Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/05/15 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this document on the bulletin board accordinli~ ~ I ~ Brown Act requirements. ~ " ~ . _ S'~<<- ::~~ ~ . 0-11 ~ Signed ~ ~~~ env OF CHUlA VISTA AJ Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone, Council member Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Councilmember May 15,2007 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . PRESENTATION BY MAYOR COX OF A PROCLAMATION TO AQUATICS SUPERVISOR III, MANUEL GONZALEZ, DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY 2007 AS NATIONAL AQUATIC MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA . PRESENTATION BY MAYOR COX OF A PROCLAMATION TO LUPITA JIMENEZ FOR HER YEARS OF EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO THE CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY . PRESENTATION BY PATTY CHAVEZ AND KATHY LEMBO FROM SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES OF THE "FIRST 5 SAN DIEGO" PROGRAM REGARDING FREE HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR SOUTH BAY RESIDENTS . DID YOU KNOW...THAT THE MONTH OF MAY IS PEACE OFFICER MEMORIAL MONTH? Presented by Captain Don Hunter CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 11) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately follOWing the Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of April 3, 2007, the Special Meetings of April 3, 5 and 12, 2007, and the Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - Letter of resignation from Pemy Cosca-Reese, member ofthe Human Relations Commission. Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignation and direct the City Clerk to post the vacancy in accordance with Maddy Act requirements. 3. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REPEALING SECTIONS 2.16.010 THROUGH 2.16.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN THEIR ENTIRETY, ADDING NEW SECTIONS 2.16.010 AND 2.16.020, PERTAINING TO THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 2.15 PERTAINING TO THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT (SECOND READING) Adoption of the ordinance establishes the Recreation Department and Library Department as two separate departments and assigns duties and responsibilities to their Directors. First reading of the ordinance was held on May I, 2007. (City Clerk) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the ordinance. 4. A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-07-0l) AND RELATED REZONINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN (SECOND READING) B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2007 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (SECOND READING) Adoption of the ordinances approves the Urban Core Specific Plan (PCM-07-0l) and related rezonings to implement the 2005 General Plan, and amends the Town Centre I redevelopment plan through adoption of the 2007 amendment to the redevelopment plan. First reading of these ordinances was held on April 26, 2007. (Acting Community Development Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinances. 5. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING TO CHAPTER 5.44.010 PROVISIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RACE TRACKS FOR VEHICLES WITH INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (SECOND READING) Page 2 - Council Agenda htto://www.chulavistaca.gov May 15,2007 An inconsistency exists between Chapter 5.44.010, which states that it is unlawful to hold races on a race track for vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines and Chapter 19.54.020.J.7, which provides that establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles such as race tracks and rodeos, defined as amusement and entertainment facilities, may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. Amending Chapter 5.44.010 to add a final sentence stating an exception for races on a racetrack with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit will correct this inconsistency. First reading of the ordinance was held on May 1, 2007. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the ordinance. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO DESIGNATE THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AS A PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY The City Clerk's office has an opportunity to enhance customer service to the citizens, promote public relations, and generate revenue for the general fund by offering passport application services. The proposal is to provide customers with a one-stop operation, including photographs and mailing services. (City Clerk) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY MCMILLIN LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH STORM DRAIN FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED IN BIRCH ROAD WITHIN THE SR-125 RIGHT-OF-WAY McMillin Land Development has submitted a payment request for reimbursement in the form of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) credits for the construction of storm drain facilities inBirch Road within the SR-125 right-of-way. The change order total of $302,206.19 is above the $50,000 limit, and therefore requires Council approval. Adoption of the resolution approves the TDIF change order for the construction of the storm drain facilities and the reimbursement to McMillin in the form of TDIF credits. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FNE- YEAR TRANSNET LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006- 2007 THROUGH 2010-2011 FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 3 - Council Agenda htto://www.chulavistaca.gov May 15, 2007 The San Diego Association of Governments has requested local agencies submit requests for amendments to existing projects included in the current Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Since the proposed capital improvement program for Fiscal Years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, and adopted pavement rehabilitation budget involve a different allocation of funding than originally adopted on June 6, 2006, the City is required to submit an amendment to use the Transnet funds for these purposes. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FRAMEWORK FOR AN SR-125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO FINALIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY BASED ON THIS FRAMEWORK, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "SR-125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM" (STM365), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (TDIF) FUND THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) In May 2005, the Council approved adding a transportation demand management project to the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program. The project included funding allocations for two specific transportation demand management programs to alleviate congestion by encouraging alternative modes of travel during the peak commuting hours. The Council will now consider the framework for a $2.2 million proposed toll incentive program for SR-125/South Bay Expressway, utilizing $1.8 million in previously allocated TDIF funds and $400,000 in toll credits from the South Bay Expressway. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $620,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (PDIF) FUND BALANCE AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,000 FOR TWO DRAIN CLEANING TRUCKS TO DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO BID 697l-05-Z AND PRICING AGREEMENT 8070191-0 (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) In January 2007, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The new permit includes many new and expanded tasks at jurisdictional, watershed, and regional levels compared to the previous permit In order to meet the new permit compliance deadlines, it is necessary to order two vacuum-type storm drain cleaning trucks now. (Public Works Operations Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution Page 4 - Council Agenda htto://www.chnlavistaca.gov May 15, 2007 11. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 2.66.040 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE PERMITTING OF ALCOHOL DURING FACILITY RENTALS AT SALT CREEK, MONTEVALLE AND VETERANS RECREATION CENTERS AND AMENDING SECTION 2.66.015 (A) TO REDEFINE THE TERM ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO INCLUDE BEER, WINE AND CHAMPAGNE ONLY (FIRST READING) The recreation department is proposing to allow the permitting of alcohol under strict standards of issuance during facility rentals at Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers. Adoption of the ordinance revises the Chula Vista Municipal Code sections that relate to alcohol at recreation centers, in order to add the three centers to the current list of authorized facilities and to limit alcohol to beer, wine and champagne. New permitting standards and fees are also proposed as part of this staff recommendation. (Recreation Director) Staff recommendation: Council hold first reading ofthe ordinance. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council/Authority on any subject matter within the Council/Authority's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council//Authority from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council/Agency/Authority may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. ACTION ITEMS The Item listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council/Authority, and is expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 12. REPORT ON INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS On April 17, 2007, the City Council referred the Initiative Petition Regarding Allowable Building Height Limits to staff for review and analysis, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215. The report documents staffs analysis. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and select one of the following options, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215: Page 5 - Council Agenda htto://www.chulavistaca.gov May 15, 2007 A. Direct staff to place the ordinance, as proposed by the proponents, without alteration, on a Council Agenda for adoption within ten days; or B. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption, placing the ordinance on the ballot at the next regular municipal election (June 3, 2008). 13. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "ALL SEASONS PARK", APPROVING A DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR In 2006, the City Council approved the Master Plan for All Seasons Park, which conceptually designed and provided for the construction of a completed and fully functional 7.6-acre park. Adoption of the resolutions will establish the Capital Improvement Project and award Erickson-Hall Construction Company a Design Build Agreement for the provision of services required to design and construct the park, and appropriate funds that will enable the design phase of the project to commence. (General Services Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolutions: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "ALL SEASONS PARK (PR279)", AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL SEASONS PARK, LOCATED IN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SEVEN NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) 14. CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT OF CNIC ENGAGEMENT IN CHULA VISTA BY THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Institute of Local Government has completed their report assessing civic engagement in Chula Vista and has made 46 recommendations for enhancing our current practices and including the public in matters of governance. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: recommendations. Council appoint a subcommittee to prioritize the Page 6 - Council Agenda htto://www.chulavistaca.gov May 15, 2007 OTHER BUSINESS 15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 16. MAYOR'S REPORTS 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7). 18. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c) One Case 19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL CONFERENCE REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b ) Three Cases 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) Gerardo Fuentes v. Citv ofChula Vista, San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIS 21769 21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) Josefina Ouinones v. City ofChula Vista, San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIS 27267 22. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 Title: Deputy City Attorney II ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting with the Redevelopment Agency immediately following this meeting, and then to a Regular Meeting on May 22, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 7 - Council Agenda httv:/ /www.chulavistaca.2:OV May 15, 2007 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 3, 2007 4:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista was called to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager Thomson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Marshall, City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy City Clerk Bennett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . INTRODUCTION BY CAPTAIN DON HUNTER OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, JOHNNY JACKSON, COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER Captain Hunter introduced Johnny Jackson, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented him with a proclamation. . OATHS OF OFFICE Daniel and Shirley Linder, Board of Library Trustees Georgie Stillman, Board of Library Trustees City Clerk Bigelow administered the oath of office to Daniel and Shirley Linder and Georgie Stillman, and Deputy Mayor Rindone presented them with certificates of appointment. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I through 6) With reference to Item 2, Councilmember McCann stated that he would register a no vote because the current process requires the request to be considered by the Council, and the proposed process would remove the Council from the process except to hear appeals. Mayor Cox requested confirmation that an appeal would still come before the Council, but if the Mayor or Council felt a need to hear the matter directly, a request could be heard at the Mayoral/Council level. Deputy City Attorney Maland responded affirmatively. Councilmember Castaneda stated that the proposed policy would streamline the process, and the City Attorney's Office should be the entity to analyze conflicts of interest. Councilmember McCann believed it was not IA -( CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) appropriate to delegate requests for waivers to the City Attomey, as the Council has the ultimate authority. Additionally, he expressed discomfort with the 10-day appeal process and noted that information regarding confidentiality could be reviewed in Closed Session. He said it ultimately came down to transparency, and if the authority was with the Council, then the Council shouJd be the decision-makers. Mayor Cox asked the prime motivation by the Attorney's Office to propose an ordinance change. Deputy City Attorney Maland responded that the attorneys have found the present process cumbersome and detrimental to the requestors' representation of their clients because it delays the ability to move forward as expediently as they should. Deputy Mayor Rindone stated that the current process not only ensures transparency, but also ensures that something is not overlooked. With reference to Item 3, Councilmember Castaneda requested clarification on the request for an additional $20,000 for in-house staff costs for the proposed project Acting Assistant City Manager Tulloch responded that after reviewing the contract, staff found that they would need to provide much of the source of the information that the consultant would need in order to perform the study, and that there would be no additional staff needs, only the allocation of funds in order to draw against the appropriate project. With reference to Item 4, Councilmember Castaneda asked why the City was not utilizing the newer and more cost-effective nylon!resin material technology for the repair of the corrugated metal pipes. Director Griffin responded that since the existing pipes are is such poor condition, the nylon! resin liner would not work. With reference to Item 4, Deputy Mayor Rindone expressed concern about the funding source for the proposed project, which would appear to reduce funding available for an item already identified by the Council as a high priority for western Chula Vista. Director Griffin replied that the western Chula Vista infrastructure funds are bond funds borrowed specifically for the purpose of performing drainage improvements in western Chula Vista. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of resignation from Jason Harmon, member of the International Friendship Commission B. Letter of resignation from Joe Little, member of the Growth Management Oversight Commission Staff recommendation: Council accept the resignations and direct the City Clerk to post the vacancies in accordance with Maddy Act requirements. 2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF ATTORNEY REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST Page 2 - Council Minutes htto://www.chulavistaca.2:0V April 3, 2007 IA-Z CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) The City periodically receives conflict of interest waiver requests from attorneys who were formerly employed by the City or who have served as outside counsel to the City. The requests arise out of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, governing attomeys who practice law in California, which require the attorney to obtain a written consent of a current or former client before beginning or continuing the representation of another client. Adoption of the resolution establishes procedures by which the City Attorney would review each request, includes an appeal period of the City Attorney's decision to the City Council, and allows for the Mayor or any Councilmember to request to hear the matter directly. (City Attorney) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-072, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $70,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS TO PROJECT NO. SW249 FOR THE PREPARATION OF A JOINT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The City prepared a Wastewater Master Plan update concurrent with the General Plan update, which estimated that the City would require additional treatment capacity for five to six million gallons per day at build-out. Several options are being pursued to meet this need. The City has partnered with Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water District for a joint feasibility study of a wastewater reclamation plant to serve the needs of the three agencies, the study cost to be shared by the three agencies. Adoption of the resolution appropriates up to $70,000 for the City's share of the costs for the preparation of the study. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. A. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-073, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "CMP STORM DRAIN PIPE REHABILITATION PROGRAM PROJECT, PHASE IV" (DR-169), AND TRANSFERRING EXISTING FUNDS FROM CIP "WESTERN CHULA VISTA INFRASTRUCTURE" (GG-188) PROJECT TO (DR-169) FOR SAID PURPOSE (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-074, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "CMP STORM DRAIN PIPE REHABILITATION PROGRAM (DR-169) PROJECT, PHASE IV, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT As part of an ongoing program to rehabilitate corrugated metal drainage pipe (CMP) throughout the City, staff has surveyed and identified a number of storm drain facilities that are deteriorated and in need of rehabilitation. Adoption of the resolutions establishes a project and transfers funds to allow the removal and replacement of drainage facilities at six locations. (General Services Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. Page 3 - Council Minutes hllp://wwW. chula vistaca.~ov April 3, 2007 fA -3 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-075, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $65,000 FROM THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR THE CLICK IT OR TICKET PROGRAM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The Office of Traffic Safety has awarded $65,000 to the Police Department for the Click It or Ticket Program in support of the national program. Adoption of the resoJution allows for the funds provided by the grant to be utilized to increase the level of seat belt enforcement hours on an overtime basis for first-line supervisors and officers and administrative time to meet grant reporting requirements. (Police Chief) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt tbe resolution. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-076, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING UNCLAIMED MONIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,266 FROM THE CASH BOND DEPOSIT FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND The City currently has unclaimed monies in the cash bond deposit fund. The money was deposited by the Police Department in accordance with Government Code Section 50050. In accordance with the Government Code provisions, money that remains unclaimed for three years may become the property of the City after certain advertising requirements are met. (Police Chief) ACTION: ACTION: ACTION: ACTION: Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Councilmember Castaneda moved to approve staffs recommendations and approve Consent Calendar Items I, 5 and 6, headings read, texts waived. Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Councilmember Castaneda moved to approve staffs recommendation and approve Consent Calendar Item 2, heading read, text waived. Councilmember Ramirez seconded the motion, which failed 2-3, with Deputy Mayor Rindone and Councilmembers McCann, and Ramirez voting no. Councilmember Castaneda moved to approve staffs recommendation and approve Consent Calendar Item 3, heading read, text waived. Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Deputy Mayor Rindone moved to approve staffs recommendation and approve Consent Calendar Item 4, headings read, texts waived. Councilmember Castaneda seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR There were none. htto://www.chulavistaca.gov April 3, 2007 Page 4 - Council Minutes IA- Lf PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ACTION ITEMS 7. CONSIDERATION OF CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE TERESINA APARTMENT PROJECT FROM EAGLE LOMAS VERDES, L.P. TO EQUITY RESIDENTIAL The existing owner would like to sell the project and transfer all obligations under the bonds to Equity Residential. Adoption of the resolution approves the transfer of the project and authorizes the City Manager to execute all related documents necessary. (Acting Community Development Director) Housing Manager Mills presented the staff report on the project. ACTION: Councilmember Castaneda moved to adopt Resolution No. 2007-077, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-077, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE TERESINA APARTMENTS PROJECT FROM EAGLE LOMAS VERDES, L.P. TO EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY IN THE TRANSFER Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. 8. CONSIDERATION OF REJECTING THE FIRST AND SECOND BIDS AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "OTAY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" On March 16, 2007, the Director of General Services received sealed bids for the Otay Park improvement project (PR-284). The work consists of constructing a practice softball field with multipurpose field overlay; improving site drainage, including a portion located in an easement over school property; and providing picnic areas, a performance area, new walks, lighting, planting and irrigation. (General Services Director) Director of General Services Griffin presented the staff report on the project. Councilmember Castaneda asked staff to provide a report in the future on proposed renovations to the Women's Club and ways to protect the integrity of the structure. Page 5 - Council Minutes hllp:llwww.chulavistaca.,ov April 3, 2007 14-5 ACTION ITEMS (Continued) Councilmember McCann asked staff to provide an update of past reports regarding drug use and crime at the restroom facilities in Otay Park. Director Griffin responded that the proposed park design incorporates the already improved restrooms, as well as improvements to one of the playground areas. Councilmember McCann then asked about adequate lighting, and Director Griffin replied that significant lighting improvements have been incorporated into the proposed plans. Councilmember Ramirez asked staff how mathematical bidding errors were handled. Director Griffin replied that in the event of mathematical errors, staff would advise the City Attorney's Office and recommend whether or not the bid should be rejected. Councilmember Ramirez questioned whether or not staff analyzes differentials in the City's bid estimates and those received by the bidders. Director Griffin responded that staff would typically review estimates that appear to be significantly different. ACTION: Mayor Cox moved to adopt Resolution Nos. 2007-078 and 2007-079, headings read, texts waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-078, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE FIRST AND SECOND LOW BIDS AND ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE "OTAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT" (PR-284) TO THE THIRD LOWEST BIDDER, LANDMARK SITE CONTRACTORS, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCIES IN THE PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) RESOLUTION NO. 2007-079, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN INTER-PROJECT TRANSFER FROM THE "WESTERN CHULA VISTA FINANCING PROJECT" (GG-188) TO THE "OT A Y PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT" (PR-284) AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS 9. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS Interim City Manager Thomson reported that there would be no Council meeting on April 10, 2007. Additionally, he reminded everyone of the Council workshop on infrastructure management on April 5, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center. Page 6 - Council Minutes htto:! /www.chulavistaca.!lOV April 3, 2007 I A-b OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) 10. MA YOR'S REPORTS A. Ratification of the appointment of Terry Jensen to the Veterans Advisory Commission. ACTION: Mayor Cox moved to appoint Terry Jensen to the Veterans Advisory Commission. Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. II. COUNCIL COMMENTS Deputy Mayor Rindone directed staff to provide the Council with a status report on Redevelopment Agency projects. Additionally, he requested a briefing by the City Attorney's Office about a potential lawsuit against the City. Councilmember McCann wished everyone a Happy Easter. Councilmember Ramirez directed the City Attorney's Office to draft a CounciJ Policy to address the circumstances under which the City should retain outside counsel due to the potential appearance of conflict that may arise if a matter is handled internally by the City Attorney's Office. The policy should specifically address the retention of outside counsel for advising the Board of Ethics and Charter Review Commission, and for providing legal opinions on initiatives that would impact City operations. Mayor Cox asked staff to come back to the Council with a preliminary report regarding Councilmember Ramirez' referral. CLOSED SESSION 12. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(l) Title: City Manager No reportable action was taken on this item. 13. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6(a) Unrepresented employee: City Manager No reportable action was taken on this item. 14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) A. Concerned Citizens v. Citv ofChula Vista, Case No. GIC 862773; ACTION: The Council directed the City Attorney's Office to initiate litigation. Page 7 - Council Minutes http://www .chulavistaca.2:0V April 3, 2007 IA -7 CLOSED SESSION (Continued) B. JC Towing v. Citv ofChula Vista, Case No. GIC 869143 No reportable action was taken on this item. C. Morv v. Chula Vista Police Department. et aI., Case No. 06 CV 1460 JAH(BLM); and No reportable action was taken on this item. D. Morv v. Citv of Chula Vista. et aI., Case No. 07 CV 0462 No reportable action was taken on this item. 15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b) One Case No reportable action was taken on this item. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, April 5, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road. - ':III' Z- ---- Lorraine Bennett, CMC, Deputy City Clerk Page 8 - Council Minutes hUu:i/www.chulavistaca.gov April 3, 2007 IA-f3 DRAfT MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 3, 2007 4:00 P.M. A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was scheduled for 5 :02 p.m., immediately following the Regular Meeting of the City Council in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Senior Assistant City Attorney Marshall, City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy City Clerk Bennett Mayor Cox announced that the Closed Session would not be held. The following item was not discussed, and no action was taken: CLOSED SESSION I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b) One Case ADJOURNMENT At 5:03 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Thursday, April 5, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road. ~--" -------------~ --.:--- -' Lorraine Bennett, CMC, Deputy City Clerk /8 DRAFT MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 5, 2007 6:00 P.M. A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was convened at 7:59 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Ann Moore CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b) One Case No reportable action was taken on this item. 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager No reportable action was taken on this item. 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6(a) Unrepresented employee: City Manager No reportable action was taken on this item. ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 12, 2007 ,,,,00 p.m. ill lli,C~ci' Ch=h=Cjfe'll ~ -P~ Lori Anne Peoples, MMC, Semor Deputy City Clerk It DRAFT MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 12, 2007 6:00 P.M. A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was convened at II :00 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Ann Moore CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b) One Case No reportable action was taken on this item. ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 12, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers ~~~V~ Lori Anne Peoples, MMC, Senior Deputy City Clerk I)) DRAFT MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA April 5, 2007 6:00 P.M. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox ABSENT: Councilmembers: Castaneda ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Moore, and Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. WORKSHOP 1. STATUS REPORT ON MISSING INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT EFFORT TO DATE, AND POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR PAVEMENT NEEDS In February 2006, staff began developing an infrastructure management program for a limited number of the City's public assets, including pavement; drainage; missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pedestrian ramps; deficient cross gutters; and utility wire undergrounding. The status report focused on pavement and drainage, and was the first step toward creating a comprehensive asset management approach to ensure the best use of limited funding. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer, General Services Director, Public Works Operations Director) Mayor Cox welcomed everyone and expJained the process under which the meeting would be conducted. Interim City Manager Thomson introduced Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch, who introduced the workshop presenters, Director of General Services Griffin, Director of Public Works Operations Byers, Assistant Engineering Director Browder, and Consultant Yapp. IE -j DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE WORKSHOP (continued) Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch provided the background on the infrastructure management program and four focus areas: I) utility wire undergrounding; 2) missing infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian ramps, and cross gutters; 3) pavement; and 4) drainage. He noted that the workshop would focus on the last two, pavement and drainage. He stated that Jater this year, there will be an infrastructure tour, as well as a second workshop on the missing infrastructure, utility wire undergrounding, and the comprehensive infrastructure asset management program. Mr. Tulloch then provided information on Chula Vista's municipal infrastructure, the underlying beliefs and elements of infrastructure asset management, a partial estimated funding need, and the status of utility wire undergrounding and missing infrastructure, including an estimated funding gap of $139 million. Deputy Mayor Rindone recused himself and left the meeting at 6: 19 p.m., prior to the start of the presentation on pavement, due to his property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of several properties discussed in the report. Public Works Operations Director Byers provided the presentation on pavement, including the impact of recommended pavement actions, immediate next steps, pavement facts, reasons for having a pavement management system, and Chula Vista's pavement management system. He stated that the last pavement assessment was done in 2002; and in 2006, the Engineering, General Services and Public Works Operations Departments developed a request for proposals to have a current survey performed. Nichols Consulting Engineering was awarded the bid, and Director Byers introduced the Vice President of Nichols Engineering, Ms. Yapp. Ms. Yapp provided an overview of the Nichols Engineering report, "State of the Streets." The report included general information on the amount of current pavement throughout the City, its replacement value, how pavements are measured via a pavement condition index (PCI), examples of streets with varying PCI's throughout the City, and the rationale behind the recommend actions, the current 2006 PCl (average PCI = 79, backlog of$43 million), why worst first is no longer acceptable, scenarios ofbudgetlPCl/backlog, and conclusions. Public Works Operations Director concluded the presentation with information on the case against the "worst-first" strategy, the City's pavement funding history, staff's funding recommendation, and the requested Council action. Mayor Cox commended staff on bringing to the Council's attention the strategy of applying the right treatment to the right street at the right time, as well as the information on the pavement surface life and suggested funding. Councilmember Ramirez noted that the pavement management system versus the complaint response system was entirely rational but would require a public education component. Acting Assistant City Manager Tulloch responded that staff would be looking for creative ways to explain the pavement management system to the public. He assured the Council that implementation would not mean that potholes would not be filled when complaints were received. General Services Director Griffin noted that staff would re-canvass areas periodically to verifY complaints, as pavement deteriorates differently under different circumstances and requires monitoring. Page 2 - Council Minutes http://www.chulavistaca.QOV April 5,2007 I~-Z DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE WORKSHOP (continued) Mayor Cox suggested that staff work with the numerous community and social groups to get the information out to the citizenry. Councilmember McCann requested and received confirmation that streets with immediate needs would still be addressed. ACTION: Councilmember Ramirez moved to approve staffs recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2007-080, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-080, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REAFFIRMING ITS COMMITMENT TO THE IMPLEMENT A TION OF A TRUE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carried 3-0-1, with Deputy Mayor Rindone abstaining and Councilmember Castaneda absent. Deputy Mayor Rindone rejoined the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Councilmember McCann recused himself and left the meeting at 6:57 p.m., prior to the start of the presentation on drainage, due to his property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of several properties addressed in the report. Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch provided the presentation on what drainage is, a drainage assessment (capacity and condition), drainage challenges, priority tiers, recommended drainage priorities, and the priority I tier drainage projects. Steve Wood, Chula Vista resident, addressed the Council with regard to storm drain issues in his neighborhood. He requested Council support of CIP 135. Upon question by Deputy Mayor Rindone, General Services Director Griffin responded that the life expectancy of the new polymer pipes or pipes lined with polymer is 50 years. He additionally stated the downside of lining with polymer is a slight reduction in pipe capacity, but by doing so, the City has lowered the cost to replace corrugated metal pipes to under $1 million, which is a manageable level. Mayor Cox asked if the $.70 per household was the only source of funding for sewer pipes, how the rates were set, and who set them. Acting Assistant City Manager; City Engineer Tulloch responded that commercial, multi-family and industrial properties pay $.06 per gallon of water used, and that the rates were set by a vote of the people. Director Griffin responded that historically, the $.70 was the only dedicated fund for storm drain projects. It equates to approximately $580,000 per year and basically offsets only the maintenance costs. Councilmember Ramirez asked if there had been any inquiry into whether or not the public would be willing to change the $.70 rate. Mr. Tulloch responded that there had been none in Chula Vista, but in other cities, such as San Diego, the results of inquiry were not favorable. He then noted that public approval would be more likely if the public were shown explicitly what the funds would be spent for. Staff will be exploring how this might be achieved. Page 3 - Council Minutes http://ww".'.chulavistaca.gov April 5,2007 IE-3 DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE WORKSHOP (continued) ACTION: Councilmember Ramirez moved to approve staffs recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2007-081, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-081, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DRAINAGE PROJECT PRIORITY LIST AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK SPECIAL FUNDING FOR ANY PROJECT THAT MEETS THE FUNDING CRITERIA Deputy Mayor Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 3-0-1, with Councilmember McCann abstaining and Councilmember Castaneda absent. Councilmember McCann returned to the meeting at 7: 19 p.m. General Services Director Griffin provided the presentation on historical infrastructure funding for pavement and other infrastructure; new infrastructure funding, including November's infrastructure bonds and Proposition 84 funds, and potential new funding considerations. Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer Tulloch explained the way infrastructure bonds and grant funds work and announced that, due to a suggestion by Mayor Cox, SANDAO was exploring the idea of an additional sales tax, much like the TransNet extension, including a scenario that would include a local streets component. Mayor Cox recognized Mr. Tulloch for providing her with insight to the SANDAG proposal and for encouraging her to make her suggestion at the meeting. She then stated that the following resolution could not be considered at this time, since it requires a 4/5ths vote, which was not possible with Councilmember Castaneda absent: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING $4,504,665 FROM THE CURRENT PAVEMENT APPROPRIATION, $2 MILLION FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE IN THE NORTH BROADWAY BASIN RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (STM354), AND $5 MILLION FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE IN THE FOURTH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN DAVIDSON AND SR 54 PROJECT (STL309), FOR A TOTAL OF $11,504,665, INTO THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - FUTURE ALLOCATIONS (STL238) FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) She asked Interim City Manager Thomson to schedule the above resolution on a future agenda. Councilmember McCann encouraged staff to continue due diligence in pursuing funding for the South Bay. Deputy Mayor Rindone publicly acknowledged Mr. TulJoch for his efforts in working with SANDAG staff. Mayor Cox spoke regarding federal preference funds and acknowledged former Assistant City Manager Smith and Communications Manager Carnavale for preparing what Congressman Filner referred to as "the best package of public service requests" for his office, noting that it was the best he had received this year and one of the best he had ever received. Page 4 - Council Minutes htto:llwww.chulavistaca.gov April 5,2007 IE-if DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE WORKSHOP (continued) Councilmember Ramirez noted that the report did not discuss redevelopment and tax increment with regard to infrastructure financing. Redevelopment Projects Manager Crockett responded that, historically, Chula Vista has not placed a high emphasis on using tax increment funds for pubJic infrastructure projects. The first priority was to focus on projects that generate revenue. Councilmember Ramirez asked when redevelopment funds would be used to replace old infrastructure. Mr. Crockett stated that the Redevelopment staff presented a five-year implementation plan, approved by the Council last year, that set goals and strategic priorities. He provided a brief overview of the plan. Councilmember Ramirez expressed disappointment that the report did not identify the PCl for the east and west sides of the City. Consultant Yapp responded that the difference was not significant between the two, and Director Griffin responded that the PCI figures were approximately 75 in the southwest and 73 in northwest. Mr. Crockett reminded the Council that tax increment funds could not be used for maintenance projects. Mr. Tulloch suggested that Councilmember Ramirez review the maps provided to determine the location of infrastructure needs west of 1-805. Upon inquiry by Councilmember Ramirez, Director Griffin explained development impact fees (DIF) and how they are calculated and used compared to an assessment district, noting that DIF'S are used to provide new facilities, not maintenance. He said that none of the projects under discussion were eligible for DIF funding. Interim City Manager Thomson acknowledged the work of Engineering, General Services and Public Works staff and the consultant for their efforts over the last year and a half; and noted that the City was ahead of many cities in the development of a systemic approach to infrastructure management. The information would help in clarifying priorities and searching for additional funding; it would also ensure citizens that the City is getting the most for its money. Mayor Cox thanked staff and the consultant; and acknowledged that the next item to be brought forward would require funding for technologies to allow staff to continue the work. ADJOURNMENT At 7:58 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to a Special Meeting of the City Council, thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 12,2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thence to the Regular Meeting of April 17,2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. c:y~ ~f>~ Lori Anne Peoples, MMC, Senior Deputy City Clerk Page 5 - Council Minutes hrtn:/ /www.chulavistaca.QOV April 5, 2007 /E.-5 -----Original Message----- From: perny [mailto:pernicoz@cox.netj Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 12:42 AM To: Yolanda Garcia; a. cordon; a. cordon; Anthony Jemison; Edna Concepcion; Gary Wedge; Jolyn DePriest; Juan Celaya; Michael Palomo; Pat Moriarty Subject: A FAREWELL NOTE Cap!. Wedge, Yoly, and fellow Commissioners: It is with mixed feelings to inform you that I will be joining the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC. I will be leaving on April 29th for a six-week training at the Foreign Service Institute and will be sent directly to my post overseas right after the training. The information about my departure was received the day after our meeting last week. My decision to leave Chula Vista was a very difficult one, but the job opportunity is a rare chance of a lifetime, which must be acted on. The good thing is, I would be able to visit my home City (and you guys) during my annual vacation. I would like to thank Cap!. Wedge, Yoly, and my fellow Commissioners for your unending support of the Commission. I truly believe that the HR Commission is poised for a brighter, better future in serving the community. It's been fun working with you alii I might be able to attend the meeting next month. Thank you and may God bless you all! Sincerely, Perny e-mail addressafterApriI29th.Dernicoz@vahoo.com 2- DRAFT ~o~ ORDINANCE NO. 2007- ~~ ~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHlJLA ~~ALING SECTIONS 2.16.010 THROUGH 2.16.050 OF CIPAL CODE IN THEIR ENTIRETY, ADDING NEW S S 2.16.010 AND 2.16.020 PERTAINING TO THE RECREATI DEPARTMENT AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 2.15 PERTAINING TO THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Municipal Code Sections 2.16.010 through 2.16.050 establish the Library and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the Library and Recreation Department has evolved into two separate departments, the Library Department and the Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code to accurately reflect the establishment and duties of each separate department. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: Sections 2.16.010 through 2.16.050 of the Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION n: New Sections 2.16.010 and 2.16.020 are hereby added to the Municipal Code, and Chapter 2. 16 shall read as follows: Chapter 2.16 RECREATION DEPARTMENT Sections: 2.16.010 Established-Scope. 2.16.020 Director - Duties and responsibilities. 2.16.060 Parks and recreation commission. 2.16.010 Established - Scope. This chapter establishes a Recreation Department, the purpose of which is to enrich the community through recreational opportunities and programs. 3-1 DRAFT 2.16.020 Director - Duties and responsibilities. The Recreation Department shall be under the supervision of a Recreation Director, who shall have the following duties and responsibilities: A. Provide diverse recreational, social, educational and cultural programs and special events through a Citywide system of aquatic centers, community centers, gymnasiums, and sports fields. B. Ensure that recreation programs, events and services are accessible to the broadest range of potential users and reflect the varied interests of the community. C. Recommend to the Parks and Recreation Commission and to the City Council rules and regulations governing the conduct of persons using recreation areas and sports fields. D. Act as tecbnical advisor to the Parks and Recreation Commission created by Section 611 of the Charter and assist the Commission in carrying out its duties as directed by Section 612 of the Charter. E. Participate in the development, planning, design and construction of new parks and recreation facilities and in the renovation and upgrade of existing parks and recreation facilities. F. Establish administrative rules and regnlations governing the administration of the Recreation Department. G. Participate in the update and development of park acquisition and development (PAD) fees, recreation development impact fees (DIF), and amendments to the parkland dedication ordinance. H. Schedule the use of recreation facilities and sports fields. 1. Charge and collect the required fees for park and recreation classes, programs, and recreation facility and field rentals 1. Update the City's parks and recreation master plan for the development of future park and recreation facilities and policies to ensure the provision of parks and recreation programs to the community. . K. Prepare, submit and administer a departmental budget. L Maintain such records, render such reports, and perform any other duties and responsibilities as designated by the City Manager. 2.16.060 Parks and recreation commission. A. Number of Commissioners. The parks and recreation commission, heretofore established by Section 611 of the Chula Vista City Charter as a commission of the City consisting of at least five members from the qualified electors of the City, is hereby constituted pursuant to the authority as contained in said Charter provision, to consist of seven members in total, appointed and qualified in the same manner and by the same procedures currently applicable to the existing commission. B. The term for each member of the parks and recreation commission shall be for four years as provided by Charter. C. Charter Section 602 Applicable to Council-Established Positions. The provisions of Charter Section 602 shall apply to the two new positions created by the ordinance codified in this chapter. 3-2 DRAFT SECTION III. Chapter 2. 15 is hereby added to the Municipal Code, to read as follows: Chapter 2.15 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Sections: 2.15.010 2.15.020 Established - Scope. Director - Duties and responsibilities. 2.15.010 Established-Scope. This chapter establishes a Library Department, the purpose of which is to increase knowledge and enrich lives within the community by connecting people equitably to responsive programs, services and resources in a manner that reflects the ideals of a democratic society. 2.15.020 Director- Duties and responsibilities. The Library Department shall be under the supervision of a Library Director, who shall have the following duties and responsibilities: A. Provide circulation and infonnation services, and maintain an excellent and responsive materials collection throughout the library system. B. Provide opportunities for life-long learning for children, young adults and adults; and encourage young people to develop an interest in reading and learning by offering a variety of services. C. Ensure that library programs, events and services are accessible to the broadest range of potential users and reflect the varied interests and cultural heritage of the community. D. Foster a community-wide appreciation of the arts by producing arts events and providing administrative and technical support to local arts groups. E. Oversee the Chula Vista Heritage Museum and seek to collect, preserve, and make available the history of Chula Vista. F. Administer the joint City-school district elementary after-school program in order to enrich students' lives. G. Coordinate the solicitation of private contributions to assist the Library, Nature Center and Recreation Departments with special projects and needs. H. Enhance the City's ability to secure grant funds for capital projects and programming and develop grant management standards to ensure Citywide compliance with federal and state grant regulations. L Establish administrative rules and regulations governing the administration of the Library Department. J. Act as technical advisor to the Board of Library Trustees as created by Charter Section 607 and assist the Board in carrying out its duties as directed by Charter Section 608. K. Prepare, submit and administer a departmental budget. L. Maintain such records, render such reports, and perform any other duties and responsibilities as designated by the City Manager. Section N: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force 30 days from its adoption. 3-3 Presented by Susan Bigelow City Clerk DRAFT Approved as to form by ~~'('''~\\\~\~\\ Ann Moore City Attorney 3-4 .."o~o~ ORDINANCE NO. D\~G ~n """ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCILS~~~~~ITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-07-01) AND RELATED REZONINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN I. Recitals. A. Specific Plan Boundaries WHEREAS, the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which is the subject of this Ordinance, is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of description is generally located east of 1-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street. The new zoning regulations and design guidelines of the UCSP would only apply to approximately 690 acres, referred to as the "Subdistricts Area" as depicted in Exhibit A. Outside of the Subdistricts Area, existing zoning would not be changed. B. Preparation of the Specific Plan WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003 the City Council by Resolution No. 2003- 236 initiated preparation of the UCSP; and WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting firm of RRM Design Group was retained in assist staff in the preparation of the Urban Core Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 3,2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory Committee to work with the City's staff and consultant team and the community in developing some of the major components of the UCSP; and WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP Advisory Committee were held from January through June 2005 to provide direction on significant planning issues; and WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminary "Public Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in March 2006 and a "Public Review" Draft UCSP was prepared; and C. Project Description WHEREAS, the UCSP is the first in a series of significant zoning documents prepared to implement the 2005 General Plan. The new zoning regulations, in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts, if/! -I Ordinance No. Page 2 will ensure the systematic implementation of 2005 General Plan as required by Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860. The zoning regulations contained in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), specifically Chapter VI, will replace existing Municipal Code zoning classifications for the properties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area (Exhibit A) and will introduce new zoning classifications for mixed-use (retail/office), mixed-use with residential, and urban core residential (high-density residential) as anticipated by the 2005 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development; and WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact Report 06-01 has been prepared as a Program EIR and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision of public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to contribute to the provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as development occurs over the course of the next 20 years; and D. Planning Commission Record WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said project on October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and testimony presented recommended that the City Council adopt the UCSP (PCM 07-01); and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this application before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Record WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said project on April 26, 2007; and LIA-Z- Ordinance No. Page 3 WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation after considering all evidence and testimony presented recommended that the City Council adopt the UCSP (PCM 07-01); and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this application before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at their public hearing held on April 26, 2007, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to CVMC Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that pursuant to CVMC 19.06.030 and Government Code Section 65860 the UCSP is consistent with the 2005 General Plan as supported by the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Final EIR (No.06-01) and analysis including attachments to the agenda statement to the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, Redevelopment Agency and City Council dated April 26, 2007 and is supported by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, does hereby recommend that the City Council Introduce an ordinance Approving Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) and Amending the zoning map; and F. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. A Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the UCSP and related actions, and is available at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing date. The Final EIR identifies that the proposed project would result in significant, unmitigated impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, energy, and transportation. Impacts to geology, hazards, hydrology, land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, noise, paleontology, population and housing, public LIA- - 3 Ordinance No. Page 4 services, and public utilities are less than significant or mitigated to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and concurs that said documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and G. City Council Record WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on April 26, 2007 on the UCSP and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the project on April 26, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, the Council voted 3 -1 with Council Member Castaneda absent to approve the UCSP. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: 1. That the UCSP plan is in conformance with the City's General Plan based on the following findings of fact. In December 2005, after a multi-year planning process, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a new General Plan that represents the vision for the City through the year 2030. With the approval of new land use designations under the 2005 General Plan, new zoning regulations, in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts, are required to ensure the systematic implementation of General Plan. The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) is the first in a series of significant zoning documents that would implement the 2005 General Plan. The 2005 General Plan largely focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of the western portion of the city and described a new vision for portions of the City referred to as the "urban core. The long-range vision as described in the 2005 General Plan anticipates that: "The urban core has developed into a vibrant area, with housing; shops; restaurants; entertainment; and activities that attract from eastem Chula Vista and city-wide. Higher density housing, shopping, and job centers are located near the major transit stations, including E Street and Interstate 5; H Street and Interstate 5; and near Third Avenue and H Street. These key activity nodes give people transportation choices, encourage the use of LfA-Lj- Ordinance No. Page 5 mass transit, and help to reduce vehicular traffic. They are accentuated by landmark building design, and for the two Transit Focus Areas at E Street/Interstate 5 and H Street/Interstate 5, strategic use of some taller (high-rise) structures that draw attention, and provide unique identities for these important gateway entrances to the urban core and the bayfront. A network of linked urban parks and plazas creates pleasant pedestrian routes and provides areas for community activities. Increased population (residents and workers) in the Urban Core Subarea has created opportunities for more shops and a variety of restaurants. Entertainment and cultural arts are housed in new and renovated buildings, offering both day and evening activities. The streets are bustling with shoppers and people enjoying outdoor dining or heading to entertainment venues. A grade-separated trolley line at E and H Streets has improved the flow of east-west traffic, while a local shuttle provides frequent service between Urban Core Subarea activity centers. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line allows residents in the East Planning Area convenient access to the Urban Core Subarea. F Street is a pedestrian-oriented promenade that links Third Avenue; the Civic Center; Broadway; the E Street transit center; and the Bayfront Planning Area with themed landscaping and public art. The freeway crossings of Interstate 5 have been widened to accommodate additional pedestrian use, and entryways into the Urban Core Subarea are enhanced and inviting. Chula Vista's Urban Core Subarea has matured into an urban, pedestrian-oriented, active area that continues to be the primary economic, govemmental, and social focal point of the south San Diego County region." The proposed UCSP is based on the objectives provided in the 2005 General Plan and provides further detail on how these objectives will be implemented. The components of the UCSP implement the 2005 General Plan vision of a vibrant urban core and include mobility recommendations, land use and development regulations, development design guidelines and incentives, public realm design guidelines, infrastructure and public facilities improvements, and a community benefits program. Exhibit B also provides a reference to the applicable General Plan Land Use and Transportation Objectives that are implemented through the various chapters of the UCSP. Chapter V - Mobility of the UCSP provides a variety of approaches and strategies to "get people from here to there" as envisioned by the Land Use and Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan. Improvements for the main thoroughfares and other streets within the Urban Core are identified and address pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile and parking opportunities. Traffic calming elements, pedestrian improvements and paseos are introduced to slow traffic and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Recommendations for new LfA-5 Ordinance No. Page 6 and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both recreational and commuting users are also included. As envisioned by the Land Use and Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan, three transit focus areas within the Urban Core provide multi-modal opportunities for both local and regional transit and a new shuttle loop system serving the Urban Core and Bayfront is proposed. Various roadway network and capacity improvements are proposed, especially in areas where the street grid has been interrupted over time and off- street public parking strategies are also proposed within the Urban Core. Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations of the UCSP establish three different Specific Plan Districts - Village, Urban Core and Corridors which are further defined into sub-districts, each with customized form based regulations and standards. Subdistrict regulations shape the building form and intensity, allowable land uses, and parking requirements. As envisioned by the Land Use and Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan, land uses are proposed to encourage a mix of pedestrian-oriented commercial uses with higher density residential uses. Development and parking standards encourage locating buildings closer to the street (i.e. with parking behind or tucked under the building).The regulations also stress flexibility and provision of urban amenities such as streetscape improvements, parks, plazas, transit, cultural arts and mixed use. The tallest buildings are allowed at the transit focus areas at 1-5/H Street and 1-5/E Street where support by alternative modes of transportation is readily available. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts have been created for subdistricts adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zoning areas to protect and buffer existing residential neighborhoods and ensure compatible, stepped-back building heights and setbacks. Special provisions address live/work units, mixed-uses and parking structures. Zoning incentives are provided to encourage development to provide high performance buildings and urban amenities such as parks and plazas beyond required levels. Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines of the UCSP provide comprehensive design guidelines for development within the three Specific Plan Districts, as well as special guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family residential projects, and sustainability. The form-based guidelines supplement the Specific Plan development regulations to create a more attractive, well- designed urban environment. These guidelines apply to construction, conservation, adaptive reuse, and enhancement of buildings and street scenes. Although no specific architectural style is prescribed, the quality of design is guided by policies addressing site planning, building height/form/mass, building materials/colors, storefront design, landscaping, lighting, parking, circulation, signs and other development considerations. The goal of the guidelines is to create a positive image for the Urban Core and frame the streets and sidewalks with inviting buildings, entrances, awnings and outdoor dining areas. Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines of the UCSP focuses on ways to create more attractive and pedestrian-friendly public environments and gathering LfA-0 Ordinance No. Page 7 places. Street furniture, landscaping, sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, paseos, public art, parks and plaza concepts are defined. Two main themes emerge within the Specific Plan: an art-deco inspired design theme is proposed along Third Avenue, building upon the era when much of the development along the street occurred, and a more contemporary theme is proposed for the remaining public realm areas in the Urban Core, indicative of a forward-looking Chula Vista. Gateway treatments are proposed at six locations to welcome people to the Urban Core and to reinforce the identity of the Urban Core. Based on the above, the City Council does hereby find that the proposed UCSP is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and that the public necessity, conveniences, general welfare, and good zoning practice support its approval and implementation. 2. That the specific plan has been prepared in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and the California Government Code provisions governing specific plans based on the following findings of fact. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 establish the statutory authority for specific plans. As provided in CVMC Chapter 19.07, "Specific plans may be implemented through the adoption of standard zoning ordinances, the planned community zone, as provided in this title, or by plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan. The method of implementing an individual specific plan shall be established and expressed by its adopting resolution or ordinance." The UCSP has been prepared as an implementing document for future land uses, public improvements, and programs as provided for in the 2005 General Plan. The new zoning regulations proposed in the UCSP would replace existing Municipal Code zoning classifications for the UCSP Subdistricts Area and introduce new zoning classifications for mixed-use retail/office, mixed-use residential, and Urban Core (high density) residential as required by the 2005 GP (Reference GP Table 5-4). The following table identifies the mandatory information required in a specific plan pursuant to CVMC 19.07 and Section 65451 of the Government Code and the corresponding chapter(s) where the information is contained in the UCSP. 4/1- 7 Ordinance No. Page 8 Chula Vista Municipal Code Government Code Section Where Section 19.07.011 (as proposed 65451. Requirements Found in to City Council on April 12, 2007) UCSP The specific plan shall include: The specific plan shall include a Chapter II statement of the relationship of the a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general pian. specific plan to the general plan. The type, distribution, location, amount, The distribution, location, and Chapters VI,VIII, intensity of all iand uses, within the area extent of the uses of land, including and Appendix E covered by the plan. open space, within the area covered by the plan. The approximate total population Chapters II, IX, anticipated with the Plan's area and Appendix E A depiction of any and all subareas or Chapters II and VI other districts within which the Plan's provisions will be appiied. Standards, regulations, criteria and Standards and criteria by which Chapters VI, VII guidelines by which all development shall development will proceed, and and VIII proceed within the Plan and any of its standards for the conservation, subareas or districts. development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. The proposed distribution, location, and The proposed distribution, location, Chapters V, VIII, extent and intensity of major components and extent and intensity of major IX, and Appendix of public and private transportation, components of public and private E sewage, water, drainage, solid waste transportation, sewage, water, disposal, energy, and other essential drainage, solid waste disposal, facilities proposed to be located within the energy, and other essential facilities area covered by the plan and needed to proposed to be located within the support the land uses described in the area covered by the pian and plan. needed to support the land uses described in the plan. A program indicating how and when the A program of implementation Chapters IX, X, facilities and services to support the measures including regulations, Appendix D, and developing land uses will be installed or programs, public works projects, Appendix E financed, and including the fOllowing: and financing measures necessary to carry the above. a. A list of facilities and services b An inventorv of Dresent and future LfA-g Ordinance No. Page 9 requirements for each facility and service based upon the City's Growth Management Thresholds Standards C. A phasing schedule that addresses the timing for installation or provisions for required facilities and services. d. A financing program identifying the methods for funding those facilities and services consistent with the phasing schedule, and insures that the funds are spent on said facilities pursuant to the phasing schedule. Provisions and procedures for the Chapters X, XI, comprehensive implementation and and FEIR administration of the Plan The City Council does hereby find that the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451. 3. That the associated demands on public facilities and services due to development allowed by the specific plan are identified prior to development, and will be mitigated prior to, or concurrent with the development, and in conformance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance CVMC 19.09 based on the following findings of fact; and 4. That a financing program has been prepared which identifies the methods for funding for those facilities and services, and insures that the funds are spent on said facilities pursuant to the phasing schedule based on the following findings of fact. The General Plan was updated in December 2005 and created a new vision for the city. A large part of that vision focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of western Chula Vista. New growth is planned around "smart growth" principles such as mixed use, and transit oriented development that concentrates infill and redevelopment to select focus areas and corridors to protect stable single family neighborhoods, better utilize land resources, reduce environmental effects and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans to carry out the vision of the GP in an organized and orderly fashion. The UCSP !fA - 9 Ordinance No. Page 10 implements the policies and objectives of the GPU to direct a portion of the growth expected to occur in the City over the next 20 years to the Urban Core Area, by providing zone changes, development regulations and design guidelines to accommodate future growth. As described above under Finding 2, The UCSP includes an assessment of the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities that would be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. In addition, the UCSP includes a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry the plan. Specifically, Chapters V, VIII, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP and the UCSP FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development. As described in the UCSP and FEIR, subsequent new development would be required to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their impact. Chapter V (Mobility), Chapter VIII (Public Realm Design Guidelines), Chapter IX (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) of the UCSP and Chapters 5.8, 5.11 and 5.12 of the Final EIR provide an assessment of the demands on public facilities and infrastructure due to development that may occur as a result of the specific plan. Chapter X provides a detailed description of improvements and Appendix D Urban Core Specific Plan - Public Facilities Implementation Analysis (PFIA) provides projected cost estimates, projected timing of facilities, and financing mechanisms and revenues. The revenues are based on projected tax increment and development impacts fees routinely collected as development occurs in the City. These existing City-wide Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (DIF) include: . City-wide Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee . City-wide Recreation DIF . Sewer fees . Storm drain fees . Traffic signal fees . School impacts fees (collected pursuant to Government Code 65996) These fees would continue to be collected from new development as it occurs in the urban core. Additionally, the Engineering Department will begin developing a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) within the next year, to address 4)L /1) Ordinance No. Page 11 additional funding for future long-term traffic intersection impacts that may occur as a result of "worst case" maximum buildout. In addition, the UCSP FEIR, prepared as a Program EIR, includes an evaluation of the City's growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level based on development projections over the course of the next 20 years. The EIR identifies mitigation measures which would be applied on a project-by- project basis during subsequent review of individual development projects. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures for significant impacts that address provision of public services and facilities. The MMRP ensures that subsequent new development implements timely mitigation for impacts associated with new development, which includes but is not limited to the installation of infrastructure or payment of fees for needed public facilities as a result of new growth. These requirements would be assured through the subsequent discretionary design review and approval of future project specific Urban Core Development Permits. Although the UCSP is intended to attract future development to the Subdistricts Area, the timing, location and extent of subsequent development projects are unpredictable because of the unique nature of urban revitalization. To further ensure the timely provision of public services and facilities, monitoring of on- going development activity would be assessed through the City's existing annual growth management monitoring and reporting. Monitoring programs, such as the traffic monitoring program which monitors the actual performance of the street system by conducting roadway segment travel time studies, would track the rate and effect of growth on an annual basis. In addition to the annual GMO review, the bi-annual BudgetlCIP cycle and a five year status report would provide additional checks and balances of future growth. The integrated system of growth management programs, standards, regulations, facility master plans, funding systems and monitoring activities provide an effective system of checks and balances to ensure that the provision of public services and facilities keeps in step with new development. The City Council having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01 and all reports, evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing find, determine, and order that the UCSP Chapters V, VIII, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP and the UCSP FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), (all compiled within Appendix E) provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development and is in conformance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance CVMC 19.09. 5. The City Council does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone LjjJ - I / Ordinance No. Page 12 properties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area as depicted in Exhibit "C". Areas currently zoned R-1; R-2; and R-3 will not be rezoned, and the portion of the V-3 subdistrict fronting along Third Avenue between F Street and Park Way will have a maximum height of 45 feet. II. Severability The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. III. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading. The provisions of the Specific Plan shall be applied to new development applications submitted after the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Specific Plan. The provisions of the Specific Plan do not apply to projects which have been legally constructed or are under construction in conformance with all City required permits, or to projects which have received required discretionary permit approvals but are not yet under construction. On a case by case basis the zoning administrator may, as requested by the project applicant and pursuant to the provisions of CVMC 19.07.030(C), afford pipeline status to those projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning prior to the Specific Plan adoption, but which have not yet received discretionary approvals. Presented by Approved as to form by Ann B. Hix ~ Ann Acting Director Community Development ~ity LfA~/2- EXHIBIT "A" UCSP Subdistricts Area Map Ll-A /3 ! I I . "f''-'--;-~y.;omll .~!lOm ~ ' gr:~'n'it':! ~.Il iiIE,; ~B '"Iii N ii - I Ii '" litH I >- .. '" ., ., c ~ '^ .: >- .. ~ '" ;'H~ 5 [lir: """""""' m LfA 1'1- EXHIBIT "B" General Plan Consistency Analysis !fA - /!j - - ueld :J!~!:Jads aJO:::> ueqJn saUllap!n8 uB!sao WIBatl :J!lqnd WS!UB4:JaV\J saUllapln8 uB!sao juawdOlaAao AjlllqOV\J x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x U!juawal sU0I1BlnBatl juawdOlaAao x x x x x x x x w x x x x 318'v'.l A:)N3.lSISNO:) N'v'ld l'v'tl3N38 900l SaAlpa!qo ajBp n UBld IBJaua8 JapBJB4:J aouB4ua pUB spaau aJnjn) jaaw OJ jUawdO!aAap )0 aou81Bq B ap!AOJd UOljd!JosaO l.lnl ~.lnl alj!.l juawdOlaAap jSa4B!4)0 UOIjBOOlj!W!l Ajl:) a4j)0 pUB juasaJd OJ Aj!SUaju JapBJB40 IBpOS pUB IB:J!SA4 saOUB4ua pUB 4j!M spua!q jB4jjuawdolaAao s'v'::I.l E:.lnl sasn pUBI uaaMjaq SUO!j!SUBJj ajB!JdOJddB ap!AoJd sasn pUBljuaOB!pB)O oIJ!llq!jBdwoo aJnsu3 j!SUBJj JUB sqof 'Bu!dd04S JBaU Bu!Sn04 AjlSUap Ja4B!4 41!M SBaJB asn-pax!w ajBuB!sao SP004Joq4 UIBjU!BW tau IB!juap!saJ alqBjS )0 AjUDajU pUB saouanlJU! BUlj4B!lq az!wlUIVII v.lnl 9.lnl L.lnl 9.lnl ~ \ .~ pUB palUa!JO uB!Jjsapad B SB aBBwl aou84ua pUB saoBds O!lqnd pUB salllunwwoo 'SP004Joq4B!au 4SmBuljs!p jB4j saJnjBa) 180!SA4d ajBaJ:) B.lnl O!lqnd pUB SjuaWUOJ!AUa laaJjs aA!pBJlIB ajBaJ:) SBaJB jUBjJodw! Ja4jo pUB sju!od AJjua JO) saJnjBa) A8MajBB pa:JuB4ua ajBaJ:) ,j!unwwo:J alq8A! O~.lnl 6.lnl UO!IBO!)!jnBaq ajOWOJd pUB ~JoMjau aOBds uado U!BjU!BW 'saOJnOsaJ o!uaos aAJasaJd saoJnosatl :J!JOjS!H jUBjJodw! pajOJd sp 4j!Mal ~ ~ .lnl E:~ U .lnl .lnl x x x x - - x x - - - x - x x x x - - - - x - x x x - - x x - - - x - - x x - - - x - x x x x - - x x - - x x - - x x - - suo!j;n5al:! I Aj!IJqOV'J sau1Iap!nE) sau!laplnE) u5!sao u5!sao juawdOlaAao I wlea~ :J!lqnd juawdOlaAao Ws!ue~:JaV'J - .. - 1- SaAlpa!qo ajepan ue!d leJauaE) dpj Ja~jo pue 5u!~leM 'SapA:J!q 'j!SUeJl jO asn paSeaJ:Jul 'V'J01 ~5noJ~j puewap :J!JjeJl a:Jnpal:! juawdOlaAap aA!jJoddns pue alq!ledwo:J jlSUeJj ajeU!pJOo:J pue ueld Sa!j!lpej pue 5u!UUeld UOllejJodsueJj pue asn puel ajeJ5ajUI SJalua:J i\J!A!pe Jo!ew uaaMjaq .SUO!pauuo:J UO!jejJodsueJj pue j!SUeJj aAoJdw UOlldp:Jsaa 9 ~ 1nl - all!l 9~ H B~ 1nl 1nl 1nl sa!jlunwwo:J jO A1P5alU! pue JapeJe~:J 5u!fuasaJd al!~M Aj!:Jede:J AeMpeOJ juapljjns ~j!M walsAs AeMpeOJ juap!jja pue ajes e u!eju!eV'J u5!sap juawdOlaAap pue asn puel U! uOlleJaplsuo:J dOj e speoJ AIPUapj j!sueJj a~eV'J WajSAS l!sUeJljJe a~l jO ajejS ajeu!pJo08 sueaw Uo!pnpaJ Ollnl 6~ 1nl ~llnl \-- '- r ~ jO asn ajowoJd jO apls jSaM Duole a:J!AJas ll:!l OJ sjuawa:Jue~ua JOj 5u!UUeld anu!ju08 juawdOlaAap ueqJn jJoddns 01 A.Jessa:Jau sa:J!AJas Al!Unwwo:J pue Sa!I!UaWe :Jllqnd 5ulsno~ alqepJOjje ap!AoJd 01 weJ50Jd ~s!lqels3 .weJDOJd aJ08 ueqJn ue ~s!lqels3 pue a~!q jO walsAs ~ nOJ~1 lllnl Cl1nl 9l1nl Ll1nl ul~Je ppe OJ saJnj!puadxa :J!lqnd 5u!sn aJojaq puewap 5u!~Jed a:JnpaJ 01 salj!I!:Jej 5ul~Jed aZll!ln Jajjas sjuap!saJ JOj sa!j!uawe aAoJdw! aAap leljuap!saJ jO 5upalsnp MOllif e aJa~M uO!jep!losuO:J 101 Jap!su08 6l1nl Bl1nl OC 1nl !!il x x x x x x - - - x x x - x x x - x x x - - x x x - - - x x - - - x x x x x x x x x x - x x x x - - suo!j;j;,6a~ I Ajll;q"OV\J sau!lap!no sau!lap!no u6!sao u61sao juawdOlaAao wleatj o!lqnd juawdOlaAao - ws!ue~oaV\J - - - ., SaA!pa!qo ajepan ueld leJauao d ap!AoJd OJ sa!6ajeJjs Idde pue asn ajenleA3 spedw! DU!~Jed SaOnpaJ pue Sapl~aA aAljeUJajle SajepOWWOooe 'jUap!jja 'sasn puel ~j!M pajeJ6aju! slje~j 6UI~Jed ap!AoJd uO!jd[JosaO snope^ 6u!~Je jO Aj!l!qeO! ~8.lnl - all!.l Z8.lnl !sap lepow-!jlnw ajell'Oej pue seaJe pajua!Jo-pad U! spaads JaMols ajepowwoooe 'juaWUOJ!AUa pazlueqm aJOW OJ puodsaJ je~j eaJeqns aJo:) ueqJn a~j UI suo!leoljlssep AeMpeOJ ~s!lqejs3 jlSueJj pue SapAO!q 'sue[Jjsapad JOj jUOJjAeS pue aJo:) ueqJn uaaMjaq sa6e~U!1 ~s!lqejs3 pauD!Sap-lIaM pue pajls Alaje!JdoJdde aJe sa!j!l,oej 6u!~Jed amsu3 UI SJOjlSIA pue sjuap!saJ JOj Aj!l!qow aseaJou salj!uawe pue u 88 .lnl 917.lnl L17.lnl ~ \ ,~ a~j jUlod leOOj se anuaA\i pJ!~.l UMOjUMOO u!eju!eV\J JO!JjSIO anUaA\i PJI~.l UMOjUMOO jO juawaoue~ua pue juawdOlaAapaJ JOj aplAOJd aJO:) ueqJn a~j U!~jIM juawdOlaAap Mau pue 'lI!jU! 'juawdOlaAapaJ ,uejUaWaldwoo pue paoueleq a6emoou3 aJo:) ueqJn B17.lnl 617.lnl 09 .lnl H 6uole eaJe asn-pax!w pue aoeds 6u[Ja~je6 o!lqnd jueo!j!u6!s ~sllqejsa pue JOp[JJOO AeMaje6 pue !sueJj aOJoju!aJ ojjaaJjS H jO ~jJou pue Jajua:) ejsl^ eln~:) a~j jO juawdOlaAapaJ a6emoou3 ,j!:)JOj ~9 .lnl Z9 .lnl 'aA\i 4jJnOc:l pue PJ!4.l uaaMjaq jaaJjS juawdOlaAapaJ asn-pax!w a6eJnOOU3 89 .lnl x x x x - - - - x x x x x x x x x x x x - - x x - - x x - - x x - - - - S8U1I8p!n8 S8U!18P!n8 SUO!18In08~ I ill!l!qOIi'J UO!S80 UO!S80 IjU8WdOl8A80 I w188~ ollqnd luewdoleAeo WSIU840eIi'J JWj - - - - SeA!pe[qo 8j8pdn u81d 18JeUe8 18!OJeWWOO OUIAJeS 18001 PU8 OUISn04 4j!M JOp[JJOO 810JeWWOO pelUe[Jo-ped 4S!lq81se 01 8eJ'lf snoo.:J ilBMpBOJ8 41JON)0 lU8wdoleAep8J eOBmOOU3 uond[Joseo 1791.nl - ell!1. ill!W8)-lllnW pUB 80!llO 'sesn OU!AJeS-JOl!S!A UO S!SB4dwe 41!M UO!IBlS il81[OJ1. jeeJjS 3 e41 J8eU illIBpedse eSn-pex!1i'J 41!M il8Mp80J8 pUB 9 UeeMj8q jeeJlS 3 )0 juewdOl8AapeJ 808moou3 991.nl il8Mp80J8 uo eSn-p8X!W ilq pejJoddns 18[lueplseJ iljlsUep-4o!4 41!M sjeeJjS 8 PU8 .:J 'ilBMp80J8 '9-! ueeMjeq BeJB)O juewdOl8AepeJ e08JnOOU3 IB!jU8p!SeJ 991.nl je8JjS H uo pJ8Aelnoq I!SUBJl PU8 il8Mel8o OUpJO)U!8J eSn-p8X!W P81u8[J0-lISUBJl 41!M sl88JlS H pUB 8 'il8Mp80J8 '9-1 u88Mjeq 8eJB )0 luewdoleAepeJ e08moou3 L91.nl \j- - \ ~ pex!w snoo) I!SU8Jl S8 SleeJjS I pUB H 'il8Mp80J8 9-1 ueeMjeq juewdOleAepeJ eOBmoou3 991.nl IBIOJ8WWOO oU!AJes P004Joq40!eU pUB Se!I[UnlJoddo OU!Sn04 41!M JOp!JJOO IBpJeWWOO pelue[Jo U8[Jlseped SB P[JlS!O il8Mp80J8-P!1i'J )0 lU8wdoleAepeJ e08mOOU3 8eJB esn 691.nl 'd4:) ds:)n U! pe4S!lq81S3. P[JjS!O enueA'v' PJ!41. -PIIi'J U! UJe1l8d esn PU81 OU!ls!xe e08JnOOU3 091.nl WBJ60Jd sJljeuag AjlUnWWO;) PU8 UO!}fijuawa/dw/ ueld :x Exhibit C LjA-20 AVM3llU::f !l "'.=.C,.m(::DL1' pauoza.l Slla.lE f-}I pUll Z-}I ~ IJr,q""."",", ,~,"...,,";-,. '".;;iT" '1 Il~d .l0jl ql pu ~~ .U S>pt'J vluoH C)j!qi)i,.J J)1;'rl e jOhJ - p,lJJaj'](] .. ))!.lJ\i(] ';H'::PUJU,,) .~. 1)!J1S!O 0,10:) ue<pn - :>n c:.1 ))!.J~S!a a3e\l!^ . ^ c:.1 :<:-:>-1)'< aweN DPlS!pqnS #"::>n sepepunoE lJplS!pqnS /'./ eaJV ApOlS u~ld ,upads "" ::> 1181HX3 ;" ::;.~:: 'h dv lq:3!aq mmU!X1lW ","J' "if: fj mf] ,I fJ '~; ~r .. iJ . fiil 4:: t: E N \ % ^'\fMa;au~ !i ~f$\ ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~\) ~ ~~~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMEN TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TH HE ADOPTION OF THE 2007 AMENDMENT THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted the original Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") on July 6, 1976, by Ordinance No. 1691 and has subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan on five separate occasions, on July 17,1979, by Ordinance No. 1872, April 22,1986, by Ordinance No. 2146, January 4,1994, by Ordinance No. 2585, November 8, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2609, and on June 23, 1998, by Ordinance No. 2735, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the Town Centre I Project; and WHEREAS, the City's Urban Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") will refine and implement a vision for downtown Chula Vista as expressed in the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law ("Law") (Health and Safety Code 33000, et seq.) Section 33331, a redevelopment plan must conform to the general plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission") has reviewed the Specific Plan and has determined that it is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the 2007 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2007 Amendment") will bring the land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Project Area ("Project Area") into conformance with the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and the local procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, the City has prepared and completed a proposed Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Law, public notice has been duly given, and.a full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2007 Amendment. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section 1. The 2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment No.1 and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted and approved. 4- 8---/ Section 2. Based upon the evidence contained in the Report to the City Council for the 2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: (a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes as set forth in the Law; and (b) The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and (c) The Planning Commission and the City Council have determined that the 2007 Amendment is consistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan, including, but not limited to, the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan; and (d) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Law; and (e) The Agency has a feasible method for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the Project Area, to the extent that implementation of the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of Project Area housing facilities; and (I) There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and (g) Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Law. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5,33413, and 33413.5 of the Law; and (h) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Section 3. Though the 2007 Amendment does not propose displacement of permanent housing facilities, the City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities would be available within three years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that, pending the development of the facilities, there will be adequate temporary housing facilities available to the displaced occupants at rents comparable to those in the City of Chula Vista at the time of their displacement. '-1-6' ;)- Section 4. A full and fair public hearing having been held on the 2007 Amendment, and the City Council having considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the 2007 Amendment and all written and oral objections thereto, and this City Council being fully advised in the premises, all written and oral objections to the 2007 Amendment to the extent not otherwise addressed in the Redevelopment Plan or not otherwise responded to are hereby overru led. Section 5. The City Clerk shall publish a copy of this Ordinance as required by Law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cheryl Cox Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk Lf!?r3 I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2007, and that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of said Ordinance, and has not been amended or repealed. City Clerk (SEAL) /f/3 ~Lf ~'UO'r\\O~ ORDINANCE NO._ \\~'U\~G ~~'U ORDINANCE OF TIfE CITY OF CHULA '6i(ili/~'U AMENDING CHAPTER 5.44.010 ADDING PROVISIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RACES AND RACE TRACKS FOR VEHICLES WITH INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 5.44.010 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to prohibit races on race tracks for vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 19.54.020.1.7 provides that establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles such as race tracks and rodeos, defmed as amusement and entertainment facilities, may be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, this ordinance amendment is to correct this inconsistency between Chapter 5 and Chapter 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section l506l(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, the City Clerk has placed this ordinance on the consent calendar for the City Council meeting scheduJed for 6:00 p.m. May 1,2007 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed code amendment will provide internal consistency between Chapter 5 and Chapter 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ordains that Chapter 5.44.010 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPERATE OR TO SPONSOR A RACE TRACK FOR VEHICLES PROPELLED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, OR TO PARTICIPATE IN OR TAKE ANY PART IN THE OPERATION OF SUCH A RACE TRACK OR IN ANY RACE INVOLVING ANY SUCH VEHICLES, WITHIN THE CITY EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CYMC SECTION 19.54.020.1.7. CORD. 2408 & 1. 1990: PRIOR CODE & 20.14). 5-1 This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption and second reading. Submitted by Approved as to form by James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building J :IPLANNINGIHAROLDlREsOLVllONS\RACEORDINANCE.DOC 5-2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~ C1TYOF =:- CHUlA VISTA SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: MAYI5,2007,Item~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO DESIGNATE THE CITY CLERK'S OFFIh. . AS A PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY SUSAN BIGEL ~Y CLERK CITY MANAGER i/ ITEM TITLE: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND The City Clerk's office has an opportunity to enhance customer service to our citizens, promote public relations, and generate revenue for the general fund by offering passport application services. Currently, the only authorized passport agent in Chula Vista is the post office on Oxford Street. With the implementation of new federal legislation requiring passports for all air travel to and from Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Canada, there is an even greater need for this service; and passports will soon be required for those crossing the border by land or sea, possibly as early as January I, 2008. The proposal is to provide customers with a one-stop operation, including photographs and mailing services. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. / , , i MAY 15,2007, Item4.- Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION In order to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into the United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate international travelers, Congress recently passed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to require travelers to and from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean and Bermuda to present a passport or other accepted document to establish their identity and nationality to enter or re-enter the United States. The only authorized passport agent in Chula Vista is the post office on Oxford Street. The City Clerk's Office contacted the Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency (which is the agency that approves new agents on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Mfairs) to discuss the feasibility of the City's designation as a passport acceptance facility. The Customer Service Manager indicated that there was a need for additional passport services in this area and forwarded the necessary application and information packet. The application process itself takes about two months. If the City's application is approved, the City Clerk's Office could begin providing the service as soon as staff training is completed and the equipment is purchased. Training consists of one eight-hour training class provided without charge by the Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency and completion of an on-line training class. Equipment needed include a computer, passport photo system, die cutter, a photo screen, and an acceptance agency seal, approximately $4,000 in start-up costs that would be offset by the revenue generated. Also needed would be postage and the use of a copier, which would be accommodated in the current budget. In addition, a dedicated telephone line would be established with recorded passport information, such as what is required to apply for a passport. To keep customers informed of the most up-to-date passport and international travel information, a link directly to the Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency would be posted on the City's website. The City Clerk's Office proposes to use existing staff initially to implement passport services and provide a one-stop operation for customers, including photographs and mailing services. The Senior Deputy City Clerk previously operated a passport application facility for Poway; thus, we have in-house expertise to guide the program. At the onset, services would be offered on a part-time, appointment-only basis. The duties of a half-time, bilingual Senior Office Specialist would be temporarily redistributed among other staff in the office in order to dedicate four hours per day to passport services. Additional City Clerk staff would be deputized to also serve as acceptance agents to ensure appropriate coverage. Duties ofthe passport agent would include: . Record and verify customer identification . Review applications for completeness . Ensure that customers submit proper photos, citizenship documentation and fees . Administer passport oaths and witness signatures . Sign and seal applications . Forward routine and expedited applications separately on a daily basis . Notify Passport Services of suspected passport fraud when applications are forwarded for processing 6-2 MAY 15, 2007, Item~ Page 3 of 4 A more detailed issuance process is included in attachment B. Once the program matures and revenues increase enough to offset the cost of a dedicated, full-time employee, the service may be expanded to longer hours and possibly to satellite locations. The City Clerk and Assistant City Manager/Library Director have discussed the benefits of eventually providing Saturday passport services at the South Chula Vista branch, a service not currently available anywhere else in the south bay. Because existing staff would initially perform passport services, implementation of the program would result in some temporary delays in filling research and records requests, further delays in long-term projects, and the inability to continue the digitization of older permanent and historic records. These services would be restored as soon as revenues increase enough to offset the cost of an additional employee. While there would be some temporary service reductions, the impacts would be far less than if staffing levels were reduced to meet requested budgetary reductions. Since the City would offer only passport application services, there would be no liability for the staff processing the application. The Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency, to whom all applications are sent, would provide the actual legal review of the documents and any follow-up to a suspicious application. Complaints or inquiries about the status of applications would be directed to the Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency. The area to provide this service should consist of a counter, including space for a small printer/copier, telephone, computer and office supplies; a seating/waiting area where applicants can complete forms; and an area large enough to facilitate taking photographs and accommodate families, since the passport agent must now actually see children before accepting applications for their passports. The preferred area would be the City Manager's currently unused lobby, which has adequate counter/desk space and a seating area that would take customers out of the main lobby. The passport agent could also serve as receptionist to City Manager customers who currently use a telephone on the counter to contact the City Manager's staff. Alternatively, a portion/comer of the main lobby would also work if the current lobby desk were moved to the front comer abutting the City Clerk's Office. Either would allow the City Clerk staff administering the program to have back-up, supervision, and access to assistance and copy machines. There are four significant benefits to becoming a passport acceptance facility: . Community Service - A passport acceptance facility is somewhat unique in that, other than the post office, no other organization in the community is authorized to offer this service. Having a passport acceptance facility at City Hall would provide a vital service to all citizens and a local source for residents to easily and conveniently obtain passport application forms and submit passport applications. . Positive Public Relations - The service to the community and positive interaction with the public would further promote the City. It would also offer an opportunity to promote other City services and opportunities available to the public. . New Revenue Source - The City would receive $30 for each application processed, from which only mailing costs (about $1 per application) would be deducted once start-up costs have been recovered. In addition, the City would receive $10 to $12 for passport photo services. 6-3 MAY 15, 2007, Item~ Page 4 of 4 . Community Economic Impact - People from surrounding communities who travel to Chula Vista to submit passport applications would have a positive impact on Chula Vista's economy, since many customers may decide to patronize other Chula Vista businesses while in the City. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section I 8704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT For each passport application accepted, the City would collect and retain the $30 processing fee established by the federal government. It would cost approximately $1 per application to mail applications to the Los Angeles Regional Passport Agency; and the $30 processing fee would cover this cost. In addition, revenues would be increased by offering passport photos at $10 to $12 per set of two. Revenues generated would offset start-up costs. It is anticipated that part-time services would generate $50,000 or more in general fund revenue. ATTACHMENTS Passport Application Acceptance Process Memo of support from Deputy Mayor Jerry R. Rindone Resolution Prepared by: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 6-4 6 u.s. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process II--~.-.". ,<.' ';0 . .... . i~."III'; \~! #l-Application Acceptance Process The passport appliG1tion acceptance process is detailed in the Passport Agent's Retelnlcc Cuide (PARC) on CO and covered In new ACJent trainlnc]. To give you a general sense of both the' process and the time involved, the folloWlnl] outlines them on a step-by-step basis --==----== @"-..-Sl ~ i:;'iC' _~1S1 '~~~ CAJPPT/FO/CS.05/27/06 6-5 7 U.S. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process can't. g.."..""". i? . \ I: . 'i~.. .. II,;. I.i ,'0,,'" ", ,", -~'. "'~':.."'. ""..':-' #3 - Does Customer Have... :J Proof of U.S. citizenship' .J Current photo 107 .J 2 pdSSport photographs? .J Appropriate fees7 .J Make sure the customer ilas dll of tile above before YOLl accept the application. [stimoted Iime ;.c, Minute CNPP'T/FO/CS-05127/06 6-6 8 U.S. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process can't. 11/;"'''''' ,- .. (';'. ,.~. ;,: ,^, ,'''",,,.: \~" ' ->~. " ' -''''-'..:...:c.:'.'' #5 - NOle Customer's ID .J Record clIstomer's driver's license or other acceptable 10 on application, Retain I[) for" i, .J Obsc'rve that the clIstomer can be Identified by the picturt.1 on his/her identification. .J Observe that the photos helng submittt'cI Me an accurate current likt'ne')~ of the customer. Esttrnoted flrne ;,~, Minute CAlPPTIFQ/CS-OS/27/06 6-7 9 U.S. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process con't. II,~/..c".,.... (:;:. '" ;i ':~. - ;"-' '.c,.J. #7 - Administer Passport Oath Acceptance .Agent. 'Do you affirm that the statements in the application are true and complete to the hest of your knowledge and helief7 Custor-ner Ye, fstlfnoted Time. '';. Minute mi....... .)"-', '-'.;;, [;~i :.c.,"':'- #8 - Witness Signature ...J Have ClIstomer ':ilqn application in front of you .J Compare customer's signature on the ID and on and on the application (If they match, return 10 If not, make copy of 10 & return the 10 to the customer. After customer leaves, attach the copy to the application. following PARe instr'uctions ) (I [stlrnCltecl Titne' ;~ Minute CA/PPT/FO/CS-05/27/06 6-8 10 u.s. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process can't. CNPPTIF0/CS-05/27/06 6-9 11 U.S. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process can't. _./'0,,-, " ,., , .'., /: - '" i''",Le! #12 - Before Customer leaves... U DO LJ B L E [H F C 1< for Completeness Application compkte hy (US to mer - All reqLllred SlgnatLlles - Parental permission for chrldren umler 14 Citj7l'tl'-Jhip dOcutllE'tltatlcHl (plus palental relationship documentation for chllchen under 14) . Estimated lime. >c' Minute CAJPPT/FO/CS-05/27/06 6-10 12 U.S. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process con't. 11/.....,',. , ,-' '.- -'.\ :: . 'I <' ,.,. ' ".: ",.. '.^. ".' d ,-. .,~, ">'-~,.--",); #13 - Assemble Passport Application :J Acceptance Agent attaches second photo, citizenship documentation: parental pennission dnd relationship documentation for children under 14: and passport fees to the application J.cccndlnq to instructions in the PARG .J If fraud is suspected, follow specldllllStlllctlons Estimated Time. y, ('vlit/Lltt' a"''',. "/ " " " " . ,- i' _, "" [~, .::~) #14 - Complete Dailv Transmittal FormlsJ ~ By ~acility, each day all routine applications are entered on a group transmittal form(sl, Indlcatln~J facility information dnd customers' na.mes dates of birth, phone numbers and fees collected '-l Separate transmittals art' needed for applications recelvinq separate hancJlinq (e CJ., ex.peditecf:, Fstimated Tllne.. 1- 5 Minutes CAlPPT/FO/CS-05/27/06 6-11 u.s. Department Of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services Passport Application Acceptance Program PART I: #4-Application Acceptance Process can't. Ia"'" (:~",'..'."'I,....',':i " ", .. '.~' '., ," ,'.,.."C #15 - Mail Executed Applications & Transmittals At the end of each day, Acceptance Agent Illalls applications and accompanying documents ,multiple applications In the Sdllle envelope, Cjrouped by type e,g , all routine applications together) to specified dddresses tor proCE.''lSlng. Est;n1oted Time" .")-' S Minutes (End of the /Jay) _/'~:'-"'i'; -' .', " .. '. .', ".,.'1.1' __.j' """0"'-' Total Time Required to Accept Passpon Applications .J Per Application Accepted: 5-6 Minute Averaqe .J At the End of the llay - lor All Applications Accepted. 5-15 Minutes (Some of this rime' may be durin~J the deW for incllvldually expeclited applications or hdnucarries.1 CAlPPT/FO/CS.OS/27/06 6-12 13 Mayor and City Council City Of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 91910 CllY OF 619.691.5044 - 619.476.5379 Fax CHUlA VISTA MEMO Tuesday, April 24, 2007 TO: The Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry R. Rindone, Deputy Mayor RE: Passport Services Recently, Congress passed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) which will require all travelers to and from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean and Bermuda to present a passport or other accepted document that establishes the bearer's identity and nationality to enter or re-enter the United States. This goal is to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into the United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate international travelers. For many years, U.S. citizens and some citizens of other countries in the Western Hemisphere have not been required to present a passport to enter the United States. Currently, a traveler may make a verbal declaration of citizenship, or present other forms of documents to enter the country that cannot currently be validated or verified in a timely manner, such as birth certificates and driver's licenses. In the proposed implementation plan, the initiative will be executed in two phases. The proposed timeline will be as follows: January 23, 2007 - Passports, Merchant Mariner Documents (MMDs) or NEXUS Air cards would be required for all air travel from within the Western Hemisphere for citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda. January 1, 2008 - It is anticipated that US citizens traveling between US and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda by land or sea may be required to present a valid U.S. passport or other documents as determined by the Department of Homeland Security. June 1, 2009 -- While recent legislative changes may permit this later deadline, both the Department of State and Homeland Security are working to put all requirements in place by the original deadline of January 8, 2008. 6-13 Interestingly enough, not only will adults need passports, but children who are entering the U.S. at airports or crossing the borders will need passports as well. In fact, passports will be required of everyone who is crossing the borders. More importantly, people who apply for entry into the United States, but who do have appropriate documentation, will be referred for secondary screening at the port. Consequently, to prevent a delay at the ports of entry, the State Department is encouraging all U.S. citizens to obtain the appropriate documents before they travel. As you might well imagine, in light of this recent legislation, many of our current and future residents will be in need of a passport. Currently, the only authorized passport agent in Chula Vista is the post office located on Oxford Street. I would like to support Susan Bigelow's proposal that we initiate a passport service through the City Clerk's office. Not only will this passport service provide a valuable service for our residents, but it will generate additional revenues for our city. To initiate her no-cost proposal, Ms. Bigelow will have existing staff members serve constituents on a by-appointment, part-time basis until sufficient revenues are generated that would support the hiring of an employee to staff the program full time. She anticipates that the generated revenues will more than offset the cost of providing the service. More importantly, by offering this service to residents, we will enhance our service to the community, encourage positive interactions between the public and city employees, and promote a favorable image of our city. For these reasons, I ask you to join with me in supporting the establishment of a passport service that will be handled through the City Clerk's office. 6-14 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULARAFF AIRS, TO DESIGNATE THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AS A PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY WHEREAS, the City Clerk's Office has an opportunity to enhance customer service to citizens, promote public relations, and generate revenue for the general fund by offering passport application services; and WHEREAS, the post office on Oxford Street is currently the only authorized passport agent in Chula Vista; and with the implementation of federal legislation requiring passports for travel to and from Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Canada, there is a need for additional passport services for local and regional citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista hereby authorizes the City Clerk to submit an application to the U. S. Department of State , Bureau of Consular Affairs, to designate the City Clerk's Office as a passport acceptance facility. Submitted by: Approved as to form Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk ~'U)[Q(\f\ ~)J Ann Moore, City Attorney , 6-15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT :s'Yf::. CITY OF - - CHULA VISTA 05/15/07 Item-=l- ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY MCMILLIN LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH STORM DRAIN FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED IN BIRCH ROAD WITHIN THE SR125 RIGHT-OF-WAY. .-- CITY ENGINEER S ) ~ INTERIM CITY MANAGER j/ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND On January 23, 2007, McMillin Land Development submitted a payment request for reimbursement in the form of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) credits for the construction of storm drain facilities in Birch Road within the SR125 right-of-way. The change order total of $302,206.19 is above the $50,000 limit and therefore requires Council approval. Tonight, Council will consider approving the TDIF change order for the construction of the storm drain facilities associated with Birch Road and the reimbursement to McMillin in the form ofTDIF credits. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Resolution approving a change order requested by McMillin Land Development associated with storm drain facilities constructed in Birch Road within the SRl25 right-of-way. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 7-1 05/15/07, lteml Page 2 of3 DISCUSSION The TDIF program is responsible for the equitable construction of major roads east of I- 805 by developers. The program works by allowing developers to competitively bid and construct these roads. The audited cost is applied as a credit that can be used in lieu of paying the TDIF fee at building permit issuance. Therefore, the City's General Fund does not fmance the construction of TDIF facilities. Staff brings all TDIF change orders above a cumulative $50,000 to City Council for their consideration prior to authorizing the TDIF credit for the developer. On January 23, 2007, McMillin Land Development submitted a TDIF credit request for the construction of storm drain facilities constructed by TC Construction Company within Birch Road. The current TDIF program dated January 5, 2005, identifies this portion of Birch Road as a portion of Facility #42 and #43 (See Attachment 3). The TDIF estimate for facilities 42 and 43, Birch Road from La Media to Eastlake Parkway, was $12,407,058.00 (See Table I below and Attachment 3). The original contract between McMillin and TC Construction Company encompassed the construction of Birch Road from Magdalena Avenue to the western right-of-way line of SR125. Subsequently, McMillin received an encroachment permit from Caltrans, which allowed them to expand the scope of work through the right-of-way of SRl25 as shown in Attachment I. This additional work was added to the contract using the originally competitively bid unit pnces. Although the actual costs for the drainage facilities exceed the cost estimates, the overall project is well below the overall TDIF cost estimate as shown in Table I below. The reason for the cost difference was that the TDIF cost estimate assumed smaller pipe sizes than were actually constructed. Staff recommends approval of the change order because the overall costs were below budget and are therefore within the projections of the currently approved TDIF fee program. Table 1 Birch Road Construction Cost Comparison TDIF Facility 42 TDIF Facility 43 (La Media Road to (Centerline of Totals for 42 and 43 Actual Totals for the Centerline of SR125 to Eastlake (La Media Road to TDIF eligible SR125l Parkway) Eastlake Parkway) facilities Storm Drain $637,000.00 $227,500.00 $864,500.00 $1,242,305.40' Facilities Oyerall $8,937,276.00 $3,469,782.00 $12,407,058.00 $7,034,283.34' Construction of storm drain facilities is now complete and McMillin is requesting reimbursement in the form ofTDIF credits, for the storm drain component of the work in the amount of $302,206.19 (See Attachment 2). 1 The requested change order of$302,206.19 is embedded in this cost. 2 Obtained through reimbursement requests and estimates from McMillin Land Development 7-2 05/15/07, Iteml Page 3 of3 There is one Resolution for this item on tonight's agenda, which, if adopted, will accomplish the following: . Approve the TDIF change order for the construction of storm drain facilities in Birch Road within the right-of-way for SR125. . Award $302,206.19 in TDIF cash credits to McMillin Land Development. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct fiscal impact to the City. Costs associated with this processing will be borne by the developer. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Limits of work Attachment 2: TDIF cost estimate Attachment 3: Storm Drain change order breakdown Prepared by: Chester Bautista, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Department J:lEngineerIAGENDA\CAS2007\05-15-07\Birch Road Change Order v3.doc 7-3 ..... I -l>o .) ~. ~/ ~.~ TDIF Facility 43 \Blrch RD Ph.'2. lChaOge order) \ ATTACHMENT 2 Birch Road Change Order (TOIF) Facility Description Price No. $fqfi#l;)f~rri!f ...-..-,......-.,........,... ...... ....,......,........};,..'"."' .....,............,.,-..,',..... ;,-,:,','",:".:.,.,.:.;.:.:.:.:,-,;,-,;.",-,:.,.;.:' ,-,-...,..........-. 1 66" 1500D RCP T&G 1,254.00 1,254.00 $ 190.00 $ 238,260.00 $ 238,260.00 2 54" 1500D RCP W/T1 154.00 154.00 $ 37.00 $ 5,698.00 $ 5,698.00 3 30" 1500D RCP T&G2 48.00 4.25 $ 37.00 $ 1,776.00 $ 157.25 4 24" 1500D RCP T&G3 207.00 110.15 $ 45.00 $ 9,315.00 $ 4,956.75 5 18" 2000D RCP T&G3 203.00 104.87 $ 37.00 $ 7,511.00 $ 3,880.19 6 MOD A-8 CLEANOUT 1.00 1.00 $ 5,350.00 $ 5 350.00 $ 5 350.00 7 A-7 CLEANOUT 2.00 2.00 $ 4,630.00 $ 9,260.00 $ 9,260.00 8 12" B-1 CURB INLET 1.00 1.00 $4,217.00 $ 4217.00 $ 4217.00 9 11' B-1 CURB INLET 2.00 2.00 $ 4, 125.00 $ 8,250.00 $ 8,250.00 10 10' B-1 CURB INLET 1.00 1.00 $ 4,362.00 $ 4 362.00 $ 4,362.00 11 9' B-1 CURB INLET 3.00 3.00 $ 3,897.00 $ 11691.00 $ 11691.00 12 8' B-1 CURB INLET 1.00 1.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3 600.00 $ 3,600.00 ...... 13 TYPE "F" CATCH BASIN4 2.00 0.00 $ 2,472.00 $ 4 944.00 $ I 14 30" WING HEADWALL 4 1.00 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2 800.00 $ (J1 15 66" CONCRETE PLUG 1.00 1.00 $1,120.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 1,120.00 16 24" CONCRETE PLUG 1.00 1.00 $ 435.00 $ 435.00 $ 435.00 17 18" CONCRETE PLUG 3.00 3.00 $ 323.00 $ 969.00 $ 969.00 TOTAL $ 319558.00 j$i'~PZ;:ZQ~jl~i.. Footnotes 1 Facility NO.2 - Only 18" RCP is required to drain the right of way. Price was adjusted to reflect 18" RCP 2 Facility NO.3 - Contracted Quimtity included an ineligible portion of storm drain and also would only be credited for 18" RCP. Both Quantity and Price were adjusted. 3 Facility Nos. 4 and 5 - Contracted Quantity included ineligible portions. Quantity was adjusted. 4 Facility No. 13 and 14 - Both facilities were ineligible and deleted from the total. 03/19/2007 Birch Road Change Order for TDIF Credit.xls 05-12-06 10:09 FROM-~r~1 I I In A""t. 6191917497 ATTACHMENT 2 T-167 P.0031D11 F-019 - J.\.Il-17-200HRI 11: 07 AM T.C. Construction Co., Inc. P.002 l':R.ol'OSED CHANGE ORDER No. 2205-03 ~ . _.' 10510 PIllspl<1 Ave. ~ CA "011-45'1 1'l10111:: 6~9-44S-4560 Far. 6J.9.4.48-3341 Tl'ILE: BIRCH ROAD . STQP.M: DRAIN l'ROJECT: OULy lW1<:h Spa 1I ViJ1aSe 6 TO: Attn: Ma=:Ila Fescma MCMILLll'< LAND DE'VELOPEMENT ').727 Hoover Ave N p 0 DA.TE: 01117/2003 JOB: CONT.RACT NO: To: 3 . I 00001 6 1 0 RCPT&:G $190.00 S23S,26 0 oaooz 54" IsOOD RCP WIT 154,000 u; G:ll~ G01i1./IelS38.,346.00 00003 3D" lSOOD RCP T&:G 11J 'jgg 1.P Lt.2.5 \.F sn.1lll Io~DO S2.9211.00 00004 24"lSOODRCPT&.G aS7.iD9 LP \\0. \6 Ll' $45.00 $9,315.00 00005 IS" 2000D RCP T&.G :e&J,BS8 Y" \0&.\ ." 1-" $'37.00 .$7,511.00 "'-.oJ'" 00006 MOD A.S C1.EA1<OtlT 1.000 EA $5.350.00 $5,350.00 00007 A.7 CL:E.ANOUT 2.000 EA $4,630.00 $9,260.00 c0008 12' 8-1 COroJ INLET l.000 EA $4,217.00 $4,217.00 0000' 11' B-~ CURB INU!T 2.000 EA $4,125.00 58,250.00 00010 10' !l-1 CURB INl.E:1' l.000 EA $4,362.00 $4,362.00 OOOll "B-1 CURBINIEr 3.000 EA $3,891.00 $11,691,00 00012 S'B-I'CURB INLET 1.000 EA. $'3,600,00 $3,600.00 asel!! Y.l.~E:F e.:rCLi.,..~fU 1..566 ~ 31,4'11.00 ~4.)#.e8 \H\~WI\t! 9991t ~6- .y~1ii6 ~~_';J::i. 1..006 F::i.. ~,!G6.06 ,J2..0Ul.l-NV '''''~\.\la\t 00015 66" CONCRETEPt.lJG l.000 EA $1.120.00 $1,120.00 00016 24" CONCRETE PLUG 1.000 EA $435_00 $435.00 . 00017 IS' CONCRETEUJG , 3,000 EA $'l23.00 $969.00 APPROVW By; 2J;;JIJI&JidJ I G=>:t WerOick Date: j Ij JIP.S 4JrtiJJIJj'/;~~J~' rl ~Fescin~ D3te: /; 1. 0,3 ., . ~. . ~...__ _...__. ........ .*0' . ...~ ..... -_.--- - --. .. .---- .... ..., . ....~ ..-...-.. .,_. --. --' .- 7-6 ATTACHMENT 3 r ST ESTlJUlATE~._ - . - _' _ .. . ~~~~~~~~'.r~;jf'E'f~:-,~"~- ~;;-'- ~2Lis~ffr-:~~:.~ ~{-~";C\~Z~d})~~~g~~~:-! --~::~j~?fiJ;_-~- Birch Rd La Media Rd to SR-125 New 6 Lane Major Road Length (Lf): 4,900 1 Earthwork 2 Drainage Items 3 Surface Improvements 4 Dry Utilities 5 Landscape & Irrigation 6 Misc. Construction Logistics 7 Special Items Habitat mitigation Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It 4,900 $ 4,900 $ 4,900 $ 4,900 $ 4,900 $ 4,900 $ 250.00 $ 130.00 $ 425.00 $ 60.00 $ 250.00 $ 10.00 $ $ Acres 13 $70,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-aI-way) Civil Engineering (7.5% 01 hard costs, excludes right-of-way) Soils Engineering (15% 01 earthwork costs) Landscape Architecture (10% 01 landscaping costs) 8Ulveying (2% 01 hard costs, excludes right-aI-way) Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% 01 dry utilities costs) Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs inciuding right-aI-way) Developer Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-ol-way) City Project Administration (2% 01 total hard costs Including right-of-way) TOTAL SOFT COSTS PROJECT COST 7-7 FACILITY 42 1,225,000 637,000 2,082,500 294,000 1,225,000 49,000 91.0,000 $ 910,000 $ 6,422,500 $ 96:3,375 $ 481,688 $ 183,750 $ 122,500 $ 128,450 $ 8,820 $ 385,350 $ 112,394 $ 128,450 $ 2,514,776 $ 8,937,276 . ATTACHMENT 3 r FACILITY 43 Birch Rd SR-125 to East/ake Pkwy New 6 Lane Prime Arterial . Length (Lf): 1,750 ITEM DESCRlPTloN . UNITS. LIlY. VNlT COST TOTAL ITEllllToTAL 1 Earthwork 2 Drainage Items 3 Surface improvements 4 Dry Utiiities 5 Landscape & irrigation 6 Misc. Construction Logistics 7 Speciai Items Habita}.mitigation Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It Linear It 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 250.00 $ 130.00 $ 425.00 $ 60.00 $ 250.00 $ 10.00 $ $ 437,500 227,500 743,750 105,000 437,500 17,500 532,000 Acres 7.6 $70,000 $ 532,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS $ 2,500,750 SOFT COSTS Contingency (15% of total hard costs including right-of-way) Civil Engineering (7.5% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) Soils Engineering (15% of earthwork costs) Landscape Architecture (10% of landscaping costs) Surveying (2% of hard costs, excludes right-of-way) Utility Engineering/Coordination (3% of dry utilities costs) Inspection/Administration (6% of total hard costs including right-of-way) Deveioper Administration (1.75% of total hard costs including right-of-way) City Project Administration (2% of totai hard costs including rlght-af-way) $ 375,113 $ 187,556 $ 65,625 $ 43,750 $ 50,015 $ 3,150 $ 150,045 $ 43,763 $ 50,015 $ 969,032 $ 3,469,782 TOTAL SOFT COSTS PROJECT COST . 7-8 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY MCMILLIN LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH STORM DRAIN FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED IN BIRCH ROAD WITHIN THE SR125 RIGHT OF WAY. WHEREAS, the City entered into an Acquisition / Financing Agreement for CFD 12I with McMillin Land Development, which authorized McMillin to construct required storm drain improvements within Birch Road, to be reimbursed from the project funds; and WHEREAS, in the course of constructing the project it was determined that additional items of work which were not previously included in the original contract needed to be constructed as part of the required storm drain improvements of Birch Road, thereby necessitating the approval of a Change Order to the contract; and WHEREAS, McMillin has completed the required Birch Road storm drain improvements; and WHEREAS, McMillin has requested that the Birch Road storm drain improvements not be financed by the CFD l2I but rather be a credit against future Transportation Development Impact Fees for the project; and WHEREAS, City staff performed an audit of the project to verify the cost of the project and further verified that the required storm drain improvements have been completed in accordance with the project plans. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approves the Change Order, attachment I to this resolution, requested by McMillin Land Development, for the construction of Birch Road storm drain improvements within the SRl25 right- of-way. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer 7-9 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~\~ CITY OF ;~CHUIA VISTA 05/15/07 Item~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ApPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIVE-YEAR TRANSNET LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07 THROUGH 2010-11 FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP), CITY ENGINEER S -r- / INTERIM CITY MANAGER I' SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND SANDAG has requested that local agencies submit requests for amendments to existing projects included in the current Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTlP). Amendments are due to SANDAG no later than May 22, 2007. The current 2006-07 RTIP includes City of Chula Vista transportation projects covering Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 20 I 0-11. SANDAG has revised estimated Transnet allocations for both the current and upcoming fiscal years. This in combination with revisions recommended to the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and to the pavement rehabilitation budget (Council action of May 1,2007) since the adoption of the last Transnet projection on June 6, 2006 necessitate an amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity, allocation of funds for various Transnet Projects, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, once the scope of the individual projects to be funded have been defined, environmental review will be required and a CEQA determination completed. 8-1 5/15/07, ItemL Page 2 of 4 RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Resolution approving the amendment to the Five-Year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program of projects for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2010-11 for submittal to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON Not applicable. DISCUSSION The voters of San Diego County approved the Transnet Program as Proposition 'A' in November 1987. This proposition enacted a half-cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specified transportation programs and projects. One third of the revenues generated by the tax are allocated by SANDAG to the local agencies for local streets and roads purposes. These funds are distributed to cities annually and progrannned by cities into local projects. The other two thirds are split between two additional primary purposes: regional highway improvements and public transit. These funds are distributed based on SANDAG's regional prioritization process and through grant opportunities. The Transnet Ordinance provides that the use of Transnet revenue be prioritized as follows: I. To repair and rehabilitate existing roadways. 2. To reduce congestion and improve safety. 3. To provide for the construction of needed facilities. In November 2004, 67 percent of County voters supported Proposition A, which extends Transnet from 2008 to 2048. It is anticipated that the Transnet extension will generate approximately $14 billion to be distributed among highways, transit, and local road projects in approximately equal thirds. At least 70 percent of the funds allocated to local agencies for local road projects are expected to be used to fund construction of new or expanded facilities, major rehabilitation and reconstruction of roadways, traffic signalization, transportation infrastructure to support smart growth, capital improvements for transit facilities, and operating support for local shuttle and circulator transit routes. No more than 30 percent of Transnet funds allocated to local agencies for local road projects are expected to be used for local street and road maintenance. This 70-30 "rule" is a significant change from the way original Transnet funding was allowed to be used and requires more stringent implementation and monitoring strategies. Transnet revenue forecasts are based on each City's current population and miles of maintained streets and roads. Every two years, as these data change, SANDAG updates its RTIP and releases new funding projections for the cities within San Diego County. At those intervals, cities have the opportunity to amend their fund programming, using the Transnet Program guidelines. In 2006 City staff submitted to SANDAG the Chula Vista portion of the RTIP for FY 2006-07 through 2010-11, which was approved by City Council per Resolution 2006-167 on June 6, 2006 after holding a public hearing. SANDAG has recently requested local agencies to submit amendment forms for projects to be included in the RTIP. An RTIP amendment is required for inclusion of all new 8-2 5/15/07, Item~ Page3 of 4 projects, or a change of funding amounts for existing projects, which are funded by Transnet. Amendments to the existing RTIP require City Council approval to be included with the submittal package to SANDAG if the total funds appropriated for each project are higher than the amount previously approved. In order to meet the deadline for the July 20, 2007 RTIP amendment, documentation on the revised projects must be submitted to SANDAG via the ProjectTrak software program by May 22, 2007. A signed Council resolution must be submitted by June 29, 2007. Attachment I includes a list of all projects that will be included in the RTIP amendment along with annual and total five-year funding recommendations. The following are the major changes that are being proposed: 1. Pavement Rehabilitation: On May I, 2007 Council adopted a resolution that increased funding for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program by transferring $2.0 million in Transnet funding from the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction project (STL309) and $5.0 million from the North Broadway Reconstruction project. This funding recommendation also includes the projected $4.5 million balance in the pavement rehabilitation program and $250,000 for pavement management each fiscal year. Total pavement rehabilitation funding would be $11.5 million for Fiscal Year 2007-08 and an anticipated $9.5 million for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Note that the new Transnet legislation, which mandates a 70% rehabilitation, 30% maintenance split, takes effect in July 2008. Based on SANDAG's interpretation, the City cannot actually allocate rehabilitation funds until a list of specific streets that will be reconstructed or overlaid has been provided to SANDAG. These funds will be shown on a yearly basis under "Pavement Reconstruction! Overlays" beginning in Fiscal Year 2008-09. 2. Congestion Relief: This relates to staff time spent by the Traffic Engineering and Operations sections on various projects related to congestion relief. Such projects may include median installation, new traffic signals, traffic signal upgrades, intersection lighting, traffic signal coordination and! or interconnection, data collection systems, and video traffic surveillance systems. During Fiscal Year 2006-07 approximately $500,000 has been charged to the General Fund for these functions. It is proposed that $500,000 be allocated from Transnet to cover these past costs, and that additional funds be allocated to these functions in the future. 3. Transportation Programs: This relates to City staff costs associated with various major corridor transportation projects, including carpool ramps on 1-805 at East H Street and East Palomar Street, SR-54 improvements and arterial coordination, and the Otay Mesa transportation system. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found that a conflict exists, in that Councilmember Rindone has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to SR-54, which is one of the projects that is a subject of this action. 8-3 5/15/07,ItemL Page 4 of4 Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found that a conflict exists, in that Councilmember McCann has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the I-805 interchanges, which is one of the projects that is a subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT This resolution will reimburse $500,000 in previously charged traffic congestion relief costs previously charged to the General Fund. There will be no other impact to the General Fund. ATTACHMENTS A. Transnet Allocation - FY2007 through 2011 Prepared by: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior C/vil Engineer, Engineering Dept. J:IEngineerIAGENDAICAS2007105-15-07IRTIP Amendment May 2007 v2.doc File #KYl74 8-4 ATTACHMENT A TRANSNET ALLOCATION - FY 2007 THROUGH FY 2011 Pavement Rehabilitation Program (Including seals) $2,100,000 $3,900,000 $1,325,000 $1,125,000 $1,125,000 Transfer into Pavement Rehabilitation (see note d) $7,000,000 $3,400,000 Advance Planning Studies (OP202) $200,000 $125,000 $54,000 $57,000 $60,000 Fourth Ave. Reconstruction Davidson St. to SR-54 (STL309) (see note a) N. Broadway Reconstruction (STM354) $400,000 Sidewalk Installationl Rehabilitation $100,000 $106,000 $50,000 Bayshore Bikeway $50,000 L Street Improvements from Monserate to Nacion Ave. $430,000 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Improvements ( previously H Street and 1-5 Interchange Improvements) $50,000 $490,000 Pavement Reconstructionl Overlays (see note b) (see note b) (see note b) 00 Congestion Relief (see note c) $500,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 I 0'1 1-805, SR54 and Otay Mesa Transportation System Improvements $100,000 $110,000 $90,000 $90,000 Traffic Signal System Optimization $150,000 $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 Western Chula Vista TDIF $350,000 Neighborhood Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Program $150,000 $130,000 Major Intersection Safety Program $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 Traffic Signing and Studies $80,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 School Zone Traffic Calming $150,000 $130,000 TOTAL $11,110,000 $8,721,000 $2,409,000 $1,502,000 $1,505,000 Notes: a. $3,000,000 allocated in FY06-07 is being tranferred to Pavement Rehabilitation b. These funds will be programmed in 2007 after the City has a proposed overlay street list. c. $500,000 balance transferred to cover FY06/07 costs d. FY07-08 transfer is from City's unallocated Transnet monies RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIVE-YEAR TRANS NET LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07 THROUGH 2010-11 FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) WHEREAS, on November J, 1987. the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Prol.'ram Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (87-01) which enacted a half- cent increase in the countywide sales tax through 2008 to fund specitled transportation programs and proJects; and WHEREAS, on November 4. 2004. the voters of San Diego County approved the San DIego County Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (04-01) which extended the half-cent increase in sales tax until 2048; and WHEREAS. the San DIego Association of Governments (SANDAG) allocates these tLmds to the local agencies for streets and roads purposes. regional highway improvements, and public transit through programs including the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006. the Chula Vista City CounCIl approved Resolution No. 2006- 167 adopting a new tlve-year list of Transnet projects for inclusion in the RTIP for Fiscal Years 21J05- 06 through 21J IIJ-Il; and WHEREAS. at mtervals between the RTlP updates, cities are required to submit RTIP amendments If there are changes andl or addItions in project funding; and WHEREAS. EXHIBIT A, attached to this ResolutlOn, includes a proposed list of the projects to be funded by Transnet during Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2011J-I!. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista that It approves the amendment to the Five-Year Transnet Local Streets and Roads Program of projects Illr Fiscal Years 2006-1J7 through 2011J-ll for submittal to the San Diego AssocJatlon of Governments (SANDAG) for mclusion m the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RT!P) 8-6 BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED by the City Council of the City of Chula VIsta that the CIty will meet all applicable provisions of Transnet Ordinances 87-01 and 04-01 and hold harmless and defend the SANDAG Commission against challenges related to local Transnet funded projects. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Scott Tulloch City Engineer "~ a h~~ Ann Moore City Attorney II\LNCdNFEK',IU':SOS\Resos2(J07\05-1 )-1I7\Tral1~l1el FY07-FY 11 ResPl'eviseu by ec.uoc 8-7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 05/15/2007 Item~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FRAMEWORK FOR AN SR- 125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO FINALIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY BASED ON THIS FRAMEWORK, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "SR-125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM" (STM365), AMENDING THE FY07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (TDIF) FUND. CITY ENGINEER ~ /' INTERIM CITY MANAGER il 4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO D On May 10, 2005, the City Council approved adding a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) project to the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The project included funding allocations for two specific TDM programs to alleviate congestion by encouraging alternative modes of travel during the peak commuting hours. Tonight the City Council will consider the framework for a $2.2 million proposed Toll Reduction Incentive Program for SR-125/South Bay Expressway utilizing $1.8 million in previously allocated TDlF funds and $400,000 in toll credits from South Bay Expressway. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only a reduction in the fees paid to use SR-125 and does not result in any changes to the physical environmental; therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. 9-1 05/15/2007, Item--'l... Page 2 of5 RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Resolutions: I) Approving the framework for an SR-125 Toll Reduction Incentive Program, authorizing the City Manager and City Attorney to finalize an Agreement with South Bay Expressway (SBX) based on this framework, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement; and, 2) Establishing a Capital Improvement Project entitled "SR-125 Toll Reduction Incentive Program" (STM365), amending the FY07 Capital Improvement Program and appropriating funds from the available balance of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) fund. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION On May 10, 2005, the City Council approved adding a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) project to the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The project included funding allocations for two specific TDM programs to alleviate congestion by encouraging alternative modes of travel during the peak commuting hours. These projects consisted of the following: a) $200,000 to supplement the existing TDM program as approved by the City Council on July 24,2001. b) $1.8 million for "toll reduction" for SR-125. At that time, staff recommended an implementation strategy that is fair and equitable to residents whose homes have paid the interim SR-125 fees. Additionally, staff indicated the desire for a resultant benefit of the "toll reduction" by securing a substantial "volume discount" from CTV/South Bay Expressway for eligible Chula Vista residents. Potential Program Benefits The City's traffic studies for the toll facility show that the difference in volumes between the north end of the City and the south end of the City are projected to be approximately 40,000 trips per day. These 40,000 trips originate or terminate within the City of Chula Vista and could use the toll road instead of the I-5, 1-805 freeways or the local north/south arterials. When considering the potential effect of a toll road incentive, it is reasonable to assume that the availability of a toll reduction program will encourage a greater number of users than might otherwise be utilizing this facility. It is anticipated that traffic volume decreases related to the opening of the SR-125 will be most significant on the local arterial approaches from eastern Chula Vista to I-805 such as Bonita Road, East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, and Main Street and for local trips, streets that parallel South Bay Expressway between East H Street and Birch Road. Motorists in central (between I-805 and SR-125) and western (west ofI-805) Chula 9-2 05/15/2007, Iteml Page 3 of 5 Vista would benefit by a corresponding reduction in traffic volumes along the I-805 corridor and to some extent on the I-5 corridor, especially during the peak commute times. Proposed Toll Incentive Agreement Framework The toll reduction incentive program components were developed with the goal of reaching the broadest base of potential long-term toll road users as possible. In anticipation of the toll road opening in late summer 2007, South Bay Expressway and City staff have met extensively and considered a variety of possibilities for a Toll Reduction Incentive Program as part of an overall TDM effort. Preliminary agreement has been reached, subject to City Council approval tonight, on a framework that directly and indirectly benefits those residences, east of the I-805 Freeway, who paid the interim SR-125 DIF (collected between January 1995 and April 2004). The table below provides more detail about the 17,620 units that paid into the interim SR-125 DIF. Residential Units Apartments Condominiums Duplex or Senior Single Family Total Townhome Housing Residential Units 2,389 2,135 441 204 12,451 17,620 With the proposed framework, these residences would benefit directly with the opportunity to receive toll credits for toll road trips on the SR-125 outside the city limits of Chula Vista and indirectly through the program component allowing free travel for all Chula Vista residences and businesses with South Bay Expressway FasTrak accounts when using the SR-125 for local trips between East H Street and Birch Road thereby generally relieving congestion on eastern streets. The framework is intended to make maximum use of the available funds while promoting use of the new facility to alleviate congestion on local roadways, particularly in the eastern territory. The major concepts are as follows: . The City and South Bay Expressway would put a combined total of $2.2 million toward this transportation demand management effort. . The City's $1.8 million contribution would be allocated directly to the 17,620 units that paid into the Interim SR-125 DIF. Specifically, upon opening a South Bay Expressway FasTrak account, each of these residences would receive $80 in toll credit (totaling $1,409,600). Additionally, for up to six months from date of South Bay Expressway opening or until a total value of $390,400 is reached, each of these residences would also be able to enjoy toll-free local travel on South Bay Expressway from East H Street to Birch Road. In order to start up the program, one-quarter of the $1.8 million would be made available to South Bay Expressway upon execution of the Toll Reduction Incentive Program agreement. . Additionally, through South Bay Expressway's contribution in toll credits ($400,000), for up to six months from date of South Bay Expressway opening or until a value of $400,000 is reached, all other local travel on South Bay Expressway from East H Street to Birch Road would be toll-free; thereby relieving overall congestion on eastern territory roads for the benefit of all. . To the extent that South Bay Expressway incurs expenses to market this program directly to DIF residences (program development, advertising, direct mail, events, etc.) those expenses would be deducted from the $400,000 local trip toll-free program funds and the available amount/time period for the program would be adjusted accordingly. 9-3 05/15/2007, 1tem~ Page 4 of5 . To the extent that allocated funding for local trip toll-free travel value is achieved prior to the end of six months, the local trip free travel program would be terminated, unless other arrangements are agreed to between the City and South Bay Expressway to continue the program. . Any toll credits not issued to eligible residents or toll-free local trip value not used after six months of the opening of the South Bay Expressway would go into supplementing/extending toll credits for those residences that paid into the Interim SR- 125 DIF, extending the local free toll period for those residences or other purpose agreed to between the City and South Bay Expressway, with the understanding that program funds would remain in the program unless otherwise agreed to between City and South Bay Expressway. . South Bay Expressway would report program activity monthly in writing to the City showing activity in all three areas (toll credit, short-trip travel and marketing) to be drawn against the $2.2 million available for the program. . SBX and City staff would meet quarterly to analyze use of the program components to evaluate usage of the toll road and positive impacts on City streets. The toll incentive reduction program is intended to take advantage of FasTrak accounts that electronically debit the toll fee from the user's pre-paid account. Thus, all program participants would have to open a South Bay Expressway FasTrak account. If they open an account using a credit card or automatic bank draft as the account replenishment method, there would be no pre- paid balance required; neither would any security deposit be required for the FasTrak transponder. If they open an account using cash or check as their replenishment method, there would be no pre-paid balance required however, a $35 security deposit would be required for the FasTrak transponder. South Bay Expressway anticipates beginning to open accounts beginning in mid-June of this year. FasTrak uses Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to read data from a transponder placed in a vehicle (usually mounted by velcro strips to the inside windshield) moving at full highway speed. The RFID transponder in each vehicle is associated with a prepaid debit account. Each time the vehicle passes underneath a toll collection site, the account is debited to pay the toll. When a FasTrak account runs low, the toll credit balance is automatically replenished using the credit or debit card or by cash/check replenishment, at the customer's choice. FasTrak customers receive significant discounts over those who choose to pay cash for their trip. The South Bay Expressway/SR-125 fee schedule is attached (Attachment I). Alternatives SBX and City staff considered several vanatJons but felt that the combination of options presented above provided variety, creativity and best fulfilled the goals of transportation demand management. The most noteworthy alternatives considered included the following: . Delav start of toll collections. Use funds to pre-pav all tolls for a certain period of time. This variation would allow the SR-125 facility to operate for a predetermined amount of time or up to a certain dollar amount as a freeway within Chula Vista's city limits. Once the time period came to an end or the dollar amount was reached, tolls would then be required to use the facility. Since this option would tend to generate the most users, it would also potentially exhaust 9-4 05115/2007, Item3- Page 5 of 5 available funds more rapidly. It would also not be limited to Chula Vista residents as free travel would be available to anyone entering onto the toll road from a Chula Vista location. . Provide all residences that oaid into the interim SR-125 DIF toll credits of aooroximatelv $124.00. This would allow only those that paid into the interim DIF the ability to experience the toll road through this Toll Reduction Incentive Program. This approximately $2.2 million option potentially misses an opportunity to expand usage across a broader base in order to achieve a greater overall reduction in congestion on eastern City streets and expand the user base. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in that Council Member McCann has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. Project funds in the amount of$1.8 million will be appropriated from the available fund balance of the TDIF fund. These monies are comprised of fees collected for the Interim SR-125 DIF, transferred to the available fund balance of the TDIF in June of2005 per Resolution 2005-156. Attachment: I. South Bay Expressway/SR-125 Toll Fee Schedule J: IEngineerlA G EN D A ICAS2007105 -15 .07\S R 125Tolllncentive. finaldraftrevise. 050607.doc 9-5 ATTACHMENT South Bay Expressway Toll Schedule II I Origin I Des~nation FasTrak Cash From Dtay Mesa Road to SR.54 $3.5D $3.75 ilIi SPRING VALLEY From Olay Mesa Road to Birch Road, Olympic Parkway, Otay lakes I Telegraph Canyoo Road $2.50 $3.75 6 or East H Street Any local trip between Birch Road and BONITA 75C $2.50 San Miguel Ranch Road East H Slreet from 8irch Road, Olympic Parkway, Otay lakes I East H Street Telegraph Canyon Road or Easl H Slreel $2.00 $2.50 to SR.54 Olay lakeslTeleoraph Cyn. from San Miguel Ranch Road to SR.54 $1.50 $2.00 Olympic Parkway CHULA VISTA Birch Road Origin I Destination FasTrak Cash From SR.54 to San Miguel Ranch Road $1.50 $2.00 . Oley Mesa Road From SR.54 to East H Street Otay lakes I OTAY MESA . Telegraph Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway or $2.00 $2.50 Birch Road I UNITED STATES r------ ---------- Any locallrip hetween East H Street and MEXiCO 75c $m I otay Mesa Border Crossing , . I Birch Road I ~ From East H Street Otay lakes I Telegraph >QJ- I . _ Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway or Birch Road $2.50 $3.75 I South Bar hpressway 10 Olay Mesa Road ---.,- Pi;; thi; fv,; Odl-'K if! du,-i,lY From SR.54 to Otay Mesa Road $3.50 $3.75 9-6 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FRAMEWORK FOR AN SR- 125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO FINALIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY BASED ON THIS FRAMEWORK, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee (SR-125 DIF) was established by Ordinance 2579 in January 1994 to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to construct a north-south transportation corridor should the SR-125 freeway not be constructed in time to serve impending development; and WHEREAS, in April of 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2959 tolling the SR-125 DIF and amending Ordinance 2579 Section I (c) to authorize the expenditure of SR-125 DIF fees on transportation enhancing projects or transportation programs related to SR-125; and WHEREAS, in May of 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3029 amending the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program and Resolution 2005-156 transferring the fund balance of the SR-125 DIF fund to the TDIF fund and approved two Traffic Demand Management (TDM) programs, one of which includes the concept of using $1.8 million of TDIF fees for "toll reduction" targeted for SR -125; and WHEREAS, City staff and South Bay Expressway (SBX) staff, the operator of SR-125 Toll Road, have worked together to develop specific implementation strategy for Council consideration that is fair and equitable to residents that paid the SR-125 DIF; and WHEREAS, the City in conjunction with SBX would like to provide a TDM program in the form ofa SR-125 toll reduction incentive program that helps promote the new toll road facility to alleviate congestion on the City's local arterials to Interstate-80S; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only a reduction in the fees paid to use SR-125 and does not result in any changes to the physical environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the City would like to maximize the resultant benefit of $1.8 million in TDIF funds by securing additional volume discounts in the amount of $400,000 from SBX in order to encourage users to utilize the SR-125 Toll Road. 9-7 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the framework for a $2.2 million SR-125 Toll Reduction Incentive Program, authorizing the City Manager and City Attorney to finalize an agreement with South Bay Expressway based on this framework, and authorizing the Mayor to execute this agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch, City Engineer // \ ,// ''-".....----------.-// H:\ENGINEERIRESOSlResos2007\05-15-07\STM365 Toll Reduction Incentive Agreement Reso.doc 9-8 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "SR-125 TOLL REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM" (STM365), AMENDING THE FY07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (TDIF) FUND THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee (SR-125 DIF) was established by Ordin.ance 2579 in January 1994 to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to construct a north-south transportation corridor should the SR-125 freeway not be constructed in time to serve impending development; and WHEREAS, in April of 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2959 tolling the SR-125 DIF and amending Ordinance 2579 Section I (c) to authorize the expenditure of SR-125 DIF fees on transportation enhancing projects or transportation programs related to SR-125; and WHEREAS, in May of 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3029 amending the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and Resolution 2005-156 transferring the fund balance of the SR-125 DIF fund to the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) fund and approved two Traffic Demand Management (TDM) programs, one of which includes the concept oftoll reduction on SR-125; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only a reduction in the fees paid to use SR-125 and does not result in any changes to the physical environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the City in conjunction with South Bay Expressway (SBX), the operator of SR-125, would like to provide a TDM program in the form of a SR-125 toll reduction incentive program that is fair and equitable to Chula Vista residents and the City would like to maximize the resultant benefit by securing additional volume discounts from SBX in order to encourage users to utilize the SR-125 Toll Road. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby amends the FY07 Capital Improvement Program to create a new project titled "SR-125 Toll Reduction Incentive Program (STM365)" and appropriates $1.8 million of TDIF funds from the available balance of the TDIF fund therefore. 9-9 Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch, City Engineer H:\ENGINEER\RESOSIResos2007\05-15-07\STM365 Toll Re uction Incentive P eso.doc 9-10 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: 5/15/2007 Item L- SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY07 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $620,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (PFDIF) FUND BALANCE AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,000 FOR TWO DRAIN CLEANING TRUCKS TO mON INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO BID 6971-05-Z AND PRICING AGREEMENT 8070191-0 . /J~ DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO~PERATlON~ INTERIM CITY MANAGER ;J ITEM TITLE: 4/5THS VOTE: YES X NO BACKGROUND On January 24,2007, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm Water Permit, Order No. R9- 2007-0001 (New Permit). The New Permit includes many new and expanded tasks at jurisdictional, watershed, and regional levels compared to the previous NPDES Municipal Permit (Order No. 2001- 01). In order to meet the New Permit's compliance deadlines, it is necessary to order two vacuum-type storm drain cleaning trucks for delivery in Spring 2008 due to an approximate lead time of one year between placement of an order for the trucks and their delivery. Compliance with the New Permit will also require additional staff, equipment, and other resources that are being addressed through the FY2007-08 and subsequent years' budget process (see Attaclunent 2). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NPDES Permit implementation does not require environmental review. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Resolution amending the FY07 Budget by appropriating $620,000 from the available balance of the Public Facility Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Fund balance and awarding a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $620,000 for two drain cleaning trucks to Dion International Trucks in accordance with the terms and conditions of City of San Diego Bid 6971-05- Z and Pricing Agreement 8070191-0 (see Attachment I). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A 10-1 Meeting Date: 5/15/2007, Item 10 Page 2 of3 DISCUSSION The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has determined that additional efforts above and beyond the existing storm water programs currently undertaken by the San Diego County Copermittees are needed to prevent the degradation of water quality within receiving waters of San Diego County and to comply with federal and state storm water discharge regulations. Consequently, the New Permit issued by the Regional Board on January 24, 2007 includes new, expanded, and more stringent program requirements compared to the previous permit, Order No. 2001-0 I. On December 13,2006 and January II, 2007, staff sent Informational Memorandums (Attaclunents 3 and 4, respectively) to the City Council regarding the pending adoption of the New Permit and staffs concerns regarding the permit's requirements and associated costs, impact on the General Fund, and unfunded State mandates. The December 13, 2006 memorandum estimated the City's additional cost of implementing the New Permit for its five-year term from January 2007 to January 2011 at $8.4 million in cost impacts to the General Fund. Since that time, staff has refined this cost estimate to an additional cost of $6.5 million over five years, with $860,000 of this amount utilizing Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) funds for the purchase of storm drain maintenance equipment, thereby resulting in a net impact of $5.6 million to the General Fund over the permit's term. A brief summary of additional costs by anticipated funding source through FY 2011-12 is presented below: ADDITIONAL NPDES PROGRAM COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Fundinl! Source FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 FY2009-10 FY2010-11 FY2011-12 General Fund 0 $ 609,000 $1,207,300 $1,265,200 $1,279,000 $1,298,500 PFDIF Fund $620,000 $ 239,500 0 0 0 0 Annual Cost $620,000 $848,500* $1,207,300 $1,265,200 $1,279,000 $1,298,500 * Included in Proposed FY 2007-08 Budget Storm Drain Cleaninl! Trucks The New Permit requires Copermittees to implement a schedule of inspection and maintenance activities for their municipal storm drainage systems. For storm drainage facilities with high volumes of trash and debris, inspections and removal of accumulated trash and debris are to be conducted each year between May 1 st and September 30th. Inspections and cleaning of the remaining facilities are to be conducted each year between October 1 st and April 30th. As-needed maintenance and cleaning is to be conducted throughout the year - i.e., some facilities will need to be cleaned more than once each year. Currently, three vacuum trucks, each with a crew of two Maintenance Workers, clean the City's storm drainage systems and respond to accidental sewage spills and to decontaminate the area of sewage contact. On average, each crew can clean 5 inlets per day. During Fiscal Year 2005-2006, City crews cleaned 3700 inlets out of over 5400 existing inlets. During that same timeframe, City crews also responded to 25 various types of pollutant discharges (i.e., paint, cement slurry, sewage, etc.) into the storm drain system - approximately 10% of these discharges involved discharges from the City's sewerage system, with all other discharges being from private sources. In view of the fact that the number of inlets and structural storm water treatment systems are increasing due to new development, as well as the seasonal restrictions on maintenance and cleaning activities included in the New Permit, 10-2 Meeting Date: 5/15/2007, Item 10 Page 3 of3 staff has determined that two additional vacuum trucks and crews are needed to meet the New Permit's required maintenance schedules. The lead-time for ordering vacuum trucks is about one year. The trucks and crews will be needed in the beginning of the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2007-08 (April 2008). Costs associated with crews to operate the above vacuum trucks and their maintenance will be included in Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget. Other Al!encies' Response to the New Permit Staff from other Copermittee agencies have indicated that, in order to comply with the New Permit's new and expanded requirements, they are also in the process of increasing resources in their storm water management and storm drainage maintenance programs by hiring additional staff, purchasing equipment, and/or contracting with consultants or storm drainage maintenance contractors. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT The initial purchase of the two storm drain cleaning trucks will have no impact on the General Fund because they will be purchased using Public Facility Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) in Fiscal Year 2006-07. However, maintenance and replacement costs will impact the General Fund at a cost of about $100,000 per year starting in Fiscal Year 2008-09. New program costs for FY 2007-08 associated with the New Permit, and shown in Attachment 2, have been included in the proposed FY 2007-08 budget. Staff believes the New Permit includes requirements that exceed the Federal Clean Water Act regulations, but are within the authority of the State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act). In conjunction with a majority of the other Co-Permittees (the County of San Diego and all eighteen cities of San Diego County, but not the San Diego Unified Port District and the San Diego Airport Authority), a claim for reimbursement of State-mandated program costs is being pursued with the State Commission on Mandates, but the Co-Permittees must comply with all permit conditions while the commission considers the claim. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - City of San Diego Pricing Agreement, PA No. 8070191-0 Attachment 2 - Additional NPDES Funding Needs, FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 Attachment 3 - Informational Memorandum, dated December 13, 2006, Regarding Pending Adoption of New Five-Year NPDES Permit Attachment 4 - Informational Memorandum, dated January 11, 2007, Regarding Pending Adoption of New Five-Year NPDES Permit (Update) Prepared by: Khosro Aminpour, Senior Civil Engineer, Department of Public Works Operations Shared on 'Citywide 2000' (K:)\Public Works Operations\Agenda Statements FY07\NPDES Additional Staff and Equipment 5-09-07.doc 10-3 !trr7rc./I!1V{ r 1 City of San Diego PRICING AGREEMENT Bid No.: 6971-05-Z Ship To: Center 10: 057PURCH Bill To: Center ID: 057PURCH Date: 07/25/06 Page: 1 of 2 PURCHASING PURCHASING Time: 12:49:39PM SEE ACTUAL POs FOR SPECIFIC SEE ACTUAL POS FOR SPECIFIC Bill-TO AND OPIS No.: PA05-8070191-0 Bill-TO AND SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO, CA Commodity Code: 4212 Last Option End Date: 08/07/10 Vendor: Terms; Net 30 DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, LLC DBA FOB: Destination DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS Tax Codr:,...,T r/ 5255 FEDERAL BLVD SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-5710 Buyef\\\~J;~hy Asbill-Gumbs USA Phone: (619) 236-5923 Fax: (619) 533-~225 Vendor ID: 01100126995 Phone: (619) 263-2251 Fax: (619) 263-9021 E-Mail: B~biJlGumbs@sandiego_gQv Line # Item IDfDescription Quantity/U/M Unit Price Extended Price This Document is for Contractuaf Information Onfy and is NOT a Purchase Order Purchase Orders Will be Issued as Needed 1 TRUCK, DRAIN CLEAN 5.00 EA $ 263.105.0000 $ 1,315,525.00 Drain cleaning truck Mfr. : International/Vactor Delivery Time; 270-300 days ARO Warranty Period: 12 months * Water Tank warranty period: 10 years Additional cost per unit to provide and install an exhaust particulate trap: $10,000.00 only if approved by CARE and if it is available. 2 PUMP, TRASH 5.00 EA 10.953.0000 54.7651)0 Addi tional cost to provide and install a compatible hydraulic pump off system/debris tank trash pump on the drain cleaning tru ck listed in item 1. Mfr. . International/Vactor Deli very time: 270-300 days ARO. Warranty period: 12 months 3 COATING, TANK 5.00 EA 3,6060000 19.030.00 Addi tional cost to provide and install a compatible debris tank coating on the drain cleaning truck listed in item 1. Mfr. : Poly Bird Delivery time; 270-300 days ARO Warranty period: one year 4 TANK, 5-YD DEBRIS 5.00 EA 0.0001 0.00 Price deduct from unit price of item 1 to provide and install a 5-yard debris tank with 1,000 gallon fresh water system in lieu of a lO-yard debris tank with a 1,500 gallon fresh water system, compatible with item 1. Mfr. : International/Vactor Deli very time: 270 to 300 days ARO Warranty period: 12 months Deduct: ($-16,231. 00) Notes: Have questions about doing business with the City of San Diego? Visit our Purchasing web site at www.sandieao.Qov/purchasinq and get all the answers SEE LAST PAGE For specific Information regarding contract opportunities with the City of San Diego, please visit our FOR TOTALS Bid & Con(raci Opportunities web site at wwvisandieao.Qov/bids-colltfhetA ~ . . - - PA No.1 8070191-0 PA 2555A IRFV Q.07' City of San Diego PRICING AGREEMENT Bid No.: 6971-05-Z PA No.1 8070191-0 Ship To: Center 10: 057PURCH PURCHASING SEE ACTUAL pas FOR SPECIFIC Bill-TO ANa SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN DIEGO. CA Bill To: Center ID: 057PURCH Date: 07/25/06 Page: 2 of 2 Time: 1249:39PM OPIS No.: PA05-B070191-0 PURCHASING SEE ACTUAL POS FOR SPECIFIC Bill-TO AND SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN DIEGO, CA Commodity Code: 4212 Last Option End Date: 08/07110 DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, LLC DBA DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 5255 FEDERAL BLVD SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-5710 Terms: Net 30 FOB: Destination Tax Code: T Vendor: Vendor 10: 011 00126995 Phone: (619) 263-2251 Fax: (619) 263-9021 Buyer: Beverly Asbill-Gumbs Phone: (619) 236-5923 Fax: (619) 533-32,25 E-Mail: BAsbiI1Gumbs@sandiego.gov USA r Notes (cant): Furnish the City of San Diego with Drain Cleaning Trucks. Exercising Option #1 to Renew for an Additional One (1) Year Period beginning 08(08/06 through 08/07/07. A 5.08% or $12,730.00 price increase has been granted for Item I. Council Resolution No.: 300756 Options Remaining: 08/08/07 - 08/07/08; Increase not to exceed 20%. 08/08/08 - 08/07/09; Increase not to exceed 20%. 08/08/09 - 08/07/10; Increase not to exceed 20%. Vendor Contact: William M. Tollefson, Fleet Sales Manager E-mail: btollefson@diontrucks.com Insurance and bond shall be updated as required. Distribution: File, Vendor, Buyer, OPIS, Kelleher, Kristina Blake MS 7B, Mark Caroccia MS 42, Robert York M5 902 For specific information regarding contract opportunities with the ~lnQ[~a.n Diego, please visit our Bid & Contract Opportunities web site at www.sandleqo.qov/blds-con1ra~s Line Item Total $ Tax Freight PA Total: S 1,389,320.00 107,672.31 0.00 Have questions about doing business with the CIty of San Diego? Visit our Purchasing web site at www.sandieqo.Qov/purchasino and get all the answers. 1,496,992.31 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO July 26,2006 Mr. William M. Tollefson, Fleet Sales Manager Dion International Trucks, LLC DBA 5255 Federal Boulevard San Diego, CA 92105-5710 Dear Mr. Tollefson: Subject: Bid No. 6971-05-Z - Drain Cleaning Truck The City of San Diego is exercising the option to renew the subject contract for an additional one (I) year period beginning August 8, 2006 through August 7, 2007 subject to receipt of valid insurance certificates and bonds, as noted below, by the contract start date. A $12,73000 price increase, which represents a 5.08% increase, has been granted for this option period.. Insurance Requirements: Your present agreement with the City of San Diego requires you to have valid insurance for the entire contract period. Therefore, it is imperative your insurance carrier provide us with renewal certificates and bonds at least ten (10) calendar days prior to rhe expiration date in order to ensure cOlllinuation of this contract. Our records reflect the following insurance coverage on file and expiration dates. I COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY and PROPERTY DAMAGE for $1,000,000.00; expires August I, 2007. 2. WORKERS' COMPENSA nON on t,ie; expires August I, 2G07. Bond Requirement WARRANTY BOND in an alllount to be determined. The contract for this option period will not be effective and purchase orders cannot be issued until updated insurance certitlcates and bonds have been received for insurance and bonds which has expired or will expire prior 10 the begilming of the new contracr period August 8, 2006 through August 7, 2007. Renewal insurance certificates and bonds, as noted above, must be received by the Insurance Coordinator, City of San Diego Purchasing Division, 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101-4195, no later than ren (10) calendar days prior to the expiration date. .~~A...~ c. ','. ~- if .; [1I'1[~jll , Purchal~g lPivision 1200 Ihlfd Avenue. luile 200. Ion Diego. CA 92101-4195 Page 2 Bid No. 697l-05-Z Mr. William M. Tollefson July 26, 2006 Purchase order(s) will be prepared as required It is understood that original conditions of contract will prevail. For questions regarding insurance and bond requirements, please contact the Insurance Coordinator at VSummers@sandiego.gov, or at (619) 236-6254. However, concerns regarding this contract should be directed to me at MWinterberg@sandiegogov, or at (619) 533-644]. Thank you for your continued interest in doing business with the City of San Diego. Sincerely, U#6hv) tI~~~ Michael Winterberg Procurement Specialist MW /mn Enclosures 10-7 ATTACHMENT 2 Additional NPDES Funding Needs, FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 UPo,o,Tal:(I.CI2512OO1 PERMIT ADOPTION DATE: 011Z4i01 ~~'" """"'" FYlINllIQl FYD7-llBQ2 FY07.oaQ3 FY01.oaGl 1. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STAFF TITLE TASK 2.PR MDEV PM N - RKIT Aull1mi~SIllffPoai~on Stafl Salaries Inclucle Ollioe & Equipmenl PuTchase and ReplacementCllslS ..AnnualSal8riBSlncIude5%Esc;lla~cnF8d1:1r En.;ronmental Health SUSMP Update & WURMP Sped_ Managemr>et Au~SIatrPOSlllon Recruitment $82000 Racrultmant BjEngin-mgTed1nician Data Tmcklng C) SeniorStormwater Cllmpjian<:elna;>eclOf IlI5JlectklJ1 OJ AssoclalePlamer Devfllopment Planning & SUSMP I emenhl~on DevooklpmantPlannlng& SUSMPlm ementaticn TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION STAFF E) AssDCialflE'ngir.eer JURMP Updale-Nc A<ldillonal Funding Required Informal Bid B) Hydromodiricaticn Pian (RoIgicna~ TOTAL WORK ITEMS $0 3 - Operations & Malnten8nce (Equipment Purcheses & Staff) .. ) Pub,cWort<aSpecis,st AulhurizeStarfPcsiUcn BjPublicWcrksSupanrio... AuthcrizeSlalfPcsitian C) Main\enanCflWorkerll(5) D) SenlorMalntenangoWor1<olr(3) _1_1_1_'_'________ E) (2)C<lmbjnationVeNdell $620 oo~ ~ Recruilmenl(3) -~-~-~-~ ~---~-,-,~,---~-~- PLACE ORDER FOR (2) COMBINATION VEHICLES ) (1) Ren181Equ;pment PLACE ORDER FOR (21 Pk:I<-UpTTUCkS 2Docr F) (2) PlckUp Trucks_2DOQr G) (1) lll_Yard DumpTruck PLACE ORDER FOR (1) DUMP TRUCK H(1)ConsrtucliooVehicle PLACE ORDER FOR (1) Cons1l1Jdioo Ve!llcJe ~ (1) Ctew Cab Pick Up PLACE ORDER FOR (1) Crew Cab Pick-Up PLACE OROER FOR Renllll Equ'pmenl K){7)Vehicle&EquipmentRadiDs L)(6)L8p1ops,Oesklop.&Soltware S2a,aOOISto,aOO M) AnnuelEquipmenlMllin\enance& ReplacmenlCnalll TOTAL OPERATIONS & MAlNTENAHCE 4 - Monitoring l WetWeetl>erMnnilnrinll B) AmbNlniBavll.l..agD<m Moniklnng (ABLM) CjSourl:8ldenbfiClltlcn H20,000 '" :$55000 $3&1'- 533,2110 $33,2110 $1"',000 N) MlscellanenusC03llI D) DryWeBl.h8r $45,llOD. 516000 516000 $B,OOO - - - TOTAL MONITORING $0 I 5 - awrsh9d Urban Runoff Management Prognlm (WURMP) Activities ) Wll\ef'ShedWaterQIWit)'AcliIlttiBs[2Annuelly) B) Watersr.edEdllCll~nnAd/llilje9(2AnrnlaIIy) TOTAL WURMP ACTIVITIES .. ..,... .. S24,Ooa " $2.S,00~ $10000 QUARTERLY TOTALS .. .. "'... .. .. .. $820,000 SO $532,000 $33,250 $79,250 $204,000 SO $0 $292,500 $33,250 $79.250 $204.000 $620,000 $0 $239,500 $0 $0 $0 $620,000 $848,500 GENERAL FUND - ~ PF OIF ADJUSTED FISCAL YEAR TOTAL 1.D and 1-E: Associate Planner and Associate Engineer responsibilities under the new Permit will be absorbed by existing staff in the Planning and Engineering Departments respectively, 2-A: No Additional Funds will be needed to perform JURMP Update due 10 FY 2006-07 Cosl Savings 10-8 AmCffr1t;Jr 3 Informatlona[ :Jv1emorantfum - December 13, 200() File Nu KY-[XI TO: The [-lullur<lhlc Mayor <lm[ City CounCIl VIA: .lllll Thomson, Inlerim City MnllLlgel . j, D<lve Byers. Directur "fPublic Works opcrationst-fJ ['ending Adopllon of New Five-Year Nalional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal SIOnllwatcr PCnllil by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Conlrol Board (Regional Board) FROM: SUBJECT: At its scheduled meeting (]fDeccmbL:f 13,2006, the Regional Board had planned to consider the aduption of ':1 new tivc-ycHr permit regulating the discharge of urban-generated polluted runoff within San Diego County to receiving waters via dry weather and wet weather flows through the municipal storm \,valer conveyance system (i.e" streets, gutters, pipes, and open channels). However, the meeting \\1[\.'-1 cUllceleu due to luck of a quorum. The pemlit will now be considered at either the Regional Board meeting scheduled for February 14,2007 or at a special Regional Board mceting to be scheduled in hll1uary 2007. The proposed permit would be the third pcnnit issued by the ReglOllal B08nl since 1090 to the City of Chula Vista, the seventeen other cities within Son Diego Counly, the Cnunty of San Diego, the San Diego Unilied POl1 District, and the San Diego Airport Authority (Co-rcnnittccs). \Vith the adoption uf each permit, rcgu]8lory requirements have become increasingly complex and demunding, as \.vell <J,e; more ancl more costly for public agencies and private entities (i.e., hw:;inesses, developers, etc.), to implement. The City's cost of implementing the existing permit In FY 20(J(J-07 is approximately $1.5 million pcr year. Staff estimates that the cosl to implement the proposed permit will increase total program costs to $3.9 million in FY 2007-08 (including the aile-time purchase of equipment tolaling $900,000) and $3.0 million per year in the second through fifth years lJt' the proposed permit. These estimated costs do not include cost impacts to developers and businesses. A signillcant portIon of these new costs to the City, as well some existing costs, are unfunded State mandates and arc eligible for reimbursement under State Cnnstitutiomil provisions, ,11though the Regil)!l~d Board !l;:Js not yet acknowledged this. Finally, L.1s1 llllllute- reVlSIOIlS to the pCrll1lt with regard to implementatiull of "Lo\\ Impact Dcvclopml'lltU ("'LID") prillcipk:.; f(-l[- I1C\-\' dcvelopment ~lnd redevelopment projects, as well as storm drtlil1clge systl'1ll pn1Jel'ls, 11,1\'C heen Illadl' (It the rcquc0l of environmental advocacy gl'ULlPS The RCglOllid Board ICIClscd these revisions 011 December 4, 2006 without the opportunity for full puhlll' revlt'\\' and CI1\1l111l.'1l1 H,l\Vl'Ver, a full sixty-day puhlic reviel,.v nne! COlllll1ent pCrlDd \\'as jJH.l\'ldcd for the !\ugl1st 3CJ, 2U(l(l revised PCllllit, which \\'(lS the tirst reV'ISIClll. 10-9 lhl: [[llllUrt\hk i\iLlynr S: ell)-; (-(;ullcd ]J(igl' - 1. Ikl.'l'I,d~l'! I;. ~()( 1(, The purpose Dr (his 111Gl1lur,IJldul1l I:: 10 \llf(_IITll Cll)' ('uullul pj' the pClldlllg ildt\ptlllil Ii! the lIe\\' rive-yew!" NPDES MUl1iclp~d P""mit and pn1vidc hackgroulld (ill the prugr;1111 Whcl1 lhe public hearIng uccurs, elected Oftlclills from Vdrlll!!,'; cities 111 the rt:glOl1 will speak ~Illht' puhllc I1L';lI"Illg In an organized presentation 1)~rlicqJCltll11l III tile publIc hC~lr1ng hy till' i\/Llyor or a COllllcilmembcr would be welcoll1cd and st<1tf will advise the MJynr ,II HI ('Ity CnullCtI of the new public hearil1gdatc when it is kl1O\vll. Meelings ,Ire held III the BU<Hd ROLllll of the RCgll\lWl Water Quality Conlml Board loealed allJl74 Sky Park Coorl, Sorte 11111. San Diego CnliCuJ"Illil LJ2l23. BZlSic points suggested tlJr publiC lestlmony 1l1cludc . Thank the Regiol181 Board and staff for the lllallY tcchnic;t1 chJllgc~ lll,-Ilk 111 rc~p()llse to Co-Permittee comments. . State that keeping the environmenl clean is a top priOrity and thai the City of Chula Vista has a strong history of, and unquestionable reputation for, environmental stewardship and leadership. . State that San Diego County's economy and local revenues are down due to a slowdown in construction and real estate, and that local agencies (Ire having trouble paying for basic services, as well as maintaining aging infrastructures. . Indicate that the proposed penllit would more tll/)n double the City's existing compliance costs and Proposition 218 restrictions do not allow !oc<ll agencies to raise most taxes or fees without super-majority (t\vo-thirds) <lpPIllVid of the general dectorate or simple mojority approval of property o\vncrs. A !lumber of agencies, ll1(lst recently the City or Encinitas, have attempted to gain voter approval to raise or increase fees for NPDES Municipal Permit compliance activities, but hZlve failed; III our regioll, only the CIty of SEln Clemente has been able to gain voter <Irprova! tor a lIve-year fee Illcrca::-:c, largely clue to San Clemente's economic reliance Oil its beache::; and coa::;lal resources As a result, General Fund revenues, which are traditionally llsed to fund pollee anel tire services, libraries, recreation, and other hasic public servicc~, will need to be tapped to pay for increased NPDES Municipal Stormwatcr program costs, thereby leading to reductions in basic public service levels. . Indicate that the question ofunfuncled Statc mandates contained \.vith the propo::;cd permit remains unaddressed and requcsrthat the Regional Board consider Ihis issue morc closely before adopting the new permit. Further, under State Constitutional provisions. the State Legislature must reimburse local agencies for the implementation of unfunded Statc mandates; otherwise, unfunded State mandates Illust be suspended if the State Legislature docs not make reimbursement. . Encourage the Regional Board to not adopt the permit at this time ill order to take lllore timc to consider the verbal comments offered during the public he;J["lllg and the extensive written legal comments on unfunded Statl: 1l),:l!ldatcs, aile! to provide appropriate time for full public review of recent changes to the proposed permit reli.ltcd Ul Lmv 11l1p~ICl Developmenl. Hlsturical Baek~munduClhc NPDES tvlUl1ielp,i1 Stonnwaler Pen1ll1 Unlll I lJ87. the I'ederal Willer <)U'IIIIy Conlml Act (Cle<l11 Willel .'\el) 01. I lJ72 rcgul'llecl pUI111 sources of \vater pollution, sllch as industrial discharges ami dl~ch;lrgc.s ti-{\lll Publicly Owned 10-10 The J !ZIIHJI":lhk: ~.JL1V\l!- & ('IlY f. IlLll1LlI , :I.l..!.\. I JcTl'llilWI 1-; 'I!li(, W~!~tC\.vdlel- Trc;:dl1lt'1I1 Wur-lc; (POT\V,,). The C;llIlul Sidles EnvlrUllIl1Cnl;-tll.lrll!L'dlllll /-\gL'11L'~: IS responsible ror the implcmt:ntatlull or llll' Fcdcr;d Ckiln \Valcr Act In I ()~7, the Clean \Vdttr Act was ~lIllclllkd 10 csLlhlish Cl permitting pn1cess ;Illd rcgulallolls h.)1 non-point sources of water pollution (l.C" sources of pollullUll III \VhlCh ~J speclJic and di.';uete origin, sllch as (1 pipe outfnll ti'Ufll ~! POT\\!, Cllllltll he Idcntlticd), :"uch <l"i urh,lll stnrlll\Vatel runoff ~llld discharges It'om spccitic industry: types ~lIld COllstructic\ll siltS This permuting process IS implemented through the National Pnllut,lllt Di~charge Elilllillil[HlIl SystClll [NPDES) Permit Program. In Calite)[llla. the Porter-Cologne Water Qualily Control Act (ClliteJ1"l1la Water Code) W'.I'. established to further augment. and to set regulations above and beyond, the Federcll Clean \Vi.lter Act. In California, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has delegated authority tor implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program to the State of CaliteJrl1la throogh the State Water Resources Control Board and its nine Regional \Vater Quslity Control BmlrcLs. These regulating agencies issue NPDES permits and ensure compliance by permittees, including municipalities. NPDES pemlits C81l be general (statewide), regional (countyv\ricle), or Indivldual. The NPDES pennits for industrial f:1cilities and construction projcct~ lire statewide, \vhile municipal permits arc issued at the regional level. Individual permits arc also issued. such as the Caltrans NPDES permit. The San Diego Regional Board isslled the lirst NPDES Municipal Permit lin the San DICgl) County Region in 1990 (Order No. 90-42). The Municipal Permit covered all San Diego COllnty jurisdictions, includl11g the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port Distnct and eighteen municipalities in San Diego County. The Municipal Pcnnit was to be re-Issued e\'ery tive ye8rs, but this did not happen until 1998 when Tentative Order Nu. 'N-OI replaced the older pellllit. The next fe-issuance of the MunicIpal Permit was Oil February 21, 200 I (Order No. 2001-01). The San Diego Airport Authority was added to the list ofCo-Pell1littees covered by this regional pemlit. CUITently, the City of Chula Vista is regulated under NPDES Order Nu. 2001-01. Pronosed Pern]it !Tentative Order No. R9-2006-0(11) The proposed pel111it has been released tiJr public review alld C01llment t\vice since Marcil 10, 2006. The Regional Board has received oral and \vrilten COlllJllCnts on the Tentative Order and has made amendments to the contents ufthe Tentative Order as a result ofthnsc cUlllmenls. Throughout the public revlc\v process, the San Diego COUllt~/ ivlulliclJ);'ll PCrIll1t C\l-Pemllttccs cuopcr~lted at three differenllevels (City MWlagers, Attorneys, and tcclll11cal st~lff) tD disclIss ~\J)cl submit rcgiol1al coml11ents 011 the Tentative Order. In addition, Jl)(ltvidual Cn-PerJl1iltl'c~. mcluding the City of Chuh Vista, submitted their U\NIl specific CL'l1111Itl11s during both public hearings. 10-11 I Ill' 1-1(lllilr~lhk :\.LI",'('I ,:,' ('It\' ( Illllllll .1 DClTlllhn ]1, 2i)(Hl ('()111P,'IICt! 1(1 (ht.' '-.'\IS1Jllg r\:'1Ullll'lp,d Pcrl1lH rl:11LI!IVC Order No. 1\i)-2()()()-(){JII Includes c\ptllHkd :lilt! 11111lt' prescriptive rcqulrClllL:Il!\ IJlcludlng dral1lilgc system lllainlen,llllT llTClllcnclt'-. ~lIld :;C(ISUI1~i1 111ll1[,llllllJ.'i, clddlllOllill welter qLl~dlty l1luniloring. addltiol1Jl in.spediolls (If Illdll.sll'l,d, C()llllllCrclal, ilnd Clll1strllctiull clcllVltlCS ~lIld !i"lcdillCS, udditlllmd reql1ll"emcnts for ne\\' development ,l1ld redevelopment {inclwl1llg ~1 "Hydrll-Mnclllicatioll PI,lI1" requirement for new development}, watershed aclivitie:\, ..me! delta tlllckinglrcporting requIrements The RCglllll<l1 Board responded hlvnrably tu mo.';! ()fthc tcchniL',-d comments provided by the ('0- Pernllttces and amended the Tentative Order tu l,mwick sOl11e of the ncxibility needed tn develop practical ~lS well as effective programs However, cOlllments on specific legal isslles were not sati~f~1Ctorily ,-\c1dre~sed. Lcgul issues arc mainly focl1~ed onlhe prohibitive cost of the programs and the fact that many of the requirements are slate unfunded mandates that arc above and beyond the Federal Clean Water Act requirements and, theretl)re, Co,Permittees must be rein)burscd for their costs to implement them under State Constitutional provisions, The Regional Board has argued that there are no state unfunded mandates in the Tentative Order and has rejected the argument. Prourmn Costs 3Jld Fundin1!. The City of Chula Vista's total NPDES program expcmhtures for Fiscal Year 2005,2006 were approxil1ltltely $1.4 million (ex.cludlng Capitallmpro\'cmcnt Project for draill<Jge improvements). Costs tl)r Fiscal )'car 2006-2007 \vill be close to $1.5 milJiofL The new permit requirements are expected tl' add another $2.4 mrllloll In the li,.,t yea,. (2007-2008 FYI and about $1.5 million annually III the tillkJ\ving four years to the present costs The first ye,lr expenditures include start-up costs associated with the purchase ofne\\' equipment. Chula Vista Municlpal Cude Ch~lptcr 14.16 established a StOllll Draill Fcc to provide n funding source for the Implementation of the NPDES Permit requirements, Since 1991, the Storm Drain Fee has been kept at the SHme rate of $0.70 per month per single family home and $ 0.06 per Hundred Cubic Feet (HeF) of water consumed for multifamily and coml11ercialland uses to the current date. This fee generates approximately $500,000 per year in revenue, The balance of progrLlms costs are covered through a variety of development-related fees, maintenance district fces, and the General Fund: increases in prugram costs under the proposed pennit will almost entire] y need to be charged tn tire General Fund. Due, tn the passage of Proposirion 218, the City has !lot been able to raise taxes or fees, Proposition 218 m:.lIldates lhat pruperty relnted tax LInd fee: increases can only be imposed after approval by a super Il1,-l]ority vote (two-thirds) of the general elcctorute or by <.1 simple majority \'o!e uf pr()perty O\vntrs. Attempts by most lllUlllCiPillitics to ohtain \.'oter approval to impose or IllerCi\Se ,'itnrll1 c1r~1Il1 fees h<.1\'E' f:lilcd, S\11lle muniCipalitIES !lave 11lcrensed their trash pickup 01 sc\\'er fec:s to p{l~/ I'llI' the ,lddilI01l;1] NPDES j1['(Jgri.1J1l Cl)sh: thiS approach has been assailed try L:l.\ {IdH1L';JCV gr\lups ;111(1 hilS resulted III court urders for thuse mUllicipalities to reimburse r:llcTl,l)"crs 10-12 1"'he I-Iolior:ihk f'vbyor & CIty Council Page -)- lk'celllbCl J) :?'UO(I Unfunded l.'ederal aud Slate Mand'-l.tes The Clly '\I1d Cuunty Manager"s Association (CCMA) has worked closely wilh the Clly Attorney's Association over the past seveml months to consider the issues of unfunded Slale mandates within the proposed permit Co-Permittee comments regarding mandales within the proposed permit that exeeed rederal Clean Water Act requirements were nol adequately addressed by Regional Board staff in the second draft of the permit, with the Board.s Counsel simply slating that the Regional Board has the authority to impose the requirements of the permit. The Co-Pennittees do not dispute the legal authority of the Regional Board under the Federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Conlrol Act to impose the requirements, but assert that the costs to implement those provisions of the proposed pell1lit that derive solely from Porter-Cologne must be reimbursed by the State. Article XIlJ B, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that "...whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. . ." except in certain specific circumstances. Through Proposition I A, approved by the voters in 2004, Section 6 was amended to further provide that "for the 2005-06 fiscal year and every subsequent tiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local govel1lJ1lent claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount thai has nol been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the liscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law." The attachment has been providcd by Senior Assistant City Attorney Marshal. It is a legal response to the Regional Water Quality Control Board from the City Attorney Association of San Diego County. Attachment. Legal Comments On The Board's Response To Comments Dated August 30, 2006 On Tentative Order NO. R9-2006-00 II cc: Sharon Marshall, Senior Assistant City Attorney K\Public W(Jrks O[1c:raliollS\NPDES\New Permil\NPDES lnlb Item - 12-13.06.doc 10-13 ATTACHMENT "A" LEGAL COMMENTS ON THE BOAIW'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DATED AUG1IST 30, 2006 ON TENT A TrVE ORDER NO. R9-2006-0011 l. INTRODUCTION These comments are provided as a response to the Board's responses to comments issued on August 30, 2006 regarding Tentative Order No R9-2006-00 II ("Pennit" or "Draft Penn it"). These comments were prepared by a sub-committee of legal counsel for the San Diego copermittees and were reviewed by the members of the City Attorneys Association of San Diego COllilty. The comments focus on three issues: (I) unfunded state mandates; (2) compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in light of new legal authority; and (3) vague and ambiguous permit terms. II. THE BOARD'S ACTION CONSTITUTES AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE The Board's response to the copermittees' comment regarding unfunded state mandates neither accurately characterizes the comment nor responds to it. It is not, and never has been, the copennittees' position that the Board lacks the legal authority to impose mandates which "exceed" or are "more explicit" than the mandates or specific requirements offederallaw. Rather, when the Board elects to use its discretion to impose mandates that are "more explicit'. than or "exceed" the requirements of federal law, it is electing to impose a state mandate within the meaning of California Constitution, Art. XlII B, Section 6. The Board may impose such state mandates: once imposed, however, the California Constitution requires that they must be funded by the State. The copermittees ask the Board to acknowledge that, as it has done in the past and as is implicit in draft Finding E.9, portions of the permit "are more explicit" than or "exceed" the specific requirements of federal law. A, THE UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE PROVISIONS AND PROCESS ]. Unfunded State Mandate Provisions Article XlII B, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that "'[w]henever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local govemment, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. . ." except in certain specific circumstances. Through Proposition I A, approved by the voters in 2004, Section 6 was amended to further provide that "lor the 2005-06 fIscal year and every subsequent fiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local govenilllent claimant have been detennined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously peid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the tiscal year for which the aJillual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law." The concern that prompted the voters to include Section 6 in the Califom.ia Constitution "was the perceived attempt by the state to enact SDADMJN\SHAGfRTY\J34049 t 10-14 legislation or adopt administrative: orders cre,Jtillg. programs In be administered by local agencies, thereby transkrring to these agencies [he lisen I responsibility for providing services that the state believed should be extended to the public'. (L()II~ Bcach IJnitied .~c.hQQ) DistrIct v. Slate of ~'alitl)rnla (19'10) 225 C"I.App. 3d 155, 174) Nothing in constitutional or statutory law allows the slate to shirt costs to local agencies without reimbursement merely because those casts were imposed upon the state by the federal government Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates. II Cal. App. 4'" 1564, 1593 (1992). ^ central purpose of the principle of state subveation is to prevent the state from shifting the cost of govemment from itself to local agencies. City of Sacramento v. State of Calif ami a, 50 Cal. 3d 51,68 (1990). The courts have concluded that a state mandate exists where the state has a choice in the manner of implementation of the federal mandate. County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, 32 Cal. App. 4'" 805, 816 (1995). The focus is not simply that the obligation arises out of a federal mandate. A detelmination of whether certain obligations (and therefore costs) were imposed upon a local agency by a federal mandate must focus upon the local agency which is ultimately forced to bear the costs and how those costs came to be imposed upon that agency. Haves v. Commission on State Mandates, II Cal. App. 4'" at 1594. If the state freely chooses to impose the costs upon the local agency as a means of implementing a federal program then the costs are the result of a reimbursable state mandate regardless of whether the costs were imposed upon the state by the federal govemment. Id. As shown in the attached chart, and supported by the December 2000 chart prepared by this Board, various provisions of the currently dralted permit reveal an exercise of choice by this Board in the marU1er 0[' implementing federal law. Therefore, the requirements under this Draft Permit that are not express federal mandates constitute mandates by the state subject to the suhvention requirements A "new program" within the meaning of Section 6 is a program that carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or a law that, to implement state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (Countv of Los Angeles v. Commission On State Mandates (1995) 32 Cal.App. 4th 805, 816.) A reimbursable "higher level of service" concerning an existing "program" exists when a state law or executive order mandates not merely some change that increases the cost of providing services, but an increase in the actual level or quality of goverrunental services provided." (San Diel!o Unified School District v. Commission On State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859,877.) Both Section 6 and state law establish certain exceptions to the state mandate provisions, three of which have some potential application to the Draft Permit. First, as a threshold matter, Government Code section 17516 currently purports to exempt orders of the Regional Board from the state mandate provisions. The copermittees contend that Government Code section 17516 is unconstitutional, and Judge Victoria E. Chaney of the Los Angeles County Superior Couti, has, in fact declared Section 17516 to be unconstitutional in County of Los Angeles, et al v. State of Cali fomi a, et al, Consolidated Case Nos. B5087969 and B5089785. Judge Chaney's decision has been appealed by the State to the Courl of Appeal, Second Appellate District, as Civil Case No. B J 83981. The matter has been fully briefed, but as of the date of this conunent, no date for oral argument has yet been scheduled. It is the copermittees position that Government Code section 17516 is nol a valid bar to their unfunded state mandate claim. SDADM!NI.SH/\GSRTY\3390Lj9 I -2, 10-15 Second. (Jovl'rIl111enl Code section 17556(c) provides thai a statute or executive order shall not be cOllsidercd to he 11 state mandate irthe "statute or executive order imposes a requiremenllhat IS mandated by a federal law or regulation and results in costs mandated by the li:der8J go\'ernllltnL unless the statute or executive order mandates costs that exceed the mandate in that federal law or regulation'. The copennit1ees aCKnowledge that much of the Draft Permit imposes rcquin::ments mandated by a federal law or regulation. However, the copermittees contend that many of the requirements of the Draft Permit exceed the mandates in the federal law and regolations. lhe (openninecs have attempted to set fOl1h in detail in Section B.2 below the portions of the Draft Permit which they believe exceed the federal mandates. The copennit1ees also contend that draft Finding E.9 and the Board's own documents establish that a large percentage (up to 40%) of the requirements of the Draft Permit exceed the federal mandates. Third, Government Code section 17556(d) provides that a state mandate will not be considered to be "unfunded" if the local agency "has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the mandated program or increased level of service." The copermittees' previous comment explained why this provision is not a bar to an unfunded state mandates claim. The requirements of Proposition 218, as interpreted by cases such as Howard Jarvis Taxpavers Ass'n v. Citv of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, severely limit the ability of the copermit1ees to fund the mandates of the Draft Permit. Certainly, the copermittees authority, whatever it may be, is not "sufficient to pay for the mandated progranl or increased level of service." It is for this reason that the copermittees raise the unfunded state mandate issue - to find a funding source for this state mandated program or increased level of service. 2. State Mandates Process The Legislature has established an administrative process for seeking a determination that a mandate is an unfunded state mandate within the meaning of Section 6. (Gov. Code !is i 7500 e1. seq.) These procedures are the sole and exclusive procedure by which a local agency may claim reimbursement for state-mandated costs. (Gov. Code S 17552.) The procedures require the commencement of a test claim before the Commission on State Mandates, with judicial review only being available after a tinal detennination by the Commission. (Gov. Code S 17553, 17559.) Traditional concepts of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply to an unfunded state mandate claim. (Tn-County Special Education Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 572.) For this reason, the copermittees would need to pursue a petition to the State Board and then process a test claim with the Commission if the Regional Board does not agree that portions of the Draft Permit "mandate costs which exceed the mandate in the federal law" B. THE DRAFT PERMIT IMPOSES UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES UPON THE COPERMITTEES I. Permit Language and Previous Board Statements. S1)ADMINISl-lf\(;ERTYI3YJ(J<l<J 1 -3- 10-16 The cOjJCllllitkes contend that the language of the Draft Permit and previolls Board statcrllcnls del1lonstrate that pOltions of the Omit Permit constitute unfunded state mandates_ "'liSt. hJl(iIng L'J slutes that l,zequirements in this order that are mure explicit than the federal storm water regulations in 40 CFR 122.26 are prescribed in accordance with the CW A section 402(p)(3 )(B)(iii) and are necessary to meet the MEP standard. In its response to the copemlittees' commcnt on this Finding E.9, the Board dismisses the copellnittees' commcnt as a misrepresentation of Finding E.9. (See Responses to Comments, p. 59). While there may be a legitimate difference of opinion concerning the meaning of Finding E.9, the copennitlees did not misrepresent the Finding in their comment. It is the copennittees' view that when the Board elects to be "more explicit than the federal storm water regulations" it is imposing state, rather than federal, mandates. While the Board's imposition of such "more explicit" mandates may be based upon its belief that such additional mandates are needed to meet the MEP standard, that carulot convert those additional mandates into mandates required by federal law or regulations. Such an elastic view of federal law would mean that the federal mandates are different in San Diego County than in Riverside County, in Texas than in New Jersey This is inconsistent with basic concepts of federal law. The copemllttees further contend that their reading of Finding E.9 is consistent with prior official documents orthe Board. For example, in Attachment 4 to Agenda Item 5 of the Board's December 13,2000 meeting, Conclusion 14 provides that: Approximately 60% of the requirements in Tentative Order 2001- 02 are based solely on the 1990 federal NPDES Storm Water Regulations. The remaining 40% of the requirements in the Tentative Order "exceed the federal regulations." Requirements that "exceed the federal regulations" are either more numerous, more specific/detailed, or more stringent than the requirements in the regulations. At least one legal commentator has cited to Conclusion] 4 to help explain the federal/state law structure of the NPDES process and has noted that in certain circlilllstances, such as CEQA, "this feature of going beyond the federal requirements is legally significant." (Minan, Municipal Stom] Water Pennitting in California, (2003) 40 San Diego L. Rev. 245, 251 and fn. 30.) Again, the copermittees do not refer to this statement to show thatthe Board has exceeded its legal authority. The copemlittees understand that the Board believes that the portions of the Dralt Permit that .'are more explicit" or, as the Board phrased the issue in 2000, whieh "exceed the federal regulalions." are needed to meet the MEP standard and are consistent with the Board's authority. The eopennittees simply disagree with the proposition that anything the Board does in an attempt 10 achieve the MEP standard constitutes a federal mandate, and ask the Board to acknowledge. as il did ;n 2000, that portions of the Draft Permit are not mandated by federal law. SD/\f)MfN\SHACi[.:KTY\]}9044 I -4- 10-17 2. Specil~c State Mandates. Legal cOllllsel for the copenllittees have compared the mandates of the Draft PermIt \.vlth the specitlc reyuiremenLS or i'ederallaw and regulations. as the Goard did in December :2000 A chart comparing the own Pellnil with the fedcralmJndatcs is auached. As the chal1 demonstrates, and as the Board's staff found in :2000, signi tlcant portions of the Draft Perml t "exceed the federal regulations." C. THE BOARD'S RESPONSEIPOSITION IS UNTENABLE It is the copermittees. position that the Board did not respond to the aelual comment made by the copelmittees regarding unfunded state mandates. To the extent the Board responded to the actual conmlent made, the copermittees understand the Board's response to be: (I) all the mandates oflhe Draft Permit are necessary to satisfy the MEP standard and, therefore, are federal mandates; and (2) the mandates of the Draft Permit merely expand upon or elaborate on Order No. 2001-01's pre-existing requirements. (See Responses to Comments, p. 59 and 65.) The copennittees contend that both of these responses are inconsistent with the tmfunded state mandate provisions. First, as noted above, it cannot legally or logically be the case Ihat anything the Board mandates in an NPDES permit is by definition a federal mandate simply because all NPDES pemlits must strive to achieve the MEP standard. Such an approach would mean that the requirements of federal law and the federal regulations vary widely from region to region, state to state. Rather, the logical approach, used by the Board in 2000, is to compare the express requirements of federal law and regulations (i.e., what must be in every NPDES permit) with the requirements of each individual permil to determine those areas in which the Board has elected to use its discretion to impose requirements that "exceed" or are "more explicit" than the federal mandates. In short, not everything imposed under Ihe umbrella of federal law is a federal mandate. Second, the additional requirements of the Draft Pemlit constitute a "higher level of service" concerning an existing "program." The courts have interpreted the phrase "higher level of service" in a mamler that forecloses the Board's "elaboration" response. By definition, the iterative process mandated by the State Board is designed to increase the level or quality of the storm water program, and the Draft Pemlit attempts to do just that. Since the Board's "elaborations" are intended to increase the actual level or quality of the copermittees' storm water program, they constitute a "higher level of service" with.in the meaning of Section 6. [n both instances, the Board has exercised a choice ill the manner in which it has imposed many of the requirements under this pemlit. As such, those requirements shown m the state mandate category of the attached chart shall be reimbursable. Ill. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Dolicy of the state is to ensure that action is taken to provide the people of this state .'iDlI.DMIN\.sHAGER-l-Y\3JWJ4lJ ! -5- 10-18 with notiu:-:;l clean water but also clean air. lju,-lfity at'sthe1ics, '-!Ill! nalur~d, scenic, aml his(uric ellvlronmclI1a] qualities. Public Resources CouL section 210()I{h). In i.lccordance with the req uirements of the Calit()rnia Environmental GUillity Act ICH)A). the HoarJ has faileJ ((1 consider the physical effects on the environment from llle permit. (See Public ResourCes COdl' section 21080.) Environmental analysis should occur as "early as feasible 111 the. planning process to. enable environmental consideration (0 inlluence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningfi.tI infollllation for environmental assessment.' (CEQA Guidelines seclion 15004.) In County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2006 DJDAR 13567 the Court squarely addressed this issue. In County of Los Angeles, the Calitomia State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) argued that issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems pemlit is exempt from CEQA under Water Code section 13389. The Court disagreed in large part with the State Board. The Court opined that Water Code section 13389 merely exempts the application of chapter 3 ofCEQA. Nothing in state or federal law exempts the wholesale application ofCEQA to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems permit. Therefore, the Board must engage in specified environmental assessments in accordance with chapters I and 2.6 ofCEQA. Id. at 13574-13575. [n the present instance, Section 10.11 of the permit states that the permit is exempt (rom CEQA in accordance with Waler Code section 13389. As such, no environ111ental analysis has been prepared to enable the copermittees or members of the public to assess the potentJal environmental impacts of the permit. Under the holding in County of Los Angeles v. Calilornia State Wat~ Resources Control Board, specified environmental assessment must occur betore this permit is approved. Not only must the potential environmental effects of the permit be assessed, but the results of an environmental assessment may intluence how the pennit is draned or implemented. Therefore, to comport with the requirements ofCEQA and the recent County of Los A.!)geles decision, the permit's potential environmental effects should be assessed and made publicly available for comment, prior to this Board's action on the Draft Pemlit itself. IV. THE DRAFT PERMIT'S TERMS ARE INHERENTLY V AGUE AND AMBIGUOUS The Copemlittees reassert their claim that the pemlit contains many provisions that are inherently vague or amhiguous. Consequently, the Copermittees cannot discern how to comply with the permit's terms, nor can the Board enforce its vague provisions. In certain circumstances, the COpcllllittees will not know whether their conduct is necessarily proscribed. In other instances, the terms of the permit fail to provide an ascertainable standard of conduct. Given the vagueness of certain provisions, Ccopermittees could be subject to arbitrary enforcement t(Jr failing to comply with provisions that lack sufficient specilicity 10 permit reasonable compliance For example, Sections A and B set torth the general prohibitions under state or federal law pertaining to discharges. However. subsequent sections, such as Sections 0 (page 15),0.1 (page 15-16). D2 (page 26), D.3 (page 29), DA (page 38), C.2 (page 43) and F (page 46) slill contain paraphrases of the prohibitions in various fom1s, Given the inconsistencies between the prohibitions in Sections A and B and the differing versions throughout the permit, the S DADM IN\SH AGFRTY\J:j9049I -6- 10-19 coperJl1illC'cs canllol detellllinc if the tell11S in Sections f) lhl'ough F were intended to prohibit the same conduct as in Sections A and Bor expand untilnse prohihitions If intended tn prohibit tile same cunduct. there is 110 reason or benetit In restating the prohibitions. More importantly, n.:stating the [1rnhibilions llsing different language creates amhiguity. 011 the other hand, if Sections U through r are intended to prohibit different conduct no state or federal authorization has been specitled. See discussion in Section II above. V. CONCLUSION Tile Copermittees' unfunded state mandate comment is not intended to be an attack on the Board's legal authority. The eopemliltees merely ask that the Board acknowledge, as the copermittees believe the Board has done in the past, that some of the mandates in the Draft Pennit go beyond what the federal law requires. The Copermittees understand and acknowledge that the Board is free to go beyond federal law and that very good reasons may exist to do so. However, when the Board imposes mandates not required by federal law it triggers the state's unfunded state mandates provisions. It is the Copelmittees desire that, through the unfunded state mandates process, they may obtain the funding needed to pay for these mandates. The Copellllittees fUI1her request that the Board perfonl1 the necessary environmental analysis as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. While the stated goals of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act are to improve and protect our waters, the Legislature has declared that it is also their policy to take all action necessary to advance the goals of clean air. enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities. As such, this permit must be evaluated under the requirements of CEQA to ensure that all policies of the state are considered when this Board takes its action. Finally, it is the CopeI111ittess' request that the Board promptly eliminate and/or otherwise clarify the inherently vague and amhiguous language found in the Draft Permit so as to allow the Copermittees to implement its provisions, once funding has been found, in a clear and expeditious manner. The Board's failure to do so will only result in further delays due to the Copenl1ittees' inability to resolve those inconsistencies found in the language ofthe Draft Permit as descri bed above. .c.;I)^Di'vlli'I\':iI-I,\(~[R IYIJJ904':> I .7. 10-20 Ar77t~fhtr EUi I{ I nfonnationa[ iJv{emorandum ./ January II, 2007 FileNo 0780-70-KY-18! TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager FROM: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations SUBJECT: Pending Adoption of New Five-Year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm water Pennit by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) The purpose of this memorandum is to update City Council on the pending adoption of the new five-year NPDES Municipal Permit. At its scheduled meeting of December 13, 2006, the Regional Board had planned to consider the adoption of a new five-year permit regulating the discharge of urban-generated runoff within San Diego County to receiving waters via dry weather and wet weather flows through the municipal stonn water conveyance system (i.e., streets, gutters, pipes, and open channels). However, the meeting was canceled due to lack of a quorum. The pemlit will now be considered at the Regional Board meeting scheduled for January 24, 2007. Last minute revisions to the pennit with regard to implementation of "Low Impact Development" ("LID") principles for new development and redevelopment projects, as well as stonn drainage system projects, have been made at the request of environmental advocacy groups. The Regional Board released these revisions on December 4, 2006, without the opportunity for full public review and comment. Concurrent with the cancellation notice for the December 13, 2006 meeting, the Regional Board announced that they would accept written comments on the latest revised language included in the draft permit. Written comments were to be submitted to the Regional Board before 5:00 p.m., January 2, 2007. Staff prepared and submitted comments within the specified comment period (Attachment A). The County of San Diego also submitted comments on behalf of all Copermittees (Attachment B). During the meeting of January 24,2007, the Regional Board will hear oral public testimony and consider adoption of the new pemlit. Representatives from Elected Officials, City Managers, and City Attorneys plan to speak during the hearing and put forward their concerns regarding the funding for the implementation of pernlit's additional requirements, and the fact that they consider some of the major requirements fall under the unfunded State mandates category and need to be reimbursed by the State if they remain in the final permit. Attachments KIPublic \Yorks Operalions\NPDES\New Perlllit\NPDES Info hel1l - OI-II.()7doc 10-21 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 07 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $620,000 FROM THE A V AILABLE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (PFDIF) FUND BALANCE AND AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,000 FOR TWO DRAIN CLEANING TRUCKS TO DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO BID 6971-05-Z AND PRICING AGREEMENT 8070191-0 WHEREAS, on January 24, 2007, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm Water Permit, Order No. R9-7007-0001 (New Permit); and WHEREAS, the New Permit includes many new and expanded tasks at jurisdictional, watershed, and regional levels compared to the previous NPDES Municipal Permit (Order No. 2001-01); and WHEREAS, in order to meet the New Permit's compliance deadlines, it is necessary to order two vacuum-type storm drain cleaning trucks for delivery in Spring 2008 due to an approximate lead time of one year between placement of an order for the trucks and their delivery; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby amends the FY07 budget by appropriating $620,000 from the available balance of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFmF) Fund Balance and awarding a purchase agreement in the amount of $620,000 for two Drain Cleaning Trucks in accordance with the terms and conditions of City of San Diego bid 6971-05-Z and Pricing Agreement 8070191-0. Presented by Approved as to form by ~\(~\\~\;\ Ann Moore City Attorney Dave Byers Director of Public Works Operations J:\Attorney\RESO\FINANCE\Amend FY07 PWOPS 5 15 07,doc 10-22 A-r--r7tc,{j Jv1&J r 1 City of San Diego PRICING AGREEMENT Bid No.: 6971-05-Z Ship To: Center 10: 057PURCH Bill To: Center ID: 057PURCH Date: 07/25/06 Page: 1 of 2 PURCHASING PURCHASING Time: 12:49:39PM SEE ACTUAL POs FOR SPECIFIC SEE ACTUAL POS FOR SPECIFIC Bill-TO AND OPIS No.: PA05-8070191_0 Bill-TO AND SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO, CA Commodity Code: 4212 Last Option End Date: 08/07/10 , Vendor: Terms: Net 30 DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, LLC DBA FOB: Destination DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS Tax Code:,..,T ,/ 5255 FEDERAL BLVD , , SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-5710 BuyeA\~~ci,~hy Asbill-Gumbs USA Phone: (619) 236-5923 Fax: (619) 533-~225 Vendor 10: 01100126995 Phone: (619) 263-2251 Fax: (619) 263-9021 E-Mail: BP.tsbil1Gumbs@sandiego.gov Line # Item ID/Description Quantily/UlM Unit Price Extended Price This Document is for Contractual Information Only and is NOT a Purchase Order Purchase Orders Wifl be Issued as Needed 1 TRUCK, DRAIN CLEAN 5.00 EA $ 263,105.0000 $ 1.315,525.00 Drain cleaning truck Mfr. : InternationaljVactor Delivery Time: 270-300 days ARO Warranty Period: 12 months Water Tank warranty period: 20 years ~ Addi tional cost per unit to provide and install an exhaust particulate trap: $20,000.00 only if approved by CARE and if it is available. 2 PUMP, TRASH 5.00 EA 10,953.0000 54.765.90 Addi tional cost to provide and install a compatible hydraulic pump off system/debris tank trash pump on the drain. - cleaning truck listed in item 1. Mfr. : International/Vactor Delivery time: 270-300 days ARO. Warranty period: 12 months 3 COATING, TANK 5.00 EA 3,806.0000 19,03000 Addi tional cost to provide and install a compatible debris tank coating on the drain cleaning truck listed in i tam 1. Mfr. : Poly Bird Delivery time: 270-300 days ARO Warranty period: one year 4 TANK, 5-YD DEBRIS 5.00 EA 0.0001 0.00 Price deduct from unit price of item .1 to provide and install a S-yard debris tank with 1,000 gallon fresh water system in lieu of a 10-yard debris tank with a 1,500 gallon fresh water system, compatible with item 1. Mfr. : International/Vactor Delivery time: 270 to 300 days ARO Warranty period: 12 months Deduct: ($-16,231.00) Notes: Have ques1ions about doing business with the City of San Diego? Visit our Purchasing web site at wvvw.sandieao.aov/Durchasinq and get all the answers. SEE LAST PAGE For specific information regarding contract opportunities with the Cit~~ Diego, please visit our FOR TOTALS Bid & Contract Opportunities web site at www.sandieoo.Qov/bids-c a . _. - PANO./ 8070191-0 PA2555A IR<'" 9-n?1 City of San Diego PRICING AGREEMENT Bid No.: 6971-05-Z PANo.1 8070191-0 Ship To: Center ro: 057PURCH PURCHASING SEE ACTUAL POs FOR SPECIFIC BILL-TO AND SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN DIEGO. CA Bill To: Center 10: 057PURCH PURCHASING SEE ACTUAL POS FOR SPECIFIC BILL-TO AND SHIP-TO ADDRESSES SAN OIEGO. CA Date: 07/25/06 Time: 12:49:39PM OPIS No.: PA05-8070191-0 Page: 2 of 2 Commodity Code: 4212 Last Option End Date: 08/07/10 Vendor: DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, LLC DBA DION INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 5255 FEDERAL BLVD SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-5710 Terms: Net 30 FOB: Destination Tax Code: T Vendor lD: 011 00126995 Phone: (619) 263-2251 Fax: (619) 263-9021 Buyer: Beverly Asbill-Gumbs Phone: (619) 236-5923 Fax: (619) 533-32.25 E~Mail: BAsbillGumbs@sandiego.gov USA Notes (cant): Furnish the City of San Diego with Drain Cleaning Trucks. Exercising Option #1 to Renew for an Additional One (1) Year Period beginning 08/08/06 through 08/07/07. A 5.08% or $12,130.00 price increase has been granted for Item 1. Council Resolution No.: 300756 Options Remaining: 08/08/07 - 08/07/08; Increase not to exceed 20%. 08/08/08 - 08/07/09; Increase not to exceed 20%. 08/08/09 - 08/07/10; Increase not to exceed 20%. Vendor Contact: William M. Tollefson, Fleet Sales Manager E-mail: btollefson@diontrucks.com Insurance and bond shall be updated as required. Distribution: File, Vendor, Buyer, OPIS, Kelleher, Kristina Blake MS 7B, Mark Caroccia MS 42, Robert York MS 902 Have queslions about doing business with the City of San Diego? Visit our Purchasing web site at VVVVVJ.sandieoo.oov/purchasinq and get all the answers. For specific information regarding contract opportunities with the ~~..Q~n Diego, please visit our Bid & Contract Opportunities web site at www.sand;eqo.qov(bids-~b11trcfttt. Line Item Total $ Tax Freight 1,389.320.00 107.672.31 0.00 PA Total: $ 1,496,992.31 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO July 26, 2006 Mr. William M. Tollefson, Fleet Sales Manager Dion International Trucks, LLC DBA 5255 Federal Boulevard San Diego, CA 92105-5710 Dear Mr. Tollefson: Subject: Bid No. 6971-05-Z - Drain Cleaning Truck The City of San Diego is exercising the option to renew the subject contract for an additional one (I) year period beginning August 8, 2006 through August 7, 2007 subject to receipt of valid insurance certificates and bonds, as noted below, by the contract start date. A $12,730.00 price increase, which represents a 5.08% increase, has been granted for this option period.. Insurance Requirements: Your present agreement with the City of San Diego requires you to have valid insurance for the entire contract period. Therefore, it is imperative your insurance carrier provide us with renewal certificates and bonds at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration date in order to ensure cominuation of this contract. Our records reflect the following insurance coverage on file and expiration dates. 1. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY and PROPERTY DAMAGE for $1,000,000.00; expires August 1,2007. 2. WORKERS' COMPENSATION on !tIe; expIres August 1,2007. Bond Requirement . WARRANTY BOND in an amount to be determined. The contract for this option period will not be effective and purchase orders cannot be issued until updated insurance certificates and bonds have been received for insurance and bonds which has expired or will expire prior to the begilming of the new contract period August 8, 2006 through August 7, 2007. Renewal insurance certificates and bonds, as noted above, must be received by the Insurance Coordinator, City of San Diego Purchasing Division, 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101-4195, no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration date. .~ ~ DIVERSITY '~'_""'" "-""e" Purch~I9ivision 1200 Thi,d Avenue. Suite 200. Sac Diego. (A 9210H195 . . Page 2 Bid No. 6971-05-2 Mr. William M. Tollefson July 26, 2006 Purchase order(s) will be prepared as required. It is understood that original conditions of contract will prevail. For questions regarding insurance and bond requirements, please contact the Insurance Coordinator at VSummers@sandiego.gov, or at (619) 236-6254. However, concerns regarding this contract should be directed to me at MWinterberg@sandiego.gov, or at (619) 533-6441. Thank you for your continued interest in doing business with the City of San Diego. jl;:; 11.~~ Michael Winterberg Procurement Specialist MW/mn Enclosures 10-26 A1TAC/-fM~ 3 Infonnatlona[ Memorandum - December 13, 200(j FileNo. KY-181 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: FROM: Jim "1'110I11S011, Interim City Manager Dave Byers, Director of Public Works operation~j Pending Adoption of New Five-Year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stollllwater Pemlit by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) SUBJECT: At its scheduled meeting of December 13,2006, the Regional Board had planned to consider the adoptIon of a new live-year pcrmit regulating the discharge of urban-generated polluted runoff within San Diego County to rccelvll1g waters Via dry weather and wet weather flows through the municipaJ storm '.v'aler conveyance system (i.e., streets, gutters, pipes, and open channels). However, the meeting \vas canceled clue to luck of a quorum. The pennit will now be considered at either the Regional Board meeting scheduled for February 14,2007 or at a special Regional Board meeting to bc scheduled in January 2007. The proposed permit would be the third pennit issued by the Regional Board since 1990 to the City of Chula Vista, the seventeen other cities within San Dlego County, the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the S'lll Diego AIrport Authority (Co-Permittees). vVith the adoption of each permit, regulatory requirements have become increasingly complex and demanding. as well as mme and mme costly I"or public agencies and pnvate entIties (I.e., businesses. developers, etc.), to implement. The City's eost of implementing the existing permit [n FY 200(,-07 is approximately $ 1.5 million per year. Staff estimates that the cost to implement the proposed permit will increase total program costs to $3.9 million in FY 2007-08 (including the one-time purchase 01" eqUIpment totaling $900,000) and $3.0 million per year in the second through tinh years of the proposed permit. These estimated costs do not include cost impacts to developers and businesses. A signific31lt portion of these new costs to the City, as well some existing costs, are unfunded State mandates and are eligible for reimbursement under State Constitutiollal provisions, although the Regional Board hns not yet acknowledged this. Finally_ last Illlnute rev'ISI()IlS to the permit with regard to implementation of "'Lm.v Impact DCVc!UpLllCllr' (""L.ID") principles for nevv development and redevelopment projects, as 'vvcll as slClrm drainage syslem projects, have been made at thL request of environmental advocacy gl.UUP.'). The Rcgiuncl1 Board releasee! these revisions 011 December 4. 1006 without the opportunity for full publiC rt:\'lt'\V i.lIld comment. I-Io\vever, a full sixty-day public review and C(1mlllent periud was pro\'ided ti.n the August 30, 2006 revised pCll11it. 'vvhich was the tirst reVISIon. 10-27 I"hc Iloll\lrlll)1e Mayor 8:. ('Ity ("LlI1ul hl,)2,l' -2- Lkt.T11l h\.T 1 ."i. ~ ()( lh The purpose ur this memorandulll IS to Il1funn City Council of the pCIHilng ,1doptl0I1 oj" tlH: 11C\V live-year NPDES Municlp~1 [""mil and provide background \Ill Ihe progral11. Whcn tbe pubhc hearlng occurs, elected officials Ij"om v;lriuus cities ill the region will speHk oJt the public !It'uring in <1n organized presentation PnrLjeipation in the public hearing hy the Mnyor or <l Councilmembcr would be wclcolned and statf will advise the Maynr and City COLlllcil of the new public hearing dale when it IS known. Meetings are beld in the B\lard RO\lm \lflbc Regional Waler Quality C\lnlrol Board klcaled at Y 174 Sky Park ('ourt, SUlle 100, San Diego. Cahil'n1ii1 92123. Basic points suggested t\.Jr public testimony include: . Thank the Regional Board and staff for the many technical changes made IJ1 rcsponse to Co-Permittee comments. . State that keeping the environment clean is a top prionty and thai the City of Chula Vista has a strong history ot~ and unquestionable reputation fix, environmental stewardship and leadership. . State that San Diego County's economy and local revenues are down due to a slowdown in construction and real estate, and that local agencies are having trouble paying for basic services, as well as maintaining aging infrastructures. . Indicate that the proposed pen11it would more than double the City's existing compliance costs ancl Proposition 218 restrictions do not allow local agencies to raise most taxes or fees without super-majority (two-thirds) approval of the general electorate or simple majority approval of property owners. A number of agencies, most recently the City of Eneinitas, have attempted to gain voter approval to raise or increase fees tor NPDES Municipal Permit compliance activities, hut hnvc failed; in our region, only the City of San Clcmente has been able to gain voter approval for a live-year fee increase. largely oue to San Clemente's economic reliance on its beaches and coastal resources. As a result, General Fund revenues, which are traditionally used 10 fund pohce and tire scrvices, libraries, recreation, and other hasic publie services, will need to be tnppcd to pay for increased NPDES Municipal Stormwater program costs, thereby leading to reductions in basic publ1c service levels. . Indicate that the question of untlll1ded State mandates contained with the proposed permit remains unaddressed and request that the Regional Board consider this Issue more closely hefore adopting the new permit. Further, under State Constitutional provisions, the State Legislature must reimburse local agencies for the implementation of untlmded State mandates; otherwise, unfunded Slate mandates must be suspended if the State Legislature docs not make reimbursement. . Encourage the Regional Board to not adopt the permit at this time III order to take more time to consider the verbal comments offered during the public heoring and the extensive written legal comrnents 011 unfunded State mandates, and to provide appropriate time tl1r full public review of recent changes to the proposed pern1it related to Low. Impact DcvclolJmeni. Historical Back~I"])lll1d of the NPDES MuniCipal St]mnwater Permit Until 1987. the Federal Wakr Quality C"ntrol Act (Clean Waler Act) "t. 1972 regulated p"int sources of \vatcr pollution, such as industrial discharges ami discharges h"()!11 Publicly Owned 10-28 The ll(lllOr~lh1c i'.iLlyur 8:. City Cuu11lil j\n_'\ j )CU.-'I 11 I l'--T ] .~_"(.Hi(! Wastnvaler Treatment Works (POT\Vs). The Ullilcd St:lles Cll\.'ll\lJ\lllclltal PnltcctHlll AgCj"H.:V IS responsible li'r the implementation oCthe Fed ,.,.,,1 CIe"" V'!"lcr Act In J t'nn, the CleaIl \Vater Act \-vas alllended to Gstablish a permitting pn\ceSS amI rL'guhllinl1s tt)[ non-point sources of water pollution (i.c., sources of pollution 111 \vhicl1 a speCIfic and discrete origin, such as a pipe outfall ti.om a [)OTvV, c;m 11 ot he identifIed), such as urban stOnl1\vater runoff and discharges from specitic industry types ~llld construdiull siles. This permitting process is implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge ElillliJj,!1Hlll SystL.:lll {NPDES) Permit Program. In Califorma, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cahtllrllia Water Code) W')S established to tlnther augment, and to set regulations above and beyond, the Federal Clean Water Act. In California, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has delegated authority for implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program to the State of California through the State Water Resollrees Control Board and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. These regulating agencies issue NpDES permits and ensure compliance by permittees, including municipalities. NPDES penllits can be general (statewide), regional (cOUlltyv,ride), or individual. The NPDES permits for industrial facilities and construction project::; are state\vidc, \vhile municipal permits are issued at the regional level. Individual permits arc also issued, such as the Caltrans NPDES permit. The San Diego Regional Board issued the tirst NPDES Municipal Pcrmit teJr the San Diego County RegIOn in 1990 (Order No. 90-42). The Municipal Permit covered all San Diego County jurisdictions, including the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unltied Port District, and eighteen municipalities in San Diego County. The Municipal Pennlt \vas to be re-issLlecl every five years, but this did not happen until ]998 when Tcntative Order No. 99-01 rcplaced the older pelmit. The next re-issuance of the MuniCipal Permit was on February 21, 200 [ (Order No. 2001-0 j). The San Diego Airport Authority was added to the list of Co-Pelmittees covered by this regional pcrnlit. CutTently, the City of Chula Vista is regulated under NPDES Order Nu. 2001-01. ProDosed Pemlit (Tentative Order No. R 9-2006-()() 11) The proposed perrnit has been released for public reviC\v and comment tvvic.e since ]\;1arch 10, 2006. The Regional Board has received oral am.! written comments on the TentHtive Order and has made amendments to the contents of the 'Tentative Order as a result of those CUl1lments. Throughout the public review process, the San Diego COUllty fvlunicipDI PCrI11lt Cu-Perrnitlccs cooperated at three different levels (City i'vlanagers, Attorneys. and tccl1nii..:al sti.lft) to discllss and submit regiollal comments on the Tentative Order. In additioll, lIlclividual Co~Pernllttces, including the City of Chub Vista, submitted their own specific C(l111111enls during buth public hearings. 10-29 lllL' H\II),\Llhk rv!~I'il\1 ,~ <. 'Il); ('IIUlled j-\i,~~C -4 Decelllber l.l, 2(J()(_1 Cnlll]!JJ"cd Ip lhe eXIsting l'V1Ullicip,1I Permit. TCllliltivc Onkr No. RlJ-20()()-OOII includes expanded :lIld lll{lre prcscripti,'e rcquirL'IT\Cl1lS. 111Cludll1g drainage system maintenancc frcqllcncje~ and scason~i1 limiu.lliu!ls, additional water qu,-llity monitoring, i:IJditional inspections ()f induslriill, C011l111Crcial, Hnd construction aClivitlc~ and l~lcilities, additional requIrements for nc\V development and redevelopment (including n"Hydm-Mnciification Plan" requirement t(lr new development), watershed activities, and data tracking/reporting requirements. The Rcgionnl Board responded favorably tu most of the technical COlllments provided by the Co- Permittt::es iJnd amended the Tentative Order to provide some ufthe tlexibility needed to develop practical as wel I as cffccli ve programs, However, comments on specific legal issues were 110t satisf~1ctorily addressecl. LcgiJl issues arc mainly ft1Cllscd on the prohibitive cost of the programs and the fact that many of the requirements are state unfunded mundate~ that are above and beyond tbe Federal Clean Water Act requirements and, tberelore, Co-Permittees must be reimbursed I"r tbeir costs to implement them under State Constitutional provisions. The Regional Board bas argued tbat there are no state unfunded mandates in the Tentative Order and has rejected the argument. Program Costs and Fundinl! The City of Cbula Vista's lotal NPDES program expenditures I,)r Fiscal Year 2005-2006 were approxil1l<ltely $1.4 1l1r1lion (cxcludlng Capital Improvement Project for drainage improvements). Costs fIX Fiscnl Ycar 2006-2007 will be close to $J.5 million. The new permit requirements are expected tll add another $2.4 millIOn in the lirst year (2007-2008 FY) and about $1.5 million annually in the tlJllowing four years to the present costs. The first year expenditures include start-up costs associated \-vith the purchase of new equipment. Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 established a StOIll) Drain Fec to provide a funding source for the implementation of the NPDES Permit requirements. Since 1991, the Storm Drain Fcc has been kept at the same rate of $0.70 per month per Single tilmily home and $ 0.06 per Hundred Cuhic Feet (HCF) of water consumed t"r multil~lmily and commercial land uses to the current date. This tec generates approXimately $500/)00 per year in revenue. The balance of programs costs are covered through a variety of development-related fees, maintenance dishiet fec:-:i, and the General Fund; increases in program costs under the proposed pcnnit will almost entirely need to be charged to the General Fund. Due to the pussage of Proposition 218, the City has not been able to raise taxr;:s or fees. Proposition 218 mandates that property related tax and fee increases can only be imposed alter approval by a super majority vote (two-thirds) of the general electorate or by a simple majority vote of prnperty O\vners. Attt..:mpts by most municipalities tu ohtain voter approval to impose or increase storm drain fees have failed, Some lllunicipalil1es have increased their trash pickup or sc;\ver fees to pay 7t,)1" the udditi{lllnl NPOES program Cl.JSts: thIS appro<.lch has been assailed by tax advucacv groups and has resulted III court orders for those 1l1uI1lcipalities tn reimburse rlltc'pnycrs. 10-30 The )-lonor;Jhlc f'v1ayor & City Council Page -5- DI.xe1l1bcr i :'~. 2006 Unfunded Federal and State Mandates The City and County Manager's Association (CCMA) has worked closely with the City Attorney's Association over the past several months to consider the issues of unfunded State mandates within the proposed permit. Co-Permittee comments regarding mandates within the proposed permit that exceed Federal Clean Water Act requirements were not adequately addressed by Regional Board staff in the second draft of the permit, with the Board's Counsel simply stating that the Regional Board has the authority to impose the requirements of the permit. The Co-Permittees do not dispute the legal authority of the Regional Board under the Federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to impose the requirements, but assert that the costs to implement those provisions of the proposed pellnit that derive solcly from Porter-Cologne must be reimbursed by the State. Article Xlll B, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that "...whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. . ." except in certain specific circumstances. Through Proposition I A, approved by the voters in 2004, Section 6 was amended to further provide that "for the 2005-06 fiscal year and every subsequent tiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local govel11ment claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the tiscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law." The attachment has been provided by Senior Assistant City Attorney Marshal. It is a legal response to the Regional Water Quality Control Board from the City Attorney Association of San Diego County. Attachment: Legal Comments On The Board's Response To Comments Dated August 30, 2006 On Tentative Order NO. R9-2006-0011 cc: Sharon Marshall, Senior Assistant City Attorney K\Public Works OpcfMions\NPDES\New Permit\NPDES ]nlo Item - l2~]3-06.doc 10-31 A TTACHMENT "A" LEGAL COMMENTS ON THE BOARD'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DATED AUGUST 30, 2006 ON TENTATIVE ORDER NO. R9-2006-00Il I. INTRODUCTION These comments are provided as a response to the Board's responses to comments issucd on August 30, 2006 regarding Tentative Order No. R9-2006-0011 ("Pennit" or "Draft Permit"). These comments were prepared by a sub-committee of legal counsel for the San Diego copermittees and were reviewed by the members of the City Attorneys Association of San Diego County. The comments focus on three issues: (I) unnmded state mandates; (2) compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in light of new legal authority; and (3) vague and ambiguous permit terms. 11. THE BOARD'S ACTION CONSTITUTES AN UNFUNDED ST A TE MANDATE The Board's response to the copermittees' comment regarding unlimded state mandates neither accurately characterizes the comment nor responds to it. It is not, and never has been. the copemlittees' position that the Board lacks the legal authority to impose mandates which "exceed" or are "more explicit" than the mandates or specitic requirements offederallaw. Rather, when the Board elects to use its discretion to impose mandates that are "more explicit"' than or "exceed" the requirements of federal law, it is electing to impose a state mandate within the meaning of Calitornia Constitution, Art. XIII B, Section 6. The Board may impose such state mandates; once imposed, however, the California Constitution requires that they must be funded by the State. The copermittees ask the Board to acknowledge that, as it has done in the past and as is implicit in draft Finding E.9, portions of the permit "are more explicit" than or "exceed" the specific requirements of federal law. A. THE UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE PROVISIONS AND PROCESS I. Unfunded State Mandate Provisions Article Xlll B, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that "[w]henever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local govemment, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. . ." except in certain specific circumstances. Through Proposition I A, approved by the voters in 2004. Section 6 was amended to turther provide that "for the 2005-06 fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year, for a mandate lor which the costs of a local govenilllent claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the state pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate. in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid. or suspend the operation of the mandate for the tiscal year tor which the 31illual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law." The concern that prompted the voters to include Section 6 in the Californ.ia Constitution "was the perceived attempt by the state to enact SDADMIN\SHAGERTY\JJY0491 10-32 legislation or adopt administrative orders creating programs 10 be administered by local agencies, thereby tnmsferring to these agencies the liscal responsibility for providing services that the state believed should be extended to the public" (Lon~ Beach Uni!ied School District v. State of (;gJj!ornia (1990) 225 Cal.App. 3J 155.174.) Nothing in constitutional or statutory law allows the state to shift costs to local agencies without reimbursement merely because tbose costs were imposed upon the stale by the federal government. Hayes v. Conullission on State Mandates, II Cal. App. 4'" 1564, 1593 (1992). A central purpose of the principle of state subvention is to prevent the state from shifting the cost of government from itself to local agencies. City of Sacramento v. State of California, 50 Cal. 3d 51,68 (1990). The courts have concluded that a state mandate exists where the state has a choice in the manner of implementation of the federal mandate. County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, 32 Cal. App. 4'" 805, 816 (1995). The focus is not simply that the obligation arises out of a federal mandate. A determination of whether certain obligations (and therefore costs) were imposed upon a local agency by a federal mandate must focus upon the local agency which is ultimately forced to bear the costs and how those costs came to be imposed upon that agency. Haves v. Commission on State Mandates, II Cal. App. 4'h at 1594. If the state freely chooses to impose the costs upon the local agency as a means of implementing a federal program then the costs are the result of a reimbursable state mandate regardless of whether the costs were imposed upon the stale by the federal government. Jd. As shown in the attached chart, and supported by the December 2000 chart prepared by this Board, various provisions of the currently dralied permit reveal an exercise of choice by this Board in the manner of implementing federal law. Therefore, the requirements under this Draft Pem,it that are not express federal mandates constitute mandates by the stale subject to the subvention requirements. A "new program" within the meaning of Section 6 is a program that carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or a law that, to implement state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. Commission On State Mandates (1995) 32 Cal.App. 4th 805, 816.) A reimbursable "higher level of service" concerning an existing "program" exists when a state law or executive order mandates not merely some change that increases the cost of providing services, but an increase in the actual level or quality of governmental services provided," (Sail Dieeo Urlified School District v. Commission On State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859, 877.) Both Section 6 and state law establish certain exceptions to the state mandate provisions, three of which have some potential application to the Drali Permit. First, as a threshold matter, Government Code section 17516 currently purports to exempt orders of the Regional Board from the state mandate provisions. The copermittees contend that Government Code section 17516 is unconstitutional, and Judge Victoria E. Chaney of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, has, in fact, declared Section 17516 to be unconstitutional in County of Los Angeles, et al v. State of California, et ai, Consolidated Case Nos. B5087969 and B5089785. Judge Chaney's decision has been appealed by the State to the COllrt of AppeaL Second Appellate District, as Civil Case No. BI83981. The maner has been fully briefed, but as of the date of this comment. no date for oral argument has yet been scheduled. It is the copernlittees position that Government Code section 17516 is not a valid bar to their unfunded state mandate claim. S DA OM rN\SH i\(J ER TY\J39049, I -2- 10-33 Second. GovL'fI1ment Code section 17556(c) provides that a statute or executive order shall not be considered 10 be" slate mandate if the "statute or executive order imposes a requirement that is mandated by a federal law or regulation and results in eosts mandated by the federal government. unless the statute or executive order mandates costs that exceed the mandate in that tederal law or regulation." The copenllit1ees acknowledge that much of the Draft Permit imposes requiremenls mandated by a federal law or regulation. However, the copermit1ees contend that many of the requirements of the Draft Permit exceed the mandates in the federal law and regulations. The eopel1lliltces have attempted to set forth in detail in Section B.2 below the portions of the Drall Permit which they believe exceed the federal mandates. The copel1llit1ees also contend that draft Finding E.9 and the Board's own documents establish that a large percentage (up to 40%) of the requirements of the Draft Permit exceed Ihe federal mandates. Third, Government Code section 17556(d) provides that a state mandate will not be considered to be "unfunded" if the local agency "has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the mandated program or increased level of service." The copermittees' previous conUllent explained why this provision is not a bar to an unfunded state mandates claim. The requirements of Proposition 218, as interpreted by cases such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, severely limit the ability of the copermit1ees to fund the mandates of the Draft Permit. Certainly, the copermittees authority, whatever it may be, is not "sufficient to pay for the mandated program or increased level of service." It is for this reason that the copermittees raise the unfunded state mandate issue - to find a funding source for this state mandated program or increased level of service. 2. State Mandates Process The Legislature has established an administrative process for seeking a determination that a mandate is an unfunded state mandate within the meaning of Section 6. (Gov. Code SS 17500 et. seq.) These procedures are the sole and exclusive procedure by which a local agency may claim reimbursement for state-mandated costs. (Gov. Code S 17552.) The procedures require the commencement of a test claim before the Commission on State Mandates, with judicial review only being available after a final detenllination by the Commission. (Gov. Code S 17553, 17559.) Traditional concepts of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply to an unfunded state mandate claim. (Tn-County Special Education Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 572.) For this reason, the copermittees would need to pursue a petition to the State Board and then process a test claim with the Commission ifthe Regional Board does not agree that portions of the Draft Permit "mandate costs which exceed the mandate in the federal law." B. THE DRAFT PERMIT IMPOSES UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES UPON THE COPERMITTEES I. Permit Language and Previous Board Statements. SDADMIN\SHA(;ERTY\):>904<;l I -3- 10-34 The copcll11ittees contend that the language of the Draft Permit and previous Board staterncnts demonstrate that portions of the Draft Pennit constitute unlimded state mandates. First, Finding E.9 states that: kequirements in this order that are more explicit than the tederal storm water regulations in 40 CFR 122.26 are prescribed in accordance with the CW A section 402(p)(3 )(B)(iii) and are necessary to meet the MEP standard. In its response to the copennittees' comment on this Finding E.9, the Board dismisses the copennittees' comment as a misrepresentation of Finding E.9. (See Responses to Comments, p. 59). While there may be a legitimate difference of opinion concerning the meaning of Finding E.9, the copennitlees did not misrepresent the Finding in their comment. It is the copermittees' view that when the Board elects to be "more explicit than the federal storm water regulations" it is imposing state, rather than federal, mandates. While the Board's imposition of such "more explicit" mandates may be based upon its belief that such additional mandates are needed to meet the MEP standard, that cannot convert those additional mandates into mandates required by federal law or regulations. Such an elastic view of federal law would mean that the federal mandates are different in San Diego County than in Riverside County, in Texas than in New Jersey. This is inconsistent with basic concepts oftederallaw. The copern1ittees further contend that their reading of Finding E.9 is consistent with prior otTtcial documents of the Board. For example, in Attachment 4 to Agenda Item 5 of the Board's December 13,2000 meeting, Conclusion 14 provides that: Approximately 60% of the requirements in Tentative Order 2001- 02 are based solely on the 1990 federal NPDES Stonn Water Regulations. The remaining 40% of the requirements in the Tentative Order "exceed the federal regulations." Requirements that "exceed the federal regulations" are either more numerous. more specific/detailed, or more stringent than the requirements in the regulations. At least one legal commentator has cited to Conclusion 14 to help explain the federal/state law structure of the NPDES process and has noted that in certain circumstances, such as CEQA, "this feature of going beyond the tederal requirements is legally significant." (Minan, Municipal Storm Water Permitting in California, (2003) 40 San Diego L. Rev. 245, 251 and fn. 30.) Again, the copermittees do not refer to this statement to show that the Board has exceeded its legal authority. The copennittees understand that the Board believes that the portions of the Draft Permit that "are more explicit" or, as the Board phrased the issue in 2000, which "exceed the federal regulations," are needed to meet the MEP standard and are consistent with the Board's authority. The copennittees simply disagree with the proposition that anything the Board does in an attempt to achieve the MEP standard constitutes a federal mandate, and ask the Board to acknowledge, as it did in 2000. that portions of the Draft Penn it are not mandated by federal law. S[)A [)MIN\SHAGElHY\3J904lf, I -4- 10-35 2. Specitic State Mandates. Legal cOllnsel for the copennittees have compared the mandates of the Draft Penni! with the specific requirements of federal law and regulations_ as the Board did in December 2000. A chart comparing the Draft Pennit with the federal mandates is attached. As the chal1 demonstrates, and as the Board's stafltound in 2000, significant portions of the Draft Pemlit "exceed the federal regulations." C. THE BOARD'S RESPONSEfPOSITION IS UNTENABLE It is the copermittees' position that the Board did not respond to the actual comment made by the copelmittees regal"ding unfunded state mandates. To the extent the Board responded to the actual conunent made, the copermittees understand the Board's response to be: (I) all the mandates of the Draft Permit are necessary to satisfy the MEP standard and, therefore, are fedeml mandates; and (2) the mandates of the Draft Permit merely expand upon or elaborate on Order No. 2001-01's pre-existing requirements. (See Responses to Comments, p. 59 and 65.) The copennittees contend that both of these responses are inconsistent with the lmfunded state mandate provisions. First, as noted above, it cannot legally or logically be the case that anything the Board mandates in an NPDES pemlit is by dcfinition a federal mandate simply because all NPDES permits must strive to achieve the MEP standard. Such an approach would mean that the requirements of federal law and the federal regulations vary widely from region to region, state to state. Rather, the logical approach, used by the Board in 2000, is to compare the express requirements offederal law and regulations (i.e., what must be in every NPDES permit) with the requirements of each individual permit to determine those areas in which the Board has elected to use its discretion to impose requirements that "exceed" or are "more explicit" than the federal mandates. In short, not everything imposed under the umbrella of federal law is a federal mandate. Second, the additional requirements of the Draft Pennit constitute a "higher level of service" concerning an existing "progranl." The courts have interpreted the phrase "higher level of service" in a manner that forecloses the Board's "elaboration" response. By definition, the iterative process mandated by the State Board is designed to increase the level or quality of the storm water program, and the Draft Permit attempts to do just that. Since the Board's "elaborations" are intended to increase the actual level or quality ol"the copermittees' storm water program, they constitute a "higher level of service" within the meaning of Section 6. In both instances, the Board has exercised a choice in the manner in which it has imposed many of the requirements under this penni!. As such. those requirements shown in the state mandate category of the attached chart shall be reimbursable. III. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The policy of the state is to ensure that action is taken to provide the people of this state SD^OMIN\SHA(iERlY\.iY)(J4<) ! -5- 10-36 with llotjust clean water but also clean air. qUality aesthetics, and naturaL scenic, and historic environmental qualities. Public Resources ('oue sectioo 2100 I (h). I n accordance with the requirements of the Cali!llrnia Enviroomental Quality Act (CEQA). the Board has failed to consider the physical effects on the environment from tho;:- permit. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.) Environmental analysis should occur as "early as feasible in the planning process to enable cnvironmental consideration to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for envirorunental assessment." (CEQA Guidelines section] 5004.) ]n County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2006 DJDAR 13567 the Court squarely addressed this issue. In County of Los Angeles, the Calitornia State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) argued that issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems pernlit is exempt from CEQA under Water Code section 13389. The Court disagreed in large part with the State Board. The Court opined that Water Code section 13389 merely exempts the application of chapter 3 of CEQA. Nothing in state or federal law exempts the wholesale application of CEQA to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems permit. Therefore, the Board must engage in specified environmental assessments in accordance with chapters I and 2.6 ofCEQA. Id. at 13574-13575. In the present instance, Section E.II of the permit states that the permit is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Water Code section 13389. As such, no envirorul1ental analysis has been prepared to enable the copermittees or members of the public to assess the potential environmental impacts of the permit. Under the holding in County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board, specilied environmental assessment must occur betore this permit is approved. Not only must the potential environmental effects of the permit be assessed, but the results of an environmental assessment may intluence how the pennit is dralted or implemented. Therefore, to comport with the requirements of CEQA and the recent County of Los Angeles decision, the permit's potential environmental effects should be assessed and made publicly available for comment, prior to this Board's action on the Oralt Pernlit itself. IV, THE DRAFT PERMIT'S TERMS ARE INHERENTLY V AGUE AND AMBIGlIOUS The Copennittees reassert their claim that the pernlit contains many provisions that are inherently vague or ambiguous. Consequently, the Copermittees cannot discern how to comply with the permit's terms, nor can the Board enforce its vague provisions. In certain circumstances, the copennittees will not know whether their conduct is necessarily proscribed. In other instances, the terms of the pemlit fail to provide an ascertainable standard of conduct. Given the vagueness of certain provisions, Ccopermittees could be subject to arbitrary enforcement tor failing to comply with provisions that lack sufficient speciticity to permit reasonable compliancc. For example, Sections A and B set torth the general prohibitions under state or federal law pertaining to discharges. However, subsequent sections, such as Sections D (page 15), D.1 (page 15-16), D.2 (page 26), D.3 (page 29), 04 (page 38), E.2 (page 43) and F (page 46) still contain paraphrases of the prohibitions in various forms. Given the inconsistencies between the prohibitions in Sections A and B and the differing versions throughout tbe permit, the SDAlJM1N\SH^GFRTY\3:{(j04"J I -6- 10-37 copermillCCS cannot detell11inc if the tenns in Sections 0 through F were intended to prohibit the same conduct as in Sections A and B or expand on those prohibitions. If intended to prohibit the same cunduct, there is no reason or bendit in restating the prohibitions. More importantly, restating the prohibitions using ditT('-rcnt languagL: creates ambiguity. On the other hand, if Sections]) through r are intended to prohibit di fferent conduct, no state or federal authorization has been specitled. See discussion in Section jj above. V. CONCLUSION The Capermittees' unfunded state mandate comment is not intended to be an attack on the Board's legal authority. The copemliltees merely ask that the Board acknowledge, as the copermittees believe the Board has done in the past, that some of the mandates in the Draft Penl1it go beyond what the federal law requires. The Copermittees understand and acknowledge that the Board is free to go beyond federal law and that very good reasons may exist to do so. However, when the Board imposes mandates not required by federal law it triggers the state's unfunded state mandates provisions. It is the Copelmittees desire that, through the unfunded state mandates process, they may obtain the funding needed to pay for these mandates. The Copell11ittees li.u1her request that the Board perfoml the necessary environmental analysis as required undcr the California Environmental Quality Act. While the stated goals of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act are to improve and protect our waters, the Legislature has declared that il is also their policy to take all action necessary to advance the goals of clean air, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities. As such, this permit must be evaluated under the requirements ofCEQA to ensure that all policies of the state are considered when this Board takes its action. Finally, it is the Copennittess' request that the Board promptly eliminate and/or otherwise clarify the inherently vague and ambiguous language found in the Draft Permit so as to allow the Copermittees to implement its provisions, once funding has been found, in a clear and expeditious manner. The Board's failure to do so will only result in further delays due to the Copennittees' inability to resolve those inconsistencies lound in the language of the Draft Permit as described above. SO^DMIN\.';jI-lM;ERTY\J1904Y I ,7- 10-38 k~J*If1tfGU/ 1- I nformationa[ 9vfemorandum -' January 11,2007 File No. 0780-70-KY-181 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager FROM: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations SUBJECT: Pending Adoption of New Five-Year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Penl1it by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) The purpose of this memorandum is to update City Council on the pending adoption of the new five-year NPDES Municipal Permit. At its scheduled meeting of December 13, 2006, the Regional Board had planned to consider the adoption of a new five-year permit regulating the discharge of urban-generated runoff within San Diego County to receiving waters via dry weather and wet weather t10ws through the municipal storm water conveyance system (i.e., streets, gutters, pipes, and open channels). However, the meeting was canceled due to lack of a quorum. The permit will now be considered at the Regional Board meeting scheduled for January 24, 2007. Last minute revisions to the permit with regard to implementation of "Low Impact Development" ("LID") principles for new development and redevelopment projects, as well as storm drainage system projects, have been made at the request of environmental advocacy groups. The Regional Board released these revisions on December 4, 2006, without the opportunity for full public review and comment. Concurrent with the cancellation notice for the December 13, 2006 meeting, the Regional Board announced that they would accept written comments on the latest revised language included in the draft permit. Written comments were to be submitted to the Regional Board before 5:00 p.m., January 2, 2007. Staff prepared and submitted comments within the specified comment period (Attachment A). The County of San Diego also submitted comments on behalf of all Copermittees (Attaclunent B). During the meeting of January 24,2007, the Regional Board will hear oral public testimony and consider adoption of the new permit. Representatives from Elected Officials, City Managers, and City Attorneys plan to speak during the hearing and put forward their concerns regarding the funding for the implementation of permit's additional requirements, and the fact that they consider some of the major requirements fall under the unfunded State mandates category and need to be reimbursed by the State if they remain in the final permit. Attachments K:\Public Works Operatiolls\NPDES\New PeI1llit\NPDES Info Item - OJ-ll-07doc 10-39 Revised Yem #11 !/(;Jj>J ~17A,"\ "h/rl-'c) U.'{ U-c '\}fiP ,-'.d (V . "YIS,ft- 1 The attached pages contain minor revisions made to the associated Alcohol Permitting agenda statement. Revisions are detailed in order as follows: Council Members: Page 2 . The words "with the additional recommendation of including a sunset clause allowing Council to revisit the issue in one year to evaluate any positive improvement, or lack thereof, with this action" has been added to lines 8-10 of the Boards/Commission Recommendation Section. Pages 5 & 6 . Letters specifically mentioned under "Standards of Issuance" section have been re-ordered to correspond to lettering revisions to Attachment A indicated below Attachment A . Letters "B", "C" (now Letter "D") and "NN" have been re-phrased for clarity . The words "at this type of program" have been added to the end of Letter "C" (now Letter "D") · Letter "NN" has been moved forward in the document, now appearing as "C", with all successive letters being re-ordered Attachment D . Letter B verbiage "and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Standards for Issuance of the Special Permit" has been added to lines 2-3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: / / MAYI5, 2007 Item ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 2.66.040 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE PERMITTING OF ALCOHOL DURING FACILITY RENTALS AT SALT CREEK, MONTEVALLE AND VETERANS RECREATION CENTERS AND AMENDING SECTION 2.66.015 (A) TO REDEFINE THE TERM ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO INCLUDE BEER, WINE AND CHAMPAGNE ONLY (FIRST READING). BUCK MARTIN, ~CTOR OF RECREATION (h..(~ CITY MANAGER II ' (y 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND The Recreation Department is proposing to issue permits allowing the use of alcohol under strict standards of issuance during facility rentals at Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers. This proposal will require the amendment of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMe) Sections 2.66.040 and 2.66.015 (A), which relate to alcohol at recreation centers in order to add the additional recreation centers to the current list of authorized facilities and to limit the type of alcohol that can be served. Per the CVMC, alcohol is currently permitted during facility rentals at Norman Park Center and the Woman's Club, located in the western portion of the City, and at Rohr Manor located in Rohr Park. New permit standards, included as Attachment A, are also proposed as part of this staff recommendation and new associated fees will be brought forward for consideration during the FY08 Budget process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines because it does not involve a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. 11-1 MAY 15, 2007 Itern~ Page 2 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Council place the ordinance on first reading. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission has considered similar proposals on two separate occasions. At the June 22, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, the Commission, due to a variety of concerns, voted not to approve a similar proposal to allow alcohol to be served at the new recreation centers located in Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Community Parks as well as at the existing Heritage Recreation Center. However, the Commission did vote to recommend adoption of new alcohol permit standards and fees related to the use of alcohol during facility rentals at Montevalle Recreation Center at its August 17, 2006 meeting. Minutes of both meetings are provided as Attachments B and C respectively. DISCUSSION During the design phases of the Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers, much emphasis was placed upon making these facilities as desirable as possible in regards to their potential to be rented by the public for activities such as wedding receptions, birthday parties ands other similar social functions. With this in mind, the ability to allow alcohol at permitted functions factored into market planning and revenue proj ections for the current fiscal year in addition to the desire to provide a service to the community. With maximization of the revenue potential in mind, at the June 22,2006 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Recreation Department staff presented a report entitled "Permitting of Alcohol at Selected Recreation Facilities for Facility Rentals", which recommended the permitting of alcohol during facility rentals at four additional recreation facilities, the recently constructed Montevalle, Salt Creek and Veterans Recreation Centers, and Heritage Recreation Center. Background information regarding the affected City ordinances, research, police department and community input and standards of issuance set forth in the June 22 report to the Parks and Recreation Commission is included below. At the June 22 meeting, individual Commissioner concerns included public health and the Department's ability to control alcohol consumption as it relates to potential liability. A broader concern was whether that alcohol should be allowed in parks at all along with the philosophical question of why the City would allow the new recreation facilities to be identified with alcohol. In response to the Commissioner concerns mentioned above, staff noted that private facility rentals would only occur during times when no recreational programming, including drop-in activities, is scheduled at the recreation center. With respect to associated liability risks, generally speaking, the City would be exposed to some potential risk as the owner of the facility where the alcohol was served. However, City exposure to potential liability is limited through the use of a liability waiver that requires the permittee renting the facility to agree to defend and indemnify the City should a claim stemming from the use of alcohol at the facility 11-2 MAY 15, 2007 Item J.1 Page 3 of 6 arise. In addition, the City requires the permittee to purchase liability insurance naming the City as additionally insured. The City currently requires waivers and insurance from permittees when City facilities are rented. The use of alcohol at the named facilities would be an additional consideration to be included in the waiver and insurance provisions. The use of alcohol at the facilities currently allowed by the CVMC has not been a liability issue in the past. As mentioned previously, per the CVMC, alcohol is currently permitted during facility rentals at Norman Park Center, the Woman's Club and Rohr Manor. With the Commissioners' action and comments from June 22, 2006 meeting in mind, the Department, at the August 17, 2006 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, presented an alternate proposal to permit alcohol consumption at only one additional facility, Montevalle Recreation Center, located in the eastern portion of the City. The Department believes this would allow for the recreational/social needs of adult patrons in both the western and eastern portions of the City to consume alcoholic beverages in a controlled environment at various events, including, but not limited to, wedding receptions, birthday parties (adult), and similar social functions. The Department also believes that the limited permitting of alcohol at controlled functions outside of normal operating hours and discreet from other functions in the associated parks, a common practice in the municipal recreation profession, would not cause the facilities to be generally identified with alcohol. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to recommend adoption of new permit standards and fees related to the use of alcohol during facility rentals at Montevalle Recreation Center. In association with the recent budget process and cost-cutting exercise, the Recreation Department has taken a hard look at a shortfall in rental revenue at all three new facilities. Full-year, FY07 rental revenue projections for the three facilities total $144,273 and as of April 20, actual revenues totaled $54,431, or only 38% of the full-year total, when a straight line projection would place "on-pace" revenue at $113,976. With this in mind, revenue is running at only 48% of full-year projections and if the trend continues, will result in a $75,022 shortfall for FY07. Although some of this shortfall may be attributed to the public's possible lack of awareness of the availability of the facilities, an equal, if not greater portion of the shortfall potentially is linked to the inability, to date, to allow the use of alcohol in association with rentals. Staff at the facilities under consideration has been keeping an informal tally of requests to be able to serve alcohol at rentals in comparison to overall rental inquiries. Approximately 25%- 33% of potential renters inquire about the ability to have alcohol at their event and approximately 50-75% of those individuals decline to rent a facility as a result of not being able to have alcohol. Consequently, the Recreation Department believes that in order to more effectively market its facilities, it is critically important that it be able to allow alcohol to be served at facility rentals of these three new recreation centers and not only at Montevalle Recreation Center as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Facilities to be designated as alcohol-free as part of this proposal include Parkway Community Center and Gymnasium, Parkway and Loma Verde Pools, Loma Verde Recreation Center, Otay Recreation Center, Community Youth Center, and Heritage Center. 11-3 MAY 15,2007 ItemU Page 4 of 6 City Ordinances Section A of CVMC 2.66.040 "Sale or serving of alcoholic beverages in recreation buildings" states that it is unlawful to sell or serve any alcoholic beverage at any recreation center except as authorized in Section B. Section B provides that "alcoholic beverages may be served, pursuant to a special permit issued by the Director of Parks and Recreation, at the following recreation centers: Norman Park Senior Center, Chula Vista Women's Club and Rohr Manor." This proposal will require amending the ordinance to add Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers. In addition, the proposal will require amending the language of CVMC 2.66.015 (A), which currently reads "Alcoholic beverage means any beverage as defined by Business and Professions Code Section 23004, and includes beer, wine, whiskey, gin, or similar beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume." The proposed amended CVMC language, included as Attachment D, states "Alcoholic beverage means beer, wine and champagne only." Although not mandated by PD, or by the majority of municipalities surveyed, the Department believes that this is the most prudent course of action in regards to overall safe management of events at which alcohol is served. Research As previously reported at the June 22, 2006 Commission Meeting, Department staff recently conducted a survey of California municipalities in order to determine the "standard of the industry" with respect to allowing the use of alcohol in recreation facilities. Responding municipalities included San Diego, EI Cajon, La Mesa, Vista, Escondido, San Juan Capistrano, Hanford, Moorpark, Antioch, Milpitas, Corte Madera and San Mateo, as well as the counties of San Diego and Santa Cruz. All 14 entities (100%) allow alcohol at rentals of recreation facilities pursuant to standards set forth in the facility rental permits. Seven agencies (50%) do not allow alcohol to be served at events that are specifically geared toward minors (birthday parties, graduation parties, quincinieras, etc), while the remaining seven agencies (50%) impose no such restrictions. Three of the 14 entities restrict the type of alcohol allowed to beer, wine and champagne and malt beverages ofless than a certain alcoholic content (range of 14-20%). Police Department and Community Input Recreation Department staff has also had multiple meetings with the Police Department (PD) in order to address initial PD concerns related to the proposal. Recreation staff has drafted a document attached to this report (Attachment A) entitled "Standards of Issuance of Permit to Consume Alcoholic Beverages in Recreation Centers" which addresses all the concerns identified by PD and provides the means to safely and effectively manage the permit and rental process and the consumption of alcohol at rentals at all designated City recreation centers, including the proposed additions of Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers. With noted concerns having been addressed, PD, as well as Risk Management, endorses the proposal and has pledged to collaborate with the Recreation Department by providing alcohol-related training for Recreation staff. 11-4 MAY 15, 2007 ItemlL Page 5 of 6 The Recreation Department has also solicited input from Mary Jo Buettner, Director of the Chula Vista Community Collaborative, and from James Marcellino, Chula Vista Youth and Child Policy Advocate. Both individuals have indicated that they have no concerns with the proposal. Standards ofIssuance Recreation Department staff conducted additional research regarding the procedures, rules and fees governing the use of alcohol at facility rentals of a number of municipalities throughout the country and utilized the resulting information to formulate the "Standards for Issuance of Permit to Consume Alcoholic Beverages in Recreation Centers". These standards were reviewed and approved by both the PD and the community advocates mentioned above. The following is a synopsis of individual proposed standards of particular note and the corresponding comments as appropriate: (D) "Application for the permit shall be made to the Director of Recreation or designee. Whenever alcoholic beverages are served by a usage group, a $100.00 non-refundable alcohol use fee is required for indoor usage." This fee is tentatively proposed as a new fee not currently included in the City Master Fee Schedule and will be brought back to Council at a later date. (I) "Permits may be issued for social, fraternal, patriotic, athletic, religious or charitable events, but not for youth oriented events where the majority of attendees are under age 21; the City reserves the right to make the final decision regarding whether an activity is classified as youth oriented. This provision is aligned with the survey finding that 50% of responding municipalities limit the provision of alcohol to events not geared toward minors. (L) "The permittee must have event insurance, purchased through the City of Chula Vista Risk Manager with Liquor Liability coverage included in the Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Chula Vista as an Additional Insured, on file with the City or provide other coverage acceptable to the City's Risk Manager seven days in advance of the event." (0) "Uniformed, private security services pre-approved by the City must be provided at the expense of the permit holder at all functions at which alcohol is served for more than one hour and will monitor the event from the time set up begins to the time that clean up ends. (One uniformed security personnel for up to 100 persons; additional guards required as event risk and/or number of persons increases.) This private security is in addition to the City staff present through staff fees paid by the permittee. No alcoholic beverages may be served prior to the arrival of security personnel." This is a new requirement, as the City generally has not required this in the past. 11-5 MAY 15, 2007 Itemll Page 6 of 6 (P) "Alcohol may only be served during permitted events occurring outside of the facility's normal hours of operation and must be discreet from other activities that may be occurring in an adjoining park." This provision essentially ensures that events at which alcohol is served will also be outside of school hours as referenced in (BB) below and event end time is generally no later than 10 PM. (R) "Only beer, wine and champagne may be served." This will require amending the language of CVMC 2.66.015 (A), which currently reads "Alcoholic beverage means any beverage as defined by Business and Professions Code Section 23004, and includes beer, wine, whiskey, gin, or similar beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume." (CC) "There shall be no consumption of alcoholic beverages within 500 feet of any scboolyard during school hours." DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties that are the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT Although the full fiscal impact cannot be identified at this time, the Recreation Department anticipates having more rentals at the three new recreation facilities and receiving additional revenue as a result of the $100.00 per rental alcohol fee, if approved by Council at a later date. Adoption of the proposed ordinance is anticipated to help the Department meet its projected revenues from facility rentals. ATTACHMENTS A-Standards for Issuance of Permit to Consume Alcoholic Beverages in Recreation Centers B-Minutes of June 22, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting C-Minutes of August 17,2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting D-Proposed Revisions to CVMC 2.66.040 and 2.66.015(A) Prepared by: Brian Cox, Principal Recreation Manager, Recreation Department 11-6 Attachment A Standards for Issuance of Permit to Consume Alcoholic Beverages in Recreation Centers (A) These standards have been promulgated by the City Manager and approved by the City Council and are to be used by the Recreation Department in determining whether or not a permit shall be issued pursuant to Chapter 2.66 Park and Facilities Rules of the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code. The City Council shall assume the right to make policy changes as deemed necessary. (B) All event sponsors must obtain an appropriate ABC license for programs at which alcohol is being sold rather than merely served. (C) All event sponsors must sign an application for an Alcoholic Beverage Permit for programs in which no admission fee is charged, and there is no charge for alcohol. The Recreation Department provides the permit, which must be signed before the start of the program, and posted in the room where the alcohol is to be served. It is not permissible to charge an admission fee or a fee for alcoholic beverages. (D) Application for the permit shall be made to the Director of Recreation or designee. Whenever a usage group serves alcoholic beverages, a $100.00 non- refundable alcohol use fee is required for indoor usage. (E) Application for the permit shall be made not less than 14 days prior to the date of the event. (F) Applications shall be made and permits granted on forms provided by the City. (G) A permit shall be issued only to: (1) An individual; or (2) An officer or agent authorized to apply for such a permit on behalf of a legal entity organized under or recognized by the laws of the State of California. (H) The person applying for such permit or applying for a permit for or on behalf of a legal entity must be at least 21 years old. (I) Permits may be issued for social, fraternal, patriotic, political, athletic, religious or charitable events, but not for youth oriented events (generally events where a majority of attendees are under age 21, but the City reserves the right to make the final decision regarding whether an activity is classified as youth-oriented). (J) Preference shall be given to residents ofthe City of Chula Vista and to commercial and industrial enterprises located within the corporate limits of the City for use of public areas under the control of the City. (K) Denial of permit. 11-7 MAY 15,2007 Item II (I) Issuance of such permit may be denied upon the grounds that the issuance of the permit would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare by reason of the nature of the event; the likelihood in the reasonablejudgrnent of the Director of Recreation or designee responsible for review and issuance of the permit that the event would create a public nuisance or result in the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors; its location within the community; or the failure of the applicant or permit holder in a past event, for which a permit was required, to conduct the event in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and Departmental rules. (2) Issuance of the permit may be denied if another event has previously been scheduled for that location on the same day for which the permit is sought or if issuance of the permit would unreasonably interfere with normal activities and customary and general use and enjoyment of the location. (L) The permittee must have event insurance, purchased through the City ofChula Vista Risk Manager with Liquor Liability coverage included in the Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Chula Vista as an Additional Insured, on file with the City or provide other coverage acceptable to the City's Risk Manager seven days in advance of the event. (M) An additional $100.00 security deposit, over and above the standard event security deposit and building rental and custodial fees, will be charged for all events at which alcohol is to be served. Any costs to the City of cleaning, repair, maintenance or policing may be withheld from the security deposit. (N) Both the applicant and the permit holder shall be personally responsible for any cleaning, trash disposal or repairs necessary as a result of the event for which the permit is granted. The applicant/permit holder is responsible for cleaning the facility, including the removal of all alcoholic beverages and empty bottles immediately following the conclusion of the event. (0) Uniformed, private security services pre-approved by the City must be provided at the expense of the permit holder at all functions at which alcohol is served for more than one hour. The security service will monitor the event from the time set up begins until the time that clean up ends. (One uniformed security personnel for up to 100 persons; additional guards required as event risk and/or number of persons increases.) Private security personnel is in addition to the City staff present through staff fees paid by the permittee. No alcoholic beverages may be served prior to the arrival of security personnel. (P) Alcohol may be served only during permitted events occurring outside ofthe facility's normal hours of operation and must be discreet from other activities that may be occurring in an adjoining park. (Q) No alcohol storage is available outside of permitted hours. 11-8 MAY 15, 20071temLL (R) Only beer, wine and champagne may be served. {Amend current language 2.66.015} (S) The permit must be in the possession of the permit holder or applicant at and during the event, and must be produced upon request. (T) Each permit shall be issued for a specific location and is not valid for any other location. (U) Alcoholic beverages are to be served and consumed only in the designated area identified in the permit. Alcoholic beverages are not permitted inside lobbies, restrooms or parking lots. (V) Permits shall be valid only for the times specified in the permit. (W) Permits are valid for the individual or entity to which issued and shall not be transferred. (X) Alcoholic beverages are to be served only to adults, age 21 or older. Violation of this law may result in the disbanding of the event. (Y) No permit may allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages before 12 pm or after 11 pm and events at which alcohol is served may not last more than five hours. Alcoholic beverages may be served and consumed only during the event hours indicated on the permit. No alcohol is to be consumed during set-up or clean up. (2) Beer kegs are prohibited {2.66.035}. "Keg" means any container made of any material, including but limited to metal, plastic or wood, capable of holding three gallons or more of an alcoholic beverage. (AA) No issuance of a permit shall have the effect of requiring the Director of Recreation to issue such a permit upon any subsequent application by the same individual or entity. (BB) Food must be provided if alcohol is served. (CC) There shall be no consumption of alcoholic beverages within 500 feet of any school or schoolyard during school hours. (DD) All beverages will be served in cans or paper or plastic cups (not larger than 16 ounces for beer and 10 ounces for wine and champagne). Alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages will be served in distinctly different containers. Alcohol carmot be served in glass containers. {2.66.035} 11-9 MAY 15,2007 Item ~~ (EE) No alcohol may be possessed or consumed in association with the event on any public street, sidewalk, parkway or parking lot within or immediately adjoining a City park or recreation center (2.66.045). (FF) All ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City remain in full force and effect. (GG) Event sponsors who fail to abide by this policy or whose event interferes with use of the facility by other groups due to the consumption of alcohol will have their permit revoked, the event terminated and any deposit forfeited and may not be issued a permit for future events. (HH) Alcohol advertising is not permitted. (II) Nonalcoholic beverages (sodas, juices, waters, etc.) shall be made available and promoted equally for the duration of any event where alcoholic beverages are served. (JJ) Alcoholic beverage service will be limited to two drinks per person at each visit to the point of service. (KK) Alcoholic beverage service will be discontinued one hour prior to the end of the event. (LL) Alcoholic beverages will not be promoted in such a manner as to encourage over consumption. Drink contests and similar activities are prohibited. (MM) Non-alcoholic beers and wines will not be served to minors. (NN) Solicitation of donations, selling of tickets or tokens of any kind for alcoholic beverages is prohibited. Signature Date 11-10 MAY 15, 2007 ItemE Attachment B City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes Thursday - 6:30 p.m. Public Works Operations Lunch Room Maxwell Road June 22, 2006 1800 Meeting called to order by Staff Present: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Shauna Stokes, Assistant Director of Recreation Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Tom Class, Parks Manager John Gates, Senior Recreation Supervisor Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor III Bob Beamon, Administrative Services Manager Guests: Cam Stephens, Chula Vista Golf Course Luis Duarte, Chula Vista Golf Course 1. Roll Call/Motion to Excuse Members Present: Commissioner Salcido, Commissioner Weidner, . Commissioner Ramos, Commissioner Perondi, Commissioner Cien-Mayer, Commissioner Searles (arrived at 6:45 p.m.) Members Absent: Commissioner Rios MSC (6-0-0-) to excuse Commissioner Rios from the June 22, 2006 meeting. 2. Action Items a. Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2006 - table to the July meeting b. Permitting of Alcohol at selected recreation facilities for facility rentals - John Gates (Senior Recreation Supervisor) informed the Commission that the Recreation Department is proposing to allow the permitting of alcohol at new facilities (Veterans, Montevalle and Salt Creek Recreation Centers, and Heritage Park Recreation Center) in the City. This would require a revision of 11-11 MAY 15,2007 Item ~ the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Mr. Gates also stated that currently, the Department allows alcohol at the Norman Park Center and Chula Vista Woman's Club. Mr. Gates stated that staff conducted a survey of 14 cities to determine the standard of the industry in regards to the allowance of alcohol in recreation facilities. All 14 entities allow alcohol at permitted rentals of recreation facilities, and restrict the type of alcohol to beer, wine and champagne. Mr. Gates also stated that staff met with the Chula Vista Police Department to address a number of concerns related to the proposal. After meeting and addressing their concerns, they accepted and approved the proposal as well. Mr. Gates provided a synopsis of Standards for Issuance of Permit to Consume Alcoholic Beverages in Recreation Centers and they include: $100 non-refundable alcohol use fee is required, Insurance (Liquor Liability coverage) to be on file with the City, private security services pre-approved by the City at the expense of the permit holder, only beer wine and champagne may be served, and reservation would be scheduled only outside of the facility's normal hours of operation. Commissioner Salcido asked if there was anyone particular organization that has requested alcohol consumption at facilities. Mr. Gates responded that no one specific organization requested to allow alcohol at rentals. Ms. Shauna Stokes (Assistant Recreation Director) also responded that a lot of the rentals are from members of the public who are having family parties. Commissioner Salcido asked about the expected revenue from allowing alcohol at these facilities. Mr. Gates responded that he could not answer that question, as these facilities are still new. However, rentals at the two rental facilities that do allow alcohol consumption have increased significantly in comparison to the other facilities that do not allow alcohol consumption. Chair Perondi asked if liquor was allowed to be consumed at gazebos in parks in Chula Vista. Mr. Larry Eliason (Parks and Open Space Manager) responded that beer is allowed to be served. 11-12 MAY 15, 2007 ItemlL Commissioner Weidner asked why the City would allow the new recreation facilities be identified with alcohol consumption. Mr. Gates responded that allowing alcohol consumption at the new facilities would be a good opportunity for revenue. Commissioner Weidner stated that the entrance to Heritage Park Center is in close proximity to the play area. Mr. Gates responded that groups that reserve Heritage Park Center for a family function also reserve the park gazebo and serve alcohol at the park gazebo. This gazebo is located next to the play area. By allowing alcohol consumption inside the facility, the patrons won't have to be outside at the park gazebo. Commissioner Cien- Mayer stated that she belongs to several organizations who has benefited from holding events that allow alcoholic beverages. Chair Perondi stated that he finds this incongruent and is not in favor of allowing alcohol consumption at the new centers. This is an issue of public health, and is concerned about the people leaving the facilities and being under the influence of alcohol. Parks and Recreation facilities were constructed to enhance health of the community. Chair Perondi stated that he understands that these facilities will draw large crowds for parties however, offering them for the benefit of consuming alcohol is not what they were built for, and is sympathetic to not offering facilities in Chula Vista that will accommodate alcohol consumption. Commissioner Weidner commented that if the Commission is going to take the viewpoint of not allowing alcohol consumption at the new facilities, then they should consider the viewpoint of not allowing alcohol in all parks. She also stated that she has a real problem with facility users renting the facilities, and going outside to the park gazebos and drinking in the park. Chair Perondi stated that he agreed. Commissioner Searles stated that he believes that it is reasonable that the Department permit reasonable people to drink in a reasonable way at the various facilities. He further stated that alcohol doesn't have to be viewed in a negative way, it's a legal substance, and if managed well would seem reasonable to allow it. He also went on to state that on the other hand, there are many unreasonable people in the world today, and issues that people have comes out when they drink. Chair Perondi stated that the issue isn't that social groups don't or won't abuse alcohol, he's not sure that the Department will be able to have a control 11-13 MAY 15,2007 Item u: on the alcohol consumption at these events, and that's what his concern is. He further stated that his opinion is that allowing alcohol consumption at the recreation facilities does not feel right to him. Commissioner Searles stated that by allowing recreation facilities to serve alcohol at private events places the department in direct competition with other local resources in the City of Chula Vista. If you don't allow people to drink at these facilities then they're going to go elsewhere, and maybe it is a benefit to the department that they go elsewhere for their private event. Chair Perondi stated that two of these parks (Salt Creek and Montevalle) are near HOA-run clubhouses that could be used on a rental basis. There are alternatives within those two specific communities. Is the Department going to be the function police? Commissioner Salcido stated that he is against this request and does not see the benefit gained. He also added that if this request was voted in, that this request be approved for I-year maximum and then reevaluated at the end of the I-year. He also expressed concern with the large number of people who may be consuming alcohol at one time, given the size of our new facilities. Commissioner Weidner stated that discussion about allowing alcohol in parks is required, because again, dislikes the idea that patrons can reserve both Heritage Park Center and the gazebo outside of the Center (next to tot lot) and go out there and drink. In addition, she requested that a report be brought forward regarding changing the city ordinance to make parks alcohol free. MS Searles/Cien-Mayer and failed (0-0-0-6) Motion failed (Salcido, Weidner, Ramos, Perondi, Cien-Mayer, Searles) to approve the permitting of alcohol at selected recreation facilities for facility rentals report. Ms. Stokes (Assistant Recreation Director) informed the commission that she appreciated the comments and discussion from the Commission regarding this topic. c. Prohibiting Smoking in City Parks - Mr. Larry Eliason (Parks and Open Space Manager) discussed the report for consideration of no smoking in City Parks. Mr. Eliason highlighted the recommendations that include: health consequences, environmental impact, enforcement, and current restrictions on smoking in city parks. He stated that there are two primary issues associated with smoking in City parks and they are: the health consequences from second hand smoke and impacts on the environment. Mr. Byers (Director of Public Works) stated that the Mayor and Council's office presented an ordinance prohibiting smoking in outdoor patios at 11-14 MAY 15, 20071tem'-- restaurants (supported by HEAC and the American Lung Association). Mr. Byers stated that the survey that the police department took regarding no smoking in city parks indicated that 68% were in favor of this, but was not sure of how scientific the survey was. MSC (Searles/Ramos) (Vote 6-0-0-1 Rios absent) to prohibit smoking in all city parks and approve and accept staff's report to recommend to the City Council of approval of an ordinance for smoke free city parks d. Summary of Activities of the Parks and Recreation Commission - Ms. Stokes (Assistant Recreation Director) presented the Summary of Activities Report, prepared by Margarita Cellano Chair Perondi stated that he wanted to commend the Parks and Recreation staff for all of their hard work with the opening of parks, and recreation facilities. MSC (Ramos/Searles) (Vote 6-0-0-1 Rios absent) to accept the Summary of Activities Report of the Parks and Recreation Commission for FY 06- 06 e. Proposed changes to the green's fee rates for the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course - Mr. Tom Class (Parks Manager) informed the Commission that on February 15, 2006, American Golf Corporation (AGC) requested a rate change to greens fees for the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The current Greens Fees have been in effect since November 9,2004. Mr. Class also stated that the current conditions of the golf course reflect an improved maintenance, and AGC has spent $315,000 over the past year making improvements to the golf course. These new improvements include: completing four tee box renovations, renovating the driving range tee, planting 40,000 square fee of sod and seed, installing a new bridge to #14 crossing, renovating bunkers #6, #7, #8, and #13; and resurfacing the parking lot. Mr. Class stated that an analysis of fees was conducted. AGC proposes to reduce resident and non-resident greens fees below the average greens fees for the four comparable courses (Coronado, Bonita, Balboa, and Oceanside) for weekdays, excluding resident 9 holes. AGC proposes to increase resident 9 holes resident twilight by $1.00 and $0.50, and reduce non-resident 9 holes ($0.50) and non-resident twilight ($1.00). AGC also plans to increase the resident card from $8.00 to $10.00. Staff recommends setting non-resident rates at 25% above the resident rates for 18 holes on weekdays. Mr. Class also discussed the Senior Tickets, and stated that AGC proposes to eliminate the senior tickets, that would eliminate the montWy $50 card (this 11-15 MAY 15,2007 Item.!i allows senior unlimited play on weekdays for only $2 per round). Staff recommends keeping the senior tickets and "grand-fathering" existing cardholders, which means they could still purchase the monthly card to take advantage of the lower rates. In addition, staff recommends increasing the ticket fee from $2.00 to $3.00 per round, which allows seniors unlimited play on weekdays. Mr. Class also stated that currently there are 64 monthly cardholders. Monthly cardholders pay an average cost of $6.15 per round on weekdays, and by increasing the ticket fee from $2.00 to $3.00 per round, the average cost for the monthly cardholders would increase from $6.15 to $7.16 per round. Most seniors (88%) currently utilize the yearly $10 card and card allows seniors unlimited play at a fee of $1 0 per round on weekdays. AGC also proposes to reduce cart fees for seniors from $13.00 to $11.00 Chair Perondi asked if the Men's and Women's Club had had an opportunity to review this fee increase request. Mr. Class responded that he presented the fee increase to both Clubs, and they both agreed to the increase. Chair Perondi asked if staff was satisfied with the maintenance and improvements that AGC has provided to the golf course. Mr. Class responded that he and the department are very satisfied with the condition of the golf course, as he inspects it on a monthly basis, and works closely with the superintendent. Commissioner Searles stated that he was happy to see that the monthly card would not be taken away from the current 64 cardholders. He stated that it is important to keep the monthly golf card, which keeps these seniors active, playing 3-days per week, it gets them outside, and taking that away from someone is not right. This is structure it's recreational activity, and commorority. This is keeping people active, and that's what recreation is all about, and that's why this makes sense. Commissioner Weidner stated that she agrees with Commissioner Searles. MSC (Salcido/Weidner)(Vote 6-0-0-1 Rios Absent) accept staff's proposal which includes to the City Council approval of proposed changes to the greens fee rates for the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course 3. Information Items 11-16 MAY 15, 2007 Item Ji. a. Update on Field Closures - Mr. Ted Nelson (Recreation Supervisor III) provided an update on field closures. He stated that field closures are required for the rest and renovation of the turf from damage of over usage. Chula Vista Community Park's west field will be closed from June to September. Mr. Nelson also pointed out that it was necessary to close Chula Vista Community Park's east field in 2004 due to significant turf damage. Opening of the west fields at this park depends on the condition of the fields, and that will be determined by parks staff. Mr. Nelson also pointed out that the new fields (Veterans, Salt Creek and Monte Valle Community Parks) have been an added asset to the field allocation process as they will help alleviate the overuse of current fields. The Youth Sports Council Fall/Winter Field Allocation process for the period of August 2006 - January 31, 2007 was recently completed and the organizations successfully worked around the field closures in order to minimize any negative impacts to the requesting organizations. Mr. Nelson also pointed out that staff continues to make every attempt to minimize inconvenience to the youth sports organizations, however, field closures are and will continue to be essential to the maintenance of City sports fields. Mr. Byers (Director of Public Works Operations) reminded the Commission that the growing season for the grass is during the summer months. b. Update on renovation of the Pony baseball field at Eucalyptus Park- Mr. Nelson talked about the renovations at the Pony baseball field, funded from a State grant. Improvements include: creating a storage shed for the league (20x20), construct a score booth, and improvements to the dug outs (new benches). Staff is currently seeking other grants for other renovations, and to date, the overall improvements are coming along well. 4. Unfinished Business - None 5. New Business - None 6. Written Communication - None 7. Commission Comments- Commissioner Salcido stated that fields at Harborside Park should be scheduled for practice and games. A YSO 290 would greatly benefit from using these fields. Mr. Byers (Director of Public Works Operations) stated that the Master Plan for the park was for no scheduled practice or play, as that was the request received from community input. Mr. Byers also stated that he recalled that Commissioner Rios specifically stated that he did not want scheduled practice or play because he wanted the park available for children and their families to enjoy. 11-17 MAY 15,2007 Item!..l Commissioner Salcido asked about the groups that show up at the fields and play on a recurring basis. Mr. Byers responded that parks/park rangers would keep an eye on fields. Commissioner Ramos thanked staff for all of their work and dedication on the new opening of the parks and facilities. Commissioner Searles thanked staff for their work. Commissioner Cien-Mayer attended the grand opening at Veterans Park and congratulated staff on the grand opening as it was very organized, and also thanked staff for providing the commission with the monthly reports. Commissioner Weidner attended the Montevalle and Salt Creek grand opening and stated that those grand openings were well done and well attended. Chair Perondi reported that Rudolph and Sletten made a donation in the amount of $3,500 to the Friends of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation for the (Elementary School) Leam-To-Swim Program. 8. Staff Comments - a. Recreation Monthly Report - Ms. Shauna Stokes (Assistant Recreation Director) thanked the commission for their kind words towards staff and briefly discussed the monthly commission report. b. Public Works - Mr. Byers (Director of Public Works Operations) introduced Bob Beaman, Administrative Services Manager for the Public Works Department. Mr. Byers also informed the Commission of the Mountain Hawk Park dedication on July 20, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. Ms. Stokes asked if the commission would like to hold their July 20,2006 commission meeting at the new Salt Creek Recreation Center at 6:00 p.m. or immediately after the dedication of the new park. MSC SalcidolWeidner (Vote 6-0-0-1 Rios absent) to move the July 20th Parks and Recreation Commission to Salt Creek Community Center immediately following the Mountain Hawk Park dedication or 6:00 p.m. Mr. Byers also informed the Commission that Tom Money who is a realtor in Chula Vista called Buck Martin, Director of Recreation to 11-18 MAY 15,2007 Itern.L.. discuss the possibility of a land donation to the City. The land parcel is adjacent to Eucalyptus Park, and the donation condition is that this parcel ofland be kept or remain as park property. Mr. Eliason (Parks and Open Space Manager) stated that this land parcel could be used as a dog park. The parcel is 1.25 acres. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to July 20, 2006 at Salt Creek Recreation Center or immediately following the Mountain Hawk Park dedication at 4:30 p.m. Margarita Cellano 11-19 MAY 15, 2007 Item ~L Attachment C City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes Thursday - 6:30 p.m. Public Works Operations August 17,2006 1800 Maxwell Road Meeting called to order by Chair Perondi at 6:30 p.m. Staff Present: Buck Martin, Director of Recreation Brian Cox, Recreation Manager Larry Eliason, Parks and Open Space Manager Ted Nelson, Recreation Supervisor III Manuel Gonzalez, Aquatics Supervisor III Guests: Robert Garcia and his son Robert Garcia 2612 Santa Barbara Court 656-1824 1. Roll Call/Motion to Excuse Members Present: Commissioner Salcido, Commissioner Weidner, Commissioner Perondi, Commissioner Cien-Mayer, Commissioner Rios, Commissioner Searles Members Absent: Commissioner Ramos Before business was conducted, Perondi noted the absence of Commissioner Ramos and asked for a motion to approve her absence, as she had informed Martin that she would not be in attendance. MSC (Weidner/Rios) to approve the absence. 2. Approval of Minutes MSC (Perondi/Rios) to approve the minutes of 5/18/06 MSC (Weidner/Salcido) to approve the minutes of 6/20/06 MSC (Salcido/Rios) to skip to Public Comments as there was a guest in the audience. 11-20 MAY 15,2007 ItemJ- 9. Public Comments Mr. Robert Garcia thanked commissioners for the Montvalle Park, especially the dog run. He uses the dog run almost every day. His concern however, is that there is no lighting around the perimeter of the dog run. It is not a problem at this time, but during the winter months when the sun sets earlier and residents get home after dark they won't be able to use the park. He requested that the commission consider adding lighting so residents could use it in the evening. His second concern was that each dog run has water fountain and a lot of mud accumulates around the fountain. He suggested some type of cement flooring be installed around the faucets to alleviate the problem. Perondi noted the request would be referred to staff come back with some information on this. Martin stated they are working on this with General Services and he asked for an opportunity to gather some information and come back and staff would let them know what the options were. Staff was looking into the viability and it would be expensive. Perondi asked ifhe was speaking about the lighting or the cement concern. Rios asked ifthis was something that would be reported on later. Martin stated that he would present a report on the lighting to the Commission at the next meeting. Perondi asked if an additional EIR would be needed. Martin said yes, and added that they will have all the details for Mr. Garcia, and notify him of the next meeting. Eliason noted that the problem with the water fountains was that they were plugged up, and that has since been rectified. Martin thanked Garcia for coming to the meeting and reaffirmed that he would be notified of the next meeting. 2c. Election of Chair Perondi stated for the record that he would respectfully decline any nomination for chair or vice chair and opened the floor for nominations MS (Searls/Cien-Mayer) to nominated Rios as chair. 11-21 MAY 15, 2007 Item ..L. Rios stated he would be happy to accept the chair position; however, he did travel and would miss some of the meetings. MSC (Perondi/Searles) to close the nominations. Rios asked if anyone was interested in the vice chair position before nominations for vice chair were taken. Salcido said he would be willing to take the position. 2d. Cox recapped the events from the Commission meeting of June 22, which led to the decision to not approve the proposal permitting alcohol at selected facilities. He stated that the report presented this evening addressed those issues and some changes had been made to the proposal. For example, the list of facilities proposed to permit alcohol had been pared down to one (Montevalle). He noted that there are 3 facilities on the west side of the city that permit alcohol, and the east side had none. Allowing alcohol will make the facility more marketable. The design of the facility was to encourage rentals. He stated that alcohol will not be served during normal recreational hours, but allowed only when operational programs were not in progress. Alcohol would be confined to a distinct area of the building. In response to Salcido's questions regarding the number of people allowed in the facility, possible liability for the City, and the negative association of alcohol with recreation facilities, Cox responded that the facility is designed to hold 200 persons, as are Norman Park and the Women's Club, the City's liability is limited to defense costs only (per the City Attorney), and lastly, that the City was careful in limiting time the areas would be served. Cox stated that the public would not make a connection with recreation and alcohol and reconfirmed that alcohol would not be served during regular hours of operation. Cox noted that 14 facilities in San Diego had been researched and all have similar rules and regulations. He believed this proposal was a reasonable alternative to the concerns expressed at the June meeting. Martin added that staff had put a lot of time and effort into this proposal and had extensive interaction with the Police Department, Chula Vista Community Collaborative, and James Marcellino, CV Youth and Child Policy Advocate. They indicated they had no concerns with the proposal. Salcido asked ifthere would be substantial profit to offset overhead costs. He also inquired if posting a bond would cover defense costs, and if smoking would be allowed. 11-22 MAY 15,2007 Item" 1 Cox stated he believes there would be a profit although a detailed study had not been done. The bond would not cover defense costs. As for smoking, there is no smoking allowed in city buildings or within 20 feet of any city facility. Salcido stated he was generally against this policy but added that since it had been narrowed down to one facility, the Commission should revisit this item yearly. Responding to Rios' questions about areas of use and the number of persons allowed in the facility, Cox stated that there would be one room only designated for use. Generally, groups are no larger than 40 or 50 people, and the facilities do not get many group rentals. Rios said he was in favor of the proposal; the facility was an excellent choice for location. In response to Cien-Mayer's question about deposits, Cox responded it would be $200 to $300 with alcohol. Cien-Mayer agreed that this would an excellent start, and in one year the Commission could reevaluate the proposal Cox stated that the operation hours would be restricted to after hours; this would not interfere with scheduled recreational facilities. Groups are allowed to rent the facility during the day; however, no alcohol will be served. Most group rentals occur on the weekend. Alcoholic beverages would not be allowed outside of the rented room. MSC (Salcido/Cien-Mayer) (4-2-1; Perondi, Weidner no; Ramos absent) to approve the report with the addition of a I-year sunset\c1ause showing positive improvement with this action. Rios asked what would happen to those persons who had reserved the facility past the 12- month timeframe. Cox stated they would still be able to use the facility. 3a. Introduction of New Employee Martin introduced Manuel Gonzales, Aquatic Supervisor III and gave a brief history of his background and qualifications. Martin added that he would be a great addition to recreation staff and was pleased to have him on board. Martin said Gonzalez would be involved in creation of an aquatic center in the east. 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Written Communications: None 11-23 MAY 15,2007 Item.'._ 7. Commission Comments: a. Cien-Mayer complimented staff at Parkway pool, b. In response to Weidner's question regarding use at Heritage Park, Martin stated that A YSO 116 is now utilizing the field. c. Nelson noted Otay Ranch and YMCA Cheerleading use the park on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Perondi thanked Cox for bringing the report back. 8. Staff Comments Martin recapped the monthly report that was submitted to the Commission noting especially that all the recreation programs were maxed out. Salcido mentioned the hours the Sports Council and volunteers put into these programs and stated there should be some sort of "thank you" held for them. Martin responded that they will be analyzing how much money is brought in and perhaps they could find more money to do things like that. Rios said the City should think about writing up something to the effect of making outside entity's put up deposits. Some sort of fee for outside users. Martin responded that the Recreation Department is already charging non-residential fees. In response to Weidner's question about park rentals, Martin responded that the City does charge non-resident fees for parks. Searles asked what the role of Parks and Recreation would be in the Bayfront. Martin responded that our role is very limited due to the fact that it is Port District land. Staff working closely with the Port District for certain elements. The City could possibly negotiate something with the Port District as the City of Coronado does. Rios stated that they should try to get a candidate on the Port Commission that has the same agenda as the Commissions. He suggested writing a letter to the Port Commission stating their concerns and having some type of programming access. Martin said staff could draft a letter to present to the Port Commission. Meeting adjourned at 7:30. Recorded by Alicia Casillas 11-24 MAY 15,2007 Item' \ ~. Attachment D PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CVMC 2.66.040 AND 2.66.015(A) 2.66.040 Sale or serving of alcoholic beverages in recreation buildings prohibited. A. Except as authorized in CVMC 2.66.040(B), it is unlawful to sell or serve any alcoholic beverage at any recreation center. B. Alcoholic beverages may be served, pursuant to a special permit issued by the director of parks and recreation, at the following recreation centers: Norman Park Senior Center, Chula Vista Women's Club, ana Rohr Manor, Salt Creek Recreation Center, Montevalle Recreation Center and Veterans Recreation Center. (Ord. 2713 S 1, 1998; Ord. 2651 S 1, 1995; Ord. 1557 S I, 1974; Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3, 1969; Ord. 857 S 2(B), 1963; prior code S 21.3.2(2)). 2.66.015 Definitions. Within this chapter, the following definitions apply: A. "Alcoholic beverage" means my beverage as defined by Business and PrElfessions Code Seetisn 23001, aRd ineludes beer, 'l(ine, 'l/hiskey, gin or similar beverage eontaining more than one half of Elne percent Elf aleohElI by vEllume beer, wine and champagne only. B. "Park" or "city park" means the land and easements owned or leased by the city of Chula Vista which, by ordinance, resolution, regulation or agreement, is dedicated to or operated by the city for purposes of sports and public recreation. The term shall include the buildings, parking lots, streets and sidewalks within the territorial boundaries establishing the park. e. "The director of parks and recreation" means the director of parks and recreation or designee. D. "Recreation facility" or "recreation center" means a building and the appurtenant land owned, leased or operated by the city of Chula Vista for the purpose of sports and public recreation activities, and includes a parking lot serving the building and any contiguous sidewalks. Although a recreation center or recreation facility may be located within a city park, it is a separate and distinct term for purposes of this chapter. E. "Recreation area" means a city park, as defined in this section. F. "Recreation trail" means a path or way located within a city park, or within open space within the city of Chula Vista, that by ordinance, resolution, regulation or agreement is dedicated to or operated by the city of Chula Vista for purposes of recreational hiking and riding. (Ord. 2651 S 1, 1995). 11-25 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 2.66.040 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE PERMITTING OF ALCOHOL DURING FACILITY RENTALS AT SALT CREEK, MONTEV ALLE AND VETERANS RECREATION CENTERS AND AMENDING SECTION 2.66.015 (A) TO REDEFINE THE TERM ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO INCLUDE BEER, WINE AND CHAMPAGNE ONLY (FIRST READING) WHEREAS, the Recreation Department currently allows alcohol to be served at functions in facilities rented by the public at the Norman Park Center, the Woman's Club and Rohr Manor in Rohr Park; and WHEREAS, the Recreation Department is proposing to expand its eXlstmg policy to issue permits allowing alcohol to be served under strict permit standards during facility rentals at Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers; and, WHEREAS, this proposal will require the amendment of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Sections 2.66.040 and 2.66.015 (A), which relate to alcohol at recreation centers in order to add the additional recreation centers to the current list of authorized facilities and to limit the type of alcohol that can be served; and, WHEREAS, during the design phases of the Salt Creek, Montevalle and Veterans Recreation Centers, emphasis was placed upon making these facilities as desirable as possible in regards to their potential to be rented by the public for activities such as wedding receptions, birthday parties ands other similar social functions; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Recreation Department's desire to provide a service to the community by providing affordable rental space, the ability to allow alcohol to be served at permitted functions factored into market planning and revenue projections for the current fiscal year; and, WHEREAS, at its August 17, 2006 meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to recommend adoption of new alcohol permit standards related to the use of alcohol during facility rentals and to add Montevalle Recreation Center to the facilities that allow alcohol to be served; and, WHEREAS, the Recreation Department anticipates that in order to meet its projected revenues from facility rentals the Salt Creek and Veterans Recreations Centers must also be authorized to serve alcohol at permitted functions 11-26 Ordinance No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: THAT TO CVMC 2.66.040 AND 2.66.015(A) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 2.66.040 Sale or serving of alcoholic beverages in recreation buildings prohibited. A. Except as authorized in CVMC 2.66.040(B), it is unlawful to sell or serve any alcoholic beverage at any recreation center. B. Alcoholic beverages may be served, pursuant to a special permit issued by the director of parks and recreation, at the following recreation centers: Norman Park Senior Center, Chula Vista Women's Club, tIfld Rohr Manor, Salt Creek Recreation Center, Montevalle Recreation Center and Veterans Recreation Center. (Ord. 2713 S I, 1998; Ord. 2651 S 1, 1995; Ord. 1557 S 1,1974; Ord. 1179 S I Art. 3,1969; Ord. 857 S 2(B), 1963; prior code S 21.3.2(2)). 2.66.015 Defmitions. Within this chapter, the following definitions apply: A. "Alcoholic beverage" means any beverage as defined by Basiness and Prefessiens Cede 8eetien 23004, and ineludes beer, wine, wfiiskey, gin or similar beverage eelltaining more than one half of ene j3ereellt ef aleohel by velllHle beer, wine and champagne only. B. "Park" or "city park" means the land and easements owned or leased by the city of Chula Vista which, by ordinance, resolution, regulation or agreement, is dedicated to or operated by the city for purposes of sports and public recreation. The term shall include the buildings, parking lots, streets and sidewalks within the territorial boundaries establishing the park. C. "The director of parks and recreation" means the director of parks and recreation or designee. D. "Recreation facility" or "recreation center" means a building and the appurtenant land owned, leased or operated by the city of Chula Vista for the purpose of sports and public recreation activities, and includes a parking lot serving the building and any contiguous sidewalks. Although a recreation center or recreation facility may be located within a city park, it is a separate and distinct term for purposes of this chapter. E. "Recreation area" means a city park, as defined in this section. 11-27 Ordinance No. Page 3 resolution, regulation or agreement is dedicated to or operated by the city of Chula Vista for purposes of recreational hiking and riding. (Ord. 2651 S I, 1995). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its adoption. Presented by: Approved as to Form by: ~~\\~'\t~\\ Ann Moore City Attorney Buck Martin Director of Recreation J:Attorney\Ordinance\Amendment to CYMe 2.66.040 11-28 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~l/~ CITY OF 'd'~CHUlA VISTA May 15,2007 Item-.lL ITEM TITLE: DISPOSITION REGARDING LIMITS PLANNING AND BUILDING ~cToA14"Y> INTERIM CITY MANAGER 'II ()V OF INITIATIVE PETITION ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND On April 17, 2007 the City Council referred the Initiative Petition Regarding Allowable Building Height Limits to staff for review and analysis, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215. This report documents staff's analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed actlVlty for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION That the Council accept the report and select one of the following options, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215: I. Direct staff to place the ordinance, as proposed by the proponents, without alteration, on a Council Agenda for adoption within ten days; or 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption, placing the ordinance on the ballot at the next regular municipal election (June 3, 2008). 12-1 May 15, 2007, Item 12- Page 2 of9 BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION None. DISCUSSION Staffhas conducted an impartial review of the proposed initiative. Staff's comments are grouped into three topic areas: (I) summary of the initiative proposal, (2) review of the practical effects and questions raised by the initiative language, and, (3) review of the initiative per the specific criteria contained in Elections Code Section 9212, including issues raised by Councilmembers at the meeting of April 17. Summary of the Proposed Initiative The full text of the proposed initiative is attached (Attachment I). The City Attorney's summary of the chief purpose and points of the initiative (Attachment 2) indicates that it provides two primary land use controls: 1. Except as permitted under the General Plan Update as approved on December 13, 2005, an amendment to the General Plan which would have the purpose or effect of increasing the allowable building height within any area to exceed 84 feet, will not be effective until approval by the majority of the registered voters in the City. Voter approval would not be required for General Plan changes affecting the Bayfront Planning areas as identified in the Land Use Element of the 1989 General Plan; and, 2. The General Plan would be amended to provide that no building that is a part of any development of the frontage of Third Avenue between E and G Streets shall exceed 45 feet in height. The allowable height shall be calculated as an average height above existing grade, and shall include garages and rooftop appurtenances. The areas as defined for these two criteria are mapped in Attachment 3. In addition, the initiative sets forth the process for voter consideration of General Plan Amendments where the prescribed heights would be exceeded as well as the means and timing of adding the foregoing provisions to the existing General Plan. Practical Effects and Ouestions If enacted, the initiative could only be amended by the voters in a city election. Thus, staff in its review has attempted to broadly consider practical issues and effects of the regulations on existing regulations, policies and processes. The following general observations are offered: o The first provision of the initiative proposal establishes an 84-foot height limitation over most of the City ("Citywide Provision"). This provision controls only the height of buildings. It does not restrict the number of dwelling units in residential buildings or the square footage of commercial or industrial development other than as that may 12-2 May 15,2007, Item 12- Page 3 of9 occur due to the height limitation. The proposed Citywide Provision would be more restrictive than existing zoning for four zone classifications. The commercial zones CoB and C-C have no height limits [See Table, Attachment 4]. Together, these two zones apply to a total of 234 acres. A third zoning category, the I zone, comprises 299 acres, but occurs entirely within the Bayfront planning area, which is excepted from the Citywide Provision. The fourth classification, PC, comprises 1,961 acres underlying Otay Ranch and other eastern neighborhoods. However, as a practical matter, heights greater than 84 feet are not usually at issue in the PC zone, since specific regulations, adopted at the time of the approvals of Sectional Planning Area plans, nearly universally limit heights in the PC zone to less than 84 feet. o The Citywide Provision includes exceptions ("Excepted Areas") (Map, Attachment 3). These areas include three locations that were designated for highrise development in the 2005 General Plan. They comprise two Transit Focus Areas in the Urban Core, and the Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch. The fourth Excepted Area is the Bayfront planning area as set forth in the 1989 General Plan, generally comprising all lands west of 1-5 northward of the extension of Palomar Avenue. The Bayfront planning area includes lands within the incorporated limits of the City, both those in the jurisdiction of the City, and those owned by the Port District. Because heights in excess of 84 feet are allowed without voter approval within the Excepted Areas, the proposed initiative would not control heights or restrict development within the areas that the General Plan envisions for the City's highest buildings and greatest intensity of future development. o In light of the Excepted Areas, the 234 acres where the Citywide Provision would be more restrictive than existing zoning, and the absence of controls on other development standards, the Citywide Provision would not significantly reduce potential yields in residential dwelling units and commercial or industrial square footage, though it would place a ceiling on development heights. The primary effect of the Citywide Provision would be on the 234 acres of CoB and C-C commercial zorung. o The Citywide Provision controls only height. It excepts high residential density areas and would not be in conflict with existing residential zoning development criteria. For these reasons it would not appear to be an impediment to meeting Housing Element Goals. In its own words, the proposed initiative is not intended to impede affordable housing. The proposed initiative would not appear to prevent housing density bonuses related to development regulations, including height. Thus, it would not appear to present an adverse effect to providing affordable housing. o The second provision of the proposed initiative would limit development on parcels fronting Third Avenue between E Street and G Street (the "Third Avenue Provision"). This provision is in conflict with the development regulations of the V-3 Village subdistrict classification of the Urban Core Specific Plan (approved on first reading), applied to seven parcels within the area covered by the Third Avenue Provision. The V -3 classification provides for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (ratio of 12-3 May 15,2007, Item \'2.. Page 4 of9 building floor area to lot size), a maximum coverage of the building over the lot, and a maximum building height. Maximum development as provided by the floor area and lot coverage standards ofV-3 subdistrict regulations would result in, at minimum, a five-story building. The Third Avenue Provision limiting height to 45 feet would effectively limit the building to a maximum of four stories, or 80 percent of the floor area that might otherwise be allowed by the V -3 classification. Practical effects will reduce this yield further, so the Third Avenue Provision would result in a loss of more than 20 percent of the development potential for the seven parcels. This magnitude of reduction, along with the need to provide on-site parking and other practical considerations, would be a substantial factor in the overall development project feasibility for these seven parcels. o The Third Avenue Provision would effect two projects subject to Exclusive Negotiating Agreements with the Redevelopment Agency, since the projects described by the agreements exceed the proposed height limitation. The potential elimination of two Exclusive Negotiating Agreement development proposals could result in a loss or delay of development investment and tax increment revenues. o The proposed initiative would apparently remain permanently in the City's General Plan unless the initiative is amended or repealed by the voters at a City election, even though it is based on factors and locations set forth in General Plans adopted in 1989 and 2005. As such, it would apply to future comprehensive updates of the General Plan and limit the City Council's normal legislative discretion to amend the General Plan. In addition to the foregoing observations, staff has generated questions that may have procedural and legal implications that cannot be definitively addressed at this time: o The proposed initiative provides that projects and plans proposing greater building heights than set forth in the initiative, "will not be effective until approval by the maiority of the registered voters in the City" (underline added). This appears to require that project proposals or General Plan Amendments seeking voter approval must achieve fifty percent plus one of the total registered voters of the City, regardless of the voter turnout at the election. This is a much higher standard than the normal standard of a maioritv of those voting. o In regard to the limitation set forth for Third Avenue, the proposed initiative text says, "For the purposes of this section, the allowable height shall be calculated as the average above existing grade,..." The intent of this statement is unclear. What may have been intended was that the grade be averaged to achieve the datum from which height would be measured, as is common in many municipal zoning ordinances. However, the proposed initiative actually states that it is the height that is to be averaged. Thus, a building would conform if its overall average height did not exceed 45 feet. By this method, development applicants may argue that lower elements or vacant spaces on the site be averaged against the highest portions of the building(s) to achieve actual maximum heights in excess of 45 feet. 12-4 May 15,2007, Item \ 2- Page 5 of9 o The proposed initiative uses the phrase "building height of development." This description would potentially apply to all forms of buildings, which the Municipal Code does not distinguish from 'structures'. Thus, it would appear to restrict not only residential and commercial buildings, but also other unique structures such as spires, antennas, the auto park sign, stadiums, hospitals or sports lighting -- all of which frequently exceed 84 feet in height -- in most areas of the City. o The method of height calculation proposed for the Third A venue area is prescribed by the proposed initiative and uses 'existing grade' as a reference. This method differs from that described in the Municipal Code, which uses 'average contact ground level' (Municipal Code Section 19.04.038). Because the Third Avenue parcels are relatively flat, this is not particularly troublesome other than its inconsistency with normal practice. But the measurement of height from 'existing grade' in other circumstances could prove exceedingly difficult. o The General Plan is, as defined by the Government Code, a policy document. The regulation of development is a function of the City Municipal Code's Zoning Title. The proposed initiative states that, "Any provision of City law inconsistent with the amendment inserted by this initiative shall be unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency." Actions taken to amend the zoning code must generally be consistent with the adopted General Plan, but the proposed initiative does not prescribe those actions. Thus, literal implementation of the proposed initiative would not place the proposed restrictions within the Municipal Code, but would apparently invalidate certain provisions within the Code. This would at minimum jeopardize their ready availability to project applicants and could commit the City to a project of zoning amendments to assure their applicability as an enforceable development regulation. o The proposed initiative indicates that, "Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to interfere with rights to obtain density bonuses under affordable housing laws or limit rights or entitlements under affordable housing laws." It is unclear as to whether the height limitation is a development regulation that could be exceeded in return for the construction of affordable housing pursuant to Government Code Section 62915, which obligates such concessions. Elections Code Section 9212 Review The April 17, 2007 agenda report listed eight topic areas warranting review under Elections Code Section 9212. Each item is set forth below and a response as to the effect of the proposed initiative is given. I. Its fiscal impact. The Citywide Provision limitation may limit flexibility of design options for new development or require development proposals to be submitted for approval by a majority of registered voters. It is difficult to quantify the potential for fiscal impact from such potential impediments. The Third A venue Provision would limit the development 12-5 May 15,2007, Item \2. Page 6 of9 potential of seven properties by about twenty percent or more, due to an inability to achieve the maximum building square footage as allowed by coverage and floor area ratio, imposed by an average building height limitation of 45 feet. The Third Avenue provision may jeopardize two current Exclusive Negotiating Agreements that were drafted in anticipation of building heights greater than the proposed limitation. This increment of potential lost development capacity and current development proposals could result in a reduction of tax increment revenues. 2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and limitations on city actions under section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 69515) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The internar consistency of the Citywide Provision with the existing general plan, adopted specific plans and zoning totals 234 acres outside the Excepted Areas, where existing zones could allow for heights in excess of 84 feet. The Third Avenue Provision is inconsistent with the V - 3 classification applied to seven parcels within the first reading approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan. The defined measurement of height for the initiative's Third Avenue Provision is in conflict with the definition used within the Municipal Code. The measurement of height prescribed for Third Avenue differs from that used elsewhere. Municipal Code amendments could be processed to address these conflicts. The other Government Code sections cited in the paragraph above deal with discrimination and design restrictions that would have the effect of limiting housing opportunities. It would not appear that the proposed initiative presents an adverse effect related to discrimination or housing opportunities. 3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs. The proposed initiative would not appear to prevent the City from substantially achieving its goals of housing production and diversity, since it limits only the height of buildings and not the number of dwellings that can be built. The Citywide Provision does not restrict heights in the Excepted Areas, and is in conflict with existing zoning mostly in commercial districts. In its own words it is not intended to impede affordable housing. The proposed initiative would not appear to prevent housing density bonuses related to development regulations, including height. Thus, it would not appear to present an adverse affordable housing effect. 4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. The proposed initiative would not appear to prevent the City from achieving its goals of facilities financing. New development projects would still be obligated to provide for infrastructure funding in accordance with established programs of the City and the school districts, and through mitigation required as a result of environmental review. If projects in redevelopment areas are impeded by either the Citywide Provision or the Third 12-6 May 15,2007, Item \2, Page 7 of9 A venue Provision, related tax increment funds that could be collected and used for transportation and park deficiencies might not be realized. 5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment. As discussed above, the Citywide Provision of the proposed initiative would not appear to significantly reduce overall development capacity, and thereby would not prevent the City from achieving its General Plan goals of job creation and balanced land use mix. In certain instances, absent approval by a majority of registered voters, it could preclude future project design features related to structures which may functionally need to be designed in excess of 84 feet, such as university development, hospitals, signs, or stadiums, which could have business and employment impacts. 6. Its impact on the uses oj vacant parcels oj land. Vacant parcels affected by the Citywide Provision exist largely in Otay Ranch. Vacant Excepted Area parcels include the Eastern Urban Center and certain parcels within the Bayfront planning area. It is possible that certain unique structures, which may in the future be proposed within the remaining villages ofOtay Ranch, would be affected by the Citywide Provision. 7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated Jar revitalization. The proposed initiative would, to a limited extent, reduce design options that might be used to avoid development impacts on open space. Because the proposed initiative does not significantly limit the intensity of development that could be achieved in either the number of dwelling units or square footage of commercial or industrial development, it is unlikely to have an effect on present or projected future traffic congestion. The Third Avenue Provisions would limit the height of buildings in that area. To the extent that this limitation removes design flexibility and impedes reuse and investment, it could have a long-term adverse effect on that existing business district. Conversely, to the extent that it would limit new development and retain existing businesses, it may be seen by some business owners as an effective way to protect existing businesses and community character. The loss of flexibility or requirement to seek approval by a majority of registered voters may discourage redevelopment proposals. However, the intensity of development and overall development capacity within redevelopment areas is not substantially reduced by the Citywide Provision. 8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. [In their April 17 discussion and action, the City Council raised the issues discussed below] a. General Plan Consistency - Refer to the overview and analysis in Item #2 above. b. Future Redevelopment - The proposed initiative would limit projects and planning or zoning amendments that would be in conflict with the Citywide Provision or the Third A venue Provision. The loss of flexibility or requirement to seek approval of the majority of registered voters may discourage redevelopment 12-7 May 15,2007, Item /2.. Page 8 of9 proposals. The Third Avenue Provision conflicts with two current Exclusive Negotiating Agreements. However, the intensity of development and overall development capacity within redevelopment areas is not substantially reduced by the proposed initiative. c. Financial cost of redevelopment of the Scripps Hospital-No redevelopment proposal has been submitted for the Scripps Hospital site at this time. Staff is aware of the need for hospitals to achieve compact, vertical design that may require building heights in excess of that allowed by the Citywide Provision. Such design would be prohibited without approval of the majority of registered voters. d Employment - The Citywide Provision would limit 234 acres that would currently allow buildings in excess of 84 feet in height. The height limitation would not significantly restrict the intensity of development on these parcels. Development intensity in the Excepted Areas would be as currently envisioned by the General Plan. On the basis of these facts, it does not appear that the proposed initiative would prevent the City from substantially achieving the employment goals and development projections contained in the General Plan. e. Affordable Housing - No current residential zoning is affected by the Citywide Provision. The proposed initiative does not restrict residential development densities or capacities. The highest density areas of the City are within the Excepted Areas. The proposed initiative indicates that it is not intended to conflict with affordable housing provisions, and density bonus provisions of the Government Code are expected to apply. f Community Character - The proposed initiative places key character-driving development locations within its Excepted Areas. There may be effects associated with the Third Avenue Provision on the feasibility of new development in that area, but the resultant effect on community character is unclear. g. Preventing inconsistent projects prior to the Municipal Election -- Nothing in the proposed initiative would restrict development projects seeking approval and commencing construction prior to the June 2008 election. An interim control could be referred to staff by the Council as a separate matter. Projects with the potential to exceed the limitations of the proposed initiative would require discretionary review and notice, and would be subject to City Council action either as a matter of course or through appeal. h. Bayfront Master Plan - As discussed above, the Bayfront Master Plan lies within the Bayfront Planning Area, which is one of the Excepted Areas. Thus, building in excess of the Citywide Provision limitation in that area would not be subject to approval by the majority of registered voters. 12-8 May 15,2007, Item 12- Page 9 of9 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and, consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section I 8704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMP ACT The cost to include the measure on the June 3, 2008 ballot is estimated at $35,000. Future applicants, or the City, would be required to pursue a ballot proposition and face a similar expense, should amendments to the General Plan for the purpose of exceeding the height be proposed. Municipal Code amendments may be required to achieve consistency with the proposed initiative, at a cost to the General Fund. The increment of lost development capacity for parcels on Third Avenue could affect the feasibility of projects on seven parcels and would be inconsistent with two current Exclusive Negotiating Agreements, resulting in a potential loss of tax increment revenues. It is difficult to quantify the potential for fiscal impact based on lost opportunities that might result from the Citywide Provision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Text of the Proposed Initiative 2. City Attorney's Summary 3. Maps of Areas of Applicability ofInitiative Provisions 4. Table of Height Limitations by Zone Prepared by: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director, Planning and Building Department 12-9 PETITION FOR SUBMlSSION TO VOTERS PROTECTION OF GENERAL PLAN THROUGH VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN CHANGES AND DESIGNATION OF HEIGHT LIMITS Section 1. Purpose and Findinl!s - Protection of overlv intensive development and taller buildinl!s This ordinance is intended to protect Chula Vista residents from the traffic, visual, community character and infrastructure impacts from overly intensive development and taller buildings. The intention is to protect the General Plan, in effect as of December 13, 2005, by requiring voterapproval to increase allowable building heights above 84 feet in most areas of the city, and to set a building height limit of 45 feet on Third Avenue between E and G Streets. A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: The people of Chula Vista should have a voice in protecting the current General Plan against changes that will increase traffic congestion, reduce available parking and cause visual impacts from high rise developments in the wrong locations. The people of Chula Vista are also concerned about the protection of the character of the Third Avenue Village area, where over- development would also have visual, traffic and parking impacts. The current General Plan recognizes that high-rise buildings have a place in Chula Vista. They should be located where transportation systems have been built to serve them, and where existing neighborhoods will not be disrupted, displaced or overburdened. Under this initiative, the Bay Front Planning Area and other areas the current General Plan already designated as suitable for high-rise development would not be affected. Under this initiative, the voters would have a voice in protecting the current General Plan against changes that would adversely affect residents' quality of life. Section 2. Amendment of the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to add two provisions to read: Approval of Changes to Height Limits. Except as permitted under the Chula Vista General Plan Update as approved December 13, 2005, an amendment to the General Plan approved by the City Council which has the purpose or effect of increasing the allowable building height of development within any area to exceed 84 feet, such amendment, whether approved as a general plan change, specific plan, or by any similar action, ATTACHMENT 1 12-10 shall not take effect unless and until approved by a majority of the registered voters in the City at an election held in accordance with this ordinance. No voter approval shall be required for any General Plan changes affecting the Bayfront Planning Area, as identified in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan as amended and adopted in 1989. Protection of Third Avenue Village Notwithstanding any other provision of the Chula Vista General Plan, no building that is part of any development, in the Third Avenue Village, which fronts on Third Avenue between E Street and G Street shall exceed 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, the allowable height shall be calculated as an average above existing grade, and shall include garages and rooftop appurtenances. These items shall not apply to amendments which are necessary to comply with state or federal law Section 3. Imvlementation A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of this initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as an amendment thereto, except that if the four amendments permitted by State law for the calendar year in which it is approved have already been utilized for that year prior to the effective date of this initiative, this General Plan amendment shall be the first inserted into the General Plan on January I of the following year. Any provisions of City law inconsistent with the amendment inserted by this initiative shall be unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency. B. To ensure that the Chula Vista General Plan remains a meaningful and integrated planning document, the General Plan provisions adopted by the initiative shall prevail over any conflicting revisions to the General Plan adopted between the date of circulation and the date the amendments included in this initiative measure are adopted by the voters. C. In the event that the City Council approves a change, amendment or other land use decision which must, by the terms ofthis initiative, be approved by the voters of the City of Chula Vista in order to become effective, the City Council shall set. the matter for public vote. D. The City Council shall call any election required by this initiative for the next available general municipal election or may, in its discretion, set a special election. Section 4. Construction Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of any property. Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to require more than a simple majority vote for the adoption of this initiative or for the approval of any future measure required by this initiative. Nothing in this initiative shall be construed to interfere with rights to obtain 12-11 density bonuses under affordable housing laws or limit rights or entitlements under affordable housing laws. Section 5. Severability The provisions of this initiative measure shall not apply to the extent they violate state or federal laws. If any word, sentence, paragraph, subparagraph, section or portion of this initiative is declared to be invalid by a court, the remaining words, sentences, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sections and portions are to remain valid and enforceable. Section 6. Amendment or ReDeal This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters at a City election. Section 7. Effective Date Pursuant to the State of California Municipal Elections Code section 9217, if a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall beco me a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. 12-12 Initiative Measure to Be Submitted Directly to the Voters The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: Title: A Petition to Amend the General Plan by requiring voter approval to increase allowable building heights above 84 feet in most areas of the City and to set a building height limit of 45 feet on Third A venue between E and G Streets. Summary: This petition proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan in two ways. First, except as permitted under the General Plan as approved on December 13, 2005, an amendment to the General Plan which will have the purpose or effect of increasing the allowable building height within any area to exceed 84 feet will not be effective until approved by a majority of the registered voters in the City. This petition will not require voter approval for any General Plan changes affecting the Bayfront Planning Area as identified in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan as amended and adopted in 1989. Second, this petition proposes that no building that is part of any development in the Third A venue Village, which fronts Third A venue between E Street and G Street shall exceed 45 feet in height. This petition proposes that for the purposes of the section regarding Third Avenue, the allowable height shall be calculated as an average above existing grade, and shall include garages and rooftop appurtenances. The petition proposes that in the event that the City Council approves a change, amendment or other land use decision, which must, be the terms of this petition, be approved by the voters of the City of Chula Vista in order to become effective, the City Council shall set the matter for public vote. The petition provides that the Council shall call any election required by this initiative for the next available general municipal election or may, in its discretion, set a special election. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of this initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as an amendment thereto, except that if the four amendments permitted by State law for the calendar year in which it is approved have already been utilized for that year prior to the effective date of this initiative, this General Plan amendment shall be the first inserted into the General Plan on January 1 the following year. This initiative could only be amended or repealed by the voters at a City election. The above is a summary of the terms of the proposed petition prepared by the City Attorney as required by Elections Code section 9203; it does not reflect any legal analysis or opinion of the City Attorney concerning the proposed measure. ATTACHMENT 2 SDPUBISHAGERTY\337513.! 12-13 = ~ - ~ \ ~j ~ ~ )> -I ~"--- (") ::I: :s: m z -I c...J ~!/?- --~ ~~~ CITY OF CHULA VISfA Bayfront I Planning Area ~q lr ~~i~~t~r IF ~\\ ~- I L r: /V~ ~ J ~ -. ~ Y r-. --II J. r\;2 ~l-t= v9l '(1\Jt\ ~ \., ~ J 1= /, l r:: S:tJ,-;}~Tr.A "tl~~~.;'~1~ ~Wt~ ~ V,.r;r/ ~ Ji ? J-'-- III- o-C A"~ ;~'" '1-", ~~F=i5 ~ ,I /'- :;). ~IW ~~~~ c~ i'A ~\\:;~ f~~~ U "'" '-B,\ ~ ~...JJ A-f~"rI./~~~JIJ ~ ~F\"~~~~ 1> MEMShet J:{ Areao145'H l J~\?Y' ~C\~ .~_'d \ ad J \ 't~ ::"::I:;;'":~_'..At\'~::'~:~;:;;OD ~~~~ tmle:; k1 ~0>'>-Y ,111\- ~~ (~~~~A\Y'.7~-;::;~>-- ieJ~IQ~Bl~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Kf.:--~;:~~ --I' 10- ~ ~-::^di ! ~~~ ~ w~ lJ~ IP""" C- W~~ ~ ~ = 0'~~A; I.S -~ F';;: ~/i ~-1~ci ( .., ~, "'\1" :>";' 6! wA~,"'" ~" V 'D' ~ ~K-g~~(;~ ~ffC~/\/XlIIIV '~~,~) OW;';;" n_ pr;;:~ ,'l\::: ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 07 ~" Ir-:: Otay ::~::~;;;::'~"B \0 ~ ~~ ~ ~/J.\(\\~~ ~.Jl 0/ 't,\ ~ Lakes ~ ~.. -.\m\\\' ~~~ ~t ~ I ~ ~W ~ .:i?J" ( L ,"":I:..Ic'::J;; :'::1<.\11":\5:::1 a 1/Ji!i!Y)1- ~ 1 ~ . ~ "--' ~ f1- ED ~ Lj-- r ~ Ic1 nJJ =' f- ~\@ '\ q ~ "r(~\.. d _ _ "\~...- Io-Z\. 4S~ ~ ~ ~ Map of ~reas. P~rs~ant t? P~oposed 1~;~~~:~:C;tYB,""d'~ iiS:~~:~~;'~~d;;~;;::~~~:: A Height Limitation Initiative ,,~~~e;:;~:I~~:~~~:ee;t~~~~~::~rSIOriaS) ~~~~J~ h.lplano,nglbldghtslocalloomap.apr laYOlllcltywldemap 04.24.07 c.).! . . '\""\':-\ '\ ~I \.,-\. \v\: \. .1' I/'Y' ,. ._1'1\' " ,\..4 ' ...\ ' ' .,y.~"'r ..' ...---/_1"--\ \. " \. \ \ _>..c_~"I/i ' IV, \/,-,V //" I \ , 1.,1 . \_\~\--'\ \\- \. .\.\-\_;\" \\ \11 ,i i ,,' \\ \ \\1 \In ! r, \ "," ( ( " , \ ,', \ U>'" / /,rl I r! \ , ,,(,!I I I ' (y\.~1 i <,ii(",!'I'" , , , . .' \<\_~\,.,.;\._~/;;~\_~\-.-,\."<~,\ti",,i'-i ~:Jj \\'\\ \ \v\.)...\,~.~grt'i----.. I'll C\ \;:>'r-\,"~\ \. j..}.',..~1;.., ,,/1" _ /.,.__1/ \ \ \\' ,,,;.../( I" (I ,', ,( , , ' , ,I"" ;/" ,\ ,r,\--<--~' 'I ; _~ ~,.4, \ \. \. \_. _ ___\.--.-;.--'f.>"i ... (\.______.--~ \.,x~/,\vI"\ I' . .~, ,::":,.,..---,,, _/.. \ \.--------(-------: ") \ ^y'n. .'1' '\ ,', . I I" . ..1 v' 'I'" ' ' \ ,,, I ' ,I ,/>:. /, \ /' /," 'A').( I'" .c. ) 1'.11'''.' \ \ \..J..>,lj)./ ,<~ 1'.\ \\...\.'1.."1:::\"\ \.:>\1':':\ ~'1/1\';;,I/::'\/\.( ':A I .IJ,\,'.-t-"'\ \ 1\' >u..'/)...\';;\ICI'\'I \ ';J,'! \ll\r(<\'! 'j!" \/\>0 !r\/I"~/ .;'...~ \ \ 1\ \ \. / ,-. ,," '.'." \ , . >",."'" "./ .\. ' . /'." I '1,''"''/ ...., ., y'l '1'....//.' /\ \, I \ / 'j \\ \, \ \ J-_.\--\,---'--"\- \\ \. j }__--'\ \~~\ \, 'Z.~/\\--.iiJ)\\,v,\' \,/<\ 1/1<1 '/l\ '\ I \ ,., ~". I' YV' , ,eye,,"" ,r' ..' /.,. " y>..\.\C/\I..\,~~'0../.\.,.!,~V/I c""r0~~'. 'c. ' ~I'v..\:&.,l\/ {I;.'\ \/.~. /\. C,\"./\.,.:::'/.' ,/c,/\/". ""C'0,.. I; Cy,.....",.C" I..,"' /\' >, <"I \ I I >.~\ /-'co.\' I; ..I IV ,/-;.0 I , ,/-1, I//'v// C" ~ "'"0. r/ \.\' I" \ I; I \.(.I~/\/\. ~\..-.v\ c.;'v. /\"G\--=_~:"\..'.-----\. ,~::Jr\j \.--J--/.)..../ ,/.,/.\.-/~,. I~. r~\,\\,\~~)..\1\ \ \ \e,I! )') ,,'r ".\.'C'C\ '~--=:-\t . \/..../. /I'~'~.\..\i'f,.. .~~~.. \Y'::A.. '.::::..'1,.,,-1 I I./J"/..' ._/.,......",.c' \'"'11/1\ "I . I ,I..,.) 1;:..---1 I; 'I ,/' "Cd ,. \,0)\1' /r" ",'\'\ ,y \,", ,'CJ C\,/"(-\"\../:'i: ..1' . \/.;;-"C., ,~\..\....\}..~. /s~c<:)"\/\"'\'\\' I \,\"' ..I.',,'. ~cv.""" ' ' . . /\/-\ , , .(' \"''''' V y ",el \ '" \ ,rr, \rY'5."/r~\ I y' 'y.,\! /1 \ I,\\I\\,"~':(\\I\!'\VI \~\\\W;\\j C;::i{)t\ I.;J;"(\~" "\ \/'; \;-'c '\1" \ \.\;' \ \'Wv;1 II 1,1' \. \.\,,~li',<1 \)\,\11;"\ \\,V. \I\Il\ I \ ' ,\ Jr.\ \/ 'rA')' \rr<, "II,,' I' \,\ '/''f'' Ie "l eV; . :':" \ \ ,\C'.) \)'~'\\'i\!\ ""\. \,)f,,"\I \ \ \ li\> I ;i"' C'l I . ," 'r ,1")""- ( \) (," 1\' ' I ,,/" 'y\'" ,,~ II" " ' ~'''c'' fi{,iif.fsf', \ \ IV .;\1t~'\ \ " ~,\!I\', ,,)'II, "I" '\ \1,\\1 I'\\l' \\\\\\\' IT 'Y~I '~i'. ;-"'\'\\ I; \/ J...v--' .......\,"1 \ '. \,/~j-}o<\'\\" i r---::7/...--\ .. c'{ff\(" ,,' 1!, ~,\") IVY' ./ y,' ,. \,\J-J '''''A .," (" I" 1:':\,:='\ 'V;~I~"'\~IW\{,:ui\\\\ \,(::::f'\/ /\\I/;::::\/..~.. r.::::~ ,<\ \t~~Y\"\\~\01 \' / ~/-I I I' , ' u/ C' \ I \1' \I \')' , ..' I I ,\ ,'- -\ ' .) '//1 ,,j .\...\.;..;';':;c.(\," '(I' ,,/ 'r. 1/ ,,0," \/" "'" '" II \ \---,"1"'" I ' I , ' \ ,...' \...J.-~ ~,c/ " /"'------' V\../-cl/---- N' .-' ~ ' W)o~' ~ ""'-';ill-' , ' // \' ~ /~\ \'i-.)-~c'3.0"c".!';!\I.\I'. I ).../\.........:/' ~ ,/e7 ". . I}; /.1.-----:\ " ,,' n ,II \ \i)V I .: \ -~ ,,/c \~)V(/I ("'\ .:\cl \...v;:::-....-y <( , I ~/ I: -+'iV ill \ , ! I IC\,:> , ~~~\ \. ' ...~. 'PIO/\ \1 \ 'r'./\,.......\ .v/......\ <(0::: / / //~. ,,{ii, \ \ ". ,vi ' ~/i' \/\::C\"'\ ,,",,,!~ (, ,0\(\'(\\\;\)\\\\((\(\' I ,) ( , \ 0:::;, ~'i\ \~ >- \ge:~,,;\\/ \//\" 1'\\ ,.\ " . I..v'/ ,. \./\'"1 \-C.\I .~ V '. \ \G"'..""- 'j:}.~ 11!J;; 00:::: ~ ", ' ,..y/ .../"" \ II I ' / ~ \ . ~ ..:: _ \"'-)j\" ,/,J,"'" 'I' ,/,/41 "", ( "~' \,/' '1./' ,II \ , , , , \/\ I'\'\' 'I ~\ ",I/'j"':" , ,;,,' <1";: 1:> \5,1\' c\:C' \\~\;:\:)~:\\'rr \ \ \ ~/\; \~) V:: CJ ~ ~i{~/\\\Cn\" \ C\~\'\I'\(\W \ \ \ ~ri ,I 'h,,:! \:1 !J!:;; I': ""II "r' ,y,,,,,, I I " I 'I,ii.1l" , .~\ - 0 '\\~\I.,\1'1\\:.),,\!\\'f('\\\::'\ I \ \//\ "*",\'iI 1\\ ~ ~ ~ "-,,,,\': \, "I)" \\' \\ I II />//1\" I ,51 \~ / 'OC 1\'0\\,\\%\1\ .''1....\1\ \:\ '~\II\\j' ';' / r \ \,\ I ,<>\ \\~\ W'" I II \c~.';\1 "1'..// ,,'\'\'\\"'I~' ,\...J.,/~ 1'"( \1\ I I\,- \/ :::>....J , 'C\y\l CY' ,-1\",1 II ,\ II ' 0/ zZ \ \2r~/:C/ c//./" C \ \ ,:c.\ \ I \ I ' . / . I \.y).. "i -:-,\/ ,"e.'..' ./.,.,\.,.\;;_'.\ ...' 'yrl\ I r'\, 1;' ' \:,......-:-:.:.\ ~0~~~~~\\ \' ,'I" ill ill .... /...,r\\\I'\ 1<< \/\, ,,\\....c.....1 \ ./1:. -I ::\C-\/ > \ I I' /' \ ,,\/1\ I \\ 'I",,;';,.:. ., \', ,<I!"'" 1/ <( , \ \t,~I\I\\!;'\'(\:\ \\'\1\\1\\'\ \ f"r\'\/ \~\<:~ ~J::~\' 0 ~ I;:J,.':>.:~\ I".'\\'..'.CI';;,' \.\'../\ 'I,:, \1\\\ \ 'Ue~j /'~:'>'^\' / ~\~\:.::''':':' . ,\ '~~I;\ ~\-.:'\'~ 0::: ~ )~.~~__/\.\,.\.V.:\0:>k.'~\.'~: C~..\J~\JfI'\:\\'\ \ \ '~:,\ \\"~/ ,,/' ~\ . ..,..-,}.C \, \~ \\\\\:j~,Y ~ i ''''{~' "" \H"~"" '."" 1\ I", ~,y\ ~/ \tl~:P~~ '~\".\ \,,' \ \\~rD.",,)J,\ 't'\\ \"1 I '. \ (0\/\ \ q;slji. t::.A- ,I '::::Ic \' I,,' ~ ",.", ,I' I~~\/ C..-\ \\0.~\.\..." ~>-/ '\'1/ /' 1\ \-/+\:.'1\ \~ , i./\ 1 _,/,,...nO ~/_____-"\ \//_____~?~--\-<\"\ \\ g, /~ C,..,"\~, '. C,':.,-"'\ v' e\// ~//"\ ,.. , I , , I ,\ \~ \/,,\'1 I \ I '.. \ \,/j,.".-"'-. .-...--------\ -' . ,e' 0-'\ I I I \..\).)... I~~, n\\\\/ \ \//..1' 12 15 .. c, \.....-c'\ Att-Au..i'" - 'd'\~N.' .3 \-,.:'.-->- <zo =~ 00 ZZ ~ ~:~ E c:l~ _$ ',,2' :c: U5~ .:=: !:!:I..~ ~ 0'" o :2"'l" _ 00 i 8~ ..c <>>n 01 ~ ~~ r5 ~ ~~ ~DI ,.; I ~I:(ll o~ E 'l11 ~I/~:S J1 ( II/V;;' 9 :I: ~ u ~ :^ " Table of Height Limitations by Zone City of Chnla Vista ZONE CITE MAX. HT. LIMIT ATIONS/ ADJUSTMENTS AG 19.20.060 35 Feet RE 19.22.060 28 Feet R-l 19.24.060 28 Feet R-2 19.26.060 28 Feet R-3 (-M, -T, -G) 19.28.060 45 Feet With DRC Approval R-3 (-H) 19.28.060 46 Feet CoO 19.30.060 45 Feet CB 19.32.060 None 45' if adjacent to R or CoO Zones CN 19.34.050 35 Feet CC 19.36.050 None 45' if adjacent to R or CoO Zones CV 19.38.050 45 Feet May be adjusted by CUP CT 19.40.050 45 Feet May be adjusted by CUP IR 19.42.040 45 Feet May be adjusted by CUP 19.42.070 35 Feet Wit1rin 200' of Residential IL 19.44.040 45 Feet May be adjusted by CUP 19.44.070 45 Feet May be reduced if detrimental I 19.46.060 None 50 Feet if within 200' of Residential PC Ch. 19.48 None Height limits determined by PC District Regulations through SPA. ATTACHMENT 4 12-16 05-15-2007 05:20pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 4157327701 T-433 P.00I/009 F-267 )".<. ',.:'S<";.'.:,;:,..:::<:'.'........, ,..,-: .THg QUONLAW,F1RM. l5.. ..........cc.. ,',.".. '........:,..". l~O ProM Srre~!, Suite 4DS !I SlI.n fTllnds.:o, r.r\ 'J4JU8 Te!: 415/('32-7700 ill; Folx: 4 L5f/32-7iOl iii W\1w_':::Jmp~ign!;1h')'~r.'l.corr. FAX COVER SHEET May 15, 2007 TO: Honorable Cheryl Cox, 619/476-5379 Mayor - City of Chula Vista cc: COUDcilmember Castaneda, 619/476-5379 Councilmember McCann, 619/476-5379 Councilmember Ramirez, 619/476-5379 Councilmember Rindone, 619/476-5379 City Attorney Ann Moore, 619/409-5823 City Clerk Susan Bigelow, 619/585-5774 FROM: James Sutton, Esq. Please See attached. J 0 pages total IRS/dfm #1015.01 THI$I CORRESPONDENCE 15CONFrDEHTlALAND MAY Jilt LEGAL.LVPRfVILEIiED, lFYOU H....VIE. R~CEIVED IT IN eRROR, YOU ARE ON NOTICJ'.: TO NOT COP'" IT, USE; IT FOR ANY PURP05ES, OR DISCLOSE n-s: CDNT'E;NT5, TO ANY OTHIlR P~IUiON; TO DO SO COULD YIOLA.TE; STATE AND FEDE;RA1., PRIVACY ~'Ws. IF YOU HAVIi: RECIUVIl.D 'rI1IS CORRESPONPIi:NCB: IN EftROR, Pu;ASE NOTIFY lJS IMME.DIA.TJ:LV AND T...~ DELE"I"E; OR DESTROY IT. T.......NK YOU FOR veU,Q eoo".Ii:RAT10N. 05-15-2001 05:20pm FrDm-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 4151321701 T-433 P.002/009 F-261 ~. ;'~'-"C '. ~~.,":.. ":"I~."" :,",;" ;..~:....: ....JIo';"...."~,.:~.~..i':"..:, ....~.:.... ._:.....~:' ,:",' ".,1;.; :"::,' May 15, 2007 VIA FAX ONLY The Honorable Cheryl Cox Mayor City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 RE: Height Umit Initiative Dear Mayor Cox: Our law firm represents opponents of the proposed initiative regarding permissible building height limits in the City of Chula Vista. We are writing to urge the City Council to reject the proposed initiative today as illegal because the proponents failed to comply with statutory requir=ents under the California Ejections Code to publish the "title and summary" of initiative petitions in a newspaper of general circulation. Because the initiative failed to comply with these procedures, it violates state law and does not qualify for the June 3,2008 ballot. State law clearly requires proponents of local initiatives to publish the title and summary of the measure prepared by the City Attorney in a "newspaper of general circulation" before the petitions are circulated among voters for signatures. (Cal. Elec, Code sections 9205 & 9207 [all further statutory references are to California Elections Code]; Ibarra v. City of Carson (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 90.) It is undisputed that the title and summary of the height limit initiative was only published in La Prensa. a local news publication. As the enclosed memorandum from the City Attorney's office dated February 28, 2007 confirms, La Presna does not qualify as a "newspaper of general circulation" under state law for purposes of this publication requirement. Accordingly, the requirements of section 9205 have tlOt been met for this proposed initiative, and the City Clerk erroneously certified the proposed measure for the June 3 ballot. A court case directly on point provides that a violation of these publication requirements prevents a proposed initiative from qualifying for the ballot. In the Ibarra case, the court determined that any signatures obtained on initiative petitiotls are void and illegal 150 Post Street, Suite 405 . Tel: 4151732-7700 . Fax: 4151732-7701 San Francisco, CA 94108 . www.carnpaignJawyers.com 05-15-Z007 05:Z0pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 41573Z7701 T-433 POOI/OOg F-267 Ii.... ','iT. 'U".',':""':..,:::'. 'i.""" '. THE .TIONLAW,FIRM '. [~"">"o">"' '. ~""::"""'''':'~-:'''''':-'':::'''''''':''''':':''''''~;;' J~O p{>!'{ Sue~!, Suite 4115 !I Sa.n ftnncis':(J, Cr\ 1.)41U8 Tcl: 415/i3:!.1100 ... Fax: <llSf732-7iOl .IIi W\;,w.':::Jmpllicn!;1h'}'Ch_COm FAX COVER SHEET May 15, 2007 TO: Honorable Cheryl Cox, 619/476-5379 Mayor - City of Chula Vista cc: Councilmember Castaneda, 619/476-5379 CounciImember McCann, 619/476-5379 Councilmember Ramirez, 619/476-5379 CounciImember Rindone, 619/476-5379 City Attorney Ann Moore, 619/409-5823 City Clerk Susan Bigelow, 619/585-5774 FROM: James Sutton, Esq. Please see attached. J 0 pages total IRS/dfm #1015.01 THJ5 CORRESPONDENCE; ISCONFJDBHTIALAHD MAY !'IE LE'GALLYPRIVILECi~. IFYOU H^V~ R~C::EIV.ED rTlN E:RROR. YOU AR!!: ON HanCI": TO NOT COPY [T, USE; rr FOR ANY PURPOSES, OR OISCLOS~ n-s CONT~ TO ANY OTHRR P~RGDN; TO DO so COULD VIOLA~ STATE. AIIID FEDE:RA1., PRIVACY LAWS;. IF YOU HAVJi RECRIYEtI "1"111$ CORRESPONPENCE IN ERROR, P~E NOTIFY LIS IMM~'''T~Y AND T"~ DEL.E:TE: OR DESTROY IT. THANK YOU FOR vou,. .c=:OOP'ERATlON. 05-15-Z007 05:Z0pm From-THE SUTTON lAW FIRM 4157327701 T-433 P.00Z/009 F-Z67 May 15, 2007 VIA FAX ONLY The Honorable Cheryl Cox Mayor City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 RE: Height limit Initiative Dear Mayor Cox: Our law firm represents opponents of the proposed initiative regarding permissible building height limits in the City of Chula Vista. We are writing to urge the City Council to reject the proposed initiative today as illegal because the proponents failed to comply with statutory requirements under the California Elections Code to publish the "title and summary" of initiative petitions in a newspaper of general circulation. Because the initiative failed to comply with these procedures, it violates state law and does not qualify for the June 3, 2008 ballot. State law clearly requires proponents of local initiatives to publish the title and summary of the measure prepared by the City Attomey in a "newspaper of general circulation" before the petitions are circulated among voters for signatures. (Cal. Elec. Code sections 9205 & 9207 [all further statutory references are to California Elections Code]; Ibarra v. City of Carson (1989) 214 Cal,App.3d 90.) It is undisputed that the title and summary of the height limit initiative was only published in La Prensa, a local news publication. As the enclosed memorandum from the City Attorney's office dated February 28,2007 confirms, La Presna does not qualif'y as a "newspaper of general circulation" under state law for purposes of this publication requirement. Accordingly, the requirements of section 9205 have not been met for this proposed initiative, and the City Clerk erroneously certified the proposed measure for the June 3 ballot. A court case directly on point provides that a violation of these publication requirements prevents a proposed initiative from qualifying for the ballot. In the Ibarra case, the court determined that any signatures obtained on initiative petitions are void and illegal 150 Post Street, Suite 405 . Tcl:4151732-7700 . Fax: 415/732-7701 San Francisco, CA 94108 . www.campaignJawyers.com 05-15-2007 05:20pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 4157327701 T-433 P.003/009 F-257 Mayor Cheryl Cox May 15, 2007 Page 2 unless the proponents have first complied with the:: publication requirements under section 9205. (Ibarra, 214 Cal.App.3d at 95-96.) Because La Prensa does not qualify as a newspaper of general circulation, the publication requirements for the heighT limit initiative have not been met. As such, the City Clerk erroneously certified the signatures submitted by the proponents in support of this initiative because they arc all illegal and void. The City Clerk also erroneously certified to the City Council that the proposed initiative complied with the procedural requirements of the California Elections Code. As courts have explained, the City Clerk has a duty not to certify documents submitted in support of a proposed initiative unless they comply with the requirements under state law. (Myers v. Patterson (1987) 196 Ca1.App.3d 130, 136.) Because the City Clerk erroneously and illegally certified the petitions submitted to place this initiative on the June 3 ballot, we strongly urge the City Council to reject the proposed measure today and protect the integrity of the initiative process. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this matter. :Jdf-"'1'~ es R. Sutton cc: City Councilmember Castaneda City Council member McCann City Councilmember Ramirez City Councilmember Rindone Ann Moore, City Attorney Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Enclosure JRS/dfm #1015.01 05-15-200T 05:21pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 4157327701 T-m P 004/009 H6T MEMORANDUM OF LA W DATE; February 28, 2007 TO: Councilmember Steve Castaneda FROM: Sharon Marshall, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Newspapers of General Circulation MEMORANDUM OF LAW QUESTION PRESENTED What newspapers in the City of Chula Vista currently meet the requirements to be a newspaper of general circulation, such that they qualify to publish all legal notices of the City? SHORT ANSWER The basic rules for approval by the court as a ncwspaper of general circulation found in Government Code section 6000 require that a newspaper provide local and telegraphic news of general interest, havc a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and be established, printed, and published at regular intervals in the city where official advertising is to be given or made for at least one year before seeking approval by the coun as a newspaper of general circulation. Government Code section 6008 provides alternative qualification requirements by eliminating the printing requirement, but increasing the time requirement to three years. It also adds a requirement that the newspaper have only one principal office of pubJication and that office is in the city in which it is seeking adjudication. BACKGROUND Chula Vista City Charter section 313 mandates that rhe City do an annual Request for Proposals [RFP), inviting bids for the publication of all legal notices the City is required to publish. However, [he Charter also provides that if there is only one "newspaper of general circulation" as that term is defined in the Government Code, the RFP process may be waived and the newspaper can be designated as the City's official newspaper. In 1997, by Resolution Number 18793, the City Council waived thc RFP requirement and 05-15-2007 05:21pm From-THE SUTTON lAW FIRM 4157327701 T-m POOS/OOg H67 COl1I\cilmember Steve Castaneda February 28, 2007 Page 2 I I designated The Star News as the City's official newspaper for purposes of publishing the City's legal notices. The Scar News has been the official City paper since that time. Currently, only the Star News meets the requirements to be approved as a newspaper of general circulation. However, should La Prensa, or any other newspaper, fulfilJ the requirements of eithet Government Code section 6000 or 6008, the City would be required to rescind the official newspaper designation for The Scar News and rebid the conmct on an annual basis as required by Charter section 313. Subsequently, the editor of La Prensa newspaper submitted a letter to the City Manager indicating that it, too, is a newspaper of general circulation for the City, and submitted a copy of the court order adjudicating it as a newspaper of general circu1atjon for the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, and the San Diego Judicial District to support his assertion that La Prensa is a qualified newspaper for publishing official notices for the City. La Prensa is not printed in the City of Cbula Vista and its principal publication office is in National City. La Prensa asked that an RFP be issued so it might bid on the contract for tbe publication of legal notices for the City. AJI the requirements regarding official notices and publications are curremly in the California Government Code. Previously, however, the identical sections were found in the California Political Code. For purposes of this Memorandum, unless specifically noted, all references are to the Government Code. ANAL YSIS The statutory framework for the qualification of newspapers of general circulation is set forth in Govemment Code sections 6000 through 6027. The basic requirements for court approval or adjudication are that the paper; (I) publisb local or telegraphic news and imelJigence of general character; (2) have a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; and, (3) be established, printed, and published at regular intervals in the state, city, or county wbere the official notices are to be published for at least one year preceding the date of adjudication. Ca!. Gov't Code ~ 6000. The courts have said: [TJhe purpose of the statute is the qualification of newspapers to which the general public will res on in order to be informed of the news and inte1ligence of the day and tbereby to render it probable [hat notices and official advertising published in the newspaper will be brought to the attention of the general public. 05-15-200r 05:21pm From-THE SUTTON lAW FIRM 415r!2TrOl T-4!! P.006/00i F-267 Councilmember Steve Castaneda February 28, 2007 Page 3 Lozano Enterprises v. Los Angeles Newspaper Services, 10 Ca!. App. 3rd 1012, 1016 (1970). Originally, Political Code section 4460 established the qualifications for newspapers of genera.! circulation and required newspapers be printed and published in the city seeking adjudication. Early court decisions interpreted the meaning of the words "printed and published" to mean that the paper be "produced in the community where it is aimed to bave it recognized as a legal advertising medium." In the Maller of D.D. McDonald, 187 Ca!. 158, 161 (1921). The court said it "would be giving too narrow a meaning to the word 'printed' to hold that these acts alone (setting up the type and making the impressions On paper) were contemplated by its use in the statute." McDonald at 161. However, in 1923, the Legislature added section 4463 to the Political Code, providing that '''. . . The word 'plinted' as used in said section (4460J shall mean, and be construed to mean, that the mechanical work of producing such a newspaper of general circulation, that is to say, the work of typesetting and impressing type on paper, shan have been performed during the whole of the period as designated and required by said section.''' Petilions o/Herald Publishing, 152 Cat App. 2d 901, 905 (1957). "The court concluded that by the enactment of section 4463 the Legislature expressly intended to overcome the effect ofrhe McDonald case. . . ." Herald Publishing at 906. Subsequent cases reinforced the Herald coun:'s conclusion that by adding section 4463 the legislature intended that both the mechanical process of priming the paper and the publication of the paper must occur in the city in which the newspaper seeks adjudication. Fina!ly, courts have said that, "[A]lthough a newspaper printed and publishcd in one city may not qualify as a newspaper of general circulation for another city, it does qualify as a newspaper of general circulation for the county in which it is both 'printed' and 'published'." Western Stales Newspapers Inc. v. Gehringer, 203 Cal. App. 2d 793, 797 (1962). Thus, based on the language currently found in Government Code section 6000, the printing and publishing requirement is mandatory and may not be waived. Two intervening factors need to be considered in reaching the determination of whether or not a newspaper meets the requirements to be approved by the court as a newspaper of general circulation. The first factor was implemented in 1923, at the same time the Legislature enacted the language specifica!ly defining "printed." Political Code section 4465 (now Government Code section 6006) Was added, which provided, "[N]othing in this chapter alters the sranding of any newspaper which, prior to the passage of Chapter 258 of the Statutes of 1923, was atl established newspaper of general circulation, irrespective of whether it was printed in the place where it was published for a period of one year as required." Thus, any newspaper determined to be a newspaper of general circulation prior to 1923 maintained its status. This exemption has been cballenged as being unconstitutional because the exemption allegedly arbitrarily discriminates against7newspapers established after 1923. In rejecting the constitutional challenge. the court, 05-15-2007 05:21pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIR~ 4157327701 T-433 P 007/009 H67 Coul1cilmember Steve Castaneda February 28, 2007 Page 4 cmng a previous Supreme Court case addressing the same issue, said it is not "'unreasonable to exact certain requirements of a newspaper to be established in the furure which are not required of those long established and which have proved their right to exist by full compliance with all the laws in force at the time of their establishment. .,. Whitehead Donovan Corp. v. Herald Publishing Company, 62 Ca!. 2d 185, 187 (1964), citing In re Byers, 219 Ca!. 446, 450 (1933). In 1951, a caveat was added that limited the exemption provided by section 6006 to those newspapers that had not altered their city of printing or publication since the effective date of the Act in 1923. This caveat was subsequently repealed in 1961, and the original language preserving a pre-I 923 newspaper's status was reinstated without limitation. The Slar News was established as a newspaper in 1919 (see attachment) and was printed and published in the City of Chula Vista at that time. It thus falJs witbin the exemption provided by section 6006 and need not meet the printed and published requirement found in section 6000. It also meeLs the remaining requirements of having a bona fide subscription list and has been established for more than the requisite one-year period. The second factor was the addition, in 1974, of Government Code section 6008. The legislature realized the requirements of section 6000 were severely limiting in an era in which newspapers printed in one city may be distributed in territories covering much larger areas, such as the Union Tribune or Los Angeles Times. To address the issue, the legislature enacted section 6008, which provides alternative requirements for newspapers unable to meet the printing and publishing requirements of section 6000. In section 6008. the onerous provision that the newspaper be printed and published in the city where it seeks adjudication was replaced by a less burdensome requirement that the newspaper maintain its principal office in the city of adjudication. However, other requirements were increased. The rable below compares the requirements of the two statutes. Gov't Code S 6000 Reauirements Gov't Code S 6008 Reauirements . Bona fide subscription list of paying . Substantia! distribution to paid subscribers subscribers . Printed and published at regular . One principal office of publication in intervals in the city whcre tbe city seeking adjudication publication is to be given . EstabIished for the whole of a three- · Established at least one year preceding year period the date of the adj udieation 05-15-Z00T 05:Zlpm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM 415T3Z7701 T-m P 008/009 F-Z6T Councilmember Steve Castaneda February 28, 2007 Page 5 The enaC1I!1ent of section 6008 raised twO additional areas of dispute with respect to whether or not a newspaper qualifies as a newspaper of general circulation. The first question is the meaning of the pluase "a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the area in which it is seeking adjudication," Medeiros v. Soulh COllst Newspapers, 7 Cat. App. 4th 982, 986 (1992). In Medeiros, the ratio of paid subscribers to inhabitant$ was about 1.48 percent. Medeiros first argued this amount should be increased to include newsstand sales. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Legislature originally considered language that required only "a substantial distribution in the area in which it is sold or distributed" (Medeiros at 986), but later changed the phrase to "a substantia1 distribution to paid subscribers in the area in which it is seeking adjudication." Id. Based on the pre-enactmem legislative history, the court said "j t is evidem the legislature did not intend to include newsstands in the substantial distribution requirement." Id. In Medeiros, the court also determined that the relevant standard for determining distribution was population rather than the number of households. Final1y, the coul1 stated thai, "[s]tanding alone, 1.48 percent is too small a number to be declared to be substantia]," Medeiros at 986. The coun went on to say, however, that if all other papers in the area had a similar percentage of population to paid subscribers, 1.48 percent might be considered substantial. Id. The final issue to be resolved by the courts was whether a substantial distribution requirement should be read into the language of section 6000, which, as enacted, only requires a "bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers." This issue was raised by the San Diego Transcript in In re San Diego Commerce, 40 Cal. App.4th 1229 (1995). The coun flatly rejected the Transcript's argument and stated: [T]here is no case authority whalsoever for the proposition urged upon us by Transcript, that sections 6000 and 6008 must despite their differing language be read to contain the same 'substantial distribution' requirement. What Transcript truly requests is for this intermediate appellate court to engage in judicial amendment of a legislative act, because such an act is, in the view of Transcript, necessary to achieve harmony with some underlying 'poJicy.' Sueh judicial actions have been often criticized by appellate courts themselves. We have no general power to rewrite statutes to conform to some underlying 'policy.' As a rule, there can be 110 intent in a statute not expressed in its words; the intention of the Legislature must be determined from the language of the statute. San Diego Commerce at 1235, citing Woodland Joint Unified School Disl. v. Commission on Professional Compelence, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1429,1451 (1992). 05-15-2007 05:22pm From-THE SUTTON LAW FIRM .- 4157327701 T-433 P.OOI/OOI F-267 Councilrnember Steve Castaneda February 28, 2007 Page 6 La Prensa does not meet the requirements of either Government Code section 6000 or 6008. It is not printed and published in Chula Vista as required by Section 6000. Nor was it established before 1923, which would make La Prensa eligible for the exemption of Section 6006. Finally, La Prensa does not have its one principal office in the City. However, nothing prohibits La Pre/lSa from establishing itself in the City so that it may meet the requirements of section 6008 and seeking court approval as a newspaper of general circulation for the City at a later date. CONCLUSION The courts have strictly construed the provisions of Government Code sections 6000 and 6008, and have declined to read any additional requirements into the specific language of the statute. Given the courts' construction of the relevant statutory provisions, there is currently only one newSpaper that qualifies as a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Chula Vista, thus no bid process is required under Charter section 313. However, should La Prensa establish at a later date that it meets the requirements of 6008 the provisions of Charter section 313 would apply. Therefore, we conclude the City mll$t go out to bid if La Prenso establishes it meets the requirements of Government Code section 6008. Sharon A. Marshall Senior Assistant City Attorney SAM:ccm Atta~hment cc: Cheryl Cox, Mayor Suzanne Brooks, Senior Procurement Specialist, Finance Department Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .:~Y!f:. CITY OF """~ CHULA VISTA 5/15/07, Item~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) ENTITLED "ALL SEASONS PARK (PR279)" AND AMENDING THE FY07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION APPROVING A DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL SEASONS PARK, LOCATED IN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 7 NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: DIRECTOR OF GENERAL S~VICES ~&-. INTERIM CITY MANAGER j1 4/5THS VOTE: YES [gJ NO D BACKGROUND The City Council previously approved by Resolution No. 2006-294 the Master Plan for All Seasons Park, which conceptually designed and provided for the construction of a completed and fully functional 7.6-acre park. On June 17, 2003 the Council approved a resolution establishing a Design-Build Priority List excluding fire facilities to be used in awarding Design-Build contracts for future City projects. On February 28, 2007 an RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued to all of the Design-Build firms on the Priority List to prepare proposals for the design and construction of a completed and fully functional 7.6-acre park, All Seasons Park. The resolution before council this evening will establish the project and award Erickson-Hall Construction Co. a Design Build Agreement for the provision of services required to design and construct All Seasons Park and appropriate funds to a capital improvement project (PR 279) that will enable the design phase of the proj ect to commence and authorizing Mayor to execute said agreement. RECOMMENDATION 1. Council adopt resolution establishing a new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) entitled "All Seasons Park (PR279)" and amending the FY07 Capital Improvement Program. 2. Council adopt resolution approving a Design Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the design and construction of All Seasons Park, located in Otay 13-1 5/15/07, Item~ Page 2 of 5 Ranch Village 7 Neighborhood of the City of Chula Vista, appropriating funds therefor and authorizing Mayor to execute said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks & Recreation Commission approved the Master Plan for the Village 7 Neighborhood Park at their meeting of July 20, 2006 and also made the recommendation to Council that the name ofthe park be "All Seasons Park." DISCUSSION On February 28,2007, in accordance with Section 2.57 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City requested proposals from all the Design Build firms on the priority list for services to design and construct a fully functional 7.6-acre park, All Seasons Park. Two of the firms submitted proposals. They were PCL Construction Services, Inc. and Erickson-Hall Construction Co. Based on the proposals, Erickson-Hall Construction Co. was selected as the Design Builder with extensive construction experience for this type of project and who could best meet the City's development schedule, monetary and time criteria of the project. The D/B Team of Erickson-Hall Construction Co. and Deneen Powell Atalier, Inc. (DPA, Inc.) offers an excellent combination of design and construction expertise for this type of project. The City has been pleased with the work of Erickson-Hall Construction Co. and their ability to complete projects on time and on budget as demonstrated with the City's following capital improvement projects: Fire Station No. 4 addition, Fire Station No. 2 storage facility, Fire Station No.6 and most recently the completion of Harborside Park and Mountain Hawk Park. DP A, Inc. has previously completed landscape design of both Harborside Park and Otay Park for the City of Chula Vista. Other team members are Davy Architecture and Cherry Engineering. Both firms are very familiar with current City of Chula Vista park design requirements as well. DESIGN/BUILD Staff is recommending the City enter into an agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the provision of services required to design and construct All Seasons Park. The designlbuild process includes functions that are quite different from the designlbid/build process typically used for City construction projects. The designlbuild process employs a single entity, either a general contractor or an architect, which provides both design and construction services. In the typical scenario, a designlbuild oriented general contractor provides the design and construction services. Alternatively, an architectural firm may provide the design services and hire the general contractor on a consulting basis for the construction phase. In this later scenario, the architectural firm will be held responsible for all aspects of the project. In the case of All Seasons Park, the designlbuild process will place sole responsibility for delivery of the project upon Erickson-Hall Construction Co., a general contractor. Erickson-Hall Construction Co. will subcontract for the design and consulting services, and trade contracts during the construction phase. Generally utilization of a designlbuild process will provide savings in cost and time because the entire project is managed and constructed by a single entity, thereby eliminating the difficulties of dealing with multiple entities and overhead on one project. 13-2 5/15/07, Item-1.2- Page 3 of 5 The designlbuild process provides the City the flexibility to work with the best contractors in the County, as it does not necessarily require award to the lowest responsible bidder. PROJECT SCOPE AND CONTRACTUAL REOUIREMENTS As proposed, the DesignlBuild Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. will provide the City with a fully functional 7.6-acre park that will be located in the Otay Ranch Village 7 neighborhood and will provide service to residents of that community as well as other residents ofthe City. The scope of work includes but is not limited to the following: Design and construct for the City a fully functional 7.6-acre park as outlined in the "All Seasons Park, Approved Master Plan", dated February 10, 2004 (Master Plan). The park shall include, but not be limited to all components described in the Master Plan. The Project is located in the Otay Ranch Village 7 neighborhood, located on Magdalena Avenue in the City ofChula Vista. Erickson-Hall Construction Co. shall perform all services, work, and obligations as described necessary to provide a fully completed and functional Project, which shall include design services, general conditions and construction management for the not to exceed amount of $2,015,343. At 90% construction documents a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) will be established as part of the agreement, which will include, but not be limited to, the cost for all labor, equipment, and material to design and build a fully functional 7.6-acre park in accordance with all applicable building codes. Staff will return to Council for approval of the GMP. At that same time, staff will also request that Council appropriate the necessary funds from the Park Acquisition and Land Development Fund. CHANGE ORDERS Under the designlbuild process, change orders are handled differently than under the designlbid/build process. Change orders are only returned for Council approval if they exceed the approved GMP, or are for additional work requested by the City, which results in a significant change to the original scope. Otherwise, change orders are reviewed/approved by staff and the design builder. This practice is commonplace when using the designlbuild construction technique. PROJECT COMPLETION DATES Erickson-Hall Construction Co. has agreed and the contract reflects the following completion dates: . Substantial Completion: No later than June 27, 2008. Substantial Completion shall be that stage in the progress of the construction when all Work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can fully utilize entire Project; Substantial Completion shall further mean that all goods, services and systems to be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been initially tested, and 13-3 5/15/07, Item~ Page 4 of5 are operationally functional, subject only to final testing, balancing and adjustments and normal Final Completion punch list Work. . Final Completion shall occur at the conclusion of construction when all work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can fully occupy and utilize entire project; Final Completion shall further mean that all goods, services and systems be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been tested, and are operationally functional. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the previously adopted Village Seven Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Maps Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR #04-06). Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no such holdings within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the first resolution will establish a new capital improvement project (CIP) entitled "All Seasons Park (PR279)" amending the FY07 Capital Improvement Program. The second resolution will award a Design Build agreement to Erickson-Hall Construction Co. and appropriate $449,459 from the available balance of the Park Acquisition and Land Development fund to the new CIP, PR279 for expenditure. Erickson-Hall Construction Co. shall perform design services, general conditions, and construction management for the not to exceed amount of $349,459. This appropriation will provide the necessary funds to complete the design phase for the new All Seasons Park capital improvement project including the cost of preliminary geotechnical testing and City staff costs. The design phase costs are broken down as follows: Description Amount Design Builder design services, general conditions & construction management $349,459 City Oversight: Design Phase Staff Costs $75,000 Geotech/special inspection services $25,000 Total Design Phase Project Costs $449,459 At 90% complete construction documents a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) will be established as part of the agreement, which will include, but not be limited to, the cost for all 13-4 5/15/07, Item~ Page 5 of 5 labor, equipment, and material to design and build a fully functional 7.6-acre park in accordance with all applicable building codes. The total estimated Project costs are $2,450,000 and are broken down as follows: Master Plan; $50,000 (completed), Design and Construction; $2,015,343 and specialty consultants, utilities, fumitures fixtures and equipment, contingencies and staff time; $384,657. It should be noted that all PAD funds have been collected and are sufficient to cover the cost of the project. Staff will return to Council for approval of the GMP, which shall not exceed $2,015,343, once the construction documents reach 90% completion. At the same time, staff will request that Council appropriate additional funds from the Park Acquisition and Land Development Fund to construct the project. After the park is accepted for use by the City, future park maintenance costs for the public park will be paid through the City's General Fund and is estimated at $81,320 per year. ATTACHMENTS Design/Build Agreement Prepared by: Gordon Day, Sr. Building Project Supervisor and Merce LeClair. Sr. Administrative Analyst, General Services Dept. M:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\All Seasons Park\All Season Park DB Agrmt Award.doc 13-5 THE A TT ACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL ~ (!fPo/Jt.i-o ~ Ann Moore City Attorney Dated: 01 q /0;;"- Design Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the Design and construction of All Seasons Park 13-6 DESIGN/BUilD AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this 15h day of May, 2007, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (herein "City"), a municipal corporation, and Erickson-Hall Construction Co. ("Design Builder or D/B"). City and D/B are sometimes hereinafter referred to as Parties ("Parties"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the project, All Seasons Park, is a new facility to the City, and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, in an on-going effort to expand the services to the community, has planned for All Seasons Park located in the Otay Ranch Village 7 community of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Village Seven Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Maps Final Environmental Report (EIR #04-06). Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2003 Building and Park Construction issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Pursuant to 9 2.57 of the City's Municipal Code, Design Build services to design and construct needed City facilities, excluding fire facilities, and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2003 the Council approved a resolution establishing a Design-Build Priority List to be used in awarding Design-Build contracts for future City projects, excluding fire facilities, and WHEREAS, on February 28,2007, Pursuant to 9 2.57 of the City's Municipal Code, an RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued to seven Design-Build firms off the Priority List to present proposals, and WHEREAS, two respondents submitted proposals and based upon the review of each proposal, Design Builder was selected as the respondent who best met the design, monetary and time criteria of the project with whom City could negotiate an agreement; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein: THE PARTIES AGREE: Section 1: General Scooe of Work to Be Performed bv D/B 1 13-7 1.1 In accordance with the terms set forth in this Agreement and the RFQ for Design Build Services excluding Fire Stations and RFP for All Seasons Park (Exhibit 1), D/B shall design and construct for the City: a completed and fully functional neighborhood park. The park shall include, but not be limited to all components outlined and described in the attached document entitled All Seasons Park Master Plan (Exhibit 1) (referred to hereafter as "Projecf'). The Project is located in the Otay Ranch Village 7 community of the City of Chula Vista. 1.2 The services to be provided by D/B are generally to be performed in four "Phases"; the services to be provided in each Phase are specified elsewhere in this Agreement. The services provided by the D/B shall include, but not be limited to, all services outlined and described in this agreement and those within Exhibit 1. 1.3 The D/B shall: 1.3.1 Perform all services, work and obligations as described herein for the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), which shall include Design Services and General Conditions necessary to provide a fully completed and functional Project. D/B shall perform all Design Services and General Conditions for the not to exceed amount of $349,459. At 100% complete construction documents a GMP will be established pursuant to Section 13 of this Agreement, which will include, but not limited to, the cost for all labor, equipment, and material to design and build a fully functional community park in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, and laws. The D/B fee, bond and insurance costs are based on hard construction costs as outlined in the Design Build Fee Structure (Exhibit 2). Any costs incurred by D/B in excess of said GMP shall be the sole responsibility of the D/B, unless a change order is approved by the City pursuant to Sections 9 and 14 of this agreement. All funds remaining in the GMP at the completion of the project shall belong to the City. 1.3.2 Substantial Completion: Achieve "Substantial Completion" (as defined in 916.1) no later than June 27, 2008. 1.3.3 Achieve "Final Completion" (as defined in 916.2) no later than July 31, 2008. Section 2: General Obliqations of City 2 13-8 2.1 City shall be obligated as follows: 2.1.1 Designate a representative (or representatives) who is authorized to act on behalf of City with respect to the Project, except as to those decisions specified herein or by law that require authorization by the Chula Vista City Council; 2.1.2 Make decisions with reasonable promptness to avoid delay in the orderly progress of D/B's services per the Detailed Construction Schedule (DCS); 2.1.3 Pay for and cause to be completed all necessary environmental studies and obtain environmental approvals and/or permits with reasonable promptness to avoid delay to the orderly progress of D/B's performance per the DCS; 2.1.4 At the request of D/B, City will use its best efforts to provide D/B with any available information about the Project Site geotechnical soil conditions; it will, however, be the responsibility of D/B to take all reasonable steps to verify all such information as it deems necessary to perform its services under this Agreement. City does not warranty to D/B the accuracy or completeness of any such information. 2.1.5 Cooperate with D/B in identifying, processing and securing required permits, licenses and inspections in a timely fashion; however, this duty to cooperate does not relieve D/B of its primary obligations to identify, apply for and secure all necessary permits (except as provided in 2.1.3), licenses and inspections in a timely manner. 2.1.6 Make payments to D/B in the amounts and in accordance with the terms set forth below. 2.1.7 Issue Certificate of Substantial Completion when City reasonably determines the Project has achieved Substantial Completion as defined below in Section 16.1. 2.1.8 Issue a Notice of Acceptance when City reasonably determines the Project has achieved Final Completion as defined in Section 16.2. 2.2 City Review Process. City shall review Design Development Drawings (ODD's), 50% Construction Drawings (CD's), 75% CD's ,90% CD's and 3 13-9 100% CD's which shall allow construction of Project in conformity with the Approved Master Plan for the Project. 2.2.1 For each D/B submission, City shall have fifteen (15) working days to review, approve, conditionally approve or deny. Section 3: General Oblioations of D/B 3.1 D/B shall be obligated as follows: 3.1.1 At all times in performing its services under this Agreement to design and deliver the best possible Project consistent with standard of care in Section 3.3 that satisfies the time, monetary, quality and design parameters set forth in this Agreement; 3.1.2 Design and construct the Project on time, consistent with time frames set forth in the DCS, and in such a manner that the GMP or Contract Time of the Project shall not be exceeded, but if D/B reasonably believes that any action, inaction, decision or direction by City or agent for the City will likely result in the GMP or Contract Time being exceeded or the Project being completed late, D/B will notify City at Project Team meeting and in writing within five (5) calendar days of discovering such action, inaction, decision, or direction. Included in such notice will be an estimate of the cost and time impact resulting from such action, inaction, decision or direction. D/B shall provide complete and accurate pricing within ten (10) calendar days of said discovery. 3.1.3 Perform, or obtain the prior written consent of the City to subcontract all design services for the Project utilizing qualified, licensed and sufficiently experienced architects, engineers and other professionals (herein jointly "Design Consultants") as identified in Exhibit 3. D/B shall not be permitted to substitute any Design Consultant unless authorized by City. The fact that the City approves the subcontracting of any such services will in no way relieve the D/B of any of its obligations or responsibilities under this Agreement; 3.1.4 Perform all construction on the Project utilizing subcontractors appropriately licensed by the California Contractors State License Board or other required agency; 4 13-10 3.1.5 Perform all services as expeditiously as is consistent with reasonable skill and care and shall complete the services within each and all of the time periods set forth in this Agreement; 3.1.6 Comply with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and all other State, Federal and local laws including, but not limited to, those prohibiting discrimination, on account of race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex or handicap; 3.1.7 Study all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and statutes affecting the Project, including but not limited to, zoning, environmental, building, fire and safety codes and coverage, density and density ratios and lien laws, and comply with them in performance of its services. D/B shall ensure that within the established GMP that the Project conforms to all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders or other legal requirements, (collectively "Governmental Requirements") existing as of the date ofthis Agreement. However, the City recognizes that Governmental Requirements and their interpretations by governmental officials ("Code Authority") are often subject to change at any time, even after issuance of a building permit. If, after the date of this Agreement, modifications to the Project are required because of a change in Governmental Requirements or their interpretation by a Code Authority which had not previously been given, or which if given, was different than a prior interpretation of a Code Authority, D/B shall make the required modifications to comply with the same. However, in the event of such an occurrence, the GMP and Contract Time may be subject to an adjustment in accordance with Section 14. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall relieve D/B of its obligations to modify the Project at its own expense where D/B has failed to construct the Project in compliance with Governmental Requirements applicable as of the date of this Agreement. 3.1.8 Take all reasonable steps during the course of the Project so as not to interfere with the ongoing operation of the adjacent residences, businesses and facilities, including but not limited to the following: 3.1.8.1 Not interfere with pedestrian and vehicular access; 3.1.8.2 Control dust and noise in accordance with the provisions in Section 7-8.1 of the 2000 Edition of the Standard 5 13-11 Specifications for Public Works Construction, City Ordinances and this Agreement 3.1.9 Use reasonable care to avoid damaging existing buildings, equipment and vegetation adjacent to the Project Site. If D/B causes damage to any of this property, D/B shall replace or repair said property at no expense to City and shall not be a basis for seeking an adjustment to the GMP or Contract Time. D/B agrees to indemnify City for any and all fines, penalties, liabilities, cost imposed upon City, its officers, employees and agents as a result of this Project. 3.1.10 To obtain all permits necessary to complete the Project. City shall pay cost of permits. D/B shall be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permits normally obtained by the trades or subcontractors. 3.1.11 Conform its design to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") and the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 3.1.12 Seek and obtain written approval from the City of the drawings for each of the following phases: (1) ODD (2) 50% CD's (3) 75% CD's (4) 90% CD's and (5) 100% CD's. Said approval shall be evidenced by written notice to proceed with the subsequent phase. 3.1.13 Provide cost estimating and value engineering services, which take into consideration long-range maintenance costs, energy efficiency, and impact operation of the Project. Provide cost estimates to the City at ODD's, 50% CD's, 75% CD's, 90% CD's and 100% CD's. Provide final cost estimate, in four copies, to the City with Final Construction Documents. 3.1.14 Review soils and geotechnical reports relating to the Project Site; and determine and advise City if any further subsurface investigations are warranted. If such further investigations are authorized by City, D/B shall perform said investigations. The costs of said investigations are Reimbursable Costs to be paid by the City without markup, pursuant to Section 13. 3.1.15 Be fully responsible for all additive costs, damages, and liabilities resulting from errors or omissions beyond the standard of care 6 13-12 defined in Section 3.3 by D/B or D/B's agents, employees, design consultants and contractors; such costs, damages and liabilities shall not be chargeable to the City nor shall they be a basis for seeking an adjustment in the GMP or Contract Time. 3.2 D/B agrees to fully assume all risks, and costs associated with such risks, in performing the services and meeting the obligations under this Agreement. 3.2.1 Unanticipated subsurface site conditions 3.2.1.1 City assumes risks for unanticipated subsurface site conditions provided D/B notifies City in writing within five (5) calendar days of discovery if D/B believes it has uncovered or revealed a condition which: 3.2.1.1.1 differs materially from that indicated in the soils and geotechnical reports furnished by City, or 3.2.1.1.2 is of an unusual nature and differs materially from conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the work required by Agreement. 3.2.1.2 Upon receipt of written notice, City shall promptly investigate and if it determines the conditions do materially differ, requiring a change in the Work, City shall comm'ence the processing of a change order pursuant to Section 14. If City determines there is no bona fide Work scope change or is a minor change, which does not impact GMP or Contract Time, City shall notify D/B within ten (10) calendar days. 3.2.1.3 D/B shall not be entitled to an adjustment in the GMP or Contract Time if D/B knew or should have known of the existence of such conditions at the time D/B submitted and agreed to GMP or Contract Time; or the existence of such condition could reasonably have been discovered as a result of D/B's obligations pursuant to Section 3.1.14. 3.3 D/B shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. Compliance with this section by D/B shall not in 7 13-13 any way excuse or limit D/B's obligations to fully comply with all other terms in this Agreement. 3.3.1 D/B warrants that at least one member of the D/B team shall be licensed by the California Contractor's State License Board as a General Building Contractor. D/B is to provide a list of the responsible people within their organizations performing services, which shall include their qualifications and their function, for approval by the City prior to start of construction. City and D/B shall establish "key personnel" who shall remain on the Project until Final Completion. If any such "key personnel" leave the employment of D/B, City shall have the right to approve the replacement personnel assigned to this Project. D/B shall comply with all licensing requirements of the State of California, County of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista. 3.3.2 Project Manager, Landscape Architect, and Project Architect throughout all phases of the Project hereunder, the individual project manager, landscape architect and project architect shall be as reflected in Exhibit 3. So long as the Individual Project Manager and Project Architect remain in the employ of the General Contractor and Architect, such persons shall not be changed or substituted from the Project, or cease to be fully committed to the Project as deemed necessary by the City in its reasonable discretion, without the prior written consent or instruction of the City. Any violation of the terms and provisions of this Section shall constitute a Material Default. 3.3.3 City Right to Remove Project Manager, Landscape Architect and Project Architect. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 3.3, if the Individual Project Manager, Landscape Architect or Project Architect, proves not to be satisfactory to the City, upon written notice from the City to the General Contractor, such person or person shall be promptly replaced by a person who is acceptable to the City in accordance with the procedures set forth below. 3.3.4 Replacement Selection of Project Manager, Landscape Architect, and/or Project Architect. Within five (5) working days after receipt of a notice from the City requesting the replacement of any Individual Project Manager or Project Architect, or promptly following the discovery by the Design Build Team that any Individual Project Manager, Landscape Architect or Project Architect is leaving the employ of the General Contractor or Architect, as the case may be, the replacement/substitution (together with such person's resume and other information regarding such person's experience and 8 13-14 qualifications) for approval by City. The replacement/substitution shall commence work on the Project no later than five (5) calendar days following the City's approval of such replacement, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event that the City and Design Build Team cannot agree as to the substitution of replacement of the Individual, the City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. 3.4 D/B shall cooperate with City in obtaining Environmental approvals and/or permits. 3.5 D/B agrees and acknowledges that the City Representative is the only person with authority to approve additions or modifications to Project. Any costs or delays resulting from or associated with additions or modifications implemented without the written authorization of City Representative shall be borne exclusively by D/B and not be grounds for an increase in GMP or Contract Time unless necessary to protect public health, safety or property. 3.6 D/B team is to provide progress photographs taken at regular intervals throughout the Project. Photographic documentation shall depict an overview of Project site showing work in progress. Dates and times to be documented. Copies of documentation shall be transmitted to the City monthly. The costs are Reimbursable Costs to be paid by the City without markup, pursuant to Section 13.3. 3.7 D/B shall fully cooperate with City Representative and any of its agents assigned to this project. Section 4: Work Restriction and Biddinq Requirement 4.1 D/B shall determine how best to package portions of the work for purposes of bidding. D/B shall be responsible for selectively bidding all construction work to others and for entering into subcontracts, in D/B's own name, with the bidder who in D/B's discretion best meets the monetary, time, and performance requirement of the Project. D/B is required to submit a summary of bid results for each bid package. D/B shall be responsible for ensuring that these contracts fully comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, some but not all of which are listed below. 4.2 D/B shall hear and decide bid protests and shall develop and maintain bid protest procedures for that purpose. City shall be timely informed of all bid protests (prior to resolution) and the outcome of said protests Section 5: D/B's Phase I Services and Obliqations - Desiqn Development 9 13-15 5.1 D/B's services in Phase I shall include, but are not limited to the following: 5.1.1 Utilizing the approved Master Plan continue to refine project requirements and review such requirements with the City. 5.1.2 Prepare complete DDD's such that the DDD include, without limitation, the following: 5.1.2.1 Site plan with pertinent notes and dimensions indicating property line; existing public streets, sidewalks, curb cuts, other public improvements; required setbacks; service, trash, fire lane and truck access, adjacent buildings, building outline; basketball courts, multi-use sports field, softball field, informal skate area, play areas, shelters, landscape and site elements. 5.1.2.2 Floor plans including graphically demonstrating interior and exterior walls and fenestration with notes, dimensions and gridlines; room names, structural bay spacing with grids, critical dimensions and area calculations; 5.1.2.3 Roof plans including detailed notes, dimensions, mechanical equipment locations, define material for mechanical screens, skylights and roof access, roof materials, roof drainage and establish window washing concept; 5.1.2.4 Building sections including vertical dimensions, floor assembly thickness showing known structural elements, notes and dimensions. 5.1.2.5 Exterior elevations including material references and extent; visible roof top elements; existing and new line of grade; indicate of floors with leader lines; and vertical dimensions; notes, dimensions and grid lines. 5.1.2.6 Wall sections including all wall sections, dimensions, horizontal element offsets, and guide to exterior face of wall; dimensions, vertical floor to floor, floor to window head and sill and floor to ceiling; structural elements and assemblies; interior and exterior wall finishes; and wall and roof assembly; 10 13-16 5.1.2.7 Outline specifications, written description of building systems, community park elements and components including site work, room finishes, product cut sheets and special equipment. 5.1.2.8 Verify all code compliance including building construction type, occupancy sprinkler requirements, existing, zoning and other agency conformance and ADA. 5.1.2.9 Delivery of 3D rendered images, color and material boards, special system or equipment plans. 5.1.2.10 Intentionally Left Blank 5.2 Prepare and submit to City detailed cost estimates with DDD. 5.3 Submit completed DDD to City. Obtain comments from City and make revisions to DDD as required. Obtain written approval or conditional approval from City to proceed to Phase II Services. If conditional approval granted, D/B shall address all City comments or issues in the next set of drawings developed. City retains the right to withhold approval and require resubmittal of the DDD. Any delay or additional costs resulting from the re-submittal shall be borne exclusively by D/B and not be grounds for an increase in the GMP or Contract Time. Section 6: D/B's Phase II Services and Obliqations - Construction Documents 6.1 D/B's services in Phase II shall include but are not limited to the following: 6.1.1 D/B shall continue to develop and refine project requirements and review such requirements with City; 6.1.2 D/B shall prepare CD's which shall include, without limitation, the following: 6.1.2.1 Architectural plans and details, including: 6.1.2.1.1 Site plan indicating general location and nature of on-site and the necessary off-site improvements. 6.1.2.1.2 Floor plans, including roof, showing space assignments, sizes, and location of installed or 11 13-17 fixed and movable equipment which affects the design of the spaces. 6.1.2.1.3 Building elevations indicating exterior design elements and features, including fenestration arrangements, materials, mechanical and electrical features appearing on the walls, roofs, and adjacent areas. 6.1.2.1.4 Interior elevations to establish functional requirements, equipment, and all systems locations. 6.1.2.1.5 Typical building sections showing primary structural members, dimensions, and accommodation of functional systems. 6.1.2.1.6 Typical wall sections sufficient to indicate materials, openings, and major features. 6.1.2.2 Structural drawings including plans and sections of sufficient clarity and detail to show the extent and type of structural system and dimensions, final structural design criteria, foundation design criteria, preliminary sizing of major structural components, critical coordination clearances and applicable material lists. 6.1.2.3 Mechanical plans and details; 6.1.2.4 Landscape and Irrigation plan and details; 6.1.2.5 Electrical plans and details; 6.1.2.6 Plumbing plans and details; 6.1.2.7 Plans showing installation of major systems, equipment, fixed furnishings and graphics; 6.1.2.8 Technical specifications; 6.1.2.9 All other technical drawings, schedules, diagrams and specifications, to set forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Project which, at a minimum, include: 12 13-18 6.1.2.9.1 Provide information customarily necessary for the use of those in the building trades; 6.1.2.9.2 Include documents customarily required to obtain regulatory agency approvals; 6.1.2.9.3 Provide color board and architectural rendering for required presentations. 6.1.2.10 Mechanical design documentation consisting of continued development and expansion of schematic mechanical design consisting of: 6.1.2.10.1 Single line layouts and the approximate sizing of all equipment and capacities, preliminary equipment layouts. 6.1.2.10.2 Required space requirements for the equipment, required chases and clearances, acoustical and vibrations control, visual impacts and energy conservation measures. 6.1.2.11 Electrical design documentation consisting of continued expansion of the schematic electrical design consisting of: 6.1.2.11.1 Criteria for lighting, electrical, communications audio visual, close circuit T.V., lighting controls and other electrical systems typical to civic facilities, the approximate sizes and capacities of major components transformers-pane Is-switch gears; 6.1.2.11.2 Preliminary equipment layouts, required space for equipment, required chases and clearances. 6.1.2.12 Sections through critical areas showing coordination of architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical elements. 6.1.2.13 Final specifications, including but not limited to the following: 13 13-19 6.1.2.13.1 Architectural: general description of the construction, including interior finishes, types and locations of acoustical treatment, typical and special floor coverings and final exterior and interior material selection; 6.1.2.13.2 Mechanical: description of air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems and controls, ducts, and piping system; 6.1.2.13.3 Electrical: description of electrical services, including voltage, type and number of feeders, lighting systems, including lighting levels and audiovisual, security-fire alarms and cable antenna television systems; 6.1.2.13.4 Landscape: General description of the construction, including plan materials, plant locations, maintenance period and irrigation systems. 6.1.2.13.5 Play Areas: Description of play equipment including installation procedures, type, color, finishes and locations. 6.1.2.13.6 Site Work: General description of the construction, including finishes, types of materials and locations. 6.1.2.13.7 Other: Such other documents to fix and describe the size, quality and character of the entire Project, its materials, and such other elements as shall be appropriate. 6.1.2.14 Plumbing drawings including location and quantity of fixtures, equipment sizes, room sizes for plumbing equipment, and final specifications as appropriate. 6.1.3. Utilizing the 2000 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2000 Edition of the Chula Vista Standard Special Provisions, 2000 Edition of the Regional Standards, 2002 Edition ofthe Chula Vista Construction Standards, the City's facility program, performance and design criteria, concept drawings, and reports incorporated herein by reference, DB shall: 14 13-20 6.1.3.1 Prepare CD's and specifications suitable for obtaining City- approved permits and to allow construction. Preparation of technical materials and equipment specifications for pre- purchase will be the responsibility of the DB. 6.1.3.2 Submit Construction Documents to the City for plan check, and make any changes therein as may be lawfully required. Obtain general building permit and all ancillary permits and licenses, including but not limited to, demolition permits, improvement permits and grading permits. 6.1.3.3 Complete the design for all elements of the Project, including, but not limited to: civil, structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, landscape, and specialty consulting areas. 6.1.3.4 Evaluate alternative structural and construction approaches to ensure economical designs, which optimize constructability yet meet all codes, architectural concepts, schematic designs, and standard specifications of the Project. Design and construction shall also meet all ADA requirements. 6.1.3.5 Provide additional site surveys and geotechnical investigations to the extent the DB determines they are necessary for final design. The survey information provided by the City is preliminary in nature and may not have sufficient accuracy or scope to support final design. 6.1.3.6 Furnish support to a City constructability review team at the 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% percent design completion stage. Incorporate the results of this review into the design. 6.1.3.7 Provide updated construction cost estimates at durations specified in this agreement to support Value Engineering (VE) and constructability reviews. 6.2 D/B shall determine and establish the sequence of construction, and if appropriate, identify separate bid packages to accomplish phased construction of the Project. 15 13-21 6.3 D/B shall prepare a detailed Critical Path Method schedule for all construction components of the Project (" Detailed Construction Schedule" or "DCS") utilizing Microsoft Project software, showing all major milestones, bid dates for the major bid packages, commencement of construction, sequence of construction, completion of structural elements, completion of the community park, all of which shall conform with the dates of Substantial Completion and Final Completion of Project. 6.4 Review as needed the CD's with the govemmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 6.5 Notify City within seven (7) days in writing whenever D/B reasonably believes that the cost of the Project is likely to exceed the GMP or Contract Time and include in said notice: 6.5.1 An itemized cost breakdown estimate; 6.5.2 A list of recommended revisions which D/B believes will bring Project within the GMP; 6.5.3 Assist City in reviewing the itemized cost breakdown and recommend revisions so that City can revise the scope of the Project so that the GMP is not exceeded. 6.5.4 Provide a master accounting system and matrix on Microsoft Excel that will be updated, expanded and provided to the City monthly as the Project develops. 6.6 D/B shall develop and implement Project Management Plan and Procedures including: 6.6.1 Project status reports 6.6.2 Coordinationlinterface with the City and its other co n su Itants/contractors 6.6.3 Intentionally Left Blank 6.6.4 Biweekly Design and Construction meetings 6.6.5 Interface and communications with other agencies 6.6.6 Vendors and subcontractors management 6.6.7 Document control 16 13-22 6.6.8 Schedule and budget control 6.6.9 Quality assurance and quality control 6.6.10 Throughout the design phase, the D/B shall provide scheduling and cost control reports monthly. 6.7 Submit and obtain approval from City of Phase II items. Provide written confirmation that the project is still within the GMP and can be built in accordance with the DCS. Said written confirmation shall include an accounting of all costs and expenses incurred to date against the GMP. Obtain written approval from City to proceed to Phase IV. 6.8 City and D/B may mutually agree in writing that D/B may contract for or perform certain limited Phase III services during earlier phases to expedite completion of the Project, for such tasks as, for example, demolition of the buildings and relocation of utilities, and other critical path activities to meet the Project Construction Schedule. However, absent such written agreement, D/B shall not proceed with any Phase III services until the City issues a written Notice to Proceed with Phase III. 6.9 Present to the City for approval the following: 100% CD's, Management and Implementation Plan, DCS. 6.9.1 Upon presentation by D/B to the City of the items specified in Section 6.9, the City may: 6.9.1.1 Approve the 100% Construction Documents, and Management and Implementation Plan and DCS, and authorize D/B to proceed with Phase III services; or 6.9.1.2 Determine not to proceed with the Project and terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 26.3 of this Agreement; or 6.9.1.3 Direct D/B to revise and resubmit documentation submitted to City pursuant to this Section which does not conform to previously approved direction of City any delay or additional costs resulting from the resubmittal shall be borne exclusively by D/B and not to be grounds for an increase in the GMP or Contract Time. Section 7: D/B'S Phase III: Construction Administration 17 13-23 7.1 After City formally approves any required cost estimates, 100% CD's and Construction Schedule, City shall issue to D/B a written Notice to Proceed with Phase III Services. The D/B shall construct the Project in accordance with City- approved plans and specifications prepared by the DB to meet or exceed all requirements of the City provided program, schematic design and the performance criteria. The D/B's Phase III Services shall include but are not limited to: 7.1.1 Prepare and submit to City for review separate bid packages as D/B determines appropriate to enable the construction of the Project to proceed in an efficient and cost effective manner; 7.1.2 Conduct competitive bidding for the respective bid packages. 7.1.3 D/B shall require additive alternates for extended warranties in bid packages for roofing and HVAC systems. 7.1.4 Schedule and conduct pre-bid conferences to answer questions posed by bidders; said answers and any other information required to provide clarification to the Construction Documents during the bidding process shall be issued as written addenda and provided to all prospective bidders; 7.1.5 Execute subcontracts, in D/B's own name, with the bidder best meeting the monetary, time, and performance requirements of the Project in the professional opinion of the D/B. 7.1.6 Perform construction management and administration services during the construction of the Project; 7.1.7 Be responsible for and coordinate all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures; 7.1.8 Coordinate scheduling of bid packages, submittals, and all design and construction of the Project to ensure the efficient and orderly sequence of the construction of the Project. Monitor and report to the City on actual performance compared to schedule; 7.1.9 Give all notices and comply with laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and lawful orders of public authorities relating to the Project; 7.1.10 Provide timely review and approval of shop drawings, samples of construction materials, product data, schedule submittals, and other 18 13-24 submittal for compliance with the Construction Documents; keep City advised of all such matters being reviewed and approved by 0/8; 7.1.11 Issue responses to Requests for Information, substitution requests, and Change Order requests. Provide City with copy of all correspondence within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. Conduct weekly review meetings with City to discuss these items. All change orders, including zero dollar change orders which require the use of D/B Contingency Fund, irrespective of impact on GMP and Contract Time shall require City approval; 7.1.12 Establish and maintain a quality control program with appropriate reviews and independent testing procedures to ensure compliance with the Construction Documents; 7.1.13 Coordinate all required inspections in such a manner that the progress of construction is not affected or impacted; 7.1.14 Correct any work which does not conform to the Construction Documents; 7.1.15 Keep City informed of the progress and quality of the design and construction of the Project; 7.1.16 Pay royalties and license fees, if applicable. D/B shall defend suits or claims for infringement of patent rights and shall defend and hold City and City's agents harmless from loss on account thereof; except that City shall be responsible for such loss when a particular design, process or product of a particular manufacturer is required by City. However, if D/B has reason to believe the use of a required design, process or product is an infringement of a patent, D/B shall be responsible for such loss unless such information is promptly given to the City in writing. 7.1.17 Ensure Project is maintained in a clean, neat, sanitary and safe condition free from accumulation of waste materials or rubbish. Prior to Final Completion, D/B shall cause to be removed from and about the Project all tools, construction equipment, machinery, surplus materials, waste materials and rubbish; 7.1.17.1 Please be advised that Chula Vista Municipal Code 8.24.070 provides for an exclusive franchise for the removal and conveyance of all solid waste for hire 19 13-25 (including recyclables) within City limits. The exclusive franchise agreement covers any hauling activity that requires the generator or their agent to pay a fee for any service connected with removing or conveying waste. The City's franchise hauler is Allied (formerly Pacific) Waste Services and may be reached at (619) 421-9400. 7.1.18 Develop a mutually agreed upon program to abate and minimize noise, dust, and disruption to access for parking and services at all times for adjacent business entities and residences; 7.1.19 Provide City with a DCS on an approved software within fourteen (14) working days after receiving Notice to Proceed with Phase III, provide updated versions of DCS on a monthly basis, and provide immediate notice of any impact on critical path items; 7.1.20 Conduct and prepare minutes for weekly Project team meetings with City and appropriate design and construction members; 7.1.21 Maintain a complete and up-to-date set of Construction Documents in the Projects field office at all times during construction which reflect all changes and modifications, and at the end of construction prepare for City a complete set of Project documents, along with four reproducible, and one electronic set of drawings depicting As-Built conditions for Project; 7.1.22 Notify City in writing when D/B believes that the Project has achieved Substantial Completion, participate with City in inspecting the completed construction, prepare punch lists, and cause the punchlist items to be performed and/or corrected in accordance with the Construction Documents; 7.1.23 Notify City in writing when D/B believes that the Project has achieved Final Completion. Assemble and deliver to City upon Final Completion all records, documents, warranties, bonds, guarantees, maintenance/ service contracts, and maintenance and operating manuals; 7.1.24 Inspect the Project during the one-year general building warranty period, identify items requiring repair, and oversee those repairs. Inspect the each component at 180 and 360 days after Final Completion of Project and prepare reports to City, develop budgets and direct all repairs. 20 13-26 7.1.25 Conduct contractor meetings, as necessary, to provide technical input. 7.1.26 Provide interpretation of technical specifications and drawings. 7.1.27 When appropriate, witness testing and review materials and equipment testing results and provide comments regarding conformance with specification requirements. 7.1.28 Provide list of required shop drawing submittals. Review shop- drawing submittals for technical compliance and forward copy to City for review. 7.1.29 Assist during final acceptance process by furnishing final walk- through(s) and comments. 7.1.30 The DB shall be responsible for complete management, supervision, and reporting of all aspects of the construction of this Project. 7.1.31 The DB shall provide resident management and contract administration, including specialists necessary for the functional, safe, on-budget and on-schedule completion of the Project, starting with the issuance of a Notice to Proceed, upon receipt of final CD's, from the City and extending through issuance of Notice of Completion and Acceptance. City staff will perform inspections to verify compliance with the plans, specifications and contract documents. 7.1.32 The DB resident staff shall ensure construction compliance with applicable local, state, and federal codes, building and environmental permit requirements, construction mitigation documents and enforcement of the Contract Documents. 7.1.33 The DB is responsible for the design, construction and all contract administration services during the construction of the Project in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited to, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] and Title 24 California Code of Regulations [Building Code] as defined in Section 18910 of California Health and Safety Code [Title 24]. The DB is responsible as a designer, employer, and City representative to comply with all portions of Title 24 and the ADA. 7.1.34 The DB shall provide surveying, and other contracted services as required to complete project construction inspection and testing tasks. The City will provide special inspection services and periodic 21 13-27 building inspections. DB is responsible for scheduling and coordinating all inspections and paying for all re-inspections. 7.1.35 The DB shall develop a project-specific Plan for defining, tracking and reporting cash flow activity requirements and submit such plan to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. 7.1.36 The DB shall implement and maintain an internal records management and document control system as required to support project operations. The DB shall provide records management and document control information in a manner consistent with the City's reporting system. 7.1.37 The DB shall administer and coordinate the project contract closeout process and shall resolve any warranty provision issues. The DB shall report progress of project contract closeout to the City in a manner consistent with the City's reporting system. 7.1.38 The DB shall administer and enforce the Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project, if any. The DB shall report a record of environmental issues to the City in a manner consistent with the City's reporting system. 7.1.39 Prepare Operations Manual. 7.2 Unless the D/B receives the City's prior approval to substitute equal or better quality materials, the D/B warrants to City that materials and equipment incorporated in the Project will be new, unless otherwise specified, and that the Project will be of good quality, free from faults and defects, and in strict conformance with the Construction Documents and in accordance with Section 22. Section 8: D/B's Phase IV Services and Obliqations: Operation/Startup Phase 8.1.1 The DB shall prepare, submit for City review and written approval, and implement a Project Startup and Testing Plan for the Project. 8.1.2 The DB shall conduct Operator Training Sessions for facilities. 8.1.3 The DB shall supervise, manage, and coordinate all project startup and testing activities for mechanical systems within the provisions of the project Contract Documents. 8.1.4 The DB shall report progress of project startup and testing to the City in a manner consistent with the City's reporting system. 22 13-28 8.1.15 The DB shall report to the City all guarantee/warranty disputes. The DB shall proceed to resolve such disputes after having submitted to the City for review and approval the DB's approach for obtaining resolution for the dispute. Section 9: Additional Services 9.1 City will have the right to direct D/B to perform Additional Services beyond those specified in this Agreement. D/B may provide Additional Services only if authorized in writing, in advance, by City and after complying with Section 9.4. The City may propose changes to the Work of a subcontractor after the bid has been awarded. In the event of a change of this nature, D/B will estimate the cost of the Change Order, assist City in developing drawings and specifications as necessary, solicit a revised bid, negotiate with the subcontractor, present a recommendation for a Change Order to City, and implement construction as approved by City. 9.2 For Additional Services which increase the Hard Construction Costs, design costs, or other reasonably necessary costs of the Project, D/B shall be paid a fee as determined on Exhibit 2. Said fee shall cover all home office overhead and profit to be earned as additional services. 9.3 For additional services, which result in an extension of the Substantial Completion date, D/B shall be paid a fee equal to the number of working days the Substantial Completion date is extended multiplied by the daily proration of the general conditions fee included within the GMP. 9.4 If at any time D/B contends that it is being asked to perform Additional Services, it shall give City written notice 5 days prior to performing said services indicating that D/B intends to seek additional compensation beyond the D/B Fixed Fee. Furnishing advance written notice shall be a condition precedent to being able to seek additional compensation from City. Section 10: Bonds 10.1 D/B shall furnish performance and payment bonds with the names of the obligees designated as the City in the amount set forth below, as security for the faithful performance and payment of all D/B's obligations under the Agreement. These bonds shall remain in effect at least until thirty (30) days after the filing date of Notice of Completion, except as otherwise provided by law or regulation or by this Agreement. D/B shall also furnish such other bonds as are required by this Agreement. If the D/B incurs increased costs to provide the performance and payment bond following City's acceptance of the GMP, and cost increase is incurred solely as result of insurance bond market rate volatility, with any matters of D/B's 23 13-29 reduced insurability criteria expressly excepted, then the contract will be adjusted to the new rate charged to the D/B by the insurance carrier. 10.1.1 The performance bond shall be in the amount of 100% of the GMP. 10.1.2 The payment bond shall be in the amount of 100% of the Hard Construction Costs. 10.2 All bonds shall be in the form prescribed by City and by such sureties which are authorized to transact such business in the State of California, listed as approved by the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570, and whose underwriting limitation is sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by this agreement and which also satisfy the requirements stated in Section 995.660 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as provided otherwise by laws or regulations. All bonds signed by an agent must be accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority to act. Surety companies must be duly licensed or authorized in the jurisdiction in which the Project is located to issue bonds for the limits so required. 10.3 If the surety on any bond furnished by D/B is declared bankrupt or becomes insolvent or its right to do business is terminated in any state where any part of the Project is located, D/B shall within seven (7) days thereafter substitute another bond and surety, which must be acceptable to City. Section 11: Insurance 11.1 The insurance provisions herein shall not be construed to limit D/B's indemnity obligations contained in this Agreement. 11.2 D/B shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the D/B, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. All subconsultants shall be required to comply with the applicable insurance provisions. The maintenance of proper coverage is a material element of the contract and that failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract. 24 13-30 11.3 Minimum Scope of Insurance 11.3.1 Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 11.3.1.1 Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001). 11.3.1.2 Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). 11.3.1.3 Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 11.3.1.4 Errors and Omissions Insurance. 11.3.1.5 Builder's Risk Propertv Insurance: The City of Chula Vista will provide coverage for "all risk" Builder's Risk Insurance, excluding the peril of earthquake and flood, and subject to other policy terms, conditions and exclusions, Coverage will be provided for the Replacement Cost of Materials, Equipment and fixtures destined to become a permanent part of the structure, Property in Transit and Property in Offsite Storage for Mt. San Miguel Community Park construction in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 million. Contractors and Subcontractors will be added to policy as Loss Payees as their interest may appear. Contractor and its Subcontractors will be solely responsible for any loss or damage to their personal property including contractor's tools and equipment owned, used, leased, or rented by the Contractor or Subcontractor. The $5,000 policy deductible amount will be the responsibility of Contractor and/or Subcontractor. 11.4. Minimum Limits of Insurance 11.4.1 Contractor or appropriate subconsultant shall maintain limits no less than: 25 13-31 11.4.1.1 General $2,000,000 Liability: (Including operations, products and completed operations.) 11.4.1.2 Automobile $1,000,000 Liability: 11.4.1.3 Worker's $1,000,000 Compensation / Employer's Liability: 11.4.1.4 Errors and $1,000,000 Omissions: 11.4.1.5 Builder's Risk $2,000,000 - City to Provide 11.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. per accident for bodily injury and property damage. per accident for bodily injury or disease. per occurrence Hard Construction Cost of Structure 11.5.1 Any deductible or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the D/B shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 26 13-32 11.6 Other Insurance Provisions 11.6.1 The general liability policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 11.6.1.1 The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteer are to be covered as additional insureds using ISO Form CG2010 (11/85) or its equivalent specifically the endorsement must not exclude Completed Operations, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the D/B including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. 11.6.1.2 For any claims related to this project the D/B's insurance coverage shall be the primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the D/B's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 11.6.1.3 Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for' the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Sections 2782 of the Civil Code. 11.7 Verification of Coverage 11.7.1 Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms that conform to the requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time. 11.8 Subcontractors 11.8.1 All coverages for subcontractors or subconsultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. Subcontractors and 27 13-33 Subconsultants shall be protected against risk of loss by maintaining insurance in the categories and at the limits required herein. Subcontractors and Subconsultants shall name City and D/B as additional insured's under its policies. 11.9 Cooperation. The D/B and its Contractors shall cooperate fully with and provide any information or records requested by the City or regarding all aspects of the insurance and project, including but not limited to claims, audit, payroll, insurance records and safety. Delays in reporting information to the City may result in delays in progress payments to the D/B. 11.10 Prior to beginning Work under the Agreement, each and every Contractor of any tier shall furnish Certificates of Insurance satisfactory to the City. All such Certificates shall contain at least the following provisions: 11.10.1 Thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to any cancellation, non-renewal or material reduction in coverage. 11.10.2 The words "will endeavor" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no such obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" will be deleted from the Certificates. 11.10.3 Throughout the life of the Agreement, each and every Contractor of any tier shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect, with Insurers authorized by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California, any policies required by this Agreement. 11.10.4 Any insurance provided for this project shall be written through an insurer with an A.M. Best Rating of not less than AV. Any exceptions are at the sole discretion of the City and subject to written approval of the City. 11.11 Questions concerning the insurance requirements of this Agreement shall be directed to the City Representative. Section 12: Inspection 12.1 City shall be responsible for City inspection and material testing and inspections, with reimbursement to be required by D/B for any re-inspections. The City shall either perform said inspection services with its own forces or contract with 28 13-34 third parties. It shall be the responsibility of D/B, however, to call for, coordinate and schedule all inspections. 12.2 City, its consultants, subcontractors, independent testing laboratories as well as other governmental agencies with jurisdictional interests will have access at reasonable times for this observation, inspecting and testing. D/B shall provide them proper and safe conditions for such access and advise them of D/B's safety procedures and programs so that they may comply. 12.3 City will make, or have made, such inspections and tests, as the City deems necessary to see that the Work is being accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Documents or shall in any way limit or modify D/B's indemnity obligations as provided for within this agreement. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of such inspection and testing will be borne by the City. In the event such inspections or tests reveal non-compliance with the requirements of the Construction Documents, D/B shall bear the cost of corrective measures deemed necessary by City, as well as the cost of subsequent re-inspection and re-testing. Neither observations by the City nor inspections, tests, or approvals by others shall relieve D/B from D/B's obligations to perform the Work in accordance with the Construction Documents. D/B shall give City timely notice of readiness of the Work for all required on and off-site inspections, tests, or approvals and shall cooperate with inspection and testing personnel to facilitate required inspections or tests. D/B shall give at least 24 hours notice for on-site inspection and five (5) days notice for off-site inspection. 12.4 City has the right to stop or suspend Work activities which will conceal or cover up D/B Work product which is to be inspected or tested, orwhich will interfere with the inspection or testing activities, for a reasonable time and D/B will have no right to additional cost or time it may incur as a result of the Work stoppage. Section 13: D/B GMP for Services and Reimbursements 13.1 D/B shall submit to City 100% Construction Documents ("CD's") for approval. Upon the approval of the 100% CD's, D/B shall, within ten (10) working days, submit a GMP for approval by City. The GMP shall include all Hard Construction Costs, D/B Contingency Fund, Reimburseable Costs, and D/B Fixed Fee for the complete design and construction of the entire Project as specified in the 100% CD's; provided that: 13.1.1 The GMP shall not exceed $2,015,343 for the park and include within said GMP shall be no more than $349,459 for Design Services and General Conditions as previously identified in Section 1.3.1 of this agreement. 29 13-35 13.1.2 Said GMP shall be supported by a detailed itemized breakdown that shows: the D/B Fixed Fees and the expected Hard Construction Costs for each of the major trades of the Project which will include labor, material expenses, equipment costs, and a reasonable D/B Contingency Fund. Said D/B contingency fund shall not exceed 5% of the Hard Construction Costs. 13.1.3 All Hard Construction Costs included in the GMP are for direct Construction costs incurred in performing the work, including taxes, delivery and installation. City shall reimburse D/B for the exact amount of subcontract, self preformed work or invoice amount. No additional D/B markup, handling fees, overhead, or other charges are to be added or paid except as otherwise set forth in this agreement. Upon Final Completion of the Project, any amount of Hard Construction Costs or D/B Contingency Fund monies not utilized shall result in a deductive Change Order. 13.1.4 The GMP shall include a D/B Contingency Fund which can be used by the D/B with City approval. If the Parties mutually agree that there is a sufficient surplus, the D/B Contingency Fund will be available to provide additional funds for Change Orders as provided for in Section 7 of this Agreement. This Contingency Fund will not be available for: (1) Work required due to D/B's and/or Contractors/subcontractors failure to perform according to the terms of this Agreement and/or in compliance with the Construction Documents, or (2) uninsured losses resulting from the negligence of D/B or its Contractors/subcontractors. All change orders, including zero dollar change orders, which require the use of the D/B Contingency Fund, shall require City approval. The City reserves the right to seek reimbursements for any funds used due to errors or omissions of the Design Consultants. 13.1.5 D/B shall prepare, with the cooperation of the City, alternate bid items to assist in meeting the GMP; 13.2 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, as full and complete compensation for performance of all services and obligations under this Agreement, D/B shall be compensated ("D/B GMP") by a sum to be determined at 100% construction documents. GMP shall include the not to exceed amount of $182,000 for General Conditions and $167,459 for Design Services for a total of $349,459. Said $349,459 for General Conditions and Design Services shall not be exceeded unless additional services are requested pursuant to S 7 above or a 30 13-36 change order issued pursuant to S 14. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, D/B GMP shall include full compensation for all costs of any type incurred by D/B in performing all services and obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to the following: 13.2.1 All Design Consultants, including but not limited to architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, communications, graphics and art consultants, landscape architects, and acoustical, audio visual, lighting, and security consultants. 13.2.2 Estimating, value engineering and construction management; 13.2.3 Construction supervision and project management personnel, including but not limited to superintendents, Project managers, Project secretaries, Project engineers, Project accountants, and all other D/B personnel wherever located; 13.2.4 All on-site and off-site equipment, supplies and facilities, including but not limited to, computers, estimating, dictating, communication and accounting equipment, office space, trailers, field equipment and storage facilities; 13.2.4.1 In no case shall the cumulative monthly rental charges to the Project for equipment and Small Tools used by the D/B exceed 90% of the fair market value of anyone piece of equipment or Small Tools. At City's option, the full price for equipment or Small Tools may be paid, and City may take possession upon completion of the Work. 13.2.5 All home-office and field overhead costs of any type including document control and retention; 13.2.6 All business license costs; 13.2.7 All profit D/B intends to earn under this Agreement. 13.2.8 All direct and incidental costs incurred by D/B, except for those specifically identified in Section 9. 13.3 D/B shall be reimbursed, without markup and only as specified in this Agreement for the following "Reimbursable Costs." 31 13-37 13.3.1 Any reimbursable cost expressly provided for elsewhere in this Agreement. 13.4 D/B agrees and acknowledges the City retains its full and complete discretion for all legislative actions, including any future appropriations necessary to complete this Project or fund this Agreement. As more fully provided in Section 26, the City may terminate this Agreement for any reason, including but not limited to, if City Council fails to appropriate sufficient funds or is unsuccessful at obtaining long term financing. Section 14: Chanqe in GMP and Contract Time 14.1 The GMP and Contract Time may only be changed by written Change Order. Change Orders shall be issued only under the following circumstances: 14.1.1 The City directs D/B to perform Additional Services or City Changes as provided in Section 9. 14.1.2 For reasons expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreement. 14.2 The following procedure shall be followed for the issuance of Change Orders: 14.2.1 Upon the occurrence of any event that gives rise to a Change Order, D/B shall give the City notice of the same with 5 days. D/B shall not proceed with any such services or work until such notice has been given to the City except if such services or work are necessary to protect public health, safety or property. 14.2.2 Unless otherwise directed by the City Representative in writing, before proceeding with any Change Order work D/B shall promptly provide the City with a detailed and complete estimate of cost impact associated with the Change Order, including all appropriate direct and indirect costs and credits. All such costs and credits shall be accurately categorized into D/B Fixed Fee, Reimbursable Costs or Hard Construction Costs. D/B shall also provide City with a realistic estimate of the impact, if any, the Change Order will have on the Contract Time. 14.2.3 Upon submission of the detailed estimates by the D/B, the Parties will attempt to negotiate an appropriate adjustment in GMP and Contract Time. If an agreement is reached, a Change Order reflecting the agreement will be executed by the Parties. If an agreement is not reached, the City shall have the option to direct the 32 13-38 D/B to proceed with the subject services and/or work, during which time the D/B shall contemporaneously maintain accurate and complete records of all labor, material and equipment utilized in performing the subject services and/or work. These records shall be submitted to the City and shall become the basis for continued negotiations between the Parties for an equitable adjustment to the GMP and/or Contract Time. 14.2.4 In the event there is any disagreement or dispute between the Parties as to whether the D/B is entitled to a Change Order or the amount of the Change Order, the matter shall be resolved in accordance with Section 33. D/B shall not have the right to stop or delay in the prosecution of any services or work, including services or work that is the subject of the Change Order, pending this resolution process. Instead, D/B shall continue diligently prosecuting all such services and work. 14.2.5 City may, in its sole discretion, adjust the GMP or Contract Time for any undisputed amount or time associated with the Change Order or Additional Services. Section 15: Pavment Terms 15.1 D/B shall provide all Phase I, II and IV services for the Phase I, II and IV Fee. D/B shall submit certificate and application for payment to the City on a monthly basis for Phase I, II and IV services rendered and costs incurred. The monthly payment shall be based upon percentage of completion of the Schedule of Values plus any Reimburseable Costs as provided in Section 15.3. 15.2 D/B shall provide all Phase III services for the Phase III Fee. D/B shall submit certificate and application for payment to City on a monthly basis for Phase III services. The monthly payment application shall be based upon the percentage of completion of the Schedule of Values plus any Reimbursable Costs and Hard Construction Costs as provided in Section 15.3 and 15.4, less any payments previously made by the City and subject to the receipt of unconditional lien releases for all prior payments and if the invoiced amount is not disputed by City, it shall pay D/B ninety percent (90%) of payment application based upon the percentage complete of the Schedule of Values and 100% of the reimbursable costs within thirty (30) days after receipt of the fully documented invoice. City will withhold the remaining 10% as security for D/B's full performance. 15.3 D/B shall develop and maintain an accurate system for tracking all Reimbursable Costs. Utilizing this system, D/B shall include with each month 33 13-39 payment application an itemization of all such Reimbursable Costs actually incurred by DIB, during the previous month. If requested by the City, D/B shall provide all backup documentation supporting such Reimbursable Costs. 15.4 D/B shall develop and maintain an accurate system for tracking all Hard Construction Costs it incurs on the Project. Utilizing this system, D/B shall include with each monthly application for payment an itemization of all Hard Construction Costs actually incurred by D/B during the previous month. 15.5 D/B shall separately submit to City certificate and application for payment on a monthly basis for any authorized Additional Services performed by D/B. Subject to the receipt of unconditional lien releases for all prior payments and if Additional Services are not disputed by City, City shall pay ninety percent (90%) of the invoiced amount within thirty (30) days of receipt of fully complete invoice. City will withhold the remaining 10% as security for D/B's full performance. 15.6 Subject to Sections 15.8, City shall pay D/B the ten percent (10%) retention being withheld pursuant to Sections 15.2, and 15.5 as part of the "Final Payment" to D/B. Final Payment will be made thirty-five (35) days after Final Completion. 15.7 The City Manager will consider the release of the entire retention for subcontractors upon completion of the subcontractors' work and execution of a disclaimer and unconditional final lien release by the subcontractor. 15.8 In lieu of withholding retention under this Agreement, at the election of D/B, City will deposit retention amounts into escrow and/or the substitution of securities for money as provided in California Public Contract Code Section 22300. Section 16: Proiect Completion 16.1 Substantial Completion shall be that stage in the progress of the construction when all Work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can fully utilize entire Project; Substantial Completion shall further mean that all goods, services and systems to be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been initially tested, and are operationally functional, subject only to final testing, balancing and adjustments and normal Final Completion punchlist Work. 16.2 Final Completion shall be deemed to occur on the last of the following events: (1) recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project; (2) acceptance of the Project by the City; (3) issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project; (4) submission of all documents required to be supplied by D/B to City under this 34 13-40 Agreement, including but not limited to As-Built Drawings, warranties, and operating manuals; (5) and delivery to City of a Certificate of Completion duly verified by D/B. 16.3 D/B shall provide City with a Certificate of Completion, certifying to City under penalty of perjury that the Project has been completed in accordance with the Construction Documents, all applicable building codes and regulations, all permits, licenses, and certificates of inspection, use and occupancy, and ordinances relating to the Project. 16.4 D/B shall provide five sets of City final record drawing documents at the end of construction and one copy in electronic format ("As-Built Drawings") and one copy of reproducible drawings. As-Built Drawings are to be accurate and legible records showing exact location by dimensions, and the exact depth by elevation of underground lines, valves, plugged tees, wiring and utilities. 16.5 D/B shall provide a copy of, or make available before destruction, all records (which includes all writings as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) to the City upon receipt or generation, which shall include a copy of D/B's filing protocol. Section 17: Contract Time 17.1 The "Contract Time" shall be the date stated in Section 1 for D/B to achieve Substantial Completion. 17.2 "Time is of the essence" with regard to Contract Time and all milestones in the DCS. 17.3 The Contract Time may only be changed by a Change Order as set forth in Section 14. 17.4 Further, an extension in Contract Time will not be granted unless D/B can demonstrate through an analysis of the Project Schedule that the increases in the time to perform or complete the Project, or specified part of the Project, beyond the corresponding Contract Time arise from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of D/B, its Design Consultants, and subcontractors or suppliers, and that such causes in fact lead to performance or completion of the Project, or specified part in question, beyond the corresponding Contract Time, despite D/B's reasonable and diligent actions to guard against those effects. 17.5 D/B carries the burden of proving an entitlement to an increase in the Contract Time. Delays attributable to and within the control of Design Consultants, or subcontractor or supplier shall be deemed to be delays within the control of D/8. 35 13-41 No time extension will be allowed for such delays. An increase in Contract Time does not necessarily mean that D/B is due an increase in the GMP. Section 18: Late Completion 18.1 City and D/B recognize that time is of the essence in this Agreement and that City will suffer financial loss if the Project is not completed within the Contract Time, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with Section 17.3. They also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal proceeding the actual loss suffered by City if the Project is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, City and D/B agree that D/B shall pay as liquidated damages (but not as a penalty) for each calendar day of delay beyond the time specified for Substantial Completion of the Project, the following amounts which D/B expressly agrees are "not unreasonable under the circumstances" as defined in California Civil Code 91671 (b): $100 for each calendar day. Liquidated Damages shall not be assessed after the date on which Substantial Completion is achieved pursuant to Section 16. Section 19: Riqht to Modifv Work 19.1 Without invalidating the Agreement and without notice to any surety, City may at any time or from time to time, order additions, deletions, or revisions in the Project; these will be authorized by a written Change Order prepared and issued by City. Upon receipt of any such document, D/B shall promptly proceed with the Work involved which will be performed under the applicable conditions of the Construction Documents (except as otherwise specifically provided). 19.2 When City desires a change in the Project, City may issue a Request for Proposal to D/B. D/B will be required to respond within the time indicated by City. Section 20: Intentionallv Omitted Section 21: Work Bv Others 21.1 City may perform other work related to the Project at the Project Site by City's own forces, or let other direct contracts ("City Contractor"). The City will give D/B reasonable notice of its intent to do such other work. D/B's work shall take priority over the City Contractors; but the Parties will use their best efforts to coordinate their work so as to minimize the disruption to each other's work and to allow City Contractor to proceed expeditiously. 36 13-42 21.2 If the proper execution or results of any part of D/B's work depends upon the work by the City or City Contractor, D/B shall promptly inspect and report to City in writing any apparent delays, defects, or deficiencies in the City's work that render it unavailable or unsuitable for such proper execution and results. D/B's failure to promptly report such delays, defects, or deficiencies in writing before commencement of the affected work, will constitute an acceptance of the City's work as fit and timely for integration with D/B's Work except for latent defects and deficiencies in the City's work for which D/B will not be responsible. 21.3 If D/B or any person or entity working for D/B causes damage to the City's or City Contractor's work, property, or person, or if any claim arising out of D/B's performance of the Project by any other contractor is made against D/B, by City, any other contractor, or any other person, D/B shall promptly repair and/or resolve said claim at no cost to City. Section 22: Warranties and Guarantees 22.1 D/B warrants and guarantees to City that materials and equipment incorporated into the Project will be new unless otherwise specified and that all work will be in strict accordance with the Construction Documents and will not be defective. Prompt notice of defects known to City shall be given to D/B. All Defective Work, whether or not in place, may be rejected, corrected, or accepted as reasonably directed by City, provided D/B shall not be entitled to an extension in Contract Time or increase in GMP because of any delay or increase in cost attributable to the rejection, correction or acceptance of said work. Defective work may be rejected even if approved by prior inspection. 22.2 The warranty period shall commence when the Certificate of Final Completion is issued (irrespective of beneficial use by City prior to Final Completion) and extend one (1) year after that date orwhatever longer period may be prescribed by laws or regulations or by the terms of any applicable special guarantee or specific provision of the Construction Documents. 22.3 D/B is to provide any extra material for maintenance at the completion of the Project, including items such as carpeting, base, floor tile, ceiling tile, paint, and filters. 22.3.1 D/B is to provide City one (1) set of operating and maintenance data manuals, fully bound and indexed, warranties, guarantees, and bonds. 37 13-43 22.4 Correction of Defective Work - If within the designated warranty period, or such longer period as may be required by laws or regulations, the Project or any part of the Project, is discovered to contain defective work, D/B shall promptly, without any reimbursement or adjustment in the GMP, and in accordance with City's written instructions, either correct that defective work, or if it has been rejected by City remove it from the Project and replace it with work which is not defective. If circumstances warrant it, including but not limited to, in an emergency, City or D/B may have the defective work corrected or the defective work removed and replaced. In that event, D/B shall not be allowed to recover any associated costs, and D/B shall reimburse City for all direct, and indirect costs of City, and City shall be entitled to an appropriate decrease in the GMP, to withhold a setoff against amount recommended for payment, or make a claim on D/B's bond if D/B has been paid in full. 22.5 With respect to all warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers for Work performed and materials furnished under this Agreement, the D/B shall: 22.5.1 Obtain all warranties that would be given in normal commercial practice and as required by the City; 22.5.2 Require all warranties to be executed, in writing, for the benefit of City; 22.5.3 Enforce all warranties for the benefit of City, if directed by City; 22.5.4 In the event D/B's warranty under section 22.2 has expired, City may bring suit at its expense to enforce a subcontractor's, manufacturer's, or supplier's warranty; 22.5.5 D/B shall assign all subcontractor, supplier and manufacturer warranties including maintenance contracts from the installer for specialized equipment, such as elevators, escalators, movable partitions, equipment etc., to cover the limited warranty period to City at the expiration of the one year warranty; and Section 23: Use and Possession Prior to Completion 23.1 City shall have the right to take possession of or use any completed or partially completed part of the Work if mutually agreed upon by the parties. Before taking possession of or using any Work, City shall furnish D/B a list of items of Work remaining to be performed or corrected on those portions of the Work that City intends to take possession of or use. However, failure of City to list any item of 38 13-44 Work shall not relieve D/B of responsibility for complying with the terms of this Agreement. City's possession or use shall not be deemed an acceptance of any Work under this Agreement, nor relieve the D/B of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 23.2 While City has such possession or use, D/B shall be relieved of the responsibility for the loss of or damage to the Work resulting from City's possession or use. If prior possession or use by City delays the progress of the Work or causes additional expense to D/B, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the GMP or the Contract Time, and the Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. Section 24: Personal Services and Non-Assiqnabilitv 24.1 This is a personal services Agreement and, therefore, D/B shall not alter the key employees or Design Consultants nor assign or transfer, voluntarily or involuntarily, any of its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement except upon the prior written consent of City. Any such change, assignment or transfer without the prior written consent of the City shall be deemed null and void and constitute a material breach under this Agreement. Section 25: Indemnification 25.1 To the fullest extent permitted by the law, D/B shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees, consultants, (collectively herein the "Indemnitees"), from and against all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, injuries, liabilities, losses and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees and expenses) of any kind whatsoever, arising in whole or in part out of or resulting from D/B's performance of this Agreement, D/B's breach of this Agreement, or the alleged negligent acts or omissions of D/B, its architects, engineers, other professionals and consultants, Contractors, suppliers or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable. The obligations of the D/B under this paragraph for errors or omissions, including those of the design professional subcontractors, which includes the Design Subcontractors, consultants, agents and employees thereof ("Design Subcontractors"), which arise from (1) the preparation or approval of maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, designs or specifications, or (2) the giving of or the failure to give directions or instructions shall not be limited to the amount of coverage provided for in the professional liability insurance policy. If City is fully reimbursed by DB's insurance for any loss covered by this paragraph, D/B shall have no further obligation for such loss. 39 13-45 25.2 D/B's obligation to indemnify under section 25.1 shall not extend to such claims, demands, causes of action, damages, injuries, liabilities, losses and expenses, to the extent that such is the result of the active negligence or the willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. D/B's obligation to defend under section 25.1, if not covered by the insurance to be provided on the Project, shall not extend to such claims, demands, causes of action, damages, injuries, liabilities, losses and expenses, or causes of actions, to the extent that such are caused by the active negligence or the willful misconduct of the Indemnitee, and from no other cause. 25.3 The D/B agrees, notwithstanding the above to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees, agents and consultants from and against any and all claims, suits, demands, liabilities, losses, or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and defense costs, resulting or accruing to any and all persons, firms, and any other legal entity, caused by, arising out of or in any way connected with the handling, removal, abatement, capping, migration (after handling, removal, abatement or capping) of, or disposal of any asbestos or hazardous or toxic substances, products or materials that exist on, about or adjacent to the jobsite, whether liability arises under breach of contract or warranty, tort, including negligence, strict liability or statutory liability or any other cause of action. D/B's obligation regarding asbestos or hazardous or toxic substances, products or materials shall be limited to the proper removal within the Project boundaries and the proper disposal of such materials. Section 26: Riqht to Terminate and Suspend Work 26.1 Archaeological and Paleontological Discoveries. If a discovery is made of an archaeological or paleontological interest, D/B shall immediately cease operations in the area of the discovery and shall not continue until ordered by City. When resumed, operations within the area of the discovery shall be as directed by City. 26.1.1 Discoveries which may be encountered may include, but are not be limited to, dwelling sites, stone implements or other artifacts, animal bones, human bones, fossils or any item with cultural significance. 26.1.2 D/B shall be entitled to an extension of time and compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 26.2 Termination of Agreement by City for Cause. If, through any cause, D/B shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner D/B's obligations under this Agreement, or if D/B shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to D/B of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least 40 13-46 five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, plans, specifications, reports and other materials prepared by D/B, or any of its agents, Design Consultants or Subcontractors, shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and D/B shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused by D/B's breach. 26.2.1 In the event the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this Section, City may take possession of the Project and may complete the Project by whatever method or means City may select. 26.2.2 If the cost to complete the Project exceeds the balance, which would have been due, D/B shall pay the excess amount to City. 26.2.3 Rights of City Preserved. Where D/B's services have been so terminated by City, the termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against D/B then existing or which may thereafter accrue. Any retention or payment of moneys due D/B by City will not release D/B from liability. It is agreed that termination hereafter will not in any way release, waiver, or abridge any rights the City has against D/B's performance bond surety. 26.2.4 Any dispute as to the amount due or owed to D/B upon termination under this section shall be resolved in accordance with Section 33. 26.3 Termination for Convenience by City. City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to D/B of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, D/B shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory Work completed, including reasonable demobilization costs, to the effective date of such termination. D/B hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 26.3.1 Records and Documents Relatinq to Termination. Unless otherwise provided in the Agreement or by statute, D/B shall maintain all records and documents relating to the terminated portion of this 41 13-47 Agreement for three (3) years after final settlement. This includes all books and other evidence bearing on O/B's costs and expenses under this Agreement. D/B shall make these records and documents available to City, at D/B's office, at all reasonable times, without any direct charge. If approved by the City Manager, photographs, electronic files, microphotographs, or other authentic reproductions may be maintained instead of original records and documents. 26.4 Upon receipt of the Notice ofTermination, D/B shall take any action that may be necessary, or that the City Manager may direct, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this Agreement that is in the possession of D/B and in which City has or may acquire an interest. 26.5 Pavment to D/B Due to Termination - D/B and the City Manager may agree upon the whole or any part of the amount to be paid because of the termination. The amount may include a fee proportional to the percentage of work satisfactorily completed. However, the agreed amount, exclusive of costs shown in section 26.9 below, may not exceed the total dollar amount authorized by City as reduced by the amount of payments previously made. If termination occurs during Phase I, II, or III, D/B shall only be entitled to the Fees for Phases I, II, or III, or a portion thereof, and no amount for Phase IV D/B Fixed Fee, except for Phase IV D/B fixed fee proportional to the percentage of work satisfactorily completed and authorized pursuant to Section 6. 26.6 Failure to Aqree on Pavment - If D/B and City fail to agree on the whole amount to be paid because of the termination of Project, City shall pay D/B the fair and reasonable amounts determined in good faith by City as follows, but without duplication of any amounts agreed to above: 26.6.1 The price for completed services accepted, including any retention, by City not previously paid; 26.6.2 The costs incurred in the performance of the Project terminated, including initial costs and preparatory expense allocable thereto. These costs are only for Work completed and accepted by the City based on an audit of all Contractors' bills of materials and the timecards for Work actually performed; 26.6.3 A portion of the D/B Fixed Fee (overhead and profit) based on the percentage of Work completed on the Project; however, if D/B would have sustained a loss on the entire Agreement had it been 42 13-48 completed, City shall allow no profit under this section and shall reduce the settlement to reflect the indicated rate of loss; 26.6.4 D/B and Design Subcontractor services through the date of termination shall be paid based on actual time spent as documented on timecards. Expenses shall be paid based on invoice and receipts provided by D/B; 26.6.5 Under no circumstances will D/B be entitled to any consideration for lost profit or lost opportunity costs. 26.7 IfD/B does not agree that the amount determined by the City Manager is fair and reasonable and if D/B gives notice of such disagreement to City within thirty (30) days of receipt of payment, then the amount due shall be as later determined pursuant to the Dispute Resolution procedures in Section 33. 26.8 Pavment for Propertv Destroved. Lost. Stolen or Damaoed - Except to the extent that City expressly assumed the risk of loss, the City Manager shall exclude from the amounts payable to D/B under this Section, the fair value, as determined by the City Manager, of property that is destroyed, lost, stolen, or damaged so as to become undeliverable to City. 26.9 Deductions -In arriving at the amount due D/B under this section, there shall be deducted: 26.9.1 Any claim which City has against D/B under this Agreement; and 26.9.2 The agreed price for, or the proceeds of sale of, materials, supplies, or other things acquired by D/B or sold under the provisions of this clause and not recovered by or credited to City. 26.10 Termination of Aoreement bv D/B 26.10.1 D/B may terminate the Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice to City, whenever: 26.10.1.1 The Project has been suspended under the provisions of Section 26.1 or 26.2, for more than ninety (90) consecutive days through no fault or negligence of D/B, and notice to resume Work or to terminate the Agreement has not been received from City within this time period; or, 43 13-49 26.10.1.1 City should fail to pay D/B allY monies due it in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and within ninety (90) days after presentation to City by D/B of a request therefore, unless within said 1 O-day period City shall have remedied the condition upon which the payment delay was based. 26.10.2 In the event of such termination, D/B shall have no claims against City except for those claims specifically enumerated in Section 26.9, herein, and as determined in accordance with the requirements of said Section. Section 27: Independent Contractor 27.1 D/B and any Design Consultant, Contractor, Subcontractor, agent or employee of D/B, shall act as an independent contractor and not as an agent, officer or employee of City. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, City assumes no liability for D/B's actions and performance; in particular, but without limitation, City assumes no responsibility for paying any taxes, bonds, payments or other commitments, implied or explicit, by or for D/B. D/B acknowledges that it is aware that because it is an independent contractor, City is making no deductions from the fees for services being paid to D/B and that City is not contributing to any fund on the behalf of D/B. D/B disclaims the right to any type of additional fee or benefits. Section 28: Independent Judoment 28.1 Unless otherwise directed in writing by City, D/B shall, in providing the professional services required by this Agreement, arrive at conclusions with respect to the rendition of information, advice and recommendations, independent of the control and direction of City, other than normal contract monitoring; D/B, however, shall possess no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of such information, advice and recommendations. D/B shall not have the authority to act as an agent on behalf of City unless specifically authorized to do so by City in writing. Section 29: Maintenance of Records and Accountino 29.1 D/B shall maintain, during the Project and for a period of three (3) years after completion of the Project, accurate and organized records of all costs of any type and all services performed under this Agreement. City will have the right at any time, including during the performance of all Phases of the Project to audit and copy all such records. Section 30: Ownership of Documents 44 13-50 30.1 All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. Section 31: Force Maieure 31.1 Any party to this Agreement may be excused for any delay or failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement, except for obligations to pay money, but only to the extent that such failure or delay is caused by an Event of Force Majeure as set forth in section 31.2. If an Event of Force Majeure setforth in section 31.2 causes a delay or failure in performance of only a portion of the obligations of a Party under this Agreement, then only that portion of performance which was delayed or prevented by such cause shall be deemed excused, and the performance of all other obligations of a Party not so delayed shall not be excused by an Event of Force Majeure. Delay or failure in performance of all other obligations of a Party not so delayed shall not be excused by such Event of Force Majeure. Delay or failure in performance by a Party which is the result of an Event of Force Majeure set forth in section 31.2 shall be deemed excused for a period no longer than the delay or failure in performance caused by such Event. 31.2 An Event of Force Majeure means an occurrence beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of a Party, including but not limited to unusually severe weather, flood, earthquake, fire, lightning, and other natural catastrophes, acts of God or the public enemy, war, terrorist act, riot, insurrection, civil disturbance or disobedience, strike or labor dispute for which D/B is not responsible, expropriation or confiscation of facilities, changes of applicable law, or sabotage of facilities, so long as such Party makes good faith and reasonable efforts to remedy the delays or failures in performance caused thereby. However, D/B, in developing the GMP and Project Schedule, has incorporated three (3) days for anticipated adverse weather days that may disrupt work on the Project; D/B shall be entitled to relief under this Section for adverse weather only to the extent adverse weather days exceed this amount of days. 31.3 A Party shall give written notice to the other Party as soon after becoming aware of the delay or failure in performance caused by an Event of Force Majeure 45 13-51 as is reasonably possible, but in any event within five (5) working days after Party becomes aware of such delay or failure. 31.4 No Event of Force Majeure shall be a basis for monetary adjustment to the GMP. Costs incurred by the D/B as a result of a Force Majeure Event will be reimbursed according to the terms of this Agreement from the Contingency Fund. Section 32: Hazardous Materials 32.1 In the event the D/B or any other party encounters asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials at the Project Site, or should it become known in any way that such materials may be present at the Project Site or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of the D/B's services, the D/B may, at his or her option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of services on the Project until the City retains appropriate specialist consultant(s) or contractor(s) to identify, abate and/or remove the hazardous or toxic materials, and warrant that the Project Site is in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Section 33: Disputes 33.1 All claims, counterclaims, disputes, and other matters in question arising under, or relating to, the Agreement or the breach thereof shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this Section, unless specifically addressed by another provision of this Agreement. 33.2 D/B shall submit its written request for a Change Order to City pursuant to Section 14. City shall make a determination on D/B's request in writing within 7 days of receipt of request and all supporting data. Said Change Order shall be made in good faith and accurately reflect the adjustment in GMP or Contract Time for which D/B believes City is liable, and covers all costs and delays to which D/B believes it is entitled as a result of the occurrence of the claimed event. All requests for adjustment in Contract Time shall include an analysis of the Master Construction Schedule and the impact of the claimed work on specific activities on the Master Construction Schedule. 33.3 If D/B disagrees with City's determination, D/B shall file a claim in writing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as iffully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of the same. 46 13-52 33.4 Pending final resolution of any claim, including litigation, D/B shall proceed diligently with performance of the Project, and comply with any direction of City. Section 34: Notices 34.1 All notices, demands or other communications hereunder shall be given or made in writing and shall be delivered personally or sent by courier or registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the Party to whom they are directed at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as may be designated by notice from such Party: (i) To CITY: City Attorney 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Tel: (619) 691-5037 Fax: (619) 409-5823 Department of General Services Building and Park Construction 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 Tel: (619) 397-6220 Fax: 619) 397-6250 (ii) To D/B: Any notice, demand or other communication given or made solely by mail in the manner prescribed in this Section shall be deemed to have been given and to be effective three (3) days after the date of such mailing; provided, however, that any notice, demand or other communication which would othelWise be deemed to have been given on a day which is not a working day shall be deemed to have been given on the next subsequent working day. Section 35: Miscellaneous Terms 47 13-53 35.1 Representations: Each Party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Agreement it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each Party further declares and represents that this Agreement is being made without reliance upon any statement or representation of any other Party not contained herein, or any representative, agent or attorney of any other Party. 35.2 Severability: If any term or condition of this Agreement is held to any extent to be invalid or unenforceable, all the remaining terms and conditions shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 35.3 Entire Aoreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement, between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, discussions, obligations and rights of the Parties in respect of each other regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. There is no other written or oral understanding between the Parties. No modification, amendment or alteration of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties hereto. 35.4 Draftino Ambiouities: The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement. 35.5 Applicable Law: The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for mediation, arbitration and/or actions arising out of this Agreement shall be in the City of Chula Vista, California. 35.6 Waiver: Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, no delay or omission by the Parties hereto in exercising any right or remedy provided for herein shall constitute a waiver of such right or remedy, nor shall it be construed as a bar to or a waiver of any such right or remedy on any future occasion. 35.7 Effect of Headinos: Headings appearing in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and shall in no way be construed to be interpretations of the provisions hereof. 35.8 Amendments: This Agreement may be modified, amended or supplemented only by the mutual written agreement of the Parties hereto. 48 13-54 35.9 Authorization and Compliance: Each Party represents that it is duly authorized to execute and carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 35.10 Further Assurances: The Parties agree to do such further acts and things and execute and deliver such additional agreements and instruments as the other may reasonably require to consummate, evidence or confirm the agreements contained herein in the manner contemplated hereby. 35.11 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The facsimile signatures of the Parties shall be deemed to constitute original signatures, and facsimile copies hereof shall be deemed to constitute duplicate original counterparts. 35.12 Exhibits and Glossarv of Terms: All Exhibits and Glossary of Terms are incorporated herein by reference into this Agreement. 35.13 Third Partv Beneficiarv: Nothing within this Agreement stlall create a contractual relationship between the City and any third party. [NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] 49 13-55 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DESIGN/BUILD AGREEMENT Cheryl Cox, Mayor *"""' HoII CNeI CJ!>OralInQ QtIIcOf ~..HoIlCul101r\ldlOl'eo. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: By: ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form by: Ann Moore, City Attorney 50 13-56 GLOSSARY OF TERMS (See Attached) J:\General Services\GS Administration\Design Build Agreements\AJ1 Seasons Park DBA Q41807.doc 51 13-57 EXHIBIT LIST (I-III) Exhibit I RFP for Design Build Services for Mt. San Miguel Community Park A) Park Master Plan B) Sample Design/Build Contract and Glossary of Terms (INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLUDED) C) Project Location Exhibit 2 Design Build Fee Structure Exhibit 3 Identification of Design Build Team Members 52 13-58 EXHIBIT 1 RFP for Design Build Services for Mt. San Miguel Community Park A) Park Master Plan B) Sample Design/Build Contract and Glossary of Terms (INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLUDED) C) Project Location I 13-59 ~~~ ~ r __ ___ _..- __- """""--- ------ --- --- CllY OF CHUlA VISTA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR DESIGNIBUILD SERVICES FOR All Seasons Park Otay Ranch Village 7 RFP Issue Date: Wednesday, February 28,2007 Proposal Due Date & Time: Friday, March 23, 2007 4:00 p.m. City of Chula Vista General Services Department Building and Park Construction 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 13-60 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1 2.0 IMPORTANT DATES ........................................................................................................1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. ...................... ..................... ..... ........ ............. ...... ......... .............1 4.0 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF DBT ................................................................................2 5.0 SCOPE OF WORK..............................................................................................................4 5.1.1 Pre Construction Services - Phase I ...............................................................................4 5.2.2 Construction Services - Phase II..................................................................................... 7 5.2.3 Operations/Startup Services - Phase ill..........................................................................9 6.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................9 7.0 INSPECTION ....................................................................................................................11 8.0 CHANGE IN GMP AND CONTRACT TIME .................................................................11 9.0 PROJECT COMPLETION ................................................................................................11 1 0.0 WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES ............................................................................12 11.0 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND ACCOUNTING................................................ 13 12.0 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS ......................................,.............................................13 13.0 RFP REQUIRElvlENTS ............................................................................................... ......13 13.3 General RFP Requirements: .........................................................................................14 13.4 Contents: ...... .......................... ........ .................. ...................... ..................... .......... ....... .14 13.5 Experience and Technical Competence: .......................................................................14 13.6 Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work.....,........................................................... 15 13.7 Knowledge and Understanding of Local "Environment": ............................................15 13.8 Project Organization and Key Personnel: .....................................................................15 13.9 Financial Arrangements for DBT Members: ................................................................15 13.10 Exceptions to this RFP:.................................................................................................15 13.11 Addenda to this RFP: ....................................................................................................16 13.12 Minim= Contractor Qualifications:............................................................................16 13.13 Schedule of Rates and Fees.............................................................. ....... .16 13.14 Additional Information.......................................................................... .17 14.0 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ....................................................................................................17 15.0 PROPOSAL SCHEDULE .................................................................................................18 16.0 PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCESS ..............................................................................18 17.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA .........................................................................18 13-61 18.0 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS .....................................................................19 ATTACHMENT A- Approved Master Plan........................... ................... ........... ....20 ATTACIDvffiNT B - Sample DesignJBuild Contract and Glossary of Terms..... ............. .....21 ATTACIDvffiNT C - City ofChula Vista Disclosure Statement............... ........... ............. 22 13-62 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The City of Chula Vista (City) is circulating this Request for Proposal (RFP) requesting proposals from DesignJBui1d Teams (DBT) qualified to provide the City with, design services, engineering services, architectural services, construction management, and construction services/coordination for the construction of All Seasons Park located in Otay Ranch Village Seven. The DBT shall consist mainly of a General Contractor, Landscape Architect and an Architect. All DBT members shall be licensecllregistered with the State of California. This RFP describes all the elements of the project, the required scope of services, the designlbui1d team selection process, and the minimum information that must be included in the proposal. Failure to submit information in accordance with the RFP's requirements and procedures may be a cause for disqualification. 1.2 This RFP has been distributed to selected firms on the City's list ofDesignJBuilders certified on June 17, 2003. Award will be based on the DBT and the best value proposal, including design fees, general conditions and construction fee. Price will be a primary factor, but not the sole consideration for award. Contracts will be awarded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the DesignlBuild Ordinance as outlined in Section 2.57 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1.3 The City encourages the Design Builder to contact the Landscape Architect that prepared the Master Plan for All Seasons Park. This is not a requirement that Landscape Architect be part of the DBT. 2.0 IMPORTANT DATES 2.1 Proposal Due Date: Friday March 23, 2007 by 4:00 p.m. Location: Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA 91911- General Services Department receptionist 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 The DBT shall design and construct for the City: a completed and fully functional park and restroom facilities (referred to hereafter as "Project"). The park shall include, but not be limited to all components outlined and described in the attached document titled "All Seasons Park" (Attachment A). The All Seasons Park is located on Magdalena A venue in east= Chula Vista. 1 13-63 4.0 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF DBT 4.1 The services to be provided by DBT are generally to be performed in three "Phases", Pre-construction Services, Construction Services, and Operation/Start Up. The services to be provided in each Phase are specified below in this RFP. The DBT shall : A. Perform all services, work and obligations as described herein for a Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") which will be set at I 00% construction documents and shall include all Design Services and all Hard Construction Costs necessary to provide a fully completed and functional Project including, but not limited to, general conditions, the cost for all labor, equipment, material, and the DBT Fixed Fee which includes fees and expenses of any type associated with completing the Project. Any costs incurred by DBT in excess of said GMP shall be the sole responsibility of the DBT, except for change orders approved by the City in accordance with the DBT contract to be executed with the DBT. A sample contract is enclosed as Attachment B. 4.2 DBT shall be obligated as follows: A. At all times in performing its services under this Agreement to design and construct the best possible Project consistent with standard of care that satisfies the time, monetary, quality and design parameters set forth in this RFP and subsequent DIB Contract. B. Design and construct the Proj ect on time, consistent with time frames set forth in the Proj ect Schedule, and in such a manner that the GMP or Contract Time of the Project shall not be exceeded, but if DBT reasonably believes that any action, inaction, decision or direction being made by City or agent for the City will likely result in the GMP or Contract Time being exceeded or the Project being completed late, DBT will notify City, for approval or denial, in writing within five (5) calendar days of discovering such action, inaction, decision, or direction. Included in such notice will be an estimate of the cost and time impact resulting from such action, inaction, decision or direction. C. Perform, or obtain prior written consent of the City to subcontract all design services for the Project utilizing qualified., licensed and sufficiently experienced architects, engineers and other professionals. DBT shall not be permitted to substitute any Design Consultant unless authorized by City. D. Perform all construction on the Project utilizing Subcontractors appropriately licensed by the California Contractors State License Board or other required agencles. E. Perform all services as expeditiously as is consistent with reasonable skill and care and shall complete the services within each and all of the time periods set forth within the approved project schedule. 2 13-64 F. Comply with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and all other State, Federal and local laws including, but not limited to, those prohibiting discrimination, on account of race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex or handicap. G. Study all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and statutes affecting the Project, including but not limited to, zoning, enviro=ental, building, fire and safety codes and coverage, density and density ratios and lien laws, and comply with them in performance of its services. DBT shall ensure that within the established GMP that the Project conforms to all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders or other legal requirements. H. Take all reasonable steps during the course of construction to control dust and noise in accordance with the provisions in the 2000 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, City Ordinances and the DIB contract. 1. Use reasonable care to avoid damaging existing improvements and vegetation adjacent to the Project Site. If DBT causes damage to any of this property, DBT shall replace or repair said property at no expense to City and shall not be a basis for seeking an adjustment to the GMP or Contract Time. J. To obtain all permits necessary to complete the Project. City shall reimburse cost of permits. DBT shall be responsible for obtaining and paying for all minor permits normally obtained by the trades or subcontractors. K. Conform project design to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") and the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 1. Seek and obtain written approval from the City of the drawings for each of the following design phases: (1) schematic design (2) design development (3) 50% construction drawings and (4) I 00% construction drawings. Said approvals shall be evidenced by written notice to proceed with each subsequent phase. M. Provide cost estimating and value engineering services, which takes into consideration long-range maintenance costs, energy efficiency, and impacts on operation of the Project. N. Review the enviro=ental documents and all technical reports relating to the Project Site; and determine and advise City if any additional needed studies are warranted. DBT shall perform said studies as authorized by City. The costs of said studies are Reimbursable Costs to be paid by the City without markup. O. DBT agrees to fully assume all risks, and costs associated with such risks, in performing the services and meeting the obligations under this RFP and the DIB contract. P. DBT warrants that at least one member of the DBT team shall be licensed by the California Contractor's State License Board as a General Building 3 13-65 Contractor. DBT is to provide a list of the responsible people within their organizations performing services, which shall include their qualifications and their function, for approval by the City prior to start of construction. City and D BT shall establish "key personnel" who shall remain on the Proj ect until Final Completion. If any such "key personnel" leave the employment ofDBT, City shall have the right to approve the replacement personnel. DBT shall comply with all licensing requirements of the State of California, County of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista Q. D BT agrees and acknowledges that the City Representative is the only person with authority to approve additions or modifications to Proj ect. Any costs or delays resulting from or associated with additions or modifications implemented without the written authorization of City Representative shall be borne exclusively by DBT and .not be grounds for an increase in GMP or Contract Time unless necessary to protect public health, safety or property. 5.0 SCOPE OF WORK 5.1 Services required of the DBT include those during design, construction, and operations/startup of the Project. The GMP will be developed based on all management, supervision, labor, services, equipment, tools, supplies, and any other item of every kind and description required for a comprehensive design and construction program. The scope of work includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Develop and Implement Project Management Plan and Procedures 2. Monthly project status reports 3. Coordination/interface with the City and its other consultants! contractors 4. Progress meetings 5. Interface and connunications with other agencies 6. Vendors and subcontractors management 7. Document control 8. Schedule and budget control 9. Quality assurance and quality control 5.1.1 Pre-Construction Services - Phase I Utilizing the City required standard specifications, facility program requirements, approved master plans, Federal, State, and City performance and design criteria, concept drawings, and reports that will be identified in the DesignlBuild contract, the DBT will: 4 13-66 1. Prepare schematic design, design development and construction drawings and specifications suitable for obtaining City approval and issuance of permits. 2. Complete the design for all elements of the project, including but not limited to: architectural, civil, structural, landscape architectural, mechanical, electrical, and specialty consulting areas. 3. Evaluate alternative structural and construction approaches for all facilities to ensure economical designs that optimize constructability yet meet all codes, architectural concepts, conceptual designs, and standard specifications of the proj ect. Design shall satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as required. 4. Incorporate the requirements of permitting agencies in the course of design. The DBT shall apply for and secure all permits and provide all necessary reports, studies and support required to obtain the permits. In addition, the DBT shall research all Air Pollution Control District and noise abatement requirements, along with any hazardous materials management requirements of NFPA, Cal-OSHA and the City Fire Department. The DBT shall develop all appropriate environmental plans, including but not limited to, an air pollution control plan, a noise abatement plan and a hazardous materials management plan. The DBT shall prepare, submit and obtain approval of an application for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to the appropriate authority. The DBT shall incorporate appropriate facilities in the design. S. Conduct site surveys and geotechnical investigations to the extent necessary for final design. Survey and geotechnical information to be provided by the City may be preliminary in nature and may not have sufficient accuracy or scope to support final design. a) Prepare Construction Cost Estimates and Project Budgets based on Schematic Design. Prepare revised Cost Estimates during Design Development and Construction Documents and Bidding phases at intervals specified in the Design Build Agreement. Develop Proj ect cost model inclusive of detailed Quantity Surveys and Cost Estimates. b) Perform three-value engineering reviews to reduce cost and/or add value, utilizing all team members and City resources. Include reco=endations to maximize energy efficiency and build a "green" or low-pollution project. Prepare a Value Engineering Report of all considerations, reco=endations and decisions. The goal is to maximize the quality of construction at a cost equal to or below the Project Budget. c) Perform Quality Control CQC) Review of the Drawings and Specifications throughout all Phases in order to correct errors and omissions and reduce the quantity of Change Orders during the 5 13-67 course of construction. Include a detailed review of drawings and designs relative to Code Compliance Laws. Organize and publish detailed QC Reports based on all findings. d) Establish a Critical Path Method (CPM) Construction Schedule. Monitor, update and report to keep the project on schedule. e) Establish a bidding strategy. Identify, contract, and procure long lead items. Create early bid packages where applicable. t) At 100% Construction documents, provide cost estimate that will be used to establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). Any Savings at the end of the project will be deducted from the GMP and ret\m1ed to the owner. g) During the Bidding of the Project, the DBT shall: I) Reco=end appropriate subdivisions of work into discrete Bid Packages. 2) Create detailed Scope of Work Packages for bidding to multiple sub-contractors that will be contracted directly to the DBT. 3) Create all Bidding Documents. SpecifY unit prices, alternates, quantities, bonding and insurance requirements. 4) Secure a minimum of three complete and competitive bids for each package and competitively bid each package. 5) Receive and resolve all Requests for Information (RFI's) and bid questions. 6) Schedule meetings with the City to open and review bids for each subdivision of work. Review bids in detail. ClarifY Scopes of Work, exclusions, etc. Ensure bids match DBT Scope of Work. 7) Make reco=endations for selections and award of bids based on lowest, responsible and most complete bids. Provide cost spreadsheets which compares bids to cost estimates. If lowest responsible bid exceeds cost estimate, prepare reco=endations to resolve the problems and reduce cost without compromise to the overall goals of the Project, while remaining within Budget and on Schedule. h) Assemble a constructability review team with City participation at the 50 percent design completion stage. Incorporate results of the team's review into the design. i) Provide construction cost control estimates during the design to support VE and constructability reviews. Revise these cost control estimates once accepted VE reco=endations and other review co=ents have been incorporated. 6 13-68 j) Identify all permit requirements and prepare applications and support documents necessary for obtaining all permits. Permit fees will be borne by the City. k) Prepare draft Operations Manual Index to serve as the basis for preparing the final Operations Manual during the construction phase. 5.2.2 Construction Services - Phase II A) The DBT shall construct the facility in accordance with the approved construction drawings and specifications (and associated permits) prepared by the DBT to meet or exceed all requirements of the City provided program offacility requirements. The DBT shall also: 1. Conduct weekly team meetings with the City and appropriate design team members. during the course of construction to review the status of the proj ect. Ensure the workmanship and materials provided are in accordance with the Project Specifications and the Architects and meet or exceed quality construction industry standards for this type of work. Provide list of required shop drawing submittals. Review shop- drawing submittals for technical and code compliance. Provide copy to the City for review and comment. Provide resident engineering, contract administration, and inspection staff, including specialists necessary for the functional, safe, on budget and on-schedule completion of the Project, starting with the issuance of a Notice to Proceed from the City and extending through issuance of Notice of Completion and Acceptance. City staff will also perform inspection to verify compliance with the plans and specifications, permits and contract documents. 2. , ~. 4. 5. Ensure construction compliance with applicable local, state, and federal codes, building and environmental permit requir=ents, and construction mitigation documents and enforcement of the Contract Documents. 6. Provide surveying, and other contracted services as required completing projects construction. Coordinate City contracted testing and inspection services during the course of construction. 7. Develop, implement and manage a construction phase Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAlQC). The Plan shall include but not be limited to: 1) a statement and definition ofQAlQC goals; 2) an identification of QAlQC criteria and elements; 3) development of the project QAlQC implementation plan; 4) development of the QAlQC materials, components, equipment and system testing plans; and, 5) enforcement of the plans and specifications. 7 13-69 8. Submit the proposed QAlQC Plan to the City for review. The Plan shall not be implemented without written approval of the City. 9. Be responsible for preparing the Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule utilized during the project construction and startup activities. Use Microsoft Project scheduling software consistent with the City reporting system. 10. Develop a proj ect-specific Plan for defining, tracking and reporting cash flow activity requirements and submit such plan to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. 11. Develop a project-specific Change Order Administration Plan for review and approval by the City. Upon written approval of the Plan, the DBT shall initiate implementation. The Plan shall define the required Change Order procedures, including requirements for requesting, developing, approving, and filing. 12. Implement and maintain an internal records management and document control system as required to support project operations. The DBT shall provide records management and document control information in a manner consistent with the citywide Prolog Management reporting/filing system. 13. The DBT shall develop an on-site Project Safety Plan for review and approval by the City. The DBT shall administer and enforce the City approved on-site Project Safety Plan for the Project. The DBT shall monitor and enforce Project construction Contractor responsibility for safety and health issues relating to their workers as the Project Site. This shall include workers in direct employment to the Contractor and workers involved in a subcontracting, equipment supply, or any other project-related oral or written arrangement with the DBT. 14. Report accidents, claims, and other on-going safety related issues to the City in a manner consistent with Citywide reporting systems. 8 13-70 5.2.3 Operations/Startup Services - Phaselli a. The DBT shall prepare, submit for City review and written approval a Project Startup and Testing Plan for the Project. The DBT shall fully implement said plan. b. The DBT shall conduct Operator Training Sessions for personnel. c. The DBT shall supervise, manage, and coordinate all project startup and testing activities for all systems within the provisions of the Contract Documents. d. The DBT shall report progress of project startup and testing to the City in a manner consistent with the City's reporting system. e. The DBT shall coordinate and expedite record drawings and specifications. f. The DBT shall prepare final accounting and close out reports. g. The DBT shall prepare occupancy plan reports. h. Unless the DBT receives the City's prior approval to substitute equal or better quality materials, the DBT warrants to City that material and equipment incorporated in the Proj ect will be new, unless otherwise specified, and that the Project will be of good quality, free from faults and defects, and in strict conformance with the Construction Documents and the DIE contract. 1. Post Construction: DBT to coordinate an II-month walk through of the Project to review guarantee/warranty items. DBT to coordinate all corrective work with the responsible parties and the City. The DBT shall report to the City all guarantee/warranty disputes. The DBT shall proceed to resolve such disputes after having submitted to the City for review and approval the DBT's approach for obtaining resolution for the dispute. 6.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The Design Builder (DB) shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the DB, his agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants. All sub-consultants shall be required to comply with the applicable insurance provisions. The maintenance of proper coverage is a materials element of the DB contract and that failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract. 6.1 Minimum Insurance Requirements 6.1.1 The firm selected to perform the work described herein will be required to provide evidence of: 9 13-71 6.1.1.1 Commercial General Liability insurance, ISO CG 0001 Occurrence form, with combined single limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence per project. Policy to include endorsement naming City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers as Additional Insured against all liability of the DB, its subcontractors, and its authorized representatives, arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of work under the contract with the City. Policy is to be endorsed to state it is Primary to any other insurance available to the City of Chula Vista and that insurer will provide THIRTY (30) days written notice to the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista of cancellation or material change. 6.1.1.2 Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance, ISO CA 0001 form, Any Auto code, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, covering bodily injury and property damage for owned, non-owned and hired automobiles, and name the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers as additional insured's. 6.1.1.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance, for all employees who are normally engaged in Work at the Project Site, with Statutory Limits for Workers' Compensation and not less than Employer's Liability limit for Bodily injury by Accident $1 ,000,000, each accident Bodily Injury by Disease $1,000,000, Bodily Injury by Disease $1,000,000. A Waiver of Subrogation shall be endorsed to the policy naming the City of Chula Vista. 6.1.1.4 Professional Liability insurance shall be required for professional liability or errors and omissions insurance with a per claim limit of not less than $2,000,000 for services performed by the Design contractors and any subcontractors performing design services. The policy shall contain an extended reporting period of not less than 2 years. 6.1.1.5 Builder's Risk Property Insurance will be provided by the DB. The DB will add the City, its officials, officers, employees and volunteers as Loss Payee. The insurance shall waive any right of recovery under subrogation for those insured under this policy. The limit is to reflect full replacement cost of hard cost construction values. Perils are to be all risk excluding Earthquake and Flood. Perils are to include any transportation risk but is to exclude any equipment, machinery, tools, or property of similar nature, owned, rented or used by DB or contractors. 6.1.1.6 Other Provisions. Prior to beginning Work under the Agreement, each and every contractor of any tier shall furnish Certificates of Insurance satisfactory to the City. All such certificates will contain at least the following prOVISIOns : 10 13-72 6.1.1.6.1 Thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to any cancellation, non-renewal or materials reduction in coverage. 6.1.1.6.2 The words "will endeavor" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no such obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" will be deleted from the certificate. 6.1.1.6.3 Throughout the life of the Agreement, each and every contractor of any tier shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect, with an insurer authorized by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California, the policies evidenced herein. Any insurance provided for the City, DB or subcontractors for this project shall be written through an insurer admitted in the State of California with an AM Best rating of not less than A,V. Any exceptions are at the sole discretion of the City and subject to written approval of the City. 7.0 INSPECTION 7.1 City shall be responsible for material testing and inspections, with reimbursement to be required by DBT for any re-inspections. The City shall either perform said inspection services with its own forces or contract with third parties. It shall be the responsibility ofDBT, however, to call for, coordinate and schedule all inspections. 7.2 City, its consultants, subcontractors, independent testing laboratories as well as other governmental agencies with jurisdictional interests will have access at reasonable times for this observation, inspecting and testing. The DBT shall provide them proper and safe conditions for such access and advise them of DBI's safety procedures and programs for compliance. 8.0 CHANGE IN GMP AND CONTRACT TIME 8.1 The GMP and Contract Time may only be changed with a written Change Order. Change Orders shall be issued only under the following circumstances: A. The City directs DBT to perform Additional Services. B. For reasons expressly provided in the DIB Contract. 9.0 PROJECT COMPLETION 9.1 Substantial Completion shall be that stage in the progress of the construction when all Work on the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City may fully utilize entire Project; Substantial Completion shall further mean that all goods, services and systems to be provided under the terms and conditions of the Construction Documents are in place and have been initially tested, 113 - 73 and are operationally functional, subject only to final testing, balancing and adjustments and normal Final Completion punchlist Work. 9.2 Final Completion shall be deemed to occur on the last of the following events: (1) recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project; (2) acceptance of the Project by the City; (3) issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project; (4) . submission of all documents required to be supplied by DBT to City as outlined in the DIB contract, including but not limited to As-Built Drawings, warranties, and operating manuals; (5) and delivery to City of a Certificate of Completion duly verified by DBT. 9.3 The DBT shall provide City with a Certificate of Completion, certifying to City under penalty of peIjury that the Project has been completed in accordance with the Construction Documents, all applicable building codes and regulations, all permits, licenses, and certificates of inspection, ilse and occupancy, and ordinances relating to the Proj ect. 9.4 The DBT shall provide five sets of City final record drawing documents at the end of construction, one set of reproducible and one copy in electronic format ("As-Built Drawings"). As-Built Drawings are to be accurate and legible records showing all components of the Project and there exact locations 9.5 The DBT shall provide a copy of, or make available before destruction, all records (which includes all writings as defmed in Evidence Code Section 250) to the City upon receipt or generation, which shall include a copy ofDBT's filing protocol. 9.6 A copy of all approved submittals shall be forwarded to the City at the completion of the project. All information shall be assembled in such a fashion to fit into a standard file drawer and organized by CSI codes. Ibis copy is in addition to those provided during the course of construction for connent. 10.0 WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES 10.1 The DBT warrants and guarantees to City that materials and equipment incorporated into the Proj ect will be new unless otherwise specified and that all work will be in strict accordance with the Construction Documents and will not be defective. All Defective Work, whether or not in place, may be rejected, corrected, or accepted as directed by City. DBT shall not be entitled to an extension in Contract Time or increase in GMP because of any delay or increase in cost attributable to the rejection, correction or acceptance of said work. Defective work may be rej ected even if approved by prior inspection. 10.2 The warranty period shall connence when the Certificate of Final Completion is issued (irrespective of beneficial use by City prior to Final Completion) and extend one (1) year after that date or whatever longer period may be prescribed by laws or regulations or by the terms of any applicable special guarantee or specific provision of the Construction Documents. The DIB contract will contain provisions addressing this issue and steps to correct defective work. 1 :?-74 11.0 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND ACCOUNTING 11.1 The DBT shall maintain, during the Project implementation time and for a period of three (3) years after completion of the Project, accurate and organized records of all costs of any type and all services performed for the project. City will have the right at any time, including during the performance of all Phases of the Project to audit and copy all such records. 12.0 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 12.1 All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced for this project shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part for this project shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by DBT in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced for this proj eel. 13.0 RFP REQUIREMENTS 13.1 All DBTs are required to follow the format specified below. The content of the proposal must be clear, concise, and complete. Each section of the proposal shall be presented according to the outline shown below to aid in expedient information retrieval (NOTE: DBTs shall base their proposals on the "Scope of Work"). Eight (8) copies of the proposal shall be delivered no later than 4:00 PM. on Friday, March 23, 2007 to: City of Chula Vista Attn: Matt Little General Services Department Bldg. and Park Construction 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 13.2 Please note that faxed copies will not be accepted. Also note that incomplete proposals, incorrect information, or late submittals may be cause for immediate disqualification. The City reserves the right to amend the RFP prior to the date that proposals are due. Amendments to the RFP shall be mailed to all potential DBTs. The City reserves the right to extend the date by which the proposals are due. 1 33_ 75 13.3 General RFP Requirements: A. The City desires to receive proposals from only qualified and experienced DBTs who demonstrate significant knowledge of design engineering and construction management, and experience and successful performance on public sector park and recreation facilities of comparable magnitude involving a GMP incorporating both design and construction. B. The proposal should be concise, well organized and demonstrate the DBT's qualifications and experience applicable to the Project. The proposal shall be inclusive of resumes, graphics, forms, pictures, photographs, dividers, front and back cover, cover letter, etc. Type size and margins for text pages should be in keeping with accepted standard formats for desktop publishing and word processing and should result in no more than 500 words per page. C. Proposals must be bound. 13.4 Contents: A. Proposals submitted in response to this RFP shall be in the following order and shall include: 1. Executive Summary. 2. Include a one- to two-page overview that highlights DBT approach and DBT's commitment to meet or exceed the City's objectives and insure a successful project built on time and on schedule. 3. Identification of each DBT member: o Legal name and address. o Legal form of company (partnership, corporation, joint venture, etc.). If joint venture identifY the members of the joint venture and provide all information required under this section for each member. o If company is wholly owned subsidiary of a "parent company," identify the "parent company." o Addresses of offices located in San Diego County, if any. o Number of employees in San Diego County. o City of Chula Vista Business License Number. o Name, title, address and telephone number of person( s) to be assigned to project. o Name, title, address and telephone number of person to contact concerning the proposal. 13.5 Experience and Technical Competence: A. Describe DBT's experience in completing similar designlbuild projects. List three (3) successfully completed proj ects of similar nature with name of Owner's Project Manager, phone numbers, project type and total value of 1 !f-7 6 completed construction. Projects currently in process may be submitted for consideration. Identify any specific proj ects and include in your client references where this team has worked together. , 13.6 Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work: A. Describe DBI's technical and management approach to the design and construction effort. Discuss lines of communications necessary to maintain design schedule and construction schedules, and software availability for both schedule and management reporting. 13.7 Knowledge and Understanding of Local "Environment": A. Describe experience working in the local "environment" and proposed local presence for interfacing with the City's project management staff. The "environment" includes but is not limited to: City and other local agencies regulations and policies; local environmental documentation requirements; geotechnical conditions in project area; local building codes; ADA requirements and other local design criteria. 13.8 Project Organization and Key Personnel: A. Describe proposed project organization and provide an organizational chart, including identification and responsibilities of key personnel. Indicate role and responsibilities of the prime DB and all sub-consultants. Indicate how local firms are being utilized to ensure a strong understanding of local laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, requirements, permitting, etc. Indicate extent of commitment of key personnel for duration ofproject (through building and park occupation) and furnish resumes of key personnel. Provide indication of staffing level for the project. B. DBI's evaluation will consider its entire team, therefore no changes in team composition will be allowed without prior written approval of the City. Describe DBI's capacity to perform the work within the time limitations, considering DBI's current and planned workload and DBI's workforce. 13.9 Financial Arrangements for DBT Members: If the DBT is a Joint Venture Team, the DBT shall address the proposed fmancial arrangements between the Joint Venture members as they relate to liability to the City for work to be performed. DBT shall submit a team members' list indicating scope of work, and approximate percentage of contract. Team members must be named on said list if they receive more than $10,000 or more than one-half of one percent (.5%) whichever is less. 13.10 Exceptions to this RFP: The DBT shall certify that it takes no exceptions to this RFP. If the DBT does take exceptiones) to any portion of the RFP, the specific portion of the RFP to which exception is taken shall be identified and explained. 13'-77 13.11 Addenda to this RFP: DBT shall confirm in its proposal the receipt of all addenda issued to this REP. DBT is not required to include copies of the actual addenda in its proposal. 13.12 Minimum Contractor Qualifications: DBT submitting qualifications must include a contractor who possesses the applicable California Contractor's license. DBT must also submit evidence of being able to be bonded for such projects. 13.13 Schedule of Rates and Fees: A. Pre-Construction: 1) Provide cost break down of design cost by discipline. Include design teams cost to administer the contract during the course of construction. 2) Provide a fixed fee for preconstruction services. Services for this period shall include but not limited to cost estimating, constructability review, site surveys, subcontractor bidding, submittal review and procurement of long lead items. The City views the DBT's input' and leadership during this period as an important component of the project. B. Project General Conditions: Provide a detailed spreadsheet that completely outlines the projects general conditions, including quantities, units, unit costs and totals. Provide billing rates for all proposed team members. All design cost shall be included under Pre-Construction cost noted as item A above. C. Cost of Work Multipliers (FEE): Based on the scope and size of the project, please propose an overhead and profit percentage rate and any other multipliers such as liability insurance to be applied to the cost of work. This rate would apply to each major phase of the project as it is released and subsequently bid to subcontractors. D. Preliminary Cost Estimate: Based on the attached master plan please provide a comprehensive cost estimate that takes into account all design and construction costs. Clearly note all assumptions that were used to create the estimate and areas of concern. The proposed project has a preliminary construction budget of$ 1,500,000. E. Change Orders: Indicate an overhead and profit percentage rate to be used on subsequent changes to the major phases of the project. This rate shall apply to deductive changes. F. Provide Payment and Performance Bond Rates. G. Provide description of your company's safety policy and how it would be implemented on this job. H. Provide Preliminary Design & Construction Schedule. This schedule should reflect maj or design and construction activities as well as maintenance periods 1 ~-7 8 for landscaping. 13 .14 Additional Information: A. This section shall contain all the other pertinent information that is required to be submitted with the proposal in the following order: 1. Description of insurance coverage for prime respondent and co-venture partner(s) (types of coverage and policy limits, deductible, exclusions, and outstanding claims). 2. Description of in-house resources for prime respondent and co-venture partner(s) (i.e., computer capabilities, software applications, modem protocol, and modeling programs, etc.). 3. Indicate if contractors self perform any work, if so, what trades. Also indicate if contractors have any union signatory agreements. 4. DBTs should provide, on a strictly confidential basis, the following information: a) Audited fmancial statements for the last three years b) List of projects completed in the last year c) List of projects currently under development, OJ; construction with status, development schedule and financial commitment d) List of projects currently involved in litigation or unresolved claims for the contractor. 5. Complete the attached "City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement" (Attachment C). 14.0 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 14.1. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City and public records, and as such may be subject to public review. Under the California Public Records Act (California Gove=ent Code Section 6250 et seq.) records in the custody of a public entity generally have to be disclosed unless the information being sought falls into one or more of the exemptions to disclosure set out in Gove=ent Code Sections 6254 through 6255. The cover letter of the proposal should contain a paragraph that states whether or not DBT believes that its proposal does or does not contain information that falls into one of the exemptions of Government Code Sections 6254 through 6255 and whether or not DBT considers such information to be confidential. 14.2 In the absence of a declaration, City may be obligated to disclose proposal to any party that requests it. Regardless of assertions of confidentiality, proposal contents may still be disclosed if City, or a court with jurisdiction, determines that such proposal is a public record requiring disclosure. 1~-79 15.0 PROPOSAL SCHEDULE 15.1 The solicitation receipt and evaluation of proposals and the selection of the DBT will conform to the following schedule (Note: Dates are subject to change): . Distribution/Advertisement ofRFP - Wednesday, February 28 2007 . Submittal of Proposals Deadline - Friday, March 23 2007 by 4:00 pm . Preliminary DBT Selection - April 2007 . Approval of Design/Build Agreement - August 2007 16.0 PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCESS 16.1 A ward will be based on the best-qualified DBT to build the facility. Relevant team experience, design coSts, fee and general conditions will be a primary factor, but not the sole consideration for award. Contracts will be awarded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Design/Build Ordinance as outlined in Section 2.57 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 17.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 17.1 Submittals received by City will be evaluated in no certain order, according to the criteria listed below: A. Conformance to the specified RFP requirements and format; B. Organization, presentation, and content of the submittal; C. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm(s), (including principal firms, joint venture-partners, and sub-consultants) considering the types of service required; the complexity of the project; record of performance; and the strength of the key personnel who will be dedicated to the proj ect; D. Proposed methods and overall strategic plan to accomplish the work in a timely and competent manner; E. Knowledge and understanding of the local environment and a local presence for interfacing with the City; F. Financial resources and stability of the principal consultant and/or DB team; G. Ability to meet the insurance requirements unless City, at its sole discretion, decides to modify or waive the insurance requirements or elects to provide project insurance; H. Pre-Construction Costs, FEE, Change Order mark up rates. 1~-80 18.0 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS 18.1 Issuance of this RFP does not commit City to award a contract, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a response to this request. City retains the right to reject any or all submittals. Selection is dependent upon the negotiation of a mutually acceptable contract with the successful DBT. A sample contract that will be modified to the specifics of this project is provided for your review as Attachment B. No modifications to the standard contract language will be granted. Cost to meet the minimum requirements shall be noted as part of Section 13.13 above or clearly denoted as an exclusion as part of your proposal response. 18.2 Each submittal shall be valid for not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date ofreceipt. 18.3 All insurance shall be- provided at the sole cost and expense of the firm selected, unless the requirement is modified or waived by the City. City reserves the right to modify the insurance limits or to substitute proj ect insurance during contract negotiations. The City looks forward to receiving a proposal from your firm. If you have any questions regarding this RFP, please contact: Mr. Matt Little General Services Department Building and Park Construction 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 Phone: (619) 397-6088 Fax: (619) 397-6250 Email: Mlittle@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Attachments: Attachment A: Park Master Plan Attachment B: Sample DesignlBuild Contract Attachment C: Disclosure Statement 139-81 Attachment A: Park Master Plan (See Attached Document) dl!..S2 13-83 t: ~ \:) o o -E ~ .~ ~ "- ClJ ~ ~ ~ "6 ~ Q:: & o t: v ~ \:] !a.... 0 0 (\j -E 0 CL ~ .~ V1 ~ "- C C1J ~ 0 ~ ~ V1 '6 (\j ~ ClJ cc: ~ V') 0 <( 13-84 Q. ra ~ .0 .- c '- u :> E' C!I: ~ 'O.Oi C!I car III III ::lj "C!' C' C!I' ~' .' ;, Ei _! f!: Ill' c, Ill' =j ~ ( r- Q).~_. I': OJ, ell :> ..c u c ell 0( >. cd ..... o JI I!,jli, llii'l\i ;f;j;h~1 i Jfjli~!li .~, lit 11!t!; ;;fIH: JlFlli ~llm HUh," ',ulr " . 'ch i i j l , 0:: ell . O-! >> ro::t::l ..... c O::J I Ql E I ":S E i :J 0 '~ u.. () 1 , , , ;l!1:;'i ',$1-.. " " o! iH! fiii III 3 !, ~ . pi,i :;. .i1t ~ i! i ~ IIIW ;' ,.~ Oi Hi Iii n \ ~L qlH~ :l!IO .." < . , I ' 1 d"'l ! II'" ij ~ ~: ;:;- , , , Ji ,I ihH .~ Ul'u I. f iM " ;" , i," :;, il: T III !!iiJ!: . ;~ J} ! J j , ! H HH IT ie , ,.!' ,11Io , H~ I [II ~HJ I' .n t" ~ 1 U ~HI jp .iH 1 ~q III ~ -,; ; I iIi' , ~I Q !liHrl 3 HII ...l11,H,~zci, < ~ '\II'I'~ ~ ......" "'''~ .( ~ 5; ~ ( ,..;,; i..,' ~ SPA Maps IU1MIU".'''"'". SPA Boundaries Parks & Open Space 1"Ud..~. IlH;~riA nl*,& Orw 81',WI\ .::~..; o~._t;\ "/". \ /~."....". m \~ -.....-, }<;;;;"/'/ " ~ ~,/:;;;:.' __ V,Ilu9ul'alh.,...yjlIH6'1 .~\ '-;;;.-;;..;[' ,~f: ..,.... f<"~I~''''IT..ilII1'''J /', \ -.-.- PH.II'''''I~d~ iij'J Ji\fy. COJllm. "t/' II .'"","",' . ~i-' "0'" r...........-...,."'""'........"'.... ~i:,~";:::.':':.,~.~~-:.'It';"'. =~~ _~,i.l'~ ~ L.li....'lJ~.. 'ii Vista Verde "1\iIA",," VillHlIaSa\lBn-Oluy Rallch Vista Verde I/IUlIual:l.."';trI.OrayRilllch ~i~'l!.~ I 1....!""""1l.....J ~1'~' Elthibit1.2 'b',!fiU" '1;'!'liU'; ~I'.~"U" 11.2.1-8 1l.~,~"4 ~N&~jlot.<"I>o<<lf',,*,.lic:pa'k 'Y#,w "''''''0>''' ao.. ~Sfo.....C<i<lkko, ~(;'\IwOpfASIN"" &>l,~ul>4 ):( CPF ll"~,II.~.OIItlIl"P"':liO =i't":U';'j~ .......i.tJ ElChlbit5.1 ~I'~ rlNl c ra - CL !..... ClJ .I-J V') ra ~ \J ro CL ~ ClJ 0- 0- :J I C ro - CL ~ ClJ -I--J V') ro ~ ."'0 (\j 0... ~ OJ 5 o --J I c (\j - 0... ~ OJ 4-J V) (\j ~ All Seasons Park Design Philosophy This neighborhood park is in close proximity to the future Otay Ranch Community ParI< site, a distance of approximately 3/4 mile along the Village Greenway. Given the proposed active, athletic characteristic of the future Otay Ranch Community ParI<, staff has made a conscious decision to design a neighborhood park for local use that is somewhat more passive in nature. Organized league and athletic activities are not intended to be programmed at this parl<. I , Certain landscape themes will be apparent in the construction detailing such as the use of mostly, if not all, deciduous tree species so that the appearance of the parI< will dramatically change throughout the year with each season. Tree species selected will be those that provide vibrant fall color, display interesting branching structures during the winter, a profusion of flower blossoms in the spring and a canopy of shade during the summer months. There will also be an emphasis on recycling; using reclaimed material where possible for construction. The parI< will also include a demonstration composting area where on-site green waste can be composted and reintroduced as fertilizer and mulch for parI< plantings. The intention is to create the seasonal aspects and the demonstration compost garden as educational resources for parl< users. Since the park site is adjacent to the Wolf Canyon open space in the core of the village, the design seeks to complement this open space giving the combined appearance of a green corridor through the center of the village. In addition to the east/west Village Greenway, there will be trail links to the residential neighborhoods north of Wolf Canyon from the park as well as a linl< to the elementary school south of the parl<. The point where all the trails intersect is the proposed location for a 'Heritage Tree'. A single tree that is a focal point and eventually grows into a large specimen and becomes a locallandmarl<. Park Activities Program The proposed Park Master Plan for the 7.b-acre site includes the following program elements: Basketball Court ( 1 J - Lighted, standard size court (differs from the potential program identified in the SPA). Children's Play Areas (2J - The play areas will have equipment suitable for children of varying age groups. One area will be designed for the youngest age group of children, ages 2-5 and the second play area will target children ages 5 to 12. The equipment selected will include items that suggest a 'rustic' environment including things like climbing boulders and climbing nets. · Circulation - The park site will include a paved pathway looping the entire park site to accommodate pedestrian and joggers. The walkways will tie into the Village Greenway trail on the north side of the park mal<ing the park accessible to the rest of the City trail network. Security lighting will be provided along park walks. Restroom - Centrally located and within easy reach of the tot lot and picnic structures. Topography - The park comprises two level pads connected by a gently sloping 5: 1 grass area which will provide an informal view area without impeding accessibility. low-maintenance/Drought Tolerant landscape Design - Where possible, low-maintenance and low water use plantingswill be specified. Some of these areas will reflect the planting palette of the adjacent Wolf Canyon open space and emphasize California native plants. A separate demonstration garden, adjacent to the composting area, will also be created to provide landscape ideas for homeowners. This demonstration garden may also include raised planters enabling wheelchair users to better experience the garden. Greenbelt Trail Kiosk- An informational trial head kisok will be constructed of materials reflecting the neighborhood's theme. Parking - 28 on-site spaces including parking for the disabled. On-site parking is to be gated to restrict vehicle access after 10:00 p.m. Picnic Areas Group-Use (2J - Two (2) Shelters/shade structures with varying quantities of tables will be located in the parle The picnic shelters are within easy access from parking areas to facilitate loading and unloading. Picnic Facilities Individual-Use -Individual areas with picnic tables located throughout the parl<. The precise number of these has yet to be determined. Benches - Benches will be located throughout the park to encourage users to stop, relax and enjoy the change in seasons. Storage - Park operations storage will be provided in the restroom building. The proposed park plan is compliant with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Lighting The walkways and parking lot will be provided with security lighting for public safety. The basketball court will also be lighted to a level of 3D-foot candles. Ambient light levels at the park boundary are to be at or below D.S-foot candles. Park Name All Seasons Park is aptly named to reflect the park's theme of creating a unique place in the city, where citizens can experience seasonal changes throughout the year through the planting of deciduous trees throughout the parle Attachment B: Sample Design/Build Contract NOTE: The attachment is the City of Chula Vista's generic two party design build agreement. It will be modified slightly to reflect the RFP requirement related to scope and establishment of GMP. Exceptions are to be clearly noted in the RFP response in writing, referring the page and paragraph number. The Section regarding Insurance requirements (and indemnification) is the City's standard insurance and indemnification policy and is not open for negotiation. 1~-99 EXHIBIT 2 Design Build Fee Structure II 13-100 Section 12. Schedule of Rates and Fees Design Fee and Engineering - AlE Design Fees (Architectural, Structural, Electrical & Landscape) fixed at $121,294 including Construction Administration. Fee for Pre-Construction Services - Sliding Scale . Design-Builder's minimum Fee is fixed at $20,000 for projects up to $1,000,000 in construction cost plus Y. percent for construction cost over $1 ,000,000. . General Conditions - at cost Refer to work sheet at the end of this section for billing rates of typical general condition items. Cost of Work Multipliers (FEE) - Sliding scale Design-Builder's minimum Fee is fixed at $100,000.00 for projects up to $1,000,000 in construction cost. Over $1,000,000.00, the following sliding fee schedule applies: 1. For projects $1,000,000 or less - Fee fixed at $100,000. 2. Six percent on the next $500,000 of construction cost over $1 ,000,000. 3. Five and a half percent on the next $500,000 of construction cost over $1,500,000. 4. Five percent on the next $1,000,000 of construction cost over $2,000,000. General Liability Insurance and Course of Construction Insurance will be provided at cost. Change Orders Fee on change orders will be the same sliding fee scale provided above. As an example, if the cost of construction is $1,500,000, change orders in excess of this amount (up to $2,000,000) will be marked up by 5% percent. This will cover home office overhead and fee. Field overhead (General Conditions) is a function of time paid at cost. If the change does not affect the duration of the project, there will be no adjustment of the general conditions due to a change. Payment and Performance Bond Rates 1. Projects under $500,000 - $12.00 per 1,000. 2. Projects over $500,000 - $6,000 base plus $8,00 per 1,000 over $500,000. 13-101 (5IIJ ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION co. Section 12 (Continued). . ..... ...... ,.,.... All Seasons Park. Preliminary Construction Costs 1. Preliminary Construction Budget - including 5 perc'ent contingency $ 1,500,000 2. General Conditions - 7 Months $ 182,000 3. Subtotal- Hard Construction Costs $ 1,682,000 4. Design/Builders Fee - sliding scale Fee on first $1,000,000 of construction cost $ 100,000 Fee on next $500,000 over $1,000,000 - 6 percent $ 30,000 Fee on next $500,000 over $1,500,000 - 5 1/2 percent $ 10,010 5. Total - Preliminary Cost of Construction Estimate $ 1,822,010 Design and Pre-Construction Fees: 6. Preconstruction Services for Design/Builder - sliding scale Preconstruction fee on first $1,000,000 of construction cost $ 20,000 Preconstruction fee on construction cost over $1 mil. - 3/4 percent $ 6,165 7. AlE Site Design Fees Civil Engineering/SWPPP $ 30,500 Topo Verification of Existing Site - Budget $ 6,500 AlE Building/Site Lighting Design Fees $ 17,500 Landscape Design / Construction Documents $ 59,294 Update City Provided Geotechnical Report $ 7,500 8. Off-site engineering / design - not included $0.00 9. Reimbursables - Budget $ 20,000 Total Preliminary Design & Build Cost $ 1,989,469 10. Cost of bond premium - sliding scale First $500,000 - $12.00 per 1,000 $ 6,000 Premium over $500,000 - $8.00 per 1,000 $ 11,916 11. Insurance $ 7,958 12. Building/Utility/Site Fees (by owner) $0.00 13. Testing and Inspections (by owner) $0.00 14. City staffing / Inspections (by owner) $0.00 Total Preliminary Project Cost $ 2,015,343 Design Fees, Pre-Construction Fees and GC Summary: General Conditions (line item 2 above) $ 182,000 Design and Pre-Construction Fees (line items 6-9 above) $ 167,459 Total Design Fees, Pre-Const. Fees and Gener1z8eJJlJkions $ 349,459 EXHIBIT 3 Identification of Design Build Team Members III 13-103 Section 7, Project Organization and Key Personnel EHCC has a proven ability to provide the right team for the job at hand. "Hire the Best - Expect the Best". This EHCC core value is the foundation of project success. The Team selected for the All Seasons Park project brings together the required strengths and varied experience necessary to compliment the design- build construction effort of this multifaceted park project. EHCC the design-build team leader, has worked successfu lIy with the City ofChula Vista on several complicated projects. EHCC provides General Construction, Construction Management and Design-Build Services to numerous Public, Federal and Private Industry Clients. Our company has a proven track record of team leadership and customer satisfaction. DPA, Inc. will provide landscape engineering services, further enhancing a cohesive team that has previous work experience with EHCC and the City of Chula Vista within recent years. Notable projects include Harborside Park, Otay Park and Chula Vista Fire Station NO.6. DPA, Inc. has received the California Beautifcation Award for their outstanding skill and ability with lanscape engineering, proving them to be a more desirable team member for All Seasons Park. Davy Architecture, the architect selected for park structures. Their clients now include development companies, school districts, business owners, cities and counties. Their work in Chula Vista includes the Otay Recreation Center, Animal Care Center, RSIID Technologies Corporate HQ, Chula Vista Commerce Center, Mountain Hawk Park, Harborside Park and Marina Gateway. Cherry Engineering will provide civil engineering services. AI Cherry has worked on numerous projects in Chula Vista. Cherry is a smaller engineering firm and will provide cost-effective services in response to this RFP. 13-104 . . Section 7, Project Organization and Key Personnel .. ~ " OIl " ~ OIl .Ej > sa " ." " '" " ~ :l S " ~ u ::0 " " ~ '0 '0 Responsibilites of ;; ~ 'g '" '" 0- W " " ~ ~ Key Personnel '(; " ::; 'e' " u ;; " 'C 0- "" '" " '" CI " 'C .~ Q.., 8- '(; '" ~ Q.., " , - '" " " '" :l -< 'C ::0 , Q.., .S '" g , CI Q.., '" , ,., 0. " '" " :; 0 ~ ;; .!l S " '" OIl " ~ "" .. i:'2 .~ .9 .,. '0' '" u :I: 0 ~ 0 u " " u 'C "il g Q.., Q Q.., w '" :l '" " U I:: c: " ..c:: ..c:: " U ~ >Ii OIl OIl ..c:: > u u ;; '" o(j .,. .,. " ~ ~ :I: 8 " <.> Q Z w -< Q Q Pre-Construction Services - Phase I Prepare SD, DD and CD Documents , , Complete Design , , , Evaluate alternate designs , , , , . Incorporate agency requirements , , . Conduct site survey , Conduct geotechnical investigation , , Prepare Estimates & Budgets , , Perfonn Value Engineering Reviews , , . , Perfonn QC Review of Documents , , , , Establish CPM Schedule , , Monitor CPM Schedule , , Establish bid strategy , , , Identify and procure long lead items , Expedite long lead items , Establish GMP , , , Recommend bid packages , , , Create work scopes , , Create bid documents , , , Secure 3 bids for every bid package , , , , Receive & resolve bid questions , , , , Review & analyze bids with City , , , , , Recommend award of work packages , , Draft 0 & M Index , , Develop Project Management Plan , Coordinate with City & Consultants , , , , Progress Meetings 1<:l-1m<;' , , - Oll " " - Oll ",5 > 0 "' :u " E ~ '5 .g "' ~ ::;; " <.) '0 Responsibilites of '" " Jj ts " '0 >< " " Co W " E "' ~ - Key Personnel 'C:; - - 'Q' U '" " 0 'C Oll " <.) - Co " '2 " CI "' 'C .~ ~ Co 'C:; " ~ ~ " , " ~ " "' E '" 'C ::;; , ~ , .S '" -< S g CI ~ " , >, c.. ts :; 0 " ~ '" .!l E " Oll " ~ -'" 02 0 .~ .9 '0; "e- " <.) :I: U ts " 0 'C c 11 ~ Q ~ U W " " "' u = " " " .c: .c: "' ~ oil Oll Oll .c: U > <.) <.) :u " ol! '0; '0; "' ~ ~ :I: 0 " " Q Z W U -< Q Q Interface with other agencies . . . . Vendor and Subcontract Management . . Document Control . . . Schedule and budget control . . Quality assurance I quality control . . . . . Construction Services Phase II Conduct weekly team meetings wi City . . . . Ensure specification compliance . . . Prepare subminallog . Review subminals . . . . . Provide City with copy of submittals . Resident Engineer & Specialty Insp. . Code compliance . . . . Survey & contracted services . Develop QA I QC Plan . . Implement QAI QC Plan . . . Oversee QA I QC Plan . . . . Prepare & Update CPM Schedule . . Monitor CPM Schedule . . . Set-up cash flow tracking reports . . Monitor monthly cash flow activities . . . Develop Change Order Admin Plan . . Maintain internal records . Develop on-site safety plan & reporting . . Implement Project Management Plan . . Coordinate with City & consultants . . . . Progress Meetings . . . . Interface with other agencies . . . . Vendor and subcontract management . . Document Control . . . Schedule and budget control . . Quality assurance I quality control . . . . . . . 13-106 Michael Hall, Chief Operations Officer Erickson-Hall Construction Co. As Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Hall is responsible for construction operations that include overseeing all project management and field supervisory personnel. Mr. Hall is also responsible for maintaining strong customer relationships, quality of workmanship, on-time completion, safety, and cost control. Mr. Hall has over 25 years of experience in the construction industry. From project inception, through design development, value engineering, bid, award, contract negotiations and project delivery, Mr. Hall's extensive background enables him to control the process and deliver products that exceed customer expectations. As co-founder of EHCC, Mr. Hall has had the opportunity to manage numerous projects throughout Southern California, including schools, fire stations, parks, community centers, churches, military and other public and private sectors projects. Modernization and New Addition Project Experience Highlights: . Mt. San Miguel Community Park . Harborside Park . Mountain Hawk Park . Bonsall West Elementary School . Bonsall Elementary School . Carlsbad High School - Classroom Building Addition . Carls bad High School - Gymnasium . Oak Hill Elementary School . Knox Elementary School . La Jolla High School . Twain Jr./Sr. High School . Carls bad Village Academy . Grossmont Bond Program - High School District . Fullerton Bond Program - High Sch9oJPffJtt"ict . . . EdllCUnQlI as -1981 Civil Engineering Construction Management Emphasis Associatiu/ls Associated Builders & Contractors SD Board Member & Past President Society of American Military Engineers Associated General Contractors Association of California Construction Managers Coalition for Adequate School Housing References Mr. Rob Todd Construction Manager Cartsbad Unified School District (760) 331-5001 Mr. Jack Carpenter Mosher Drew VVatson Ferguson (619) 223.2400 Mr. Phil Hertel Shadow Mountain Community Church (619) 590-1770 Ia:I ERICKSON.HAL.L ~O..S~.UCT' ".. ca. ~ 00 ~ " " 0 00 -,; .:: '" " " ~ :; .~ " ~ () ::; " Responsibilites of " ~ '0 -;; >< ~ tS " " ~ 0. ~ ~ " '0 " -;; Key Personnel 'u "e- " tS 0 .!l U 0. " " '2 CI 'u .'" '0' " Q.. " " ~ Q.. C/O , .'" - " 00 " ~ " .'" ::; , Q.. , .S 0. ..: Q.. g " , >. Q. " CI " tl "3 0 ..!:! C/O ~ -;; E " .~ " ~ -'" :I: 2 0 tS .9 ~ 'e- " () u " tS " 0 .'" OJ OJ .~ 0 Q.. U >.a " " " " " " Q.. ;: , " " '" '" '" ~ ~ 00 00 > () () '" :I: a o(! .;;; .;;; " ~ ~ "" " " 0 z u ..: 0 0 Operations/Startup Services. Phase III Prepare Startup & Testing Plan . . Implement Startup & Testing Plan . . Conduct Operator Training Sessions . . Supervise startup & testing activities . . . Monitor startup & testing activities . . . . Report on startup & testing . . Expedite record drawings . . Prepare final accounting & close-out . . . Prepare occupancy plan . . . ll-month walk-thru of project . . . . . . . 13-108 Nathan Complin, Project Manager Erickson-Hall Construction Co. As Project Manager, Mr. Complin is responsible for overseeing contract obligations between the Owner and the subcontractors. Mr. Complin's responsibilities include managing the support staff and the administration of multiple projects simultaneously. In addition, Mr. Complin oversees all contract writing and negotiations, change orders, purchasing, submittals, clarifications, CPM schedules and jobsite-related correspondence. Mr. Complin has a Bachelors of Science Degree in Construction Engineering Management. Mr. Complin is well versed in a variety of computer programs that enables him to oversee projects in a more efficient, organized, and professional manner. Project Experience Highlights: . Mt. San Miguel Community Park . Harborside Park . Mountain Hawk Park . Heritage Park Community Center . Three Fire Stations in Chula Vista - #2, #4 and #6 . Heritage Park Swim Club . Bonsall Elementary School . Anaheim Fire Station #11 . San Diego Fire Stations #12 and #31 . San Diego Temporary Fire Station #45 . Rancho Santa Fire Training Facility . MCRD Physical Fitness Center . MCAS Physical Fitness Center Carlsbad High School Gymnasium13-1 09 . . . . EdlU;aJjOIl as . 2000 Construction Engineering Management SureTrak Primavera Scheduling Expedition Software A.ssociatiollS Associated Builders & Contractors Associated General Contractors Association of California Construction Managers Coalition for Adequate School Housing References Jim Gearing City of Chula Vista Deputy Fire Chief (619) 409-5858 Darrold Davis Principal CCBG Architects, AlA (618) 234-2212 Alexandra Corsi City of San Diego Engineering 8. Capital Projects (619) 533-3149 Glenn Torrez Building & Planning Services, lne. (760) 731-3133 I5:J ERICKSON-HALL ~<:l~U.UCTION co. Michael S. Riley} Senior Estimator Erickson-Hall Construction Co. Mr. Riley is experienced in all facets of construction estimating, including conceptual cost analysis, design/build, negotiated, firm fixed pricing and hard bid proposals. His responsibilities consist of quantity survey, constructability review, subcontract solicitation and compilation of general conditions. Additional duties include job cost analysis, bid analysis, bid document compilation and plan distribution. He has assisted in contract negotiations, composition of technical information and project start-up after contract award. Mr. Riley's experience covers a broad range of projects including new construction, renovation, engineering work, wastewater facilities, housing, and a variety of commercial, educational, correctional and military construction projects. Project Experience Highlights: . Mt. San Miguel Community Park . Harborside Park . Mountain Hawk Park . Burbank Elementary School . Florence Griffith-Joyner Elementary School . Webster Elementary School . Rancho Santa Fe Fire Station #2 . Clairemont High School/Kroc Middle School . Relocation of Portable Building - Montgomery MS . La Jolla High School . Mission Hills Church . 4S Ranch Training Facility - Rancho Santa Fe 13-110 . . . EdllcaticJ/f Mesa Community College 1991-1994 Santa Clara University 1994 ~1997 San Diego State University 1997-1999 ASSQCiutio"s Associated Builders & Contractors Associated General Contractors Association of California Construction Managers Coalition fer Adequate School Housing References Mr. Wayne Jones Assistant Superintendent Bonsall Union School District (760) 631-5200 Mr. Tony Finaldi STKArchitecture (951) 925-2504 Mr. Rick Racette Chief Estimator R.J. Lanthier (760) 738-9798 ~ ERICKSON.HALL C"'''T.~CTIO" <::<1. -~ - ~ -- - - - , - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - ;-. ~~...~_ ~~h4!,-U-~~OC~ Jon L. PO"\N"ell - Principal I,..", 4rt."'U"~ - -.-.. *n~'~._n!l ----..~Ml1"',_~. Landscape Architect Jon Powell's thirty years of experience in landscape architecture and master planning is showcased in numerous projects located nationwide. A Principal of DP A, Inc., he brings his expertise and leadership in the development and management oflandscape design projects to a team of professional designers offering comprehensive landscape and interpretive planning services. His notable past projects include: 4S Ranch Co=unity Park San Diego, CA Anchoring the southern end of the three-mile long 4S Ranch Parkway in the 3,000 acre 4S Ranch Mixed Use Co=unity in northern San Diego County, the 22 acre co=unity park is an athlete s paradise. Catering to both organized sports and individual activities there s something for every taste. Five softball fields with four overlapping soccer fields, lighted tennis, basketball, roller hockey and bocce courts fill the sports program, augmented by the double court gy:rm1asium and 25 meter pool. Spectators watch from shaded bleachers and tree lined sidelines. Perimeter lawn play and picnic areas have been provided for after-game get togethers. Two tot lots are provided for the younger park visitors. 4S Ranch Park & Open Space System San Diego, CA Deneen Powell Atelier, Inc. has been involved in the planning and design of the 3,000 acre 4S Ranch Mixed Use Co=unity in northern San Diego County for almost 20 years. Beginning in 1987 DP A completed a thorough inventory and landscape analysis of the existing site, mapping the natural character of the property. Working as a part of the co=unity master planning team, they proposed project themes synthesized from the natural environment and developed an overall landscape master plan. This overall master plan included four co=unity and neighborhood park master plans; private park and recreational facilities master planning; trail system master planning throughout the 1,600 acres of open space; co=unity planning, including roadway and lot layout assistance; project streetscape and entry design; open space master planning; and environmental mitigation master planning. Now nearing build-out completion, DP A has continued the work with construction documents for all phases of implementation of the project, four San Diego County parks, several private parks, trailheads and recreation areas. Palmdale Water Conservation Garden Park Palmdale, CA The master plan for this water district sponsored 5.4 acre garden that focuses on water and western Mojave Desert conservation includes a children s tutorial garden. The eleven children s loop exhibit areas are designed to give children an appreciation for both water and resource conservation while being fun and playful places Blue Sky Nature Education Center, Poway, CA Powell and the DP A design team worked closely with Dominy + Associates Architects to prepare a master plan for the education center including a 6,000 square foot nature center building which is nestled below grade between two existing knolls. Iris Sankey Magical Garden Trail, Escondido, California This landscape and interpretive master plan for a twelve acre native and naturalized garden showcases plant co=unities found in the Escondido area, all within the larger Kit Carson Regional Park. 13-111 s;D8"'"\ ~::Jl.6" [;~ ~_~ !till iIiI !JE:'~ a. _;a,~""II . . . . . Whelan Lake Wildlife Park, Oceanside, California Master planning for a 25 acre park combining a nature center, hiking, waterfowl habitat and interpretive stations in and around the holding ponds at a city sewage treatment plant. Harborside Park, Chula Vista, California The five acre Harborside Park fills the local need for green open space and recreation in an urban area dominated by big-box stores, shopping centers and apartments. Determined through a series of co=unity meetings, the plan features a large oval of Elm trees encompassing a picnic shelter and two play equipment I tot-lot areas. Beyond the Elms is an open lawn I soccer field, two lighted basketball courts, a beginner s skate park, andjogging path. An outdoor classroom reading circle has been provided at the park entry adjacent to the neighboring elementary schoo1. DP A expanded on the park name by featuring nautical wayfinding graphics in the pavement and signago. Each pedestrian node has a different constellation used by the ancient mariners cast into its concrete surface with round stainless steel stars, sawcut connecting lines and sandblasted lettering. The North Star and Big Dipper are laser cut into the aluminum banners on the flagpole park entry sign. Otay Park, Chula Vista, California DP A recently completed bid documents for the renovation of this five acre park in an older area of the city. A passive neighborhood park, the main features include a multi-sport grass field, two play equipment areas, an existing restroom building, picnic areas and an integrated bio-storm drainage system. Viejas Co=unity Park, Alpine, California DP A recently completing the master plan for additions and renovations to 20 acre Viejas Tribal Nation s park. As the center of the co=unity, the park provides for both active sports and passive recreation, while maintaining its use as a base for responses to east county emergencies and wildfires. Surrounding an existing co=unity center and gy=asium are two softball fields, one with overlapping football and soccer, basketball courts, horseshoes, picnicking, a central plaza and veterans recognition space, restrooms, concessions and park maintenance facilities. Powell holds a Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture from Purdue University and licenses in landscape architecture in Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California. He is a Certified Irrigation Auditor, a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects and the recipient oflocal, regional and national design awards. 13-112 . . . - - -~.. - ._~-~- _.- - - --- -- - -- - - - :;--~ - . ~:D_~ I .:A:-C:-~~""IxxQ".... ,- - - - - , ~ -- - - -.. . . . , - - - . - - ~-- -.-- - ---- - - - - ~- Jeri Deneen - Principal I.. "1'WIr... U.t'.l.1-U~,jj: . ....... ikU....:""!I;Unl : ~li:;:n,j..:I'1~. Jeri Deneen s creative mastery of the visual and graphic arts is evident in her distinctive, award-winning designs and in the success of Deneen Powell Atelier, Inc., a full-service design studio. Deneen s reputation for innovative site sculpture, interpretive site design and signage has resulted in a select client list comprising both local and national clients. As President of DP A, Inc., Deneen contributes her talent and experience to a creative consortium of design professionals. Deneen s credits encompass dozens of design projects, managed from concept to completion. U.S. National Arboretum, USDA, ARS Washington D.C. Jeri lead the process to develop an outline interpretive master plan for their 464 acre facility. This plan delineates all aspects of interpretation to explain this research branch of the government, their collections, history, seasonal features, etc. utilizing artistic signage, site specific tutorial sculpture, programs, subliminal ele"ments, etc. The San Diego Zoo Jeri has recently completed interpretive concept development, design and working drawings for the new Monkey Trails and Forest Tales project located in lbe heart of the Zoo sentry. This project entails all aspects of interpretation with the focus being conservation, preservation and restoration. San Diego Regional Xeriscape Garden, El Cajon, California: The design of an artistic 4 acre drought tolerant and native plant demonstration garden, including a sculptural signage master plan and construction documents for 38 different interpretive signs, building identification, directional signage, sculptural exhibit identification icons, and a sculptural weather vane. The Garden has received the following awards to date: 1999 Orchid Award, San Diego Orchid & Onions 1999 Presidents and Merit Award from San Diego Chapter of lbe American Society of Landscape Architects 1999 Award of Merit, Graphic design for sculptural garden Icons, Creative Show of San Diego 2000 Project of lbe year, lbe California Landscape and Irrigation Council 2000 Garden Watering Can kiosk Best New Exhibitor A ward and an A ward of Merit at the Del Mar Fair. 2001 Constructor A ward, Associated General Contractors of California for The Garden s contribution to the east county co=unity 2000 The Garden has also been featured in Pacific Horticulture, The Gardener s Companion, and Print Magazines. 2001 California Landscape Beautification A ward, the California Landscape Contractors Association 2001 MWD, Liquid Art Sculpture Competition 3 of our pieces won in Metropolitan Water District s juried Liquid Art Competition which includes a nationally traveling gallery photo exhibit. 2002 Landscape Architecture Magazine A 10 page feature article in the August issue. 2002 KPBS, Huell Howser California s Gold The program featured art in The Garden as well as The Garden as art. 13-113 5:?)'P'. A M;...L.aJ..~ ~~6;S' ~ ~~ -u.~n iIUt PE~~ Q ..\J,........ . . . . . America s Cup Harbor Upgrade for the San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, California Development of sculptural Kodak Moment picture spots where proud anglers can hoist their prized catch and record the image for all friends and family to envy. A sculptural project entry, wind vanes, fish pavement imprints, directional and sport fishing interpretive signage program were also designed as a coordinated package of site specific art. Harborside Park Chula Vista, CA The five acre Harborside Park fills the local need for green open space and recreation in an urban area dominated by big-box stores, shopping centers and apartments. Jeri expanded on the park name by featuring nautical wayfinding graphics in the pavement and signage. Each pedestrian node has a different constellation used by the ancient mariners cast into its concrete surface with round stainless steel stars, sawcut connecting lines and sandblasted lettering. The North Star and Big Dipper are laser cut into the aluminum banners on thdlagpole park entry sign. Palmdale Water Conservation Garden Park Palmdale, CA J eri led the team preparing the master plan for this water district sponsored 5.4 acre garden that focuses on water and western Mojave Desert conservation. While individual garden pathway loops have exhibits that focus on the roles of design, planting, irrigation and maintenance in conserving water in the landscape, the children s tutorial garden loop includes aspects of all of these areas. Playful exhibit areas are designed to give children an appreciation for botll water and local! Mojave resource conservation while being a fun and exciting place. At the end of their tour, children pot-up their own drought tolerant plant to take home. Las Vegas Springs Preserve, Desert Living Center, Las Vegas, Nevada The design of a 6 acre water conservation tutorial garden which is intricately blended with a series of sustainable buildings totaling approximately 45,000 square feet. This garden incorporates over 45 interpretive exhibits into a continuous garden setting. Arranged by topic, the exhibits feature appropriate plant materials for a garden located in the Mojave. This garden will be a unique feature in the interesting world of Las Vegas. PUBUC ART COMMISSIONS Water Conservation Garden, E1 Cajon, CA Weather Vane Sculpture L.V.S.P., Las Vegas, NY Shade Structure Sculptures Chollas Creek, San Diego, CA Sculptural Bridge Fire Station 12, San Diego, CA Sculptural Signage Fire Station 29, San Ysidro, CA Sculptural Art Wall L.V.S.P., Las Vegas, NY Cast Iron Grate Otay Water District, El Cajon, CA Monument Sculpture Old Town, San Diego, CA Dueling Cowboy Fountain Sculpture Egyptian Theater, San Diego, CA 7 1/2 Story Architectural Sculpture A fine arts major at Indiana University in Bloomington, Deneen has completed additional studies at Indiana University, South Bend. She is a Professional Plus member of The National Association for Interpretation and a gold member of the American Public Garden Association. 13-114 - - -" --- - - -- ~~+ ~ ~ - - - -- ~ " - - . ~-:.~~.-= ~.x: ",,":~-u...~I~Q'~ Koren E. Emerson Koren E. Emerson has been responsible for the production of landscape and interpretive master plans, planting designs, and working drawing packages for over seventeen years. She brings solid and creative design ability, adept managerial skills, and an excellent record of coordinating work with other organizations involved in the project. As a project manager at DP A, she has worked on many large scale garden planning and design projects such as: I"~.' U,....'H..H:..1 ~.nJ:'f_~I,i'J ----=i.:;rU~l'1,~ Iris Sankey Magical Garden Escondido, CA Preparation of a Master Plan for a 14 acre botanical garden and trails within and adjacent to a coastal sage scrub preserve in Kit Carson Regional Park. The garden plan included establishing seven different local plant co=unity habitats, ranging from an 1800's Citrus Orchard to native Upland Oaks, Sycamore Riparian, Coastal Sage and MarshIPond, along with trails and interpretive signage so that Escondido residents can visit and understand the habitat types that have occurred within the current city boundaries. A nature center, outdoor amphitheater and seven trail head kiosks are included in the design. San Diego Regional Xeriscape Garden, Spring Valley, CA Koren was the project manager/site designer for this four acre teaching botanical garden using drought tolerant plant materials from the five Mediterranean climate zones of the world. Its central theme of showing homeowners how the use of these plant materials, along with good design, irrigation and maintenance practices can reduce water use, is accomplished in a series of38 hands-on exhibit areas located along a series of decomposed granite tralls. Following the preparation of the master plan, Koren and the DPA team prepared construction documents for the project, including an educational and directional signage program. Las Vegas Springs Preserve The Desert Living Center Las Vegas, NY The preparation of detailed planting, hardscape and interpretive construction documents and fabrication plans associated with this 6 acre Xeriscape and Mojave desert demonstration garden. Palmdale Water Conservation Garden Park - Palmdale, CA Landscape master planning for a 5.3 acre garden park that showcases Mojave Desert and other locally adapted plants while emphasizing the need for water and reSource conservation. 74 interpretive exhibit areas focus on different aspects of drought tolerant plantings, water conservation in the landscape, and the conservation of local species and habitats. 4S Ranch Development Landscape Master Planning - San Diego, CA Landscape master planning for a 3,000 acre mixed use development including streetscape planting theme development for arterial roads, development of the 4S Ranch Parkway recreational corridor parks and open space plans. Koren studied Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ. earning ber Bachelor of Science in Design. Her background in Urban Planning and experience in working within the Cities of Scottsdale, Arizona; Phoenix, Arizona; and Albuquerque, NM., has provided her with knowledge of public agency operational procedures, and the ability to work effectively with diverse interests and citizen design groups. 13-115 ~:De.c<\ ::I,3~~ Eo;. ~,i.Z1 rot'! J.IW !IE~ r;i .~.uQ4 . . . . . 1 a Eric Davy Principal In Charge, Davy Architecture Approaching his twentieth year as leader of Davy Architecture, "Ric's' career has spanned a broad range of challenging pUblic and private design commissions through the years. He built the firm first by serving the commercial development community with office, industrial and hospitality projects as well as the U.S. Navy with training and maintenance facilities. The firm then success- fully navigated the turbulence of the early 90's building recession by his efforts to bring our commercial design expertise to educa- tional design. Expanding on the enormous success ot Mesa Ridge High School in Colorado Springs: CO, Ric helped pioneer the design/build movement for K-12 schoois in California. Today he is spearheading our entry into multi-family residential and mixed-use' urban infill design to address San Diego County's criti- callack of affordable market rate housing. His early career included tenure as a project manager for one of San Diego's iarger general construction companies. Recalling this experience Ric developed our firm's v A L U EO D EO S 1 G N Pro- gram to insure that our clients benefit from the principles of good value management. Having formerly taught at San Diego's Newschool of Architecture and Design, he still volunteers his time as a visiting critic at the school and as architect for the expansion of the Monarch School for San Diego's homeless youth. He is also mentoring our firm's two younger partners. Ric's national registration provides reciprocity in all 50 states. He is currently licensed to practice in California, Nevada and Colorado. Prior to his career in architecture, Ric was a decorated Air Force fighter pilot with 190 combat missions in Vietnam. He studied the- atre design at Cambridge University and received his Masters of Architecture from Harvard University's Graduate School of Design in 1979. He later affiliated with the Naval Reserve as a Civil Engi- neer Corps officer and was recalled to active duty during Opera- tion Desert Storm serving as the Force Civil Engineer for Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain. Experience Highlights o San Pasqual Academy - San Pasqual, CA o Otay Recreation Center - Chula Vista, CA o Animal Care Center - Chula Vista, CA o Lilac Elementary School - Valley Center, CA 13-116 ~"'~-"~ Registrauon California Architect, 1983 Colorado Architect, 1996 Nevada Architect, 2000 Educauon Master of Architecture, 1979 Harvard Design School Exchange Fellow, 1978 Cambridge University, England Bachelor of Arts, 1969 Political Science University of California, Los Angeles Honors and Recogniuon Award for Outstanding Design and Planning, 1998 Mesa Ridge High School Widefield School District #3 Colorado Springs, CO Richard Welsh Memorial Award, 1999 Otay Recreation Center City of Chula Vista, CA Beautification Award, 1999 RSIID Technologies City of Chula Vista, CA lS:J Carl Chrisman Project Manager, Davy Architecture Carl has been with the firm as Senior Project Manager for the past four years working on numerous civic, educational and com- mercial projects. He is also responsible for the majority of the firm's technical resources and construction administration. Carl draws on his knowledge of a number of architecturai software applications to produce animated 3D models, an invaluable asset to our clients. His work experience is uniquely broad and particularly well.suited to our firm's emphasis on v A LU E DE.5 I G N. Prior to his work here, Carl spent three years producing architectural drawings for a large San Diego construction company and another two years working with a structural engineer. Carl is in the process of com- pleting his Architectural Registration Exams, another step in his professional development, as well as being mentored as one of the firm's junior partners. Experience Highlights o Otay Recreation Center -Chula Vista, CA o Animal Care Center - Chula Vista, CA o Lilac Elementary School - Valley Center, CA o Moonlight Amphitheatre - Vista, CA o Valley Center Multi-Use Facility - San Pasqual, CA 13-117 r~,:,~:. Education Bachelor Degree, 1992 Enviommental Design San Diego State University Honors and Recognition Beautification Award, 1999 RSI ID Technologies City of Chula Vista, CA 1$1I Qualifications ALBERT CHERRY Civil Engineer, CHERRY ENGINEERING Mr. Albert Cherry has over 20 years experience in public works engineering. He has worked with architects, school districts, cities, the federal government and other agencies in the design of needed infrastructure for planned facilities. Mr. Cherry's responsibilities have included studies, site and utility design, specification writing, cost estimating, quality control and project management. Mr. Cherry has recently completed two Design-Build projects with Erickson- Hall both in the City of Chula Vista, Harborside Park and Chula Vista Fire Station No.6. Select Experience Jack in the Box Innovation Center, San Diego Spectrum Fire Station 29 - City of San Diego Fire Station 6 - City of Chula Vista Harborside Park - City of Chula Vista Torrey Hills School, Del Mar School District Folex Company Warehouse, Spring Valley Bluffs Commercial Building, Rancho Bernardo Historic Railcar Plaza, San Diego Unified Port District Affiliations None Education Bachelor of Science Degree - Civil Engineering 1980 San Diego State University Registration California Registration as Professional Civil Engineer 1984 - #37980 ta=I ERICKSON.HALL. COIIITIlUc;T10N co. :::...,:""""~ =':.::.".:~20:~:,~,;...~l'~:;j 13-118 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLiSHING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) ENTITLED "ALL SEASONS PARK (PR279)"' AND AMENDING THE FY07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPROG~~M WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved, by Resolution No. 2006-294. the Master Plan for All Seasons Park, which conceptually designed and provided for the construction 01' a completed and fully functional 7.G-acre park; and WHEREAS, on .Tune 17,2003, the City Council approved a Resolution establishing a Design-Build Priority List excluding fire facilities to be used in awarding Design-Build contract Cor future City projects; and WHEREAS, on February 28. 2007 a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to all of the Design-Build firms on the Priority List to prepare proposals for the design and construction of a completed and fully functional 7.G-acre park, All Seasons Park; and WHEREAS, in a separate Resolution, staff will ask the City Council to approve a Design-Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the provision of services required to design and construct All Seasons Park; and WHEREAS. statl wishes to establish a new Capital Improvement Project entitled "All Seasons Park (PR279J"" for construction of All Seasons Parle NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista that it establishes a new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) entitled "'All Seasons Park (PR279)'" and amends the FY07 Capital Improvement Program. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffin Director of General Services ~{~t:L ~~ Ann Moore City Attorney .1 \ll(ll"l1L:y.,LLlSA"RLSOS\i\1I Se:l:'(lIlS 1'<.1rk Est'-lhlishing ('II'.d()(.: 13-119 RESOLUTION NO. 2007 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A APPROVfNG A DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL SEASONS PARK, LOCATED fN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 7 NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZfNG MA YOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved, by Resalutian No. 2006-294. the Master Plan for All Seasons Park, which canceptually designed and provided far the construction 01' a completed and fully functianal 7.6-acre park; and WHEREAS, an June 17,2003, the Cauncil approved a resalutian establishing a Design- Build Priority List excluding fire t~lcilities to. be used in awarding Design-Build contracts far future City prajects; and WHEREAS, an February 28. 2007, a Request far Proposal (RFP) was issued to. all afthe Design-Build fin11S an the Priarity List to. prepare propasals far the design and canstructian af a completed and fully functianal 7.6-acre park, All Seasans Park; and WHEREAS, two. fin11S submitted prapasals n PCL Canstructian Services, Inc. and Ericksan-Hall Canstruction Ca.; ancl WHEREAS, based an the propasals, Ericksan-Hall Canstructian Ca. was selected as the Design Builder because of its extensive canstructian experience with this type ofpraject and its ahility to. best meet the City's development schedule. manetary and time criteria af the project; and WHEREAS, the D/B Team af Ericksan-Hall Canstructian Ca. and Deneen Pawell Atalier, Inc. (DPA, Inc.) affers an excellent cambinatian afdesign and canstructian expertise for this type af praject; and WHEREAS, staff will retulll to. Cauncil far approval af the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) ance the canstructian dacuments reach 900/" campletian, and staff will also request that Cauncil appropriate the necessary funds li'am the Park Acquisitian and Land Develapment Fund; and WHEREAS, this appropriatian will pravide the necessary funds to. camplete the design phase for the new All Seasons Park Capital Improvement Project, including the cost of preliminary geatechnical testing and City staff casts; ancl 13-120 WHEREAS, the design phase costs are broken down as follows: Description Design Builder design services, gener::ll conditions & construction management Amount I $349.'159 City Oversight: Design Phase Staff Costs Geotech/special inspection services Total Design Phase Project Costs $75.000 $25,000 $449,459 WHEREAS, the total estimated Project costs are $2,450,000 and are broken down as f()llows: Master Plan; $50,000 (completed), Design and Constmction; $2,015,343, and specialty consultants. utilities, furniture fixtures and equipment, contingencies and staff time; $384,657; and WHEREAS, all PAD funds have been collected and are sufficient to cover the cost of the project; and WHEREAS, the design/build process will place sole responsibility for delivery of the project upon Erickson-Hall Construction Co., a general contractor; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City enter into a Design Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the provision of services required to design and construct All Seasons Park; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project far compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the previously adopted Village 7 Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Maps Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR #04-06) and that no further environmental review or documentation is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista that it approves a Design-Build agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction Co. for the design and construction of All Seasons Park, located in Otay Ranch Village 7 Neighborhood of the City ofChula Vista, appropriating funds theretar and authorizing Mayor to execute the agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by 'c!i,~ CJ.. /Cc~~ Ann Moore City Attomey .lack Griftin Director of General Services J:.,\\lOrl1t';/\ELlSN\Rr:SOS\AII Seusotls I'ark AV'-:lrtl Design Build AgleelllenLJoc 13-121 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~\f? CllYOF ~"'-- (HULA VISTA MAY 15,2007 Item /~ SUBMITTED BY: ASSESSMENT OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN CHULA VISTA BY THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCOTT TULLOCH, ACTING ASSISTANT CITY ~ MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT f! TIM SANDOVAL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ANN HIX, ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITvN"l.u...-- DEVELOPMENT ~ 11'.;1. I CITY MANAGER d I ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND In April of 2006, the City contracted with Terry Amsler, Institute for Local Government, California League of Cities, to assist in developing community participation recommendations for the City. The consultant has completed his work and is forwarding recommendations for Council, staff and community consideration. The report is titled "An Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista, Findings and Recommendations, March 2007." ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The report is a set of policy and practice recommendations for civic engagement and public participation in governance. It is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a City Council Subcommittee be appointed to review the 46 recommendations contained in the report and, with staff support, prioritize them for Council consideration and direction. 14-1 May 15, 2007, Item No.: tel Pa~ BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This report has been distributed to all Boards and Commissions through their department liaisons. The Boards and Commission have been advised of the date of this meeting to provide them opportunity to forward any recommendations. It has also been widely distributed to those parties and individuals that participated in the interviews and outreach that led to the final consultant recommendations for the same purpose. DISCUSSION The consultant has recommended 46 different measures to improve civic engagement in Chula Vista. Many of these measures are already in practice or are in process of being implemented by the city, while many recommendations are not currently part of standard operational practice and would need further Council endorsement or policy direction. The process used by the consultant to develop final recommendations is docwnented in detail in Mr. Amsler's report, transmitted with this memo. Outreach meetings and interviews were conducted and surveys were distributed to staff and the chairs of the Boards and Commissions. The recommendations follow along 4 themes: I) planning and evaluating civic engagement strategies and successes; 2) capacity building and civic training; 3) inclusion and access; and 4) relationship building, coordination, and ongoing communication. In brief, the consultant recommends that civic engagement practices should be monitored and critically evaluated by staff and the elected and appointed officials. Civic engagement activities should be formalized with policies and procedures and coordinated among city departments. Training should be available to staff, elected and appointed officials, community and civic groups and members. Civic engagement should be inclusive and reach out at alternative times, places and ways to those who would not participate otherwise. Civic engagement activities should seek to build public trust and create effective, lasting relationships with community organizations and the public. The 46 recommendations in Mr. Amsler's assessment have been placed in a summary matrix by staff, attached to this report, and classified by priority factors that include: 1) benefit; 2) resources required; and 3) target group. Staff has also identified whether or not the recommendations of Mr. Amsler relate to ongoing or planned activities by the City. An example of a recent planning effort that employed many of the recommendations of the consultant is the Planning and Building Department led General Plan Update. This comprehensive and mandatory update included an inclusive, bottoms-up community visioning process and resulted in a successful community consensus and public policy document for the future physical development of the City. 14-2 May 15,2007, Item No.:-L Page 3 of3 Another outstanding example is the Engineering Department's experiment with promising new approaches to traffic-related issues. The Department can solicit participation for a local working committee through mailing to the appropriate area households. A committee of the interested parties is formed; relevant information, meeting preparation, and facilitation is provided by Engineering Department staff; and this committee develops recommendations relevant to the traffic issue at hand. Residents in the designated neighborhood area put the final ideas to a mailed vote and, if approved, the ideas are then put into place for 60 days on a trial basis, allowing all parties to assess their utility and effectiveness. Depending upon the results, further work can be undertaken by the committee. One planned City activity of note mentioned throughout the summary matrix is the proposed "Community Strengthening Strategies (CSS)." Later this month, Community Development staff will be distributing a white paper to the City Council and CYRC about the CSS concept, describing new and unique opportunities for civic engagement in Chula Vista. The white paper will propose innovative approaches to community building in, for example, the Southwest section of the City that could serve as a pilot project for many of Mr. Amsler's recommendations about civic partnerships, capacity building, and leadership development. The public will have full access to the white paper upon availability. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMP ACT Those recommendations rated in the attached summary matrix as "ongoing" or "in progress" are part of the current budget assumptions for FY07-08. Those that are unrated would require further analysis to determine their fiscal impact should Council give direction to analyze them and prior to direction to pursue them. ATTACHMENTS Staff matrix titled "An Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista, Summary of Recommendations" An Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista: Findings and Recommendations, April 2007, Institute for Local Government Prepared by: Nancy Lytle, Process Manager, Department of Planning and Building Rick Ryals, Real Property Manager, Department of Engineering 14-3 "An Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista" - DRAFT Summary of Recommendations I. Planning and Evaluating Civic Engagement St t ~ .j:>. I .j:>. ra emes Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reauired Taraet Groun Planned City Activities A. Planning 1. Share and discuss this Report broadly in city Council Proposed Community for Civic government and in the community. The Council could . City staff Improvement Strategies (CSS) Engagement convene a multi-sector group to discuss the Report. 0 Ensured implementation of Community, suggests convening a similar Outreach to traditionally less involved communities should In-house resources be an essential part of this group's work. This group should report recommendations Outside facilitator business, faith- multi-sector group to plan for Community-supported plan based and other increased civic engagement have a facilitator and assigned staff. This group should representatives from the Southwest present a consensus-based, actionable plan and budget SUDDortina Dublic involvement to Councii (Rec. #15). . General public communities. Examples of collaboration 2. The City should seek to develop participation processes, 0 CommunitYNsupported . Public engagement occur today, but further steps agendas and informational materials in collaboration or . In-house resources participants to institutionalize this practice with contributions of participating sectors (Rec. #26). processes would require further City Manaaer or Council direction. 3. The City should move slowly in considering city supported neighborhood associations or community Staff are currently engaged planning groups. Experience is mixed for these mechanisms, and only when a city is committed to fully . Council with existing and newly resource the effort will it have any chance of success. The 0 City staff, Boards forming community groups, but no formal efforts are City could first implement recommendations that would: a) Ensure successful and Commissions underway to implement the ensure an "infrastructure" for learning from and improving . In-house and Community, upon present efforts; b) develop a continuum of less mechanisms for community outside resources business, faith- specific subNrecommendations institutionalized opportunities for involvement; and c) involvement based and other (a, b, c). More formal create leadership, informed participation and support for representatives relationships and these efforts. Then, steps toward neighborhood-based General public organizational contributions groups might include a pilot "contractual" relationship with would require City Manager an existing community organization or pilot "community direction or Council action. olannino orouo'" (Rec. #30l. 4. Plan to include immigrant communities (Rec. #43). See III.A.3 See III.A.3 )> ~ ~ ""-" 2 (;;j;\:-"C:' I. Planning and Evaluating Civic Engagement 5 ~ ~ I U1 trategles Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resulting Benefit Resources Required Target Group Planned City Activities A "visioning process>> was conducted in the General Plan 5. A visioning effort could be developed where the City and Update for example, and the major community organizations jointly explore and reach . City representatives proposed CSS calls for a agreements on topics related to civic engagement, City-community agreement In-house . Major community similar forum with existing information sharing, capacity building, and supporting new groups community groups. Specific community organizations (Rec. #34). Planning processes usually include this public participation comoonent. B. Assessing 1. Staff and others should review completed civic This is occurring in the Existing Civic engagement processes. Assessment, with input from Planning and Building and Engagement . Learn from and improve on City staff Community Development participants, and the generation of civic engagement "best . In-house Experiences practices" for planning efforts will aid in the ability to embed past efforts . Process participants Departments but can always civic engagement in planning (Rec. #28). be improved upon with further institutional commitment. 2. Consider the Engineering Department's outreach on See 11.0.3 traffic as a model (Rec. #29). See 11.0.3 3. The Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) should be recognized as a significant experiment in collaborative involvement. Attention should be paid to developing the Learn from and improve on City staff skills and processes that will serve the RAG's deliberative In-house Ongoing. and collaborative requirements. The "open house" is an past efforts . RAC participants excellent example of adapting participatory approaches to what can otherwise be adversarial orocesses (Rec. #27). C. Assessing This can be incorporated into Civic 1. Require citywide performance measures for civic City departments Departmental Strategic Plans Engagement & . Improved standards . and Budgets, similar to current City Staff engagement. Request annual assessments and plans from . Compliance with standards . In~house Relevant practices in Planning and each relevant city department and commission (Rec. #17). commissions Building, with City Manager or Council direction. 3 ."" I. Planning and Evaluating Civic Engagement St t ~ ra eales Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reauired Taraet Graue Planned City Activities Some departments do this in their performance evaluations. 2. Job performance measures for City staff involved in civic . Improved standards Greater and consistent engagement should reflect those responsibilities (Ree. . In~house . Relevant City staff application across all #18). . Compliance with standards departments requires City Manager direction or Council action. 3. The Council and City Manager's Office should ensure Implementation requires that staff and departments adhere to the City's commitment . Improved standards Relevant City staff to civic engagement, and encourage department Compliance with standards In-house and departments Council action and City compliance with plans on the subiect (Rec. #20). Manager direction. D. Assessing This is now accomplished Civic 1. Clarify, amend and disseminate policies for noticing, Improve standards Relevant City staff department-by-department. A Engagement & advertising public engagement opportunities, and providing . In-house citywide set of protocols Noticing responses to questions/comments (Rec. #19). . Consistency and departments requires further Councilor City Mana~er direction. D. Assessing Civic 2. Notice to diverse, bilingual populations (Rec. #38). See III.C.4 Engagement & See IJI.C.4 Noticina E. Assessing . Commissions Past year's work is reviewed Civic 1. Council should require each commission to create an Improved commission Council annually by ordinance, but no Engagement & annual plan and assess its previous year's work, including In-house . planning ahead for the next Commissions process. These should be reviewed by Council (Rec. #1). effectiveness Groups involved in year is not required. Requires commission work further action bv CounciL 2. The Council could use commissions' annual plans and This is accomplished assessments to consider commissions' purposes, the need Improved commission department-by-department. A for change, the effectiveness and appropriateness of each effectiveness In-house Commissions citywide set of protocols commission, and city support for commissions (Rec. #3). requires further Council or City Manaqer direction. 3. Commissions should review their noticing process . Commissions Implementation across the annually and identify organizations or groups that would . Effective commission benefit by receiving information about commission noticing In-house resources . Those interested in board requires City Manager business' (Rec. #12), commission work or Council action. ~ I 0"> '/i,<;," 5 '~> 1;- " ~ II. Capacitv BuildinQ and Civic TraininQ Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resulting Benefit Resources Required Target Group Planned City Activities A. City Council 1. The City Council might hold a workshop to review the Inside or possibly range of civic engagement that has been undertaken in . Council equipped to improve Implementation requires Chula Vista recently and to acquaint themselves with the civic engagement practices outside facilitator or . City Council Council action. continuum of Dublic enoaoement models (Rec. #23). trainer(s) B. City Staff Some staff members, 1. Provide training for staff involved in civic engagement including all certified Planners, efforts to acquaint them with best practices. This might have had training and various include facilitation skirts, an orientation on the continuum of . Staff equipped to improve Outside training . City staff levels of experience. public engagement models, and an understanding of the civic engagement practices . Community Development staff distinction between broad public involvement and focused is researching training with the stakeholder-based deliberations (Rec. #22). International Association for Public Participation (iap2). 2. Learn about culturally competent public involvement See III.A.2 (Rec. #41). See III.A.2 3. A periodic forum on building civic engagement capacity An official citywide forum on should be developed. This may mean senior and other civic engagement would staff that has responsibilities for and experiences with City staff require City Manager or public involvement meeting to debrief, to embed a Improved internal . Public with Council action. This type of commitment to civic engagement in Chula Vista, and/or to coordination In-house resources experience or public discussion occurs at discuss upcoming public involvement efforts. An expanded Community feedback interest in public various civic and forum could involve community, business and other involvement neighborhood meetings and participants involved in public participation or with an has been the topic of a Brown interest in civic enqaqement (Rec. #16). Bag series, and beyond. C. Commissions 1. The City should consider a budget item for training and Improved commission Commissioners and Implementation requires professional development of city commissioners in tine with Outside resources those involved in Council or City Manager their needs and responsibilities '(Rec. #9). expertise commission work action. 2. To support commission chairs, training could be offered Commission chairs equipped . In-house and Implementation requires in meeting facilitation, relevant legal issues, or methods of to improve civic engagement outside resources Commission chairs Council or City. Manager securing public input (Rec. #11). practices direction. 3. Annual training for commission chairs (Rec. #10). See IV.A.1 See IV.A.1 """ I ...... "\n 6 ~ .j:>. I 00 II. Capacity Buildin~ and Civic Trainin~ Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resulting Benefit Resources Required Target GrOUD Planned City Activities D. Community Staff provides presentations 1. Experiment with offering pilot "planning academies" to and education to civic or interested and selected communities where development Increased community . Communities where neighborhood organizations is underway or envisioned. Planning academies engage understanding of planning . In-house resources development is upon request, but no residents, business and community leaders in a several- Informed participation in and lor outside happening or will formalized training resources ~academies" exist. week class that provides an overview of planning planning process happen Implementation requires purposes, processes and issues (Rec. # 24). Council and City Manager action. The proposed Community Improvement Strategies 2. Consider offering "citizen academies." They are several- suggest education on city week classes that acquaint residents with the purposes . Interested andlor government. The Chamber of and work of city government. City departments or . Increased community In-house andlor selected residents Commerce offers a commissions may be responsible for part of the class. understanding of outside trainers . Possible focus on "Leadership Chula Vista" Many cities hold academies geared to specific ethnic government ethnic communities leadership academy. The City communities, with translation required (Rec. #25). could take a higher participatory role if invited and directed by City Council and Citv ManaQer. 3. The Engineering Departmenfs outreach for community input on traffic~related matters is a model for how other Engineering department's departments may secure input. It is valuable for the City to Stronger communities and . Affected support the development of local committees that can local committees . In-house resources communities public. engagement efforts for traffic issues are constrained deliberate and offer their recommendations; then facilitate . Improved responsiveness . Local committees by budget. these ideas being placed before residents for a vote (Rec. #29). 4. Leadership development for community organizations See IV.D.2 (Rec. #35). See IV.D.2 ;;-:-,t~,;; :,U;~"I' "'2''''f-1,m'"" 7 '_,Il$- III. Inclusion and Access ~ .j>. I CD Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resulting Benefit I Resources Required I Target Group I Planned City Activities A. Inclusive 1. Include less involved communities in discussion of this See I.A.1 Planning for Report (Rec.#15). See I.A.1 Civic 2. City staff and com.munity representatives would benefit A formal program including Engagement from opportunities to identify culturally competent public In-house and . City staff community representatives Processes involvement methods, and from reviewing these aspects of Culturally competent public outside resources Community and city staff would require the City's civic engagement processes. Exchanges with involvement Possibly outside Representatives further Council and City representatives of Chula Vista's diverse communities on training Manager action. these topics are recommended (Rec. #41). 3. Develop a specific, long-term plan to include immigrant communities in Chula Vista's political life, and review and amend the plan regularly. Develop the plan in consultation Involved immigrant with appropriate Chula Vista communities. Religious communities; In-house Immigrant groups Implementation requires organizations, schools and community-specific media can Relationships with new . Possible outside Organizations Councilor City Manager help educate and recruit, and provide conduits for organizations translators direction. communication between government and community. Staff should solicit support from such organizations and build onnoinn alliances and relationshios with them (Rec. #43). 4. Involve community in planning public participation See IV. B.3 Drocesses (Rec. #21). See IV.B.3 5. Develop participation processes with participating See J.A.2 sectors (Rec. #26.). See I.A.2 6. A commission's self-assessment of its charge and work Improved commission In-house and Interested Parties Implementation requires should ask for feedback from parties interested in the . (I.e. citizens, commission's area of responsibility (2). effectiveness outside resources community groups) Council action. B. Convenient Redevelopment Advisory Meeting Committee regularly rotates locations 1. Commissions may consider reasonable "rotation" of Diversified participation . In-house resources, Typically less sites. Planning Commission sites for their meetings to bring their work closer to off-site meeting . has conducted offsite interested members of the public (Rec. #14). Increased convenience costs involved meetings and workshops. Others boards and commissions may also. 8 III. Inclusion and Access ~ .j:o I Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources ReCluired Tarnet Groun Planned Citv Activities Redevelopment Advisory 2. Move meetings that are intended to solicit public Committee and other public participation out into those communities characterized by In-house resources, . Typically less meetings are frequently held in less participation. This will be most effective with support Diversified participation outside meeting involved the community or affected by local groups and appropriate outreach (Ree. #39). costs neighborhoods, but greater application may be warranted, and renuires Council direction. C. Inclusive 1. Noticing of commission membership opportunities In-house resources Populations not Using greater variations of Noticing should ensure information sharing with media and Diversified commission . ethnic media for outreach Policies organizations reaching the diverse communities reflected membership Additional noticing usually represented requires Council or City in Chula Vista's DODulation (Rec. #7). costs on commissions Manaoer action. 2. Identify groups that would benefit from commission See 1.E.3 information- (Rec. #12). See I.E.3 Using greater variations of ethnic media for outreach 3. Media outlets reaching Spanish-speaking or other . In-house resources; Spanjsh~speaking requires Councilor City typically less involved communities might be better Diversified participation Additional noticing Typically less Manager action. Proposed integrated into the noticing process (Rec. #13). costs involved Southwest CIS suggests using Spanish language media for Citv corresnondence Planning and Building now notice all land use hearings in both English and Spanish. The 4. Expand city noticing protocols to reach diverse . In-house resources proposed Southwest CIS populations, and assess existing plans for bilingual Diversified participation and translation and . Non-English suggests using Spanish noticing. The City may "test" the available outlets, using speakers language media. Using each for a time and evaluating results (Rec. #38). interpretation costs greater variations of ethnic media for outreach requires Council or City Manager action. O. Translation 1. Gear "citizen academies" to ethnic communities and See 11.0.2 Servicesl reauire translation (Rec. #25). See 11.0.2 ~ o '.',,-,,:-) n!T' 9 '.ii,,: "I'. III. Inclusion and Access ~ Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reauired Taraet GrouD Planned City Activities Non-English . In-house - Translation services are Speakers 2. Expand city capacity for translation of public meetings equipment and staff provided in Council Chambers and civic engagement sessions. Mobile and digital translators/interpret Non-English upon special request. translation equipment should be available to agencies for Diversified participation ers speakers Expansion of city translation their public meetings, and appropriate staff and "contract" . Outside services requires Council translators should be trained to use it (Rec. #36). translators/interpret action and budgetary .rs . commitment. 3. Explore web site translation. Many cities provide the . Outside resources, Non-English Implementation requires option for city web site users to click an icon and have the Diversified participation software and/or . choice for translation into severallanauaaes (Ree. #37), translation costs speakers Council action. D. Translation 4. Offer "citizen academies" in Spanish and in English with Servicesl Spanish translation, in collaboration with organizations with Non-English significant Hispanic participation such as schools. Include Increased understanding of . In-house resources, The proposed Community Speakers information about opportunities for further engagement and possibly outside Non-English Strengthening Strategies civic and political leadership development. City agencies government among non- interpreters or speakers suggests education in Spanish should have access to participant contact information. If English speakers trainers on city government. not offered, the Police Department should offer a Spanish or bilingual academy (Rec. #42). E.Other The City's WebPages now Typically less offers an opportunity for the Involved public to write on any subject Groups any time of day and terminals 1. Attract younger and busy participants to public are available at the Public engagement via a variety of additional means for them to Services Building 8 AM to communicate their thoughts and opinions. For example: a) 5PM. Public records and one-an-one opportunities to speak with city staff; b) chart Younger reports are posted prior to paper for people to record their ideas; c) someone who can Involve younger and busy being considered by any type in exactly what people have to say, one-on-one; or d) participants . In-house resources participants policy making bodies and an on-site computer terminal for people to write their own Busy participants minutes posted after action. emalls to staff. Storyboarding or web dialogue formats may Charting and surveying public involve more people at once. Make background opinions are techniques that information available online or on disk (Rec. #31). the City has used in the past; e.g. the General Plan Update, and can be used in the future as part of typical techniques in outreach oroarams. .j>. I ~ ~ 10 III. Inclusion and Access ~ .j:>. I ~ Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reauired Taraet Groue Planned City Activities 2. Regularly review how those with disabilities can fully The City's ADA Coordinator Ensure full ADA access In-house resources . Disabled and City Clerk currently access notices, meetings and materials (Ree. #34.11). conduct this. 3. Continue to support the Chula Vista Youth Advisory Commission to solicit and include young people in public . Involve youth In-house resources Youth Build on existing Youth engagement processes. Youth Commission members can Advisory Commission. engage other youth (Rec. #35.11). 4. Develop print and online resources to promote civic engagement among newcomers to Chula Vista. These . In-house resources This can be accomplished could be integrated into the activities of schools, churches, Involve newcomers . Coordination with Newcomers more formally with Council community and leaderShj~ ?~OuPS, I~\cal government, community groups direction. relevant media and others Rec. #40 . '" ""i ':,;I;1')!( 11 ~ IV. Relationshio BuildinQ, Coordination, and OnQoinQ Communication Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reaulred Taraet Group Planned City Activities ' A. Coordination 1. Bring commission chairs together for a joint orientation and information~sharing session annually. Identify Coordination among . Commissioners Implementation requires emerging commission needs and share experiences commission chairs In house resources Those involved in Council action. about effective commission practices. Learn about Improved commission work commission work channes to city nolicv, and receive traininq (Rec. #10). 2. Clarify commissions' responsibility in identifying . Improves commission Opportunities exist to build membership needs, criteria and gaps in commission expertise . In-house resources . Commissions upon ongoing effort by the expertise, and how that information should be used this to Transparent process City Clerk and Mayor's office. solicit commission membership (Rec. #5). 3. The Council should state its expectations for new Opportunities exist to build Improved communication Commissioners upon ongoing effort by the commissioner orientation, and the roles of the Council, and coordination In-house resources Commission staff Mayor and City Council, City staff and commission chairs in the orientations (Rec. #8). Clerk and Citv-Attornev: 4. A periodic forum on building civic engagement capacity See II.B.3 (Rec. #16). See II.B.3 B.Communication The City Clerk distributes this information to all new commissioners and additional 1. Information about commission membership criteria, Transparent process Commissioners orientations are accomplished . Increased knowledge about Those interested in by City staff for land use recruitment and selection should be distributed as part of qualifications for In~house resources becoming related commissions with new commissioner orientations (Rec. #4). commissioners commissioners decision-making or legislative advisory roles and responsibilities by Municipal Code and Charter. 2. Find out how residents who have applied for Improved communication . Applicants for Implementation requires commjs'~~~F mem~~rship are kept informed about their . Transparent process In-house resources commissions Councilor City Clerk action or candidac Rec. #6 . direction. """ I ~ (.oJ c\., .,; 12 ~ IV. Relationship Buildinll, Coordination, and Onlloina Communication Prioritization Factors Relation to Ongoing or ILG Recommendation Resultina Benefit Resources Reauired Tamet Group Planned City Activities 3. City agencies that plan public involvement processes Some departments and/or professions do this as a should develop a communication strategy that will: a) matter of professional inform the community of the results of these processes; . Increased public trust Participants in practice, e.g. planners, but and b) inform participants of how their input was used and In-house resources public engagement reflected in the decisions. Reports that result from public Effective feedback loops Broader community more institutional application and consistency may be engagement should identify how input was incorporated in warranted, and requires decision-making (Rec. #21). Council action or City. C. Discussing 1. There should be dialog and public involvement to Concerns grapple with the dynamic of Chula Vistans feeling In-house resources disconnected from the whole community and fractured Address equity concerns . Implementation requires into regions such as East, Northwest, Southwest, due to Connected community . Possibly outside . The public, city-wide Council action. annexations, uneven growth and development, or feelings facilitators of disenfranchisement (Rec. #32). 2. Some appropriate "airing" of concerns might help clear . City Council the air and facilitate ongoing work and relationships. A Build public trust; Strengthen . In-house resources City staff Implementation requires well-prepared and facilitated session with ground rules . and outside Concerned can provide a safe and respectful opportunity for relationships facilitator community Council action. expression and understanding (Rec. #33). members D. Relationship 1. Joint visioning effort on civic engagement and capacity See 1.A.5 Building building (Rec. #34). See I.A.5 2. Community organizations may want to assess how they This requires the initiation of become stronger partners in community engagement, More effective community . In-house resources Community existing civic and community . . through greater membership diversity, effective outreach . Possibly outside organizations. The proposed and education, stron'ger internal operating systems, and organizations training organizations CSS calls for capacity building ongoing leadership development (Rec. #35). for community groups. 3. Plan to include immigrant communities (Rec, #43). See III.A.3 See III.A.3 ~ I ~ ~ I rOUNDm 19~5 .4/T f) ell Jt( e: U r L INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AN ASSESSMENT OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN CHULA VISTA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Submitted by: Collaborative Governance Initiative The Institute for Local Government April 12, 2007 14-15 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................... I II. Content and Organization Of The Report .................................................................. 2 III. Assumptions and Caveats ..........................................................................................3 IV. Methodology ............ .......... ..................................................... ................. .... ...... ........ 4 V. Chula Vista: The Setting ............................................................................................6 VI. City Commissions: Findings and Recommendations................................................ 8 VII. City Departments and Civic Engagement: Findings ................................................14 VIII. Community Perceptions Of Civic Engagement: Findings....................................... 21 IX. City And Community: Recommendations...............................................................23 X. Inclusion and Access: Findings and Recommendations .........................................33 XI. Conclusion ........... ..... ........ ........ .......................... .... ............... .............. ............ .... ... 36 XII. Appendices ................... ........ ...... ..... ............ .... ....... ............ .............. ...................... 38 A. Commission Questionnaire ..............................................................................39 B. City Department Questionnaire........................................................................42 C. Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement ................................................ 45 D. Beyond the Usuals ...........................................................................................64 E. Focus Group Findings and Recommendations................................................. 66 14-16 Assessment of Civic Engagement in Chula Vista: Findings and Recommendations I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, was asked to carry out a civic engagement assessment for the City ofChula Vista and to offer recommendations for the improvement ofthe practices associated with the involvement of residents in public decision and policy making in that city. This assessment was conducted by Terry Amsler, Program Director of the Institute's Collaborative Governance Initiative. While information concerning the condition and nature of civic engagement was drawn from a wide-ranging series of interviews with numerous members of neighborhood, civic, faith, business and public sectors, Terry Amsler is solely responsible for this Report's content. Underlying this assessment is the belief that effective local governance requires increased attention to bottom-up approaches to decision making and that a wider range of participants are legitimate members of such public decision making processes. Increasingly, civic engagement strategies are employed by municipalities for the following purposes: . To discover and understand the public's preferences . To improve decisions by incorporating residents' knowledge . To enhance transparency and trust in government . To create a more collaborative civic and political culture that supports the public interest and effective governance This author very respectfully offers this Report to public officials, civic, cultural and business groups and other individuals and organizations in Chula Vista interested in effective public involvement and good governance. Hopefully the contents of this Report may serve as a useful starting point for discussions about how to continue to advance civic engagement efforts. It is the author's experience that the best civic engagement practices emerge from the commitment of all groups in a community to make public involvement a collective agenda item, to identify I 14-17 common goals (for civic engagement), to try new approaches, and to jointly assess and learn from these efforts. The author wishes to acknowledge the generosity with which his visits have been received and the frankness and openness ofthose responding to his questions. While there are many perspectives on the city's history and the scope and approaches to civic engagement, Chula Vista is clearly poised to make continued advances in this area. The Institute for Local Government is pleased to be a part of that effort. Finally, we consider it something of an ethical responsibility to acknowledge that consultants can make recommendations with little thought about their potential costs or budget impacts. Public officials do not have this luxury. II. CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The intent here is not simply the presentation of a detached "expert" report that presumes too much and offers little direction to move from recommendations to action. While offered with an appreciation of an outsider's always limited perspective, this Report intends to provide practical observations and ideas that build on the interests, commitments and ideas of people in all sectors of the city, to acknowledge present efforts underway, and to suggest ways to build on those efforts. In addition to introductory and methodology sections, this Report includes findings and recommendations relating to civic engagement across city commissions, city departments and the community. A section on inclusion and access is also included. An Appendix includes survey questionnaires and materials relevant to the subject of the report. While the work ofChula Vista's commissions is certainly a part of the City's overall civic engagement function, commissions have their own section in this Report in order to bring clarity and focus to the relevant findings and recommendations. 2 14-18 Findings are grouped separately for the respective "City Departments and Civic Engagement" and Community Perceptions of Civic Engagement" sections, again for clarity and focus. However, recommendations for these areas are listed together in the "City and Community: Recommendations" section as the recommendations for these sectors are often closely intertwined in intention and content. While findings and recommendations for "Inclusion and Access" issues could also be spread throughout this Report, they are both grouped together in their own section for clarity and focus. Recommendations are all in italics and are numbered in a series across sections VI, IX, and X. III. ASSUMPTIONS AND CAVEATS The interest of the Chula Vista City Council to secure this assessment and articulate principles of public participation, in conjunction with the commitment of city staff across a number of departments to develop new approaches that seek the public's input and guidance, are important steps in building effective civic engagement practices. Of equal importance, voices from community, business, civic, faith-based and other settings add critical experience, infonnation, views and values that inform public decision-making. Organizations from these latter sectors are also important educators and communicators - of their members and others in the community- about public issues and participation opportunities. Together, public, private and civic sectors serve as important components of an effective civic engagement infrastructure. There is no single path or "science" that presents an easy roadmap for constructing the habits, protocols and mechanisms that make up a good culture of civic engagement. This is especially true as nearly all cities experience contention over their desired nature and future. Chula Vista, given its location, pace of change, and the significant issues that exist in planning for growth and development, will particularly benefit from effective community engagement practices; and will also find it a challenge to develop them. This must be shared work with its own agenda, and a willingness on the part of all to hear criticism, learn together, and adapt approaches as practice and learning dictate. 3 14-19 Good public involvement does not remove controversy and conflict, nor does it suggest that extensive public involvement is required for all matters. These participatory approaches can, however, provide the best practices and forums for handling appropriate matters constructively and honestly, and with the full exploration of common interests. This assessment seeks to offer guidance to the development of a more collaborative community able to confront the challenges ahead. It is worth noting that while this Report's recomrnendations are made in service to successful and inclusive public engagement, they are offered not as the final word on the subject but as an agenda to be amended and determined by Chula Vistans and their government as part the their planning and implementation of more effective and collaborative governance. This is the only way these recommendations will be usefu1. IV. METHODOLOGY The methodology or framework of this assessment can be characterized as a qualitative needs assessment, using a "snowball sampling" approach that allows the researcher to build a network of information sources as they become identified from the previously contacted individuals. This helps to prevent a certain type of bias if working from only an initial and single list of contacts. To gather information for this assessment, more than fifty interviews and surveys were conducted some with multiple participants. These involved City staff and commission chairs, along with leadership and members of civic, community, political, business and religious groups. Most were oral interviews conducted in person or by phone, with written surveys distributed to city commission chairs and selected city departments. Terry Amsler made a half dozen visits to Chula Vista to meet with a public, private and civic sector representatives, and held two public meetings to provide members of the public with the opportunity to learn about the assessment and offer input. Among the specific components of this assessment were the following: . Written surveys distributed and returned from a range of city commissions. 4 14-20 . A wide range of staff interviews including, but not lirnited to, the City Attorney's Office, Planning and Building Department, Engineering Department, Police Department, Public Works, and the City Clerk's Office, Community Development Department, Public Works, and the Director of Communication. Some ofthese oral interviews were followed by more in-depth written survey responses. . Attendance at meetings of a number oflocal community and political organizations, and discussions with individuals in leadership positions as well as with other members in a number of instances. These organizations included Crossroads II, Northwest Civics, Southwest Civics and the South Bay Forum. . In-person discussions and phone interviews were also conducted with representatives of mobile home communities, the Environmental Health Coalition, Healthy Eating Active Communities, and other groups. . Interviews with Chamber, business, service and faith leaders were also held. . Informal discussions with the previous and present mayor and, individually, with a number of Council members. . To ensure a better understanding of issues of Hispanic public involvement, the Institute has used its own resources to commission the holding of two local focus groups to assess and opportunities and barriers to effective participation by this significant segment of Chula Vista's resident population. I . Attendance at meetings of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Board, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, the Design Review Commission, and others. 1 As this was not envisioned initially as a part of this assessment, and was not a part of the City's contract with Institute, the Institute had to raise additional funds and this postponed the focus groups. Results are therefore not yet available but will be added as a Report Appendix once received. 5 14-21 The content of the report focuses on a certain type of civic engagement, namely the involvement or residents, whether organized or as individuals, in planning and other public decisions and policymaking. This report at times may refer to this topic as civic engagement, public involvement, public participation or collaborative governance. For purposes of focus, we exclude from consideration those types of civic engagement in which residents volunteer to staff city hall information booths, help build a neighborhood playground or participate in other service-related roles. Finally, while we are concerned with a more direct role for residents in the political life of their community, we are not addressing matters of direct democracy (for example, ballot initiatives), but rather how public participation can inform and shape the work and decision making of local officials. Work on the assessment was held in abeyance for a period oftime during the summer of 2006 at the City's request, and the consultant's health issues in late 2006 and early 2007 somewhat delayed work on the assessment. V. CHULA VISTA: THE SETTING Chula Vista is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States and San Diego County's second largest municipality. Resident population increased more than 25% between 2000 and 2005 and commercial and industrial growth increased at nearly the same pace. The 2005 population stood at 217,543: with 49% Hispanic; 31% White; 13% Asian; and 6%African- American. By 2030, total population is expected to reach 223,500; the number of homes may increase by 47% and total employment is anticipated to reach 79,442, a 48% increase from the year 2000. The total land area of33,024 acres is diverse form coastal shoreline in the west to the san Miguel Mountains in the east? This has been, and continues to be, a rapidly growing and developing community. Initially incorporated in 1911, much of the City's historic growth traces back to World War II and the post WW II boom, as well as to Chula Vista's regional and waterfront location between the 2 From Chula Vista Community Development Department, City Profile & Demographic Trends. 6 14-22 Mexican border and downtown San Diego. Expansion and development to the east resulted during and immediately after the war. In 1985, residents of the unincorporated Montgomery area voted to become part ofChula Vista, adding approximately 23,000 new residents. During the late 1980s and 1990s, Rancho del Ray, Eastlake and other master planned communities began to develop.3 Otay Ranch was annexed to the City in 1997. The Otay Ranch Parcel is 14 square miles and is planned for 18,000 residential units with 660 acres designated for the University and 256 acres of Industrial lands. Planning Area 12 of the Otay Ranch Parcel designates 130 acres for regional commercial and 82 acres for office uses, as well as mixed use development including over 6 million square feet of multi-family residential, regional office and retail, visitor commercial and cultural uses.4 The Bay front is also primed for a major $200 million dollar development, with expectations for hotels, convention center, restaurants, housing units, a marina redesign, a 30 acre signature park and more. None ofthis will be news to Chula Vistans. However from the perspective of developing effective methods of public engagement, this rapid pace of change adds enonnous content for public engagement process attention, puts increasing demands on community and business groups to become infonned and to add their voices to relevant decision making, presses local officials with an expanding agenda of seeking public support, and adds to an environment that will lead to conclusions by some residents that their city is changing - and not necessarily for the better - and that this change is "out of control."s Such a setting offers little breathing room for civic and business groups, government and others to reflect on the larger civic engagement picture, to assess what's been tried, to come to better 3 From the Chula Vista Community Development Department, City ofChula Vista Housing Element, a component of the Chulo Vita General Plan, 2006; and staff comments. 4 From the Daily Transcript, South County Expansion Supplement, Development continues at hot pace in county's South Bay area, October 5, 2006. 5 This phrase was used a number of times by individuals spoken with by this Report's author. 7 14-23 trust one another's intentions, and to develop, in effect, ajointly determined agenda for developing civic engagement capacity. VI. CITY COMMISSIONS: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS City commissions are included as a subject of this assessment in recognition of their important role in city government. Significant civic contributions are made by residents who volunteer their time and sit as commission members, and these bodies serve as important vehicles for community input. City commissions also serve as a skilled and sophisticated talent pool for local government. The City Charter, Article VI Section 600, establishes four appointed commissions and boards: I) Planning Commission, 2) Board ofUbrary Trustees, 3) Civil Service Commission, and 4) Parks and Recreation Commission. Additionally, the City Council has created nineteen additional commissions, committees and boards, summarized in the Municipal Code in Title 2 bJ1pj/ww,,:.codepublishing.com/ca/chlllavista html.html. All appointed groups, established by Charter or by the Council, are described on the City website at: http://www.chlllayistaca.gov ICily Services/Adm inistratiye Serv ices/City ClerkJBoards/de fault. ill. Volunteer appointed commissions, committees and boards playa central role in the government decision-making process. They serve a variety of specific functions and act as advisory bodies to the main governing body, the City Council. The appointed bodies balance staff professional analysis with community input and values. In the case of some appointed commissions, particularly land use bodies, they act as decision makers on certain quasi-judicial matters and non-political advisors on legislative matters. In the case of the Planning Commission, this role is also constituted in State statutes. The Chairs of nine city commissions returned the questionnaire distributed to all city commissions. Responses were received by the following commissions: Board of Appeals and Advisors Board of Ethics 8 14-24 International Friendship Commission Mobile Horne Rent Review Commission Nature Center Board of Trustees Planning Commission Resource Conservation Commission Safety Commissions Veterans Advisory Commission The complete questionnaire, containing more than 30 questions, is appended to this report Purpose aud Relationships: Findings Overall, those responding to the survey believe that commissioners' voices are heard in city government, and that their work is respected by the Council and the community. Comments on city staff who work with the commissions were also very positive for the most part. Most commissions appear to be clear on their general responsibilities, have sufficient and qualified members, and perceive that they are carrying out their respective work in good fashion. A small minority of respondents report some failure in receiving timely responses from the Council and/or city offices regarding questions or legal interpretation. The perception by some community members (unaffiliated with any commission) that some commission staff were inappropriately directive to commission business did not show up as an issue in the responses of commission chairs. There was some matter-of-fact mention ofthe Redevelopment Agency's action to assume the powers of the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission and Design Review Committee in certain circumstances/areas, the opportunities for these three groups' input, and the action to develop the current RAC process. There was less than unanimity on the issues of planning, goal setting and assessment. Responses were quite varied in terms of whether commissions engaged in any sort of annual goal setting or assessing their work on a regular basis. Some respondents felt it would be timely to revisit goals 9 14-25 (and in a few cases, to consider adjustments to mission), and in some cases to create an annual work plan where none now exists. In some cases there may be a brief summary provided to the Mayor and Council but this may not represent the true scope and value of the work. One respondent noted that, "problems do sometimes occur when members (commissioners) focus on their areas of expertise and do not see the 'big picture' that the overall commission should be addressing." A number of commissions suggested that more work could be done to assess the work of their respective commissions. Others felt that this was being done, or was not necessary. Again, it should be remembered that commissions differ quite dramatically in their scope of work, and the requirements for goal setting and longer term planning will differ significantly among them. Purpose and Relationships: Recommendations 1. The Council should suggest a general requirement and template for each city commission to annually create a plan or work agenda (appropriate to the committee's purpose) and assess its previous year's work (content and process). These should be reviewed annually by the Council as well. 2. A commission's self-assessment of its charge and work would usefUlly ask for the feedback and ideas of users and parties with particular interest in the commission's area of responsibility. 3. The Council could make use of such plans and assessments to consider - at some appropriate intervals and with commission input - each commission's purpose, the needfor changes (if any) to these purposes, the overall effectiveness and appropriateness of each commission, and the city's support for commissions and commissioners (see below). 10 14-26 Recruitment and Membership: Findings As stated above, commission respondents were generally satisfied with their commission's membership, and most but not all felt that members brought the required set of skills and capacities. While there was a general understanding of how new commissioners were identified and selected - and the role of the Mayor and Council in candidate interview and ratification process - respondents were not always clear about whether there were specific criteria - written or otherwise - for respective commission membership, and at least some were unclear on the recruitment methods used to fill commission slots. There also seemed to be some limited confusion about the role of the Mayor and Council, respectively, in the process. While it was not entirely clear from the questionnaires, some commission chairs appeared to have different understandings of the appropriate role of individual commissions in identifying or encouraging applications by specific individuals for their commission membership. There was also some uncertainty about the new commissioner applicant lists, including the nature of communication with applicants and whether commissioners had access to those lists. Recruitment and Membership: Recommendations 4. If not presently available and shared with city commissions, information on commission membership criteria, recruitment and selection should be so distributed (again taking into account the distinctions among different commissions). This should be a part of all new commissioner orientations (see below). 5. The responsibilities of the individual commissions in identifYing membership needs, criteria and/or gaps in commission expertise, and the appropriate means to use this information in notices soliciting commission membership should be clarified and shared among commissions. 11 14-27 6. It may also be useful to access how interested residents who have appliedfor commission membership are kept informed about their candidacy. 7. While not a response to a comment in any specific returned questionnaire, it is recommended that the noticing of commission membership opportunities should ensure appropriate information sharing with media and organizations reaching the diverse communities reflected in Chula Vista's population, (Please also see the section on Inclusion and Access.) Orientation, Training, and Leadership Development: Findings Respondents gave quite differing views on the regularity and form of the orientation of new commission members. In some cases this appears to be a staff function, and some respondents mention the presentation of a handbook to new members that describes their functions. A number of respondents suggested that commission members themselves deliver an orientation for new members, some quite elaborate; while others state the approach is primarily one of on- the-job training with no formal orientation. This can probably be at least partially explained by the different work culture and history of each of the several commissions. Responding commission chairs also give different views on the opportunities for ongoing education and training of commission members. Some respondents suggest that there are few if any such opportunities - and no clear budget - for commission members. Others recount the opportunities for technical briefing for members; relevant docent training classes; and other training relating to a commission's responsibilities. Orientation, Training and Leadership Development: Recommendations 8. It would be helpfUl to have the Council state its expectations relating to new commissioner orientation, as well as to the roles of the Council, staff and/or commission chairs in these orientations. This is not to suggest inflexible or lockstep approaches however. 9. Given the importance of commissioners in the civic and political life of the community, the city should consider an appropriate budget item to support for reasonable training and professional development of commissioners in line with their needs and responsibilities - if this 12 14-28 is not already in place. Such opportunities could be tied to years of commissioner service, commission plans, and/or specific commission needs. Meeting Notice and Format: Findings While there are differences due to each respective commission's purpose and work, most report straight forward meeting formats, including agenda review, approval of minutes, public input, staff reports as appropriate, consideration and discussion of business items, member reports, etc. There is typically notice of the meetings posted on the City's website, city bulletin boards, and in the case of some commissions through notices in the community or specific sites that are central to the commission's responsibilities. Respondents report that agendas are typically set either by chairs, chairs and commission members, or by city staff. Some respondents report that meetings follow Robert's Rules of Order. Overall, meetings appear to be well run and the Chairs exercise appropriate leadership and facilitation. There seem to be standard meeting practices for most commissions, and little actual variation for the most part; with minor changes resulting, at times, from unusual levels of public participation. Even in these cases, there is typically a standard form of public input with a set time limit for each speaker. Noticing of meetings appears different for different commissions (incomplete information was collected). Generally, notices are posted on the City's Agenda Board and on the City's website. Persons who have specifically requested notification of meetings are mailed meeting notices on a regular basis, and commissions with special relationships with specific groups and organizations tend to keep them informed. For instance, the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission mails its agendas to mobilehome park owners and notices are posted at mobilehome parks. Meeting Notice and Format: Recommendations 13 14-29 10. Commissions appear to exercise their functions with due care and commitment. As a means of ongoing learning and development, one recommendation is to bring commission chairs together once a year for a joint orientation and iriformation-sharing session. This would be an opportunity to identifY emerging commission needs, to gain information about any changes in relevant city protocols or policy, share experiences about effective commission practices, and/or receive useful training. A part of this meeting might usefUlly include ajoint session with the City Council for purposes of common learning and relationship building. 11. To support commission chairs in their important respective roles, training could be offered in meeting facilitation, relevant legal issues, or optional methods of securing public input. 12. Commissions, and the appropriate commission staff, should be requested to review their noticing process annually and identifY particular organizations or groups that would benefit by regularly receiving information about commission agendas and business. 13. Appropriate media outlets reaching Spanish-speaking or other members of typically less involved communities might be better integrated into the notice process. 14. As is the case with a number of city commissions presently, other appropriate commissions may also consider reasonable "rotation" of sites for of their meetings to bring their work closer to interested members of the public. VII. CITY DEPARTMENTS AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: FINDINGS In a number ofChula Vista city departments, efforts have been made - and are continuing - to secure community and other stakeholder input. This takes many forms, and a few are offered here by way of illustration and a means to discuss a continuum of public involvement options for Chula Vista. Improving Services 14 14-30 The Chula Vista Police Department supports the establishment of neighborhood watch programs intended to give residents a grater role in the safety of their community. Police representatives attend community meetings and solicit input on the policing needs as well as on the actions of officers. Citizen academies are offered through the Community Relations Unit. Additionally, the Chiefs Advisory Board meets monthly and of course the Public Safety Commission is another avenue for deliberation and community input. Community Problem Solving The Engineering Department has experimented with a promising approach to traffic-related issues that may involve signs, parking, traffic routing, speed bumps and the like. Initiated by the Department, perhaps due to expressions of community concern, the Engineering Department can solicit participation for a local working committee (from and for the affected area) through mailing to the appropriate area households. A committee of the interested is fonned; relevant information (and meeting preparation and facilitation) is provided by Engineering Department staff; and this committee develops recommendations relevant to the traffic issue at hand. The final ideas are put to a mailed vote by residents in the designated neighborhood area (again with Engineering Dept. support). If approved, the ideas are then put into place for 60 days on a trial basis, allowing all parties to assess their utility and effectiveness. While apparently achieving its goals, budget constraints have recently resulted in cutbacks to this innovative effort. Making Urban Plans Housing Element of the General Plan The Housing Division of the Planning and Building Department pursued a range of community involvement strategies in developing the 2006 Draft Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. California requires diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the population in the development of a Housing Element. In this case, the City employed focus and stakeholder groups, community workshops, and workshops associated with commission and Council meetings to solicit community engagement. 15 14-31 Housing staff particularly identified the stakeholder groups used as a part of this process as a successful element of the engagement effort. These groups, composed of about twenty invited members representing a fairly balanced representation of significant community business, developer and other organizations, each met three times in respectful open dialogue to offer input into the major topic areas of the Housing Element Plan Update. The process section of the final Plan Update reports that responses from community input overall guided the Needs Assessment portions of the Housing Element as well as the Housing Policy and Implementation Plan. The General Plan Update The process for the City's General Plan Update also sought multiple methods of public involvement. Initially a consulting firm was employed to prepare staff and civic volunteers as facilitators to go into communities, schools and faith-based organizations to solicit input on the visions for Chula Vista to guide the public involvement process. Focus group sessions and Town Hall meetings were also held to gather input from the public concerning the kind of city residents wanted to see in 2030. A hotline and email address was also put in place where community members could offer input into the plan update process. The Planning and Building Department reports that more than 4,000 public comments were received and that these comments were synthesized by the City to frame issues that were addressed as part of the General Plan Update process. A second Town Hall meeting was held to review preliminary land use and transportation ideas, and a series of three community meetings followed, held in three different parts of the city, to review more refined land use options. In addition, four citizens' advisory committees were created to guide the General Plan Update. These included a Steering Committee and three subcommittees, including: I) Economic Development; 2) Environment, Open Space and Sustainable Development; and 3) Infrastructure and Services. These committees met monthly to consider draft segments of the plan, and encouraged public input. The work of these committees also contributed in Chula Vista's Vision 16 14-32 Statement and Themes that served as building blocks for the General Plan.6 The General Plan was unanimously approved in December of2005. Urban Core Specific Plan The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), begun mid-2004 and now nearly completed, addresses approximately 1,700 acres within the northwestern portion of Chula Vista. This area is generally bordered by the San Diego Freeway to the west, C Street to the north, Del Mar to the East, and L Street to the south. This Specific Plan establishes the framework and guidelines for the next 20- 25 years, within the vision set out in the General Plan, to address commercial, housing, transportation and related development intended to enhance the "economic, social, cultural, and recreational fabric of the Urban Core.,,7 The public engagement process began in summer of20048 with a two-day charrette process followed by stakeholder interviews, the development of an advisory committee, community meetings (and opportunities for visual simulations), and input by high school age youth. The advisory committee, appointed by the (then) Mayor, had significant responsibilities for considering and recommending plan content. This advisory committee met for several months; however community organizations voiced concerns about the membership of this committee and what they considered to be the insufficient representation and opportunities for neighborhood input. This resulted in a community workshop in April of 2006 in which City staff presented draft elements of the UCSP, with representatives of community organizations9 offering concerns and alternatives, followed by a period of questions and answers. At the item ofthis writing, the Urban Core Specific Plan is on the agenda for action at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Embedded Representation and Voice 6 From interviews and Chula Vista Vision 2020: City ofChula Vista General Plan (2005). 7 From Urban Core Specific Plan Facts, City ofChula Vista. 8 Although it build on the updated General Plan and that Plan's associated engagement 9 Crossroads II and Northwest Civics 17 14-33 The Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) serves as the primary vehicle for public participation in the project approval process ofthe Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC).IO Building on the established CVRC principles of encouraging public involvement "early and often,,,11 the RAC hears proposed redevelopment projects (in a two-step process) that provides developers with early feedback. This allows them to adjust their prospective project in line with RAC recommendations, and to return with a redesign that meets with RAC approval and results in a recommendation for approval to the full CVRC Board. RAC members are selected by their respective participating organizations (community groups, business associations or City technical advisory committees). This membership formula has been a matter of some dispute. Experimentation has occurred in the form of an "open house" component prior to the formal opening ofthe meeting, allowing attendees and RAC members to discuss proposed projects (on the evening's agenda) on a one-to one basis with applicants. The RAC has met in different locations, including a school and the police department, with an interest in helping to ensure a greater accessibility to the public. Notices of the meeting are provided in both English and Spanish and are posted on the City's Agenda board, on the City's website, in the Star News, local libraries and recreation centers. They are also mailed directly to property owners surrounding subject projects. In Summary These brief descriptions of a number of public engagement approaches employed by City departments are not nearly exhaustive but they suggest the scope and variety of efforts that have been used to seek community and other stakeholder input and deliberation. Importantly, Chula Vista has a significant and growing experience with public engagement. In some cases, these processes are developed and managed by external consultants and at other 10 This process is relatively new (established at a 6-22-06 CVRC meeting and is the topic of ongoing discussion; therefore it, and the entire CVRC mechanism, may continue to change. II The full set of Principles of Public Input and Participation are: a) early and often; b) open, inclusive and accessible, and c) educational and informative. 18 14-34 times by City staff. Overall, City officials increasingly talk the language of public involvement, and there is a generalized expectation, certainly for any significant planning effort, that community and other stakeholder voices should be included. This need to develop appropriate and inclusive processes may be particularly on the upswing as planning and development has moved (speaking generally) from the less occupied "east" to the older and more populated communities ofthe "west." These efforts have often taken - and continue to take - substantial commitments of agency time and resources. The City staff interviewed for this assessment appear professionally and personally committed to doing this work well, and there are demonstrated efforts of staff seeking to learn from the experiences of other communities. One view is that Chula Vista has engaged in important "experiments" in civic engagement, and now is poised to move to more sustained, intentional and continually improving (or "adaptive") level of effort. The City staff who employ these approaches, have opinions of what works and what doesn't within their own respective orbits of responsibility, but there is less empirical information collected based on any formal criteria of what civic engagement outcomes should look like. There also appears to be a still relatively modest level of conversation and information sharing about public engagement across departments and offices. Formally invited feedback from participants about their experiences in these processes, or from the larger community, also appears more sporadic than optimal. There have been disagreements about civic engagement design, at least in terms of concerns expressed to the City by organized community groups. However, these "design" disagreements at times seem to be more a matter of "counting votes" in participatory forums rather than a discussion about the how a chosen process mayor may not result in new "public knowledge,,12 that will result in reaching better public decisions. 12 "Public knowledge" is more than simple opinions or preferences about policies or plans. While not necessarily the goal of all public participation, this concept goes deeper and includes elements of common values, acceptable trade-offs, and informed and considered judgments that are offered in a form, and at a time in the policy process, to be effectively integrated into public decision-making. See Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement by the Harwood Institute in attached Appendix C. 19 14-35 The authors of Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement (see Appendix C) encourage city agency organizers of public involvement processes to answer the following questions: . Have we properly prepared staff for what they might learn through civic engagement, and are they prepared to deal with the implications? . Have we framed the appropriate conversations given where we are in the policy process? . Have we set realistic public expectations given the capacities we have to take action? . Do we have the necessary voices around the table to gain useful knowledge and make discoveries? . Have we figured out how to use what we learn and make sure people know their voices are useful? While not suggested as the last word on the subject, these are, to a degree, a different kind of question that not only City departments but all segments of the community could ask collaboratively to more productively plan and assess public forums. In general, while a growing array of engagement processes are being put to use, and while individual staff have an increasing familiarity with them, public officials, overall, have far less of a developed sense ofthe full continuum of public engagement options (used by or available to the City) and the strategic purposes and use of each. The same is as generally true for community, business, civic and other groups. There is an opportunity to build on the public engagement experiments carried out to date; to develop greater skills and capacity on the part of individual City staff and of City departments to design and implement these processes, and to construct the policies and commitments required to ensure their full and sustained appreciation and use. The manner in which these efforts are understood and "legitimated" by community and other constituent and stakeholder groups is critical to their full success. The following section explores the community's perceptions of civic engagement. 20 14-36 Vlll. COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: FINDINGS It is important to remember that that this is a qualitative assessment and the majority of "community" interviews were with individuals and organizations that tend to have interests in and ongoing involvement with city government. For instance, discussions were held with leadership and, in some cases, members of Northwest Civics, Crossroads II, Southwest Civics, South Bay Forum and others. Findings here are a composite of these and other interviews, the consultant's impressions of meetings attended, emailed comments, etc. None of the findings necessarily reflect the positions or collective opinion of any organization or group in Chula Vista. Most of those interviewed credit the City with many good faith efforts at public involvement and recognize the efforts this requires. There were also numerous comments about the dedication and hard work of many city staff who make efforts to involve the community, attend community meetings and respond to questions and information requests from the public. At the same time there is a pervasive level of mistrust, and a perception that community groups must continue to fight and be vigilant in order to ensure public sector responsiveness. These perceptions and attitudes can be grouped, and described briefly, as follows: History: From the Montgomery Annexation to the Espanada controversy, community leaders and residents make claims of secret deals, promises not kept, and bad faith in the solicitation of community voice. The pace of change in the community also contributes, in a multiplicity of ways, to the sense of the government being beyond the control of residents. Respect: Community groups view themselves as not only representing resident voice but also playing an important leadership development and communication role in the community, educating the public about important issues and informing them of opportunities for civic engagement. Many interviewees believe that the City does not fully recognize these important 21 14-37 civic functions and rather than supporting community organization efforts, they would rather that these groups would '1ust go away."l3 Information-sharing and Responsiveness: A number of individuals suggested that the City is not sufficiently responsive to requests for information from community groups. This may take the form of insufficient or un-translated meeting notices or related documents, or a lack of timely responses to public comments at city commission and other meetings. Whether ideas from the public are - or are not - made a part ofa final decision or policy there is a belief that there is insufficient feedback to the community about the uses of such public knowledge. When a decision is made that appears to be inconsistent with public input, community respondents thought it particularly important to explain why the decision was made as it was. There were also comments that while many City staff went out of their way to support community involvement others did not, and that the City leadership was not making this a clear priority across city departments. Disagreement with Decisions and Polices: There are of course some decisions made by Chula Vista City government with which community groups and residents may simply disagree. These decisions range from building height limits to mobile home park issues. While diverse, many of them relate, directly or indirectly to the kind of community Chula Vista is to be. Value and Nature of Civic Engagement Processes; There were also criticisms concerning the nature of the civic engagement processes employed in Chula Vista. For instance, the (still developing at that time) RAC arrangement seemed to hold promise for many - and demonstrate City responsiveness - although there was also concern in some quarters about the loss of specific commission voices in the redevelopment approval process. There were also, as noted above, some expressions of concern about the representativeness of certain advisory committee, as well some interviewees wondered about the consistency and follow through of efforts to involve the public. However, aside from these questions, and expressions of concern about responsiveness and feedback in these processes in general, comments about the ins and outs of specific civic engagement processes were fewer in number, and less pointed in general, than in other areas. 13 A partial quote from a community resident. 22 14-38 What was present however was a questioning about the City's intent in "doing" civic engagement. Was it because of an authentic interest in community input and a beliefthat a resulting plan, policy or decision would be improved by that input? Or was it a City effort to set processes in place before - or because - community groups would call for it themselves? Or perhaps to mask already desired plans or desired outcomes? In general, is civic engagement viewed by the City as more or less of a minimum requirement to get work done, rather than representing a committed effort to do the best public involvement possible? There were many such questions as well as comments such as, "we give a lot of input but it never shows up in the results," suggesting a suspicion ofthe seriousness and the authenticity of the City's civic engagement efforts. In general, representatives of business groups saw things a bit differently. While favoring public engagement for all sectors, there was some question about whether a limited number of voices were speaking for the community, a concern that community representatives were inadequately informed about the role of business and development in ensuring the financial and overall health and vitality ofthe City, and some worries about the added time that public involvement could add to plan and project approval. lX. CITY AND COMMUNITY: RECOMMENDATIONS Planning for Excellence in Public Involvement The issuance of a report on civic engagement is at best only a small step toward the potential for more collaborative and effective planning and policymaking. The recommendations in this section suggest possible actions to advance a broader view of civic engagement beyond its use at a given point in time, and to place the development of public involvement capacity more fully on the City's agenda. 15. This Report should be shared and discussed broadly in city government and in the community. A multi-sector group could be convened by the Council with representative participation by elected officials and city staff, in addition to community members, business, faith-based and other groups, to discuss and hear additional feedback on the Report's findings 23 14-39 and recommendations. Outreach to traditionally less involved communities should be an essential part of this group's work (see "Inclusion and Access" section below). This group should have the benefit of afacilitator and have assigned staff through the City Manager's or some other office. To the degree possible, a consensus-based and actionable plan and budget supporting public involvement should be prepared and presented by this group to the Council. 16. If the City is to undertake a more extensive effort toward building civic engagement capacity, a periodic forum on this topic should be developed For the City itself this may take the form of meetings of senior and other staff having responsibilities for and experiences with public involvement processes, in order to debrief on specific experiences, continue to embed a commitment to appropriate civic engagement in Chula Vista, and/or discuss or support upcoming public involvement efforts. Topics that impact on the effective use of civic engagement, such as the Brown Act, would also be appropriate agenda items. 17. An expandedforum could involve community, business and other groups who have been participants in public involvement processes or have an interest in civic engagement. This larger forum (that should seek to achieve some consistency of participation once formed) could provide an opportunity to "take stock" of civic engagement efforts in the City, suggest new ideas and adaptations, and build a repository of learning among participants. Establishing Commitments For the use of civic engagement strategies to become embedded in Chula Vista governance, the City's policies and practices should align with and support such efforts. In general, this suggests integration of public engagement ideas into policy, planning and personnel frameworks, the coordination of efforts, and the ability to effectively use what is learned to improve. 18. In line with an overall plan to strengthen public involvement, the City should establish city-wide performance measures for democratic accountability/civic engagement and request annual assessments and plans from each relevant city department and commission.. 24 14-40 19. Job performance measures for those City employees whose work involves the development and support of civic engagement should include reflect these responsibilities. 20. The City should clarifY, amend and disseminate those protocols and policies relating to noticing meetings, advertising public engagement opportunities, and providing responses to questions/comments and public meetings. 2 I. The Council and the City Manager's Office should provide leadership to ensure adherence, by appropriate city employees and departments, to the City's principles and commitment to civic engagement, and encourage department planning, and compliance, with such plans on this subject. /4 22. Those agencies of the City that plan public involvement processes that facilitate input on public decisions and policies should ensure the development of a complementary communication strategy that will, in a timely way: aJ inform the broader community of the work and results of these processes; and b) specifically inform process participants of how the results and recommendations of their deliberation were used and reflected in the ultimate decisions. Additionally, as city department frequently do now, reports and other products that result from public engagement processes should also identifY how public input was incorporated into final decision-making. Capacity Building/Leadership Development Developing the interest, knowledge and skills required to understand, manage and participate in public engagement processes will result in better outcomes from these efforts. 23. Training opportunities should be available for staff engaged in civic engagement efforts to acquaint them with the best practices in this area. This might include skills infacilitation, and an orientation for senior and other appropriate staff on the continuum of public engagement models. Of particular relevance may be an understanding of the purposes and distinctions 14 There are plans on the books now of course, for example the Housing Element Objective's H9.1.1 -H9.l.3, that call for "meaningful public participation", "bilingual noticing" and "public outreach." 25 14-41 between efforts at broad public involvement and those that are more focused, stakeholder-based deliberations involving representatives of specific organization Or interests. 24. The City Council might also consider a workshop for its members to review the range of civic engagement that been undertaken in Chula Vista recently and to acquaint themselves with the continuum of public engagement models. 25. The City could experiment with offering "planning academies, " on a pilot basis. While often offered on a citywide, county Or even regional basis, Chula Vista might offer them in interested and selected communities, especially where significant growth or development is underway Or envisioned. Planning academies engage residents, business and community leaders in (usually) a several-week class that provides an overview of the purposes of planning, city (and sometimes county Or regional) planning processes, relevant government agencies involved in planning, significant and emerging planning issues, etc. Academies are not generally involved in making or contributing to specific plans. They have the potential for adding to the broader community's knowledge of, and appreciationfor, planning, and also equip participants to participate more knowledgeably in actual planning processes. Some cities have experimented with online planning academies. 26. Offering more broadly focused "citizen academies" should also be considered. Citizen academies, often consisting of several weeks of once a week (or more) evening Or weekend classes, provide residents with the opportunity to become better acquainted with the purposes, offices and work of city government. Frequently, different city departments may take responsibility for a particular evening class or part of a class.15 City Commissions may also present information. Benefits accrue to the participants who better understand their city government; and the city gains from mare knowledgeable and civically engaged residents. 16 Academy graduates frequently add to the pool of applicants for commission and other civic engagement opportunities. While typically offered city wide, a number of cities hold academies 15 While Chula Vista has offered an academy through the Police Department, I don't believe that academies with a broader scope have been offered. 16 There is of course no reason why education and information sharing on any topic(s) of interest to a city and its residents cannot be offered in other forms and forums that will reach interested members ofthe community. 26 14-42 geared to specific ethic communities, with translation as required. See more on this below under Inclusion and Access. Civic Engagement Process Development and Innovation Chula Vista is already engaged in encouraging and using public involvement practices that address a range of issues of concern to local government, residents, business interests and others. Of particular importance to ensuring successful efforts are the habits of experimentation, reflection on learning, and the application of what's been learned to the next opportunities for civic engagement. 27. When pursuing public engagement efforts that bring together individuals or groups from community, business, civic and/or other settings to deliberate and offer input on planning or other matters, the City should, within reasonable bounds, seek to develop these processes, their agendas and informational materials in collaboration or with the informed contributions of participating sectors. 28. While not offering specific recommendations on the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation's structural approach to project review, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) should be recognizedfor the significant experiment in public and collaborative involvement that it is. While such developments will often, naturally, become the subject of debate, there is frequently less attention paid to assessing what is and is not actually working in relation to their purposes. As with any significant innovation in public involvement in governance, this is a laboratory that the City may mine fUrther. Also, as the RAC 's composition reflects, at least to some extent, typical interest group politics, attention should be paid to developing the skills and processes that will serve the RAC 's deliberative and collaborative requirements to get it's work done in the spirit intended. The idea to have project developers/advocates available informally immediately before the RAC (the "open house" effect), in order to allow information sharing and dialogue with RAC meeting attendees, is an excellent example of adapting more participatory approaches to what can otherwise remain more adversarial processes. 27 14-43 29. Through the sorts offorums described above, (see Recommendation #16) civic engagement process experiences associated with the General Plan Update (including the Housing Element Plan Update), the Downtown Specific Plan, Bayfront planning process, and other significant Chula Vista planning efforts should be reviewed, once completed, by appropriate City staff and others. The opportunity for assessment (with input from participants) and the generation of an evolving compendium of civic engagement "best practices" for larger scale planning efforts will aid Chula Vista's ability to embed good civic engagement in City planning. 30. The experiences of the Department of Engineering to reach out to the community for input on traffic-related matters seems to offer a model for how other city departments may secure community input on public works and city services-oriented matters. While not taking the place of input by other relevant groups and stakeholders, the capacity of the city to identifY the affected population of a proposed public works or services matter - or to respond to concerns about such matters from the community - and to support the development of local committees that can deliberate and offer their recommendations, and then to facilitate these ideas being placed before area residents for a vote, is of great value. While understanding that this effort may have been cut back due to budget constraints, the City is encouraged to assess this effort in some detail if it has not already done so, with input from participating community residents, identifYing the techniques and the resources requiredfor successful implementation. An examination of how these same approaches might be used in relation to other public works and service-related issues is warranted as well. If other appropriate areas of application are identified, a pilot effort might be undertaken, with experienced staff from Engineering sharing experiences and models. If found successful, this approach might become an important and "embedded" option in Chula Vista for securing public voice on appropriate matters. 31. There has been some interest in the development of aformal system of city recognized and supported neighborhood associations - or perhaps community planning groups - that would have designated responsibilities for input and recommendations in certain areas of public decision making (typically planning and land use matters). There were both community 28 14-44 residents and local officials interviewed who believe this is an avenue the City should consider. The recommendation here is for the City to move carefully in this regard Experience around the country is mixed in terms of the success of these institutionalized mechanisms, and creating new systems from scratch is a significant undertaking. Further, only when a city is committed to this approach and prepared to fully resource the effort will it have any chance of success. One strategy would be for the City to first move on those recommendations in this Report that would serve to: a) ensure an "infrastructure" for learningfrom and improving upon present efforts; b) develop an appropriate continuum of (generally) less institutionalized opportunities for involvement; and c) create additional leadership, informed participation and support for these efforts. It is likely that, if these steps occurred, movement toward a formal system of neighborhood councils or planning groups would be more successful. Then, interim steps toward such city-recognized neighborhood-based" institutions" might include one or both of the following ideas, accompanied by a survey of the experiences that other cities have had with such initiatives, and with an assessment of the results achieved in Chula Vista: A. Chula Vista could explore a more formal and "contractual" relationship with an existing community organization; a pilot effort in effect. This might entail both more support by the City for the organization, especially for its efforts to share relevant civic engagement opportunities and background information with its members and other residents and/or to "co-produce" process opportunities for public involvement. t7 Afacilitated "learning forum ,,18 might also be held involving the community group and a city department that wanted to establish a partnership through which the community group would help to shape or guide the department's services or neighborhood improvements in some fashion. 17 It is frequently difficult for community groups with limited resources to take a full role into public engagement efforts, and creatively maximizing resources can have short and long-range benefits. A section on "Institutional Support and Recognition" in Environmental Justice: Opportunity, Assessment and Analysis, DC Santa Cruz makes some of these points. 18 Los Angeles had some success using such facilitated forums to shape these community/city partnerships. 29 14-45 B. A pilot "community planning group" could be tested in a given community, through an existing group or with a new organization developed solely for this purpose. Following the review of experiences of such efforts elsewhere, the Council could enumerate the appropriate operating procedures and responsibilities of such a pilot community planning group, clarifY the responsibilities of the City planning department and/other agencies in the effort, and after a reasonable period, with the planning group, the results of the pilot effort and whether it should be expanded. In either case, it is suggested that building up and outfrom the practical experience of a limited on-the-ground experiment would lead to more success in Chula Vista than would immediately initiating a more extensive citywide effort. 32. To be successfUl in attracting younger and busy participants to public engagement, a variety of additional means for them to communicate their thoughts and opinions should be considered. These would have to tailored and appropriate for a given process of course. For instance, in addition to a typical public forum which may include several hours of dialogue and deliberation, such gatherings could offer: a) one-on-one opportunities to speak with relevant city department staff; b) chart paper on which individuals may record their ideas; c) a court reporter-like resource who can type in (again one-on-one) exactly what people have to say; or d) an on-site computer terminal available for people to write their own emails to the staff on the matter under consideration. These are particularly appropriate for direct individual input rather than where more deliberative and collective ideas are the goal. Storyboarding/9 is another tool that allows a great many ideas, from a larger number of people, in a relatively short period of time. Also, increasing the opportunities for online participation (as in the Housing Element Plan Update), including web dialogueformats, can also be appropriate options. It can also be usefUl for background informational materials to be made available online or by computer disks available before or at public meetings. 19 Meeting attendees, after receiving information about and discussing the topic at hand, each write down, on their own paper, their vision, ideas, solutions, etc. as appropriate to the topic, and then tape the paper to the wall. Participants may wall around and view these comments. Typically these ideas may be grouped together under appropriate themes following the meeting and used to guide more detailed discussions, or are passed on to decision makers for consideration in that form. 30 14-46 In addition to a wider range of public involvement tools, developing engagement opportunities in conjunction with organizations of younger and more diverse residents (such as schools and their parents associations) can prove useful. The point here is simply that many options exist for public participation, and options in engagement models may enlarge the total number and type of participants. (Also see section on Inclusion and Access below.) 33. There were one or two voices among those interviewed that expressed, more or less directly, a concern about whether Chula Vista was more than the sum of its parts. In other words, were residents feeling part of Chula Vista, or more connected to just one section of town? This may be tied to former annexations, a sense of uneven growth and development, feelings of disenfranchisement, etc. This Report only identifies this small number of comments, and suggests that there would be dialog and other public involvement options for grappling with this dynamic if it's perceived to have substance. Community Organization and City Relationship Building The relationship of Chula Vista public officials with leaders and members of community organizations may be better than they themselves believe. This Report's author heard numerous remarks form community residents who expressed acknowledgement and appreciation for local officials and their efforts to engage the community; and from local officials, about community groups and their efforts to inform residents about important public issues. At the same time, the mistrust and suspicion described above is equally real and intrudes into the effective use of public involvement options. While, again, the goal is not and should not be simply harmony, the ability of the various City departments to work in collaboration with local community organizations in the construction, review and ongoing adaptation of a structure - or continuum - of civic engagement options is important. While some of the following recommendations could be placed in other sections of this Report, they seem particularly relevant here?O 20 Any recommendations offered here to community organizations are made generally and with no effort to draw distinctions among groups. Especially as these organizations did not ask the Institute for Local Government for 31 14-47 34. Given the levels of mistrust that exist in some quarters of the community about the City's commitment to public involvement - and the frustrations on the part of some public officials over what they feel are unfair comments and criticisms by members of community groups - some appropriate "airing" of concerns might help clear the air and facilitate ongoing work and relationships. Without suggesting that grand transformations or specific agreements would result, there is experience to indicate that a well-prepared andfacilitated session (or sessions), with ground rules and a goodfacilitator, can provide a safe and respectful opportunity for mutual expression and understanding of concerns. 21 35. In Recommendation 30A, the idea is presented that as a pilot effort the City might consider entering into a relationship with one (or more) community organizations for activities that could enhance public involvement. This in recognition of the important role played by these organizations in the City's overall civic engagement and leadership development. A larger, more visioning-like effort might be developed in which the City and the major community organizations might jointly explore and reach agreements on topics such as: . Shared principles of civic engagement . Responsibilities for relevant community public involvement design . Information sharing . Agreements relating to communicating concerns to one another . Processfor joint "factjinding" ifresearch, documents or background materials that relate to a public involvement process are questioned. . Possible joint support of newly developing community organizations . Exploring possible fUnding of collaborative City and community public engagement capacity building. feedback on their work, this Report's author asks for their understanding in his efforts to make a set of suggestions in support good civic engagement. 21 This idea is offered tentatively and with the understanding that this would be an unusual - but not without precedent - undertaking for public officials and residents alike. One approach is for speakers to simply and briefly express their concerns through an "I message" formula and perhaps provide an example of what a preferred behavior or scenario would look like. Responses are not typically allowed. An "I-message" is simply a way of expressing a concern that contains information about an unappreciated behavior and the impact of that behavior on the speaker. It does not assume the motivation of the other, or blame or draw conclusions. 32 14-48 36. Especially within aframework of Recommendation #34 above, community organizations22 may find it usejitl to assess how they become stronger partners in community engagement, through such achievements as greater diversity of membership, more effective outreach and education (especially regarding significant public issues), stronger internal operating systems, ongoing leadership development, etc. 23 X. INCLUSION AND ACCESS: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As stated earlier, Chula Vista is a diverse community, and a community in all its diversity needs to feel welcomed into public engagement opportunities. At the same time this diversity poses challenges of time, method and sometimes cost for those planning or holding such civic involvement activities. It can also feel risky. There is no single set of recommendations or ideas that can contain all that might be done in this regard; what is most needed is an awareness that the community is constantly changing, that residents and their organizations deserve a place at the table, and that reaching beyond one's own experience and knowledge frequently opens up new understanding about how a greater inclusion can be achieved. (Note: The Institute for Local Government, entirely at its own expense, has contracted for two focus groups to be held in Chula Vista that involve Hispanic residents and solicit information on civic engagement. The results of these groups were not available at the time ofthis writing, but will be added as a Report Appendix as soon as possible.) Recommendations here derive from interviews held as a part of the Chula Vista civic engagement needs assessment, and from the Institute's experience. 22 Again, the reference is a general one to a number of organizations, each of whom would have different needs in this regard. It is also important to stress the limited financial resources of these organizations. 23 Assessment interviews turned up a ripple of tension between resident/geography-based organizations and those organized more around specific issue advocacy. Attention to these dynamics, ifand as appropriate, may be warranted by the groups involved. 33 14-49 37. Recognizing that, first andforemost, all relevant laws and policies must be observed, it will be useful for any local agency that solicits public involvement in governance to regularly review the means by which those with disabilities have fUll access to notices, meetings and materials. 38. There should be continued supportfor the Chula Vista Youth Advisory Commission, with young people solicited and included in public engagement processes. Youth Commission members themselves can also help to engage other youth in such processes and hold their own forums to encourage youth participation on important issues. 39. The City should expand its capacity for translation of public meetings and related civic engagement sessions. Easily mobile and digital meeting translation equipment should be available to agencies requiring it for their public meetings, and appropriate staff and "contract" translators should be trained in its use. 24 40. The City should explore the potential for website translation. A number of cities are providing the option for their city website users to click a website icon and have the choice for immediate translation into a number of languages. 41. Many public meeting notices in the press are limited to a single English language newspaper.25 The City should expand its noticing ptotocols in order to expand the reach of these notices into more diverse populations, and existing plans for bilingual noticing should be assessed as they proceed. In addition to added cost, challenges are acknowledged, especially as they relate to the variety of Spanish language print media and their regional and trans-border markets. It may be worth the effort for the City to intentionally "test" the appropriate outlets that are available, using each for a time and evaluating the results. 42. As is being done with the Planning Commission, RAC and other Chula Vista government meetings, moving meetings that are intended to solicit public participation and input out into 24 It is often the case that meeting translation resources, when available, may be little used, especially at first. Translation alone is not usually a solution as outreach, accessible location, supportive organizing and more will make the difference. The availability of such resources are, however, understood by non-English speaking communities as symbolic of the public sector's commitment to hearing their voices. The same could be said of the availability of translated draft or final public plans and documents. 25 Planning and Building now uses bilingual noticing for aU land use decision-making processes. 34 14-50 those communities characterized by less public participation can be helpful. However, this will be most effective if accompanied by the support of local groups and appropriate outreach. 43. The City could develop print and online resources to promote civic engagement among newcomers to Chula Vista. These could be integrated into the activities of schools, churches, community and leadership groups, local government, relevant media and others. 26 44. Both appropriate city staff and representative members of community organizations would benefit from ongoing opportunities to identify methods of culturally competent public involvement, and to specifically review these aspects of the City's civic engagement processes. Exchanges with representatives and members ofChula Vista's diverse communities on these topics is recommended. 45. In Recommendation #24 and #25, the ideas for "planning academies" and "citizen academies" were presented whereby participants learn about the workings of city government generally or planning processes in particular, and the City gains more iriformed and engaged residents who are more likely to take part in other public involvement opportunities. The City should consider offering citizens academies in Spanish, and in English with Spanish translation. These should be organized in collaboration with, or with the support of, a number of Hispanic intermediary organizations (or institutions that have a significant Hispanic participation, such as schools) in the City and region that can assist in publicizing these events and recruiting residents.27 These academies should include information about opportunities for fUrther engagement and civic and political leadership development, and City agencies seeking to enhance inclusion in should have access to academy participant contact information. If not presently offered, the Police Department should consider offering an academy in Spanish - or bilingually - as well. 26 Santa Clara County in Northern California publishes, in several languages, a hard copy and online version of Immigrant Rights, Responsibilities and Resources Guidebook for the 34% of their population who are immigrant to the United States. Included are sections on "Getting Involved: How Local Government Works" and "Voting and Civic Action." 27 Hispanic residents in Chula Vista differ of course, along the lines of English competency, time in the US, socio- economic status, and much more. Outreach and recruitment - and perhaps academy content - has to take these distinctions into consideration. 35 14-51 46. To the degree possible, a specific and longer term plan should be developed by the City for the inclusion of immigrant communities in the political life of Chula Vista, including boards, commissions, and planning-related and other public involvement opportunities. As with any plan it should be reviewed and amended over time. Components of such a plan could contain both elements of this Report and ideas generated by other sources. It would of course be useful to develop such a plan in consultation with members, representatives and advocates of the appropriate Chula Vista communities28 (Also see Recommendation #41 that could complement this effort.) Community-based and intermediary organizations, including grassroots leadership groups, religious organizations, schools and community-specific media, can also assist with general education and recruitment for specific public forums, and help provide two-way conduits for communication between government and community residents on specific issues and polices. Staff should solicit the support of such organizations and seek to build ongoing alliances and relationships with them to encourage participation over time. 29 Xl. CONCLUSION Public involvement processes will not end conflict and controversy. Especially in a rapidly growing and changing community such as Chula Vista, there will be distinct differences of opinion about the City's future. This is as it should be. However, well designed and supported civic engagement practices will bring the city's residents and other stakeholders to the table on relevant matters, minimize unnecessary conflict and misinformation, help local officials better understand what is valued by city residents, and, frequently, create greater support and consensus for what will be better plans, policies and other public decisions. Chula Vista's public, civic and business sectors have a great deal of experience with a variety of public involvement methods to date and are demonstrating a commitment to their use. The City is poised to do much more. 28 For further research and recommendations on immigrant civic integration and engagement see: Immigrants and Local Governance: The View from City Hall, Ramakrishnan and Lewis, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005; and Pursuing Democracy's Promise: Newcomer Civic Participation in America, Craig McGarvey, Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, 2004. 29 In some cases these typically under-resourced organizations may need financial support to provide assistance. 36 14-52 It is not, however, questions about particular processes of public involvement that are the largest stumbling block to a community's success in achieving a high level of civic engagement. More often, the obstacles are: a) The need to transcend years of remembered incidents characterized by mistrust and suspicion; b) Perceptions of inconsistent or incomplete efforts at public involvement; c) Failure to pay collaborative attention (by all sectors) to civic engagement as a subject of attention in itself rather than solely as a means to address specific issues or crises that occur one by one and whose subject matter almost always entails strong feelings and divisiveness; d) Lack of a commitment and a capacity to experiment, reflect on what's been learned, and apply new knowledge to future public engagement efforts; e) Shallow city "ownership" of public involvement that cannot survive transitions in political leadership; and f) Too little responsiveness to the needs for community and cultural competence that will assure that the full diversity of the population is prepared, welcomed and involved. These obstacles, suggested by this assessment's findings and by the experiences of other communities, can be addressed only by the concerted activities of all sectors of the community over time. The recommendations offered in this Report will hopefully provide a starting point for this effort and for a more collaborative Chula Vista. 37 14-53 XII. Appendices 38 14-54 Aooendix A INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GaVE RN ME NT rOIJ';uu; 1"'>.~ Interview Ouestions for Chula Vista City Commission Chairs The Institute for Local Government is working with the City of Chula Vista to carry out a civic engagement assessment that seeks to understand the forms and experiences of public involvement in Chula Vista and to offer recommendations to the City on improving those practices that encourage and support such involvement in public decision and policy making. One aspect of this review is the recognition of the important role played by residents who sit on city commissions and of the role of these commissions in local governance. Attached is a list of questions we would like to askyou about your Commission's work. You may respond to these questions electronically - or we can interview you personally over the phone or in person. If you wish, you may wan to query other commission members for their input as well. The process for completing this questionnaire is as follows: 1. We talk to you briefly to ensure our purpose and questionnaire instructions are clear 2. You download this document, answer the questions as you see fit, save the changes, and send the completed document back to us as an attachment, and 3. Wefollow up with you by phone to clarify or ask you to amplify on any response (as needed). You are not limited to this set of questions - please add anything you think we ought to know. Specific comments will not be attributed without your permission, and completed questionnaires will not be shared with anyone. We greatly appreciate your time and contributions to this inquiry. If you have questions, please contact Terry Amsler, Director of the Institute for Local Government, at 916.658.8263 or at tamsler01ca-ilg.orf!;. Thank you very much. 39 14-55 BACKGROUND Date questionnaire completed: NamelTitle of person completing the questionnaire: Name of Commission: What is the commission's purpose/substantive areas of responsibility? When was the commission established, and why? When did you (the Chair) volunteer as a Commission member and how long have you served? MEMBERSHIP/SELECTION/APPOINTMENT How many Commission membership slots are there, and how many are filled presently? How are commission members identified/selected? Does commission have criteria for skills/expertise/viewpoints needed? What are membership and chair terms of office, and how much turnover is there? What are the recruitment methods, and is an interest list maintained (and by who)? Is there communication with those on the interest list? Of what sort? PREPARATIONIEDUCATION Once seated, are there any sort of orientation opportunities relating to the commission's work and its place in Chula Vista local government? Are there opportunities for ongoing education/training? Do you think new members are well prepared for Commission membership? How so, and how not so? WORK: PLANNING & ASSESSMENT, RELA TIONSHlPS Does the commission carry out any sort of annual work plan and/or assessment? How would you characterize the working relationships of the commission and council; the commission and staff? 40 14-56 Do council members ever attend Commission rneetings? Have there been any joint meetings for any purpose? Please describe. Generally, how are Commission recommendations received and acted upon by the Council? DO Commission member feel "heard"? Do you see perceive any overlap or duplication with other commissions? Do city commissions rarely/often/never offer contradictory recommendations? COMMISSION MEETINGS Describe a typical commission meeting? How is public testimony heard? Is their translation capability (by staff, members, others?) Do the meeting formats ever differ? If so, how and for what reason? How are agendas set? Who typically attends? Where are meeting usually held? Has there ever been translation offered at your commission meetings? How are meetings advertised? How are records of meetings and specific motions prepared/written and communicated to the Council and others? Do you feel that the Commission's work is recognized and valued by the public, council, staff, or others (how so, and how not so)? LOOKING AHEAD Is your commission's role changing and/or should it change it to fulfill its mission? Could the city be more supportive in terms of valuing: a) the work of commissions and commissioners; and b) the voice of the public heard through commissions? How? What, it anything, could the commission itself do to assess and/or improve its own work? Final thoughts? 41 14-57 Aooendix B I INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT fUUNDb)I?S5 Civic Eneaeement Assessment- Chula Vista Questions for City Departments The Institute for Local Government is working with the City of Chula Vista to carry out a civic engagement assessment that seeks to understand the forms and experiences of public involvement in Chula Vista and to offer recommendations to the City on improving those practices that encourage and support such involvement in public decision and policy making. While public involvement, like the terms "civic engagement" or "collaborative governance, "can mean many different things, our interest is primarily in how residents and other members of the public can more directly participate in decisions that relate to public services and polices that they care about. Our assumption is that such public involvement exists within the framework of representative government and the ultimate action of public officials. In other words, we are talking about more direct public participation but not direct democracy. One important aspect of this review is to understand the public involvement-related interests and practices of city departments, especially given the critical role of these local agency departments to the success of any effective public involvement efforts over time. Attached is a list of questions relating to public involvement and your Department. You may respond to electronically - or we can interview you over the phone or in person. While we don't intend to circulate the responses or attribute any of them to specific individuals or departments, please contact me if you'd feel more comfortable responding orally. The process for completing this questionnaire is asfollows: 4. We talk to you briefly to ensure our purpose and questionnaire instructions are clear 5. You download this document, answer the questions as you see fit, save the changes, and send the completed document back to us as an attachment, and 6. We follow up with you by phone to clarify or ask you to amplify on any response (as needed). You are not limited to this set of questions - please add anything you think we ought to know but neglected to ask. We greatly appreciate your time and contributions to this inquiry. If you have questions, please contact Terry Amsler, Director of the Institute for Local Government, at 916.658.8263 or at tamsler@~:.f!.-ilf{.YJ:g. Thank you very much. 42 14-58 1. Name and title of person completing questionnaire 2. Name of city department 3. Briefly, please describe your Department's areas of responsibility 4. Briefly, describe your responsibilities 5. What are your "first reactions" to the idea of public involvement: including your (general) experiences, opinions, and expectations? 6. For area(s) of Department work where public involvement has been used and/or is presently most developed: A. Please provide concrete examples of this involvement, and please be as detailed as you can. (If you give multiple examples. please make sure you are clear here and below in your comments about which examples of public involvement you are talking about. These examples can of an ongoing effort. or more episodic in nature relating to specific responsibilities oj your department. B. What are/were the goals of the identified public involvement efforts? C. Describe how the generated public input was/is used in the shaping and delivery of services, or in the public decision or policy making oflocal officials. D. In your opinion, how are these efforts working, and what areas need improvement? E. How do you think the public ("organized" and "unorganized") views these efforts? F. Are these efforts trusted, do you think? Why or why not? G. How does your staff view the efforts? H. How do you view them? I. If you could create a more "perfect" public involvement process/mechanism, how would it be different than what exists now? 43 14-59 J. How could you be better supported in these public involvement efforts (if at all) by: I) City stafneadership? 2) Elected leadership? 3) Civic, Business, Community and/or faith communities? 4) Any Others? K. What will be required for these public involvement efforts to be embedded or "institutionalized" in the agency/city over time? 7. Are there other areas of (your) Department work where you believe some form of public involvement might be useful and contribute to departmental effectiveness? Please be as specific as you can about the area, the need, and (if you have a sense of it) the nature the appropriate public involvement. 8. If appropriate, how could your Department be better prepared to help ensure input from those parts of the community that are less organized or where English is not the first language? 9. Does your Department have performance/accountability goals or measures relating to public involvement or democratic accountability? If so, what are they? 10. Are there statutes, codes or other legal or policy frameworks that suggest or require the public involvement efforts (beyond traditional public hearings) that you have underway? 11. Can you identifY other incentives (of any kind) that you think encourages your department to pursue public involvement activities? And conversely, what factors impede such undertakings? 12. What would you want the public to most understand about your department and its public involvement efforts? 13. Anything else you'd like add relating to public involvement approaches and processes? 14. If there are documents/sources that authorize, describe and/or report on your Department's public involvement efforts, please attach or send them, or provide links. 44 14-60 Appendix C Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement How Public Agencies Can Learn from the Community, Use What They Learn, and Demonstrate that Public Knowledge Matters .'~; ~ The Harwood Institute 45 14-61 PREPARED BY THE HARWOOD INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE WilLIAM AND FLORA HEWLETT FOUNDATION About The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation helps people imagine and act for the public good. We seek nothing less than to spark fundamental change in American public life - to inspire, engage, and connect people to tap their own potential for action and to give their efforts voice and power in society. In its 17'" year, The Harwood Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works within a long tradition of small, catalytic, and public-spirited organizations in American history that have sought to improve public life and politics. Writing: Michael R. Wood Foreword: Richard C. Harwood Research and Editing: John Creighton Salin Geevarghese The Harwood Institute The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation 4915 SI. Elmo Avenue Suite 402 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-656-3669 Fax: 301-656-0533 thi@theharwoodinstitute.org www.theharwoodinstitute.org @ 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation No part of this report may be reproduced in any form or by an electronic or mechanical means, including storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from copyright owners. 46 14-62 Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement Table of Contents Foreword................... ..................................... ................... ............ ........ ............ ............. ...............2 Introduction ..... ................... ......................... ................. ....................................... ....... ...................4 Standard 1: Collect Public Knowledge.........................................................................................6 Standard 2: Use Public Knowledge .............................................................................................8 Standard 3: Communicate. ....................... ........... .... ........................ .............................. ............ 10 Standard 4: Culture, Norms, Reflexes, and Habits....................................................................12 Appendix A: Standards of Excellence At-A-Glance .................................................................... 14 Appendix B: Reference Guide ....................................................................................................16 47 t.i to 2005 The HaMood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. Tt\(' Ha,wood ~\tjt,;!( 14-63 Standards of Excellence Foreword Public agencies across the nation are under Increasing pressure to engage the public. Some agencies feel this pressure because they have failed to meet the public's expectations, or they are seen as disconnected from the public and must regain its trust. Others are trying to figure out how best to allocate scarce public resources or make tough decisions. Whatever the reason, it is important to ask: What does it really mean to engage the public? What rewards and risks await those who pursue this path? How can civic engagement be more than attempts at good public relations, or another invitation for people simply to make demands on limited public resources? The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation asked The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation to develop a strategic action tool for public agencies to figure out when to do civic engagement, whether it has made a difference, and to gauge their own readiness even to undertake this work. Our goal is to provide a resource that lays out clear standards that must be met to make civic engagement truly meaningful for both public agencies and the people they serve. Making a Cultural Change At its essence, civic engagement is important so that public agency leaders and staff can lead and serve their communities with genuine authority, authenticity and accountability. Genuine authority (the type derived from community credibility not statute or title) is earned through one's knowledge of the community and infusing that knowledge through one's work. is one's ability to reflect the reality of people's lives in word and deed. Genuine accountability is measured by whether a public agency pursues actions that are truly meaningful to the community. At The Harwood Institute we call these the "3 A's of Public Life." Meaningful civic engagement is a prerequisite for having authority, authenticity, and accountability. The 3 A's are only possible when a public agency genuinely listens to the community and acts on what it learns. The 3 A's can only become embedded in an agency when civic engagement becomes part of that agency's very culture. Agency leaders and staff must come to understand and value learning from the public, even challenging people to think beyond their initial views. Processes must exist to feed newfound knowledge into the daily operations of the agency - from how discussions are framed and take place to how decisions are made. 48 Iil~.'. ~ C 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. r..., Harwood in"L'~( 14-64 Eventually new organizational practices and reftexes will develop that strengthen the agency's ability to fuifill its core mission. But agencies that successfully engage the public must commit organizational resources - especially time and focus - to ensure engagement can be done well. Making Engagement Count Meaningful civic engagement requires discipline - to be clear about one's real intentions, mindful of whom you have engaged and who is missing from the conversation, and thoughtful about the questions you ask. It means listening in a way that enables you to make new discoveries and paying attention to work practices to ensure that civic engagement informs your day-ta-day work. Those who successfully embrace our standards of excellence in civic engagement have the potential to infuse their agency with a renewed public spirit - a spirit that originally drew many public servants to their work in the first place. It is my hope that as you work through this tool, it will spark within you a newfound sense of possibility for helping your agency move forward with its important public work. PlJ~C U~~fft Richard C. Harwood President and Founder The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation 49 ~,~ .;.t 02005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. 1'><1 KMwood in!;t"t<? 14-65 Standards of Excellence Introduction What is civic engagement - really? As a public agency practitioner that works with members of your community, you are - or certainly should be - in the business of civic engagement. But what does that mean? Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to consider what civic engagement is not. People tend to group any and all interactions with the public under the umbrella of civic engagement when in fact, not all situations we confront call for this very specific kind of interaction. For instance, sometimes different notions of "public relations" are included under the umbrella of civic engagement. This confusion can lead to misplaced expectations and unaccomplished goals - by all those involved. Consider when a public agency might want the community to have a better understanding of what it does and why. In this case, basic communications are in order. At other times, elected officials might want to rally the community behind a sales tax increase (or decrease) or a mill levy to raise resources to fulfill their responsibilities. These circumstances clearly call for advocacy. Civic engagement is appropriate when an agency is seeking to learn from the public. But learning is more than simply soliciting input, adding up the responses, and using that data to make a decision that is allegedly supported by citizens. It is about gaining and using public knowledge. Public knowledge is a full and deep understanding of your community. It is a collection of values that people in the community hold - not their attitudes about various policy choices. It is also about how they rank these values, and what trade-offs they are willing to make when the values seem to be in conflict. This kind of knowledge can only be gained through meaningful civic engagement. What will this tool do for me? Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement is road map for you as a public agency practitioner to know that you are on the right path - that your agency is truly in the business of civic engagement. That means that your agency is collecting public knowledge to build greater authority, authenticity, and accountability within the community you serve. The Harwood Institute calls these the 3 A's of Public Life because they are the essential characteristics everyone and every institution in public life should aspire to exhibit. The 3 A's are detailed in the foreword. Other toois that we have produced focus on the "how to's" of civic engagement such as deciding what issues to talk about and who to listen to; how to design and lead effective conversations; figuring out what you heard in engagement conversations; and how to follow up after you've engaged the public. This tool, however, won't answer those 50 e 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. 14-66 Public agencies should be in the business of collecting public knowledge to build greater authority, authenticity, and accountability within the communities they serve. kL ;'W Harwood il''',L'( questions. Instead, it provides the four key standards every agency must meet to achieve excellence in civic engagement; benchmarks for how you will know that you're meeting these standards; and pay-offs for why it is worth achieving them. The Harwood Institute can certainly help with the how-to's; there is a reference guide at the end of the tool that will direct you to some materials that may interest you. There are also a host of organizations around the country that specialize in helping organizations set up and manage civic engagement processes. This tool is important for making certain, first and foremost, that you're in the right game. As you organize and develop civic engagement processes, it will help you answer key questions such as: . Have we properly prepared staff for what they might learn through civic engagement, and are they prepared to deal with the implications? . Have we framed the appropriate conversations given where we are in the policy process? . Have we set realistic public expectations given the capacities we have to take action? . Do we have the necessary voices around the table to gain useful knowledge and make discoveries? . Have we figured out how to use what we learn and make sure people know their voices are useful? As you work through these and other questions, you will begin to find the path of civic engagement that will best serve your agency and community. What are the standards? Public agencies that achieve excellence in civic engagement: 1. Are in the business of collecting public knowledge. 2. Use public knowledge internally over time. 3. Communicate back to the public how public knowledge has influenced the agency and how staff and managers are using that knowledge. 4_ Cultivate the culture, norms, reflexes, and habits that will make civic engagement a central part of how the agency conducts its business. Civic engagement will yield the best results when a public agency strives to hit each of these standards. Like an ecosystem, each of the standards supports and reinforces the others. The interconnectedness of each of these standards for civic engagement excellence is why it is important for public agencies to strive to reach each standard. If you use this tool on a regular basis, if you take a good hard look in the mirror and ask, "What are we doing really well, and what can we do better?" and if you take your own answers to heart, you will discover ways to make civic engagement much more meaningful for your agency and your community. Striving for excellence requires this kind of examination. The most effective way to work through the tool is to go through the materials for each standard in the order they are presented. The activities and questions build on one another and are designed to help you assess your own agency as candidly and effectively as possible. However, whether you tackle each standard in order or skip around is entirely up to you. 51 Li C 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. T"-:> Ha,wood :"\lil.,'( 14-67 Standard 1 Collect Public Knowledge The key purpose of any civic engagement activity should always to be learn from and about the people you are engaging. Realleaming, however, doesn't lead to a collection of information. Instead, it leads to public knowledge. As previously mentioned, public knowledge is more than people's preferences about various policy choices. It's about the common values people hold, as well as the trade-ofts they are willing to make when those values are in conflict (and with tough public issues, they usually are). Public agencies that achieve excellence in civic engagement are in the business of collecting public knowledge. Benchmarks How do you know you're making progress toward reaching this standard? o Your agency adopts learning objectives for the knowledge staff are seeking. You will want to have measures set in place so that you know when you have the knowledge you need. For example, are you trying to uncover people's values around education, or the environment in your community, or if you already have a sense of their values, do you need to learn what trade-ofts they are willing to make? People might value having choices in health care, for example, but they might also value access for everyone at all income levels. These values might be hard to reconcile, so the question is: what are people willing to give up? o Your agency implements a strategy for collecting public knowledge on an ongoing basis. This means that you don't simply engage the public to find solutions to problems, but you have some kind of regularly occurring civic engagement with the public that allows you to continually learn and build on your public knowledge. o Your agency uses engagement processes that lead to gaining public knowledge. You will want to set up your public conversations in a way that allows people to engage one another so that they can share common values and wrestle with tough issues where values may be in conflict. The "stand up for two minutes at the mic" approach to traditional public meetings will not lead to public knowledge. See Appendix B: Reference Guide for tools that will help you reach these benchmarks. 52 ti' ."",V N. C 2005 The Hal"lNOod Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. T'><' H4~wO<)(lln"k" 14-68 Pay-Offs Why is it worth trying to achieve this standard? . Real public knowledge will lead to better, more widely accepted decisions. . There will be more public confidence in your agency's decision- making. . Your agency will build a deep knowledge of the community that doesn't go away when staff leave. Reflection Questions Your agency will hold real authority in the community when the public realizes that staff are after more than just input 1. What are some things we are doing to work toward meeting this standard? 2. Of the benchmarks listed, which ones are we meeting? 3. How can we work on meeting the benchmarks we are deficient in? 53 e 2005 The Hal"oNOOd Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. 14-69 lih~ K. n<..Harwood""Hr",( Standard 2 Use Public Knowledge Public agencies have a responsibility to build public knowledge over time, but they must also be willing to allow that knowledge to influence their work - even if that sometimes means changing course. It is not enough to simply engage citizens to build a repository of their hopes and aspirations for the community. Public agencies that achieve excellence in civic engagement use public knowledge internally over time. Benchmarks How do you know you're making progress toward reaching this standard? D Your agency implements processes and procedures for sharing public knowledge internally and in a timely way. This is important because for public knowledge to truly influence the agency's work, staff throughout the agency must be equipped with the same knowledge and be ''working from the same playbook" in a sense. D Your agency makes certain that public knowledge is considered and applied in internal decision-making. It is not enough to figure out ways to make the public feel like their voice is important. Your agency needs to have a method for seriously considering public knowledge in all major decisions that affect the public - not just the ones where it might be convenient or has been mandated by higher-ups. D Your agency uses established protocols for tracking how public knowledge has influenced the agency's decision-making. It is important to make sure you know where public knowledge is impacting your work. It will lead to more learning but will also allow you to communicate more effectively with the public about why you are seeking to engage them. See Appendix B: Reference Guide for tools that will help you reach these benchmarks. 54 t.i C 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. T'I<' IWwood In",L'f 14-70 . Using public knowledge will help you make tough decisions that people will be able to live with, even if they don't agree. Pay-Offs Why is it worth trying to achieve this standard? . Civic engagement will drive your work and won't just be another activity staff has to check off of their "to-do" list. Your agency will be demonstrating and staff will be exerclsmg among one another, if you use public knowledge internally over time. Reflection Questions 1. What are some things we are doing to work toward meeting this standard? 2. Of the benchmarks listed, which ones are we meeting? 3. How can we work on meeting the benchmarks we are deficient in? 55 .:. I.It C 2005 The HalWOOd Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. Ti'" H.arwood ;n";h'" 14-71 Standard 3 Communicate Collecting public knowledge, building the internal norms and habits for civic engagement, and using public knowledge in your work will go a long way in helping your agency build genuine authority and authenticity. But in order to be truly accountable to the public, it is important to make communicating with them a priority as well, so that they know their voice is valued - and useful - in the policy process. Public agencies that achieve excellence in civic engagement communicate back to the public how public knowledge has influenced the agency and how staff and managers are using that knowledge. Benchmarks How do you know you're making progress toward reaching this standard? o Your agency understands what public knowledge to share with citizens and shares it in a timely way. Meeting minutes aren't helpful to anyone, so it's important for agency staff to have procedures for compiling the essence of what they learned in the meetings - the real public knowledge - and develop procedures to share that with the public. o Your agency regularly shares with the public how their voice is impacting the agency's work. In addition to simply sharing knowledge, public agencies should always tie that knowledge back to how it has impacted the agency's decision-making process. That should include the whole story - where the agency has had to struggle with knowledge and how to use it, the tensions that agency staff face, and how they work through those tensions to find the best ways to incorporate public knowledge into their work. o Your agency uses methods for measuring how well the public understands where their voice has impacted the agency's work. Agencies that achieve this standard will be able to gauge whether the public knows that public knowledge is influencing the agency's work. This way, the agency can make corrections if there is a disconnect between the agency's work and where the public sees itself fitting into that work. See Appendix B: Reference Guide for tools that will help you reach these benchmarks. 56 u. (02005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. 'Thi' HarwOQd,,""!"" 14-72 Pay-Ofts Why is it worth trying to achieve this standard? . The public will become more involved in civic engagement when they see that it is making a difference. . Support for engagement among elected officials and decision-makers will increase over time. . People will be more likely to step forward and help solve public problems, instead of expecting the agency to do it all. Reflection Questions Your agency will be building stronger .acc'ouiLtai;;/,:tj' with the community by communicating back what they learn from civic engagement. 1. What are some things we are doing to work toward meeting this standard? 2. Of the benchmarks listed, which ones are we meeting? 3. How can we work on meeting the benchmarks we are deficient in? 57 <CI2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. 14-73 tal Tl'" Ha.wood 1<""h~ Standard 4 Culture, Norms, Reflexes, and Habits Being in the business of collecting public knowledge is more than just creating engagement processes. It takes a new way of thinking and acting both within your agency and with the public you serve. To achieve excellence in civic engagement, engaging the public has to be an integral part of how you do your work. Within the agency there must exist what we call a culture of learning - an environment where people are always trying to increase their public knowledge. To build that cuiture of learning, staff and managers have to adopt new norms for how they think about the public and their value to the agency's work; new reflexes, so that they are always in the mode of asking the kinds of questions that lead to public knowledge; and habits that make seeking out public knowledge and using that knowledge instinctive. Public agencies that achieve excellence in civic engagement cultivate the culture, norms, reflexes, and habits that will make civic engagement a central part of how the agency conducts its business. Benchmarks How do you know you're making progress toward reaching this standard? o Your agency applies internal measures to gauge how effectively staff are using civic engagement to collect public knowledge. When staff and managers adopt the appropriate norms for engagement, they will be in the mode of seeking out public knowledge at every opportunity - through informal conversations, as well as scheduled civic engagement conversations. An agency that makes engagement a central part of the way it conducts business will be able to assess how often - and how effectively - this is occurring. o Your agency uses protocols for when, where, and how to engage the public. A public agency with a culture of learning will have its own systems for engaging the public so that it is a regular part of the agency's business - not just a "necessary evil" when elected officials or other higher-ups mandate it. o Your agency implements processes for seeking out and understanding the range of voices to build public knowledge. An agency that makes civic engagement a central part of how It does its business will have a system in place - and use that system - to make sure that all appropriate voices are heard during civic engagement so that real public knowledge is developed. This means more than seeking out the traditional kinds of "stakeholders" that are often considered to be the key audiences for civic engagement. See Appendix B: Reference Guide for tools that will help you reach these benchmarks. 58 Li" \;f! , <C 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without pennission is prohibited. l:\(' Harwood iU:'h'C 14-74 . Your work will reflect the whole voice of the community instead of just a collection of certain neighborhoods or groups of people. Pay-Offs Why is it worth trying to achieve this standard? . The public will recognize that your agency is genuine in its pursuit of their knowledge - that you're not just engaging them to make them feel good. Your agency will be acting with true ,bdi" ""'''''" when staff have the habits and reflexes that prove that civic engagement is a priority for the agency. Reflection Questions 1, What are some things we are doing to work toward meeting this standard? 2. Of the benchmarks listed, which ones are we meeting? 3. How can we work on meeting the benchmarks we are deficient in? 59 ti' 'liJj \1 lQ 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. Tht: Harwood W\lIl',"~ 14-75 Appendix A Standards At-A-Glance We hope that completing this tool has helped you gain a better sense of where you are on the road map to meeting standards of excellence in civic engagement. The chart on the following page summarizes the four standards, as well as the benchmarks and pay-offs for each. We encourage you to refer to it before, during, and after any civic engagement process; display it prominently in your office; or share it with other staff. 60 tri. <Q 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. Tl\(> Harwood l!\'~,l','~ 14-76 ~ .po. I ...... ...... The Harwood Institute's Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement At-A-Glance Standards Benchmarks Pay-Ofts Public agencies that achieve How do we know we're makmg progress toward the Why IS It warth trying to meet this standard? excellence In CIVIC engagement' standard? Are in the business of collecting 0 Your agency adopts learning objectives for the knowledge Your agency will hold reai authority in the community when the public pUblic knowledge. staff are seeking. realizes that staff are after more than just input. 0 Your agency implements a strategy for collecting public . Real public knowledge will lead to better, more widely accepted knowledge on an ongoing basis. decisions. 0 Your agency uses engagement processes that lead to . There will be more public confidence in your agency's decision-making. gaining public knowledge. . Your agency will build a deep knowledge of the community that doesn't go away when staff leave. Use public knowledge internally 0 Your agency implements processes and procedures for Your agency will be demonstrating , and staff will be exercising over time. sharing public knowledge internally and in a timely way. accountability among one another, if you use public knowledge internally 0 Your agency makes certain that public knowledge is over time. considered and applied in internal decision-making. 0 Using public knowledge will help you make tough decisions that people 0 Your agency uses established protocols for tracking how will be able to live with, even if they don't agree. public knowledge has influenced the agency's decision- 0 Civic engagement will drive your work and won't just be another activity making. staff has to check oft of their Uto-dow list. Communicate back to the 0 Your agency understands what public knowledge to share Your agency will be building stronger accountahility with the community by public what the agency has with citizens and shares it in a timely way. communicating back what they learn from civic engagement. learned, and how staff and 0 Your agency regularly shares with the public how their . The public will become more involved in civic engagement when they managers are using that voice is impacting the agency's work. see that it is making a difference. knowledge. D Your agency uses methods for measuring how well the . Support for engagement among elected officials and decision-makers public understands where their voice has impacted the will increase over time. agency's work. . People will be more likely to step forward and help solve public problems, instead of expecting the agency to do it all. Develop the culture, norms, 0 Your agency applies internal measures to gauge how Your agency will be acting with true when staff have the habits reflexes, and habits that will effectively staff are using civic engagement to collect public and reflexes that prove that civic engagement is a priority for the agency. make civic engagement a central knowledge. 0 Your work will reflect the whole voice of the community instead of just a part of how the agency conducts 0 Your agency uses protocols for when, where, and how to collection of certain neighborhoods or groups of people. its business. engage the public. 0 The public will recognize that your agency is genuine in its pursuit of 0 Your agency implements processes for seeking out and their knowledge - that you're not just engaging them to make them feel understanding the range of voices to build public good. knowledge. 61 ~;; ~ It) 2005 The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Duplication without permission is prohibited. l,,'HMwood' ,',' <'" Appendix 8 Reference Guide Having worked through the standards of excellence and assessed your agency, you are undoubtedly thinking to yourself, "What can I do to achieve these standards?" Over the years, The HalWood Institute has developed a number of practical tools and frameworks that can help you in thinking through how to do just that. As public leaders, it is up to you to decide where you need to improve, how to improve, and to step fOlWard and seek out the knowledge that will help you do that. Feel free to contact us for any of the materials presented below, and best of luck in your pursuit of excellence! . The following guides will help you in designing and conducting regular civic engagement conversations to collect public knowledge. These can be found in The HalWood Institute's publication Tapping Civic Life. - Tips to Make Civic Conversations Work - Community Conversation Ground Rules - A Guide for Setting Up Community Conversations - Making Sense of What You Have Heard - Types of Community Leaders - The Layers of Civic Life . The Harwood Institute's Meaningful Chaos Factors will help you in understanding how people think about their communities, come to form their views on public concerns, and use words and phrases to describe their views. They can be found in The HalWood Institute's framework, Meaningful Chaos: How People Form Relationships With Public Concerns. . Will Any Kind of Talk Do? Moving from Personal Concerns to Public Life, will help you in better understanding how people in communities begin to make connections between what is going on in their own home or close-knit circle of family and friends and the larger community around them. Included in this Harwood framework is a profile of the six kinds of "everyday talkers," which represent the different roles people play in everyday talk about their concerns. . If you are struggling with how to make civic engagement a regular part of the way your agency does business, consider picking up Making It Real: How to Make Civic Engagement a Public Sensibility. This tool provides seven concrete actions your agency can take that will help build the culture, norms, reflexes, and habits necessary to achieve excellence in civic engagement. . For more information on the 3 A's of Public Life, and how you can build them in your own agency, contact us for a copy of Richard HalWood's series on the 3 A's that appeared in Philanthropy News Digest. 62 14-78 Imagine and Act for the Public Good The Harwood Institute 14-79 Aooendix D I INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Beyond the Usuals: Ideas To Encourage Broader Public Involvement In Your Community Local officials and agencies strive to encourage broader participation in public meetings and other civic engagement efforts. Many times, even with the best of intentions and no matter what the approach, a relatively small group of community members actually takes part and makes their voices heard. Given the challenges facing cities and towns around the state, residents are increasingly sought out and asked to join dialogues and deliberations relating to topics affecting the future of their communities. These discussions may relate to budget, land use, housing, the environment, transportation, growth, neighborhood services, or a host of other issues. The importance of achieving representation from often underrepresented groups, including but not limited to ethnic, immigrant, low-income, youth, and disability communities, is self-evident if the legitimacy and effectiveness of civic engagement processes are to be realized. From the sources identified below, the Institute for Local Government's Collaborative Governance Initiative has compiled a few suggestions for achieving better representation in public involvement and civic engagement efforts. We hope they're helpful. These include: . BUILD LONG TERM CAPACITY - Before specific issues are on the table, help develop the knowledge and capacity of less involved communities to better understand government agencies and the continuum of opportunities for involvement. . GET HELP - IdentifY and seek the help and advice of community-based and intermediary organizations, including grassroots leadership groups, religious organizations, and community-specific media, that can assist with general education about involvement, as well as provide two-way conduits for communication between government and community residents on specific issues and polices. Start by acknowledging these organizations' own interests and purposes, and seek to build ongoing alliances and relationships to encourage participation over time. . DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS - Perceptions of the trust and commitment of government by often marginalized and less involved communities can be critical. Personal relationships developed by elected officials and agency staff with community and advocacy organizations will reap many rewards. Providing even minimum levels of assistance, perhaps logistical and meeting support, or training in meeting facilitation skills, can help groups reach out and prepare previously disengaged residents to become more involved. . COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND RESPECTFULLY - Know your communities changing demographics, and invest in culturally and linguistically appropriate communications material and strategies. Recognize the importance of communicating with residents in their first language to ensure their maximum understanding of issues. Again, work with intermediary organizations that already serve and work with the communities you 64 14-80 wish to reach. Plan ahead for translation, interpretation, and access to public meetings. Transportation assistance and childcare (perhaps through respected intermediary organizations) can often be helpful. . BE FLEXIBLE - At times, holding public meetings or other civic engagement processes in community settings known and accessible to the communities you wish to reach, perhaps co- sponsored by respected intermediary organizations, can help achieve your goals for broader participation. Explore what engagement tools and processes will best meet the needs and conditions of specific populations. . STAY IN TOUCH - As appropriate, keep up to date lists of organizations and groups concerned about given issues and keep them informed of opportunities for involvement. . HAVE SPECIFIC GOALS - Encourage attention and learning about these issues throughout government. Government departments should demonstrate not just general outreach and involvement goals, but also the specific communities or populations that they wish to more adequately involve and how they plan to do so. . FOLLOW UP - Follow up after specific engagement efforts, and over time, to determine what worked and what could be improved, and where representation is trending weaker and stronger. . SAY THANK YOU - Express appreciation for those that do become involved - at relevant meetings and hearings and by letter afterwards. As appropriate to the specific meeting or public involvement process, clarify how participants' input was considered and impacted the decision. . BUILD IT IN - Finally, don't think of public involvement and civic engagement as a "stand alone" strategy. Explore the invitation and integration of community voice as a part of your overall strategy to support the goals and programs oflocal government. The above ideas were contributed by: Raymond Colmenar Associate Director Policy Link www.Dolicvlink.org Maria Rogers Pascual Executive Director Partnership for Immigrant Leadership and Action www.oilaweb.org Connie Chan Robison Executive Director Center for Collaborative Planning \-vww.connc(.tccp.org Terry Amsler, Director Collaborative Governance Initiative Institute for Local Government www.ca-ilg.org/cgi 65 14-81 Appendix E Hispanic Focus Group Findings and Recommendations (To be added when completed) 66 14-82