HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/01/12 Item 8COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
•
Item 8
~leeti ng Date 1/12/88
ITEM TITLE Resol ution~~~~ ~Adopti nq responses to the
recommendations of the 198E-87 San Diego County Grand
Jury which require response from the City of Chula Vista
SUBMITTED BY Principal Management Assistant ~~~~~
REVIEWED BY City P•lanager~~F~--~'~"~ 4/Eths Vote: Yes No
On September 15, 1987, the 1986-87 San Diego County Grand Jury issued its
Final P,eport. The Penal Code requires that no later than 90 days after the
Grand Jury submi is a report concerni ng a 1 ocal public agency, the governing
body of the public agency shall comment on the findings and recommendations.
In the report, 1 0 recommendations were di rected at the City of Chula Vi sta and
require responses. All 10 of the recommendations deal with matters concerning
the San Diego Unified Port District.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the
recommendations of the
Jury report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: NJ.A.
resolution responding to the
1986-87 San Diego County Grand
DISCUSSION:
None of the recommendations of the Grand Jury Report dealt directly with the
City of Chula Vista . The recommendations di rected toward the City and
requiring response deal with matters concerning the Port District. However,
the recommendations were di rected to the Board of Port Commissioners as wel l
as all the cities with participating membership in the Port District.
City staff contacted Port District staff to obtain a copy of their responses
to the 10 recommendations of the Grand Jury. A copy of their response is
attached. These responses were adopted by the Board of Port Commissioners on
December 8, 1987.
The following are proposed by City staff as appropriate responses by the Chula
Vista City Council . These responses are i ncorporated into the attached
re solution for Council adoption. Of course, the Council may take action to
amend any of these responses prior to adoption:
#87/125 Support the continued appointment, not election, process of Port
Commissioners.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council concurs with this recommendation.
The Council has previously expressed its opposition to any
1 egi sl ation to change the process.
•
Page 2 , Item 8
• Mleeti ng Date 1 / 12/88
#87/126 Create a task force to study the Port District Act, Section 16,
with a view to updating the membership requirements of the Part
Commission.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council supports the current membershi p
apportionment of representatives among the five cities represented
on the seven member Board of Port Commissioners. We do not
believe there is a need either to change the current apportionment
or for any task force to study such.
(NOTE: A copy of Section 16 of the Port District Code is
attached.)
#87/1 27 Review and update the travel policy of the Port Commission.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would concur with thi s
recommendation. h(e have been advised that such were updated in
August 1 987.
#87/1?8 All cities, where appropriate, docket on their City Council
agendas time for their respective Port Commissioner appointees to
• report on Port District matters.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vi sta City Council , sitting as the Redevel opment Agency
and/or City Council , has in the past had conferences with their
representative on the Board of Port Commissioners. We will
continue such meetings in the future.
#87/1 29 Review and update the Templ e, Barker, S1 oan, Inc., study of
January 1 6, 1 Q84.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the
judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support
any reasonable effort to promote maritime trade in the Port of San
Diego.
#87/130 Amend Section 80 of the Act to establish a special Port District
augmentation fund for the purpose of sharing bayfront cities'
costs for improvements of public land uses that are contiguous
with those of the port.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would concur with thi s
recommendation. We strongly endorse the idea of the Unified Port
District providing assistance to bayfront cities in the
development of their public 1 ands on the bayfront.
•
•
•
•
Page 3 , Item 8
P~eeti ng Date 1 /12/88
#87/1 31 The Board of Port Commissioners assert an independent 1 eadership
with an increased commitment toward a genuine strengthening of an
open, working relationship with the community, governmental
agencies and customers alike.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would support a strong working
relationship by the Unified Port District with the communi ty,
etc., but it must be remembered that the Roard of Port
Commissioners should represent the public interest as reflected
through the cities they represent.
#87/1 32 The Harbor Police at the airport take a more active role i n
improving the traffic flow.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the
judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support
any reasonable effort to improve traffic flow at the airport.
#87/138 Interior (proximate) parking lots be limited to short-term parking
only.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council would defer on this issue to the
judgment of the Port Commissioners. We would generally support
any reasonable effort to improve parki ng at the airport.
#87/1 34 A summary of the Port District's Master Plan be published and
given greater di stri bution.
RESPONSE: The Chula Vista City Council concurs with this recommendation.
AJB:mab
All 3/8
the City Cc~ta;~cil cf
Chuta Vista, Culiiornia
Dated