HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 09-15 CC AGENDA PKTAGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING
NATIONAL CITY CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CIVIC CENTER
1243 NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD
REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY — SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - 3:00 P.M.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING AND SUBMIT IT TO
THE CITY CLERK
IT IS THE INTENTION OF YOUR CITY COUNCIL TO BE RECEPTIVE TO
YOUR CONCERNS IN THIS COMMUNITY. YOUR PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WILL ASSURE A RESPONSIBLE AND EFFICIENT CITY OF
NATIONAL CITY. WE INVITE YOU TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
CITY MANAGER ANY MATTER THAT YOU DESIRE THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE AND WISH YOU TO
KNOW THAT WE APPRECIATE YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG BY CITY MANAGER, TOM G.
MCCABE
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PRESENTATIONS
Employee Introduction Program
COUNCIL AGENDA
9/15/98 PAGE 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar: Consent calendar items involve matters which are of a
routine or noncontroversial nature. All consent calendar items are adopted by
approval of a single motion by the City Council. Prior to such approval, any item
may be removed from the consent portion of the agenda and separately
considered, upon request of a Councilmember, a staff member, or a member of
the public.
1. Resolution No. 98-109
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City approving a
Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility at 2005 E.
4th Street (El Toyon Park). (Applicant: GTE Mobilnet of San Diego)
(Case File No. CUP-1998-4) (Planning)
2. Resolution No. 98-110
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City in opposition
to mandatory Social Security coverage. (Personnel)
3. Resolution No. 98-111
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the
City Manager to execute an agreement with the law firm of Liebert,
Cassidy & Frierson to provide special legal services pertaining to
employee relations matters. (Personnel)
4. Resolution No. 98-112
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City changing the
name of 24' Street between National City Boulevard and Interstate 5 to
"Mile -of -Cars Way" and between Interstate 5 and the bay to "Bay Marina
Way." (Building and Safety)
5. WARRANT REGISTER NO. 10 (Finance)
Ratification of Demands in the amount of $117,700.66
COUNCIL AGENDA
9/15/98 PAGE 3
CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.)
6. Claim for Damages: San Diego Gas & Electric. (City Clerk)
NON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
7 Resolution No. 98-113
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City denying a
Conditional Use Permit application for an indoor bazaar within an existing
commercial building at 1320 Highland Avenue. (Applicant: Kye Chuan
Chu) (Case File No. CUP-1998-5) (Planning) ** Continued from Council
Meeting of 9/8/98 **
8. Resolution No. 98-114
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City approving the
Mayor and City Council's response to the report of the San Diego County
Grand Jury. (Engineering)
OLD BUSINESS
9. Information Item on Sewer Pumping Plant Location. (Public Works)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10. Letter from Southwestern Community College District requesting a waiver
of National City fees for the higher education center.
COUNCIL AGENDA
9/15/98 PAGE 4
NEW BUSINESS
11. Temporary Use Permit — New Convenant Tabernacle. (Building and
Safety)
12. Temporary Use Permit — La Mesa R.V. (Building and Safety)
—> CITY MANAGER
-. CITY ATTORNEY
-* OTHER STAFF
—> MAYOR
—> CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Five -Minute Time Limit)
NOTE: Pursuant to State Law, items requiring Council action must be brought
back on a subsequent Council agenda unless they are of a demonstrated
emergency or urgent nature.
COUNCIL AGENDA
9/15/98 PAGE 5
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular City Council Meeting — September 22, 1998 - 6:00 p.m. -
Council Chambers, Civic Center
TAPE RECORDINGS OF EACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE AND TO LISTEN TO
IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of National City
Personnel Department
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950-4397
Phone: (619) 336-4200
TDD: (619) 336-1615
MEMORANDUM
DATE September 8, 1998
TO Park Morse, Assistant City Manager
FROM Roger C. DeFratis, Persorect
SUBJECT EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTION PROGRAM
The City Council has requested that all new full-time employees hired each month be invited to the third City Council
meeting of each month.
The attendance of the employee is voluntary and will not be paid overtime for such appearance.
The below department director(s) are requested to extend such an invitation to the listed employee(s) and confirm the
employee(s) attendance, if applicable, with the City Manager by the Thursday preceding the meeting.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
EMPLOYEE/POSITION
DATE OF HIRE
Marylou Matienzo
Emilyn Russo/Accounting Assistant
Robert Rabago/Accounting Assistant
August 17, 1998
August 25, 1998
Roger Post
Jonathan Cain/Planning Technician
August 17, 1998
Chief DiCerchio
Delia Ramos/Alarm Progam Coordinator
David Kerr/Police Officer
August 25, 1998
September 8, 1998
RCD:Im
xc: Marylou Matienzo
Roger Post
Chief DiCerchio
MEMOS.DOC-I
® Recycled Paper AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYER
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL
FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 2005 E. 4TH STREET (EL TOYON PARK).
APPLICANT: GTE MOBILNET OF SAN DIEGO CASE FILE NO.: CUP-1998-4
PREPARED BY R. tos Assistant Planner DEPARTMENT Planning
EXPLANATION.
City Council approved the application at a public hearing held on September 8, 1998. Adopting this
resolution will finalize Council's action
Environmental Review
Financial Statement
X
N/A
N/A
Account No.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below)
Resolution
Resolution No 98-109
A.700 (Re.. ',in)
RESOLUTION NO. 98-109
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 2005 E. 4th STREET (EL TOYON PARK)
APPLICANT: GTE MOBILNET OF SAN DIEGO
CASE FILE NO.: CUP-1998-4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City considered a Conditional Use Permit
application for a wireless communications facility at 2005 E. 4th Street, at the regularly scheduled City
Council meeting of September 8, 1998 at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented;
and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report prepared for Case
File No. CUP-1998-4 which is maintained by the City, and incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State and City
law; and,
WHEREAS, this action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public
health, safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City,
California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on
September 8, 1998, support the following findings:
1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape, and sufficient area exists to
accommodate the proposed facility without reducing the net usable area of the park
grounds, since the proposed monopole will replace an existing light standard and the
proposed equipment building will be recessed into a sloped embankment unusable for
general recreation.
2. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and
pavement type to carry the volume and type of traffic generated by the proposed use, since
access to the property is provided from U Avenue and the unmanned wireless
communications facility is expected to generate a minimal amount of additional traffic.
3. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties, since
the project involves only a negligible addition to established structures and construction of a
small building adequately separated and screened from views afforded adjacent properties.
4. The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience and welfare,
since the facility will enhance and/or augment the availability of wireless communication
channels.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
Resolution No.: 98-109
Page: 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application is approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. A cost estimate shall be submitted along with development plans. A performance bond equal to
the approved cost estimate for all of the proposed grading and retaining wall work shall be
posted. Three percent of the estimated cost shall be deposited with the City as an initial cost for
plan checking and inspection services at the time the plans are submitted. The deposit is subject
to adjustment.
2. Development Plans submitted for Building Permits must conform with the 1994 Editions of the
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Plumbing Code; and the 1993
Edition of the National Electrical Code.
3. Exterior walls of the proposed equipment building shall be treated with "Graffiti Melt Coating"
manufactured by Genesis Coatings, Inc. A similar product may be,used,.subject-to.approval
from the Building and Safety Director. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of its
observance.
4. The path of any and all underground cables and utilities associated with the proposed facility
shall be modified as necessary to avoid conflict with any existing or future underground
facilities installed by the City. The applicant shall coordinate planning and installation of any
such underground facilities with the Parks and Recreation Department, the Public Works
Department and Sweetwater Authority as necessary per the respective determination of each
office.
5. The applicant shall provide the Public Works Department the opportunity to evaluate, repair
and/or replace the light fixture intended to be relocated to the proposed monopole at the time the
fixture is removed.
6. Permittee shall be ,anted non-exclusive right of ingress and egress, seven days a week, twenty-
four hours a day for the installation, maintenance, repair and upgrade of the facility. For all non-
scheduled, emergency visits, Permittee shall notify the Parks and Recreation Department
("Parks") of Permittee's site visit within two hours of such event. Permittee shall notify the
Parks at least four hours in advance of any routinely scheduled, non -emergency maintenance or
service to the facility for such visits that do not occur during normal park hours. Permittee will
provide Parks with a maintenance schedule if applicable.
7. The proposed equipment building shall be of masonry construction with stucco finish, painted
and roofed to match score shacks existing on site.
8. The proposed monopole shall have a non -reflective finish matching that of other light poles
existing in the park.
9. The permittee shall not object to co -locating additional facilities of other communication
companies and sharing the project site, provided such shared use does not result in substantial
technical or quality -of -service impairment for the permitted use. In the event a dispute arises
with regard to co -locating with other existing or potential users, the City may require a third
party technical study at the expense of either or both the applicant or the complaining user. This
condition in no way obligates the City to approve any co -location proposal if it is determined by
the City not to be desirable in a specific case.
Resolution No.: 98-109
Page: 3
10. If use of the equipment building, antennas and any other equipment authorized by this
Conditional Use Permit is discontinued for a period of six or more consecutive months, it shall
be removed by the applicant. This requirement shall not apply to the monopole, which shall be
maintained or replaced with a substitute suitable for supporting required light fixtures, per the
determination of the Director of Public Works.
11. Except as required by conditions of approval, development plans shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Director in conformance with Exhibit A -Revised, Case File No.
CUP-1998-4, dated 06/22/98.
12. Before this Conditional Use Permit shall become effective, the applicant shall sign and have
notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Department, acknowledging and
accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of this permit. Failure to return the signed
and notarized Acceptance Form within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate the
Conditional Use Permit.
13. Use of the property as authorized by this Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to the
installation of a wireless communications facility consisting of a 97'-8" tall monopole
supporting 12 panel antennas and three whip antennas, and one 12' x 16' x 12'-8" equipment
building, as incidental use of the property.
14. This permit shall become null and void if not exercised within one year after adoption of the
resolution of approval unless extended according to procedures specified in Section 18.116.190
of the National City Municipal Code.
15. Before this Conditional Use Permit shall become effective, the applicant shall negotiate a City
Council approved lease agreement authorizing use of the property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution shall be transmitted forthwith to
the applicant: and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day
following the City Council meeting where the resolution is adopted. The time within which judicial
review of this decision may be sought is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6.
PASSED and ADOP 1> D this 15th day of September, 1998.
GEORGE H. WATERS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MICHAEL R. DALL A, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GEORGE H. EISER, III -CITY ATTORNEY
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
ITEM TITLE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY IN OPPOSITION TO
MANDATORY SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE
PREPARED BY
EXPLANATION_
Roger C. DeFratis
Personnel Ds
DEPARTMENT
Personnel
The U.S. Congress is considering a new law to require that all employees must be covered by
Social Security Retirement_ System in an effort to make that., system .solvent..At present .the
City is exempt from Social Security and has opted to belong to the California State Public
Employees' Retirement System (P.E.R.S.) instead. This requirement to enter Social Security
also would cost the City approximately $310,000/year which is 6.2% of gross salaries. The
employees would also be required to contribute an equal amount which would reduce their
take home salaries. The benefits derived from participation in Social Security would be
minimal as it is duplicative, not additive, of our P.E.R.S.
This resolution along with hundreds of others from other cities will be sent to the President of
the United States and our Congressmen in a show of unity of the National League of Cities in
opposition to Mandatory Social Security Coverage.
Environmental Review
Financial Statement
N/A
X N/A
Account No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below)
1. Resolution
2. Background Information
Resolution No 98-110
A -re
RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 110
RESOLUTION OF 111j. CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY IN
OPPOSITION TO MANDATORY SOCIAL
SECURITY COVERAGE
WHEREAS, the President of the United States will propose early next year a
plan to reform the Social Security program; and
WHEREAS, that proposal may include forced Social Security coverage of the
City of National City; and
WHEREAS, the City of National City would become a Federal taxpayer,
compelled to remit 6.2 percent of the salary or wages of newly hired workers; and
WHEREAS, this constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate imposed on the City
of National City and other subdivisions of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the new tax that the City of National City would be forced to pay
the Federal government is estimated to amount to a minimum of $1,300,000 per year to a
maximum of approximately $3,000,000 per year; and
WHEREAS, in order to pay this new Federal tax the City of National City may
have no choice but to reduce services including law enforcement; fire protection; health;
programs for senior citizens and the disabled; library, parks and recreation; refuse collection
and recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these reduced services, new and/or higher fees may
be required in order for the City of National City to pay the tax; and
WHEREAS, such new fees would constitute a double tax on the citizens of the
City of National City because not only are they paying the Social Security tax on their own
salaries and wages, but also they would be funding the new Federal tax on the City of National
City; and
WHEREAS, this new tax on the City of National City is a shift of Federal
government responsibilities to our communities for which there will be no benefit paid for
more than a generation; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States is encouraging a national
dialogue on how to reform the Social Security program and is seeking input from all parts of
the nation; and
WHEREAS, our Representative in Congress, Bob Filner, has always been open
to our views and concerns.
Resolution No. 98 -110
September 8, 1998
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of National City hereby
pledges to make it known to the President of the United States and Congressman Bob Filner its
opposition to any measure that would impose an unfunded Federal mandate on the City of
National City in the form of a new Federal tax on salaries and wages paid to newly hired
workers; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of National City will: (1) develop
a precise analysis of what services would be jeopardized; (2) meet with Congressman Bob
Filner in. his .,District .office before Labor Day; and (3) encourage the collection of signatures on
a "Petition to President Clinton to Oppose Making the City of National City a Federal
Taxpayer" to be delivered to Congressman Bob Filner so that he can transmit it to the
President before October 1.1998.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1998.
George H. Waters, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George H. Eiser, III
City Attorney
MEMO
To: Marylou
From: Cherie
Subject: PERS Meeting on Mandatory Social Security Coverage
Date: August 10, 1998
The following is a synopsis of the PERS meeting I went to today. I have also enclosed the handouts
from the meeting.
There .are -a couple of different proposals being made to repair the Social Security System (SSS).
Both scenarios call for taxing all newly hired state and local government employees. This includes
new employees who are coming from another state or local government where they were covered
by PERS. According to David Vienna (Federal Relations Representative for PERS), the taxing of
newly hired employees will only be a short-term fix for the SSS. This will only help the SSS be
solvent for 2-3 more years.
According to the PERS representative, there has been discussion by the Feds of extending this tax
to all employees, not just the new hired ones. At this time, the Feds have been pushing more for
taxing just the new hires. When they are in trouble again in 2-3 years, they may be back to tax the
rest of the employees.
The City would be required to pay its share of 6.2% of salaries. In addition, the labor unions may
demand a corresponding 6.2% pay increase to cover their share of the social security costs. Also,
there may be less movement across agencies so attracting experienced candidates will be harder.
Getting rid of any less -desirable employees will also be harder for us since they will be less willing
to move.
It is unclear at this time what will happen to the alternative retirement plans. PARS (retirement plan
for our part-timers) could be eliminated.
At this time PERS is not considering offering a reduced plan option for those who will also be
paying into Social Security.
According to Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor), the SSS's actuary is using a very low
projection of economic increases (1.8%). Under this assumption, the SSS will fail in 2029. Reich
says a more reasonable estimate of economic increases would be 2.4% which would mean that the
SSS would last for another 75 years.
The PERS representative also indicated that the SSS is not allowing money to build up in reserve
to earn interest. Instead they are transferring money to the Department of Defense and other
agencies to balance the Federal budget. If we are forced to contribute, we will only be helping to
balance their budget.
Marylou
Page 2
August 10, 1998
PERS came up with an estimate of how much they think the new tax will cost our City over the next
ten years. They have estimated that just the City's share will be $1,307,052. If the City were also
to pay the employee's share, the total would be $2,614,104. I am working on my own analysis
because I feel their estimate is low.
Resolutions and letters should be prepared before September 10. This is when California public
sector organizations will be hosting a briefing for California congressional staff in the House of
Representatives. PERS would like to receive copies of all resolutions and letters that we send to help
coordinate a joint effort by California governments.
USA TODAY
Pace 1
July 28, 1998
USA SNAPSHOTS®
A look at statistics that shape the nation
While federal workers hired
after 1983 now pay Social
Security taxes, many state and
local public employees remain
in state retirement plans and
don't pay. Adults who say
these workers should pay
,Sorat:Securfty taxes:-
O:nriy ntail ant Wet) Bryant. USA TODAY
PRELIMINARY CUMMULATIVE AGGREGATE PRELIMINARY TEN-YEAR TOTAL
I
1
Costs
Agencies i
Employer
Employee i Total
CaIPERS Employers
1
State of California
11
$276,848,6331
$276,848,6331 $553,697.2671
Counties
101
S51,293,1671
$51,293,167! $102,586,344
Cities
2651
$621,559,4281
$621,559,4281 $1,243,119,121
Other
3601
$204,559,6741
$204,559,6741 $409,119.7081
Major Non-CaIPERS Employers
I
1
1
Los Angeles County
11
$664,927,802!
$664,927,802! $1,329,855,605
City of Los Angeles i
11
$592,683,2111
$592.683,211 I $1,185,366,423
San Bernardino County i
11
$289,868,652!
$289,868,6521 $579,737,305
Contra Costa County
11
$8,980,9601
$8,980,9601 $17,961,921
ImperialCounty!
11
$7,758,962!
$7,758,9621 $15,517,925
San Joaquin County i
11
$1,734,2401
$1,734,2401 $3,468,4811
1
I
Total:
6421
$2.720,214,7291
$2.720.214.7291 $5.440.430.1001
EXPECTED SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS FOR NEXT TEN YEARS
Fiscal
Year
Ending
6/30/99
6/30/00
6/30/U I
6/30/02
6/30/03
6/30/(14
6/30/05
6/30/06
6/30/07
6/30/08
Cum.#
of New
I4ires
2.2
4.4
6.6
8.8
11.0
13.2
15.4
17.6
19.8
22.0
Firefighters
Avg
Salary
39,334.00
40,514.02
41, 729.44
42,981.32
44,270.76
45,598.88
46,966.85
48,375.86
49, 827.13
51,321.95
Social
Security
5,365.16
11,052.22
17,075.69
23,450.61
30,192.66
37,318.13
44,843.95
52,787.73
61,167.79
70,003.13
Totals 353,257.07
Grand Totals
Cum.#
of New
Hires
7.8
15.6
23.4
31.2
39.0
46.8
54.6
54.6
54.6
54.6
Police
Avg
Salary
3 9,15 8.44
40,333.19
41,543.19
42, 789.48
44,073.17
45,395.36
46,757.22
48,159.94
49,604.74
51,092.88
Social
Security
18,937.02
39,010.26
60,270.85
82,771.97
106,568.92
131,719.18
158,282.55
163,031.03
167, 921.96
172,959.61
1,101,473.35
Cum.#
of New
Hires
12.6
25.2
37.8
50.4
63.0
75.6
88.2
100.8
100.8
100.8
Misc
Avg
Salary
25,778.52
26,551.87
27,348.43
28,168.88
29,013.95
29,884.36
3(1,780.90
31,704.32
32,655.45
33,635.12
Part-time totals
Cum. #
Social of Ncw Avg Social
Security Hires Salary Security
20,138.18 35.0 5,607.94 12.169.22 56.609.58
41.484.64 70.0 5,776.17 25.068.6(1 116.615.72
64,093.77 105.0 5.949.46 38.730.98 180.171.29
88,022.11 105.0 6,127.94 39.892.91 234,137.6(1
113,328.47 105.0 6311.78 41,089.70 291.179.75
140,073.99 105.0 6,501.14 42.322.39 351.433.69
168,322.25 105.0 6,696.17 43,592.06 415,040.81
198,139.33 105.0 6,897.05 44.899.82 458,857.91
204,083.51 105.0 7,103.97 46.246.82 479,420.08
210,206.02 105.0 7,317.08 47.634.22 500,802.98
1,247,892.27 381,646.72
3.1)84,269.4I
Fiscal Number of New Hires
Year
Ending Fire Police Misc PT
6/30/93 0 5 3 13
6/30/94 0 6 12 28
6/30/95 3 13 13 42
6/30/96 2 7 12 32
6/30/97 4 9 23 42
6/30/98 4 7 13 53
Total 13 47 76 210
Avg 2.2 7.8 12.7 35
Fiscal Salaries for New Hires
Year
Ending Fire Police Misc PT
6/30/93 113,647.03 31,688.98 37,350.96
6/30/94 53,367.26 103,478.98 78,966.39
6/30/95 82,237.97 329,352.87 267,908.10 260,066.88
6/30/96 31,397.90 126,918.48 192,150.97 71.641.01
6/30/97 85,607.98 238,694.58 362,873.12 130,062.30
6/30/98 101,570.69 228,521.18 218,390.19 106,331.69
Total 199,243.85 861,980.22 958,100.15 578,087.54
Total
Fiscal Average Salaries for New Hires
Year
Ending Fire Police Misc PT
6/30/93 22,729.41 10,562.99 2,873.15
6/30/94 8,894.54 8,623.25 2,820.23
6/30/95 27,412.66 25,334.84 20,608.32 6,192.07
6/30/96 15,698.95 18,131.21 16,012.58 2,238.78
6/30/97 21,402.00 26,521.62 15,777.09 3,096.72
6/30/98 25,392.67 32.645,88 16,799.25 2,006 26
89,906.28 134,257.50 88,383.48 19,227.21
Avg Fire 39,334.00
Avg Police
Avg Misc
Avg PT
(adjust all for start date of 11/1)
39,158.44
25,778.52
5,607.94
Tot positions 41 82 135 110
Avg yrs w/ City 13 8 9 4
G
�E74S
Circular Letter
38
California Public Employees' Retirement System
P.O. Box 942704
Sacramento, CA 94229-2704
(916) 326-3141
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
No Voice (916) 326-3240
Circular Letter No.: 800-006
Distribution: Special
Special:
To: PERSONNEL DIRECTOR AND FINANCE DIRECTOR
ALL CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCIES
Subject: EXCLUSION OF ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICERS*
OF A CITY OR COUNTY
Assembly Bill No. 2743, effective January 1, 1997, excluded from membership in the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) elected or appointed officers of a City or
County who serve on public commissions. boards. councils or similar legislative or
administrative bodies, and who are elected or appointed to a fixed term of office (except for
persons elected to a City Council or a County Board of Supervisors). These excluded City and
County elected or appointed officers*, similar in service to those elected or appointed officers
excluded by Senate Bill No. 53, effective July 1, 1994. are typically compensated only for
attendance at meetings and reimbursed for expenses. You may refer to Circular Letter No. 800-
127 dated October 31, 1994, which outlined the changes made by Senate Bill No. 53.
The following interpretation of Assembly Bill No. 2743 [Government Code Section 20322,
Subdivision (c)] will help you in making a determination of CalPERS' membership or non-
membership for elected or appointed officers of a City or County who serve on public
commissions, boards, councils, or similar legislative or administrative bodies, and who are
elected or appointed to a fixed term of office.
• Elected or appointed officers* of a City or -County who are elected or appointed to office for
the first time on or after January 1, 1997. are excluded from CalPERS membership.
• Reelected or re -appointed officers* of a City or County who are reelected or re -appointed
after a break from the term of office held on December 31. 1996, are excluded from CalPERS
membership.
*Who serve on public commissions. boards. councils. or similar legislative or administrative
bodies, and who are elected or appointed to a fixed term of office. (Exception: Personselected
to a City Council or a County Board of Supervisors continue to be eligible to elect CalPERS
membership.)
California Public Employees' Retirement System
Lincoln Plaza - 400 P Street - Sacramento, CA 95814
• Previously elected or appointed officers* of a City or County who are currently CalPERS
members and who have been continuously in an office which began before January 1, 1997,
are not excluded from CalPERS membership. These officers remain in CalPERS
membership as long as they continue in the same office with no break in service.
• Previously elected or appointed officers* of a City or County who are not currently members
of CalPERS and who have been continuously in the same office which began before January
1, 1997, are not excluded and have the opportunity to elect CalPERS membership on or after
January 1, 1997, as long as the officer is actively in that office with no break in service.
Please note that the restrictions of Assembly Bill No. 2743 [Government Code Section 20322.
Subdivision (c)] do not apply to persons elected to a City Council or a County Board of
Supervisors. These officers continue to be eligible to elect CalPERS membership.
If you have any questions, please call (916) 326-3141.
G• on , Chief
M: ber ervices Division
*Who serve on public commissions. boards, councils. or similar legislative or administrative
bodies, and who are elected or appointed to a fixed term of office.
California Public Employees' Retirement System
Lincoln Plaza - 400 P Street - Sacramento, CA 95814
-CALIFORNIA
Mandatory wiy ovum Security Mandatory Social Security
P
August 19ERS98 Political Action Packet
Federal Government May Impose New Payroll Tax
Hundreds of California government agencies and their newly hired employees could be forced by the
Federal government to pay billions of dollars over a period of years in new Federal taxes if they are compelled
to participate in Social Security as part of a reform expected to be considered next year.
The money would go to help rebalance the fiscally troubled Social Security program. The reason why the
new tax would apply to newly hired, presumed to be younger public employees is because the Federal
government would get the money today with no obligation to pay a benefit for some 40 years.
Newly hired State and local government employees and their employers would be forced to remit 12.4
percent of pay. This could result in a number of different outcomes including reduced government services,
new benefits structures and higher local taxes.
The new payroll tax would be shared equally by the newly hired employees and hundreds of California
counties, cities, school districts and special districts. There are currently more than 700,000 employees of the
State and 650 counties, cities, school districts and special districts not participating in Social Security.
Decision Makers Developing Plans
Federal policy makers are developing Social Security program reform plans now. Already, mandatory
Social Security coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers have been included in several
legislative measures, but the most powerful advocates of reform, the White House and Republican
Congressional leadership, are keeping their powder dry until early in 1999 when they will make their formal
proposals. However, a White House Social Security expert said that extending Social Security taxes to the
public sector is a "no brainer" and the Federal government needs the money.
If a vote was taken now, mandatory coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers would
be enacted into law.
Grassroots Action Required Now
Affected jurisdictions and their employees should communicate information on the impact of mandatory
Social Security program coverage on their jurisdictions. Points of view are nice, but facts and impact can assist
policy makers in their decision making. For example, California Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives need to know how much the new tax will cost their constituents and the impact on State and
local government program management and labor relations.
What's Inside
Background Chronology
What Proponents Say
Getting to the President and Congress
Names and Addresses
ACTION PLAN, Projects to Consider
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Back Page
August 1998 Political Action Packet 2
Background Chronology
1935 Social Security Act passed prohibiting State and local employees and their employers froi.
participating in the program because the constitution bans Federal taxation of State and local
governments.
1955 State and local governments could voluntarily join and leave the Social Security program.
1977 Persons collecting a pension benefit from non -Social Security employment were prevented from
receiving full Social Security spousal benefits (see opposite page).
1977- Mandatory coverage of public employees and their employers contained in various Federal
1997 Executive and Congressional Branch proposals.
1983 Revolving door closed. State and local governments choosing to be in the program must stay in;
those who choose to stay out must remain out. Public employees whose public employers did
not participate in Social Security but who qualified for Social Security from other employment
saw their Social Security benefits substantially reduced (see opposite page).
1997 Federal Advisory Council on Social Security recommends mandatory universal Social Security
coverage of newly hired public employees. Council report says such coverage will raise 10
percent of the funds needed to rebalance the fiscally troubled program and it is a matter of
fairness.
Congressional Budget Offices annual report to the Budget Committees says mandatory univers.
Social Security coverage of newly hired public employees is an option to partially fix Social
Security by raising $11.3 billion in new revenues over five years.
White House working group begins weekly meetings on Social Security reform options in
September.
1998 President Clinton says Social Security funding shortfall will be his top priority. White House
coordinator of the Administration's weekly Social Security meetings says mandatory coverage of
newly hired State and local government workers and their employers is a "no brainer" pro-
position; will result in needed funds; and is simply a matter of fairness.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) introduces a comprehensive Social Security reform
bill. S. 1792, that would provide for personal savings accounts and require universal coverage for
all State and local government new hires. "Inclusion of State and local workers is sound public
policy because most...State and local government employees (who are) not covered...receive
Social Security benefits as a result of working at other jobs," Senator Moynihan said. Newly
hired public workers would join the Social Security program in 2001.
National Commission on Retirement Policy sponsored by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. a business group, proposes on May 19 a Social Security reform plan that
includes mandatory coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers.
Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee holds hearing on May 21, on mandatory
coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers.
August 1998 Political Action Packet 3
What the Other Side Says
• Social Security Program participation is a matter of fairness.
❑ The majority of citizens are in the program, including U.S. Senators and Members of Congress and
soldiers and sailors -- even a majority of State and local government agencies and their workers are in
the program.
o Most of the seven million not in the program nevertheless get part-time or post public service career jobs
that enable them to qualify for Social Security so they get the benefit anyway but without paying their
fair share.
• It is every citizen's duty to participate.
• The program is in trouble and the government needs the money.
Responses to What the Other Side Says
• Fairness may sound good but these public agencies and their workers were prohibited from participating in
the program when 'Social Security was established in 1935. They were told to develop their own systems.
• Complex benefits systems were developed -- dating back to the 1930s -- to take into account the special
retirement and disability needs of public safety employees and others.
• These benefit systems -- even when fully funded -- require continued cash flow for investments that fund
benefits, including health insurance. Diverting funds to Washington could result in reduced government
services and/or reduced employee benefits and/or higher government costs.
• Investment earnings in current retirement systems that exceed projections are credited to employers whose
costs are reduced. There is no such yield to employers in Social Security.
• Much pain for little gain.
..3pecial Issues — Windfall and Offset
There are other advocacy efforts underway by public employee groups that result in sending mixed
messages as far as the effort to discourage adoption of mandatory coverage of newly hired public employees
and their employers.
Anti -Windfall Provision. When computing the Social Security monthly benefits, the formula used is
weighted toward those with lower earnings. In the past, persons who spent part of their career in covered
employment and part of their career in non -covered employment benefited from this weighted formula. Even
though they may not have had low wages, the limited career dropped them into the average lower wage group.
The anti -windfall provision eliminated this advantage in the formula for people who spend the majority of their
career in non -covered employment. Essentially those public employees who have attained age 62 since 1986
have seen their Social Security benefits based on their own earnings in covered employment drastically reduced.
Spousal Governmental Pension Offset. The offset reduces the amount a public employee may collect on a
spousal benefit from Social Security. For public employees attaining retirement eligibility since 1982, the
spousal Social Security benefit is offset by an amount equal to two-thirds of the public pension.
Conflicts. The repeal of either or both would result in a loss of revenue to the Federal government. House
Ways and Means Committee insiders said there is not only no hope for repeal, but also advocacy of repeal
highlights the mandatory Social Security coverage issue in a negative way. It suggests that public employee
groups want "everything" -- they want to stay out of Social Security but they nevertheless want a piece of the
-rogram. too. Notwithstanding the perceived unfairness of the anti -windfall and offset provisions, it is difficult
J argue for their repeal as well as oppose mandatory coverage in the same breath.
August 1998 Political Action Packet 4
Getting to President Clinton
It is important to communicate with the Presi-
dent and the Vice President. If you want to get to
them quickly, go through a staffer they share and
who handles California issues. The text of the letter
should be addressed as follows:
President William J. Clinton
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The envelope should be addressed to:
Ms. Karen Skelton
Deputy Assistant to the President
Office of Political Affairs
Room 115
Old Executive Office Building
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Fax:: (202) 456-7929
She's a Californian. Her telephone number is
not provided here because it is very difficult to
reach her that way.
Getting to Representatives
On the following pages is a directory of the
Washington D.C. and home district offices of the
Senators and Representatives from California.
It is important to write, meet with and get facts
to them.
Honorable
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
Dear
Sample Letter
Identify yourself and your organization and state your reason for writing (concern over
the possibility of mandatory Social Security coverage, etc.)
Acknowledge the value of the Social Security program and the need to restructure the
program. State your reasons for believing mandatory coverage of state and local
government employees is a bad idea. Give the precise financial and other affects on your
agency or organization.
State the action you would like the letter recipient to take (committing to fighting the
mandatory coverage proposal; getting a commitment from the President not to propose it
and Congressional leadership to oppose mandatory coverage; remove mandatory coverage from
any negotiations, etc.)
Express appreciation for his/her attention to this issue and close.
Sincerely,
August 1998
PEASPEAS Mandatory
Social Security Update
California Would Take $3 Bil.
Hit From New Payroll Tax
If newly hired public workers and their employ-
ers are forced into Social Security, some 650 Cali-
fornia agencies would remit more than $3 billion in
Federal payroll taxes over 10 years according to a
survey and preliminary analysis by the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).
A proposal to compel State and local govern-
ment participation in Social Security has been rec-
ommended by a Federal advisory panel to the Social
Security Administration. The U.S. Senate's leading
Social Security expert, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D-NY), has included the proposal in a Social Secu-
rity reform plan he has introduced. Other legisla-
tion already introduced also includes the idea as
does a proposal by a major business group.
The White House is expected to formally pro-
pose a Social Security reform plan in February.
The reason for the interest in reform is the fore-
cast that the program will not be able to make bene-
fit payments on time in 2029 (see box below).
The estimate that there would be a $3 billion
cost to more than 650 California agencies and their
employees was based an analysis of data obtained
in a survey of employers. The survey did not in-
clude school districts which employ half of the
Social Security Facts
When the Social Security program was enacted in
1935, State and local governments and their employers
were prohibited from participating.
Over the years, they were allowed into the program
and many California jurisdictions joined, including the
State of California except for the Highway Patrol, fire-
fighters and correctional officers. Other Californians not
participating in Social Security include California school
districts and teachers: more than 450 cities, counties and
special districts: judges. and the University of California.
The Social Security tax is shared equally by the em-
ployer and the employee who each pay 6.2 percent of
pay. Surplus money goes into a so-called trust fund,
which is invested in the lowest -yielding Treasury secu-
rities. In essence, however, the program involves a sim-
ple transfer from taxpayers to beneficiaries. In 2029,
experts say the trust fund surplus will be depleted and
there will not be enough receipts to pay benefits on time.
700,000 workers in the State who do not particpate
in Social Security.
The survey results are preliminary and subject
to verification by the agencies responding to the
survey conducted in June and July.
Unlike other States that have statewide, uniform
benefits, the actual impact of the new tax could vary
from agency to agency in California. Almost all of
the more than 1,200 jurisdictions in CalPERS and
other agencies with their own retirement systems
have different benefits structures and funding lev-
els.
Common, however, would be the export of an
aggregate $3 billion in new Federal taxes over ten
years to the Internal Revenue Service. Other States
already have developed impact analyses:
• Probable loss of retiree health benefits in Ohio.
• 10% payr:-,ll shortfall in Louisiana.
• $375 million annual cost increase in Chicago.
Briefs
New Tax Will Pass Without Grassroots Effort
The CalPERS Board of Administration has been
advised by its Federal advocates that unless Cali-
fornia and other affected States mount an intensive
grass roots effort, the new tax will pass if the vote
were today. The Board authorized a statewide in-
formation campaign.
Regional Briefings Set
Briefings have been set for Sacramento, August
5; Walnut Creek and San Jose, August 6; Fresno
and Bakersfield. August 7; San Diego, August 10;
Anaheim, August 11; Long Beach, August 12: Riv-
erside and Pasadena. August 13.
September 10 Set for U.S. Capitol Briefings
The State's public sector organizations will host
a briefing for California Congressional staff in the
House of Representatives on September 10, 1998.
Appointments are being arranged with White Hou:e
officials.
August 1998 Mandatory Social Security Update 2
From Washington D.C.
Plans Say Benefits Cannot Be
Maintained Under New Tax
Public pension representatives told a House
subcommittee that compelling newly hired public
workers and their employers to pay the 12.4 percent
Social Security tax will not solve the troubled pro-
gram's fiscal problems.
Of an estimated 7 million public workers not in
Social Security, 75 percent, mostly teachers, are in
California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachu-
setts, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas and a few other States.
"It is totally unreasonable to assume that Massa-
chusetts or any other State which finds itself in a
similar situation will be able to maintain such a
comprehensive benefit program and absorb the ad-
ditional employer costs resulting from forced Social
Security coverage," Thomas R. Lussier told the
members of the House Ways and Means Social Se-
curity Subcommittee in May.
Lussier, who is Executive Director of the Mas-
sachusetts Teachers' Retirement Board. testified
along with pension plan administrators from Ne-
vada, Ohio and Colorado.
The proposal to extend mandatory coverage to
the public sector was contained in the January 1997
report of the Advisory Commission on Social Secu-
rity and it has been recommended by other groups
offering ways to rebalance the program. Experts
forecast that Social Security income will exceed
benefits payments in the pay -as -you go program in
2029 when full benefit payments will not be made
on time if changes are not made.
Richard Schumacher, Executive Director of the
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio, said
compelled public sector coverage would be "an un-
funded mandate...imposed on state and local gov-
ernments ...[and] a tax increase."
Congressman Rob Portman (R-OH) said the
proposal was "irresponsible," clearly signaling his
support of the witnesses and to voters in Ohio
where the majority of public workers and their em-
ployers do not participate in Social Security.
Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) directed
sharp questions regarding lower disability benefits
under Social Security versus such benefits in public
employee plans to representatives of the General
Accounting Office (GAO). Becerra's Los Angeles
district includes a high concentration of potentially
affected public employees. Neither the City of Los
Angeles nor Los Angeles County participate in So-
cial Security.
The GAO reported on a study it conducted on
the impact of mandatory coverage.
Robert T. Scully, Executive Director of the Na-
tional Association of Police Organizations (NAPO),
which includes most California police organiza-
tions, cited several examples of the probable impact
of mandatory coverage around the nation.
In Tampa, he said, "a likely consequence of su-
per -imposing. a..6.2 percent tax on employees and
the employer would be to reduce the number of fire-
fighters and police officers serving Tampa's citizens
or significantly reduce benefits for these employees
or a combination of both."
Professor's Classroom Chats
May Be Tip to Clinton Plan
Jeff Liebman, 30, a Harvard professor who ad-
vocated mandatory Social Security program partici-
pation of newly hired public workers and their em-
ployers in his classroom, will be the new White
House point person on Social Security reform.
Perhaps Liebman's views can be gleaned from a
project he directed at Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government in early March. For an intense two -
week period, all 230 first -year Kennedy School stu-
dents considered how to reform Social Security.
Although there is no written reference to public
workers in his paperwork, Kennedy School stu-
dents recall Liebman's specific oral statements that
public employees and their employers should be
included in the Social Security program.
Since September, there have been near weekly
meetings in the White House on Social Security re-
form. Leibman will be the new coordinator of those
meetings. replacing Peter Orzag who resigned to
take ajob in the private sector.
Orzag told a meeting of pension plan represen-
tatives in January that requiring newly hired public
sector workers and their employers is a "no
brainer." It's simply a matter of "fairness." he said.
Everyone should be in Social Security. Besides, the
government needs the money, he said.
.'reliminary Congressional District Rey. _,rt
Member Brian Bilbray Di trict 49 Party R
Agency Name Firefighters Police Officers Misc. Employees Total
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF T HI CITY OF NATI $0 $0 ' $183,701 $183,701
DEL MAR CITY OF $0 $0 $228,606 $228,606
NATIONAL CITY CITY OF $0 $194,283 $1,112,770 $1,307,052
NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO CO $351,074 $0 ` $0 $351,074
SAN DIEGO ASSOC OF GVTS $0 $0 $244,935 $244,935
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION $0 $0 $4,898,706 $4,898,706
SAN DIEGO TROLLEY $0 * $0 $1,910,495 $1,910,495
Total over Agencies
$351,074 $194,283 $8,579,213 $9,124,570
TuesdiI', July 28, 1998 Preliminary data is subject to verification.
e�inaina ry Congressional District Rai,
Member Bou Fllnor
Agency Name
District 50 Party D
Firelighters Police Officers Ali.cc. Employees Total
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATI $0 $0 $183,701 $183,701
LA MESA CITY OF $347,196 $392,203 $0 $739,398
LEMON GROVE CI1Y OF SO $0 $391,896 $391,896
NATIONAL CITY CITY OF TO $194,283 $1,112,770 $1,307,052
NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO CO $351,074 $0 $0 $351,074
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION $0 $0 $4,898,706 $4,898,706
SAN DIEGO RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT $170,099 $0 $0 $170,099
Total over Agencies
Tuesday, July 28, 1998
$868,369 $586,485
$6,587,073 $8,041,027
Preliminary data is subject to verification.
I
•
eliiuiiiary EmployerCost Statement
Agency Name NATIONAL CITY CITY rF
Address 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD
City NATIONAL CITY
State CA
Zipcode 91950
Represenlulive(s) District l'urlp
Bob Filner 50 D Brian Bilbray 49
- - - Firefiighters - - -
StMoctto
liia.1_5141 Mari Kvi.126
1999 0 $o $o
2000 0 $o $o
2001 0 $o $o
2002 0 $0 $0
2003 0 $o $o
2004 0 $o $o
2005 0 $0 $0
2006 0 $0 $0
2007 0 $0 $0
2008 0 $o $o
Total New Taxes:
- - - Police Officers - - - - - - Misc. Employees - - -
Suh epct to
9991,rQt4, ?Alm
1 $47,592
2 $49,020
3 $50,490
4 $52,005
5 $53,565
6 $55,172
7 $56,827
8 $58,532
9 $60,288
10 $62,097
$2,951
$6,078
$9,391
$12,897
$16,605
$ 20, 524
$24,663
$29,032
$33,641
$38,500
Subject to_
P.49,..Q991 @alnry
7 $38,94i
14 840,109
21 $41,313
28 $42,552
35 $43,828
42 $45,143
49 $46,498
56 $47,893
63 $49,329
70 $50,809
Kpw TBi;
$16,900
$34,815
$53,789
$73,870
$95,108
$117,553
$141,260
$166,283
$192,680
$220,512
$0 $194,283 $1,112,770
Grand Total: $1,307,052
Salad' increases are based upon an annual3% adjustment. * Indicates imputed statewide average.
Please review for accuracy. Print your name and phone number. Fax to (703) 684-3417.
Name: Phone:
7ursdgp, July 28, 1998
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
% ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE LAW FIRM OF LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON TO PROVIDE SPECIAL
SERVICES PERTAINING TO EMPLOYMENT RELATION MATTERS
PREPARED BY
EXPLANATION
Roger De
DEPARTMENT
Personnel
The proposed action would extend for a tenth year the Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy &
Frierson under which that firm is retained for assistance on employee relation matters. The
previous Agreement expiredonAugust 31, 1998. The -new contractyear°wouid run from
September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999.
Under the proposed Agreement, similar services would be provided at no increase in
retainer costs. Funds are budgeted in the 1998-99 budget.
This service has proven to be highly effective and useful during the previous term of the
Agreement by providing City access as needed to a labor relations legal specialist who is
familiar with National City.
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
Total fee of $20,000 is budgeted.
001-4(19 000 213
Account o /
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No 98-111
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Agreement
A-2 0 (Re.. 9/801
RESOLUTION NO. 98-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON TO PROVIDE
SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES PERTAINING
TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MATTERS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that the
City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the law firm of
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON to provide special legal services pertaining to
employee relations matters. Said agreement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of September, 1998.
George H. Waters, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Georgef."
iser
, III
City Attorney
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
6033 West Century Boulevard, Suite 601
Los Angeles, California 90045-6410
tel 310-645-6492 fax 310-337-0837
email Idla@aoi.com
49 Stevenson Saecr. Suite 1050
Sul Francisco, C.aifomo 94105-2909
td 415-546-6100 fax 415-546-6831
email Inif@aoi.com
September 1, 1998
Mr. Torn McCabe
City Manager
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
Re: Agreement for Special Services
Tow'
Dear Mr--MeC—abe:
r„r-r . sr r. r'r"p
r.t
r.f I: 47
L CITY
Enclosed please find an Agreement for Special Services between the City of National City
and our Firm. Please have the Agreementexecuted and return a signed copy to this office for our
records.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
Enclosure
By
4/7,d//7-
Melanie M. of tunca
Managing Partner
A Professional law Corporation
ANNUAL RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into this
day of , 1998, between the
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, A Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City") and the law firm of
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON, A Professional Corporation (hereinafter "Attorney").
WHEREAS City desires to retain expert representation and consulting services to assist
City in its relations and negotiations with its employee organizations; and
WHEREAS Attorney is specially experienced and qualified to perform the services desired
by the City and is willing to perform such services:
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Attorney agree as follows:
1. At the direction of the City Manager, or his/her designee(s), Attorney shall perform
for the City all necessary and reasonable services relating to employer -employee organization
relations and employment relations, including the providing of expert advice to the City Council
and City Manager or their designee(s), representing City in negotiations with employee
organizations, the drafting of Memorandums of Understanding, planning, reporting and study
sessions with City Management, and assistance in administering Memorandums of Understanding
and personnel ordinances and rules.
2. For Attorney's aforesaid services performed under this Agreement. City snail pay
Attorney an annual retainer fee of $20,000 for one bargaining unit negotiation. Said fee is payable
as follows; Five Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($5,700.00) upon the effective date hereof,
and eleven (11) monthly payments of One Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($1,300.001 on or
before the first day of each month during the balance of the term hereof, commencing September
1, 1998; plus necessary costs and expenses as authorized by the City: provided however. the City
may, at its option, compensate Attorney for additional unit negotiations at the hourly rates
provided for under paragraph 3 below. Said fees shall be payable on the fifteenth day of each
month during the term hereof commencing on the effective date of this agreement.
3. Representation in connection with administrative hearings and court proceedings
are not covered under the basic services hereunder. Attorney shall, upon request of the City.
provide such representation at the rate of between One Hundred Thirty -Five and One Hundred
Ninety -Five Dollars ($135.00 - $195.00) per hour for the actual time such representation services
are rendered, plus necessary costs and expenses authorized by the City.
4. The term of this Agreement is twelve months, commencing September 1, 1998.
through August 31, 1999. The term may be extended for additional periods of time by the written
consent of the parties.
5. It is understood and agreed by the parties that Attorney is and shall remain an
independent contractor under this Agreement.
The parties have caused this Agreement to be executed and to be effective the day and year
first above written.
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
A Professional Corporation A Municipal Corporation
By
By
MEETING DATE
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
September 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
1 ITEM TITLE
PREPARED BY
Resolution Changing the Name of 24t Street Between National City Boulevard and
Interstate 5, and between Interstate 5 and Terminal Avenue
Michael Bouse, Director
DEPARTMENT
Building & Safety Department
EXPLANATION.
At the September 1, 1998, City Council meeting, the Council approved changing the name of 24t Street
between National City Boulevard and Interstate 5 to "Mile -of -Cars Way," and between Interstate 5 and
Terminal Avenue to "Bay Marina Way." This resolution formalizes Council action regarding the name
change.
Environmental Review X N/A
Financial Statement
Account No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below)
Resolution.
Resolution No. 98-112
RESOLUTION NO. 98 — 112
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CHANGING
THE NAME OF 24'$ STREET BETWEEN NATIONAL
CITY BOULEVARD AND INTERSTATE 5 TO "MILE -
OF -CARS WAY" AND BETWEEN INTERSTATE 5
AND 111L BAY TO "BAY MARINA WAY"
WHEREAS, on September 1, 1998, the City Council held a pubic hearing to
consider changing the name of 24th Street between National City Boulevard and Interstate 5 to
"Mile -of -Cars Way" and between Interstate 5 and the bay to "Bay Marina Way"; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council received and considered
oral and documentary evidence concerning the proposed name change
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
National City that, effective the date that the area code for National City is to be changed,
(tentatively scheduled for June 10, 2000), the name of 24th Street between National City
Boulevard and Interstate 5 is to be changed to "Mile -of -Cars Way" and between Interstate 5
and the bay to "Bay Marina Way".
PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of September, 1998.
George H. Waters, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 1998 AGENDA ITEM NO 5
ITEM TITLE WARRANT REGISTER #10
PREPARED BY ROBERT A. RABAGO DEPARTMENT FINANCE
EXPLANATION.
Ratification of Warrant Register #10
per Government Section Code 37208.
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
N/A
Account No.
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
I recommend ratification of these warrants for a total
of $117,700.66
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No
1. Warrant Register #10
A-200 (Re.,. 9/80'
TO:
City of National City
Department of Finance
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950-4397
(619) 336-4267
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MARIA L. MATIENZO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF WARRANTS AND/OR PAYROLL
REGISTER NC. 10
GENERAL FUND
.�17 � -<_.� FUND
TB -. RY. FUND
PAP JS MAINTENANCE FUN
P.ET I ^D ' CiJ, .1 FUND
P.O.S-T. FUND
SEWER
SERVICE
FUND
STATE', PUBLIC LIBRARY
GRANT -NC SUPPR. Or DR
LI2a2,r,'C COPnJ1r.n CENT
44,452.03
49.24
43.79
4,334.77
3,311.09
478.11
12.02
3,21S.53
J . 2
GRANT-C.D.B.G. 104.93
CDC PAYMENTS 5,065.89
TDA 53,572.40
FACILITIES M'AINT FUND 402.45
LIABILITY INS. FUND 986.0C
GENERAL SERVICES
iITCES FUND 1 r
INFORMATION r.TT.,T,T �S, � -
LN[' ..0 aLSJ.,.iLJ b�ni.V l��L`v . oo �f:
MOTOR VnirLLV S. FUN /
Tlm 7 THAT nnT{T tinn T7 T Tr.T1n n„r1 TV
_ � ..,1 __ THAT THE J�.'IL-'_,! rIv is,5' Ti _D _ C.�:J i_ -_ :D..
A)"�T+t- NUMBER", ) 51 TH . i ,1 , T,n
�.. __ _ 1�Ui. L': �. _�i'�: J.� L1"i i{�i' �--:1 i'.1i.i_ �..t�� ,TvL:
EXCEPT-INC
NONE
AT-RE C S.S.r _ AND JUST TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND CONFORM TO THE
T ITTSC YEAR TEAT i(^ TT_ TTT l E T
�_- THE 1Vl�i�y 1L,ALc Ally _.•CV t'l`...� i -�. ID is ID l.-,n Gins
THE 77 7 rTTJ'" ?gyp 7 M_T NTr.
£5455 _ _ii t i'.. PAY 0fl DEMANDS.
ALYLJ.
{
`x� Rec}ded Paper
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 151998
AGENDA ITEM NO 6
ITEM TITLE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: San Diego Gas & Electric
PREPARED BY Michael R. Dalla DEPARTMENT City Clerk
EXPLANATION_
The claim of San Diego Gas & Electric arises from an occurrence on July 3, 1998
and was filed with the City Clerk's Office on August 17, 1998
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
N/A
Account No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deny the claim, and refer to the City Attorney.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No
A-200 (Rev. ,/BOl
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR AN INDOOR BAZAAR WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1320
HIGHLAND AVENUE. APPLICANT: KYE CHUAN CHU CASE FILE NO. CUP-1998-5
PREPARED BY R. San os Assistant Planner DEPARTMENT Planning
EXPLANATION.
City Council denied the application at a public hearing held on September 1, 1998. Adopting this
resolution will finalize Council's action
Environmental Review
Financial Statement
X N/A
N/A
Account No.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution. ?jf�
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Ni A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below)
Resolution
Resolution No 98-113
RESOLUTION NO. 98_113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY,
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AN
INDOOR BAZAAR WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
AT 1320 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT:. KYE CHUAN CHU
CASE FILE NO.: CUP-1998-5
WHEREAS, the appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's denial of a Condi-
tional Use Permit application (CUP-1998-5) was considered by the City Council of the City of National
City at a public hearing held on September 1, 1998, at which time oral and documentary evidence was
presented; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report contained in Case
File Nos. CUP-1998-5, which is maintained by the City, and incorporated herein by reference, and,
WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State and City
law; and.
WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public
health, safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City, Cali-
fornia, that the testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on Sep-
tember 1, 1998 fail to support findings, required by the Municipal Code for granting any conditional use
permit, that the proposed use will not have an adverse effect on adjacent or abutting properties, and that
the proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City, California, that
the testimony and evidence presented to City Council at the public hearing held on September 1, 1998
support the following findings:
1. That the proposed use will have an adverse effect on adjacent or abutting properties in that it fails to
support General Plan policies which encourage high -quality retail business development, seek to
improve the diversity and quality of the City's economic environment, and promote preservation
and strengthening of existing commercial uses.
2. That the proposed use is not deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare,
since it is expected to result in an over -concentration of substantially similar uses; and the
applicant's lack of relevant business experience and failure to abide by City regulations in
establishing the proposed use demonstrates a lack of management expertise.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
Resolution No. 98-113
Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies Conditional Use Permit
application no. CUP-1998-5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day
following the City Council meeting where the resolution is adopted. The time within which judicial re-
view of this decision may be sought is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of September, 1998
GEORGE H. WATERS, MAYOR
AT LEST:
MICHAEL R. DALLA, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GEORGE H. EISER, III -CITY ATTORNEY
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
September 15, 1998
MEETING DATE
AGENDA ITEM NO 8
AtRWG A RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SAN DIEGO GRAND JURY 1997-1998 REPORT
-"SAN DIEGO BAY POLLUTION MITIGATION: A TAXPAYER'S VIEWPOINT"
PREPARED BY BURT MYERS
DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING
EXPLANATION.
On June24th,1998 the City of National City received a Report from the Grand
Jury titled "San Diego Bay Pollution Mitigation: a Taxpayer's Viewpoint",
(copy of the report is attached). The Penal Code of California, Section
933(c) requires comment on the findings and recommendations in the report
within 90 days of the filing of the report. Attached to this report is a
response letter to the Grand Jury responding to their findings and
recommendations.
X
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
ccount No.
STAFF ' E 0 MENDA 100 / ' ' IY
A.op e •eso •--..r.vingg the C ty of National City response to
the San Diego Grand Jury 1997-1998 Report - San Diego Bay Pollution
Mitigation: A Taxpayer's Viewpoint.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below)
1. Resolution
2. Grand Jury Report -San Diego Bay Pollution Mitigation, a Taxpayer's
Viewpoint
3. Response letter
\ sdbp
Resolution No 98-114
A-200 (Rev. 9/80)
RESOLUTION NO. 98 — 114
RESOLUTION OF 1HE CITY COUNCIL
OF 111E CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE
TO 111E REPORT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1998, the City received a copy of the San Diego
County Grand Jury 1997-1998 Report entitled "San Diego's Bay Pollution Mitigation: A
Taxpayer's Viewpoint"; and
WHEREAS, . Section 933 (b) of the California Penal Code provides that no
longer than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of a public
agency subject to its reviewing authority, the mayor and governing body of the public agency
shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
National City does hereby approve the Mayor and City Council's response to the San Diego
County 1997-1998 Report, and directs that said response be sent to the Presiding Judge of the
San Diego County Superior Court, and that said response shall be filed with the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOYTEI) this 15th' day of September, 1998.
George H. Waters, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George H. Eiser, III
City Attorney
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF SAN CIEGO
320 West Srcacway Suite 477
San Dreco CA 92101-3820
:519) 515-8707
519)515-8596 FAX
James F. Kelly, Jr., Foreman
June 19. 1998
Mayor and Counciimembers
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City. CA 91950-4397
CONFIDENTIAL
RE: San Diego County Grand .Jury 1997-1998 Report "San Diego Bay Pollution
Mitigation: A Taxpayer's Viewpoint"
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The San Diego County Grand Jury 1997-1998 herewith provides the referenced report for your
review and comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code of California §933(c). This report was prepared pursuant to y925 and yy925a of the Penal
Code.
In accordance with Penal Code §933.05(e). a copy of this report is being provided to affected
agencies two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that §933.05(e) specifies that no officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report
prior to its public release. This report will be filed with the County Clerk and released to the
public prior to June 30. 1998.
Sincerely.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 1997-1998
/
AN1r3 F. KELLY. JR.
Foreman
Tom G. NLLCabe. City .Alanauer
SAN DIEGO BAY POLLUTION MITIGATION:
A TAXPAYER'S VIEWPOINT
Synopsis
Pollution of San Diego Bay is monitored and controlled bv scores of governmert:a_. __-
governmental and private entities acting under a multiplicity of federal_ state and local laws.
authority, financial responsibility and accountability are poorly defined. In many instances :fit
various entities have interests perceived to conflict with the goal of pollution mitigation. The --_
ten years have produced repeated planning and integration efforts with little progress :c . - _
quantifying the problem and identifying cost-effective actions. Some progress certainly has
made, usually in areas that are politically sensitive, rather -than as part of a rational plan. '—
control of pollution of San Diego Bay comes under an accountable lead agency with au:h -
systems management and technical expertise. progress is likely to continue at a disappo r---,_ , _=
Background
The 1997-98 San Diego County Grand Jury perceives the pollution of San Diego Bay to be a ma-
of civil concern to fellow citizens. At the onset of its term the Grand Jury possessed a limit
awareness of the existing mechanisms for control of the water quality of San Diego Bay.T.-here-fire.
the study approach adopted was to examine. from the perspective of taxpayers who hire or
officials to solve problems. he results of governmental activities. Until forty years age.
token (and generally unsuccessful) measures. San Diego Bay was used as an open sewer.
1950s, tens of millions of gallons per day of untreated domestic and industrial '.va_:es
discharged into the bay. Red tide blooms caused by eutrophication were so severe du-ns
summer months that the water ir.:he bay sometimes turned red. Bonds for the S6u -�-
Diego Metropolitan Se\vase System were approved in 1960 and domestic sewage discharge
bay was discontinued by 196=. \Vastewater treatment has produced dramatic improvement in
quality of water in the bay.
Inyestigation
To examine the acnvt,._= an accomplishments of civil off'....als in :his area. in.eres
and outside .of acverr.-.-.en: were ...ter -viewed. Officials of the oilo«in_
personally :rater :owed:
San Die,,o County Grand ,tury 1007-l00S. Final Report (June 30. looS1
a. Caiifbr is Regional Water Control Board
b. City of San Diego. Stormwater Pollution Control Program
c. County of San Diego. Department of Environmental Health
d. San Diego [nreragency: Water Quality Panel
e. U.S. Coast Guard
�. Press accounts and relevant documentation were revie.ved, including:
a. Five Year Action Plan for a Clean San Diego Baca. Port of San Diego. 1995.
b. US Code. Title 33. Article 1251.
c. Letter. Executive Officer of San Diego RWQCB to Executive Director. San Diego
Unified
`Port District. dated June 18, 1997.
d. Comprehensive Management Plan. San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel,
December 10, 1997.
e. Court Hie. California Coastal Commission v. United States .Vavv, civil case 97CV 2219,
filed December 11, 1997 in United States District Court for Southern District of
California.
f. Court file. National Resources Defense Council. San Diego BayKeener, Kenneth J.
Moser California Department of Transportation, civil case 96-1440-LEG, filed August
19, 1996 in United States District Court for Southern District of California.
g San Diego Bay, An Environmental P7zite Paper, commissioned by San Diego Port
Tenants Association. Science Applications International Corporation. February 1998.
h. San Diego Bay 1989.'90 Report. San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel. December
1990
San Diego Bay 199d Annual Report. San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel. June
1994.
j. TMDL Committee Report on the ?05("j) Waste Load Models (approved 9 19'971. San
Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel.
k. San Diego Bay Coordinated Monitoring Program Framework. draft 12112(97. Technical
Advisor; Committee. San Diego Interagency Water Quaiirr Panel.
1. John L. Largier, San Diego Bay Circulation. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. July
199 .
m. Va[kirs. Seligman. Grovhoug. Fransham. Davidson. Kean. C.S. .Vavr Statutory
_Llonitor:n. of Tribur:itin in Selected US Harbors. Naval Command. Control &I Ocean
Surveillance, Center. San Diego. CA, March ' 99=.
n. Dee::n_ s C.airornia Codes. Harbors arncl.Va:igat.c=n, articie 110.
1 I Q l Y] CT g s 1 7
o. Comer.::ar Center De�.�.cztertrr� .h'istot-. ,.ncl.-Ilia. r. �^�.e,. Port of San Die�_o..-�u_�..�t .
1cO-.
.=stuar . San Francisco Estu Prole .. - I uu,
San Diego Count. Grand .Jury 1007-1908. Final Report .June 30. 19 98)
118
:s. :. al., .5tc:f1L; and' Ti L'N(i:: i?cn iir! ,JII e i(:iaLlillS a.' 1%!C .SciII :71,111 :.
Prepared by the aquatic Habitat institute for the Son Francisco Estuary
Environmental Protection Ale:,cv. San Francisco. 1991.
r. Lotter_: ;tall oliorl no iund a cloanup:aide of S.D. Bar. The San Dlczo�r_.
March 9. 1905.
s. Letter. Executive Director. industrial Environmental Association to Secret: n
Environmental Protection Agency dated March 2. 1995.
t. Letter. President. San Diego Port Tenants Association to Secretary for En
Protection, California Environmental Protection Agency dated March 3. _
u. Letter. Chairman, Mayor's Tidelands Advisory Council. City of San D
Wilson. Governor, State of California. dated February 27. 1995.
v. Proposed Regional Toxic Hot Soot Cleanup Plan. Regional Water Qua
Board.. San Diego Region. draft dated December 19, 1997.
Findings
Prior to the federal Clean Water Ac: of 1972. wastewater treatment was the
coastal water pollution control efforts. The Clean Water Act expressed the -
electorate to improve dramatically the duality of our coastal waters. In_ _= _
number of pollutants controlled and expansion of coverage to store. water =_-__.__
immensely complicated the regulator: process.
Stated as national policy in the Clean Water Act is that implementation shall et- _=ora_e
the minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures so is:_ -re e._t
needless duplication and unnecessa-: delays at all levels of government.
the Grand Jury views the imp semenradon mechanisms of this Act as replete
resource allocation, poorly defined responsibility and little accountability -- _
multiplicity of governmental agencies. The Grand Jury is not critical of -7- eimgrient
employees, who were generally found dedicated and ambitious: it is critical
they must follow.
Storm water discharges to coastal waters of San Diego County are controlled
permit system (2N,TDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
the federal Clean Water Act and ad---''- tered b`. the San Diego Regional
Control Board (RWQCBI. created .d the state Porter -Cologne Water Qua:::_
Act. For the most part. per --::.,.es are self -monitored and report :he.. ;re-:::.
to the RWQCB. The Grand __ .s of the opinion that permittees have :1_7
conflict of interest in :heir re._.........1:.h the RWQCB. That is to t..e_e
permiCees are to . arvinc motivated to make accor modal
environmental interestsand econo....; Pei -mine -es have a n::t:rai
San Die;o County Grand Jury 1i10--I008. Final Report (June 30. 1908
hobo,.e so as to-avoiu gistocnons or the status .tuo.potential,:. would subject thorn
to Increased operat:n_c or capttai costs. On occasion. permitteeS ,lave tended to become
over -zealous in their tradeoffs. The Grand Jury believes one obvious way per..ittees can
presen c the status uuo is -^tnimai cooperation with the RWOCB.
The San Diego Bay watershed lies completely within San Diego County. Activities
related to bay water quality involve a large number of governmental agencies. quasi -
governmental agencies and private organizations. The San Diego Interagency Water
Quality Panel (Bay Pane!) was established by legislation (AB 158) in 1987 and sunsetted
at the end of 1997. The Panel consisted of representatives from approximately 32
organizations. One of the requirements of this legislation was the development of a
comprehensive management plan for San Diego Bay. The Comprehensive Management
Plan appears to the Grand jury to be a potpourri of nice things tod°, ass•irled to various
participants, without apparent consideration of priorities, accountability, funding or
completion dates. .der ten years of preparation, the plan seems of questionable use and
therefore tends to perpetuate the status quo. The plan exemplifies many efforts related
to environmental quality, where coordination appears to become an end in itself.
impeding progress toward real goals. Perhaps worse, the Grand Jury perceives that these
governmental: and quasi -governmental agencies have adopted a somewhat bureaucentric
philosophy. resulting in positions which may not be consistent with the best interest of
the public they are chartered to serve.
Currently in the federal courts is a suit (California Coastal Commission v. L. S. navy)
over the disposition of dredgings from San Diego Bay. What the public needs is
governmental agencies that recognize the dominant public interests and negotiate their
individual interests accordingly. What the public does not need are governmental
agencies using expensive court resources to settle their differences. with the taxpayers
paving the legal costs of both sides.
Recently settled was a federal court suit. San Diego Bavkeeper (non-profit organization
supported in this suit by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the
Depar-:tent of Justice) versus California Department of Transportation (Caltran_s),
regarding erosion control practices and storm water runoff containment at construction
sites. :-vile this case never went to trial. the cost to Caltrans dictated by the consent
decree was well over one million dollars. Again. what the public desires are
governmental agencies that recognize the public interest and negotiate their individual
interest_ accordingly
The Grand fur. ....eves control of pollutants in San Diego Bay. can be vie'.,.e as
systems .management problem amenable to auanritative approaches. The concern of a
:ocusea oroa7:Jr, ig . has been suggested a San Diego Bay Envtronmon:ai
San Dien() County. Grand Jury 19Q7-19O8. Filial Report (June 30. 1908)
120
%)Vlutc Paper. To date. the orobi'em seems to na'.e peen pursues :i. :u::::_.-
bureaucrats and lawyers mainly aS a regulatiu.n. Drooiem. rather than be
engineering problem. The Grand Jury belie. es quantitative methods _ co_:' u: _
disctpiine needed to prioritize proposed efforts in an era of limited resources_
pollution problem has not been adequately quantified. rendering objective se_:s:
making difficult.
As far back as 1990, the Bav Panel identified deficiencies in monitoring c
analysis. Under the auspices of the Bay Panel. a three year project was conducted
San Diego Supercomputer Center to create a database of the pollutant measurements
made in San Diego Bay. Funding for the supercomputer activity sunsetted with the B -.
Panel at the end of 1997. The Grand Jury believes the quality of data inputted tc :Ms
database is insufficient to evaluate pollution control projects and may well
compatible with future versions of such a database. Lack of credible knowledge
existing pollutant levels renders difficulties in creating, enforcing, and evaluating
regulations. While the words may be different. the Grand Jury finds it disappointing :ha:
plans generated recently for bay cleanup note :he same deficiencies as plans generated
eight years ago and which persist.
5. Work published by Largier of Scripps institute of Oceanography sug=as trio-:.
depending on location. "tidal flushing for San Diego Bay vary from a ho_rm
to a few weeks. Accordingly, significant reduction of pollutant loads to the Bay
a small number of weeks. produce siarj`-icant reduction of pollutant levels. '-
Daily Maximum Waste Load (TMDL ) Committee report estimates the qua:_ti_ an__
source of two pollutants, copper and poi cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons IP_=__s'.
bay. The Grand Jury believes such studies provide a rational basis for identifyi
projects with greatest potential for major impact on pollutant levels. Unfmnuna:e
similar estimates were not generated for all other important pollutants years =_.
The Grand Jury discovered that more comprehensive estimates of pollutan: loadings
the San Francisco Esn ary were published in 1991 than are, even today, availabie for So-_
Diego Bay. These estimates were generated as an adjunct of the federally funded Sao-
Francisco Estuary Project. Despite unusually diverse support. an effort to include Sari_
Diego Bay in the federally funded National Estuary Program was not pursued to fimintn
in 1995. reportedly because of opposition from three business -oriented group_ over lo:a_
control issues. Appropriately directed.:he funding lost might have made a sign. : _._:
impact on the quar.nwtive knowle.d'_e of bay
pollutant sources. indeed. some e
exists that the then chairman of the Bay Panel ; and also the RWQCB 1 pia- eh - _
much of :he grant money to at:a.source and d:spost:ion of ba_v potlatch:_. Sint
improye'd scientific hata coup: ..,sit.. ... _..:D i'. :den:: lne main: poi____._ - -- .
San Diego County Grand Jury lint--1°US. Fitful Report (June 30. 1998
res tli i:nu political I and legal l pressure to commit resources :o modin. ute:r activities. lac:{
of support by dischargers is not surprising.
The Grand Jury believes a Navy study of -bay tributvitin levels aptly demonstrates the
response of bav pollution to reduction of -pollutant loads. Application of anti -fouling hull
paint based on tributvltin was outlawed on civilian vessels less than d= meters in length
in January. 1988. No Navy ships in San Diego Bay used these products after July. 1990.
The well-conducted study showed significant decreases in levels of the pollutant
compatible with reasonable estimates of the temporal reduction in tributyltin loading.
The Grand Jun: is aware of a significant issue regarding Convention Center dewatering
involving the Port of San Diego and the RegionalWaterQuality Control Board.
Dewatering is the process of removing ground water which seeps into the lower levels
of the Convention Center. While copper is not the only pollutant at issue. the Grand Jury
questions the significance of-20 kg.. year of copper (most of which is background
pollution cycled from the bay back to the bay) in Convention Center effluent as
compared to the 37,000 kg. estimated to be discharged from ail sources to the bay
annually. While the dewatering effluent apparently violates the applicable NPDES
permit. the Grand Jury questions whether this represents a violation to the environment
to be corrected (at substantial cost) or an altercation between government agencies over
a poorly conceived NPDES permit which needs to be modified. The solution
implemented was diversion of substantially bay water to the public wastewater system
at an approximate cost of 3,500.000 per year to the Convention Center. money coming,
at least indirectly, from the taxpayer.
6. The Grand Jury identified several efforts which contribute to the mitigation of coastal
water pollution. Large volumes of petroleum products are handled on and about San
Diego Bay with spills inevitable. The Code for Federal Regulations gives the U. S.
Coast Guard authority to react, as the lead agency, to petroleum spills in U. S. waters.
The Coast Guard has used this authority firmly. but judiciously and proactively, and
achieved notable progress in oil spill abatement. While exempt from Coast Guard
author_n'. the Navy is cooperative and maintains the best clean up equipment available.
The Grand Jun finds the Proposed Regional Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan a compelling
analysis for prioritizing toxic bay sediment areas for mitigation. In an era of limited
funds. studies of this nature should provide a rational basis for identification of the more
reward:fie endeavors.
San Diego Counry Grand Jury 19°--luU8, Final Rrporr t,June 30. 19081
122
Conclusion
Control of water uuality in San Diego Ba', has suffered because of lack of foods of the rrt_ltioiic:ny
of agencies involved. Governmental agencies should a'.vouJ repeated reueheration of Mans for
cleaning up San Diego Bay and _let on with the job. A data base useful for cuantified decision
making does not appear to be on the horizon. Reuulatine governmental agencies should beater
recognize that NPDES oerrnittees will make tradeoffs 'between their economic interests and
environmental interests. The RWQCB needs to more aggressively apply its powers of persuasion
and timely enforcement to fulfill its charter for regulation, protection and administration_ of wale: -
quality. Use of the courts to referee disputes berveen governmental agencies is a failure oI good
government.
Recommendations
San Diego County Government municipalities and the Port Distinct should recommend that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board more aggressively apply its powers of persuasion a^_d timely
enforcement to better fulfill its charter for regulation, protection and administration of :he water
quality of San Diego Bay by:
98-64: Contracting for an accountable prosram manager. independent of permittees. with the
authority and systems management and technical expertise to supervise controi of
pollution of San Diego Bay.
98-65: Developing a data monitoring system to quantitatively assess progress of proarams :o
clean up San Diego Bay. Centralized data collection with an unbiased contractor.
including data related to performance of individual cihould be considered.
The data base should be designed by professionals so as to eliminate the qua
compatibility issues that have plagued previous efforts. Data should be retained
format suitable Ior management and research use in a durable repository such as the
University of California.
98-66: Extending pollutant loading estimates. by the earliest possible time. to all s = :Goan:
pollutants of San Diego Bay.
This study was initiated as an examination of governmental function in the management of
pollution of San Diego Bay. The watershed of San Diego Bay lies :ompieteli. •.vithin San Di:_c
County". While. many agenc:es involved fail under the ' nsdi:::on o: :he Grand Jun'. some do not.
This report is not :arec:ed at the latter acenc:es and no :Cam o ag'_.. 'v'rH^ the
reporting lur:s,;:c::On of the San Diego Count:. Gram' li gaol.', l: ._..
San Die�,o County Grand Jury luu--l°US. Final Reporr (.June 30. log8)
i__
Requirements and Instructions
The Penal Code of California section 933 (c) requires comment on findings and recommendations
in this report no later than 90 days from the date of filing. Comment to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code section 933.05 is required from the:
San Diego Unified Port District
City of Chula Vista
City of Coronado
City of Imperial Beach
City of National City
City of San Diego
Recommendations 98-64. 98-65. 98-66
Recommendations 98-64. 98-65. 98-66
Recommendations 98-64, 98-65. 98-66
Recommendations 98-64. 98-65, 98-66
Recommendations 98-64, 98-65, 98-66
Recommendation 98-64, 98-65, 98-66
San Die2o County Grand Jury 1997-1998. Final Report (June 30. 1998)
124
September 2. 1998
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
County of San Diego
330 West Broadway, Suite 477
San Diego, CA 92101-3830
The City of National City has reviewed the San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report dated June
30, 1998 involving the regulation. protection and administration of the water quality of the San
Diego Bay. In accordance with the requirement to comment on each of the findings. the following
information is being provided.
Finding No. 1
Prior to the federal Clean Water Act of 1972. wastewater treatment was the focus of coastal
water pollution control efforts. The Clean Water Act expressed the will of the electorate to
improve dramatically the quality of our coastal waters. Increase in the number of pollutants
controlled and expansion of coverage to storm water discharge immensely complicated the
regulatory process.
Stated as national policy in the Clean Water Act is that implementation shall encourage the
minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures so as to prevent needless
duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government. Nevertheless. the Grand Jury
views the implementation mechanisms of this Act as replete with vague resource allocation.
poorly defined responsibility and little accountability among a multiplicity of governmental
agencies. The Grand Jury is not critical of government employees. who were generally found
dedicated and ambitious; it is critical of policies they must follow.
The City of National City agrees with this finding. Unfortunately. the Clean Water Act was
another legislative action in a series of unfunded mandates by the Federal Governments.
Finding No.
Storm water discharges to coastal waters of San Diego County are controlled under a permit
system kNPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) created by the federal
Clean Water Act and administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). created by the State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. For the most
1
part. permittees are self -monitored and report their monitoring data to the RWQCB. The
Grand Jury is of the opinion that permittees have an inherent conflict of interest in their
relations with the RWQCB. That is to say, these NPDES permittees are to varying degrees
motivated to make accommodations among environmental interests and economic interests.
Permittees have a natural inclination to behave so as to avoid disruptions of the status quo.
which potentially would subject them to increased operating or capital costs. On occasion.
permittees have tended to become over -zealous in their tradeoffs. The Grand Jury believes
one obvious way permittees can preserve the status quo is minimal cooperation with the
RWQCB.
The City of National City agrees with this finding, however, it should be pointed out that
National City along with all of the other Cities in San Diego County. the County of San
Diego, and the Port District have been co-permittee to the NPDES permit since 1990. The
original permit expired in 1995. and the group is still operating on an approved extension.
Finding No. 3
The San Diego Bay watershed lies completely within San Diego County. Activities related
to bay water quality involve a large number of governmental agencies. quasi -governmental
agencies and private organizations. The San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel (Bay
Panel) was established by legislation (AB 158) in 1987 and sunsetted at the end of 1997.
The Panel consisted of representatives from approximately 32 organizations. One of the
requirements of this legislation was the development of a comprehensive management plan
for San Diego Bay. The Comprehensive Plan appears to the Grand Jury to be potpourri of
nice things to do, assigned to various participants. without apparent consideration of
priorities. accountability, funding or completion dates. After ten years of preparation. the
plan seems of questionable use and therefore tends to perpetuate the status quo. The plan
exemplifies many efforts related to environmental quality, where coordination appears to
become an end in itself. impeding progress toward real goals. Perhaps worse, the Grand Jury
perceives that these governmental and quasi -governmental agencies have adopted a
somewhat bureaucentric philosophy, resulting in positions which may not be consistent with
the best interest of the public they are chartered to serve.
Currently in the federal courts is a suit (California Coastal Commission v. U.S. Navy) over
the disposition of dredging from San Diego Bay. W nat the public needs is governmental
agencies that recognize the dominant public interest and negotiate their individual interest
accordingly. What the public does not need are governmental agencies using expensive court
resources to settle their differences. with the taxpayers paying the legal costs of both sides.
Recently settled was a federal court suit. San Diego Bay Keeper (non-profit organization
supported in this suit by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Justice) versus California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), regarding erosion
control practices and storm water runoff containment at construction sites. While this case
never went to trial, the cost to Caltrans dictated by the consent decree was wei: = •. er one
million dollars. Again. what the public desires are governmental agencies that reco _raze he
public interest and negotiate their individual interests accordingly.
The City of National City basically agrees with this finding, however. it does nct agree
entirely with the finding that the Courts should not be used in certain areas of dispute
between agencies.
Finding No. 4
The Grand Jury believes control of pollutants in San Diego Bay can be viewed as a systems
management problem amendable to quantitive approaches. The concept of a focused
"program manager" has been suggested in a San Diego Bay Environmental Waite Parser. To
date, the problem seems to have been pursued by politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers mainly
as a regulation problem, rather than by technocrats as an engineering problem.T_e Grand
Jury believes quantitive methods encourage a discipline needed to prioritize proposed efforts
in an era of limited resources. The pollution problem has not been adequately c._^_tified.
rendering objective decision making difficult.
As far back as 1990. the Bay Panel identified deficiencies in monitoring and data =nalys s.
Under the auspices of the Bay Panel. a three year project was conducted by the San Diego
supercomputer Center to create a database of the pollutant measurements made in San Diego
Bay. Funding for the supercomputer activity sunsetted with the Bay Panel a: __e end of
1997. The Grand Jury believes the quality of data imputed to this database is insufficient _o
evaluate pollution control projects and may well not be compatible with future versions of
such a database. Lack of credible knowledge of existing pollutant levels renders difficulties
in creating, enforcing, and evaluating regulations. While the words may be different. the
Grand Jury finds it disappointing that plans generated recently for bay cleanup note to same
deficiencies as plans generated eight years ago and which persist.
The City of National City agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 5
Work published by Largier of Scripps Institute of Oceanography suggests that. dependng on
location. "tidal flushing times" for San Diego Bay vary from a few hours to a fey,- ..vee. s.
Accordingly, significant reduction of pollutant loads to the Bay will. in small number of
weeks. produce significantly reduction of pollutant levels. The Total Daily Maximum Waste
Load (TDMWL 1 Committee report estimates the quantity and source of two pol:utants.
copper and polycvclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). to the bay. The Grand Jury believes
such studies provide a rational basis for identifying those projects with greatest potential :or
major impact on pollutant levels. Unfortunately. similar estimates were not generated for l
other important pollutants years ago.
The Grand Jury discovered that more comprehensive estimates of pollutant loadings to the
San Francisco Estuary were published in 1991 than are. even today, available for San Diego
Bay. These estimates were generated as an adjunct of the federally funded San Francisco
Estuary Project. Despite unusually diverse support. an effort to include San Diego Bay in
the federally funded National Estuary Program was not pursued to fruition in 1995.
reportedly because of opposition from three business -oriented groups over local control
issues. Appropriately directed, the funding lost might have made a significant impact on
the quantative knowledge of bay pollutant sources. Indeed, some evidence exists that the
then chairman of the Bay panel (and also the RWQCB) planned to use much of the grant
money to quantify the source and disposition of bay pollutants. Since improved scientific
data could result in credibly identifying major polluters with resulting political (and legal)
pressure to commit resources to modify their activities, lack of support by dischargers is not
surprising.
The Grand Jury believes a Navy study of bay tributyltin levels aptly demonstrates the
response of bay pollution to reduction of pollutant loads. Application of anti -fouling hull
paint based on tributyltin was outlawed on civilian vessels less than 25 meters in length in
January. 1988. No Navy ships in San Diego Bay used these products after July. 1990. The
well-conducted study showed significant decreases in levels of the pollutant compatible with
reasonable estimates of the temporal reduction in tributyltin loading.
The Grand Jury is aware of a significant issue regarding Convention Center dewatering
involving the Port of San Diego and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Dewaterina
is the process of removing ground water which seeps into the lower levels of the Convention
Center. While copper is not the only pollutant at issue. the Grand Jury questions the
significance of 20 kg.iyear of copper (most of which is background pollution cycled from the
bay back to the bay) in Convention Center effluent as compared to the 37.000 kg. Estimated
to be discharged from all sources to the bay annually. While the dewatering effluent
apparently violates the applicable NPDES permit. the Grand Jury questions whether this
represents a violation to the environment to be corrected (at substantial cost) or an altercation
between government agencies over a poorly conceived NPDES permit which needs to be
modified. The solution implemented was diversion of substantially bay water to the public
wastewater system at an approximate cost of S500.000 per year to the Convention Center,
with the money coming. at least indirectly. from the taxpayer.
The City of National City agrees with this finding. However, it would be difficult for
National City to substantiate the above technical data. since the City does not have its own
data base.
Finding No. 6
The Grand Jury identified several efforts which contribute to the mitigation of coastal water
pollution. Large volumes of petroleum products are handled on and about San Diego Bay
4
with spills inevitable. The Code for Federal Re<aulations gives the U.S. Coast •oard
authority to react. as the lead agency. to petroleum spills in U.S. waters. The Cos: card
has used this authority firmly. but judiciously and proactively. and achieved notable 7'72 Zr.ess
in oil spill abatement. While exempt from Coast Guard authority. the Navy is coc-era: ve
and maintains the best clean up equipment available.
The Grand Jury finds the Proposed Regional Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan a con_-eiiing
analysis for prioritizing toxic bay sediment areas for mitigation. In an era of limited funds.
studies of this nature should provide a rational basis for identification of the more re-:: _ding
endeavors.
The City of National City agrees with this finding.
Conclusion
Control of water quality in San Diego Bay has suffered because of lack of focus of the mu'
of agencies involved. Governmental agencies should avoid repeated regeneration of nia=: for
cleaning up San Diego Bay and get on with the job. A data base useful for quantified decision
making does not appear to be on the horizon. Regulating government agencies should
recognize that NPDES permittees will make tradeoffs between their economic intere__ and
environmental interests. The RWQCB needs to more aggressively apply its powers of per=_s:on
and timely enforcement to fulfill its charter for regulation, protection and administration of -.vale:-
quality. Use of the courts to- referee disputes between governmental agencies is a failure of :cod
government.
The City of National City agrees with the Grand Jury Conclusion, with the following oo r-en:s.
In 1990 the City of National City joined with the other Cities in San Diego County, the.Co=7: of
San Diego and the Port District as a party to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Conic: card
NPDES Permit. Since that time we have participated in all of the County wide programs ed
under the NPDES permit. These programs have ranged from Dry/Wet testing, to public e —"on
campaigns. The initial permit expired in 1995 and an extension was issued, which is still
In order to fund the City's share of the permit and program costs, a fee was added to the sewer bails.
This fee has raised approximately S25.000 per year. In order to better maintain and clean :1 e
existing street gutters. an additional S145.000 of gas tax funds have been allocated for a ne•.- _:_eet
sweeper in this Year's Capital Improvement Program Budget.
National City is in a strange position where we do not have control over the storm water ou: e= _mo
the San Diego Bay. All of the storm water outlets into the San Diego Bay are either conrroi.ed
the Port of San Diego or by the Na\-v. . National City is also a pass through city. meaning :bat -cut
of the contaminants which are found in the bay have come from the undeveloped art -Ls. Dr
agricultural areas outside of the boundaries of National City.
For many years. National City has had an active program for street sweeping. and we have been
conducting extensive programs on illegal dumping into the catch basins. Most of the catch basins
have been stenciled with "No Dumping "I Live Down Stream" a physical reminder to anyone
contemplating dumping illegal substances into the catch basin that they may cause damage to the San
Diego Bay, and its wild life. National City has also been responding, via complaints. of any illegal
dumping into the catch basins. and or into the streams. We have also been involved in the Dry and
Wet weather testing programs.
Presently, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board is in the process of determining whether the
San Diego County Region should depart from a County wide control approach and use a watershed
approach. The watershed approach consists of physically determining the geographical perimeter
of the area which drains into the San Diego Bay. Those political entities which lie inside the
perimeter of the area become the responsible parties to the cleanup action. The City would prefer
the watershed approach as long as all of the County co-permittees continue to pay their pro -rated
share (since all of the County is under one permit). The first target for San Diego County under a
watershed approach appears to be the watershed which drains into the San Diego Bay.
Initially under the original NPDES Permit there was one County wide group which was spearheaded
by Robert Cain of the City of San Diego. Under the watershed appraoch. a second group is being
foiuied under the Unified Port District. with Ruth Kolb as the spokesperson (this group would be
known as the San Diego Bay Watershed group). National City has been working with both groups.
In conclusion the Grand Jury came up with the following recommendations.
San Diego County Government municipalities and the Port District should recommend that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board more aggressively apply its powers of persuation and timely
enforcement to better fulfill its charter for regulation. protection and administration of the water
quality of San Diego Bay by:
Recommendation 98-64:
Contracting for an accountable program manager, independent of permittees. with the
authority and systems management and technical expertise to supervise control of pollution
of San Diego Bay.
The City of National City agrees with this recommendation. However. it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation. since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
Recommendation 9$-6-:
Developing a data monitoring system to quantitatively assess progress of programs to clean
up San Diego Bay. Centralized data collection with an unbiased contractor, including data
6
related to performance of individual permirtees. should be considered. The data base should
be designed by professionals so as to eliminate the quality and compatibility issues that have
plagued previous efforts. Data should be retained in a format suitable for management and
research use in a durable repository such as the University of California.
The City of National City agrees with this recommendation. However, it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation. since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
Recommendation 98-66:
Extending pollutant loading estimates. by the earliest possible time. to all significant
polllultants of San Diego Bay.
The City ofNational City agrees with this recommendation. However. it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation. since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
What is the future direction of the program? I don't think the City of National City has a whole lot
to say about it. National City is basically a pass through City, with no control on the storm water
outlets into the bay. The City of National City has always been supportive of cleaning up the San
Diego Bay. The San Diego Bay is one of the most important assets in the Community. however. we
want the process to be done fairly with everyone paying their fair share.
If you need any additional information. please contact the City Engineer, Burt Myers. at 619 336-
43 80.
Mayor George Waters
iun
Office of the Mayor
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-4230
George H. Waters - Mayor
September 10. 1998
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
County of San Diego
330 West Broadway, Suite 477
San Diego, CA 92101-3830
The City of National City has reviewed the San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report dated June
30. 1998 involving the regulation, protection and administration of the water quality of the San
Diego Bay. In accordance with the requirement to comment on each of the findings, the following
information is being provided.
Finding No. 1
Prior to the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, wastewater treatment was the focus of coastal
water pollution control efforts. The Clean Water Act expressed the will of the electorate to
improve dramatically the quality of our coastal waters. Increase in the number of pollutants
controlled and expansion of coverage to storm water discharge immensely complicated the
regulatory process.
Stated as national policy in the Clean Water Act is that implementation shall encourage the
minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures so as to prevent needless
duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury
views the implementation mechanisms of this Act as replete with vague resource allocation.
poorly defined responsibility and little accountability among a multiplicity of governmental
agencies. The Grand Jury is not critical of government employees, who were generally found
dedicated and ambitious; it is critical of policies they must follow.
The City of National City agrees with this finding. Unfortunately. the Clean Water Act was
another legislative action in a series of unfunded mandates by the Federal Governments.
Finding No.
Storm water discharges to coastal waters of San Diego County are controlled under a permit
system (NPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) created by the federal
Clean Water Act and administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). created by the State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. For the most
1
part, permittees are self -monitored and report their monitoring data to the RWQCB. The
Grand Jury is of the opinion that permittees have an inherent conflict of interest in their
relations with the RWQCB. That is to say, these NPDES permittees are to varying degrees
motivated to make accommodations among environmental interests and economic interests.
Permittees have a natural inclination to behave so as to avoid disruptions of the status quo.
which potentially would subject them to increased operating or capital costs. On occasion.
permittees have tended to become over -zealous in their tradeoffs. The Grand Jury believes
one obvious way permittees can preserve the status quo is minimal cooperation with the
RWQCB.
The City of National City agrees with this finding, however, it should be pointed out that
National City along with all of the other Cities in San Diego County, the County of San
Diego, and the Port District have been co-permittee to the NPDES permit since 1990. The
original permit expired in 1995, and the group is still operating on an approved extension.
Finding No. 3
The San Diego Bay watershed lies completely within San Diego County. Activities related
to bay water quality involve a large number of governmental agencies, quasi -governmental
agencies and private organizations. The San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel ( Bay
Panel) was established by legislation (AB 158) in 1987 and sunsetted at the end of 1997.
The Panel consisted of representatives from approximately 32 organizations. One of the
requirements of this legislation was the development of a comprehensive management plan
for San Diego Bay. The Comprehensive Plan appears to the Grand Jury to be potpourri of
nice things to do, assigned to various participants. without apparent consideration of
priorities, accountability, funding or completion dates. After ten years of preparation. the
plan seems of questionable use and therefore tends to perpetuate the status quo. The plan
exemplifies many efforts related to environmental quality, where coordination appears to
become an end in itself, impeding progress toward real goals. Perhaps worse, the Grand Jury
perceives that these governmental and quasi -governmental agencies have adopted a
somewhat bureaucentric philosophy, resulting in positions which may not be consistent with
the best interest of the public they are chartered to serve.
Currently in the federal courts is a suit (California Coastal Commission v. U.S. Navy } over
the disposition of dredging from San Diego Bay. R mat the public needs is governmental
agencies that recognize the dominant public interest and negotiate their individual interest
accordingly. What the public does not need are governmental agencies using expensive court
resources to settle their differences. with the taxpayers paying the legal costs of both sides.
Recently settled was a federal court suit. San Diego Bay Keeper (non-profit organization
supported in this suit by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Justice) versus California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), regarding erosion
control practices and storm water runoff containment at construction sites. While this case
never went to trial, the cost to Caltrans dictated by the consent decree was well over one
million dollars. Again, what the public desires are governmental agencies that recognize the
public interest and negotiate their individual interests accordingly.
The City of National City basically agrees with this finding, however, it does not agree
entirely with the finding that the Courts should not be used in certain areas of dispute
between agencies.
Finding No. 4
The Grand Jury believes control of pollutants in San Diego Bay can be viewed as a systems
management problem amendable to quantitive approaches. The concept of a focused
"program manager" has been suggested in a San Diego Bay Environmental White Paper. To
date, the problem seems to have been pursued by politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers mainly
as a regulation problem, rather than by technocrats as an engineering problem. The Grand
Jury believes quantitive methods encourage a discipline needed to prioritize proposed efforts
in an era of limited resources. The pollution problem has not been adequately quantified,
rendering objective decision making difficult.
As far back as 1990, the Bay Panel identified deficiencies in monitoring and data analysis.
Under the auspices of the Bay Panel, a three year project was conducted by the San Diego
supercomputer Center to create a database of the pollutant measurements made in San Diego
Bay. Funding for the supercomputer activity sunsetted with the Bay Panel at the end of
1997. The Grand Jury believes the quality of data imputed to this database is insufficient to
evaluate pollution control projects and may well not be compatible with future versions of
such a database. Lack of credible knowledge of existing pollutant levels renders difficulties
in creating. enforcing, and evaluating regulations. While the words may be different, the
Grand Jury finds it disappointing that plans generated recently for bay cleanup note the same
deficiencies as plans generated eight years ago and which persist.
The City of National City agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 5
Work published by Largier of Scripps Institute of Oceanography suggests that, depending on
location. "tidal flushing times" for San Diego Bay vary from a few hours to a few weeks.
Accordingly, significant reduction of pollutant loads to the Bay will, in small number of
weeks. produce significantly reduction of pollutant levels. The Total Daily Maximum Waste
Load (TDvIWL) Committee report estimates the quantity and source of two pollutants.
copper and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), to the bay. The Grand Jury believes
such studies provide a rational basis for identifying those projects with greatest potential for
major impact on pollutant levels. Unfomznately, similar estimates were not generated for all
other important pollutants years ago.
3
The Grand Jury discovered that more comprehensive estimates of pollutant loadings to the
San Francisco Estuary were published in 1991 than are, even today, available for San Diego
Bay. These estimates were generated as an adjunct of the federally funded San Francisco
Estuary Project. Despite unusually diverse support, an effort to include San Diego Bay in
the federally funded National Estuary Program was not pursued to fruition in 1995,
reportedly because of opposition from three business -oriented groups over local control
issues. Appropriately directed, the funding lost might have made a significant impact on
the quantative knowledge of bay pollutant sources. Indeed, some evidence exists that the
then chairman of the Bay panel (and also the RWQCB) planned to use much of the grant
money to quantify the source and disposition of bay pollutants. Since improved scientific
data could result in credibly identifying major polluters with resulting political (and legal)
pressure to commit resources to modify their activities, lack of support by dischargers is not
surprising.
The Grand Jury believes a Navy study of bay tributyltin levels aptly demonstrates the
response of bay pollution to reduction of pollutant loads. Application of anti -fouling hull
paint based on tributyltin was outlawed on civilian vessels less than 25 meters in length in
January, 1988. No Navy ships in San Diego Bay used these products after July, 1990. The
well-conducted study showed significant decreases in levels of the pollutant compatible with
reasonable estimates of the temporal reduction in tributyltin loading.
The Grand Jury is aware of a significant issue regarding Convention Center dewatering
involving the Port of San Diego and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Dewatering
is the process of removing ground water which seeps into the lower levels of the Convention
Center. While copper is not the only pollutant at issue, the Grand Jury questions the
significance of 20 kg./year of copper (most of which is background pollution cycled from the
bay back to the bay) in Convention Center effluent as compared to the 37,000 kg. Estimated
to be discharged from all sources to the bay annually. While the dewatering effluent
apparently violates the applicable NPDES permit, the Grand Jury questions whether this
represents a violation to the environment to be corrected (at substantial cost) or an altercation
between government agencies over a poorly conceived NPDES perurit which needs to be
modified. The solution implemented was diversion of substantially bay water to the public
wastewater system at an approximate cost of $500,000 per year to the Convention Center,
with the money coming, at least indirectly, from the taxpayer.
The City of National City agrees with this finding. However. it would be difficult for
National City to substantiate the above technical data, since the City does not have its own
data base.
Finding No. 6
The Grand Jury identified several efforts which contribute to the mitigation of coastal water
pollution. Large volumes of petroleum products are handled on and about San Diego Bay
4
with spills inevitable. The Code for Federal Regulations gives the U.S. Coast Guard
authority to react, as the lead agency, to petroleum spills in U.S. waters. The Coast Guard
has used this authority firmly, but judiciously and proactively, and achieved notable progress
in oil spill abatement. While exempt from Coast Guard authority, the Navy is cooperative
and maintains the best clean up equipment available.
The Grand Jury finds the Proposed Regional Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan a compelling
analysis for prioritizing toxic bay sediment areas for mitigation. In an era of limited funds,
studies of this nature should provide a rational basis for identification of the more rewarding
endeavors.
The City of National City agrees with this finding.
Conclusion
Control of water quality in San Diego Bay has suffered because of lack of focus of the multiplicity
of agencies involved. Governmental agencies should avoid repeated regeneration of plans for
cleaning up San Diego Bay and get on with the job. A data base useful for quantified decision
making does not appear to be on the horizon. Regulating government agencies should better
recognize that NPDES permittees will make tradeoffs between their economic interests and
environmental interests. The RWQCB needs to more aggressively apply its powers of persuasion
and timely enforcement to fulfill its charter for regulation, protection and administration of water
quality. Use of the courts to referee disputes between governmental agencies is a failure of good
government.
The City of National City agrees with the Grand Jury Conclusion, with the following comments.
In 1990 the City of National City joined with the other Cities in San Diego County, the County of
San Diego and the Port District as a party to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
NPDES Permit. Since that time we have participated in all of the County wide programs involved
under the NPDES permit. These programs have ranged from Dry/Wet testing to public education
campaigns. The initial permit expired in 1995 and an extension was issued, which is still in effect.
In order to fund the City's share of the_permit and program costs, a fee was added to the sewer bills.
This fee has raised approximately S25,000 per year. In order to better maintain and clean the
existing street Butters. an additional S 145,000 of gas tax funds have been allocated for a new street
sweeper in this year's Capital Improvement Program Budget.
National City is in a strange position where we do not have control over the storm water outlets into
the San Diego Bay. All of the storm water outlets into the San Diego Bay are either controlled by
the Port of San Diego or by the Navy. National City is also a pass through city. meaning that most
of the contaminants which are found in the bay have come from the undeveloped areas. or
agricultural areas outside of the boundaries of National City.
5
For many years, National City has had an active program for street sweeping, and we have been
conducting extensive programs on illegal dumping into the catch basins. Most of the catch basins
have been stenciled with "No Dumping", "I Live Down Stream" a physical reminder to anyone
contemplating dumping illegal substances into the catch basin that they may cause damage to the San
Diego Bay, and its wild life. National City has also been responding, via complaints. of any illegal
dumping into the catch basins, and or into the streams. We have also been involved in the Dry and
Wet weather testing programs.
Presently, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board is in the process of determining whether the
San Diego County Region should depart from a County wide control approach and use a watershed
approach. The watershed approach consists of physically determining the geographical perimeter
of the area which drains into the San Diego Bay. Those political entities which lie inside the
perimeter of the area become the responsible parties to the cleanup action. The City would prefer
the watershed approach as long as all of the County co-permittees continue to pay their pro -rated
share (since all of the County is under one permit). The first target for San Diego County under a
watershed approach appears to be the watershed which drains into the San Diego Bay.
Initially under the original NPDES Permit there was one County wide group which was spearheaded
by Robert Cain of the City of San Diego. Under the watershed appraoch, a second group is being
formed under the Unified Port District, with Ruth Kolb as the spokesperson (this group would be
known as the San Diego Bay Watershed group). National City has been working with both groups.
In conclusion the Grand Jury came up with the following recommendations.
San Diego County Government municipalities and the Port District should recommend that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board more aggressively apply its powers of persuation and timely
enforcement to better fulfill its charter for regulation, protection and administration of the water
quality of San Diego Bay by:
Recommendation 98-64:
Contracting for an accountable program manager, independent of permittees. with the
authority and systems management and technical expertise to supervise control of pollution
of San Diego Bay.
The City of National City agrees with this recommendation. However, it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation. since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
Recommendation 98-6-;:
Developing a data monitoring system to quantitatively assess progress of programs to clean
up San Diego Bay. Centralized data collection with an unbiased contractor. including data
6
related to performance of individual permittees, should be considered. The data base should
be designed by professionals so as to eliminate the quality and compatibility issues that have
plagued previous efforts. Data should be retained in a format suitable for management and
research use in a durable repository such as the University of California.
The City of National City agrees with this recommendation. However, it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation, since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
Recommendation 98-66:
Extending pollutant loading estimates, by the earliest possible time, to all significant
polllultants of San Diego Bay.
The City of National City agrees with this recommendation. However, it is not solely within
the authority of the City to implement the recommendation, since the City has only one
member on the seven -member board of the Port District.
What is the future direction of the program? I don't think the City of National City has a whole lot
to say about it. National City is basically a pass through City, with no control on the storm water
outlets into the bay. The City of National City has always been supportive of cleaning up the San
Diego Bay. The San Diego Bay is one of the most important assets in the Community, however, we
want the process to be done fairly with everyone paying their fair share.
If you need any additional information, please contact the City Engineer, Burt Myers, at 619/336-
43 80.
George H. Waters, Mayor
R. Mitchel Beauchamp, Councilmember Ralph Inzunza, Vice -Mayor
Ronald J. Morrison. Councilmember Rosalie G. Zarate. Councilmember
jury
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE September 15. 1998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9
/ ITEM TITLE
INFORMATION ITEM ON SEWER PUMPING PLANT LOCATION
PREPARED BY
C.R. Wi
EXPLANATION
See attached explanation.
DEPARTMENT
Public Works
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
No Direct impact - information only.
Account No. N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIIO
Information only.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No.
1. Metro Commission Agenda item of 28 August 1998.
2. Post/Williams joint update to City Manager of 19 August 1998
3. National City letter to METRO of 11 June 1998
A-200 (9„801
Explanation:
Medium to mid -range planning by the San Diego METRO Sewer system dictates that a
significant portion of the sewer flow, currently being transported to and treated at the Point
Loma Treatment plant, will have to ultimately be treated at the treatment facilities being
constructed in the Tijuana Valley. The flow division point has been determined to be in
the vicinity of the Spring Valley connection to METRO which is at the boundary between
Chula Vista and National City. A sewage pumping station will have to be constructed in
this vicinity.
To ensureadequate community input, a Community Advisory Committee was established
by San Diego METRO. The Committee's summary report was presented at the METRO
Commission meeting of 28 August (a copy of the Agenda item for that meeting is
appended).
Roger Post and Curt Williams attended various Community Advisory Committee meetings,
and their joint report of August 19, 1998 to the City Manager, attached, provides much of
the background and status of decision making.
Also attached is the Mayor's original response to METRO Director, Dave Schlesinger
indicating the City's position on the matter.
The sequence of actions as indicated at the METRO Commission Meeting will be for
briefings to be given to the Council members of both National City and Chula Vista. The
end result of those briefings will be presented to the METRO Commission for its
recommendation. METRO staff will put it all together, and will make a "preferred location"
presentation to the San Diego City Council for their decision, and subsequent preparation
of an EIR, and negotiations with the owner of the selected property and with the
prospective host City.
Property will be purchased in the near future, with construction by 2005 or possibly by
2015 plus.
South Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Pump Station
Community Advisory Group
Summary of Findings
It is MWWD's belief that community input is a vital component of the decision -making process
used to make infrastructure siting decisions. Working with community leaders early in the
process has proven to be extremely effective and helps minimize the impact to the community.
In the case of the proposed pump station in the South Bay, City of San Diego staff faced the
additional challenge of working with communities outside our own City limits.
The South Bay Community Advisory Group (the Group) was formed by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Department in June of 1998 to assist in siting a pump station and pipeline route in
support of the development of the South Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Advisory Group
consists of representatives from environmental, business and civic organizations as well as
representatives from the Cities of Chula Vista and National City. (See Attachment A).
At the initial meeting of the group, seven sites were presented by City staff as "potential"
locations for the pump station. One of the original seven locations is in National City and six are
in Chula Vista (see Attachment B).
The South Bay Community Advisory Group met four times between June and August. During
these meetings, they were briefed on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the potential
sites. The group visited each of the proposed sites to gain first-hand lmowledge of the pros and
cons of each location. Selection of potential sites was based on the hydraulic flow requirement
to be near the intersection of the Sweetwater River and Interstate 5 Minimum site size was
established to be one -and -one-half acres.
Based on these criteria, Advisory Group members were asked to help identify any additional
sites that should be considered and to provide information on all sites. Two additional possible
sites were recommended and explored by the Group. (See sites 48 and #9 on Attachment C).
Imo/ 1 i rz (f) Co �� r /\ ► ss o N 2 8 , 161 98
Act -\) Dk.
PAGE 1 of 2
Key considerations of the site review included construction costs, impacts to the public,
environmental impact, property cost, mitigation costs, operating costs and required pipeline
length. Officials of National City clearly expressed their desire not to have the pump station
built on site #7.
Early in the process, the Group recommended against the use of sites #1 and #3 based on the
small size of the parcels. Both sites were considerably less than the 1.5 acres deemed necessary
to build the required pump station. In addition, the proximity of these sites to a school and a
densely populated apartment building made them less thandesirable.
Two sites were added to the list for consideration (# 8 and #9) at the suggestion of the Group.
At the conclusion of the fourth meeting of the Group, the consensus was that they could not
agree upon one "preferred" site. They were, however, able to agree to recommend elimination of
four of the nine sites. The four sites are shown in shaded areas on Attachment C. The remaining
five sites were viewed by the group as acceptable possibilities for the pump station. (It should be
noted that the representatives from the City of National City were not in favor of eliminating. any
sites from consideration at this time.)
The South Bay Community Advisory Group recommended that the proposed pump station be
built on one of the following sites: #2, #6, #7, #8 or #9. They also recommended that the
proposed pipeline required to run from the pump station to the South Bay Wastewater Treatment
Plant run along Bay Blvd through the City of Chula Vista.
Staff plans to fully brief the Metro Commission at the September meeting prior to going forward
with a recommendation to the San Diego City Council.
PAGE 2 of 2
City of San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater Department
South Bay Community Advisory Group
Participants
Mr. Raul Arzola, Tia Juana Valley County Water District
Mr. Paul Blackburn, Sierra Club
Mr. Rod Davis, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Mr. William Doolittle, U.S. Border Patrol
Mr. Mike'Freedman, San Ysidro Planning Group
Mr. Doug Isbell, County of San Diego
Mr. Martin Kenney, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mr. Jay Moser, San Diego Police Department
Dr. Stephen Neudecker, Chula Vista Nature Center
Mr. Paul O'Sullivan, San Diego City Councilmember Juan Vargas' Office
Mr. Doug Perkins, South County Economic Development Corporation
Mr. Jim Peugh, Audubon Society
Mr. Roger Post, City of National City
Ms. Carolyn Powers, CARETa Juana Valley County Water District
Ms. Dorie Radichel, San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Clarissa Reyes, Assemblywoman Ducheny's Office
Mr. Eric Roch, Citizens Revolt Against Pollution
Ms. Lauree Sabha, Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Chris Salomone, City of Chula Vista
Ms. Ruth Schneider, Otay Mesa -Nestor Planning Committee
Mr. Mike Vogt, Otay Mesa Planning Committee
Ms. Rebecca Young, Tijuana Slough/Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
(Representative, Congressman Brian Bilbray's Office)
(Representative, County Supervisor Greg Cox's Office)
(Representative, State Senator Steve Peace's Office)
Attachment A
onnr
City of San Dieao
Metropolitan Wastewater Department
South Bay Community Advisory Group
Interested Parties
Ms. Patricia Barnes, San Diego Gas & Electric
Ms. Cherly Cox, Cox & Associates
Mr. Dennis Davies, City of Chula Vista
Mr. Tom Duncan, San Diego Gas & Electric
Mr. Frank Fierro, W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Mr. Bennet Greenwald, The Greenwald Company
Mr. Robert Hart, El Torito Restaurant
Mr. Gilbert lnzunza, Tia Juana Valley County Water District
Mr. Fred Kassman, City of Chula Vista
Mr. Art Letter, Tia Juana Valley County Water District
Mr. David Malcolm, San Diego Unified Port District
Ms. Andrea McGuire, Sierra Club, South Bay Chapter
Mr. Javier Saunders, San Diego Unified Port District
Mr. Art Sellgren, B.F. Goodrich Aerospace
Mr. Glen Warner, Western Salt
Mr. Adbab Zakkout, Chula Vista Capital
Attachment A
PAGE 2 of 2
SOUTH BAY PUMP STATION & CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE PUMP STATION SITES
SOUTH BAY PUMP STATION SITE MATRIX
Site
Silo
Size
(Acres)
Eslfinalea
Construction
cos(
Maoris)
Esilmaled
Annual
O6M Cost
(millions)
Biological
Constraints
Potential
Biological
Mitigation
Costs
Penile In►pacls
Other Silo Constraints / Disadvnntngo s
Site
Advantages
6
3.85
39.0
$35.05
$41.46"
$41.48•"
$2.17
$2.17
$3.154
$3 154
$35.05 $2.17
potential
wetland habitat
buffer from
adjacent
wetlands,
prevent run-off
none on site,';
potential
Welland•Irnpticts
@ lift staiioq
none en site,
•potential
wetland impacts
lift station
none tin site,;
potential
wetland •Impacts
lift;statiort €
buffer from
adjacent
wetlands,
prevent run-off
$175,0po.p0
0
0•for site,
$175OQ0 for;
lift station at
0 for site,
$175 000 for'.
Oft station at
site 1
0 forsite,
$175,000 for;
lift station at:
site 1,
0
p itentlal lasidonlittl &
cornmercial Impact;.
potential impacts to Uay Blvd,
during pipalme construction
- potential residential &
commercial impact
- potential impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
pdtpn ial residential::&
commercial Impact
potential Impacts to,Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction ;:,
poteh fat residential&
commercial impact
potential Impacts to,Bay Blvd.
du,ing•pipeline construction•
potential residential
commercial impact
poten ial impacts to„Bay Blvd
di ling pipeline construction
poten la! residential &
commercial impact
potential Impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
site tau small
silo too small, lift stration requlred,
School District
property owned by a,V.
;tot station requlred
potentiralslte contamination
;lift slaUrn required
sfte.contaminulian .i
fie lift
station
requlred
no lift
station
required
no lift
station
required
7
4.92
$44.30
$2.21
prevent run-off
into wetland
0
potential residential &
commercial Impact
potential Impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
add'I $9.3 million for pipeline Included
in construction cost estimate
no lift
station
required
7a
4.92
$40.45
$2.21
direct wetland
impacts from
pipeline
$450,000.00
potential residential &
commercial impact
potential Impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
add'I $5.0 million for pipeline Included
in construction cost estimate
no lift
station
required
Site
Site
Size
(Acres)
Estimated
Consbuctlon
Cost
(millions)
Estimated
Annual
O&M Cost
(millions)
Biological
Constraints
Potential
Biological
Mitigation
Costs
Public Impacts
Other Site Constraints / Disadvantages
Site
Advantages
1.29
$48.30
$2.21
none known
potential residential &
commercial Impact
- potential impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
- site too small
- additional $9.3 million for pipeline
included in construction cost.
estimate
no lift
station
required
8a*
1.29
$44.45
$2.21
direct wetland
Impacts from
pipeline
$450,000.00
potential residential &
commercial impact
potential impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
add'I $5.0 million for pipeline Included no lift
in construction cost estimate station
required
2.00
$45.20
$2.21
none known
potential residential &
commercial impact
- potential Impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
Caltrans exemptions required
- add'I $8.7 million for pipeline
included In construction cost
estimate
very difficult access, MTDB ROW
- bridge supports may be jeopardized
- may be in FEMA 100 year flood
plain
no lift
station
required
9
2.00
$40.45
$2.21
direct wetland
impacts from
pipeline
$450,000.00
- potential residential &
commercial impact
potential impacts to Bay Blvd.
during pipeline construction
Caltrans exemptions required
- add'I $3.5 million for pipeline
Included in construction cost
estimate
- very difficult access, MTDB ROW
- bridge supports may be jeopardized
- may be in FEMA 100 year flood
plain
no lift
station
required
Sites 7, 8 and 9 are the same as 7a, 8a and Oa, respectively, but have a pipeline alignment which avoids wetland Impacts.
An allowance for a lift station at site #1 Is Included In the cost estimate.
NOTE: Shaded areas denote sites which were eliminated by the Focus Group from further study.
r:\raida\cleanwater\prj\newsbps\sbaltsit.dgn
20-AUG-1996 15:27 tpc
City of National City
Planning Department
1243 National City Blvd.. National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-4310
ROGER G. POST - DIRECTOR
August 19. 1998
TO: TOM G. McCABE, CITY MANAGER
—FROM: C.R. WILLIAMS. PUBLIC WORRS DIRECTOR --
ROGER G. POST, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: UPDATE ON SOUTH BAY SEWER PUMP STATION SITE
SELECTION
Metro's purpose is to position itself to reverse sewage flow at the National City south
boundary area, such that National City flow will continue to go to the Pt. Loma Plant.
While ail areas south of National City (including the Spring Valley interceptor) will be
pumped southward to the new treatment facility in the Tijuana Valley. San Diego Metro
feels that this is necessary. The timing depends upon waivers and changes in the law
currently being sought by San Diego Metro and Metro agencies. If the changes in the law
are not successful. the pumping plant will be needed in the 2005 time frame. If changes
in the law are successful, construction would occur in the 2015 + time frame. Intent is to
select and buy the site now, so that development can occur when needed.
The City was first made aware of this proposal through a May 8. 1998 letter from the
City of San Diego. This letter asked for National City's comments on the possibility of
using the Bannister Steel site for the project. On June 11, 1998 Mayor Waters sent a
letter to the City of San Diego expressing opposition to use of the Bannister Steel
property. By this time, San Diego had already set up an Advisory Committee to make
recommendations on alternative sites. The Advisory Group consisted of representatives
from various governmental agencies and interest groups. Only after the Mayor's letter
was sent was National City invited to participate on the committee.
Three meetings of the Advisory Committee were held and attended by Curt Williams and
Roger Post. The following is a brief description of the various sites discussed by the
Committee.
Site I
Located east of I-5 and north of what would be the extension of SeaVale Street in Chula
Vista, adjacent to the old Sweetwater River in National City. This was eliminated early
on as being too small.
Site2
Located west of I-S and north of E Street in Chula Vista. From a purely technical
standpoint, this appears to be the superior location. Costs are minimal compared to other
alternatives. Chula Vista interests would like to see it go elsewhere, however, since
proposed development in the area would be incompatible with a sewer pump station.
Site
South of Flower Street and west of Broadway in Chula Vista. This was eliminated eariy
on as being no longer available.
Site d
West of I south of Lagoon Drive (F Street) in Chula Vista. Was ruled out over the
objection of National City representatives, because it required a second small pumping
station to get Spring Valley outfall flow to the new pump station. In addition, Chula
Vista has hopes for a major tourist -oriented development nearby.
Site 5
Immediately south of Site 4. Was ruled out for the same reasons.
Site 6
North of the bend in Gunpowder Point Drive in Chula Vista. just south of Site 2.
Adjacent to Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Low construction costs. but
stiff opposition from Chula Vista because of future development.
Site 7
This is the Bannister Steel location. The fact that this site is currently a functioning
business. whereas. Chula Vista was proposing elimination of sites because of future
development. largely fell on deaf ears. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
representative says the property is for sale. Two alternative pipe line routings are
proposed. The first would tunnel due west to Paradise Marsh and then tunnel south for
approximately one mile, down to a line on Bay Boulevard. From an environmental
standpoint. this is difficult to imagine. The second alternative would have the five foot
pipe. which would be 20 feet below ground surface going east on 32nd Street to National
City Boulevard. tunneling under the Sweetwater River. extending along Broadway into
Chula Vista to F Street then westerly to connect with the line at Bay Boulevard. Even in
the unlikely event that environmental approval could be obtained for the first route, art
additional S9 million would be added to the construction costs. The National City
Boulevard. Broadway route would increase the costs by S5 million.
Site
This is the property immediately south of Bannister Steel abutting Route 54 and has
identical problems to Site 7.
Site 9
This is a Caltrans parcel located within the interchange of the I-5/Rt. 54. It is in the City
limits of National City. even though it is south of Route 54. Since it was suggested for
inclusion at the last meeting of the committee. Metro staff had no opportunity to review it
or cost out improvements. Access would be very difficult since the site is bounded by the
Sweetwater River, the trolley line and two freeways. Caltrans has been uncooperative in
the past in similar situations.
At the conclusion of the final meeting, moderator Elsa SaYdd from Metro stated the
intention of passing on Site 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to the Metro Board for further consideration.
While she described this as committee consensus, it was not, since National City
representatives were not in agreement about dropping the other sites from study. The
underlying dynamic is that Chula Vista. primarily the Chamber representative, would not
gracefully accede to a plan defining either Site 2 or Site 4 as the preferred alternative. It
was also readily apparent that National City representatives would not accede to a plan
defining the Bannister Steel sites as the preferred option. Hence, the multiple site
proposal. No further meetings of the group are scheduled.
The next step is for this information to be presented to the Metro Commission and to the
cities (National City and Chula Vista) for their comments. The results of this exercise
plus Metro staff recommendation for a best site will be presented to San Diego City
Council for a final decision.
Whether the pump station is subject to property tax is a critical question, especially since
the Bannister site is in the City's Redevelopment Area. It would appear that since the
City of San Diego will be buying property outside of its jurisdiction, in either National
City or Chula Vista. the project would pay property tax. This would be contingent on the
property already being on the tax rolls prior to the acquisition. Even if the facility is
taxable, the potentially extended time frame for the property to be.9wned by but unused
by San Diego materially lessens the benefits of such property tax.
Obviously, a great deal more needs to be done on this before a pump station site is
selected. much less built. We will keep your office informed.
C. R. "ILLIAMS. JR.
Public Works- Director
ROGER G. POST
Planning Director
Office of the Mayor
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 919€0 (619) 33S-4230
George H. Waters - Maycr
June 11, 1998
Dave Schlesinger, Director
Metropolitan Wastewater Department
City of San Diego
600 B Street. Suite 500
San Diego. CA 92101-458 i
Subject: Siting of the South Bay Pump Station and Conveyance System
We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting National City's input on the various
alternative sites. One of the sites is located on Hoover Avenue in the City of National
City on a property currently occupied by Bannister Steel. It is the Cit✓'s position that this
is not a suitable location for a sewer pump station. The reasons for this position are as
follows:
1. 'Valle the region as a whole has experienced and will continue to experience large
population increases necessitating expansion of the sewer system. very little of
this growth is occurring in National City. It would seem more appropriate that a
jurisdiction benefiting from this regional growth would provide a site for the
facility.
The Bannister Steel site is highly visible from the i-5/Rt. 54 interchange. While
we have no information on the size and design tearores or the proposed purnp
station, we are concerned about potential visual impacts associated with it.
3. It is obvious that odor control is an important aspect of this project. It has been
our experience that when sewer equipment is functioning properly, adverse odors
do not occur. What guarantees do we have. however, that there will not be
occasional equipment malfunctions resulting in the release of sewer gases' We
need to understand the possible health risks or nuisance that this may cause our
residents and businesses.
Immediately west of I National Cifry is engaged in a major redevelopment effort
involving a marina and various other tcurisaconLmerciai uses. A pump station in
such close proximity would have a demmental effect on these efforts and could
threaten the viability of the project.
5. When property is purchased by a governmental agency, typically it is taken off the
tax roles. Currently this is a productive piece of industrial property generating
economic benefits for the City. Recent press reports claim the project will result
in an increase in property tax revenue. Please explain how this will happen.
6. It appears the pump station would not be consniacted along a major street.
However, it does have the potential for traffic impacts on National City Boulevard
which is already overburdened by vehicular traffic.
7. The National City property under consideration contains a functional tidal salt
marsh. While we assume you would have no plans to build there, it is essential
that any activity occurring on the site not disturb this vital habitat area.
Your letter also inquired about the City permit/approval process, should a National City
site be ultimately selected. Please be advised that the facility would require both a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to be issued by
the City. Environmental review would be needed prior to City approval of either the
CUP or CDP. This is expected to be covered as part of the larger project MWWD would
be proposing, including several other pump stations and redi a bution of sewerage Clow
and changes in system capacity.
For further information on City permit processing, please contact Planning Director
Roger Post at 336 ' 10. Public Works Director Curt Williams at 336-'.360 can respond to
other sewer related questions.
GEORGE H. WATERS
Mayor
cc: Larry Sherry, Project Officer II
City of San Diego, MIWWP
Southwestern
College
Governing Board
Augie Bareno
G. Gordon Browning, D.M.D.
Jerry J. Griffith
Maria Neves-Perman
Judy Schulenberg
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
Serafln A. Zasueta, Ph.D.
Superintendent/President
THE HONORABLE GEORGE WATERS, MAYOR
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD.
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
DEAR MAYOR WATERS:
AGENDA ITEM #10
9/15/98
THE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS A WAIVER OF
NATIONAL CITY FEES FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER.
THIS SPECIAL REQUEST IS MADE TO FACILITATE OUR OFFERING CLASSES BY MID-OCTOBER 1998
IN WHAT HAS BEEN VACANT BUSINESS SPACE IN THE DOWNTOWN NATIONAL CITY AREA FOR
OVER FIVE YEARS. THE IMPACT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER WILL BE EXTREMELY
BENEFICIAL TO THE ECONOMY OF NATIONAL CITY, AS WELL AS ENHANCING EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS.
I CAN SHARE WITH YOU THAT NATIONAL CITY RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY INQUIRING WITH
INTEREST AND ENTHUSIASM ABOUT THE CENTER'S OPENING AND CLASS OFFERINGS.
YOUR ASSISTANCE IS APPRECIATED.
SAZ:AR
CC: BILL KINNEY, INTERIM DEAN
HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER
SINCERELY,
Afs414 `r TIIETAam.
SERAF . ZAS TA, , `
Ph.D.
SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT
Attachment: Summary of all City Fees
900 Otay Lakes Road • Chula Vista, CA 91910 • (619) 482-6301 FAX (619) 421-0346 • Southwestern Community College District
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE PERMIT FEES
BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Plan Check $ 1,613.20
Energy Plan Check $ 376.80
Handicap Plan Check $ 52.43
Building Permit $ 1,048.58
Microfilm $ 33.30
Electrical Pent it $ 367.30
Plumbing Permit $ 125.00
Mechanical Permit $ 249.25
Strong Motion Fee $ 64.09
Subtotal
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
$ 3,929.95 $ 3,929.95
Plan Check $ 100.00
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Plan Check
Sewer Usage Fee
FIRE DEPARTMENT
$ 85.00
$ 1,700.00
Plan Check $ 41.00
TOTAL $ 5,855.95
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
September 15, 1998
MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM NO. 11
ITEM TITLE
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT - NEW COVENANT TABERNACLE
PREPARED BY Michael Bouse, Directorl DEPARTMENT Building and Safety
EXPLANATION.
This is a request for New Covenant Tabernacle to conduct a concert in the Kimball Park Bowl area,
from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., on Saturday, October 31, 1998. Approximately 200 people are expected
to attend the event. The request includes a live band performance, a custom car show, bicycle trick
riders, various game booths and an Astro Jump for children. Food will be cooked and served. No
merchandise will be sold. This event is free and open to the public. A waiver of fees is requested. The
applicant and the event qualify for a waiver of fees pursuant to City Council Policy No. 704, i.e. the
sponsor is a non-profit organization and the event will not generate any income to the sponsoring
organization.
Environmental Review X N/A
Financial Statement
The City has incurred $199.00 in costs in processing the T.U.P. application through various City
Departments. Account No N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Application for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all conditions of
approval, and grant the request for a waiver of fees.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No
Application For A Temporary Use Permit with recommended approvals and/or stipulations.
A200-1. DOC
A-200 'Pe.
001-3585-13000
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BUILDING & SAFETY
1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION CF THE NATIONAL
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE 15.60 AND AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
Temporary Use Permits are ministerial administrative regulations intended to provide orderly and effective
management of specific list of temporary land uses have exceptional characteristics requiring their review and
limitations. Any permit applicant may appeal the action of the Building Official pursuant to Municipai Code section
15.60.045.
Class A & B use Application for a Temporary Use Permit must be filed 15 working days prior to the
commencement of the activity/event.
Activities/events involving the use or areas of operation within the state highway jurisdiction shall be filed not less
than six (6) month prior to the requested activity/event.
PLEASE COMPLETE (Print or Type):
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION(s): N eliJ Luerfor Tabexnacie.,
ORGANIZATION ADDRESS:,,.1,,I IX.)( {*LG—b'lSOf'1 even
tJatitrlct-�. C(.1� 00.1.(f6YYltcL Q]G50 PHONE rO%- 0
City f � State Zip
LOCATION OF EVENT: KIIll WA af1K
DATE(S) REQUESTED FOR EVENT: FROM ct J l lqi:o TO
HOURS OF USE ON DAY �OFpEVENT: rF7ROM //' i0 A�D I P.M. TO / { ? L. °U A.M. (17
(BEGIN SETUP) DATE 1J6431 TIME /-• O A / P.M. - (END SETUP) DATSInn,,,3//� TIME1/••°C A.M.
TIME1•) A.M. /,0..- (END TEARDOWN) DATE 4/1/ / TIME W A.M.0
(BEGIN TEARDOWN) DATE CHt 3'I
Det.3/, /5'
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENT: ,Ye/hhN ilea IQu &— 7-nee. ,BUJ
Afire JIut - 5lk2 w- lPzAona. rl�n/, b. <-r�€_rFe G�tln/
A brief summaN of the event/ may be requested. A stem a � of the eient activity
may
q rY
- dGN
blarta
e attached tb d
e application)
-(uieiucd-
Clcr n5 V)olloorts
NAME OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENT, WHO WILL BE ON -SITE THE DAY OF THE EVENT('
Pli1;61lp 6-ma 4 Ltriw L 5)7 Pleccsa,tAX Lt,u e. N.C.
OA-
LlOavN. [ Sandra.revs �30d
HOW MAY THIS PERSON BE CONTACTED? C )ILt2f1CZ : t}Z f� i5 - F•0, - 471 77�'1— eh:di /97
SPECIFIC USE REQUEST: CL.zh Ct ! C UP.
JUS TFICATCN:
elq(dC v CLOD C�
REQUEST TO SELL OR SERVE ALCOHOL BEVERAGES: YES( 1 NO — WILL FOOD/ DRINK BE SOLD: YES( ] NO[
(Note: The City Council will not approve the sale or consumption of alcohol in City parks in conjunction with any event
requiring a T.U. P. This prohibition will not impact the existing policy regarding the sale or consumption of alcohol within buildings
in the parks, such as the Community Center, which will continue to be subject to the approval of the City Council.)
WAIVER OF FEES REQUESTED: YES (X„I NO [ 1 (If "YES" complete attached suoptemental questionnaire form)
AC;L;TIES. (When Applicable) R�"`� �FST ASSISTANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
NOISE. CROWD. TRAFFIC CONTROL: SECURITY CONTROL: l�x� ( -d2- (.i�C✓1 Jeeurth-
).1 111 ,!u.1 Ltcht!e kv t (.1(\ Fiau,1
PARKING/BARRICADES: Need poAkkoka lri Cf 5(--
EX
TERIOR
fib ` e �
E;{TE•
RICR LIGHT' RIC ldU l��
TRASH DISPOSAUSITE CLEAN-UP AFTER EVENT:
SANITARY FACILITIES.
PLEASE COMPLETE (Print or Type) NAME OF APPLICANT: N C GpL� "rccoe+lrwte., (Sa `d.VGA
ADDRESS: .CC I 4(1A k
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT:
At' . N.C• C/c 9((�t57) PHONE. '0367J
,t ba v DATE:
(THIS FORM BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN ENDORSED BY THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIRECTOR)
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
PERMIT FEES: PERMIT NO.:
USE GROUP: A USE CLASS: A
BOND: N/A PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS / csnAM NTS:
(See Attached)
RECEIVED DATE STAMP
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPT.
RECEIVED
Aui; 19 1998
NATIONAL CITY,CALIF.
APPROVALS / STIPULATIONS (Check Where Applicable):
PLANNING
FIRE '3
PUBLIC WORKS
Initial
Date
Initial Date
Initial Date
Ineal
Initial
Initial
Intat
Initial
Initial
Iniaal
Intel
YES [ ]
YES
YES
FINANCE' YES
POLICE YES
PARKS & REC. YES [
Date
ENGINEERING YES [
CITY ATTORNEY YES
_RISK MANAGER YES [
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. YES [
Date
OTHER YES
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998, 3:00 p.m.
NO [ I SEE STIP [ 1
NO [ I SEE ST1P [ ]
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ I
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
NO [ 1 SEESTIP [
NO [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
NO [ I SEE STIP [ ]
NC [ ] SEE STIP [ ]
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT: APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ]
PROPERTY NOTIFICATION REQUIRED: YES [ ] NO [
COMMENTS:
WAIVER OF FEES: APPROVED ( ] DENIED [ ]
MICHAEL ROUSE. BUILDING & SAFETY DIRECTOR
DATE
City of National City
Building & Safety Department
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA. 91950
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEE WAIVER REQUEST
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
City Council Policy No. 704 contains the criteria for granting waivers of T.U.P.
processing fees by the City Council. This Supplemental Questionnaire will be used to
evaluate whether the event or sponsoring organization for a T.U.P. meet the criteria for a
fee waiver. Accordingly, please answer all questions fully and completely.
City Council Policy No. 704
The City Council shall waive T.U.P. processing fees only in the case of a.non-profit
organization, and when such organization can demonstrate that the event for which the
T.U.P. is requested will not generate any income to the organization, or that the net
proceeds of the event for which the T.U.P. is requested result in:
1. direct financial benefit to an individual who resides or is employed
in the city, and who is in dire financial need due to health reasons
or a death in the family; or
2. direct financial benefit to city government such as the generation of
sales tax; or
3. direct financial benefit to a service club, social services agency, or
other secular non-profit organization located within the city such as
Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, Boys and Girls Club; or
4. direct financial benefit to an -organization which has been the direct
recipient of City or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding.
PLEASE FULLY AND COMPLETELY ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
Is the event for which the T.U.P. is sought sponsored by a non-profit
organization?
"‘"C YES (If YES, please proceed to Question No. 4)
NO (IfNO, please sign the bottom of this form and submit this
form with the T.U.P. Application to the Building & Safety
Department)
2. If the answer to Question No. 1 was YES, please state the name and type of
organization sponsoring the event for which the T.U.P. is sought and then proceed
to Question No. 3.
Name of Sponsoring Organization
Type of Organization (Service Club,
Church, Social Service
Agency, etc.)
Neu) (coin? ykk- la,bonce,
Will the event generate net income or proceeds to the sponsoring organization?
YES (If YES, please proceed to Question No. 4)
NO (If NO, please sign the bottom of this form and submit the with the
T.U.P Application to the Building & Safety Department)
If the answer to Question 3 is YES, will the proceeds provide a direct financial
benefit to an individual who resides in or is employed in the city, and who is in
dire financial need due to health reasons or a death in the family?
YES (If YES, please provide explanation and details in space provided
below)
NO (If NO, please proceed to Question No. 5)
If YES, please explain who is to benefit from the proceeds and the general nature
of the financial hardship:
5. Will the event provide a direct financial benefit to city government such as the
generation of sales tax?
YES (If YES, please provide explanation and details in space provided
below)
P NO (If NO, please proceed to Question No. 6)
If YES, please explain how the direct financial benefit to the city will occur:
Will the proceeds provide a direct financial benefit to a service club, social services
agency, or other secular non-profit organization located within the city such as
Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, Boys and Girls Club?
YES (If YES, please provide explanation and details in space provided
below)
NO (If NO, please proceed to Question No. 7)
If YES, please explain the organizations that are to benefit from the proceeds of
the event and how the proceeds will be used by those organizations.
7. Will the proceeds provide a direct financial benefit to an organization which has
been the direct recipient of City of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding?
YES (If YES, please provide explanation and details in space provided
below)
NO (If NO, please sign the bottom of this form and submit the with the
T.U.P. Application to the Building & Safety Department)
If YES, please state the year the City of Community Develop Block Grant
(CDBG) funds were received and how those funds were used:
Year funds were received.
Funds were used to
SIGNATURE DATE
(u. 1JtCI
/vow L>k_cc,ttA
Oe4 3!) (q L�
-3d6DA2e-A
1
Arlieto
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
PUBLIC PROPERTY USE HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
Persons requesting use of City property, facilities or personnel are required to provide a
minimum of $1,000,000 combined single limit insurance for bodily injury and property
damage which includes the City, its officials, agents and employees named as additional
insured and to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement. Certificate of insurance must be attached
to this permit.
Organization
Person in charge of activity N (Jr vet r�� T-a,er�nacl � I D�1 cicson A. N.C. L
SCi.L VC &.t4.d L L'F Ji')9G,Vt cSD
I� ,,'' ""'' ,�, Y1�//���� (..t Address �a�1 `PIeC(SCu " l_�(.U1. Netil- � , i i Cl-St
Telphone Date(s) of use O. , S ( Ciq O
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
The undersigned hereby agree(s) to hold the City of National City and the Parking
Authority of the City of National City harmless and indemnify the City of National City
and the Parking Authority of the City of National City from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation and liability arising out of or
related to the use of public property by permittee or permitee's agents, employees or
contractors.
Signature of Applicant
7'C. E..1)41( k2,64fer 511�t
Official Title Date
(For Office Use Only)
Certificate of Insurance approved
198712
wa o:b - wv00 I 1
Sbbi 1�
�)Vn4f7611)1 rn21\
ACORD CERTIFICATE F LLAB
PRODUCER 760-796-6247
ROBERT F. DRIVER COMPANY, INC.
420 S. BRAODWAY
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025
t
N
SU.
RA
C
EI
DATE (MM/DD/YY
08/1 7/98
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
COMPANY
A
The Guidant Insurance Group
INSURED
New Covenant Tabernacle
Pastor John F. Sorrentino
1001 Harbison Ave.
National City CA 91950
COMPANY
B
COMPANY
C
COMPANY
D
COVERAGES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
CO
LTR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POUCY NUMBER
'POLICY EFFECTIVE
DATE IMM/DD/YYI
POUCY EXPIRATION
DATE IMM/DD/Y()
LIMITS
A G ERAL LIABILITY
COMMERCIAL GENERA!ABILITY
CLAIMS MADE OCCUR
OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT
1180-925
4/01/98
4/01/99
GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2000000
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
2000000
PERSONAL & AOV INJURY
1000000
EACH OCCURRENCE
1000000
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire)
5 1000000
MED EXP (Any one person)
5000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
COMBINED SINGLE UMIT
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE
GARAGE LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT
OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY:
EACH ACCIDENT
AGGREGATE
EXCESS UABILITY
1 UMBRELLA FORM
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
THE PROPRIETOR/
PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS ARE:
OTHER
EACH OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
INCL
EXCL
WC STATU- I OTH-
TORY LIMITS ER
EL EACH ACCIDENT 5
EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $
EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE 5
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPEC AL ITEMS
CERTIFICATE HOLDER HAS BEEN NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED IN RESPECTS TO
AN OUTREACH PROGRAM BEING HELD ON 10/31/98 AT KIMBAL PARK RECREATION
CENTER, 148 EAST 12TH STREET., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BUILDING & SAFETY
1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD.
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
ACORD'ZS-S I1:195F
7-73
CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL
10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.
BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBUGATION OR UABILrrY
OF KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.
RIZED REPRESENTATIVE /A
eACORD CORPORATION /988
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
APPROVALS AND/OR STIPULATIONS
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: New Covenant Tabernacle
DATE OF ACTIVITY: Saturday, October 31, 1998
LOCATION: Kimball Park Bowl area
TIME: 11:00 am. to 4:00 p.m.
APPROVALS:
FIRE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
PUBLIC WORKS YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
FINANCE YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x
POLICE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
PARKS & REC. YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
CITY ATTORNEY YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
RISK MANAGER YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x ]
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x
SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS:
FIRE 336-4274
1. All cooking booths to have a minimum of one 40:BC fire extinguisher, with current State Fire
Marshal Tag attached.
2. All canopies and tents having an area of 200 square feet or grater shall be flame retardant, (Fire
Marshal approved). Fire Department permits required; fee for this permit is 65.00. Fee to be paid
at the Fire Department.
3. Provide metal cans with leads and label 'HOT COALS ONLY' for used charcoal.
4. Fire safety inspection conducted by the Fire Department prior to the opening of the event
5. Fire Department access into the booth areas to be maintained at all times.
6. Access to the Boys and Girls Club, Morgan and Kimball Towers to be maintained at all times.
7. Fire suppression equipment (hydrants, Fire Department connection, etc.) shall not be blocked or
obstructed.
8. Fire extinguisher with a minimum size of 2A:10BC shall be located through out the area so as not
to have a travel distance exceeding 75 square feet. There shall be one 2A:10BC fire extinguisher
for each canopy or tent with an area of 200 square feet.
PUBLIC WORKS
1. No Public Works involvement.
Parks & Rec. 336-4290
1. Park site is available on requested date.
2. It is our understanding that the church will provide their own state and bring it in with a semi.
Placing of stage to be coordinated with staff to avoid possible turf and irrigation damage.
Continued...
New Covenant Tabernacle
TUP-1998
Page 2
PARKS & REC (...Continued)
3. Church will provide own power and p.a. system.
4. A maximum of 20 classic cars in parking lot adjacent to boys/girls club.
5. Church will provide own booths comprised of tables and canopies.
6. Church will cook hot dogs on a gas barbecue.
7. Bike ramps will be provided by church.
8. Staff also recommends proper insurance be provided for bike ramp activities and for the astro jump
(City to be named as additional insured.)
CITY ATTORNEY
1. Requires hold harmless, and policy of general liability insurance with the City and its officers,
employees and volunteers as additional insureds, with amount of coverage to be determined by the
Risk Manager.
RISK MANAGER 336-4240
1. Provide minimum limits of one million dollars per occurrence of general liability insurance.
2. Name the City of National City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional
insureds on all policies.
3. Execute standard hold harmless. (Done)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Amplified noise is the main concern. The residents of the Towers need to be assured that speakers
are not directed toward their complex and that all amplification is respectful of the adjacent
neighborhood.
FINANCE 336-4260
1. A business license is required if monies are solicited, admittance charged or food, beverages or
merchandise is sold. Each separate vendor must have a separate business license.
2. Vendors currently licensed by the City may operate on their existing license. If any of the vendors
or organizations are registered not -for -profit there will not be a charge for their business license.
POLICE
1. Although not requested, Lt. R.S. Allen is attempting to have Police Reserves for the event.
TUPAPRV3.DOC
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
September 15, 1998 12
MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM NO.
ITEM TITLE
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT - LA MESA R.V.
PREPARED BY
EXPLANATION
Michael Bouse, Director J Building and Safety
DEPARTMENT
This is a request from La Mesa R.V. to conduct a three day recreational vehicle sale on parking lot 2 at the
Plaza Bonita Shopping Center, from September 18 through September 20, 1998. The hours of the sale are
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Any sales tax collected as a result of this sale is allocated to National City.
Environmental Review N/A
Financial Statement
The City has incurred $115.00 in costs for processing the T.U.P. Application through various City
departments. N/A
Account No
STAFFECOMMENDATION
Approve the Application for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all conditions of
approval.
BOARR/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
TTACI-4MENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No
Application For A Temporary Use Permit with Recommended Approvals and/or Stipulations
001-3585-13000
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BUILDING & SAFETY
1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE 15.60 AND AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
Temporary Use Permits are ministerial administrative regulations intended to provide orderly and effective
management of specific list of temporary land uses have exceptional characteristics requiring their review and
limitations. Any permit applicant may appeal the action of the Building Official pursuant to Municipal Code section
15.60.045.
Class A & B use Application for a Temporary Use Permit must be filed 15 working days prior to the
commencement of the activity/event
Activities/events involving the use or areas of operation within the state highway jurisdiction shall be filed not less
than six (6) month prior to the requested activity/event.
PLEASE COMPLETE (Print or Type):
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION(s):
R,V C_t'c \rvC
ORGANIZATION ADDRESS: ft�i) C P_i 9-"LC-
PHONE: L,(p 106
•
r1 n
DATE(S) REQUESTED FOR EVENT: FROM
HOURS OF USE ON DAY OF EVENT: FROM
(BEGIN SETUP) DATE q'11" TIMES
(BEGIN TEARDOWN) DATt , \ \ TIM
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENT: P:\(
State Zip
C(\V 1C\TO C1.\ h�
G Cc) I1v P.M. TO .CO A.M. r .J
/P.M. — (END SETUP) DATE` IhI TIME .to. A.M.
111
/P.M.— (END TEARDOWN) DATECt q \ TIME
C P_C
(A brief summary of the evenU may be requested. A summary of the event activity may be attached to the application)
NAME OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENT, WHO WILL BE ON -SITE THE DAY OF THE EVENT:
HOW MAY THIS PERSON BE CONTACTED? 1 J � — CTh
SPECIFIC USE REQUEST:
JUSTIFICATION:
REQUEST TO SELL OR SERVE ALCOHOL BEVERAGES: YES[ ] NO( WILL FOOD/ DRINK BE SOLD: YES[ I NO2 '
(Note: The City Council will not approve the sale or consumption of alcohol in City parks in conjunction with any event
requiring a T.U.P. This prohibition will not impact the existing policy regarding the sale or consumption of alcohol within buildings
in the parks, such as the Community Center, which will continue to be subject to the approval of the City Council.)
WAIVER OF FEES REQUESTED: YES [ I NO [`,4 (If "YES" complete attached supplemental questionnaire form)
FACILITIES: (When Applicable) REQUEST ASSISTANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
NOISE. CROWD, TRAFFIC CONTROL:
SECURITY CONTROL:
PARKINGrBARRICADES:
EXTERIOR LIGHTING/ELECTRICAL:
TRASH DISPOSAL/SITE CLEAN-UP AFTER EVENT:
SANITARY FACILITIES.
PLEASE COMPLETE (Pnt or Type)
lI
NAME OF APPLICANT: LI7� �1E�S .1 • �V CE) I hC
ADDRESS: Th-4 \ R^ _
SIGNATURE OF APPLICAAT:
PHONE: L, r
DATE:4- 'CFS"
i V\)C 1 ECIS V . (�
(THIS FORM BE •M. A PERMITHEN ENDOR BY THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIRECTOR)
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
PERMIT FEES
USE GROUP:
115.00 / Paid
A
PERMIT NO.:
USE CLASS: A
BOND: N/A PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE.
SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS / CcOM FN.LS:
(See Attached)
RECEIVED DATE STAMP
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPT.
RECEIVED
AU G 2 61998
NATIONAL CITY, CALIF.
APPROVALS / STIPULATIONS (Check Where Applicable):
PLANNING YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
FIRE YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
PUBLIC WORKS YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
FINANCE YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
POLICE YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
PARKS & REC. YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
ENGINEERING YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
CITY ATTORNEY YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
InNal Date
RISK MANAGER YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
Intel Date
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. YES [ I NO [ ] SEE STIP
Initial Date
Initial Date
OTHER YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE. September 15, 1998, 3:00 p.m.
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT: APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] WAIVER OF FEES: APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ]
PROPERTY NOTIFICATION REQUIRED: YES [ ] NO [ ]
COMMENTS:
MICHAEL BOUSE. BUILDING & SAFETY DIRECTOR
DATE
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
PUBLIC PROPERTY USE HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
Persons requesting use of City property, facilities or personnel are required to provide a
minimum of $1.000,000 combined single limit insurance for bodily injury and property
damage which includes the City, its officials, agents and employees named as additional
insured and to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement. Certificate of insurance must be attached
to this permit.
Organization \—la K.ke . ,. ` RV Lev-#e
Person in charge of activity l/P; t' ?:\6(A.14?
Address -.1L lTh CP\
Tel phone Date(s) of use (0
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
The undersigned hereby agree(s) to hold the City of National City and the Parking
Authority of the City of National City harmless and indemnify the City of National City
and the Parking Authority of the City of National City from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation and liability arising out of or
related to the use of public property by permittee or permitee's agents, employees or
contractors.
ui
C-k V.P.
Signature of Applicant Official Title
For Office Use Only)
Date
Certificate of Insurance approved
198717
ACORD CERTIFICATE
OF LIABILITY
INSURANCE
DATE (M7VDD/YY)
8/20/1998
PRODUCER
Andreini & Company
2737 Campus Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
License No. 0208825
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
COMPANY
A ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE
INSURED
LA MESA RV CENTER, INC.
7430 COPLEY PARK PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92111
ATTN: JIM MILLER
I
COMPANY
B
COMPANY
C
COMPANY
D
COVERAGES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
CO
LIR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
DATE. IMM O/Yr
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (MINDD/YY)
LIMITS
GENERAL
LIABILITY
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
GENERAL AGGREGATE I $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG S
CLAIMS MADE I OCCUR
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY I S
OWNERS & CONTRACTOR'S PROT
EACH OCCURRENCE S
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one tire) S
MED EXP (Any ore person) $
AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT S
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
A
GARAGE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
CK06101279 0 4 / 01 / 9 8 0 4 / 01 / 9 9 I
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $10.000.000
OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY:
EACH ACCIDENT $10.000.000
AGGREGATE S
I—
EXCESS
LIABILITY
UMBRELLA FORM '.,
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE
WORKERS
EMPLOYERS'
THE
PARTNERSFYFCUTIVE OFFICERS
COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY
WC STATU- OTH-
TORY LIMITS ER
EL EACH ACCIDENT 3
PROPRIETOR/ 1INCL
EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S
ARE: I EXCL
EL DISEASE - Ea EMPLOYEE S
OTHER
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATKONSIYEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS
THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH REGARDS TO THE NAMED INSUREDTS
SHOW DATES: SEPTEMBER 16 - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 (INCLUDES SET-UP & RV SHOW.
TAKE-DOWN)*EXCEPT 10 DAYS FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
ATTN: RISK MANAGER
ACORD 25-S. (1/95}:
CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY
EXPIRATION
*30 DAYS
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL
WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,
TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR UAB
UPON THE COMPANY, KS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVE,.
BUT FAILURE
OF ANY KIND
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
I I
1-��y//,,� ]/�J
/0 ACO COR ORATION 1988
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
RECOMMENDED APPROVALS AND/OR STIPULATIONS/COMMENTS
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: LA Mesa R.V.
DATE OF EVENT: September 18 through September 20, 1998
TIME OF EVENT: 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
APPROVALS:
FIRE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x
FINANCE YES [ ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ x]
POLICE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE STIP/COMMENTS [ ]
SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS / COMMENTS:
FIRE 336-4270
1. Permit will be required if canopies or tents are to be used. Permit fee is 65.00 dollars and is to be
paid at the Fire Department.
2. Canopies and or tents are required to be flame-retardant.
3. Fire Department access is to be unobstructed at all times. Access to be maintained free of all
obstructions. Fire lanes cannot be blocked at any time.
4. Fire protection systems are to be free from all obstruction at all times;clear access to all fire
protection equipment musat be maintained; Fire hydrants, Fire Department connections, etc.
FINANCE 336-4260
1. As with the previous events, any sales tax collected as a result of this sale must be allocated to
National City when filing the quarterly return with the State Board of Equalization.
2. A copy of the notice that is sent to the State Board of Equalization is to be submitted to the Finance
Department.
3. A current business license must be on file in the Revenue & Recovery Division of the Finance
Department for each vendor.
TUPAPRV2.DOC