ensures the safety' and welfare of the' residents of Colton Trails. - .' Address - -~ V"'J.O~--1Jo1i5estlO~- --_:. 170 tf Jfvr.:seshD.~J .. 7-711y--I/;;sc?.ske d - 5~i- T<</lt2...PtiJ'0);J.."'f-'r , S34 -rM/ L/f/D::'!;E 7)J?JP S-V2 /rc,-,f;';"d'c'.:~' - ,i '. C;C/~ 7r~;"'~:F'Z2i... ~----V2. 7 n:....;..r;;-;;;p;:.;. /;;J{ . - , 51- c,. T ~ JJ"Q P r-' " .-z;~t0i!/J-,)RIt0b ~ [;50 "I/2.Y-Itl...p-i~ DR- ~/ ~5CJ7hz i/)-I~ ('=>Dr: f:y~\t 570-rRI,I,IL \lJ(~eDe 7;/u 1,,,./r:cf,{(:" 0;', - . 5 7,~ / ~rt--I( PiP;:'!" D:(? ;, 57<1:, TIZA lLJ<..r06 IE: "DR .' i~; ;;;~~/I~~; .7'75 7/zA'L~/O~ j)/l ..- -{C;),--; F'YlILeJJJ4~ Id 6-t.~ -IL'I!/GnCl,0! !vc. oS 7<? i/Y) IL/lIf),:,F /)1(' -519 PA/J../U /v-"r lIP " - I' . ;~">~" ~: ;.... >. '~i ~. /7- ZL .' '.t';" . < :),.'i~.;:"'~~' :.~ ./. v . 1P ~ JI'IT 1[' IT <rD W . I We, the citizens of the Colton Trails Development located in Bonita Long c:q~>:!1!"" d~ hereby respective.lY req<<est that the City of Chula Vista take the, appropriateaCiion to remove all organized sports activities from ihe Colton Trails Park 'and relocate such activities to a playing area that better suits the, sport and ensures the safety and welfare of ,the residents of Colton Trails. Name (Please sign) Name {Please ---- - -.,- --- -- ~ --. ----->-.----.- --- -- ......,.-----_...,.,....,.-_.~----- - --~~-~.,..........."...-".,....~---_.- .._V'_~" _r.... __ ,,-,-._..'''--_.. -------. . ,-\_... ----~-- .._-~~-_. .--- .-..------ -' ,~.-,._-~~----~-- , ' - -_...,...,-..-, .,..,'_. "..-.--- u__'_'_'_ _. ;:l"c:~_~:.i......,_ ~_:;;'-....- -----=-." -.--.,..."...,;....,.-;- ~--~ .. -~-,~....,...-..,.....,_._"'- - .......,..,...:,--..--... ---..--- --..------_.,---~.-'~-- ~-..,-_.- ....-=.~.=.~...---'--_-..,.,..-o:.....-.=....:.. ----.' ....__. _ _~....___--=--~."....,._-'_o _.,~_'-'~ _' ~'C'. --_.--- --.. ~ ---- --.-- - f.'.--:,'_.. ~ --'--"-.+ 17- :23 Address --5SY-~(Lt2\~ 'D:i. -057l7-~,-:/~~d~,~ Dr, -' --.'." - '--' . . - .~. ' ...-...,---....,.-. .,,"---' -.,. .- -----.---.-.-.- " " ,,~:~:Jr~~~.x" _ " '\6~~:1~\\~~ , Ii ,- . --~_._-- --- ----,-~ -- .' ~~'i-/*;f.i.~' ),-"',.' ."-.--- - - .-.'," ..' " "'---".":";, '17 .;~. ~\~:i,~: :~~~' " 1.~~~'~~~~~i '.:~r,:~~'-:~'~ .' .. "~J~~~t.~. ATTACHMENT E ~(ft- ~J1ff/~ .......~~~ ............................. --- erN OF CHUlA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT November 21, 1989 Stephen J. Grisell 1735 Colt ridge Lane Bonita, CA 92002 Dear Mr. Grissell: This letter is in response to an October 25, wi th you and Mr. Jim Carney concerning the Canyon Park by organized sports groups. 1989 meeting I had use of Bonita Long At that meeting, you provided me with a letter, petition, map and photographs which supported your proposal to prohibit all organized sports activities at the park. In the letter, you listed the following reasons why the City should deny all requests from organized sports leagues to use Bonita Long Canyon Community Park: 1) inadequate parkway and congestion, 2) safety, 3) noise, and 4) potential property devaluation. In response to your proposal, I informed you that it was not feasible to deny the use of a public park to organized sports groups. However, I did promise to look into the possibil i ty of modifying the facility use agreement of the American Youth Soccer Organization to include only weekday practices. I also agreed to speak with the City's Risk Manager to determine any possible liability problems associated with attracting large numbers of spectators and participants to this park. On a side note, I wish to bring up an issue that was not resolved at that meeting. Although your letter specifically mentioned the residents of Colton Trails wish to have all organized sports prohibited, I left the meeting with the impression that you or Mr. Carney were not too concerned with the Girls Softball Association's use of this park. Just recently, however, I discovered that you also wanted to prohibit this group from using the park's facilities. Therefore, this letter will describe what the department intends on doing with this group as well. I recently spoke to the Regional Commissioner for the American Youth Soccer Organization. A decision was made to shift the league's Saturday Soccer games to Bonita Vista High School, effective the 1990 season. However, they will be permitted to practice at the park during the weekdays between 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. The soccer season spans from early August to about mid-November. /7- ;1..t/ 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VIST;"" CALIFORNIA 92010 (619) 691.5071 / On the subject of liability, the City's Risk Manager informed me that there is a certain margin of City liability involved with allowing organized sports groups to use the park, especially if it creates traffic congestion and the potential for safety problems. This liability risk is not in her opinion so severe as to prohibit all organized sports use at this facility. I also spoke to the League President of- the Girls Softball. A decision has been made to allow this group to conduct Saturday games and weekday practices. This decision was based upon Community need and lack of other available city facilities. A letter will be sent to the League President reinforcing the concerns listed in your letter, particularly as it relates to safety and parking. The League President has assured me that games would not begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. and the league would work with the nearby residents to minimize problems. The softball season will span from February through June of 1990 (the first two months will only include tryouts and practice on Saturday's). I realize that the City's decision to allow organized sports activities at this park is not what you or the nearby residents had in mind. On the other hand, your petition has prompted some action to mitigate, to some degree, the amount of traffic and congestion during the soccer season. In addition, I am sure yoU are aware of the limited amount of City sports field currently available to the residents of this Community. In order to meet this escalating need, the City has planned several park projects in your area. For example, the Rancho del Rey Park Project on east "H" Street will most likely be ready for active sports Use in approximately one year. This park will feature SOCcer and softball fields that will hopefully lessen the demand for Bonita Long Canyon Community Park. Should yoU have any further questions or comments about this letter, please don't hesitate to contact me-at 691-5071. Sincerely, Ck~~ Jess Valenzuela Recreation Superintendent JV/tb /1- ~r- CITY OF CHULA VISTA J);<f1F T Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Thursday 6:00 p.m. October 18, 1990 Public Services Building Conference Rooms 2 & 3 ******************* ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Sandoval-Fernandez, Commissioner Hall, Commissioner Lind Commissioner Willett (6:40) Commissioner Roland MEMBER LATE: MEMBER ABSENT: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the meeting of September 20, 1990. Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 20, 1990. MSC LIND/HALL 3-0 (Willett out) 2. PUBLIC HEARING OR REMARKS none 3 . UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. PUBLIC ACCESS TO OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER It was decided to not discuss it at this time. b. STATUS OF INCREASE IN NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS Director Valenzuela explained that the information has gone to the City Attorney. It will be about three weeks before it goes to the City Council. c. BONITA LONG CANYON PARK Director Valenzuela passed out Council Agenda Statements from 8/23/88 concerning the appropriation of funds for the maintenance of Bonita Long Canyon Park. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Department took over the park in 1988 and issued permits to girls softball and a soccer group. He then went on to review the problems that residents near the park have with these organized sports activities: noise, traffic congestion, softballs being hit into the back yards of residents. The permits issued to these groups were modified 17 - 2C, to help find a balance between the residents and the leagues, but were not always adhered to. Director Valenzuela turned over the presentation to Martin Schmidt, the Department's Landscape Artchi tect. After stating that the distance from home plate to the bottom of the wall was shorter than originally identified in the construction drawings done by a design consultant firm for McMillin Communi ties, Mr. Schmidt explained each of the following alternatives using illustrations: Alternative #1: Retain the park in its existing configuration and attempt to control the use of the ballfields by the use of signage requesting that only permitted groups use the facilities, no hard balls are to be used, and the park to be used during identified time frames during the day. The cost would be approximately $1,000. Alternative #2: Installation of a 15' high fence for 300 feet along property line. The cost would be approximately $16,000. Alternative #3: Relocate the western ballfield to the southwest corner of the park. This configuratin of the western field would provide a 260' radius for the ballfield, except at the left field foul line, and modifications would be done to the backstop of the eastern ballfield to make it for "Tee Ball" age groups only. The cost would be approximately $17,250. Alternative #4: To delete both backstops altogether. This is the most expensive alternative involving removal of both ball fields and replacing them with an irrigation system, new sod, some tree plantings and picnic facilities, but the soccer overlay would remain. The approximate cost would be $20,000. Director Valenzuela added that Alternative #2 does not resolve the liability and Alternative #4 eliminates sorely needed ballfields, but satisfies the residents abutting the park. He went on to explain the fifth alternative. Alternative #5: Delete the western ballfield and retain the eastern ballfield. Even though it eliminates a ballfield when fields are sorely needed in the city, it also eliminates the liability problems and satifies the interests of the residents abutting the park. The Bonita Valley Girls Softball will be using Discovery Park starting in March 1991 and will not need two fields at Bonita Long Canyon Park. Director Valenzuela was concerned about needing more ball fields in the future and that the western ballfield should be retained. Martin Schmidt suggested that the approximate cost would be $9,000 to $10,000. Mr. Stephen J. Grisell, a resident of Bonita, expressed his concerns about Alternative #3'8 impact on property devaluation 17 - J.7 and liabilities of the residents with property park. His recommendation was removal of ballfield. abutting the the western Mr. Adrian R. Deal, President, Bonita Valley Girls Amateur Softball Association, said that there would be no problem with the use of one ballfield at the park since they would also be able to use Discovery Park for their games. Director Valenzuela reiterated that the Department is trying to find a way to eliminate the liability problem altogether yet at the same time satisfy the interests and needs of the leagues. He would cautiously back Alternative #5 because of the elimination of a backstop that could be needed for future league use as the city grows. Commissioner Hall had two concerns, the first being the slope angle of the park making the ball fields have an unsuitable playing surface. While he was using the Illustration for Alternatives 1 & 2, his second concern was about a drop that shortens the playing field. He also was concerned about funding for future ball playing sites, but yet understood the problems of the residents. He suggested that we do make a "Tee Ball" ballfield and relocate the restrooms to locate a ballfield there. Chair Sandoval-Fernandez questioned Director Valenzuela about the City's recourse since the ballfields were built smaller than on the master plan for the park. The Department can go back to McMillin and negotiate, however, the city signed off the plans and has taken responsibility. Director Valenzuela will ask the City Attorney for his opinion about the developer getting park credits based on the ace rage not based on the improvements on it. William J. Carney, a resident of Bonita, does not want the backstop moved as it would be right in the middle of the view from his home. Commissioner Lind said that on October 11 the newly formed Sports Council met and this issue was also on their agenda. He reported that a motion was made and accepted unanimously at that meeting to only have one softball field at the park with an overlay for soccer. Motion to accept Alternative #5. M Lind Motion failed for lack of a second. Mrs. Georgi Grisell, a resident of Bonita, stated that the residents had no problem with the Girls Softball using the fields until Discovery Park opens in March. Chair Sandoval-Fernandez asked Director Valenzuela if the /?- z~ girls softball league was guaranteed the use of Discovery Park and he explained that the issue will first go the Youth Sports Council for their field allocation process, then the Department will issue a Facility Use Agreement for the league for both Discovery Park and Bonita Long Canyon Park. Mr. Ralph Munoz, from Boni ta Valley Girls Softball Association, said that he and Mr. Grisell had discussed this issue and came to an agreement that is very similar to Alternative #5. Mrs. Georgi Grisell is concerned with the traffic congestion and illegal parking taking place on the weekends during soccer games. Commissioner Willett explained that there is no money in the City to provide any additional sports facilities and the solution may be to cut down on the number of soccer teams or the number of participants. Mrs. Georgi Grisell questioned that doesn't the Quimby Act provide park plan fees in proportion to growth. Commissioner Willett and Director Valenzuela explained that we have Quimby in place and the funds cannot be transferred from one development to another. The land under the power lines is extra and didn't count as park credits. Motion to accept Alternative #5 if it is feasible for the City to do it that way and is compatible with the neighborhood. Mrs. Apotala S. Roberts, a resident of Bonita, expressed her concerns about the children playing soccer in the park. Commissioner Hall does not support the motion now because of the question of future usage. MSC Lind/Willett 3-1 d. AQUATIC REPORT - INFORMATIONAL Director Valenzuela went over the memo from the Department's Aquatic Coordinator. There was discussion as to the cost to repair or rebuild the Rohr Park Pool. It would cost at least $1.5 million to put in an olympic size swimming pool. There are plans to put a pool in the Park Renovation Plan. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. OTAY REGIONAL PARK Director Valenzuela reported that the City over the past year has been involved in a joint agreement with the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and the National Park Service in /?- ;L' coming up with a concept plan for the proposed Otay Regional Park. Shauna Stokes, Senior Administrative Analyst for the Department, and Martin Schmidt gave an overview and update on the plans. It is an ongoing plan that will take at least 20 years to realize. Commissioner Willett another Interpretive located now. would like to see Chula Vista have Center in the area where Swiss Park is Martin Schmidt also talked about the Bay Route Bike Way Commissioner Hall had a question concerning how the three jurisdictions will share the operation and maintenance of this park. Shauna Stokes explained that a long term management plan will need to be looked at. b. NAME FOR SOUTHERN CHULA VISTA LIBRARY/PARK COMPLEX Director Valenzuela explained the background of the new library/park complex to be built in southern Chula Vista. Mr. David Palmer, Assistant Library Director, reported that the Library Board met on September 26 and will recommend the name of South Chula Vista Park and Library. He reported that the Montgomery Planning Committee will recommend the name Orange Avenue Park and Library. Motion to name the complex South Chula Vista. Commissioner Hall would not support the motion unless the name is changed to Southern. MSF Willett/Lind 2-2 Motion to name it Montgomery Library/Park Complex. MSC Willett/Hall 3-1 c. CONNOLLEY MINI-PARK UPDATE Director Valenzuela gave a background of the issue. Mr. Jerry Foncerrada, Parks Superintendent, explained the problems with the two parks in this area. The Department's first recommendation is to leave it alone. The Department's second recommendation is for in park #1 to adjust the property lines and put together a minor CIP project by planting trees, putting in security lights and eliminating cut outs for parking at a cost of approximately $12,000 to $15,000. At park #2 the neighboring residents are more vigilant at keeping unwanted users of the park out; taking license plate numbers, staring at them. /?- .30 Commissioner Hall recommended that they support the second recommendation made by the Department. MSC Hall/Willett 4-0 d. BOARDS & COMMSSIONS AGENDA SUBMITTALS Director Valenzuela explained the background on the Memorandum from the City Attorney, Mr. Bruce Boogaard, to establish a formal mechanism for the commissione to place an item on the Council Agenda. Motion to support this and the Department staff to initiate a letter that this commission concurs. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 e. CIP STATUS REPORT - INFORMATIONAL Director Valenzuela shared with the Commission the major Capital Improvement Programs that the Department is currently involved in. They are: Norman Park Center reconstruction to begin on December 3, 1990 and end on December 1, 1991, Rohr Park construction to begin January 7, 1991 and end mid- September 1991, Memorial Park construction is currently going on and is set for completion in early December 1990 with a dedication on December 2, 1990 to coincide with the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and the Starlight Yule Parade, Parkway Pool mechanical system replastering project construction to begin mid-January 1991 with completion in mid-March 1991, and Marina View Park construction to begin in early summer 1991. f. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Director Valenzuela explained that the City Attorney would like to amend the Conflict of Interest List. Each year the commissioners would have to sign a statement that they do not have a conflict of interest with the city. Motion to support the City Attorney's recommendation in implementing a Conflict of Interest Policy that would add the names of Commissioners to the Conflict of Interest list. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 g. EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM: HILLTOP DRIVE WALKWAY Motion to accept this emergency item on the agenda. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 Mr. Frank explained pedestrian Rivera, from City Traffic Engineering Division, the proposed pedestrian walkway between the signal at Hilltop Drive near Loma Verde Elementary 17 -,3' School and the school property. An area resident has requested a diagonal walkway from the east curb line of Hilltop Drive at the signal to the school gate be constructed thus shortening the route by 100'. Staff from Engineering recommends that no additional walkway be built. The cost for this walkway would be approximately $1,500 to $3,000. Mr. Rivera stated that the Pincipal from Loma Verde School concurs wi th Engineering Staff in that no additional walkway is needed. Commissioner Hall explained that students going to Loma Verde School would dart across Hilltop Drive to get to the existing walkway to school and the resident is requesting a walkway from the signal, diagonally across the park, to the school gate. Director Valenzuela said the Department I s staff does not recommend construction of this walkway. Motion not to accept the installation of the asphalt walkway. MSC Willett/Hall 4-0 Commissioner Willett stated that he would like to see in the minutes of commission meetings mention of those who supported or didn't support an issue. 5. COMMUNICATIONS a. Written Correspondence 1. EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT Director Valenzuela stated that Mr. Robert Santos, President of the Eastlake Development Company, would like to meet with the Commission to discuss his letter. This would be an agenda item on the November 15, 1990 meeting. 2. ARTICLE FROM OCTOBER 1990 SUNSET MAGAZINE Shauna Stokes explained that the article is about the Open Space area in Rancho Del Rey and Rice Canyon. The plan is to plant acorns in the open space areas by the People for Trees so that Oak trees will grow in this area. b. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Willett found the presentation by staff on the Otay Regional Park very informative. He felt Shauna Stokes did an outstanding job. reminded the commission about the Arturo Barrios Race at Bayside Park on Sunday. concerned about growth in the school districts. I?- 3Z- Commissioner Lind showed the new logo for the Sports Council. he would like to know when the fire pit would be cleaned out at Halecrest Park. Chair Sandoval-Fernandez would like a roster of the Commissions' telephone numbers. the grass is consistently wet at Bonita Long Canyon Park Commissioner Hall would like to see on the Agenda each month an update of the Sports Commission. the sloping of the ground at Bonita Long Canyon Park concerns him. 6. MONTHLY REPORT Director Valenzuela reviewed the monthly report which included the production of Winnie the Pooh, the Halloween Haunted House, Flag Football at the After School Recreation sites, Fall Registration is at an all time high with over 1,112 participating in the mail-in registration, and youth basketball program will be beginning soon. The meeting was adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 1990. Submitted by, / / //~. l/:!-L';:',L 0<'.)?ff~J-o Julia G. Lindsey . I? - 33 City of Chula Vista Parks 0 Recreation Department YOUTH SPORTS COUNCIL MINUTES for October 11, 1990 meetin9 Attachment F MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Carlos Sosa - C.V. Pony South Bob Lind - C.V. Pony North Adrian Deal - B.V.A.S.A. Hal Coupar - C.V. Girls Softball John Gates - City of C.V. Ralph Munoz - B.V.A.S.A Larry Preston - B.V.A.S.A. Steve Scott - City of C.V. Norm Ross - S.B. Youth Soccer Joaquin Alvarez - AYSO Region 290 Jerry Clark - C.V. Girls Soccer Michael Wozniak - S.D. Sun Soccer Ellen Helfers - AYSO Region 116 Jim Tollefson - C.V. Parks and Recreation The meeting was called to order by the President, Adrian Deal at 7:05p.m. The minutes for September 18th were reviewed and approved as they stand. 1. B.V.A.S.A. FIELD SOLUTION Jess Valenzuela was unable to come to attend this meeting but a solution for B.V.A.S.A. was found. Since Discovery Park will be opening March 1st, B.V.A.S.A. can use it for their season. They will be using Bonita Long Canyon Park for T-ball if enough participate. 2. RENOVATIONS OF PARKS We would like to have some input on reconfiguration of existing parks so that baseball and soccer fields will be more useable. It was moved and passed to change Bonita Long Canyon Park to have one baseball and one soccer field. We were told Eastlake Park would have two lighted fields. It was passed to have Steve Scott and Jim Tollefson check on what parks are being planned. 3. PROBLEMS CONCERNING MAX FIELD The problem was solved between C.V. Girls Softball and South Bay Little League useage of Max Field. Jerry Clark would like to put lights in at Max Field. He will write or meet with Jess Valenzuela and John Gates. 4. COMMITTEE 2001 We were asked to JOln this committee. This way we could help decide how it will be founded and what improvements will be made in our libraries, culteral arts, sport fields, etc. I?-- 3 V ~ 5. YOUTH SPORTS COUNCIL LETTERHEAD/LOGO After viewing different types of lettering, we decided tentitively on which one we wanted. It was moved and passed that Ellen Helfers would work on the logo with Bill Ohlson. John Gates said he would look into an address for us. 6. OTHER Jim Tollefson brought up items which will be on our agenda for next month. All our present officiers will be in their position for 1 1/2 years. The next election will be in November of 1991. We were informed that our elected officials in Chula Vista are willing to work with us on future parks. We were encouraged to start self-help programs and to use the buses for advertising our organizations. The corner of Otay Lakes Road and H Street by Southwestern College was discussed for putting in fields. Jim Tollefson said he would talk to Jerry Foncerrada about ownership of this land. 7. NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting will be Thursday, November 8, 1990 at 7:00p.m. at the Parks and Recreation Conference room. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:36p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Ellen K. Helfers Secretary /?- 3~ ( ( , "'-- , " i'tf\Ac::~""'I'\'\~o{'.rT G SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2b Meeting Date 12/13/90 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: Status Report on Bonita Long Canyon Park City Traffic Engineer F.(2. (c.. H-f2. BACKGROUND: At the Safety Commission meeting of November 8, 1990, the Safety Commission voted unanimously to have Traffic Engineering staff meet with Parks and Retreat i on staff to di scuss i ncreasi ng parki ng and improvi ng traffi c conditions for the Bonita Long Canyon Park neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: That the Safety Commission accept staff's report and 1) el iminate one stall in the parking lot to allow vehicles to turn around when the lot is full; and 2) prohibit parking on Coltridge Lane in the vicinity of the park entrance and intersection with Galveston Way. DISCUSSION: At the November 8, 1990 meeting, various concerns were mentioned by Mr. Stephen J. Grisell, an area resident, regarding the traffic congestion caused by organized sports at the Bonita Long Canyon Park. Parking is inadequate and noise levels excessive. Traffi c Engi neeri ng staff has met with the Parks and Recreat i on staff to discuss alternatives to reduce the traffic congestion in the neighborhood caused by organized sports activities at Bonita Long Canyon Park. Several issues which were discussed are: Construction of another entrance to the park Enlarging the parking lot Reducing organized sports at the park Construction of another entrance The topography of the park is such that there is a 2:1 slope along side Corral Canyon Road which would require extensive grading and the removal of the tot lot to enlarge the parking lot. The elevation difference between the park and Corral Canyon Road is at least 10 feet. If another entrance is desired, the most probable location would be on Coltridge Lane. Due to major reconstruction involved with a new driveway entrance which requires removing the tot lot, it is not practical to create another entrance. The tot lot is to be retained. Removing the tot lot to enlarge the parking lot is too expensive. With the completion of Discovery Park and the relocation of some of the organized sports to other parks, the congestion at the park and adjoining streets should be reduced. /7 - 3" ( ( "- Page 2, Item 2b Meeting Date 12/13/90 EnlarqinG the DarkinG lot The Bonita Canyon Park has a 24 stall parki ng lot. Two of these stall s are reserved for handicapped persons. It has been mentioned that when the parking lot is full, vehicles have a difficult time backing out onto Coltridge Lane. Si nce the parki ng is rectangul ar by des i gn with perpendi cul ar parki ng stalls along two perimeters, an exit/enter driveway and the park entrance along the other two perimeters, no turn around facil ity is avail ab 1 e. Si nce it is not practical to enlarge the parking lot, without major expenditure due to the tot lot, staff recommends prohibiting parking in one stall so that a vehicle can use it as a turn around point. ReducinG the oraanizea ~ports usinG the Dark Some changes are being made to reduce activity at the park. At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of October 18, 1990, it was ifJJproved to delete the western ballfield and retain the eastern ballfield. The Bonita Valley Gi rl s Softball League wi 11 be usi ng Di scovery Park starting next March, thus reducing some of the need for ballfields at Bonita Long Canyon Park. Practice sessions, softball, soccer and tee-ball will continue at the park. Staff recommends that one parking stall adjacent to a handicapped stall be designated as a "no parking" area so that vehicles may use it as a turnaround poi nt. Parki ng wi 11 also be prohi bi ted near the park dri veway and adjoi ni ng wheelchair ramps on Coltridge Lane. WPC 5349E Attachments: Area Plats Park Alternatives (5) /7- 37 ( /[;L / ._____ no. _ I ( r,,.-- I , ~)'=''':'I '- ---.- ---~ '>Id t7d I I I I J I I I I..' I i .' I i t'li I I'll ! I ;11 ',i I : I ~ ~ ,', I ~~I " r-~; ---'---~i 1- ~ I ' r-- -i E I ~ 3 ~~~~,j . -~:=:ZL, , '\\ L _ _ _ _L_ ~.~ , I ,I I , -, L' ! C"-' f';: I , , i ----'--, 'Nl I Ii , ~ ~ , 1', '-._" z <C < , :-< .- ;.:; GJ }> ~ ::]:)0 I CillOJ 1fT u~- , I , i ~~\, I ", r _ : I - ,,'I! 8 I :tJ II!' Ii' ~ " Idl r-I If[1 Q I I !"I i -::. I , I '!: <- 'i: "'"' :,11 () , ::,< '11' I);:) () h ; I' \) i II LrI : ! ~ ',I : i : I ?' l..1.~ , , 'I ~ , " ~' .7 , , , 1'-,1 "" I ,I . . i i r I ,~I I 'w Ii I Iii ! r .. , ~i , ,I !:' I ' i , I J I r i , .11 I I; I' :'f : J. I & i ': ,j " .' ,.j , , :f' : , ! , !. ' . II , I I I: l-\ I loJ ,', I l'l " J ,"1 i' : I' I I' , I . ~ II i V- :! " /7- 38' ' . Ii , I COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Ii Meeting Date 1/8/91 Resolution /S'I,O Consideration of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-10 Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III Plan SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning e~ /) REVIEWED BY: City Managef..) '.' ITEM TITLE: (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-) The item has been continued from the Council meeting of December 18, 1990. The document which this staff report refers to is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which addresses the proposed Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III project. This SEIR should be read in conjunction with the previously prepared Final EIR (EIR-83-2). The SEIR document covers effects on the environment which are specific to the SPA III project and those that were not previously addressed as significant effects in the master EIR. In addition, the SEIR covers the effects of a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which would eliminate the connection of East "J" Street and Buena Vista Way, and redesignate East "J" Street east of Paseo Ranchero from a Class II Collector to a Class III Collector. The subsequent public hearings will consider: 1) The proposed General Plan amendment (GPA-91-2); and 2) The proposed Rancho Del Rey SPA III Plan and related actions (PCM-90-6). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution certifying that EIR-89-10 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and further that Council has reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 14, 1990, the Planning Commission certified that the Final EIR had been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. DISCUSSION: The Supplemental EIR-89-10 Rancho Del Rey SPA III, is for the 405 acre, third phase of the El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan, located in the city of Chula Vista east of I-80S, south of East H Street and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. The SPA III Plan proposes the construction of 1,380 single-family dwelling units ranging in density from 3.8 to 10.6 du/acre on eight resident i a 1 parcel s on approximately 206 acres. Incl uded among the planned dwelling units are 583 du's of specialty housing on approximately 85 acres for a retirement community which will be composed of detached and attached housing. In addition, a junior high school site totaling 24.7 acres, a neighborhood park totaling 10.9 acres; two acres of community facilities; eight open space areas totaling 147.6 acres; and major circulation routes totaling 13.7 acres are proposed. The Draft and Final EIR's were written by P & D Technologies. If> -I Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date 1/ &/91 The purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which analyzes the environmental consequences of the adoption of Rancho Del Rey SPA III. The envi ronmenta 1 ana lys is performed for the proposed project i ncl udes the following issues: geology/soils, drainage/groundwater/water quality, landform/aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, transportation/access, land use/general plan/zoning, community social factors, community tax structure, parks/recreation/open space and public services. The EIR includes an analysis of project conformance with the City's Threshold Pol icy standards for fire, pol ice, sewer, water, parks/recreation and drainage. All of the threshold standards are met. The EIR was subject to a 45-day review period through the State Clearinghouse which has concluded. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. GeoloQv/Soils Deve 1 opment of the proposed project wi 11 i nvo 1 ve gradi ng of ri dge-tops and filling of side canyons and side slopes. Soils such as the San Diego Formation are susceptible to erosion. Although the la Nacion Fault traces cross the western portion of the site, it is not active. The geotechnical report identifies detailed grading and earthwork recommendat ions. The geotechni ca 1 consultant woul d monitor gradi ng to confi rm that fi e 1 d conditions are cons i stent with the condit ions predicted by the preliminary investigations. 2. DrainaQe/Groundwater/Water Qualitv The proposed project wi 11 result in addit i ona 1 impervi ous surface area which will increase surface water runoff rates. Development of the site will result in a change in the type and amount of contaminants contained in surface runoff. Thi s represents a cumul at i ve impact to 1 oca 1 water qual ity. Existing drainage facil ities are sufficient to handle runoff from the project and no mitigation or monitoring is necessary. Potential impacts to groundwater/water quality would be reduced to below a level of significance through adherence to the regulations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharge. 3. landform/Aesthetics Development of SPA III would significantly alter landforms on-site and create up to 50-foot manufactured slopes which are considered significant landform and visual impacts. Grading would primarily be confined to the ridge-top areas, with the major canyon areas retained as open space. The degree of visual alteration is consistent with what was anticipated when the specific plan was approved. Grading associated with the project will be in conformance with the general grading slope bank standards set forth in the SPA II I Pl an. Impl ementat i on of the communi ty desi gn gui de 1 i nes /I..L Page 3, ItemJ" Meeting Date~~ woul d part i ally reduce s ignifi cant impacts. They i ncl ude landscapi ng, fencing, design, community signing, lighting and parking design/street furn iture. In response to Planning Commission input at a workshop and subsequent EIR hearings, and at the direction of staff, the appl icant has altered the project design to alleviate grading impacts (see agenda statement for SPA Plan, p. 7). Because the alterations have less impact than those discussed in the EIR, the ErR actually discusses the worst case scenario and CEQA does not require these changes be made in the EIR document. The grading design changes are summarized in the report on PCM-90-6, consideration of Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan. 4. Air Ouality The development of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on new and existing roadways and additional air emissions, and would result in cumulative impacts to the San Diego Air Basin. The project wi 11 be in conformance with the forthcomi ng State Imp 1 ementat i on Pl an (SIP) which is based on Series VII population projections. Short-term emissions from construction activities would generate dust and diesel emissions resulting in short-term emissions impacts. Emissions from residential activity and from the Junior High School site including the use of paint, industrial strength cleaner's, fumigation, barbecues and gasol ine power lawnmowers are not considered significant on a project level, but would have cumulative impacts to regional air quality. To reduce potential impacts to air qual ity the use of mass transit and bicycles within the project would be facilitated, and recommended actions to prevent the development of pollution "hot spots" at intersections would be implemented. These mitigation measures and others will be addressed further in an "Air Quality Improvement Pl an" whi ch is requi red to be submitted in conjunction with processing the tentative map. 5. BioloQY Implementation of Rancho del Rey SPA III as proposed would result in significant impacts to coastal sage scrub (on local and regional basis), vernal pools, California gnatcatchers, cactus wren and snake cholla. Impacts to the coastal sage scrub community would also include losses of sensitive plants such as the San Diego barrel cactus and ashy-spike moss. In addition to the California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, impacts to the orange-throated whip-tail, the coast cholla, and the San Diego horned lizard may result. With implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, significant impacts to biology would be reduced but not to below a level of significant. I~ ,,3 Page 4, Item~ Meeting Date 1/ &/91 Mitigation measures include the following: a qualified biologist to monitor encroachment of open space fill slopes, revegetation of coast~ sage scrub native species on manufactured slopes, transplant program for cactus, monitoring program for California gnatcatchers and acquisition of land for preservation of gnatcatcher and vernal pool off site habitat. Perhaps one of the most interest i ng and i nnovat i ve is the City's mitigation measures for the gnatcatchers. The options are as follows: 1. That the developer acqui re and preserve an off-s ite area of coast a 1 sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 187 acres which supports at least 17 pairs of California gnatcatcher; or aspects of this SEIR protection of the 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 256 acres which supports 10 pairs of California gnatcatcher; or 3. If an off-site mitigation area cannot be found, the project proponent shall preserve the 70 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat (of the 86 total acres) of the specialty Housing Area on-site in addition to the 117 acres of coastal sage scrub habi tat proposed for open space (of the 148 total acres of open space) as described in the Rancho Del Rey SPA II I EIR. This mitigation is to satisfy the taking of species and replacement for all of SPA- II I, not just for the speci a lty hous i ng area. The proposed mitigation site can be outside the city 1 imits, however, first priority shall be given to the acquisition of areas within the General Plan area, and then the other areas within San Diego County. The ongoing management of this site is the responsibil ity of either a publ ic or private entity that is satisfactory to the City of Chula Vista (acceptable private ent it i es coul d be - Nature Conservancy, Si erra Cl ub; acceptabl e publ i c entities - Bureau of Land Management, Cal ifornia Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista). Interim responsibility for management of the mitigation site shall remain with the project appl icant until an acceptable publ ic or private entity is secured. The proposed mitigation site must be acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildl ife Service (USFWS) and the Cal ifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in evaluating the site. The criteria for determining the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (1) its use by the California gnatcatcher, and (2) its long-term conservation potential. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been part of the project team to develop thi s proposal for mi t i gat i on and is in full support and, as mentioned in their attached letter, there has been a mutually satisfying professional relationship between McMillin Communities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the City of Chula Vista. rt~Y Page 5, Item J<Z Meeting Date~ Vernal Pools As a result of a letter received from San Diego Biodiversity during the public hearing on the Draft EIR, staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Ellen Bauder (a vernal pool expert who San Diego Biodiversity had stated identified additional vernal pool areas on the site in 1985) made a site visit to reexamine the area. Because of the changes to the area in the five years since the original study of vernal pool s that took place and some mappi ng probl ems, it was determined that a spring survey should be required. The spring survey of verna 1 pool s woul d determi ne whether there is more square footage of vernal pool area than identified to date. The mitigation monitoring program has made it a condition that prior to issuance of a grading permit, "a spring survey be conducted" and a vernal pool mitigation program be implemented. If add it i ona 1 vernal pool area is found, the developer wi 11 be requi red to mitigate the same. 6. Cultural Resources Two archeological sites located on the SPA III property have been i dent i fi ed as signi fi cant cultural resource sites and contai n evidence which can address the question of the presence of early man in San Diego. The development of the proposed project would significantly impact these sites. The implementation of an extensive mitigation and monitoring program would reduce impacts to the sites to below a level of significance. This program has been implemented and all documentation is on file with the appropriate entities. 7. TransDortation The Draft EIR states that the future traffi c to be generated by Rancho del Rey III is 11,405 ADT. All intersections within or immediately adjacent to the project will operate at LOS C or better in the morning and afternoon peak hours under buildout conditions with the exception of the East H Street/Paseo del Rey intersection. This intersection will operate at a LOS D duri ng the afternoon peak peri od but not for greater than two hours and thus would be within the 1 imits of the City of Chul a Vista's Threshold Policies for traffic. Potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the proposed mitigation. Further, the Preliminary Report for the Eastern Chula Vista Transportat ion Phas i ng Pl an (ECVTPP), dated August 1990, i dent i fi ed two off site intersections, East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive and Te 1 egraph Canyon Road at Crest Dri ve, as havi ng potent i a 1 probl ems with the addition of SPA III traffic. Subsequent refinements of the projected /g ..'5' Page 6, Item~ Meeting Date 1/ 8 /91 traffic volumes for the ECVTPP indicated that the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road at Crest would operate at an acceptable level of service. The EIR indicates that phasing of development would be controlled through the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, to limit the number of additional trips being added prior to the construction of an interim facility within the SR-125 corridor. In addition, Bankston and Pine ana lyzed the intersection of "H" Street and Hidden Vi sta Dri ve. They determined that there are at least three roadway improvements which could mitigate congestion at this intersection: 1. East "HI! Street is widened to four travel lanes in each direction; 2. East "HI! Street and the Home Depot driveway is signalized; and/or 3. The north approach is widened to provide three 1 eft-turn 1 anes. Staff is not recommendi ng any of these roadway improvement a lternat i ves at this time; however, they are available for future consideration. 8. land Use The Rancho del Rey SPA II I P1 an as proposed, is in conformance with the land use policies and plans of the City of Chu1a Vista, the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Development of SPA III would not result in significant land use impacts and mitigation/monitoring is not necessary. One of the provisions of the administrative plan is to allow for density transfers between res i dent i a 1 parcel s withi n an i ndi vi dua 1 SPA area or between SPA areas. It shou1 d be noted that the proposed SPA II I P1 an does include density transfers within the SPA III development area. The density transfer involves the transfer of 171 total residential units. The density transfer is depicted on Figure 4-12 in the EIR. The density transfer will not result in significant land use impacts. 9. Communitv Social Factors No potential adverse impacts regarding community social factors are associated with the development of the proposed plan. Impacts to population, housing and employment are consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. No significant impacts would be associated with the proposed project; no mitigation or monitoring measures are necessary. 10. Communitv Tax Structure Implementation of the proposed Rancho del Rey SPA III would result in a net fiscal benefit of approximately $64,800 annually to the City of Chu1a Vi sta; therefore no adverse impacts wou1 d result to the commun i ty tax structure. No mitigation or monitoring measures are required. /'i ~ Page 7, Meeting Item--.8_ Date 1/1\ /91 11. Parks. Recreation and aDen SDace As part of the proposed project, an lO.O-acre neighborhood park would be developed on-site. In addition to the neighborhood park, a large portion of the overall project site (36%) would be dedicated as open space. Although the park does not meet the required acreage as set forth in the City's parkland ordinance, upon meeting the conditions established by the City, the project would not significantly impact Parks, Recreation and Open Space. As a condition of approval of the tentative map, City staff would ensure that conditions for the lO.O-acre park have been implemented. As the project actually requires 12.6 acres of park, the developer has agreed to make up the 2.6 acre deficit through payment of PAD Fees and/or development of greater amen it i es in the neighborhood park. Upon payment of PAD Fees and/or development of greater amenities in the neighborhood park, City requirements will be met. 12. Public Services The 1989 Water Allocation Report distributed by the Otay Water District 1 imits the amount of new dwell ing units that can receive water in one year. The recei pt by the City of Chul a Vi sta of a servi ce letter from the OWD regardi ng the proposed project woul d allow the project to meet the Threshold Standards related to water, and potent i a 1 impacts woul d be reduced to below a level of significance. Due to the regional shortage of water, the project proponents would work with the City of Chula Vista to develop a project level "Water Conservat i on Program" to reduce water consumpt i on. One speci fi c measure will be a "dual piping system" for use of reclaimed water. The development of on-site sewage facil ities consistent with the 1986 sewer study would provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate project flows. The City of Chula Vista has a surplus of contract capacity in the METRO sewage system and no s i gni fi cant impacts are ant i ci pated. SDG&E would provide utility services to the project site and there would be no impacts associated with the provision of utilities. The proposed project would be served by the Chula Vista Police Department. Development of the project would significantly impact police protection; however, the addition of 4.6 pol ice personnel at buildout would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Emergency fire and medical protection would be suppl ied in compl iance with the Threshold Pol icy and no significant impacts are anticipated. Both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista City School District are involved in the planning and construction of new facilities which would provide adequate facil ities for the additional students generated by the project. Project related impacts to schools woul d be mit igated through the phased implementation of additional facilities in eastern Chula Vista. The two Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts, (Sweetwater Union High School District Community Facilities District No.3 and the /1> -7 Page 8, Item If, Meeting Date~8~ Chula Vista City Schools Facilities District No.3) will provide tax monies directly to the school districts for implementation of their long-range development plans. Three off-site alternatives are addressed in the ErR. One is in the City of San Diego, one alternative is in the City of Chula Vista, and one is in the County of San Diego. None of these are under the ownership of the project proponent. The alternative sites would be either environmentally preferred or have similar impacts. FISCAL IMPACT: None WPC 8758P I~-~ d2 QlNCIIO [)[L REY 2727 "OOVER AVE. POBOX 9016 NATIO~AL CITY CA 920'jO~6621j (619) 477.4117 . , .# i 5 (; (i'Wf'iJI"r'f (!H~~_ -''fA:<< ,..; (.\ January 8, 1991 Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Council Agenda, January 8, 1991 Item 18 A, B Rancho del Rey It is requested that your Council continue this above item one week to your meeting of January 15, 1991. Sincerely yours, ./ . . / /', , /-......,/&1.:....<:?--l-f( I ~<''-L...''(j L~..;.~AU_~ Kenneth Baumgartner KB/dlp It 4;<,4 (' '"", ( ,"tw. ~ l,f /I y../J ~ J -. . I Nu:->-<;,.q ria, f~'" r; ({'U"'M.~ I 1 /w';-V~ &f~ ITEM TITLE: a) SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 b) Public Hearing for the purpose of hearing any protests on the update of the Transportat ion Development Impact Fee as outlined by Ordinance 2431 Ordinance 2'131 Amending Ordinance No. 2251 relating to Development Impact Fees to pay for transportation facil ities in the City's Eastern Territories (optional) Director of :UbliC wor~~ City Manage~~; (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) v On December 11,1990, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2431 amending Ordinance No. 2251 which established the Transportation Development Impact Fee. After that action, the City Attorney opined that a public hearing should be held to hear any protests prior to effecting any increase in the fees. If no protests are made at this time, the City Attorney recommends that Ordinance No. 2431 rem a in in effect as adopted. However, if any protests are made, the City Attorney recommends that the ordinance be re-introduced for its first reading. RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct the public hearing and hear any protests. If no protests are made, the City Attorney recommends that Ordinance No. 2431 remain in effect as adopted on December 11, 1990, and that Council deny the above listed ordinance. Otherwise, staff recommends that the first reading of the ordinance take place at this meeting. However, if Council recommends changing the ordinance as a result of the publ ic hearing, staff will return to Council with a revised ordinance and first reading. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On December 11, 1990, Counc il adopted Transportation Development Impact Fee. as follows: Ordinance No. 2431 which updated the Fees established by that ordinance are Single Family detached - Single family attached - Mu lt i famil y Commercial Industri a 1 Religious Institutional - $ 3,060/ DU 2,448/ DU 1,836/ DU 122,400/AC 61,200/AC 11,400/ AC The first reading of that ordinance was held the week before on December 4, 1990 at a public meeting. Property owners who were in the process of obtaining building permits were notified of that meeting. Also, a separate meet i ng was held pri or to December 4, 1990 for the major property owners Iq-I Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 within the Eastern Territories to give them an opportunity to comment on the then proposed Ordinance No. 2431. However, after said action, the City Attorney opined that a publ ic hearing is required to hear any protests on updating the Transportation Development Impact Fees in order to clearly be in compliance with AS 1600 and its notification requirements. Said public hearing is set for this meeting. The City Clerk has posted and caused to be published notice of this hearing. Also, property owners who are presently in the process of obtaining building permits were notified. Should no protest be made at this hearing, the City Attorney recommends that Ordinance No. 2431 remain as adopted. Said ordinance would then become effect i ve on February 9, 1991. However, shoul d any protest be made, it is recommended that the ordi nance be introduced as if bei ng cons idered for its first reading at this meeting unless Council determines that the ordinance be changed as a result of protests. If a change is recommended by Council, staff recommends that the ordinance be brought back at a subsequent Council meeting for consideration as a first reading of the ordinance. In either of the 1 atter two cases, the ordi nance woul d become effect i ve 60 days after the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. DDS/mad: HXOOl WPC 5387E /q-':2... Revised 12/6/90 ORDINANCE NO. 2431 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2251, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES WHEREAS, in January, 1988, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Ordinance No. 2251 establishing a development impact fee for transportation facilities in the City's eastern territories, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251, the City has commenced the collection of development impact fees to be used to construct transportation facilities to accommodate increased traffic generated by new development wi thin the City's Eastern Territories, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section l(c) of Ordinance No. 2251 and California Government Code Sections 66000, et. seq., the City Council has caused a study to be conducted to reanalyze and reevaluate the impacts of development on the transportation system for the City's eastern territories and, to further reanalyze and reevaluate the development impact fee necessary to pay for the transportation facilities which financial and engineering study prepared by Willdan Associates, is entitled . Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets. dated November, 1990, and WHEREAS, the financial and engineering study and the City's General Plan show that the transportation network will be adversely impacted by new development within the eastern territories unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development, and WHEREAS, the financial. and engineering studies and the City's General Plan establish that the transportation facilities necessitated by development in the eastern territories comprise an integrated network, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that developers of land within the eastern territory should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the construction of transportation facilities within the boundaries of the development, the construction of those transportation facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with City standards and the payment of a development impact fee to finance the development's portion of the costs of the transportation network, and ,q -?> -l-..EJ $ WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the legislative findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance NO. 2251 continue to be true and correct, and WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed meeting at which oral or written presentations regarding the development impact fee for the City's eastern territories could be made, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the eastern areas development impact fees for streets study the City Council determined that certain amendments to Ordinance No. 2251 are necessary in order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve the eastern territories by the development impact fee, and WHEREAS, the City Council determines, based on the evidence presented at the meeting the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of traffic impact fees on all development in the eastern territories for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in order to assure effective implementation of the City I S General Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the amended fees as levied by this Ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the transportation facilities. NOW, THEREFORE the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION 1 That the development impact fee schedule set forth in Section l(c) of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows: Development Type Transportation Fee Single Family Detached Dwelling $l$~0 $3060/Dwelling unit Single Family Attached Dwelling $ll$0 $2448/Dwelling unit MUlti-Family Dwelling $X7X0 $1836/Dwelling unit Industrial $XXtJ000 $122,400/Gross Acre $~7/000 $6l,200/Gross Acre $ll,400/Gross Acre Commercial Religious Institutional - 2-...:r-ir I q-~ The City Council shall at least annually review the amount of the fee. The City Council may adjust the amount of the fee as necessary to reflect changes in the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the type, size, location or cost of the Transportation Facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above fees may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. SECTION 2. That the Engineering studies" as set forth 2251 is amended to read as follows: definition of "Financial and in Section 2f of Ordinance No. "Financial and engineering studies": means the 'Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets' study prepared by George T. Simpson and willdan Associates dated November 1987, and the 'Eastern Area Development Fees for Streets' study prepared by ~ /'J."~"f;~ X~~J."J.~tt~tJ.~,,//~,,~ Willdan Associates dated November ZZi 19~~90, ~~t~/~t which are on file in the office of the City Clerk". SECTION 3. That the list of facilities and programs set forth in Section 3(a) of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows: "(a) The transportation facilities and programs to be financed by the fee established by this Ordinance are: 1. state Route 125 from San Miguel Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. State Route 125 from Telegraph Canyon Road to Orange Avenue. 3. Telegraph Canyon Road from paseo del Rey to east of Paseo Ladera/north side. 3a. Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 interchange/Phase II. 4. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase I Rutgers Avenue to EastLake Boundary. 5. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II paseo Ladera to Apache Drive. 6. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase III Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue. q-~- -~--=; - -7 7. East "H" Street - I -805 Interchange Modifications. 8. East "H" Street from EastLake Drive to SR-125. 9. * Otay Lakes Road from Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Road. 10. Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the southern fee area boundary. 11. Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue. 12. Bonita Road from Central Avenue to San Miguel Road. 13. Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to SR-125. 14. East "H" street from State Route 125 to San Miguel Road. 15. East "H" Street from San Miguel Road to Hunte Parkway. 16. Orange Avenue from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary. 17. Palomar Street from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary. 18. Telegraph Canyon Road from eastern boundary of EastLake to Hunte Parkway. 19. EastLake Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to southern DIF boundary. 20. Hunte Parkway from East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. 21. Hunte Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to Orange Avenue. 22. Orange Avenue from EastLake Parkway to Hunte Parkway. 23. Paseo Ranchero Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to southern DIF boundary. A. ENR Index Adjustment B. DIF Program Support *project has been completed. SECTION 4 Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become adoption. Presented by PP. ovedrts BRUCE M. BOOGAAR , Works City Attorney /'1-<' 14_ /1- 8 - ays after its JOHN P. LIPPITT, Director of Public 6599a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of amending Ordinance No. 2251 to update the Transportati on Development Impact Fee and amendi ng Ordi nance No. 2320 relating to Development Impact Fees to pay for various public facilities within the City of Chula Vista's General Plan Boundary. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raided at the public heari ng descri bed in thi s noti ce, or in wri tten correspondence del ivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, January 8, 1991 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Publ ic Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: December 21,1990 Beverly Authel et City Clerk /q-, ~~~ ::~--- -:;...~~..,;: - - - - ON OF CHULA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION Our records indicate YOU may have an interest on an item, relating to the TRANSPORTATION Development Impact Fee (projects east of 1-805), that will appear before City CotUlcil on Jffiluary 8, 1991. A public hearing on the subject is set for 6:30 p.m. The hearing will provide the opporttUlity for any protests to be heard on the action taken by City Council on December 11, 1990. The City Council meets in the CotUlcil Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue in the Public Services Building which is located at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and "F" Street. If you have any questions about the attached item please contact Donna Snider at 691-5266. J9-}{ .. ~ ,."~7'-~ !'\'Ei,I~':::: I~HULA VISTA. (>\lIF":",~~'~I.; ~,,,:,,. ,")" 'I .~ :J1--'021 ( COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT It~ 7 It. /11/40 ITEM TITlE: Ordinance ;1.'1'31 Amending Ordinance No. 2251 of the City of Chula Vista relating to Development Impact Fee to pay for transportation facilities in the City's Eastern Territories Meeting Date ~nn SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Director of Public wor7f ~ , (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-L) \ City Manager .;,', 'I i In January, 1988 Council established by Ordinance No. 2251, amended by Ordi nance No. 2349 and No. 2289, the "Interim Eastern Area Transportat i on Development Impact Fee" (DIF) based on a financial and engineering study of the major streets required to serve the anticipated development in that area with the premise that all new development should share equitably in the cost of those major streets. The boundaries of the DIF area were based on an area of benefit determi nat i on whi ch i ncl uded some terri tory outs i de the exi st i ng city limits east of 1-805. The following ordinance will 'update the Eastern Territories Transportation Development Impact Fee. ( RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Ordinance and place it on its first reading. Direct staff to forward a copy of the program to the County of San Diego and request that they collect the revised fees for the unincorporated areas. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The existing DIF ordinance provides for collection of the fee ($2,850. per E.D.U.) at the time of building permit issuance and for periodic review of the fee amount based on updated information. The method of determining the DIF amount consisted of estimating the cost of the various street improvements in the study and dividing that cost by the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (E.D.ll.s) projected for the area. The E.D.U. determination was based on SANDAG traffic generation factors for various types of development utilizing a factor of 1.0 for a single family detached res idence. Project ions for the type and amount of new development were based on the adopted and proposed specific pl ans and the City General Plan within the area of benefit. "- This annual review consisted of several phases. First, it was determined which of the major streets in the program had been constructed, and for how many E.D.U's bUilding permits had been issued or committed. These were removed from the program. Second, the DIF street costs were revised as more -it,) 4- 1 {9 -cr Page 2, Item '/.(J 1 ( Meeting Date~ accurate information became avail abl e. Thi s increased project costs by $7.9 million. Third, a detailed review of remainin9 development and the corresponding number of E.D.U's generated was made. This includes revisions based on developer agreements regarding allowable densities. Fourth, estimated project costs were increased by the Engineering News Record index, except for projects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 17 wh i ch refl ect November, 1990 prices. The index at 3.9% increased costs by $1.9 million. Finally, the revi sed data was compi 1 ed into the Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets report dated November, 1990. The basic data from that report is as follows: The total estimated cost for the streets to be constructed through the DIF program, less the cash collections on hand, is $88,120,800. The estimated number of E.D.U.'s yet to be constructed within the area of benefit is 28,794. This produces a transportation DIF of $3,060. As indicated on page 8, of Table 2 in the report, one street, as follows, was deleted because it was completed: 1. Project No. 9 Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Rd. $6,347,800 (1989) $7,631,800 (1990) The table below shows the proposed Development Impact Fee rate for transportation facilities in the Eastern Territories. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION PER EOUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT ( Total Cost of imorovements Total EDU's - $88.120.800 _ 28,794 EDU's $3,060.38/EDU USE $3, 060/EDU REVISED EASTERN AREA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Present Revised Cateoorv EDU's FEE FEE Single-Family Detached DU 1.0 $ 2,850 $ 3,060 Single-Family Attached DU 0.8 2,280 2,448 Multi -Family DU 0.6 1,710 1,836 Commercial Acre 40.0 114,000 122,400 Industri a 1 Acre 20.0 57,000 61,200 Religious Institution Acre 4.0 . 11 ,400 12,240 The property owners of major 1 and hold i ngs in the area have been not i fi ed of tonight's meeting. A separate property owner meeting was held prior to tonight's meeting. The developers attending the meeting (McMillan and Sunbow) had no problems with the fee and expressed support for the fee. Eastlake was c- not in attendance but had indicated they had no problem with the fee. ~ ~ J9-IO '12.. ( Page 3, Item_ '/.() 7 Meeting Date~ The report to Council last year indicated that issues raised by the Baldwin Company shoul d be analyzed and incorporated into the DIF report as appropriate. It was recommended that those issues be addressed in this DIF update. Staff recommends that these issues be postponed an addi t i ona 1 year wherei n the 1 and uses associ ated with the Ba 1 dwi n Company's propert i es shoul d be established by then. Attached to this agenda statement is the Development Impact Fee report to be approved by Council as part of the proposed ordinance. A copy of Table 2, pages Band 9, from the DIF report is made part of this agenda statement to reflect the change in Section 3 of the DIF Ordinance No. 2251 as amended by Ordinance No. 2349 and No. 2289. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. All costs will be paid from DIF funds. DDS: HXOOl WPC 5293E ( l. ~ 3_lq-11 1 J COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Item 10 Meeting Date 12/4/90 Ordinance ;l.'I~ I Amending Ordinance No. 2251 of the City of Chula Vista relating to Development Impact Fee to pay for transportation facilities in the City's Eastern Territories Director of Public wor~~ City ManagerqH~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_X.J SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: In January, 1988 Council established by Ordinance No. 2251, amended by Ordi nance No. 2349 and No. 2289, the "Interim Eastern Area Transportat i on Development Impact Fee" (DIF) based on a financial and engineering study of the major streets required to serve the anticipated development in that area with the premise that all new development should share equitably in the cost of those major streets. The boundaries of the DIF area were based on an area of benefit determi nat ion wh i ch i ncl uded some terri tory outs ide the exi st i ng city limits east of 1-805. The following ordinance will update the Eastern Territories Transportation Development Impact Fee. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Ordinance and place it on its first readi ng. Di rect staff to forward a copy of the program to the County of San Di ego and request that they collect the revi sed fees for the un incorporated areas. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSS ION: The existing DIF ordinance provides for collection of the fee ($2,850. per E.D.U.) at the time of building permit issuance and for periodic review of the fee amount based on updated information. The method of determining the DIF amount consisted of estimating the cost of the vari ous street improvements in the study and di vi ding that cost by the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (E.D.U.s) projected for the area. The E.D.U. determination was based on SANDAG traffic generation factors for various types of development utilizing a factor of 1.0 for a single family detached res i dence. Project ions for the type and amount of new development were based on the adopted and proposed speci fi c plans and the City General Plan within the area of benefit. Th i s annual revi ew cons i sted of several phases. Fi rst, it was determi ned which of the major streets in the program had been constructed, and for how many E.D.U's building permits had been issued or committed. These were removed from the program. Second, the DIF street costs were revised as more /6 +- Jq -/'2- Page 2, Item It> Meeting Date 12/4/90 accurate information became available. This increased project costs by $7.9 million. Third, a detailed review of remaining development and the corresponding number of E.D.U's generated was made. This includes revisions based on developer agreements regardi ng all owabl e dens it i es. Fourth, estimated project costs were increased by the Engineering News Record index, except for projects 3,4,5,6,7,16 and 17 which reflect November, 1990 prices. The index at 3.9% increased costs by $1.9 million. Finally, the revi sed data was compil ed into the Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets report dated November, 1990. The basic data from that report is as foll ows: The total est i mated cost for the streets to be constructed through the DIF program, less the cash collections on hand, is $88,120,800. The estimated number of E.D.U.'s yet to be constructed within the area of benefit is 28,794. This produces a transportation DIF of $3,060. As indicated on page 8, of Table 2 in the report, one street, as follows, was deleted because it was completed: 1. Project No. 9 Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Rd. $6,347,800 (1989) $7,631,800 (1990) The tabl e below shows the proposed Development Impact Fee rate for transportation facilities in the Eastern Territories. $3,060.38/EDU USE $3, 060/EDU REVISED EASTERN AREA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION PER EOUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT Total Cost of imDrovements Total EDU's $88.120.800 _ 28,794 EDU's CateQorv Present FEE EDU's Single-Family Detached DU Single-Family Attached DU Multi-Family DU Commercial Acre Industrial Acre Religious Institution Acre 1.0 0.8 0.6 40.0 20.0 4.0 $ 2,850 2,280 1,710 114,000 57,000 11 ,400 Revised FEE $ 3,060 2,448 1,836 122,400 61,200 12,240 The property owners of major land holdings in the area have been notified of tonight's meeting. A separate property owner meeting was held prior to tonight's meeting. The developers attending the meeting (McMillan and Sunbow) had no probl ems with the fee and expressed support for the fee. Eastl ake was not in attendance but had indicated they had no problem with the fee. -/Q ? 19-1~ Page 3, Item It> Meeting Date 12/4/90 The report to Counci 1 1 ast year i ndi cated that issues raised by the Ba 1 dwi n Company shoul d be analyzed and incorporated into the DI F report as appropri ate. It was recommended that those issues be addressed in thi s DJ F update. Staff recommends that these issues be postponed an addi t i ona 1 year wherein the land uses associated with the Baldwin Company's properties should be established by then. Attached to thi s agenda statement is the Development Impact Fee report to be approved by Council as part of the proposed ordinance. A copy of Table 2, pages 8 and 9, from the DIF report is made part of this agenda statement to reflect the change in Section 3 of the DIF Ordinance No. 2251 as amended by Ordinance No. 2349 and No. 2289. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. All costs will be paid from DIF funds. DDS: HXOOl WPC 5293E I~- 3 Iq-It( COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Z b Meeting Date 1/8/91 ITEM TITLE: a) Public Hearing: Amending Ordinance No. 2320 relating to Development Impact Fees to pay for various publ ic facil ities within the City of Chula Vista's General Plan Boundary b) Ordinance 2432 Amending Ordinance No. 2320 relating to Development Impact Fees to pay for various publ ic facil ities within the City of Chula Vista's General Plan Boundary SUBMITTED BY: Budget Office~ REVIEWED BY: City Manag~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-) In August 1989, the City adopted a series of "Supplemental" Development Impact Fees. As part of the study, staff recommended that the fee schedule be referred to a consultant for fine tuning of the data base, facility costs and result i ng fees. Shortly thereafter, the firm of Willdan Associates was retained to refine the in-house study. The basic charge to the consultant was: - Verify population data; - Review City standards for public facilities; - Refine facility cost estimates; and - Review and refine the methodology used to apportion facility costs. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee is intended to identify the publ ic facil ities required to support future development within the City of Chula Vista's general planning area except for approximately 9,500 acres within a special study area consisting of the western portion of Otay Ranch, recently purchased by The Baldwin Company. These public facilities include: - Civic Center Expansion - Police Facility Remodeling - Corporation Yard Relocation - Libraries - Fire Suppression System - Geographic Information System (GIS) - Mainframe Computer - Telephone System Upgrade - Records Management System RECOMMENDATION: Amend Ordinance No. 2320 as indicated in the attached report revising the fee from $1,374/EDU to $2,150/EDU effective on March 9, 1991. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The existing public facilities DIF Ordinance provides for collection of a $1,374 per EDU fee at the time of building permit issuance and for periodic review of the fee amount based on updated information. 20-' Page 2, Item 2,0 Meeting Date 1/8/91 The method of determining the DIF amount consisted of estimating the cost of the various public facilities in the study and dividing that cost by the number of equivalent dwelling units (LD.U.'s) projected for the area at bu i 1 dout. Because each of the nine facilities described herein is based upon providing a people-related public service to the community, the cost of the facilities has been spread to new development based on the population generated by the specific use. There is a correlation between the number of people living in a residential unit, the number of people assembled in an area for employment, and the 1 eve 1 of facil it i es needed to protect and serve these popul at ions. For example, 1 ibrary sites are determined based on the size and location of the population. A fire suppression system is designed to deal with the various densities of residential uses as well as industrial and commercial uses. Police protection is also affected by high concentrations of people and both the police headquarters and the civic center are used by and designed to serve people. As the facil ities are population-based, an effort was made to determine the number of people "generated" by a given land use. According to the Chula Vista Planning Department, the average residential population generation figure is 2.67 persons per dwell ing unit. The San Diego Traffic Generation report dated July, 1988 (SANDAG/Caltrans) indicates that daily population is affected by industrial and commercial land. The foll owi ng popul at i on and EDU factors were used in the ca 1 cul at i on of fee shares: Land Use Residential Non-residential Olympic Training Center Population Factor 2.67 persons/DU 15 employees/AC 3.75 persons/AC EDU Factor 1.00 5.60 1.40 The nine public facilities will be needed within three different time spans. Different time spans are used because each facility has a different projected life. The civic center, the corporate yard, the libraries and the fire suppression system are designed to accommodate the projected growth needs of the City to the year 2010. The police facility is projected to require more square footage and possibly addit i ona 1 equi pment by the year 2000. The GIS, records management system, and the telephone system wi 11 also need expansi on or part i a 1 replacement by the year 2000. Although a portion of the mainframe computer's value will be retained after five years, needed additions to its capacity and changes in technology will require its rehabilitation by 1995. Because of these varying lengths of adequate service, the time spans for financing the facilities also vary. This ensures that only those properties benefiting from the facilities will finance them. Future upgrades or expansion of facil ities will be financed by the future development that benefits. "2,0-2. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/8/91 For the purposes of this report, the "Area of Benefit" is all land within the city 1 imits of Chul a Vi sta and all 1 and wi thi n the general p 1 anni ng area. Approximately 9,500 acres in the western portion of Otay Ranch are not included in this plan as they are in a special study area. Should the Otay Ranch Intergovernmental Task Force recommend annexation to the City of Chul a Vista, the public facilities to serve the area as well as number of EDU's in the area will be incorporated into this fee. A majority of the undeveloped properties included in this report are beyond the corporate boundari es of the City of Chul a Vi sta. It is assumed that either these properties will annex into the City of Chula Vista upon development and therefore be subject to the impact fees adopted by the City, or the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors will participate with a fee ordinance applicable to the land within the unicorporated area which benefits from the facilities. Figure 1, attached, summarizes the costs in terms of both the City's share of the cost and new development's share of the cost. The City's share is $7,910,647 (principally to rectify preexisting deficiencies such as Civic Center parking) and new development's share is $50,653,400. Using a total of 26,787 EDU's remaining to be developed through buildout, the resulting facility fees were calculated as identified on Figure 2 attached. Figure 3, attached, compares the revised fees with those adopted on an interim basis in August, 1989. The revised fee as recommended is $2.150 per EDU. (Note: the fee adopted in August, 1989, was inadvertently calculated using a total EDU count that included the Otay Ranch Special Study Area. Therefore, the fee that now is $1,374 should have been $2,045 without Otay Ranch. This compares favorably with the revised recommended fee of $2,150 which also excludes the Otay Ranch). Two property owner meetings were held prior to tonight's council meeting and notice was mailed (attached) to owners of major 1 and holdings as well as anyone who had made appl ication for but not yet received a building permit. As indicated in a letter (attached) from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), many issues were resolved as a result of these two meetings and CIF is i n general agreement on the methodo 1 ogi es and assumpt ions used to ca 1 cul ate the fee. With regard to the economi c burden mentioned by CIF, whil e staff agrees that the increase may be burdensome, any delay in the imposition of the fee would create an additional burden on future developers that would be inequitable, if not illegal. Attached to this agenda statement is the report on Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities to be approved by Council as part of the proposed ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: The City's share of nine public facilities identified in the report totals $7,910,647. WPC 3487A ?"o- 3 /:<0 - '-f ORDINANCE NO. ~ '/ 3;2... AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE 2320 RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use and Public Facilities Elements require that adequate public facilities be available to accommodate increased population created by new development, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development within the City of Chula Vista will create adverse impacts on the City's existing public facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public facilities identified in this ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a reasonable means of financing the public facilities is to levy a fee on all developments in the City of Chula Vista, and WHEREAS, the fee has been justified by the report entitled, "Development Impact Fees for Public Facilities" dated December 12, 1990 and prepared by Willdan Associates, and WHEREAS, the report and various other reports show that the City's public facilities will be adversely impacted by new developments within the City unless public facilities are improved or constructed to accommodate the new development, and WHEREAS, developers of land within the City should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the construction or improvement of public facilities within the boundaries of the development, the construction or improvement of public facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with City standards and the payment of a fee to finance a development's portion of the total cost of the public facilities, and WHEREAS, all development within the City contribute to the cumulative burden on various public facilities in direct relationship to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development, and WHEREAS, on December 18, 1990, City Council held a duly noticed meeting at which oral or written presentations could be made, and WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence presented at the meeting, the City's General Plan and the various reports and other information received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the public facilities development impact fee on all developments as indicated in Attachments 1 through 3 in the City of Chula Vista for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare in order to ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan, and "2(:)-)' -1- 7-5 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLCWS: SECTION I: That Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2320 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1: Establishment of Fee. (a) A development impact fee in the amounts set forth in Attachments ~11~i9i~/~ 1 through 3 is hereby established to pay for various public facilities within the City of Chula Vista. The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of Chula Vista as indicated by Attachments ~I /1z1:iVWg1,i1 a 1 through 3. The fee shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund which is hereby created and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in the this ordinance. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the fund for the various improvements and facilities identified in this ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the fund for the purposes set forth herein in accordance wi th the facili ties phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the City Council. The City Council finds that collection of the fees established by this ordinance at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for these facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities bUdgeting for growth impacted public facilities. (b) The fee established by this section is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments. (c) The fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit application and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map were granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted. Each single family detached dwelling, single family attached dwelling, or unit within a multi-family dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this fee. t.i!tff rti>~t#.i!XI MNj(NIj 1/3"MM1 IfNI ~ 1.i!Y-I /r/r;/rI 11#./=/ Nfl!JIY /.E~0!'t ..p(:tl J.!t,6W h'<iW N0''!1 Mt.!V Mt;!{#MM/ Ni\1'iliIJiI /3YI.i!J.J.I 1# I<NWrNrJ 1.i!Y- Y-ff(:1 NWe/1 m IN /WfIWI,wr; Ipj/J/3/3/ N#IiJll/il!irl l/:#Ir!m I/3MW 1)6(: Y-ffi>'t(:1 I /J/JI-M.MIJ/ I MY I MMY<7\JfJf## I ~I I Y-YItiiS09.JYII I f;/ I /J/ I 1~r/Wg1,i IIU Non-residential projects shall be charged at the rate of 5.60 EDU's per gross acre except that the Olympic Training Center shall be charged at the rate of 1.40 EDU's per gross acre. The charges shall be those outlined in Attachments 1 through 3. "'2...0-(0 -2- 7 ~ The City Council shall annually review the amount of the fee. The City Council may adjust the amount of this fee as necessary to reflect changes in the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the type, size, location or cost of the various public facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. (d) The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined by the City Council: 1. To pay for the construction of facilities by the Ci ty, or to reimburse the City for facilities installed by the City with funds from other sources. 2. To reimburse developers .who have been required by Section 4(a) of this ordinance to install approved various public facilities listed in Section 3. 3. To reimburse developers who have been permitted to install improvements pursuant to Section 4(b) of this Ordinance. SECTION II: That Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2320 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2: Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by reference by this City. (b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. (c) "Development Permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. (d) "Development described in Code. Project" or "Development" means any activity Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Nj $'Atfpl-,"iMf1f-4JI/J/=I1M/JtirMf1 M\1ft<#/ /1f/f/l,/<#>ptfJ / ~ Mt'W/Y-l1," 7'1#Y/JtY-I 1 pN 1 $~W 1 t#lM/JtirMf1 1 R/2/I 1 /WrI 1 /11/tli''#1 11~tn:LY-i,"f,7 t#Y/JtfJ ~ 1'I>;1/;!-"w 1.B'AiI~,"fJ ~ It>fl Mi~ IWiJI NfI,Gf)(MI /)!:Lf,Y-~ iI~Y-~illt'Ari~/Z$'Il-~$~'/~riillt>rilf:LX~/t~/Y-11~/0ff:Li~/t>flY-11~1~:LY-i/~X~t~J LJ:> -( -~- 7 - 'I (e) "Community purpose facility" means a facility within a planned community which serves one of the following purposes: 1. youth activities, such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; ~ social service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous; ~ services for homeless; ~ services for military personnel during the holidays; ~ prlvate schools; 6."" day care; ~ senior care and recreation; ~ workshop, spiritual growth, and development; 9: teaching of traditional family values. SECTION III: Section 3 of Ordinance 2320 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 3: Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee. (a) The various public facilities to be financed by the fee established in this ordinance are as indicated in Attachments 1 and 2. 1. t:l.Uri#'/J'/l/l>ilY-Y,'"/rtY,0.X~/}ft#i.;rtt#_t/rt,"yiY#J U j(,"Jrli6f1\~xtyij1j/'/Jf-/Y-M/'I'/Jxt#/t#txtY-"I J 1>J rt'/J'/l#tlJ#tl>'/l/ Nf / /<1/ /rI# / fIIrtIIrIqf/Wfl / IiAtIY / M/ / ),'/II=/ It#Y-'"tri 't~tttY-'/JtU# fiJ rt'/J#Y-t0.tY-t'/Jyi/#/Y-wl>/'/l~w/UYJt~tU%/,"1<#/'/Jt/l--I1!IO$J $J t:lp~'/l#'/Jyi/ l>iI Y-'/I'"/tttN$0.t4##t'/J'/l/ %"I%Y-~itJ %J rt,"'/JcJtlpY#/l-'/lf-l>tit1<Y-t'/J'/l/$"I#'"itJ (b) The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects in order to maintain compliance with the City's General Plan or the Capital Improvement Program. SECTION IV: That Section 6 of Ordinance 2320 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 6: Exemptions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of the fee if those projects are designed to provide the public service for which the agency is charged. Community purpose facilities which are not operated for profit are also exempt inasmuch as the method of apportioning the fee for nonresidential uses is based on the number of employees per acre and the number of employees for these types of institutions is typically very low. In addition, because these institutions provide benefit to the community as a whole including all land use categories which are the subject matter of the Development Impact Fee, the City Council hereby determines zo-~ -4- 7-f; that it is apppropriate to spread any impact such facilities might have to" the other land. use categories subject to the DIP. In the event that a court" determines that the exemption herein extended to community purpose facilities shall for any reason be invalid, the Ci ty Council hereby allocates the share of the cost of the public facilities" oEherwlse-.properly allocable to the City of Chula vista and not to any" of. the lah<1 use categories WhlCh are the subJect matter of the development im~dct land use categories; SECTION V: That section 11 of Ordinance 2320 is hereby added to read as follows: SECTION 11. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Ordinance is found to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, or of any other superior law, such provision shall be deemed to be severed from the remaining provisions of this Ordinance, and the Clty Council hereby expresses its intent that it would have adopted this Ordinance without such violative provision. SECTION VI: Effective Date. Pursuant to Government become effective sixty adoption. Code (60) Section 65962, this ordinance shall days after its second reading and " ~f{ Presented by David C. Byers Budget Officer ruce M. Boogaard City Attorney WPC 8329a <.0-'1 j)(} - II) 7 - 'I -5- ... rJJ >-1 IX ~ ::c rJJ E-- rJJ >-0 IXU ~>- ~~ rJJU ~ f;I;, U ... ,.J ~ >-1 S ~ ..... f;I;, .'" ~ 8888888888 <::> 88 ::: ~ ~I <::> ~ 8 .... ('I"')O\N~-NNO\O\N N NV ~ r:>.'" r---"oo6O-"~---8NO ..c t- <<, Z o..c: <""I\Ooor-oO\O\ ("I')N 00 \D II) _rJJ (""1 ["-00 r-r-O\I,(')('I"')('I"')_ t- \C ~ o~ ('1")"' v'" N"' ......'" C"...:i' r-: NQ ... ~ .-< .-< .-< V II) ~ "" '" '" ~ ~ '" .5 ~ ~ "0 ~ .~ 00<,">0\<::>\D.-<8800t- l~ ... t ~ O\t-~.-<oo V IX '" ('fiCO t"---voo""," 00\0 ..c: 00. or) 0" ..; r.: ..; 0\ 0 v\OO ~<'">VII"> .... .VJ t-t-.-< ..N -.. \0 N Q'I ... <'"> .-< r: ~ U "" '" '" ~ ~ '" E <= ~ oS .... ~ .... = ... '" ~ ::: ~ e tj ~ r:>. '" Z~..c: ~rJJ ~ ~ 11">0 0 0\<'"> t-\O "0"0"0 <::> v V)-lOvOOOO\O M \D-O\OON"O"O"Ot-- r:---"' ~-.:r"'N"'~o\..a.E E uJ ....... o\O_...qO\()C,)(J\O "'d" oo\O_r---\OC:C:C~ .. ........ 1--11o-0oi 1--1 ... \0 NO\ON .........N ....... ...-I 000"'1::1" ZZZ "" f '" ..c: CFJ .'" OOt-OONO"O"O"OQ'I \0 -O\OOQJ\O II"> <'">\0"0"0"011) .. .. ..::s ::s::::s .. N 0\\0......--00 N 10('1")(.)(.)0...... o. NN..E.E.E"l ....... ....................N ~~~ '" .... u "" :::~ O<:i &:: s c ~ E o.o.g >.. ~ B eta CI) ro>.. " :=: <.> S" .... o ~ 0 ~ 0 CJ)CI1 .- 0.050 t;)".;:I '-' Cl._ cg.R SIX>> '" B ~ 5 "'...~ CI1S~"S e.",,,,,,-g ""'-"'0 .....ro,....,.C'>1 ot.8e~b.O ~ p... .c >- '-" 0 '" '" '" "'.- ~ ..... U 6;' ~ ,.J 2 B13 S ~.~ <L) ~ -< 55~';j"'8:-&S~ E-- U U r:.g '" '" r: .2 ~ 2 <.><.>8Q",CI1bh'ar:>.8["'" 'S: '> :.:= ~ E ~ 0 'ca 2 (J ~ iJiJ&8;::3ii:c3::E~&f75 ~I ,....;:5N <'">-<i.o-o t-000\ 2o-lf "" "000 o\c 'Ot- '" . - 00 U\C "v ..... . ~N Ov Z '" t- "2$ "Oil) '" . -00 u.... "II) ..... . oN Z '" o '" '" ~ \D @) " .9 l'! ~ '" '0 ~,.J <~ ~E-- .....0 ~E-- ~ " . ~ E . o . " t 0: .. ~ .- '" o ~ g ~ ~ o .-< ;:J &i~ <:> ....1"1 OJ , ~c: ~~ r.. t'-ot'- <'I t'- In "<t .... t'-<'Ioooot'-I<:> ("1').......... 0 \0 ~- -\0_ .... fI!- ;:J ~<:> ~<:> <:> t'- In t'- t'-<'I In 0 In 0 T" .... 1"1 <'I '" t'- '" - "<t N-OQ ~ , \0 In '" "<t "<t- ~.... =" ~ '" =" .... OJ .... ~ :>- E-< .... 1"1 :>-= ~U ~ <r:; ~~ ;:J 00 ~ AI rz oo~ ~=" t'-In t'- t'-<'I In In 0 t'-I <:> ........ In ~ ~~ <'I '" t'- '" - "<t .... N-OI.I') In '" .... ....- -.... 1!j=" .... N OJ"" fl!- r.. t::j '<:) ~ gf 6 :Q <=: E 6 '"'" 0 tI1 V V ~ gf'~ ;:;""0 t) ~ --.- (oj ~ >'\0 5 ~ g 5 5. OJ)VJ "'" ';j 0 Q) t:i.-..... 0........ ~ <=:6": ;>-,CdE;:J!3<=: '" <) "CI VJ 6 5. 6 6.9 &..:... <=:... 6 <) ~ ~ '" 0..8 EOJ)~ ~ ~ ~ '[1 ~ Uo ~ @"'V; ,"",...... ::'< C/.).- v:;:::c IUO ~t::: C u 0 ~.- v V~.- <)"".=",8;..c:6<=: 6 U ~ ~ .<) :::> ~ ~ 0 "'"CI ....< () 8 0 ~tI) bDd-&"E<< ''''..., 8< ... <) 8,'" <) O~" E-< >- .r;I-t ro- _0 u~8;:Jp:;c:J::E~..:SE-< o '" '" .. " " ~ E " o '> " t '" .; ~. ~ N o :i o t: ~ ~ . . . . , .0 -N('f')'VV)\O["'--.OOO\- ""Lo-I~ FIGURE 3 SUMMARY OF FEES Interim Public Facilities Development Impact Fees approved August 1, 1989 (reprinted from in-house study) Community/ Area Cost Per EDU 1988 to 2000 Cost Per Acre Commercial 1988 to 2000 Cost Per Acre Industrial 1988 to 2000 East of 1-805 Central Chula Vista Montgomery/Otay $ 1,374 1,046 1,046 $ 13,735 10,463 10,463 $ 8,241 6,278 6,278 Revised Public Facilities Development Impact Fees Total City-Wide Fees Land Use 1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2010 Residential $ 2,150/DU $ 2,105/DU $ 1,660/DU Commercial $ 12,040/ AC $ 1l,788/AC $ 9,296/AC Industrial $ 12,040/ AC $ 1l,788/AC $ 9,296/AC OTC $ 3,01O/AC $ 2,947/AC $ 2,324/AC JS5\TOM\02754-1.RPT\December 4, 1990 9 2.,0" (3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF " CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Chu1a Vista, California, for the purpose of amending Ordinance No. 2251 to update the Transportati on Development Impact Fee and amendi ng Ordi nance No. 2320 relating to Development Impact Fees to pay for various public facilities within the City of Chu1a Vista's General Plan Boundary. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else rai~ed at the public heari ng described in thi s noti ce, or in wri tten correspondence del i vered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, January 8, 1991 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: December 21,1990 Beverly Authe1et City C1 erk 20"'~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/18190 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2320 of the City of Chula Vista relating to Development Impact Fees to P~J for various public facilities within the City of Chula Vista's General Plan area boundary SUBMITTED BY: Budget Office~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) In August 1989, the City adopted a series of "Supplemental" Development IlIpiIct Fees. As part of the study, staff recommended that the fee schedule be referred to a consultant for fine tuning of the data base, facility costs and result i ng fees. Shortly thereafter, the firm of Willdan Associates was retained to refine the in-house study. The basic charge to the consultant was: - Verify population data; - Review City standards for public facilities; - Refine facility cost estimates; and - Review and refine the methodology used to apportion facility costs. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee is intended to identify the public facilities required to support future development within the City of Chula Vista's general planning area except for approximately 9,500 ~res within a special study area consisting of the western portion of Otay Ranch, recently purchased by The Baldwin Company. These public facilities include: - Civic Center Expansion - Police Facility Remodeling - Corporation Yard Relocation - Li brari es - Fire Suppression System - Geographic Information System (GIS) - Mainframe Computer - Telephone System Upgrade - Records Management System RECOMMENDATION: Amend Ordinance No. 2320 as indicated in the attached report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The existing public facilities DIF Ordinance provides for collection &f a $1,374 per EDU fee at the time of building permit issuance and for periedic review of the fee amount based on updated information. 'ZP..,s- Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/18/90 The method of determining the DIF amount consisted of estimating the cost of the various public facilities in the study and dividing that cost by the number of equivalent dwelling units (LD.U.'s) projected for the area at buil dout. Because each of the nine facilities described herein is based upon providing a people-related public service to the community, the cost of the facilities has been spread to new development based on the population generated by the specific use. There is a correlation between the number of people living in a residential unit, the number of people assembled in an area for employment, and the 1 eve 1 of facil it i es needed to protect and serve these popul at ions. For example, library sites are determined based on the size and location of the population. A fire suppression system is designed to deal with the various densities of residential uses as well as industrial and commercial uses. Police protection is also affected by high concentrations of people and both the police headquarters and the civic center are used by and designed to serve people. As the facil it i es are popul at ion-based, an effort was made to determi ne the number of people "generated" by a given land use. According to the Chula Vista Planning Department, the average residential population generation figure is 2.67 persons per dwell i ng uni t. The San Di ego Traffi c Generat ion report dated July, 1988 (SANDAG/Caltrans) indicates that daily population is affected by industrial and commercial land. The fo 11 owi ng popul at i on and EDU factors were used in the ca 1 cul at i on of fee shares: land Use Residential Non-residential Olympic Training Center Population Factor 2.67 persons/DU 15 employees/AC 3.75 persons/AC EDU Factor 1.00 5.60 1.40 The nine public facilities will be needed within three different time spans. Different time spans are used because each facility has a different projected life. The civic center, the corporate yard, the libraries and the fire suppression system are designed to accommodate the projected growth needs of the City to the year 2010. The pol ice faci 1 i ty is projected to requi re more square footage and poss i bl y additional equipment by the year 2000. The GIS, records management system, and the telephone system will also need expansi on or part i a 1 replacement by the year 2000. Although a port i on of the mai nframe computer's value wi 11 be reta i ned after five years, needed additions to its capacity and changes in technology will require its rehabilitation by 1995. Because of these varying lengths of adequate service, the time spans for financing the facilities also vary. This ensures that only those properties benefiting from the facilities will finance them. Future upgrades or expansion of facil ities will be financed by the future development that benefits. LO .../Co Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/18/90 For the purposes of this report, the "Area of Benefit" is all land within the city limits of Chula Vista and all land within the general planning area. Approximately 9,500 acres in the western portion of Otay Ranch are not included in this plan as they are in a special study area. A majori ty of the undeveloped propert i es i ncl uded in thi s report are beyond the corporate boundari es of the City of Chula Vi sta. It is assumed that either these properties will annex into the City of Chula Vista upon development and therefore be subject to the impact fees adopted by the City, or the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors will participate with a fee ordinance applicable to the land within the unicorporated area which benefits from the facilities. Figure 1, attached, summarizes the costs in terms of both the City's share of the cost and new development's share of the cost. The City's share is $7,910,647 (principally to rectify preexisting deficiencies such as Civic Center parking) and new development's share is $50,653,400. Using a total of 26,787 EDU's remaining to be developed through buildout, the resulting facility fees were calculated as identified on Figure 2 attached. Figure 3, attached, compares the revised fees with those adopted on an interim bas is in August, 1989. The revi sed fee as recommended is $2.150 Der EDU. (Note: the fee adopted in August, 1989, was inadvertently calculated using a total EDU count that included the Otay Ranch Special Study Area. Therefore, the fee that now is $1, 374 shoul d have been $2,045 wi thout Otay Ranch. Thi s compares favorably with the revi sed recommended fee of $2,150 whi ch also excludes the Otay Ranch). Two property owner meetings were held prior to tonight's council meeting and notice was mailed (attached) to owners of major land holdings as well as anyone who had made appl ication for but not yet received a building permit. The recommended effective date of the amended ordinance is March 11, 1991. Attached to this agenda statement is the report on Development Impact Fee for Public Facilities to be approved by Council as part of the proposed ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: The City's share of nine public facilities identified in the report totals $7,910,647. WPC 3487A ~o.. '7 1/03/91 Boards and Commissions Roster Page Charter Review Committee Charter Review Committee Batars, Carlos 175 Corte Maria Chuta Vista, CA 91911 Home Phone: 420-8056 Bus. phone: Type: M Date Appt.: Date Expire: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: Irma Misc. Info.: Hillock, Ted 805 CedarOOnd ~ay Chula Vista, CA 91910 Home Phone: 482-4610 Bus. Phone: 231-1368 Type: H Date Appt.: Date Expi re: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: 11/06/90 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: 04/05/88 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: Misc. Info.: Replaced Mary Francis Click Charter Review Committee Charter Review Committee Blakely, Jack 527 Yelton Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 Home Phone: 422-4266 Bus. Phone: 420-7353 Type: H Date Appt.: Date Expire: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: Pamela Misc. Info.: Reid, Sharon 719 Melrose Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Home Phone: 427-0455 Bus. Phone: 694-2232 Type: M Date Appt.: Date Expi re: Sec. Term No.: Res i g. Date: Spouse Name: Doug 05/02/86 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: 04/05/88 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: Misc. Info.: Charter Review Committee Campbell, C. R. 838 Cor i ander Court Chula Vista, CA 91910 Home Phone: 421-1541 Bus. Phone: Type: M Date Appt.: Date Expi re: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: Chair 04/05/88 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: Misc. Info.: Former Council, Port COOITIissioner Charter Review Committee Dorso, John 1383 la Mancha Place Chula Vista, CA 91910 Home Phone: 421-4533 Bus. Phone: 565-6401 Type: M Date Appt.: Date Expire: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: Mary 08/16/88 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: Misc. Info.: Charter Review Committee Fuller, Susan 523 Welton St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Home Phone: 422-6494 Bus. Phone: 427-0220 Type: M Date Appt.: Date Expire: Sec. Term No.: Resig. Date: Spouse Name: Edwin Charter Review Committee Misc. Info.: Jones, Edward P.O. Box 8648 Chu1a Vista, CA 91912 Home Phone: 585-0916 Bus. Phone: Same Type: A Date of App1i: 06/12/90 Misc. Info.: 05/02/86 First Term No.: 1 Re-Appt. Date: Date Re-Appt. Ex.: ;2~-1