Agenda packet — Imperial Beach City Council, August 16, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

50.03' 140.51'
140.67'

50.03'
SYS
5'-0"
R
Y
S
3'-0"
2 4
10'-1"
9'-6"8'-6"9'-6"
3 10'-5 1/2"

CALLA AVE
ALLEY
3'-0 1/2"
FY
S
15'-0"
7'-4 3/4"

PROPOSED
3 STORY

BUILDING
SYS
5'-0"
19' EG

18.66' EG
(LOW POINT OF EX. GRADE

WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT)

19.30' EG

2.3 2.14

2.2 2.1

2.6 2.8

2.24 2.4

2.2 2.18

19.92' EG
3'-6"
8 1/2"
3'-5 3/4"
8 1/4"
3'-5 3/4"
5'-0"

2.10 2.16

2.16 2.12

2.22 2.9

2.11 2.7

2.24 2.24

2.20 2.20

2.23 2.13

2.7 2.2

2.56 2.2

2.11 2.2

2.11 2.11 2.1
16'-1"
13'-11 1/2"
23'-1 1/2"
5'-0"

2.1 30'-0".
10'-0"
SDGE
PAD
5'-4"

2.48 2.50

2.45 2.46 2.49

2.47 2.48

2.51 S

17.90' EG

18.70' EG

2.2 2'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"

2.18 2.18

2.2 2.53 2.56

2.55 2.54

2.2 2.52

2.2 2.53
9'-5 3/4"
3'-5 3/4"
8'-5 3/4"

2.57 2.52
23'-10"35'-7"

20.00' EG
(HIGH POINT OF EX. GRADE

WITHIN BUILDING

FOOTPRINT)
3'-3"
236 SF LANDSCAPE AREA
ADJACENT TO PARKING (45
SF MIN PER IBMC 19.50.030)

2.58 2.59
3'-0"
8'-0"
4'-0"
8'-0"

2.60 2.57 2.61

1. SEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR PLANTING AND
HARDSCAPE INFORMATION.

2. PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, VISIBLE AND

LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE
PROPERTY PER FHPS POLICY P-00-6.

3. VERIFY ALL THE UTILITY LOCATIONS( UNDERGROUND
WATER ,GAS, SEWER,ETC.....) PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.

4. ALL STRUCTURES WILL MEET THE MINIMUM SEPERATION

REQUIREMENTS DETAILED IN THE SDGE SERVICE AND

STANDARDS GUIDE - SERVICE DROP CONDUCTOR
CLEARANCES (SG 107.11).

5. NO GRADING IS PROPOSED.

6. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATION
THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

7. PROPERTY LINE FENCE MATERIAL TO BE REVIEWED AND

COORDINATED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR
TO INSTALLATION.

SITE PLAN NOTES

SITE PLAN LEGEND
LANDSCAPED AREA; SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS

PROPOSED BUILDING

HARDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK LINE
OUTLINE OF 2ND FLOOR ADDITION

OUTLINE OF ROOF OR BALCONY ABOVE

CENTERLINE OF PUBLIC ROAD

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

EXISTING WATER MAIN

FIRE HYDRANT

AREA DRAIN

TW TOP OF WALL

BW BOTTOM OF WALL

EG EXISTING GRADE

FG FINISHED GRADE

FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION

ROW RIGHT OF WAY

TYP TYPICAL

UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

SANITARY MANHOLE

EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE

DRAINAGE DIRECTION OF FLOW

50.00'
SW
WM
S

1. NEW SEWER CONNECTION(S) TO THE MAIN LINE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

2. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS THE SEWER LATERAL LOCATIONS SHALL BE DRAWN ON THE PLANS AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

IF APPLICABLE, NEW BUILDINGS CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED ON TOP OF EXISTING SEWER LATERAL, REROUTING IS REQUIRED.

3. CONDOMINIUMS & MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS ARE TO HAVE A SEPARATE SEWER LATERAL FOR EACH DETACHED UNIT WITH SEPARATE WATER METERS. APPLICANTS MAY REQUEST

DURING THE PLAN CHECK TO CONNECT EACH BUILDING SEWER TO A COMMON SEWER SYSTEM EXTENSION THAT LEADS TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM PROVIDED THAT THE SEWER SYSTEM EXTENSION IS ADEQUATELY SIZED AND AN AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE BETWEEN THE ADJOINING UNITS.

4. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EXISTING SEWER LATERAL CONFORMS TO ALL CITY STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CODES. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE

EXISTING CONDITION OF THE LATERAL (IF APPLICABLE) THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE AN IN-LINE CLOSED-CIRCUIT VIDEO (CCTV) INSPECTION OF THE LATERAL FROM THE BUILDING TO THE CITY'S SEWER MAIN. ANY DAMAGED SECTIONS OF PIPE FOUND DURING THE VIDEO INSPECTION MUST BE REPAIRED BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE LATERAL FOR USE.

5. ALL SEWER LATERALS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER REGIONAL STANDARDS SS-01 THROUGH SS-04, SP-01 THROUGH SP-03 & SC-01. PRIOR TO SEWER TAP, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR AN INSPECTION OF THE TIE TO THE MAIN BY CALLING THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR (619) 551-8005.

6. IF AN EXISTING SEWER LATERAL SERVICING THE SITE WILL NOT BE UTILIZED AND IS TO BE ABANDONED, IT SHALL BE ABANDONED PER THE GREENBOOK STANDARDS OR OTHER APPROVED BUILDING STANDARDS. INCLUDE THE ABANDONMENT PROCEDURES ON THE BUILDING PLANS FOR CITY APPROVAL.

7. NO BUILDING ROOF OR LANDSCAPE WATER DRAINS MAY BE PIPED TO THE STREET OR ONTO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES THAT LEAD TO THE STREET. A DESIGN THAT HAS THESE WATER

DISCHARGES DIRECTLY INTO THE STORM DRAIN CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (ONTO AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT FLOWS TO THE STREET) IS IN VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PERMIT - ORDER R9-2013-0001.

8. BUILDING FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE (1) FOOT ABOVE GUTTER LINE TO MINIMIZE FLOODING DURING STORM CONDITIONS.

9. THE OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJOINING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN EXISTING LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND PRIVATE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. SUCH MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING AND CLEARING OF WEEDS.

10. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY APPROACHES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER SO AS TO:

A. MAINTAIN EXISTING STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOWS:

B. AVOID THE FLOW OF STORMWATER ACROSS THE NEW DRIVEWAY (OR ASSOCIATED SIDEWALK); AND C. INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF AN EXPANSION JOINT BETWEEN THE PAVED SURFACE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE PAVED SURFACE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

11. EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROACHES ON CALLA AVE. ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING G-2 (CURB & GUTTER- COMBINED).

12. FOR ALLEY, SIDEWALK OR CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING G-11 (CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK & PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT) IN THAT, THE “AREA TO BE REMOVED [MUST BE] 5’ OR FROM JOINT TO JOINT IN PANEL, WHICHEVER IS LESS.” THE DISTANCE BETWEEN JOINTS OR SCORE MARKS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 5-FEET. WHERE THE DISTANCE FROM “AREA TO BE REMOVED”, TO EXISTING JOINT, EDGE OR SCORE MARK IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SHOWN, “AREA TO BE REMOVED” SHALL BE EXTENDED TO THAT JOINT, EDGE OR SCORE MARK.

13. ALL EXISTING SIDEWALK ABUTTING THE PROPERTY ON CALLA AVE. THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STANDARDS SHALL BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED PER SDRSD G-7, WITH SIDEWALK JOINT LOCATIONS PER SDRSD G-9 AND CONCRETE JOINT DETAILS PER SDRSD G-10 & G-11.

14. ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL ELIMINATE ANY EXISTING TRIPPING HAZARD CAUSED BY THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE. THE REMEDIAL WORK REQUIRED HEREIN SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. WHERE THE LATERAL IMPACTS ONLY A PARKING LANE, REPLACE A MINIMUM OF 3’ ON EACH SIDE OF THE TRENCH

15. WHERE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PAVEMENT IS TO BE REMOVED, A CLEAN, NEAT LINE SHALL BE SAW-CUTAT THE EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT WHERE THE NEW REPLACEMENT PAVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED. A MINIMUM TWELVE (12) INCH CUT SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN A NEW DRIVEWAY, CURB OR OTHER CONCRETE WORK THAT MEETS WITH ASPHALT.

THIS WILL GIVE A CLEAN, COMPACTABLE AREA TO TRANSITION FROM NEW CONCRETE TO EXISTING ROAD SURFACE. ALL DRIVEWAYS OR SIDEWALKS SHALL BE POURED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO PREVENT EROSION OF PAVEMENT INTEGRITY. ANY DAMAGED PAVEMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED WITH LIKE MATERIAL TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. EXISTING STREET WIDTHS SHALL NOT BE NARROWED AS A RESULT OF APRON PLACEMENT.

16. ALL TRENCH RESURFACING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SHOWN BELOW AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE CITY’S PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. THE PERMITTEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR AN INSPECTION AT (619) 423-8311. TRENCHES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN STREETS SHALL CONFORM TO REGIONAL STANDARDS AS FOLLOWS:

A. TRENCHES WIDER THAN SIX (6) INCHES: USE REGIONAL STANDARD G-24A TYPE C. THE BASE SHALL BE COMPACTED WITH TWELVE (12) INCH MAXIMUM LIFTS TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR AND TEST REPORTS.

B. TRENCHES SIX (6) INCHES OR LESS: USE REGIONAL STANDARD G-33 TYPE B. CALL FOR AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE ASPHALT REPAIR AT (619) 423-8311.

C. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE FOLLOWED PER APPROVED PLANS AND ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR CHANGING CONDITIONS.

D. TRENCH PLATES USED FOR A SDG&E GAS CONNECTION (WHICH CAN TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS), OR ON DOWNHILL ROAD SECTIONS, NEED TO BE GROUND DOWN SO PLATES ARE FLUSH WITH ROADWAY. ALL PLATES ARE TO BE SLIP RESISTANT. ALL OPEN TRENCHES IN ROADWAY SHALL BE PLATED AND SECURED AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY. ALL OTHER OPEN TRENCHES SHALL BE PLATED OR COVERED IN HEAVY PLYWOOD.

E. WHERE A CURB EXISTS, THE APPLICANT SHALL BORE UNDER CURB OR SAW CUT A MINIMUM OF THE WIDTH OF THE ASPHALT PATCH AND REPLACE WITH SAME CONSTRUCTION.

F. NO TRENCH SHALL BE OPENED IN ANY STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING PIPES, CONDUITS OR DUCTS EXCEPT WHEN THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN OBTAINED. CONSTRUCTION SHALL INCLUDE RESTORATION OF ALL SPEED CONTROLS (BUMPS OR HUMPS) AND ALL STRIPING AND/OR ANY SIGNAGE THAT MAY BE DISTURBED AS THE RESULT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. RESTORATION OF DISTURBED SPEED HUMPS SHALL INCLUDE A DOUBLE COAT OF SPEED HUMP PAINT WITH GLASS CRYSTALS. NO OPEN TRENCH SHALL BE ALLOWED ACROSS ANY STREET OR WITHIN 10 FT. OF ANY TRAVEL WAY.

17. FOR ANY WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE STREET OR ALLEY, SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR A MINIMUM OF 5 WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF STREET WORK. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IS TO BE PER REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS OR CALTRANS TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL.

18. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EXISTING WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA AT ALL TIMES BY PLACEMENT OF APPROPRIATE WARNING AND ADVISORY SIGNS. THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY ITEMS. BARRICADES AND ANY OTHER DELINEATION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE REQUIRED AND MAINTAINED BY APPLICANT FOR THE DURATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS. APPLICANT ASSUMES SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE JOB AND SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PER DAY AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORK HOURS.

19. FOR ANY PROJECT THAT PROPOSES WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (I.E., DRIVEWAY REMOVAL/CONSTRUCTION, SIDEWALK REMOVAL/CONSTRUCTION, STREET OR ALLEY DEMOLITION/RECONSTRUCTION, SEWER LATERAL TRENCHING AND INSTALLATION, LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, FENCES, WALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, ETC.), A

TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (TEP) SHALL BE APPLIED FOR AND APPROVED EITHER PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT SHALL BE MADE ONLINE ON THE CITIZEN SELF SERVICE PORTAL.

20. PERMITTEE SHALL SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (619) 551-8005 AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO NEED AS FOLLOWS:

A. SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, CURB AND GUTTER AND OTHER CONCRETE WORK PRE-POUR AND FINAL B. STREET EXCAVATION T-CUT AND FINAL
C. SEWER LATERAL CAPPING DURING DEMOLITION AND NEW LATERAL CONNECTION TO MAIN D. ALL OTHER ENCROACHMENT ACTIVITY FINAL

21. ALL ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, SIDEWALK, OR CURB & GUTTER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL REQUIRE EITHER A “CLASS A” OR “C-8” CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE. ALL SEWER LATERAL INSTALLATIONS AND TRENCHING WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL REQUIRE A “CLASS A” CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE.

22. ANY DISPOSAL/TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID/CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN ROLL OFF CONTAINERS MUST BE CONTRACTED THROUGH EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION UNLESS THE HAULING CAPABILITY EXISTS INTEGRAL TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR PERFORMING THE WORK.

23. THE PARCEL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ARE NOT TO INCREASE BEYOND THAT PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT REVIEW DRAWINGS. THIS WILL BE AS A POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE WATER RUNOFF INFILTRATION AREA ON THE PARCEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PERMIT – ORDER R9-2013-0001.

24. INSTALL/SET PROPERTY SURVEY MONUMENTS AT ALL PROPERTY CORNERS. PREPARE EITHER A RECORD OF SURVEY OR CORNER RECORD, WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAND SURVEYOR’S ACT. SAID RECORD OF SURVEY OR CORNER RECORD SHALL BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER. PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A RECORDED COPY.

25. APPLICANT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF POST CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS THROUGH A LEGAL AGREEMENT, COVENANT, CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENT, AND / OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

26. PROPERTY OWNER MUST INSTITUTE “BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES” TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF STORM DRAINS, GROUND WATER AND RECEIVING WATERS DURING BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR APPLICANT BMP PRACTICES SHALL INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

A. CONTAIN ALL CONSTRUCTION WATER USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. CONTAINED CONSTRUCTION WATER IS TO BE PROPERLY DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND CITY STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES.

B. ALL RECYCLABLE CONSTRUCTION WASTE MUST BE PROPERLY RECYCLED AND NOT DISPOSED IN THE LANDFILL.

C. WATER USED ON SITE MUST BE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAIN CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (I.E. STREETS, GUTTERS, ALLEY, STORM DRAIN DITCHES, STORM DRAIN PIPES).

D. ALL WASTEWATER RESULTING FROM CLEANING CONSTRUCTION TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT MUST BE CONTAINED ON SITE AND PROPERLY DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND CITY STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES.

E. EROSION CONTROL - ALL SEDIMENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST BE CONTAINED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND NOT PERMITTED TO ENTER THE STORM DRAIN CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. APPLICANT IS TO COVER DISTURBED AND EXPOSED SOIL AREAS OF THE PROJECT WITH PLASTIC–LIKE MATERIAL (OR EQUIVALENT PRODUCT) TO PREVENT SEDIMENT REMOVAL INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. SEE CASQA’S (CALIFORNIA STORMWATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION) CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HANDBOOK FOR OTHER ALTERNATIVE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS.

27. TWO DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, “DIG-ALERT” (800) 227-2600 SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO LOCATE ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.

28. APPLICANT MUST UNDERGROUND ALL UTILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH I.B.M.C. 13.08.060.C AS NOTED BELOW, APPLICABILITY TO NEW STRUCTURES:

A. FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WHICH REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT BUT IS OF A VALUATION OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OR LESS, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED EITHER TO UNDERGROUND THE UTILITIES OR TO SIGN A DEFERRAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO.

B. FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE(S) OR DUPLEX(ES) WHICH EXCEEDS A VALUATION OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A DEFERRAL AGREEMENT WITH, AND PAY A RECORDING FEE TO, THE CITY.

C. ANY DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A OR B OF THIS SECTION IN EXCESS OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS VALUATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGROUND ALL UTILITY SERVICES ON-SITE, ADJACENT THERETO AND THOSE WHICH TRAVERSE THE SITE.”

PUBLIC WORKS NOTES

1. ALL LIGHTING FOR THE PROJECT MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH IBMC CHAPTER 19.56 LIGHTING REGULATIONS. SHOULD NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS OR ISSUES ARISE RELATED TO LIGHTING, THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS THROUGH MODIFICATION, DISCONTINUANCE OR ABATEMENT OF THE LIGHTING TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

2. NO WORK FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE HOURS OF 7:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. MONDAY - FRIDAY, NOR PRIOR TO 8:00 A.M. OR AFTER 5:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY. ADDITIONALLY, NO WORK FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED SHALL BE PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS. ANY WORK PERFORMED OUTSIDE OF THE STIPULATED HOURS IS PROHIBITED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. ALL UTILITIES MUST BE UNDERGROUNDED.

PLANNING NOTES
AVERAGE GRADE CALC'S :

LOWEST POINT EXISTING GRADE

HIGHEST POINT EXISTING GRADE

18.66'

20.00'
AVERAGE GRADE = (18.66 + 20.00) / 2 = 19.33'

EXTERIOR AREA CALCULATIONS

HARDSCAPE

PERVIOUS PAVERS

LANDSCAPE
TOTAL
1,416 SF (20%)
472 SF (7%)
1,207 SF (17%)
3,095 SF (44%)

PERVIOUS PAVERS
(472 SF)

HARDSCAPE
(1,416 SF)

LANDSCAPE
(1,207 SF)

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A100

SITE PLAN
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

KEYNOTES

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

2.1 LANDSCAPE AREA

2.2 OUTLINE OF 2ND FLOOR ABOVE

2.3 MAILBOX

2.4 CONCRETE WHEEL STOP

2.6 ELECTRICAL METERS WITH 3' CLEAR WORKING SPACE

2.7 METAL FENCE & GATE

2.8 SDGE TRANSFORMER AND CONC. PAD

2.9 EXISTING CURB

2.10 EXISTING SIDEWALK

2.11 PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY

2.12 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY

2.13 BRICK PAVERS AT UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES

2.14 AMAZON LOCKERS

2.16 EXISTING UTILITY POLE AND GUY WIRE

2.18 OUTLINE OF AWNING ABOVE

2.20 EXTERIOR METAL STAIRS, PAINTED

2.22 BRICK PAVERS AT PRIVATE PATIO

2.23 PARKING OVERHANG

2.24 6' H WOOD FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE

2.45 PROPOSED DOMESTIC SERVICE LATERAL

2.46 REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY & CURB CUT

2.47 PROPOSED WATER METER

2.48 PROPOSED BACKFLOW

2.49 REMOVE EXISTING WATER METER

2.50 PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE LATERAL

2.51 DIRECTION OF SITE DRAINAGE, TYP.

2.52 OUTLINE OF 3RD FL MEZZ LEVEL ABOVE

2.53 OUTLINE OF DECK ABOVE

2.54 EXISTING BOLLARD TO BE REMOVED.

2.55 PROPOSED BOLLARD.

2.56 OUTLINE OF 3RD FL ABOVE

2.57 BIKE RACK

2.58 TRANSIT AND RIDESHARE INFORMATION KIOSK

2.59 SINGLE SIDED BIKE REPAIR STATION

2.60 4'H WOOD FENCE IN FRONT YARD SETBACK

2.61 PROPOSED CONCRETE PATIO FOR COMMERCIAL

TENANT USE

EXTERIOR AREA DIAGRAM

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc. Page 273 of 351 4 A200
A200
3 A201 1
A201
2 50.03' 140.51'
140.67'

50.03'
10'-0" 19'-0"
14'-6"
1 2
4 5
6 10'-1"
SDGE
PAD
8'-0"
5'-3"
14'-0 3/4"
9'-6"9'-6"
9'-6"8'-6"9'-6"
9'-6"
3 10'-5 1/2"
7'-6"
6'-7"
12'-9 1/4"
HWH

COMMERCIAL
B. (+178 SF LOFT)
LOFT ABOVE8'-8 1/4" 5'-8"
9'-1"
3'-6"
10'-10"

BEDROOM

LOFT ABOVE

OUTLINE OF

FLOOR ABOVE
16'-9 1/2"

FLOOR ABOVE
BATH
LIVING/KIT.

UNIT 1
1BR 1BA
TEL.

TRASH

CALLA AVE
ALLEY

MAILBOXES

AMAZON LOCKERS
LIN
CL

OUTLINE OF

FLOOR ABOVE

PARKING
4'-2"
BIKE
ST.
18'-0"
3'-0 1/2"
FY
S
15'-0"
7'-4 3/4"
EX. UTILITY POLE
SPR.
22'-0" 18'-0"
24'-0" 19'-0"
4'-6 1/2"
19'-0"
2'-7 1/2"
8 1/4"
STAIR 2
8 1/4"
STAIR 1
PATIO

ELECTRICAL METERS
5'-5"
4'-0"
8'-1"
3'-6"
R
Y
S
3'-0"

TRASH RECYCLING
SYS
5'-0"
3'-5 3/4"

OUTLINE OF AWNING ABOVE
6' H WOOD FENCE

ORGANIC AND

GREEN WASTE BINS
6' H WOOD FENCE
6'H METAL FENCE AND GATE
6H METAL FENCE & GATE

CONCRETE

WHEEL STOP
A201
3 A200
2 ACCESSIBLE PATH
FFE= 19.00'
FFE= 19.00'
FS 19.50

ACCESSIBLE PATH

ACCESSIBLE PATH
8'-9"
1 A202
5'-4"

PROPOSED BACKFLOW

PROPOSED WATER
METER

REMOVE EXISTING

DRIVEWAY & CURB CUT

PROPOSED DOMESTIC

SERVICE LATERAL &

PROPOSED BACKFLOW

PROPOSED FIRE

SERVICE LATERAL

REMOVE EXISTING

WATER METER
19' EG

18.66' EG

19.30' EG

19.92' EG

17.90' EG

18.70' EG

EXISTING CURB

EXISTING SIDEWALK

BIKE RACK

PROPOSED BOLLARD
599 SF

TRANSIT AND RIDESHARE

INFORMATION KIOSK
4'-1"

SINGLE SIDED BIKE

REPAIR STATION
EVCS
8'-0"
8'-0"
4'-0"
PATIO
4'H WOOD FENCE IN FRONT

YARD SETBACK

BIKE RACK
4 A200
A200
3 A201 1
A201
2 6'-7" 10'-0" 6'-6" 14'-4"
4'-0"
30'-5" 30'-3" 30'-3"
6'-6 1/2" 6'-6 1/2"
12'-1"
11'-2" 10'-11" 5'-6"
12'-0" 5'-8"
2'-0"
3'-4" 13'-3 1/2"
17'-1" 10'-11"
5'-0" 8'-9 1/2" 7'-6"
10'-0"
4'-4"
3'-0"
3'-0" 3'-8"
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-6"
2'-0"
12'-5"
13'-2 1/4"
9'-7"
10'-0"
28'-5"
10'-0"
9'-10 1/4"
5'-0" 5'-0 1/2" 10'-5"
3'-9"
10'-7 3/4"
3'-6"
8'-0" 6'-9"
8'-10" 5'-0"
5'-5 1/2"
12'-1"

OPEN TO PARKING
BELOW
UNIT 4
1BR 1BA
UNIT 5
1BR 1BA
UNIT 6
3BR2BA
UNIT 3
1BR 1BA
UNIT 2
2BR 1BA
16'-7" 21'-6"
36'-3 1/2"
LIVING/KIT. LIVING/KIT.

BATH
BR1
10'-5"
BR1
CL. CL.

CL.

BR1
BATH
CL.

LIVING/KIT.

BR1
CL.

BATH
LIVING/KIT.

BR2
BR1 BATH
BA CL BR3
CL
CL.

KIT. LIVING
9'-10 1/2" 8'-2 1/2"
10'-7"
5'-0"
12'-0 1/2"
6'-10 1/4"
9'-10 1/2" 8'-2 1/2"
12'-0"
6'-10 3/4"
14'-8"
LIN.

DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK DECK 6'-0" 5'-0"
LIN.
15'-0"
BR
BA
3'-0"
ROOF
ROOF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
6'-0"
5'-4"
5'-0" 5'-0"
3'-5 3/4"
5'-0"
A201
3 A200
2 50.03' 140.51'
140.67'

50.03'
1 A202
A200
3 COMMERCIAL

MEZZANINE

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW 7'-6"
5'-10 1/2" 8'-0 1/4"
9'-1"
11'-4 1/4"
3'-0 1/2"

BEDROOM
3'-6"
CL
SEE 2ND FLOOR
PLAN
3'-0"
3'-0"

OUTLINE OF

FLOOR ABOVE
ROOF

50.03' 140.51'
140.67'
4 A200 A201 1
1 A202
130 SF
178 SF
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
1ST FLOOR PLAN 3 1/8" = 1'-0"2ND FLOOR PLAN
2 1/8" = 1'-0"
1ST FLOOR MEZZANINE PLAN

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A101

FLOOR PLANS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc. Page 274 of 351 4 A200
A200
3 A201 1
A201
2 KIT
LIVING
CL.

BR1
BATH
10'-0"10'-0" 6'-2"
11'-1"
10'-11"
6'-0"
11'-0"
KIT
BATH
10'-6"
UNIT 9
1BR 1BA
UNIT 7
1BR 1BA
UNIT 8
1BR 1BA
6'-7" 10'-0" 6'-6" 14'-4"
4'-0"
30'-5" 30'-3" 30'-3"
6'-6 1/2"
6'-0"
6'-6"
8'-6" 12'-5"
13'-2 1/4"
9'-7"
10'-0"
10'-0" 9'-10 1/4"
5'-0 1/2" 10'-5" 5'-0"
3'-9"
10'-7 3/4"
3'-6"
6'-9"
8'-0"
8'-10" 5'-0"
5'-5 1/2"
8'-6"
UNIT 10
1BR 1BA
UNIT 11
1BR 1BA
UNIT 12
2BR 1BA
12'-0"
16'-7" 21'-6"
36'-3 1/2"

LIVING/KIT LIVING/KIT
10'-5"

LIVING/KIT

LIVING/KIT
DEN
BATH
CL
BR1
CL.
9'-0" 5'-5"
8'-5" 8'-5 3/4"5'-5" 9'-0"
3'-5" 4'-1 3/4"
5'-0" 5'-0"
16'-9 1/2"
LIVING
6'-0" 6'-0"
9'-8" 8'-2 1/2"
18'-1"
6'-0"
5'-0"
BATH
5'-0"
DEN
CL.

BR2
BR1
BR 1
BATH
CL.

BATH
CL, CL.
28'-5"
19'-4" 19'-10 3/4"
28'-5"

SPIRAL STAIR
UP TO 130 SF

BR LOFT

DECK DECK

LOFT ABOVE
MAX 130 SF

SPIRAL STAIR
UP TO 130 SF

BR LOFT
18'-1"
10'-7"

LOFT ABOVE
MAX 130 SF
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
18'-1"
10'-7" 12'-0 1/2"
5'-0"
6'-10 1/4"
8'-2 1/2"
9'-10 1/2"
5'-0"
3'-0"
15'-0"
3'-6" 5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0 1/2"
ROOF
ACCESS
DN

OUTLINE OF

ROOF ABOVE

OUTLINE OF

ROOF ABOVE
A201
3 A200
2 50.03' 140.51'
140.67'

50.03'
1 A202
A201 1

SEE ROOF PLAN
SEE 3RD

FLOOR PLAN
ROOF
ROOF

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW
10'-7"
12'-1"
10'-7"
9'-8" 2'-0"

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
9'-8" 2'-0"
4 A200
1 A202
4 A200
A200
3 A201 1
A201
2 3'-8"
1'-11 1/2"

OUTLINE OF

WALL BELOW
ROOF
BELOW
ROOF
OVER
DECK
ROOF
BELOW
ROOF
OVER
DECK

MAIN ROOF
OVER 3RD FLOOR

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT
4'-0"
24"x22" GALV. STEEL

ROOF ACCESS HATCH

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT
ROOF
OVER 3RD
FLOOR
1'-0"
1'-0"
A201
3 A200
2 OUTLINE OF

WALL BELOW

SOLAR PANELS, CONDUIT FOR SOLAR

PANELS WILL NOT BE INSTALLED ON

THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A102

FLOOR PLANS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
3RD FLOOR PLAN 2 1/8" = 1'-0"3RD FLOOR MEZZANINE PLAN 3 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF PLAN

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

19.00'
2ND FL FFE-UPPER

36.50'
3RD FL FFE-UPPER

47.00'
T.O. ROOF-UPPER

58.50'
1ST FL MEZZ

27.00'
2ND FL-UPPER CEILING

34.92'
3RD FL-UPPER CEILING

45.42'

ROOF-UPPER CEILING

56.92'
4" 7'-8" 9'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6" 2'-0"
39'-2"
T.O.PARAPET

60.50'

4.4 4.7

4.5 4.10

4.14 4.10
15'-11" 1'-7" 8'-11" 1'-7" 9'-11" 1'-7"

4.16 4.2
AVE. GRADE

19.33'

4.14 4.18

4.1 A200
1 4.4

4.11 4.4 4.11 4.62

MATERIAL SELECTIONS

VINYL WINDOWS
COLOR TO BE "BLACK"
STUCCO SIDING;
COLOR TO BE "CRYSTAL WHITE"

MANUFACTURED BY LA HABRA

PAINTED METAL RAILINGS, FASCIA, AND
OTHER MISC. METALS, COLOR TO BE
"INKWELL SW 6992" BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"PURA NFC" COMPOSITE

HORIZONTAL SIDING
MANUFACTURED BY TRESPA.

COLOR TO BE "TROPICAL IPE"
STUCCO SIDING;
COLOR TO BE "CORAL GABLE"

MANUFACTURED BY LA HABRA

WOOD FENCING AT SIDE

PROPERTY LINES, CLEAR STAIN

BRICK PAVERS
MANUFACTURED BY "BELGARD"
PRODUCT: AQUALINE SERIES PERMEABLE PAVER
COLOR TO BE "TOSCANA"

EXTERIOR LIGHTING SELECTION
NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS ARE DARK SKY COMPLIANT

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT

PRIVATE DECKS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT EXTERIOR

WALKWAYS AND

CORRIDORS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT EXTERIOR

WALKWAYS AND

CORRIDORS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT

MAILBOXES

4.6 4.11

4.10 4.2

4.4 1ST FL FFE

19.00'
2ND FL FFE-LOWER

31.25'
T.O. ROOF-LOWER

52.25'
3RD FL FFE-LOWER

41.75'
2ND FL FFE-UPPER

36.50'
3RD FL FFE-UPPER

47.00'
T.O. ROOF-UPPER

58.50'

PARKING

19.50'
1ST FL MEZZ

27.00'
2ND FL-LOWER CEILING

29.67'
3RD FL-LOWER CEILING

40.17'
2ND FL-UPPER CEILING

34.92'
3RD FL-UPPER CEILING

45.42'

ROOF-LOWER CEILING

50.67'

ROOF-UPPER CEILING

56.92'
11'-6"10'-6"9'-6"8'-0"
39'-2"
2'-0"
T.O.PARAPET

60.50'
10'-6"10'-6"11'-9"

OPEN TO

PARKING

4.10 4.12

4.11 4.51 4.9

4.6 4.5

4.4 4.7

4.5 4.10

4.10 4.1
1'-0"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"10'-2"
32'-9"

4.17 4.17

4.16 1'-7"9'-11"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"7'-11"8'-0"
AVE. GRADE

19.33'

4.2 4.2
T.O. PARAPET-LOWER

53.25'

4.1 CALLA AVE

4.50 4.51

4.16 ALLEY

4.61 4.16
3'-6"6'-7"
2'-10"

WOOD FENCE AT

PROPERTY LINE
1/2" X 2" METAL
BALUSTERS AT 2"

OC, PAINTED

METAL PANEL

WITH INTERCOM

AND LOCK
6'-0"
3 3/16" = 1'-0"

FRONT ELEVATION - NORTH

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A200

ELEVATIONS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
2 3/16" = 1'-0"

COURTYARD ELEVATION - A

KEYNOTES

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

4.1 CONTROL JOINT

4.2 METAL FLASHING, PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT EXTERIOR WALL

4.4 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA; PAINT TO MATCH METAL COLOR

4.5 VINYL WINDOWS AND DOORS, TYP. UNO.

4.6 GALVANIZED STEEL EXTERIOR STAIR AND 3'-6"H GUARDRAILS, PAINTED

4.7 3'-6"H METAL GUARDRAIL, PAINTED

4.9 MAILBOX, PAINTED

4.10 STUCCO CLAD EXTERIOR WALL, COLOR TBD BY ARCHITECT

4.11 PURA NFC COMPOSITE HORIZONTAL SIDING

4.12 ART WORK, TBD BY ARCHITECT

4.14 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS AND WINDOWS

4.16 LIGHT FIXTURE

4.17 HORIZONTAL WOOD SCREEN WITH 1x4 WOOD BOARDS AT 6" OC, STAIN

TO MATCH WOOD SIDING

4.18 6'h WOODEN GATE AND FENCE

4.50 PROPERTY LINE

4.51 METAL DOOR,PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SIDING

4.61 TRANSIT AND RIDESHARE KIOSK

4.62 4'H WOOD FENCE IN FRONT YARD SETBACK
4 3/16" = 1'-0"

SIDE ELEVATION - EAST
1 3/8" = 1'-0"

GATE ELEVATION

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MATERIAL SELECTIONS

VINYL WINDOWS
COLOR TO BE "BLACK"
STUCCO SIDING;
COLOR TO BE "CRYSTAL WHITE"

MANUFACTURED BY LA HABRA

PAINTED METAL RAILINGS, FASCIA, AND
OTHER MISC. METALS, COLOR TO BE
"INKWELL SW 6992" BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"PURA NFC" COMPOSITE

HORIZONTAL SIDING
MANUFACTURED BY TRESPA.

COLOR TO BE "TROPICAL IPE"
STUCCO SIDING;
COLOR TO BE "CORAL GABLE"

MANUFACTURED BY LA HABRA

WOOD FENCING AT SIDE

PROPERTY LINES, CLEAR STAIN

BRICK PAVERS
MANUFACTURED BY "BELGARD"
PRODUCT: AQUALINE SERIES PERMEABLE PAVER
COLOR TO BE "TOSCANA"

EXTERIOR LIGHTING SELECTION
NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS ARE DARK SKY COMPLIANT

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT

PRIVATE DECKS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT EXTERIOR

WALKWAYS AND

CORRIDORS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT EXTERIOR

WALKWAYS AND

CORRIDORS

EXTERIOR WALL

SCONCE AT

MAILBOXES
2ND FL FFE-LOWER

31.25'
T.O. ROOF-LOWER

52.25'
3RD FL FFE-LOWER

41.75'
T.O. ROOF-UPPER

58.50'

PARKING

19.50'
2ND FL-LOWER CEILING

29.67'
3RD FL-LOWER CEILING

40.17'

ROOF-LOWER CEILING

50.67'

ROOF-UPPER CEILING

56.92'
6'-3"10'-6"10'-6"11'-9"
39'-0"

4.3 4.8

4.2 1'-0"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"10'-2"
T.O. PARAPET-LOWER

53.25'

4.10 4.10

4.1 1ST FL FFE

19.00'
2ND FL FFE-LOWER

31.25'
T.O. ROOF-LOWER

52.25'
3RD FL FFE-LOWER

41.75'
2ND FL FFE-UPPER

36.50'
3RD FL FFE-UPPER

47.00'
T.O. ROOF-UPPER

58.50'

PARKING

19.50'
1ST FL MEZZ

27.00'
2ND FL-LOWER CEILING

29.67'
3RD FL-LOWER CEILING

40.17'
2ND FL-UPPER CEILING

34.92'
3RD FL-UPPER CEILING

45.42'

ROOF-LOWER CEILING

50.67'

ROOF-UPPER CEILING

56.92'
T.O.PARAPET

60.50'
2'-0"11'-6"10'-6"9'-6"8'-0"
39'-2"
10'-6"10'-6"11'-9"
32'-9"

OPEN TO

PARKING

4.10 4.5

4.7 4.2
1'-0"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"10'-2"
1'-7"9'-11"1'-7"8'-11"1'-7"15'-11"

4.10 4.5

4.16 4.2
AVE. GRADE

19.33'

4.14 T.O. PARAPET-LOWER

53.25'

4.20 4.10

CALLA AVE ALLEY

LICENSED

ARCHITECT
STATE
OF
C

ALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A201

ELEVATIONS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT

KEYNOTES

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

4.1 CONTROL JOINT

4.2 METAL FLASHING, PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT EXTERIOR WALL

4.3 STEEL LATTICE ROLL UP DOOR

4.5 VINYL WINDOWS AND DOORS, TYP. UNO.

4.7 3'-6"H METAL GUARDRAIL, PAINTED

4.8 METAL GATE AND FENCE, PAINT COLOR TBD BY ARCHITECT

4.10 STUCCO CLAD EXTERIOR WALL, COLOR TBD BY ARCHITECT

4.14 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS AND WINDOWS

4.16 LIGHT FIXTURE

4.20 FIBER CEMENT PANEL, PAINT TO MATCH WINDOW COLOR
2 3/16" = 1'-0"

REAR ELEVATION - SOUTH
3 3/16" = 1'-0"

COURTYARD ELEVATION - B
1 3/16" = 1'-0"

SIDE ELEVATION - WEST

LICENSED

ARCHITECT
STATE
OF
C

ALIFORNIA

19.00'
2ND FL FFE-LOWER

31.25'
T.O. ROOF-LOWER

52.25'
3RD FL FFE-LOWER

41.75'
2ND FL FFE-UPPER

36.50'
3RD FL FFE-UPPER

47.00'
T.O. ROOF-UPPER

58.50'

PARKING

19.50'
1ST FL MEZZ

27.00'
T.O.PARAPET

60.50'
AVE. GRADE

19.33'
T.O. PARAPET-LOWER

53.25'
1'-0"10'-6"10'-6"11'-9"
2'-0"11'-6"10'-6"9'-6"8'-0"

COMMERCIAL
LIVING/KIT.

PARKING
KIT LIVING CL.

LIVING/KIT. LIVING/KIT.

LIVING/KIT.

BATH BR

LIVING/KIT

LIVING/KIT
CL. BATH CL. BATH BR1 KIT. BR2 CL.

CL. BATH CL BATH
BATH BR 1
DECK
DECK

BEDROOM BEDROOM
15'-10 1/2"

OPEN TO SIDE YARD
CALLA AVE ALLEY 39'-2" 10'-1 1/2"

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A202

BUILDING

SECTION
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING SECTION

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A600

RENDERINGS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

NIGHT VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST NIGHT VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

DAY VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
cladinc.us
Project Number:

Revisions
DateNo Notes
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

A601

RENDERINGS
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
XXXX
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
1 3/8" = 1'-0"
VIEW FROM COURTYEARD 2 3/8" = 1'-0"STREET VIEW - WEST
3 3/8" = 1'-0"

STREET VIEW - EAST

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN LOWRY
C-35202
REN. 12.31.23
All drawings and specifications are the property of the architect and shall not be reproduced in any manner,
without expressed written permission from CLAD Inc. Page 280 of 351 landscape architecture
619.370.1080
IRRIGATION NOTES:

1. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE:

HUNTER IRRIGATION X-CORE 8 STATION
WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER. MODEL # XC-800.

2. RAIN SENSOR SHALL BE:

HUNTER IRRIGATION WIRELESS SOLAR SYNC
MODEL # WSS-SEN.

3. PRESSURE REGULATORS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO

ENSURE THE DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF THE SYSTEM IS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE.

PRESSURE REGULATOR SHALL BE:

WILKINS #500 YSBR
FACTORY SET AT 70 PSI

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE SHALL BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TO POINT OF CONNECTION AS POSSIBLE.

4. MANUAL SHUT-OFF VALVES (SUCH AS A GATE VALVE, BALL VALVE, OR BUTTERFLY

VALVE) SHALL BE INSTALLED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY.

5. ALL IRRIGATION EMISSION DEVICES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THE ANSI STANDARD. ASABE/ICC 802-2014 "LANDSCAPE IRRIGATIOON SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD." AND ALL SPRINKLER HEADS SNSTALLED IN THE LANDSCAPE MUST DOCUMENT A DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY LOW QUARTER OF 0.65 OR HIGHER USING THE PROTOCOL DEFINED IN ASABE/ICC 802-2014.

OVERHEAD IRRIGATION NOZZLES SHALL BE:

HUNTER IRRIGATION MP ROTATOR
MODEL MP1000,2000,3000 AS NEEDED WITH A WORKING PRESSURE OF 40 PSI.

DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY OF THESE NOZZLES ARE .8 PER HUNTER.COM DRIP IRRIGATION SHALL BE:

HUNTER IRRIGATION PLD DRIP LINE.

MODEL AND SPACING SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER A SOILS REPORT IS COMPLETED. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATION. DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY OF THIS LINE IS .9 PER HUNTER.COM

6. FOR GENERAL VALVE LOCATIONS REFER TO HYDROZONE CHART ON SHEET L1.1.

SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED SO THAT VALVES ONLY OPERATE HEADS INSIDE THE SAME HYDROZONE.

7. ALL HYDROZONES SHALL BE VALVED/ZONED SEPERATELY
IRRIGATION CONCEPT:

THE LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY MEANS OF A POTABLE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

1. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE.

2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE AN AUTOMATIC, PERMANENT, BELOW-GRADE SYSTEM.

3. HOSE BIBBS SHALL BE INCLUDED TO SERVICE PLANTING AREAS.

4. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE SPRAY OR DRIP SYSTEMS.

5. NO IRRIGATION RUN-OFF SHALL DRAIN OFF-SITE INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, STREETS, DRIVES, OR ALLEYS. A CONNECTION SHALL NOT BE MADE TO ANY STORMWATER SYSTEM WITHOUT PROPER BMP'S.

6. THE BMP'S SHALL STORE AND TREAT ALL STORMWATER AND ACCIDENTAL IRRIGATION RUN-OFF PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO CITY STORMWATER SYSTEM.

7. ALL IMPERMEABLE SURFACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CAUSE WATER TO DRAIN ENTIRELY INTO A LANDSCAPED AREA.

8. ONLY SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED TO IRRIGATE ANY VEGETATION

WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR INCHES OF AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE UNLESS THE

ADJACENT IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ARE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CAUSE WATER TO DRAIN ENTIRELY INTO A LANDSCAPED AREA.

MAINTENANCE:

ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER.

LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS AND LITTER AND ALL PLANT

MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION DESIGN CRITERIA:

1. ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS OF THE

CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS,THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPE-RELATED CITY AND REGIONAL STANDARDS.

2. PLANTING WILL BE DESIGNED TO HIGHLIGHT ENTRANCE AREAS TO THE PROJECT AND ADD VISUAL INTEREST TO THE SITE.

3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SELECTED FOR USE WILL BE OF A TYPE KNOWN TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE AREA OR IN SIMILAR CLIMATIC AND SOIL CONDITIONS.

4. COLOR FROM PLANT FOLIAGE, BARK, OR FLOWER WILL BE UTILIZED TO CREATE AN INVITING, WARM, AND VISUALLY APPEALING LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT.

DESIGN STATEMENT:

THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS INFLUENCED BY THE STYLE OF THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY AND COMPLEMENTS THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING.

THE ARRANGEMENT OF HARDSCAPE AND PLANTINGS PROMOTES MOVEMENT THROUGH THE SITE. ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION HAS BEEN SELECTED WITH CONSIDERATION OF DROUGHT TOLERANCE, EASE OF MAINTENANCE, STRUCTURE, FLOWER AND FOLIAGE. A RESTRICTED

PALETTE OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MAINTAIN THE COHESIVE THEME OF THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN. THE LANDSCAPE STYLE SHALL MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY TO AVOID COMPLEX PLANT MIXTURES AND VISUAL CONFUSION.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL GRADED, DISTURBED, OR ERODED AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE PERMANENTLY PAVED OR

COVERED BY STRUCTURES SHALL BE PERMANENTLY REVEGETATED AND IRRIGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH LANDSCAPE MANUAL.

2. GRADED PAD AREAS SHALL BE HYDRO-SEEDED TO PREVENT EROSION IN THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS DOES NOT OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS OF GRADING.

HYDRO-SEED SHALL BE IRRIGATED OR REAPPLIED AS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH GROWTH.

3. ALL PLANTING, IRRIGATION, AND LANDSCAPE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WILL COMPLY WITH

THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND THE LANDSCAPE MANUAL STANDARDS.

4. ALL TREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT ALL BRANCHES OVER THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS ARE AT LEAST 6 FEET ABOVE THE WALKWAY GRADE AND SO THAT ALL BRANCHES OVER VEHICLE TRAVEL WAYS ARE 14 FEET ABOVE GRADE OF THE TRAVEL WAY.

5. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, AND LITTER.

6. ALL PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL USE AN APPROVED RAIN SENSOR SHUTOFF DEVICE.

7. HIGH WATER USE PLANTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NOT MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPED LANDSCAPE AREA. ALL OTHER PLANTINGS SHALL BE COMPOSED OF LOW-WATER-USE PLANT MATERIAL.

8. AN AUTOMATIC, ELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL ME MAINTAINED FOR

PROPER DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VEGETATION IN A HEALTHY, DISEASE-RESISTANT CONDITION. THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE VEGETATION SELECTED.

9. INCORPORATE COMPOST AT A RATE OF AT LEAST FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE

FEET TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO LANDSCAPE AREA (UNLESS CONTRAINDICATED BY A SOIL TEST).

10. AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF

THE PROPERTY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND A SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE.

11. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF WOOD BARK MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS.

PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND

CALLOUT

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE

MINIMUM HEIGHT

AND SPREAD
(MATURE HEIGHT
/ SPREAD)

IRRIGATION DEMANDS

H - HIGH

M - MODERATE

L - LOW

N - RAINFALL ONLY

REMARKS
TREES
CER. FLO. CERCIDIUM FLORIBUNDA 'DESERT MUSEUM' THORNLESS PALO VERDE 36"
BOX
8'X6'
(20' X 20') L MULTI- TRUNK; FULL HEAD, GOOD FORM AND

CALIPER
TRI. CON. TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX
36"
BOX
8'X6'
(20' X 20') L SINGLE TRUNK; FULL HEAD, GOOD FORM AND

CALIPER

SHRUBS & SUCCULENTS
AGA. ATT. AGAVE ATTENUATA FOX TAIL AGAVE 5 GAL. 18" x 12" (4' x 3') L FULL CLUMPS, FULL FORM, GOOD COLOR, VIGOROUS ALO. ROO. ALOE RUDIKOPPE 'LITTLE GEM' LITTLE GEM ALOE 1 GAL. 12" x 12" (2' x 3') L FULL FORM AND COLOR, VIGOROUS
BOU. GRA. BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' BLOND AMBITION BLUE GAMA GRASS 1 GAL. 10" X 8" (18" x 18") L FULL CLUMPS, GOOD COLOR, VIGOROUS
KNI. UVA. KNIPHOPHIA UVARIA RED HOT POKER 1 GAL. 12" x 8" (2' x 2') L FULL CLUMPS, FULL FORM, GOOD COLOR, VIGOROUS LAN. 'NG' LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' DWARF YELLOW LANTANA 1 GAL. 12" x 8" (2' x SPREADING) L FULL FORM AND COLOR, VIGOROUS
MUH. DUB. MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLY 5 GAL. 18" x 12" (4' x 4') L FULL CLUMPS, FULL FORM, GOOD COLOR, VIGOROUS POD. GRA. PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR YEW PINE HEDGE 5 GAL. 18" x 12" (20' x 6') L FULL FORM AND COLOR, VIGOROUS
SAL. POZ. SALVIA 'POZO BLUE' POZO BLUE SAGE 5 GAL. 18" x 12" (4' x 4') L FULL FORM AND COLOR, VIGOROUS

GROUNDCOVERS
SEN. SER. SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS 4" POT
4" x 4"
(6" x SPREADING) L FULL CLUMPS, GOOD COLOR, PLANT 12" O.C.

R 7/13/2023 9:46:04 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3, Kyle SImon

Page 281 of 351 ends

7,034 SQ,FT
1,416 SQ.FT (20%)
472 SQ.FT (7%)
1,207 SQ.FT (17%)
3,095 SQ.FT (44%)

Page 282 of 351 ends

SALVIA SPECIES - POZO BLUE

SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND GROUNDCOVER

AGAVE ATTENUATA -

FOX TAIL AGAVE

ALOE ROOKAPIE - ALOE ALWAYS RED

BOUTELOUA GRACILIS -

GAMMA GRASS BLOND AMBITION

SENECIO SERPENS - PUNK PICKLE LANTANA 'GOLD MOUND' - GOLD LANTANA

CERCIDIUM FLORIBUNDA

THORNLESS PALO VERDE
TREES

PAVERS - BELGARD MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA -

PINE MUHLY

KNIPHOPHIA UVARIA -

RED HOT POKER

PODOCARPUS HEDGE

YEW PINE

TRISTANIA CONFERTA
7/13/2023 9:52:45 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3, Kyle SImon

BRISBANE BOX
DECOMPOSED GRANITE - MOJAVE GOLD Page 283 of 351

Page 284 of 351 ends

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 15, 2023, 4:00 p.m.

Council Chambers
825 Imperial Beach Boulevard
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Members Present: Chair Bradley, Vice Chair Beltran, Member Grace, Member Rogers
Members Absent: Member Voronchihin
Staff Present: Community Development Director Openshaw, City Planner/Management Associate Ayala, Assistant City Clerk Malone

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bradley called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Assistant City Clerk Malone took the roll.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

4. BUSINESS ITEMS

4.1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.

Motion by Vice Chair Beltran
Seconded by Member Rogers
Approved the Design Review Board regular meeting minutes of 05-18- 2023.
1 Attachment 3

Page 285 of 351 ends

AYES (4): Chair Bradley, Vice Chair Beltran, Member Grace, and Member Rogers
ABSENT (1 ): Member Voronchihin
Motion Carried (4 to 0)

4.2 COLIN LOWRY (APPLICANT)/QJ DEVELOPMENT (OWNER);
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH A 777 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(TWO VERY-LOW INCOME) AT 981 & 983 CALLA AVENUE (APN 626- 221-24-00). USE-22-0100.

City Planner/Management Associate Ayala gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Written Public Comment read outload by Chair Bradley, from Lj Esslinger.

Public Comment: Lj Esslinger spoke in opposition of the project.

Design Review Board discussion ensued.

Motion by Vice Chair Beltran
Seconded by Member Grace
Recommended approval of the project's design to the City Council for the proposed new three-story mixed-use building that includes a 777 square foot ground floor commercial space, twelve residential units (inclusive of two very low-income affordable units), and a six-car garage at 981 & 983 Calla Avenue (APN 626-221-24-00) with the following recommendations; 1 . Adding additional outdoor communal space for the health of the community,

2. Create negative space on the north and east facing walls,

3. Install bike storage for the commercial space,

4. Consider the residential location of the project and incorporate More screening for the privacy of the neighbors and more beautiful landscaping (not DG and decorative pebble) that the residents could enjoy. If DG is used, to use DG with bio-additives to breakdown pet waste,

5. Replace wood fencing with CMU wall for longevity and security, 2

Page 286 of 351 ends

6. Install bollards and CMU wall for the three open parking spaces,

7. Lower the lighting on Northwest and Southeast elevation to the side of the doors so there is no spillage into the adjacent property,

8. Use warmer tones to soften the institutional appearance of the building,

9. In the Northwest corner the DG space be used for storage space for residents,

10. Reconsider the decorative pebble and consider the utilization of artificial turf or similar material to incorporate landscaping,

11. Use planters on the West elevation or a green wall to soften institutional appearance,

12. Use permanent low wall to screen the SDG&E box in the front yard,

13. Change tree species from desert museum trees to more vertical and evergreen, for lower maintenance and less blockage of views,

14. Consider utilization of a brisbane box or a sweet shade tree,

15. Add verbiage to irrigation plans that the auxiliary equipment is not visible from the property line,

16. Should the artwork not be used where designated to consider a green wall treatment on East elevation,

17. For any future solar equipment, provide concealed infrastructure to avoid the need for surface mounted conduit,

18. Consider the use of larger materials that are more aesthetically pleasing in the areas that are not walkways and are currently DG,

19. Monitoring the Transportation Demand Management Strategies, and

20. Include condition of approval related to coordinating with the neighbors related to the design of the fencing.

AYES (3): Chair Bradley, Vice Chair Beltran, and Member Grace NOES (1 ): Member Rogers
ABSENT (1 ): Member Voronchihin
3

Page 287 of 351 ends

5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/REPORTS
Motion Carried (3 to 1)
Chair Bradley made a motion to agendize a discussion on parking in the City for a future meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Beltran.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bradley adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
4

Page 288 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

CLAD Inc.
4766 32nd Street, San Diego, CA 92116
619.800.8105
[email protected]
All drawings are the property of the architect and
shall not be reproduced in any manner, without
expressed written permission from CLAD Inc.

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6
Attachment 4

Page 289 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 290 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 291 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 292 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 293 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 294 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 295 of 351 ends

Scale:

Project number:

RENDERING
XXXX
CALLA

DEVELOPMENT
981 & 983 Calla Ave
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
08/2/2023
DESIGN REVIEW 6

Page 296 of 351 ends

PROJECT Calla Development
ADDRESS 981 & 983 Calla Ave
PERMIT # USE-22-0100/CP-22-0016/DRC-22-0030/SPR-22-0031 Responses to DRB Recommendations.

1. Adding additional outdoor communal space for the health of the community.

1. A small patio has been added in the front yard for the use of the commercial tenants. See site plan.

2. Create negative space on the north and east facing walls.

1. The current design includes negative space on all sides. No changes are proposed. Providing additional negative space would reduce rentable floor area and reduce feasibility. State Density Bonus Law allows for incentives including reducing setbacks which we have proposed for this project.

3. Install bike storage for commercial spaces.

1. Bike racks have been added to the front yard for the use of the commercial tenants. See site plan.

4. More screening for the privacy of the neighbors.

1. Landscape screening on the ground floor walls of the parking garage is not feasible as the walls are on the property line. Adding vines, green walls etc. would not be accessible by the Owner and maintenance would fall onto the adjacent owner. In lieu of the screening I would suggest we include this item under item 21 to be discussed with adjacent neighbors. Potential options for the ground floor parking walls include vines, green wall, alternate stucco colors, wood screens.

5. If DG is used, to use DG with bio-additives to breakdown pet waste.

1. In lieu of bio-additives, the landscaping maintenance crews will be responsible for removing pet waste and keeping the facility clean. No change is proposed.

6. Replace wood fencing with CMU wall for longevity and security.

1. A CMU wall is not a desirable aesthetic. Owner would prefer to install a 6’H wood fence per the plans, however per item 21, Owner will discuss the fencing options with the adjacent neighbors during construction.

7. Install bollards and CMU wall for the three open parking spaces.

1. Concrete curb stops, the curb, and the 5 poducarpus trees will provide sufficient safety for the tenants from any car. No change is proposed. A curb and curb stops are the standard method of providing protection for a walkway adjacent to parking.

8. Lower the lighting on Northwest and Southeast elevation to the side of the doors so there is no spillage into the adjacent property.

1. Lighting has been lowered, see elevations.

9. Use warmer tones to soften the institutional appearance of the building.

1. The wood siding, wood fencing, wood screens screening the stairways, and landscaping will provide sufficient warm tones to the building. No change is proposed.

10. In the Northwest corner the DG space be used for storage space for residents.

1. The electric meters will be located along this wall and require 3’ clear working space in front of them, so this space will not be able to be used for tenant storage.

Attachment 5

Page 297 of 351 ends

11. Reconsider the decorative pebble and consider the utilization of artificial turf or similar material to incorporate landscaping.

1. Decorative pebbles are only used under the stairs where no plant would survive due to lack of sunlight. No change

12. Use planters on the West elevation or a green wall to soften institutional appearance.

1. Landscape screening on the ground floor walls of the parking garage is not feasible as the walls are on the property line. Adding vines, green walls etc. would not be accessible by the Owner and maintenance would fall onto the adjacent owner. In lieu of the screening Owner will include this item under item 21 to be discussed with adjacent neighbors during construction.

Potential options for the ground floor parking walls include vines, green wall, alternate stucco colors, wood screens.

13. Use permanent low wall to screen the SDG&E box in the front yard.

1. 4’H wood fence added to screen the SDGE transformer, see landscaping plan.

14. Change tree species from desert museum trees to more vertical and evergreen, for lower maintenance and less blockage of views. Recommend using Brisbane Box or Sweet Shade trees.

1. Street trees have been revised to Brisbane Box, see landscaping plans.

15. Add verbiage to irrigation plans that the auxiliary equipment is not visible from the property line.

1. Note added to the site plan notes.

16. Should the artwork not be used where designated to consider a green wall treatment on East elevation.

1. Artwork will be installed per plan. No artist has been chosen but Owner will work with someone local. A green wall is difficult to maintain. No change is proposed.

17. For any future solar equipment provide concealed infrastructure to avoid the need for surface mounted conduit.

1. Note added to the roof plan.

18. Consider the use of larger materials that are more aesthetically pleasing in the areas that are not walkways and are currently DG.

1. Decorative pebbles have been used in the landscaping areas below the stairs, and DG will remain in the areas along the front yard. The DG is being used in areas where there are heavier plantings and is more in line aesthetically with the chosen plant materials, see landscaping plans.

19. Monitoring of Transportation Demand Management Strategies.

1. The Owner is aware and will comply.

20. Include condition of approval related to coordinating with the neighbors related to the design of the fencing.

1. The owner is aware and will comply.

21. Solicit input from neighbors regarding material to be used for the fence in front of the 3 open parking spaces, however, the safety component must be considered.

1. Owner is aware and will comply. Owner would prefer to provide 6’H wood fencing per plan on all side property lines, however the material choice will be discussed with adjacent neighbors during construction.

Page 298 of 351 ends

P a g e | 1
August 16, 2023
ITEM TITLE: DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2023-69 DENOUNCING ANY MODIFICATIONS OF SERVICE OR OPERATIONS TO THE IMPERIAL BEACH POST OFFICE. (0150-40)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has been made aware of operation modifications at the Imperial Beach Post Office as part of the USPS Sorting and Delivery Center initiative. USPS leadership has declined to meet with the City of Imperial Beach and the City Council has directed staff to prepare a Resolution denouncing any modifications of service or operations to the Imperial Beach Post Office.

RECOMMENDATION:

City Council discussion and adoption of Resolution No. 2023-69 to denounce any modifications of service or operations to the Imperial Beach Post Office.

OPTIONS:
 Adopt Resolution; or
 Adopt Resolution with modifications; or
 Reject Resolution; or
 Request additional information and an additional report.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

In June, the City was contacted by postal union representatives and separately received a complaint from a member of the public about changes to Post Office operations. City staff reached out to the Postmaster to discuss Post Office operations. City staff did not receive a response from the Postmaster and reached out to an out-of-state USPS Strategic Communications Specialist.

The City was informed that local USPS leadership declined the City’s request to discuss operations and was provided with a general statement describing the USPS Sorting and Delivery Center initiative, which was unveiled in the fall of 2022 in Athens, Georgia, and would be taking place in the Imperial Beach community by co-locating postal carriers in Chula Vista where the mail is sorted. Following this response, a community rally was held at the Imperial Beach Post Office, where many members of the public expressed their concerns about any modification of operations.

Following this public response, a separate out-of-state USPS representative contacted the City describing the Sorting and Delivery Center initiative. The City requested that local USPS leadership address the community directly and respond to questions. The Office of Representative Vargas was contacted by the Mayor and has been in communication with USPS,

Page 299 of 351 ends

P a g e | 2
though the City has not yet received formal communication from local USPS leadership. Due to the lack of transparency and public input, the City Council directed staff at the August 2, 2023 City Council meeting to prepare a Resolution that denounces any modifications to service or operations at the Imperial Beach Post Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

ATT 1 - Resolution 2023-69

Page 300 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-69

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA,

DENOUNCING ANY MODIFICATIONS OF SERVICE OR OPERATIONS TO THE IMPERIAL

BEACH POST OFFICE
WHEREAS, the City of Imperial Beach was recently made aware of an upcoming consolidation of postal services as part of the United States Postal Service (USPS) Sorting and Delivery Center initiative, where Imperial Beach postal carriers would be moved to the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, USPS has declined to meet with City officials to discuss Post Office operations; and
WHEREAS, USPS has declined to meet with the community to respond to questions; and WHEREAS, the City of Imperial Beach is concerned about any delay in mail and parcel service due to commuting postal carriers or lack of staff, transportation for elderly, infirm, lowincome families if out-of-City service is necessary, increased vehicle emissions from new commutes, and any other reduced services and/or lower quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City of Imperial Beach is already an underserved community struggling with transboundary water pollution that has impacted the community for decades, without any relief or support from the State of California or the U.S. Federal Government; and WHEREAS, modification of postal services has been carried out by USPS with a lack of transparency and public input; and
WHEREAS, the City of Imperial Beach is concerned with any actions that may reduce services or potentially lead to the closure of the Imperial Beach Post Office.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City of Imperial Beach denounces any modifications to service or operations at the Imperial Beach Post Office.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach at its meeting held on the 16th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PALOMA AGUIRRE, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JACQUELINE M. KELLY, MMC

CITY CLERK

Page 301 of 351 ends

P a g e | 1
August 16, 2023
ITEM TITLE: INVESTMENT UPDATE PRESENTED BY CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT. (0350-90)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Chandler Asset Management provides investment management services for the City of Imperial Beach. As part of their services, they provide investment updates to the City Council. Chandler Asset Management will present information pertaining to the City’s financial holdings. The presentation will include an economic and financial update through June 30, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the investment update report from Chandler Asset Management.

OPTIONS:
 Receive and file the report
 Provide direction to the City Manager to take a specific action  Request additional information and an additional report BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Chandler Asset Management provides investment management services for the City of Imperial Beach. As part of their services, they provide investment update reports to the City Council.

Chandler Asset Management will present information pertaining to the City’s financial holdings.

The presentation will include an update of general economic indicators as well as investment activities through June 30, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A

Page 302 of 351 ends

P a g e | 1
August 16, 2023
ITEM TITLE: CONSIDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON GOVERNANCE

OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS AND REGIONS AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A RESPONSE LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. (0440- 25)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On June 7, 2023, the San Diego County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) filed a report on Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions (Grand Jury Report). The Grand Jury Report contained a total of fifteen (15) findings and four (4) recommendations directed to the Mayors and City Councils of the five (5) Port District member cities, including Imperial Beach. Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that the City submit responses to the applicable findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge within 90 days of the filing of the Grand Jury Report due by August 28, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2023-71 (Attachment 1) authorizing the Mayor to sign a response letter to the San Diego County Grand Jury Report on behalf of the Mayor and City Council.

OPTIONS:
 Adopt Resolution 2023-71 and associated response letter; or  Adopt Resolution 2023-71 and response letter with modifications; or  Do not adopt the Resolution and response letter and provide additional direction to the City Manager.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The Grand Jury Report is the product of an investigation by the Grand Jury of the San Diego Unified Port District (the “Port District”), the County of San Diego, and the five (5) Port District member cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego, and National City. The goal of the investigation was to assess how the subject organizations interact around the governance of San Diego Bay tidal lands and resources (Attachment 2).

The Grand Jury Report describes previous Grand Jury reports on the Port District, the Port District’s creation, governance, relation to State agencies, and funding. The Grand Jury Report also analyzes equitable representation of residents of the five Port Cities and their governing bodies, as well as the residents of the County of San Diego, and considers the Port District’s

Page 303 of 351 ends

P a g e | 2
planning process and how its proposed projects have affected its member cities and the County of San Diego.

The Grand Jury Report makes the following findings:
 Finding 1: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.  Finding 2: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.
 Finding 3: Because the interests of residents of Port Cities and the County of San Diego are subject to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners, their interests may not be heard, prioritized or represented accurately.  Finding 4: Briefings by Port Commissioners to Port City Councils in noticed public meetings regarding issues affecting their jurisdictions, will increase the level of public participation and knowledge regarding Port District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.  Finding 5: Currently, the Board of Port Commissioners does not have term limits.

Considering term limits would foster democratic principles by providing more opportunities for diverse and talented individuals to serve, prevent the accumulation of influence, and uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.  Finding 6: With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of San Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.  Finding 7: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may crate conflict of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.
 Finding 8: Success in the development of the Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center has been obtained because of a close collaboration and alignment of interests between the Port District and the City of Chula Vista.
 Finding 9: The Port Commissioners decision to move short-haul truck staging for local deliveries of Dole Fruit products relocated a source of pollution from the Barrio Logan community to communities in National City.
 Finding 10: The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project’s potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby residents damaged the Port District’s community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.
 Finding 11: Oversight of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project by the City of San Diego or San Diego County governments might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.  Finding 12: The Port’s decision to approve the Cottages at the Cays development proposal could negatively impact access to San Diego Bay and approving the plan favors those willing or able to pay costly hotel rates typical of the Coronado area.  Finding 13: Given a preference for informal channels of communication by Port City councils and mayors with their appointed Port District representatives, neither Port Commissioners nor Port City Councils maintain completely open and transparent relationships allowing for public involvement or awareness of Port District activities.  Finding 14: In its current form, the Port Master Plan and Master Plan Update documents published by the Port District are overly complex, difficult to understand and too broad in scope to foster meaningful comprehension by Port City residents, elected municipal or county officials.

Page 304 of 351 ends

P a g e | 3
 Finding 15: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments would allow residents of Port City Planning districts and San Diego County to acknowledge and confirm their understanding of Port District development plans and projects within their municipal and county boundaries and provide reliable documents for communities to plan for the future.

The Grand Jury Report provides the following recommendations for the City Councils of the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City:
 Recommendation 23-90: Enact ordinances or policies placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
 Recommendation 23-91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.  Recommendation 23-92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.  Recommendation 23-93: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

California Penal Code §933(c) and 933.05 require that any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, provide comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). The Grand Jury Report was filed on June 7, 2023 and a response is due by August 28, 2023.

Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury Report and is preparing a response letter to the honorable Michael T. Smyth, Presiding Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, that would address the applicable findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The response letter will be made available prior to the City Council meeting.

For each Grand Jury finding, the responding entity much indicate that it 1) agrees with the finding, or that it 2) disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response must specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation for their disagreement with the finding. The proposed response letter addresses all findings pertaining to matters under the control of the City of Imperial Beach.

For each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding entity must indicate that 1) the entity has implemented the recommendation; 2) the entity has not yet implemented the recommendation, but will do so in the future, with a time frame for implementation; 3) the recommendation requires further analysis, with a time frame for completing such analysis, not to exceed 6 months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report; or 4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. The proposed response letter provides such response to each recommendation made to the Imperial Beach.

It is requested that the City Council consider the Grand Jury Report and the prepared response letter and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter as a completed response from the City of Imperial Beach, inclusive of any proposed modifications deemed necessary by the City Council.

Page 305 of 351 ends

P a g e | 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed activity may be determined to not be a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it would not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity would not be subject to CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

ATT 1 – Resolution 2023-71
ATT 2 – Grand Jury Report – Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions ATT 3 – City of Imperial Beach Grand Jury Response (Forthcoming)

Page 306 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-71

A RESOLUTION OF THE IMPERIAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO

SIGN A RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY GRAND JURY RELATED TO THE REPORT ON GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO

BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS AND REGIONS
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2023, the San Diego County Grand Jury filed a report titled “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions” with the Clerk of the Court (the “Grand Jury Report”); and
WHEREAS, the Grand Jury Report contained four (4) recommendations directed to the City of Imperial Beach; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to state law, the City of Imperial Beach must provide comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency; and
WHEREAS, a response to the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court regarding the Grand Jury Report has been prepared addressing the applicable findings and recommendations listed in the Grand Jury Report; and
WHEREAS, it is requested that the Mayor and City Council approve the response to the Grand Jury Report and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter on behalf of the Mayor and City Council.

WHEREAS, the proposed activity has been determined to not be a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. That the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach approves the response to the San Diego County Grand Jury Report on Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions and authorizes the Mayor to sign the response on behalf of the Mayor and City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach at its meeting held on the 16th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PALOMA AGUIRRE, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JACQUELINE M. KELLY, MMC

CITY CLERK

Page 307 of 351 ends

1 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS

AND REGIONS

SUMMARY
The 2022/2023 Grand Jury (Grand Jury) undertook an investigation of the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District), the County of San Diego and the five Port Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego and National City to assess how these organizations interact around the governance of San Diego Bay tidal lands and resources. This assessment was undertaken in response to a perception that the Port of San Diego and its unelected seven-member Board of Commissioners is not accountable to either the elected officials or the electorate of its five member cities or the County of San Diego, especially in the planning, development and implementation of projects in those cities.

The Port District is an independent governmental agency created by the State of California and approved by voters in Chula Vista, Coronado,1 Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego in 1962 to manage the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay.

This report will briefly review previous Grand Jury reports on the Port District and look at its creation, governance, relation to State agencies, and funding. The Grand Jury will also investigate conflicts and issues surrounding the Port District’s operations in regard to the equitable representation of residents of the five Port Cities and their governing bodies, as well as the residents of the County of San Diego and its residents. Finally, the Grand Jury will also discuss the Port District’s planning process and how its proposed projects have affected the five Port Cities, the County of San Diego and residents of these regions.

The report’s recommendations include increasing the Port District’s public participation and transparency by:
• Scheduling regular updates and presentations at publicly noticed open meetings of the city councils of its member cities;
• Simplification of the Port Master Plans around the Port District Planning Districts falling within each of the Port City’s jurisdictional boundaries and three of the County’s supervisorial districts; • Submitting the Port Master Plan, and all future updates and amendments, to the relevant city council and County Supervisor for discussion and ratification; • Lobbying the California State Legislature to introduce legislation enabling the County of San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District and decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners, and share in the Port District’s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay; • Depending on the outcome of the legislation recommended above, exploring an alternate form of governance for the Port District, with participation from the County Board of Supervisors and elected officials of the five member cities;
• Encourage a limit of two four-year terms that a Port Commissioner can serve; • Include staff from each of the five cities on each of the Port District’s advisory committees; and • Post meeting minutes and agendas of each of the Port District’s advisory committees on-line. 1 While the 1962 vote to approve creation of the Port involved tallying the combined votes of the five port cities, voters in the City of Coronado voted against Proposition D by a margin of 3 to 1.

Attachment 2

Page 308 of 351 ends

2 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023)

INTRODUCTION
“We can do whatever we want, right?”2 The words were spoken – and repeated several times-- by a commissioner of the San Diego Unified Port District during a public meeting of the Board of Port Commissioners. A Commissioner went on to describe what was believed to be “the absolute sovereignty of this board to make any decision that we want from this dais at any time.” 3 The comment was made during a discussion of the changes proposed for the Port District’s policy on Capital Improvement Projects, and while made in the specific context of achieving greater flexibility for capital project funding, inadvertently characterized the broad authority and perceived nature of this organization – led by a seven-member unelected board of commissioners, largely autonomous, selfgoverning, self-funded and independent of oversight by local elected officials.

The 2022-23 San Diego County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) is not alone in its concern over the lack of oversight, transparency and accountability of an organization with such far reaching power and jurisdiction. Over the last several decades, two separate San Diego County Grand Juries have reached similar conclusions, the earliest being the 1986-87 Grand Jury and more recently the 1997-98 Grand Jury.

The 1986-87 Grand Jury Report concluded, “An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port District must include a strong concern for community relations, public input and accountability … yet, in the public’s mind, it conducts itself as does a private company, responsible only to its stockholders.

The fact is that it is a public corporation, guarding a public trust and spending public money.”4 Similarly, the synopsis of the 1997-98 Grand Jury report concluded that the seven commissioners of the Port District “are viewed as operating with almost unlimited discretion regarding how they spend money with minimal accountability. Commissioners are not required to gain approval for their actions from the voting public or even from the city councils which appoint them.”5 In practice, the Port District requires a fiduciary oath of its commissioners to act in the best interests of the Port District, and in its role as guardian of the public trust, to the benefit of the residents of California. As appointees of one of five Port District cities, each commissioner must also represent the perspectives of the city appointing them as commissioner.

In representing the interests of the Port District but only the perspectives of the port cities appointing them, a dichotomy is created. The dichotomy allows port commissioners to manage the valuable resources of San Diego Bay in a unified, comprehensive manner but limits elected governments of the Port Cities and their constituents in making their views known or in determining the actions that are in their best interests. As a result, this dichotomy leads not only to voter disenfranchisement, but to a disconnection between elected municipal governments and their constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners. 2 San Diego Unified Port District Port Commissioners Meeting, September 13, 2022, video recording @ 1:14:25. Board of Port Commissioners on 2022-09-13 1:00 PM (granicus.com) 3 San Diego Unified Port District Port Commissioners Meeting, September 13, 2022, video recording @ 1:15:50. Board of Port Commissioners on 2022-09-13 1:00 PM (granicus.com) 4 1986-87 San Diego County Grand Jury, The County of San Diego and The San Diego Unified Port District Report No. 15, June 30, 1987, page 5-6. 5 1997-98 San Diego County Grand Jury, The San Diego Unified Port District: It’s Time for Taxpayers and Citizens to Have a Direct Say, Final Report, June 30, 1998, page 103.

Page 309 of 351 ends

3 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Severe as these assessments are, they are rooted in the San Diego Unified Port District Act (Port Act)6, enacted by the California Legislature in 1962, through which the State of California delegates the power and responsibility for management of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay. The Port Act delegates these powers to the Port District from the California State Lands Commission (SLC) as guardian of these tidelands and submerged lands through the public trust doctrine. This doctrine “provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.”7 The Port District acts in this capacity as an independent governmental special district without direct oversight of its seven commissioners by other local city or county agencies. The unsalaried commissioners are appointed to four-year terms by city councils of each of the five cities that border San Diego Bay, (San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City). While the commissioners must reside in the city that appointed them, they can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms, except in the City of Coronado which limits its port commissioners to two terms. Port commissioners may be recalled by majority vote of the city council which appointed them. Other than these limitations, no oversight by local governmental bodies is authorized by the Port Act, and decisions by the Board of Port Commissioners are not subject to approval, veto or appeal by city councils or voters of the five Port Cities or the county.8,9
Democratic theory equates responsible government with popular participation in and control over policy formulation, political equality for the individual, deciding divisions of opinion by majority rule with complete freedom of discussion, and periodically holding free and meaningful elections.10 Yet by virtue of the legislation that created the San Diego Unified Port District, values such as these that citizens have come to expect in our governmental legislative, regulatory and judicial institutions have not been embraced.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury conducted interviews and requested information from municipal and county governmental organizations affected by the Port Act.

The Grand Jury researched and reviewed these documents:
• California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix I, also known as the San Diego Unified Port District Act (Port Act)
• The 1986-1987 Grand Jury report: “The County of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District, Report No. 15” and responses
• The 1997-1998 Grand Jury report: “The San Diego Unified Port District: It’s Time for Taxpayers and Citizens to Have a Direct Say” and responses from the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City
• Meeting Minutes and Agendas from the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City as well as the San Diego Unified Port District • Historical records and articles relating to formation of the Port District (per footnotes) • Grand Jury Reports on Ports in other California Counties 6 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act, Document no. 70987, filed March 3, 2020, Office of the District Clerk.
7 https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/ 8 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act 9 The City of Coronado limits the number of terms served by Port Commissioners to two terms 10 Bachrach, Peter. The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Chicago, 1962), p. 94.

Page 310 of 351 ends

4 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) • San Diego Unified Port District Website: www.portofsandiego.org • Detailed electronic maps showing specific boundaries and areas within the San Diego Unified Port District

DISCUSSION
Creation of the San Diego Unified Port District
When California became a state in 1850, it acquired title to navigable waterways as trustee for the protection of public lands, streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands. This is referred to as common law public trust doctrine. Per the State of California State Lands Commission (SLC), “The public’s right to use California’s waterways for navigation, fishing, boating, natural habitat protection and other water-oriented activities is protected by the Common Law doctrine of the Public Trust.” Historically, the Public Trust has referred to the basic right of the public to use its waterways to engage in “commerce, navigation, and fisheries.” The SLC further states that the “Public Trust provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.”11 San Diego Unified Port District: Unique Among California Ports The San Diego Unified Port District is unique among California’s 12 ports in its establishment by state law. According to the Port Act, this was necessary because of the geography and other special characteristics of the locale:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of California to develop the harbors and ports of this State for multiple purpose use for the benefit of the people. A necessity exists within San Diego County for such development. Because of the several separate cities and unincorporated populated areas in the area hereinafter described, only a specially created district can operate effectively in developing the harbors and port facilities. Because of the unique problems presented by this area, and the facts and circumstance relative to the development of harbor and port facilities, the adoption of a special act and the creation of a special district is required. 12
With passage of the enabling Proposition D in November 1962, the SLC granted regulation and control of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay to the newly created Port District.

Following passage of San Diego County’s Proposition D, the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City were to transfer the management of state tidal and submerged lands in San Diego Bay to the jurisdiction of a newly formed San Diego Unified Port District.

Proposition D Controversy
Passage of Proposition D was not obtained without controversy. Prior to the election, the city councils of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista opposed formation of the Port District. Supporters of the proposition focused on the economic benefits made possible by the combined efforts of Port Cities on such projects as construction of South Bay channel and the resulting job growth from expansion of industrial development and maritime activities. Opponents of the proposition focused primarily on the potential control wielded by an unelected board of port commissioners who would have the power to 11 https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/ 12 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act, §2, pg 7. https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/San-Diego-Unified-Port-District-Act.pdf, March 3, 2020.

Page 311 of 351 ends

5 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) issue bonds, levy taxes and develop local tideland resources without input from individual Port Cities.

Another concern was the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of San Diego would get three commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing San Diego to exert dominance over Port Commission resources and priorities.13
A study commissioned by the Coronado Chamber of Commerce three months prior to the 1962 election suggested that instead of the simple majority required by the Port Act to constitute a quorum for Commissioners to conduct business, the act be amended to require a quorum of at least two commissioners from the four Port Cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista and National City.

An additional change in the make-up of the port commission was also suggested to include only two San Diego Commissioners, one commissioner from San Diego County, and one each from the four other Port Cities, allowing appointment of a commissioner representing interests of unincorporated bay front areas of the county.14
While Proposition D was approved by a majority of voters in the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and National City, the proposition was defeated in Coronado by a 3 to 1 margin. An unsuccessful lawsuit filed by Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista attempted to make acceptance of membership in the Port District optional, resulting in a temporary delay, but formation of the Port District was completed on December 18, 1963, following certification of the votes cast for Proposition D in the November 6, 1962 election.15
Port District Funding of Operations
Port District operations are financed primarily through leases and fees generated through its real estate operations, parking, harbor police and other services or fees provided to public or commercial customers of the Port District. As a landlord, the Port District generates most of its revenue from tenants and subtenants who pay rent or fees to conduct business on tidelands. The list includes hotels, restaurants, retail shops, marinas, landings, yacht clubs, shipyards, cargo operators, aerospace firms and cruise ships. While allowed by the Port Act to do so, the Port District does not collect taxes.

Various provisions of the Port Act also allow the Port District to issue general obligation, revenue bonds or levy property or other forms of taxation.

In the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022, over $90 million, or 55% of the Port District’s operating revenue were generated by leases and other Real Estate revenue, while parking, maritime and other fees provided another $77 million in operating revenue, or approximately 45% of operating revenues.

Like commercial business entities that are dependent on revenue streams to remain viable, economic activities that support the Port District’s operations have also represented a significant source of economic risk. Recently, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Port District operations severely limited most revenue generating Port District activities, resulting in a $19.3 million loss in the fiscal year ending June 2021 and prompting one Port Commissioner to consider the need to “analyze and 13 San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Arguments for and Against Proposition D, San Diego County General Election, November 7, 1962.
14 The Wyatt Report: Here’s Text of Advisory on United Port, San Diego Evening Tribune, August 22, 1962, A14-A15. 15 Ibid.

Page 312 of 351 ends

6 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) understand options for potential taxation.”16 However, the Port District qualified for $29 million in stimulus fund assistance in the following year, leading to the generation of a $68.3 million income in the fiscal year ending June 2022.17
While these tidelands-associated revenue streams allow the Port District to operate free of budget constraints typical of other state or local government agencies, the need to generate such revenue can lead to a significant source of bias in the deliberations of Port Commissioners and obscure motives and objectives of staff at all levels of the organization. In a recent informal briefing by the Port District, a sizeable, expected return on investment from a proposed project was praised as a justification for the large public investment of tax dollars needed to fund the project, with less emphasis placed on the project’s other characteristics.

Balanced Interests?
The Grand Jury investigation revealed many concerns by the Port District’s stakeholders. Smaller Port Cities reported a lack of follow through or investment in their cities proportional to the revenue generated for the Port District by tidelands activities occurring in their municipal boundaries. Others cite a lack of prioritization for projects not associated with lucrative leasing contracts or other significant revenue sources. The Grand Jury acknowledges such views, and sees the dilemma faced by the Port District in balancing the many diverse and potentially competing municipal, state and public interests it must manage as both nuanced and complex in ways less understood by the public in general, and in some cases by the city and county governments it serves.

How does a port commissioner balance or prioritize the needs or interests of separate communities, neighborhoods or municipalities against one another or against the interests of the Port District itself? As the adage goes, actions speak louder than words; perhaps recent activities by the Port District and votes by the Board of Port Commissioners can help to answer such questions.

Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center
The key piece of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan is the Gaylord Pacific Resort and Convention Center, a $1.1 billion project that broke ground in 2022 for a 1,600-room hotel alongside a 275,000 square foot convention center on a 36.5-acre site. In 2012, after almost a decade of planning, the City of Chula Vista and the Port District received approval from the California Coastal Commission for this project allowing for the conversion of 535 acres of vacant and industrial property into a Resort Hotel and Convention Center, RV Park, and parking structure. An existing motel, also part of the project sits on land adjacent to Port District boundaries.

The project is important because both the City of Chula Vista and the Port District collaborated on the Master Plan and were involved in seeking its approval, and both parties consider the development project a great success. The Grand Jury investigation revealed an alignment of interests of both parties centered on the regional economic benefits from development of these underused and undervalued tideland assets. Both parties were fully engaged, fully committed and enjoyed the support of the community during all phases of the project, from the initial master plan approval to selection of the 16 Jennifer Van Grove, San Diego’s Bayfront is Controlled by a Little-understood Agency With Power That Will Be Tested in The New Year, February 5, 2021, page 13; San Diego's bayfront is controlled by a little-understood agency with power that will be tested in new year - The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com) 17 San Diego Unified Port District, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Years Ended June 30 2022 and 2021.

Page 48 ends

Page 313 of 351 ends

7 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) operator and developer, as well as the formation of multiple financing agreements. Both parties are to share in the public infrastructure costs expected to approach $370 million, but also retain shares of excess revenues.

Dole Fruit Company Contract
First signed in 2002, this agreement leased portions of San Diego’s 10th Avenue terminal to Dole Fruit Company for imports of fruit into the U.S. west coast market. Primary operations centered on longhaul trucking operations delivering fruit to many sites in the Southern California region, as well as short-haul trucking operations to sites in San Diego County. The short-haul local operations involved many more trips by smaller-sized trucks and were perceived to create a more significant source of air pollution than long-haul operations which involved larger loads and fewer trips on semi-trailer trucks.

Following negotiation for a 25-year lease extension through 2036, terms were not released until three days prior to the proposal’s approval by the Board of Port Commissioners on August 14, 2012. The agreement not only extended Dole’s lease, but also moved its short-haul trucking operation out of San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood. This move was perceived to reduce pollution in an area already affected by significant pollution from the nearby freeway and industrial maritime and manufacturing activities. However, the short-haul trucking operation was only relocated to a location in the neighboring city of National City, thereby increasing pollution that potentially affected the health and well-being of nearby residents of that city.

The actions taken by the Port District in approving the Dole Fruit Company lease, reduced potential health hazards for residents of San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood at the expense of the health of National City residents.

Mitsubishi Cement Factory
The Port District recently considered an application by Mitsubishi Cement Corporation (Mitsubishi) for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) that would allow Mitsubishi to construct and operate a cement import, storage, loading and distribution facility within the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal.18 Beginning in 2015, Mitsubishi had been negotiating with the Port District to ship cement-making materials to the Port-operated Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal warehouse for storage and shipment to Southern California construction sites. Nearby residents perceived the project would have introduced a new significant source of pollution to surrounding neighborhoods already experiencing pollution from maritime and industrial activities and freeways in the area.

While the Port District has approved a Maritime Clean Air Strategy (MCAS) to replace diesel fuel burning trucks with electric vehicles by 2030, the technology supporting zero emission electric power for vehicles the size of cement trucks was not yet available, and the Port District announced in a press release that negotiations with Mitsubishi “were not moving forward,” but expressed a willingness to re-consider the proposal, “should the day come when they want to re-open negotiations.”19 18 San Diego Unified Port District, Ordinance 2936, February 25, 2019, https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/Ordinance-No-2936.pdf 19 San Diego Unified Port District, Port of San Diego Issues Statement on Mitsubishi Cement Proposal, General Press Release, February 1, 2023, https://www.portofsandiego.org/press-releases/general-press-releases/port-san-diego-issuesstatement-mitsubishi-cement-proposal

Page 314 of 351 ends

8 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) The process for evaluation of such projects by the Port District is well established and logical in its progression from the proposal, preliminary approval, planning, development, environmental and coastal commission review phases. Yet consideration of the project by a local elected governmental entity might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays
Recent decisions by the Port District surrounding the proposed Cottages at the Cays Project on Coronado’s North Grand Caribe Isle exemplify the disconnection and disenfranchisement of the voting public and elected governmental bodies resulting from the Port District’s independence from local governmental oversight. The Port District had considered a development application from a lessee of property on Coronado’s North Grand Caribe Island to build 41 two-bedroom short stay units limited to six guests per unit. In a letter addressed to the Board of Port Commissioners dated December 23, 2022, the Mayor of Coronado expressed strong opposition to the project, stating, “this project does not reflect the will of the community or the Coronado City Council.” Specific objections to the project cited in the letter included:20
• A unanimous vote by the Coronado City Council in opposition to the proposed project. • Opposition from community groups such as the Coronado Cays Homeowner’s Association and community members who provided petitions in opposition. • Reversal of the Port District policy refined in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update (PMPU) to “expressly disallow the development of more hotel rooms and to convert the land use designation to Recreational Open Space, which preserves the area for environmental preservation and complete public access.”
• The project would create “preferential access to those that can afford what will most likely be costly room rates similar to other hotel rates in the area.” • The project contravenes the PMPU commitment for the “protection and management of natural resources that best reflect environmental stewardship for present and future generations”, on property expected to be highly vulnerable to sea level rise in the decades to come.
• The project would “create a hotel use which is not compatible with the surrounding residential area…,” posing significant traffic impacts and safety concerns on the community of approximately 1,200 homes which can only be accessed through a single entrance.

Due to policies governing the rights of lessees, The Port District was obligated to present this development proposal for a vote to the Board of Port Commissioners. In addition, the Port District viewed the land use designation of Recreational Open Space for the parcel reflected in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update as being unbinding and preliminary, pending approval by the California Coastal Commission. Had it been approved, this land use would have represented a land use inconsistent with the Coronado Cays development proposal which required a Commercial Open Space designation currently in place for the property. On February 14, 2023, the Board of Port Commissioners approved the Cottages at the Cays Project by a vote of 4-3 in favor of initiating a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, followed by consideration of a Port Master Plan Amendment to add the project to the Port Master Plan, prior to application by the developer for a coastal development permit. 20 Mayor Richard Bailey, Letter of Opposition to Cottages at the Cays Development Project Proposal, December 23, 2022.

Page 315 of 351 ends

9 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Who Watches the Watchers? California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission In response to the Grand Jury’s concern that the Port District is largely autonomous, self-governing, self-funded and independent of oversight by local elected officials, the Port District views the oversight of its decisions and activities provided by the California State Lands Commission (SLC) and the California Coastal Commission as more than adequate.

The SLC oversight is to ensure Port District activities are consistent with the public trust doctrine. In this role the Port District consults with the SLC on an as needed basis, to seek clarification, advice and guidance in matters affecting the Port District’s role as guardian of the public trust for San Diego Bay.

If determined to be inconsistent with this doctrine, the SLC could direct the Port District to stop, discuss and resolve the issues causing such concern.

In addition to the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission approvals, the CEQA requires that “state and local agencies consider environmental protection in regulating public and private activities and should not approve projects for which there exist feasible and environmentally superior mitigation measures or alternatives.” In the absence of any documented exemptions provided for in the act, CEQA requires the publication of detailed Environmental Impact Reports for projects approved by the Port District for public review and comment.21 Requirements of the California Coastal Commission and CEQA also affect Port District activities relating to the approval of the Port Master Plan, Master Plan Updates or Amendments. In addition, Port District approved projects often require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.

While members of port city councils or San Diego County Supervisors have no direct oversight of Port District activities or ability to appeal decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners, the Port District indicated the existence of multiple venues to make their views known, and commissioners as a whole place a very high value on the desires of member cities. In addition, the public has access to most of the public meetings of the SLC, California Coastal Commission and also to regular meetings of the Board of Port Commissioners, as well as access to the public websites of these organizations. Also, decisions of the three-member California Coastal Commission can be appealed with the agreement of two of three commissioners to first hear the appeal and then vote to reverse their decision.

Public Participation and the Port District of San Diego The Grand Jury noted meetings of the Board of Commissioners are posted on the Port District’s website and that public participation is allowed. Meeting agendas are posted, and minutes are made available. In addition, the Board of Port Commissioner meetings are recorded, and recordings are available for public viewing. The Port District’s policy regarding public participation is spelled out in Board of Port Commissioners Policy 060 which was adopted June 10, 2008.22 The Board of Port Commissioners also formed several subcommittees, forums, or working groups to solicit public input in the Board’s decision-making process. “In setting policies for our dynamic waterfront, the Port District of San Diego seeks to make decisions that are in the public interest. To that end, the Board of Port Commissioners has formed various committees, forums and working 21 California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter 1: Policy (archive.org) 22 BPC-Policy-No-060-Public-Participation-in-Board-of-Port-Commissioners-Board-Meetings.pdf. https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/

Page 316 of 351 ends

10 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) groups to discuss current issues. These meetings are an important tool for gathering information, exploring ideas, and obtaining feedback for use in decision making by the Board.”23 These groups include the Accessibility Advisory Committee; Arts, Culture, and Design Committee; Audit Oversight Committee; Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee Chula Vista; Chula Vista Bayfront Facilities Financing Authority; Environmental Advisory Committee; Maritime Forum; San Diego Harbor Safety Committee; Wildlife Advisory Group; and World Trade Center San Diego.

Researching information available on the Port District’s website, the Grand Jury notes that agendas and meeting minutes for some but not all the advisory committees are available. The screenshot below documenting the information concerning the Port’s Environmental Advisory Committee for all years available.24
The Grand Jury notes that only four of the eight meetings had “accessible” agendas, while none of the meetings had minutes posted online. According to the last posted agenda for the Environmental Advisory Committee, the agenda included a discussion with respect to the National City Balanced Plan portion of the proposed updated Master Plan. However, in reviewing the posted membership of the Environmental Advisory Committee there are no staff members listed from National City (nor any of the other Port Cities). This points to a lack of transparency with regards to the coordination of the Port District with the member cities.
23 https://www.portofsandiego.org/people/other-public-meetings 24 https://portofsandiego.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Page 317 of 351 ends

11 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Master Plan Documents and Updates
Under Section 19 of the Port Act, the Port District was to “draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which shall be conveyed to the district pursuant to the provisions of this act.” This Port Master Plan was approved by the Board of Port Commissioners in 1980 and later certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 21, 1981.25 Subsequently the Port District approved 41 amendments to the 1980 Master Plan.

In 2019, SB 507 §5.7 was incorporated into the Port Act requiring Port District to “submit to the State Lands Commission a trust lands use plan for trust lands …describing any proposed development, preservation, or other use of the trust lands.” Section 5.7 goes on to state that the “State Lands Commission, in its sole discretion, may consider whether the submission of the Port Master Plan…meets the requirements of …a trust lands use plan.”26 Particular confusion exists among Port Cities leaders and residents regarding the provisions Port Master Plan that is periodically updated by the Port District. Much of the confusion is associated with the size and complexity of the Master Plan document itself—the most recent but-still-unapprovedupdate (2021) is well over 400 pages in length when including appendices, while the public comments alone comprise another 800 pages. As an indicator of the complexity of information contained in the Plan comments alone, the format for the comments received for the 2021 Master Plan Updade was an electronic PDF flat file format comprising comments from 10 agencies, 19 organizations, 10 businesses or Port Tenants and individuals from all 10 planning districts. Questioned about how the Port District responded to comments, how the comments were used or acted upon, the Port District asserted that copies of the document were provided for public review and comment and multiple public workshops were held and questionnaires provided to collect public comments.

The plan is categorized into 10 geographical Port planning districts. Despite the fact that these planning districts could be organized around each of the Port Cities within which the smaller planning districts exist, this approach has not been used in the past. However, such an approach could foster greater understanding of these plans by residents and leaders alike while greatly simplifying the review and approval process for each Port city’s Master Plan.

While the Port Act identifies requirements for development of Port Master Plans and Trust Use Plans, the Grand Jury concluded that the Port Act does not preclude the Port Cities or the County of San Diego from requiring ratification by Port Cities or the county of such plans prior to submission to the appropriate state agency for approval. Further, such ratification by each Port City Council or the County Board of Supervisors would allow elected officials to ensure that these plans are in the best interest of their constituents and aligned with plans and objectives of these government bodies.

To that end, the Grand Jury will recommend that Port Cities and County Supervisors of supervisorial districts fronting San Diego Bay be required to ratify all port master plans, master plan updates, master plan amendments or trust use plans for Port District activities occurring within their boundaries; further, that such ratification be required prior to Port District proceeding with submission of such plans for approval by the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission or approval of 25 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 15.
26 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 10.

Page 318 of 351 ends

12 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) coastal development permits. Finally, once ratified by a Port City or County agency, each Port City’s master plan update would become the current Port Master Plan for project planning purposes.

Options: Where to go from here? Port Commissioner Status Reports to City Councils The recommendations of the 1997-1998 Grand Jury report were directed to the city councils of the five cities affected by the Port District and to the County Board of Supervisors. Recommendation 98- 50 to the five city councils were to “create and implement formal policies requiring their port commissioner representatives to report regularly to their respective city councils in a formal manner.” The City of San Diego responded to these recommendations saying that policies were already in place governing qualifications for port commissioners as well as formal reporting to the city council. The cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach reported that briefings from their Port Commissioners concerning Port District activities were scheduled as part of each regularly scheduled city council meeting. The City of Chula Vista reported the city council meets with their port commissioner “quarterly, or as often as needed,” while National City reported receiving periodic reports from their Port Commissioner on an informal basis.

The current Grand Jury investigated the current practices of the Port Cities in pursuing regular updates in regularly scheduled public forums such as City Council meetings. Communication with Port Commissioners was reported to occur regularly on an informal basis, but confirmation of such informal meetings proved impractical, and such informal meetings do not allow for transparent communications or public comment. As a result, the Grand Jury reviewed readily available public meeting agendas and minutes of the Port City councils during 2022. We discovered the following:
• San Diego: The Grand Jury could not find any minutes or agenda items recognizing that any of its Port Commissioners made presentations regarding Port District activities in public City Council meetings. However, an annual report to the committee on economic development and intergovernmental relations is required by San Diego City Council policy. The most recent report occurred on March 8, 2023.
• Chula Vista: on August 23, 2022, Port Commissioner Moore gave an update of the Chula Vista Bayfront development project at a special City Council meeting. 27 • Coronado: According to reviewed minutes and agenda items, a single update from the city’s commissioner occurred on April 19, 2022.
• Imperial Beach: According to reviewed minutes and agenda items, only one update took place on January 19, 2022.28
• National City: An agenda item for reports from their commissioner is created for each City Council meeting. The Grand Jury was unable to learn if that was the result of a published council policy.

In view of the information provided through testimony and surveys of public records regarding Port Commissioner reports and briefings to their city councils on the activities of the Port District, the Grand Jury concluded that such reporting in publicly accessible venues such as city council meetings does not take place on a frequent or regular basis. Combined with a preference for informal channels of communication with their appointed representatives, these tendencies call into question whether Port Commissioners and Port City Councils maintain open and transparent relationships. 27 Additional appearance by Port Commissioner Moore occurred on January 11, 2022, for reappointment as Port Commissioner, and on June 7, 2022 to receive a proclamation of Port Commissioner Ann Moore Day. 28 City of Imperial Beach, City Council, Regular Meeting Minutes, January 19, 2022, 6:00 p.m., Virtual Meeting

Page 319 of 351 ends

13 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Re-engagement of Port Cities and County of San Diego
The Grand Jury has concluded that because of the Port District’s independence and autonomy from local governmental review or approval of its decisions, voters and elected representatives in the Port Cities and County of San Diego have become disenfranchised. Elected representatives cannot prevent or appeal Port District decisions that adversely affect their constituents, and as a result, voters cannot depend on their elected representatives to act in their best interests. As a result of such shortcomings, accountability of representatives to their constituents is limited when the normal expected prerogatives of elected office holders have been supplanted instead by an unelected entity such as the Port District.

Balancing the rights and interests of diverse coastal cities, communities and neighborhoods throughout the San Diego County region is a significant challenge, even for an elected governing body not motivated by economic incentives. Attempting this task through a largely independent and autonomous organization such as the Port District that is dependent on revenue from development projects and leasing activity may be too much to ask of the organization, especially without the guidance of deliberative elected city councils, county supervisors or other elected government bodies.

The Grand Jury concludes that only with the re-engagement of the elected government bodies affected by Port District activities and lands within their jurisdictional boundaries can the interests of residents be equitably balanced with competing Port District goals and objectives.

FACTS AND FINDINGS
Duties, Responsibilities and Powers
Fact: The public trust doctrine provides that tidal and submerged lands, beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.

Fact: The Port District Act delegates the power and responsibility for management of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay from the State of California to the San Diego Unified Port District.

Fact: Many elected officials of Port Cities believe Port Commissioners are to act in the best interest of the cities appointing them.

Fact: The Port Act limits the ability of elected officials to represent the interests of the voters who elect them.

Fact: It is the duty of each Port Commissioner to act as a guardian of the public trust for tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay in the interests of all California residents.

Fact: Port Commissioners take a fiduciary oath to act in the best interests of the Port District.

Finding 01: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.

Page 320 of 351 ends

14 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: The oversight provided by the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission of Port District activities is viewed by the Port District as more than sufficient.

Fact: Port Commissioners must live in the Port City appointing them.

Fact: Port Commissioners may be recalled by a majority vote of the city council appointing them.

Fact: Port Commissioners can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms, except in the City of Coronado in which Commissioners can serve a maximum of two terms.

Finding 03: Because the interests of residents of Port Cities and the County of San Diego are subject to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners, their interests may not be heard, prioritized or represented accurately.

Finding 04: Briefings by Port Commissioners to Port City Councils in noticed public meetings regarding issues affecting their jurisdictions, will increase the level of public participation and knowledge regarding Port District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.

Finding 05: Currently, the Board of Port Commissioners does not have term limits. Considering term limits would foster democratic principles by providing more opportunities for diverse and talented individuals to serve, prevent the accumulation of influence, and uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.

Initial Opposition to Port District Formation
Fact: The City Councils of the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista initially opposed formation of the Port District in 1962.

Fact: Formation of the Port District in 1962 occurred despite concerns that an unelected board of Port Commissioners would have the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and develop local tideland resources without input or approval of individual Port Cities.

Fact: Opposition to the formation of the Port District in 1962 involved the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of San Diego would get three commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing San Diego to exert dominance over the resources, priorities and decisions of the Port District.

Finding 06: With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of San Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.

Port District Potential Source of Bias
Fact: Port District operations are financed primarily through leases and fees generated through its real estate operations, parking, harbor police and other fees provided by customers of the Port District.

Page 321 of 351 ends

15 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may create conflicts of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.

Chula Vista Convention Center and Hotel
Fact: The $1.1 billion Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center broke ground in 2022.

Finding 08: Success in the development of the Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center has been obtained because of a close collaboration and alignment of interests between the Port District and the City of Chula Vista.

Dole Fruit Company Proposal
Fact: A 2012 approval of the Board of Port Commissioners for a lease of warehouse space on the Port District’s Tenth Avenue Terminal to Dole Fruit Company also moved a staging area for short-haul trucking to the National City area.

Finding 09: The Port Commissioners decision to move short-haul truck staging for local deliveries of Dole Fruit products relocated a source of pollution from the Barrio Logan community to communities in National City.

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Proposal
Fact: Mitsubishi Cement Corporation’s proposal for storage and shipment by truck of cement products to construction sites in the region generated controversy and negative publicity among residents of nearby neighborhoods affected by potential health risks.

Fact: Consideration of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated by mutual agreement of the Port District and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation.

Fact: In its public statement, the Port District expressed a willingness to re-open negotiations related to this proposal with Mitsubishi Cement Corporation in the future.

Fact: The Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated due to technical concerns around the availability of zero emission trucks capable of the loads required for cement deliveries.

Finding 10: The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project’s potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby residents damaged the Port District’s community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.

Finding 11: Oversight of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project by the City of San Diego or San Diego County governments might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays Proposal
Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal met with significant opposition not only from the Coronado mayor and city council, but also from residents and members of the Coronado Cays Homeowner’s Association representing the community of 1,200 homes.

Page 322 of 351 ends

16 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: Maintaining free access by California residents to San Diego Bay for recreational use is often cited as an obligation of the public trust by the Port District.

Fact: Three of seven Port Commissioners voted to oppose the Cottages at the Cays development proposal, including the City of Coronado’s Port Commissioner, the National City Port Commissioner as well as one of three San Diego Port Commissioners.

Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was consistent with the property’s designation in the Port Master Plan as commercial recreation space as approved by the California Coastal Commission.

Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was not consistent with the property’s designation as recreational open space in the more recent California Coastal Commission-unapproved Port Master Plan Update.

Fact: Without the approval of the California Coastal Commission, the Port District viewed the Coronado Cays Port Master Plan Update land use designation of recreational open space as nonbinding and preliminary.

Fact: The Coronado Mayor, City Council members and residents of Coronado affected by the Cottages at the Cays development proposal relied on the property use designation for recreational open space adopted most recently in the Port Master Plan Update document, believing this document should control use of property proposed for the Cottages at the Cays development.

Finding 12: The Port’s decision to approve the Cottages at the Cays development proposal could negatively impact access to San Diego Bay and approving the plan favors those willing or able to pay costly hotel rates typical of the Coronado area.

Public Participation
Fact: Port Commissioner reports and briefings to their city councils on the activities of the Port District, in publicly accessible venues such as city council meetings do not take place on a frequent or regular basis.

Finding 13: Given a preference for informal channels of communication by Port City councils and mayors with their appointed Port District representatives, neither Port Commissioners nor Port City Councils maintain completely open and transparent relationships allowing for public involvement or awareness of Port District activities.

Master Plan Documents and Updates
Fact: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments by Port Cities or County of San Diego for planning districts with their jurisdiction is not prohibited by the Port Act.

Finding 14: In its current form, the Port Master Plan and Master Plan Update documents published by the Port District are overly complex, difficult to understand and too broad in scope to foster meaningful comprehension by Port City residents, elected municipal or county officials.

Page 323 of 351 ends

17 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Finding 15: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments would allow residents of Port City Planning districts and San Diego County to acknowledge and confirm their understanding of Port District development plans and projects within their municipal and county boundaries and provide reliable documents for communities to plan for the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City:
23-90: Enact ordinances or policies placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23-91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.
23-92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.
23-93: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:
23-94: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan by each of three county supervisors for Port District planning districts within each of three county supervisorial district boundaries.
23-95: Direct the County Office of Intergovernmental Relations to lobby California State legislators to introduce legislation enabling the County of San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District or decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners and share in the Port District’s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay.
23-96: Depending on the outcome of Recommendation (23-XX, above), consider exploring and implementing an alternate form of governance for the Port

Page 324 of 351 ends

18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) District allowing for participation in, and oversight by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five port cities.

The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that San Diego Unified Port District Board of Commissioners:
23-97: Institute formal policies or procedures allowing for appeal of any action taken by the Board of Port Commissioners, including decisions, ordinances, or project approvals.
23-98: Institute formal policies to enable Port Cities and County of San Diego to ratify the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s and county boundaries.
23-99: Directly inform each of the five City Councils at officially scheduled City Council meetings open to the public how the proposed updated Port Master Plan affects areas within their jurisdictional boundaries. 23-100: To increase the coordination of Port District activities with the Port Cities and their staffs, institute a policy of including staff from each of the five Port Cities and County of San Diego on each of the Port District’s advisory committees.
23-101: Post meeting minutes and agendas of each of the Port District’s advisory committees.
23-102: In consultation with the City Councils of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23-103: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.
23-104: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

Page 325 of 351 ends

19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made:
(a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the:

Responding Agency _ Recommendations___ ____________ Date___ City of San Diego, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Chula Vista, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Imperial Beach, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Coronado, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023

Page 326 of 351 ends

20 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) City of National City, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 County of San Diego, 23-94 through 23-96 8/28/2023
Board of Supervisors
San Diego Unified Port District, 23-97 through 23-104 8/28/2023 Board of Port Commissioners

Page 327 of 351 ends

P a g e | 1
August 16, 2023
ITEM TITLE: FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FINANCIAL UPDATE, CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2023-63 RATIFYING PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN RELATION TO THE FY 2022-23 BUDGET, AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2022-23 BUDGET. (0330-30)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23 municipal budget was adopted in May 2021 and represents the second year of a two-year budget cycle. Fiscal Year 2022-23 concluded on June 30, 2023 and staff has analyzed the preliminary (unaudited) revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year. Staff has conducted an analysis of the FY 2022-23 adopted General Fund budget in comparison with authorized modifications in personnel and operational costs and City Council resolutions.

Resolution 2023-63 will ratify and consolidate previous actions of the City Council and direct staff to complete an additional FY 2022-23 budget amendment.

Staff is currently preparing for the FY 2022-23 annual audit which is scheduled to take place during the month of September. It is anticipated that final Financial Statements will be prepared and presented to City Council in November 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the preliminary financial update report and adopt Resolution 2023-63 ratifying and consolidating previous actions of the City Council related to the City of Imperial Beach Budget and approving additional amendments to the FY 2022-23 Budget.

OPTIONS:
 Receive and file the preliminary financial update report and adopt Resolution 2023-63  Receive and file the preliminary financial update report and adopt a revised version of Resolution 2022-63
 Provide direction to staff to provide additional information

Page 328 of 351 ends

P a g e | 2
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The municipal budget is the primary document that links the priorities of the City Council with the funding necessary to accomplish those goals. Throughout the budget period, the City Council considers various resolutions that serve to amend or modify the anticipated revenues and expenditures in the General Fund as financial needs change over time. Additionally, staff provides periodic budget updates to the City Council during public meetings to educate and maintain transparency. Through a series of previously adopted amendments (resolutions), the City Council has increased the authorized expenditures in the FY 2022-23 General Fund Budget.

Staff is continually committed to monitoring the City's revenues and expenditures with the goal of keeping them in balance. The FY 2022-23 fiscal year ended on June 30, 2023 and staff has been reviewing the finances and preparing the City for its annual audit. As part of the year-end closing, both the revenue and expenditure budgets are reviewed and adjusted as necessary. Additionally, staff desires to provide the Council with a pre-audit look at how the City fared for the fiscal year.

Please note, the numbers being provided are preliminary, unaudited numbers and are subject to change.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Summary
The projections provided in this staff report are preliminary projections only. The totals will change as the fiscal year is closed out and all revenue and expenditures are properly recorded. Final revenue and expenditure amounts will not be certain until the annual audit is completed in September 2023 and staff reports out the results of the audit to the City Council in November/December 2023.

Currently, it is projected that the General Fund will complete FY 2022-23 with revenues exceeding expenditures resulting in approximately a $2.1 million surplus. Almost 35%, or $737,000, of the surplus is the result of the recognition of revenue received in the Community Benefit Fund.

Additionally, with components of the City’s property tax providing slow, but steady growth, the addition of Measure I Sales Tax, and continued growth in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), the City’s General Fund revenue has remained strong. During the FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 budget process, it was unclear what the full results of the additional sales tax (Measure I) and increased TOT from a new hotel would be on the City’s revenues. With a lack of history for these sources, staff budgeted General Fund revenues conservatively, and expenditures accordingly, to be sure that spending would not be outside our means. The result of the unanticipated increase in revenues, combined with staff’s prudence in spending has allowed the General Fund to complete the fiscal year with revenues over expenditures. While the City has concluded both FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 with a relatively generous surplus, this trend will most likely not continue. With the understanding we now have of the flow of the new revenue sources, combined with the increased servicing needs of the community, the revenues and expenditures will be more closely matched in future fiscal years. Various factors adjusting the FY 2022-23 General Fund revenues and expenditures are discussed in the following sections.

Page 329 of 351 ends

P a g e | 3
Revenues
The FY 2022-23 adopted General Fund revenue budget was $25,159,345 and the current amended budget is $25,179,029. The projected General Fund revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 is $29,522,452.

The category of “Taxes” includes property related taxes, sales taxes and franchise fees.

Forecasted revenue from Property Tax related items is expected to exceed current budget by approximately $3.9 million. This continues to largely be a result of the steady increase in the RPTTF Residual (residual tax increment after SA obligations are paid) and VLF (In-Lieu Vehicle License Fees) revenues as well as Sales Tax. Sales Tax (both City and Measure I) is projected to exceed current budget by almost $2.0 million. The 1% City sales tax was budgeted to be $1.4 million and is estimated to finish at approximately $1.8 million after year-end accruals, approximately $400,000 over budget. Unsure of what to expect from the City’s first couple years of revenue from Measure I, staff budgeted Measure I conservatively at $1.35 million for FY 2022-

23. It appears after the completion of its second fiscal year, Measure I is estimated to finish at approximately $3.0 million after year-end accruals, much higher than anticipated. With two years of the new sales tax in the books, staff has a better understanding regarding the flow of this revenue and has budgeted a more appropriate amount in the recently adopted FY 2023-24 and FY 2024- 25 budget.

The category of “Licenses and Permits” includes business licenses as well as construction related permits. Business Licenses are estimated to finish the year slightly under current budget ($316,000 compared to a budget of $382,500) while construction related permits and fees are anticipated to finish approximately $20,000 over current budget. Building activity is not consistent from year to year, so the quantity of permits, and the associated revenue, often fluctuate from year to year.
“Intergovernmental Revenue” is estimated to complete the year $175,000 over current budget.

This category is driven by reimbursements and grants that flow through the General Fund. Grant revenues vary from year to year and their related budgets carry over until all funds are received and projects/programs are completed. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, “grants” will end up approximately $175,000 over current budget the result of a grant that was awarded in a prior fiscal year but recorded in FY 2022-23. To avoid the large revenue fluctuations resulting from grant revenue that occur year-over-year in the General Fund, most grants have been removed from the General Fund and placed in a Special Revenue Fund. “Charges for Services” are expected to finish approximately $93,000 below budget. This category includes Building Plan Check, Planning and Zoning fees, Port District Charges as well as Recreation, Jr. Lifeguard, and miscellaneous administrative charges. As previously stated, construction activity can fluctuate from year to year which makes budgeting for this area difficult.

Another variable in this category was the addition of Parks & Recreation programming in FY 2022-

23. Without solid information regarding the timeline for program start-up as well as not having history regarding the flow of revenues for this area, staff could not provide accurate budget numbers. Additionally, the City did not operate its Junior Lifeguard program in FY 2022-23 which accounts for $40,000 of the above-mentioned variance. All of the above-mentioned items contributed to “Charges for Services” finishing FY 2022-23 below current budget estimates.

Page 330 of 351 ends

P a g e | 4
The category of “Fines and Forfeitures” comprises less than 1% of the budget and includes parking and traffic fines as well as ordinance civil penalties. “Fines and Forfeitures” is anticipated to finish approximately $170,000 over current budget as a result of the collection of a large number of civil penalties.
“Use of Money and Property” is projected to be slightly less than budgeted due to the decrease in cell tower lease payments resulting from the termination of a lease. “Miscellaneous Revenue” includes donations and contributions, paramedic billing reimbursement, other miscellaneous reimbursements as well as contributions to the Community Benefit Fund. This category is projected to finish the year exceeding the FY 2022-23 budget by approximately $850,000. The largest contributor to this increase is the recognition of the FY 2022-23 revenue in the amount of $736,900 in the Community Benefit Fund.

The last category, “Interfund Transfers”, is anticipated to complete the year approximately $668,300 below current budget. The primary reason for the variance is related to ARPA Mitigation Plan adopted by City Council in November 2021 and amended in November 2022. The FY 2022- 23 Adopted Budget planned for approximately $675,000 to be transferred to the General Fund as “revenue recovery”. With the adoption and subsequent amendment to the ARPA Mitigation Plan, rather than transferring the funds to the General Fund for revenue replacement, it was determined to keep the funding in the Miscellaneous Grants Fund to track and use the funds for one-time capital expenditures that would benefit the community as a whole. As such, the expected transfer to the General Fund never materialized.

GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Original
Budget
Current
Budget
FY 22-23
Projected
Variance
($)
Variance
(%)
Taxes $15,136,400 $15,136,400 $19,113,392 $3,976,992 26.27% Licenses & Permits 1,044,535 1,044,535 995,155 -49,380 -4.73% Intergovernmental 60,260 79,944 256,403 176,459 220.73% Charges for Service 5,691,020 5,691,020 5,597,511 -93,509 -1.64% Fines & Forfeitures 220,150 220,150 393,194 173,044 78.60% Use of Money &
Property 556,800 556,800 530,967 -25,833 -4.64%
Miscellaneous Revenue 234,080 234,080 1,088,044 853,964 364.82% Interfund Transfers 2,216,100 2,216,100 1,547,786 -668,314 -30.16% Revenue Total $25,159,345 $25,179,029 $29,522,452 $4,343,423 17.25% As illustrated above, several budget amendments, both increases and decreases, are needed to the current revenue budget. Staff is proposing an overall increase in the General Fund Revenue budget of $3.2 million for FY 2022-2023. While the amendment increases and decreases affect multiple accounts, the most prominent adjustments are as follows:

Page 331 of 351 ends

P a g e | 5
 Increase of $175,000 to 101-0000-311.6002 (RPTTF Pass-Thru) for higher than anticipated revenues
 Increase of $650,000 to 101-0000-311.6006 (RPTTF Residual) for higher than anticipated revenues
 Increase of $300,000 to 101-0000-313.4001 (7.75% Sales Tax – City) for higher than anticipated revenues
 Increase of $1,150,000 to 101-0000-313.4002 (Measure I Sales Tax) for higher than anticipated revenues
 Increase of $400,000 to 101-0000-316.7049 (Transient Occupancy Tax) for higher revenues resulting from the passage of Measure R
 Increase of $735,000 to 103-0000-376.8803 (Community Benefit Contribution) resulting from FY2022-23 revenue recognition
 Decrease of $640,400 to 101-0000-391.9008 (Transfers In) due to a change in ARPA Fund programming
The full details to the adjustment can be seen in the year-end revenue budget amendment (“Attachment 2”)
Expenditures
The General Fund expenditure budget was approved at $24.7 million, and the current General Fund budget is $26.3 million. During FY 2022-23, the City Council approved the following budget amendments using funds from General Fund reserves for one-time expenditures:
 Transfer to Internal Service Funds to replenish reserves - $450,000  Transfer to CIP Fund for Sports Park Restroom Project - $800,000  Transfer to Facility Maintenance Fund for City Hall Improvements - $113,200 Additionally, open purchase orders for projects approved in FY 2021-22 as well as budgets for previously approved capital projects totaling approximately $231,000 were carried over into the FY 2022-23 budget.

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Original
Budget
Current
Budget
FY 22-23
Variance $ Variance %
Projected
GG* - Legislative $982,375 $985,448 $970,638 ($14,810) -1.50% GG* - Mgmt & Support 5,369,475 6,785,967 7,315,864 529,897 7.81% Public Safety 14,106,040 14,125,724 14,323,198 197,474 1.40% Parks & Recreation 2,055,250 2,069,725 2,335,003 265,278 12.82% Public Works 2,222,850 2,279,150 2,394,876 115,726 5.08% Capital Outlay - 70,982 46,721 (24,261) -34.18%
Expenditure Total $24,735,990 $26,316,996 $27,386,301 $1,069,305 4.06% **General Government

Page 332 of 351 ends

P a g e | 6
In summary, General Fund expenditures are projected to be $27.4 million for FY 2022-23 and are above the current budget of $26.3 million. While total expenditures are projected to be in excess of the current budget, there were areas within the General Fund that saw both decreases and increase in expenditures. Some of the areas of greater variance include:
 Increase of $176,000 to account 101-1110-412.2808 (City Manager – Community Programs) due to unexpected increases in the costs of several special events put on by the City (4th of July, Symphony by the Sea) as well as new costs (Holiday Lighting) that resulted in greater than budgeted expenditures
 Increase of $207,200 to salary and benefits accounts in the Administrative Services (Finance) division (101-1210) as a result of the addition of the Finance Manager position (FY 2021-22) that was part of the department’s succession planning as well as an unbudgeted contribution to the City’s new HRA contribution  Decrease of $220,000 to account 101-3010-421.2006 (Sheriff - Professional Services) due to the use of available SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Safety Funding) Funds  Decrease of $100,000 to account 101-3030-423.1002 (Marine Safety – Salaries Part-Time) due to position vacancies
 Increase of $243,000 to account 101-3030-423.5007 (Marine Safety – Port Reimbursable Equipment) to account for equipment purchased and reimbursed through the Port MSA  Decrease of $50,500 to salary and benefits accounts in the Public Works Administrative Division (101-5020) resulting from staffing changes
 Increase of $286,900 to various accounts in the Parks & Recreation (101-6010) division.

Being a new division, it was unknown what the budgetary requirements for the division would be. Staffing and programming demands resulted in many of the division line items, both personnel and operational, being overbudget
Staff is requesting General Funds expenditure budget amendments totaling $874,000. The requested increase in the General Fund revenues will more than offset the requested budgetary increase in General Fund. A full listing of the proposed expenditure budget adjustments can be seen in the year-end expenditure budget amendment (“Attachment 3”).

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Fund 501 – Vehicle Replacement
It is estimated that the Vehicle Replacement Fund will complete the year with revenues equal to expenses. A budget amendment is being requested to ratify a transfer of $230,000 from the General Fund into the Vehicle Replacement fund to offset increases in unforeseen expenses. Both account number 501-1921-419.2801 (Maintenance & Repair) and 501-1921-419.2816 (Vehicle Operations – Parts) are finishing the year substantially over budget because of unanticipated and extensive repairs necessary for the City’s Fire Engines. Account 501-1921-419.2815 (Vehicle Operations – Fuel) is completing the year approximately $37,000 overbudget due to high fuel costs. Account 501-1921-419.5004 (Equipment) is completing the year $81,000 over budget due to the necessary purchase of two trucks used by the new park rangers and response teams. These vehicles were in addition to the two trucks that had been approved for purchase in FY 2021-22 that were finally delivered to the City early in FY 2022-23. As a note, the increase in fuels costs is

Page 333 of 351 ends

P a g e | 7
being offset by the additional revenue received from the Port of San Diego and the County of San Diego for reimbursement of fuel usage.

Fund 502 – Risk Management
The Risk Management Fund is projected to finish the year with revenues ahead of expenses, increasing the fund’s net position by approximately $380,000. While personnel costs were slightly higher than budgeted, Staff continues to be proactive in claims management resulting in reduced expenses overall. The increase in net position will be another step towards staff’s goal of maintaining a net position of $750,000 in the fund.

Fund 503 – Information Technology
The IT Fund is projected to finish FY 2022-23 with revenues exceeding expenses, increasing the fund’s net position by $155,800. The increase in net position is important as several new projects have been approved and appropriated by City Council for the FY 2023-24 fiscal year. A budget amendment is being requested to offset increases in expenses due to new software and increasing licensing and maintenance fees. Staff will continue to strive to structure the funding of the IT Fund with the continued goal of building a reserve for future IT infrastructure and equipment.

Fund 504 – Facility Maintenance
The Facility Maintenance Fund is projected to finish the year with revenues exceeding expenses by $149,800. Staff is continuing to attempt to maintain or increase the net position in the fund in order to keep up with the ongoing maintenance costs of the City facilities.

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Revenue
Budget
Projected
Revenue
Expenditure
Budget
Projected
Expenditures
FY 22-23
Surplus
(Deficit)
Vehicle Maintenance $ 506,800 $ 818,312 $ 584,220 $ 818,779 $ (467) Risk Management 756,950 1,146,794 756,950 764,684 382,110 Information Technology 833,350 861,232 641,702 705,445 155,787 Facilities Maintenance 323,700 327,653 187,424 177,860 149,793 While the majority of the Internal Service Funds are projected to complete FY 2022-23 with revenues exceeding expenses, staff is continuing to work to fund the reserves in each fund to an acceptable level. As the fiscal year is closed out and final revenue and expenditure amounts are known, staff may once again recommend transfers to the Internal Service funds in order to increase fund balances and allow for future unanticipated and capital expenditures.

Recommended budget amendments for the Internal Service Funds have been included as Attachment 4 to this report.

Page 334 of 351 ends

P a g e | 8

SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
Fund 601 – Sewer Enterprise Fund
The FY 2022-23 adopted revenue budget for the Sewer Enterprise fund was $6,358,000. The projected revenues for the fund are estimated at $7,025,000, $667,000 above the adopted budget.

The primary driver of the increased revenue was a $580,000 refund from the FY 2018-19 Metro Wastewater reconciliation. The adopted expenditure budget was $5,442,945 and the current budget is $7,526,300. The amended budget is inclusive of $2.0 million of CIP projects approved by City Council during the previous and current budget cycles. It is anticipated that $1.2 million of anticipated CIP expenditures will be carried over into FY 2023-24. At year end, Sewer Fund revenues are projected to be approximately $1.4 million over expenses.

Recommended budget amendments for the Sewer Enterprise fund have been included as “Attachment 4” to this report.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Fund 202 – Proposition “A” (Transnet) Fund
The FY 2022-23 amended revenue budget for the Proposition “A” (Transnet) Fund was $458,000 and the amended expenditure budget was $1,192,035. Several budget adjustments are being requested in order to “true-up” actual Prop “A” revenues received as well as to adjust the budget for the FY 2022-23 commercial paper activity. The requested budget adjustments are included on “Attachment 5” to this report.

Fund 210 –CDBG-Federal Assistance Fund
FY 2022-23 budgeted revenues and expenditures in the CDBG fund need amending in order to account for revenues received as well as to reflect related project expenditures. CDBG grant applications and associated expenditures are brought to Council for approval on an on-going (usually annual) basis. Several projects have been approved by City Council, but the related budget amendments were not completed. As a result, budget amendments, both the revenues and expenditures, related to CDBG assistance are included on “Attachment 5.” Fund 212 – SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund) Fund A minimum of $100,000 of funds (per City) are allocated annually from the State through the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) program. Imperial Beach budgets for the minimum $100,000 in revenue, but often receives a greater amount. A budget amendment, as shown in “Attachment 5”, is being requested to true-up the SLESF funding received, and the actual FY 2022- 23 expenditures recorded.

Fund 216 – Housing Authority
Fund 216 accounts for activity within City’s housing fund. Activity is sporadic and minimal and, as a result, the fund usually does not have an approved budget. Recently, there has been legal oversight for a potential housing project within the City. As such, the City has incurred expenses within the fund. Staff is requesting a budget amendment to true-up FY 2022-23 expenditures. The budget amendment is included in “Attachment 5”.

Page 335 of 351 ends

P a g e | 9
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

FISCAL YEAR: FY 2022-23
BUDGETED: No
BUDGET AMENDMENT Yes
ACCOUNT NO(S).: Various
PROJECT NO(S).: N/A
FISCAL ANALYSIS: Resolution 2023-63 ratifies
previous budget adjustments
approved by City Council and
proposes year-end budget
amendments
CURRENT BUDGET: N/A

ANTICIPATED
EXPENDITURE:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

ATT 1 – Resolution 2023-63
ATT 2 – General Fund Revenue Budget Amendments
ATT 3 – General Fund Expenditure Budget Amendments
ATT 4 – Internal Service and Sewer Fund Budget Amendments ATT 5 – Special Revenue Funds Budget Amendments

Page 336 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-63

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE, INTERNAL

SERVICE AND SEWER ENTERPRISE BUDGETS AND RATIFYING CERTAIN PREVIOUS

ACTIONS AND DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City Council is responsible for the adoption of and approval of any modification of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken previous action and provided direction to staff to implement actions that result in amendments to the adopted Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be fully transparent in relation to the adoption, amendment, modification, alteration or any other action associated with the City of Imperial Beach Budget; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2023-63 will ratify and consolidate the actions of the City Council in relation to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach as follows:

Section 1 – Findings

1. The City Council has determined that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as findings.

2. The City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget in May of 2021 and by Resolution initiated several amendments to the Budget.

3. The City Council ratifies and reconfirms the amendments outlined in Section 2 below and authorizes the City Manager or the Chief Administrative Officer to execute all necessary actions to amend the City of Imperial Beach Budget to reflect the previous actions of the City Council.

Section 2 – Budget Amendments
The amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget are identified in the Resolutions identified below and the contents of this Resolution. The following resolutions are incorporated by reference:

1. Resolution 2022-06

2. Resolution 2022-53

3. Resolution 2022-57

4. Resolution 2022-63

5. Resolution 2022-64

6. Resolution 2022-75

7. Resolution 2022-79

8. Resolution 2022-85

9. Resolution 2022-86

10. Resolution 2022-90

11. Resolution 2022-101

12. Resolution 2022-105

13. Resolution 2023-08

14. Resolution 2023-10

15. Resolution 2023-14

16. Resolution 2023-21

17. Resolution 2023-31

18. Resolution 2023-35

19. Resolution 2023-37

20. Resolution 2023-57
It is the intention of this Resolution to include and incorporate all actions that would result in an

Page 337 of 351 ends

Resolution No. 2023-63

Page 2 of 2 ends

amendment of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget. Any omission of a resolution that would result in a budget amendment that was inadvertently excluded will not invalidate the effect of this Resolution and if discovered this Resolution may be corrected by a future Resolution of the City Council.

In addition to the Resolutions listed above, the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or designee to incorporate the following amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 City of Imperial Beach Budget:

A. The revenues of the General Fund shall be adjusted as detailed in Attachment A.

B. The expenditures of the General Fund adjusted as detailed in Attachment B.

C. The revenue and expenditures of the Special Revenue Funds shall be adjusted as detailed Attachment C.

D. The revenue and expenditures of the Internal Service Funds and Sewer Enterprise Fund shall be adjusted as detailed in Attachment D.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Imperial Beach at its meeting held on the 16th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PALOMA AGUIRRE, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JACQUELINE M. KELLY, MMC

CITY CLERK

Page 338 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
101‐0000‐311.6002 RPTTF RDA PASS‐THRU 175,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐311.6006 RPTTF RESIDUAL 650,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐313.4001 7.75% SALES TAX (1% CITY) 300,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐313.4002 MEASURE I SALES TAX 1,150,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐313.6002 PROP 172: .5% SALES TAX 25,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐315.6003 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TX (20,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐316.7049 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 400,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/MEASURE R 101‐0000‐318.1005 SOLID WASTE (EDCO) 300,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐318.1010 GAS & ELECTRIC (SDG&E) 75,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐318.1020 WATER (CAL AMERICAN) 25,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐318.1030 AT&T (15,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐321.7210 BUSINESS LICENSE (65,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐322.7301 BUILDING PERMITS 110,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐322.7302 PLUMBING PERMITS (15,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐322.7303 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 29,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐323.7102 COM/FIRE INSPECTION FEES 15,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐323.7103 RES/FIRE INSPECTION FEES (140,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐334.4001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRANT 176,200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/TJ RIVER 101‐0000‐338.6003 VEHICLE IMPOUND FEE (30,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐341.7401 BUILDING PLAN CHECK (50,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐341.7403 PLANNING & ZONING (20,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐345.7701 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS (35,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐347.7702 JR.LIFEGUARD PROGRAM FEES (40,000.00) PROGRAM DID NOT OPERATE 101‐0000‐351.7802 ORDINANCE CIVIL PENALTY 150,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐352.7801 TRAFFIC FINES (10,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐362.8201 RENT LAND (75,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/LEASE DELETION 101‐0000‐362.8202 RENT BUILDINGS 5,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐0000‐371.8302 CONTRIBUTIONS 75,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/4TH JULY 101‐0000‐391.9008 TRANSFER IN‐OTHER FUNDS (640,400.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/ARPA 103‐0000‐376.8803 COMMUNITY BENEFIT 735,000.00 FY22‐23 REVENUE RECOGNITION 105‐0000‐318.1015 CABLE (COX) (8,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 105‐0000‐318.1030 CABLE (AT&T) (3,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP TOTAL GF REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 3,229,400.00 $
FY22‐23 BUDGET AMENDMENTS

GENERAL FUND REVENUES

Page 339 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
101‐1010‐411.2804 TRAVEL, TRAINING, MEETING (5,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐1110‐412.2808 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 100,950.00 HOLIDAY LIGHTING 101‐1110‐412.2808 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 75,000.00 4TH OF JULY/SYMPHONY 101‐1130‐412.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICES 5,000.00 PRE‐EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 101‐1130‐412.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICES 8,300.00 LG ANNUAL PHYSICALS 101‐1210‐413.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME 147,500.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1008 AUTO ALLOWANCE 2,500.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1009 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1101 PERS‐CITY PORTION 2,200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1103 SECTION 125 CAFETERIA 17,900.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1104 LIFE INSURANCE 500.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1105 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 400.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1106 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 13,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1107 FICA 17,200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP ‐ PERSONNEL 101‐1210‐413.1112 HRA CONTRIBUTION 5,400.00 UNBUDGETED COST 101‐1210‐413.2102 ADMINISTRATION CHARGES 13,600.00 MISC ADMIN COSTS (TAX) 101‐1230‐413.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME (20,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐1230‐413.1103 CAFETERIA (15,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐1230‐413.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (15,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐1910‐419.2801 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 30,600.00 DEMPSEY HVAC SPLIT 101‐1910‐419.2701 GAS & ELECTRIC 13,900.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐1920‐419.1110 PENSION EXPENSE 46,600.00 22‐23 UAL 101‐1920‐419.2904 OTHER SVCS & CHARGES 59,800.00 IRS TAX PAYMENT 101‐3010‐421.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (220,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/SLESF FUNDS 101‐3030‐423.1002 SALARIES PART‐TIME (100,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/STAFFING 101‐3030‐423.5007 PORT EQUIP ‐ REIMBURSABLE 243,000.00 REIMB PORT EQUIPMENT 101‐3035‐423.2503 RENT‐UNIFORMS (11,500.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐3040‐424.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME 60,000.00 PERSONNEL/FULL‐TIME CHANGE 101‐3040‐424.2016 PLAN CHECK SERVICES 28,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐5000‐652.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (20,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐5010‐431.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME 47,200.00 PERSONNEL/RETIREMENT 101‐5010‐431.1106 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 29,200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐5010‐431.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,800.00 HAZMAT SERVICES 101‐5010‐431.2701 GAS & ELECTRIC 45,100.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐5010‐431.3002 OPERATING SUPPLIES 8,300.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 101‐5010‐431.5003 IMPROVEMENTS NOT BLDGS 8,400.00 MONUMENT SIGN DESIGN 101‐5010‐431.5004 EQUIPMENT 16,200.00 RADAR SPEED SIGN 101‐5020‐432.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME (20,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/PERSONNEL 101‐5020‐432.1009 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE (5,500.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/PERSONNEL 101‐5020‐432.1103 CAFETERIA (25,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/PERSONNEL 101‐5040‐434.2904 OTHER SVCS & CHARGES (10,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/PERSONNEL 101‐6010‐451.1001 SALARIES FULL‐TIME 206,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1002 SALARIES PART‐TIME 19,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1003 OVERTIME 900.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1008 AUTO ALLOWANCE 600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1101 PERS‐CITY PORTION 15,700.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT FY22‐23 BUDGET AMENDMENTS

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES

Page 340 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
101‐6010‐451.1103 SECTION 125 CAFETERIA 20,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1104 LIFE INSURANCE 1,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1105 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 3,100.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1106 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE 15,900.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1107 FICA 16,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1109 PARS CITY CONTRIBUTION 400.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.1112 HRA CONTRIBUTION 1,900.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2027 BANKING/FIN SVC CHARGES 200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICES (3,800.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2107 CONTRACTS ‐ RECREATION 4,100.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2503 RENT‐UNIFORMS 2,200.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2702 UTILITIES‐WATER (49,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2705 UTILITIES‐CELL PHONES 3,300.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2801 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR (1,800.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2804 TRAVEL, TRAINING, MEETING 4,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2807 ADVERTISING 1,800.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2812 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,300.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.2814 SUBSCRIBE & PUBLICATIONS 100.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.3001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 100.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.3002 OPERATING SUPPLIES (5,700.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6010‐451.5004 EQUIPMENT 10,600.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/NEW DEPT 101‐6020‐452.1103 CAFETERIA 20,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/STAFFING 101‐6040‐454.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICES (15,000.00) FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP TOTAL GF EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT 874,050.00 $

Page 341 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
501‐0000‐391‐9001 TRANSFER IN ‐ GENERAL FUND 230,000.00 TRAN IN REV UNDER EXP 501‐0000‐671.8305 FUEL COST REIMBURSEMENTS 50,000.00 INC FUEL/OIL COST ‐ REIMBURSEMENT 502‐0000‐374.8501 OTHER COST REIMBURSEMENT 260,000.00 TJ RIVER SETTLEMENT TOTAL IS REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 540,000.00 $
501‐1921‐419.1001 SALARIES 12,500.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 501‐1921‐419.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICE 3,000.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 501‐1921‐419.2801 MAINTENENACE & REPAIR 50,200.00 FIRE ENGINE REPAIRS 501‐1921‐419.2804 TRAVEL, TRAINING, MEETINGS 1,200.00 FIRE ENGINE TRAINING 501‐1921‐419.2815 VEHICLE OPERATE‐FUEL/OIL 37,100.00 INC FUEL/OIL COST 501‐1921‐419.2816 VEHICLE OPERATE‐PARTS M&O 45,200.00 FIRE ENGINE/OTHER REPAIRS 501‐1921‐419.3002 OPERATING SUPPLIES 2,800.00 FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 501‐1921‐419.5004 EQUIPMENT 81,000.00 RANGER/RESPONSE VEHICLES 503‐1923‐419.2025 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 75,000.00 ADD'L/NEW SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE TOTAL IS EXPENSE ADJUSTMENT 308,000.00 $

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
601‐0000‐374.8501 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 580,000.00 FY19 METRO REFUND TOTAL SEWER REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 580,000.00 $
601‐5060‐436.2104 TECHNICAL SERVICES (300,000.00) REDUCTION IN METRO/OTHER RATES TOTAL SEWER EXPENSE ADJUSTMENT (300,000.00) $
FY22‐23 BUDGET AMENDMENTS

INTERNAL SERVICE AND SEWER FUNDS

Page 342 of 351 ends

ATTACHMENT 5

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
BUDGET

INCREASE/DECREASE REASON
202‐0000‐322.7306 RTCIP 21,000.00 $                        FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 202‐0000‐331.4008 PROP A (147,100.00)                        FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP 202‐0000‐331.4009 TRANSNET COMM PAPER 322,100.00                         FY22‐23 COMM PAPER ACTIVITY 202‐0000‐371.8303 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 117,500.00                         FY22‐23 COMMERCIAL PAPER DRAWS TOTAL PROP "A" REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 313,500.00 $
202‐5016‐431.4001 COMM PAPER ‐ PRINCIPAL 296,900.00 $                      FY22‐23 COMM PAPER PYMTS 202‐5016‐431.4002 COMM PAPER ‐ INTEREST 25,200.00                            FY22‐23 COMM PAPER PYMTS TOTAL PROP "A" EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT 322,100.00 $
210‐0000‐334.5001 CDBG‐FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 408,100.00 $                      FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP (S22105, P22103, S23101‐P) TOTAL CDBG REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 408,100.00 $
210‐1235‐413.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56,200.00 $                        FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP (S22105, P22103, S23101‐P) TOTAL CDBG EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT 56,200.00 $
212‐0000‐336.4002 SLESF COPS FUNDING 23,300.00 $                        FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP/ADDITIONAL FUNDING TOTAL SLESF REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 23,300.00 $
212‐3036‐421.2006 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 72,300.00 $                        FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP TOTAL SLESF EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT 72,300.00 $
216‐1240‐413.2001 ATTORNEY SERVICES 12,000.00                            FY22‐23 TRUE‐UP TOTAL HOUSING EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT 12,000.00 $
FY22‐23 BUDGET AMENDMENTS

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Page 343 of 351 ends

P a g e | 1
August 16, 2023
ITEM TITLE: CODE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION. (0470-95) ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

Community Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On April 5, 2023, during a Regular City Council Meeting, the City Council provided direction to City staff to investigate ways to make the nuisance abatement process more efficient and effective. In response, staff reviewed Chapter 1 of the Imperial Beach Municipal Code and identified areas that required updates to the existing language to meet the requirements per Government Code Section 36900(d), to streamline the nuisance abatement process, and to implement cost recovery procedures. On June 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2023-1228 amending Imperial Beach Municipal Code Sections 1.12. 1.16, and 1.22 to be in compliance with State Law, streamline the nuisance abatement process, and implement cost recovery procedures, enabling the City to recover costs incurred to investigate, remedy and prosecute violations.

During this process, the City Council provided direction to staff to research and provide a comprehensive overview of Code Compliance enforcement to facilitate a discussion for the City Council on how code compliance enforcement should be implemented throughout the City moving forward.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide guidance and direction regarding implementation of code compliance enforcement.

OPTIONS:

The City Council can also:
 Provide direction to the City Manager; or
 Request additional information and an additional report.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The efforts that surround city beautification and maintaining a safe, clean and healthy cityscape/environment requires the effort and coordination of multiple different Departments and the individuals that make up each department. The primary means of addressing the issues that create blighted areas and impact the overall appearance and functionality of a city are code enforcement actions. The term “code enforcement action” refers to the processes whereby an issue or violation is identified that is in direct violation of an existing code and an enforcement procedure is implemented to rectify or address the identified violation. The term “code” is in

Page 344 of 351 ends

P a g e | 2
reference to any local, state, and/or federal regulation. Although it is largely assumed that all actions that relate to code enforcement are managed and regulated by the Code Compliance Division, within the City of Imperial Beach, the responsible party to address a code violation and/or initiate the code enforcement process is largely dictated by the location and type of violation that is occurring within the City; many different divisions and departments contribute to the code enforcement process.

Department and Division Introductions and Code Enforcement Roles:

The primary departments that contribute to the code enforcement process include: the Sherriff Department, the Marine Safety Department, Animal Control, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department, the Public Works Department, Fire-Rescue Department and the Community Development Department. Within each department exist specific divisions and roles that handle code enforcement matters.

Starting with the San Diego County Sherriff’s Department, the Imperial Bech substation serves the City of Imperial Beach and other unincorporated areas such as Bonita, with a total of 26.8 sworn officers that service the Imperial Beach community. Patrol deputies are on call for service 24-hours a day for law enforcement; traffic deputies handle vehicle code enforcement, traffic collision investigations and traffic control in Imperial Beach; detectives investigate cases involving theft, physical assaults (excluding homicides), sexual assaults, vandalism, burglaries, and other crimes; crime prevention specialists offer information and presentations to inform the public about crime prevention methodologies; community service officers issue parking and related citations and provide other paraprofessional law enforcement support duties, and senior volunteers provide community service that enhance the quality of life within the city. The typical code enforcement violations and issues that are managed and directed by the San Diego County Sherriff’s Department include, but are not limited to, noise violations and enforcement of on-street vehicular issues such as abandoned vehicles and parking violations. They also coordinate with other departments to facilitate and supplement any related activity that would require a deputy.

The Marine Safety Department provides lifeguard services through a variety of functions and responsibilities. This includes the lifeguards who enforce beach regulations, provide life safety services for all beach goers, manage the Junior Lifeguard program, manage the beach access program to ensure accessibility for the beach, and provide public education to the community and beach goers. The lifeguards are responsible for addressing and responding to the code enforcement actions that occur on and around the beach areas within the community such as dogs off-leash, drinking in public, and enforcing and regulating the municipal code with the beach and tidelands areas, including the pier.

Animal Control Services are specialized services provided by the City of Chula Vista. The services include providing animal care and animal control services such as shelter and licensing.

Enforcement includes investigation of animal cruelty, enforce animal control laws and codes such as dogs off-leash, issue citations for violations, respond to calls, and investigate complaints.

Animal control also offers other services such as clinics for spay/neuter, microchips, and vaccines.

The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department serves residents and visitors by providing recreational opportunities and programs for youth, teens, adults and seniors. The programs and services offered through the department provide an opportunity to improve the health, wellness, and quality of life of all residents while also enhancing the image of the City. In addition to managing park and recreational programs, the department manages special events within the City. Community services is a vital role of the department under the Community Park Rangers who address enforcement issues that arise within the parks and public areas. Their role includes patrolling the parks and public areas to ensure public safety and enforce city ordinance, park rules and regulations. Rangers also perform traffic control and parking enforcement when

Page 345 of 351 ends

P a g e | 3
necessary, solve issues pertaining to homelessness, and address complaints from the community. In addition to enforcement duties, Community Park Rangers also assist with special events throughout the year. The Department, under the community services component, staffs the Community Response Team which maintains a clean and safe City by clearing blight items in the neighborhood and responds to resident complaints and/or requests for service that may lead into other type of enforcement issues.

The Public Works Department provides essential services in creating an environment that is healthy, safe, and clean for the citizens of Imperial Beach to live, work, and play. Public Works provides professional and cost-effective services to ensure the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public infrastructure, facilities, and services that are responsive to the needs of residents, businesses, and other City departments are provided in a manner that respects the environment and the future ability of government to adequately preserve these assets for succeeding generations. Within the Public Works Department, the Environmental and Natural Resources Division is responsible for implementing several programs required by federal, state, and local laws that include: a stormwater management program, a solid waste management and recycling program, and collaboration on various conservation programs that are important to the community. These activities serve to promote a clean and healthy environment for the enjoyment of Imperial Beach residents, businesses, and visitors. Code enforcement items that the Environmental and Natural Resources Division are typically responsible for are primarily related to stormwater violations that include the implementation of the State and Federal regulations pertaining to Watershed Protection. Other enforcement includes new mandated organic waste collection (SB 1383), local municipal code ordinances, such as the ban of polystyrene, proper implementation of construction best management practices, and addressing illegal discharges into the City’s stormwater facilities.

Staff in the Fire-Rescue Department, specifically on the fire prevention side, perform safety and fire prevention inspections for fire protection systems, new construction sites, industrial, commercial and institutional occupancies to ensure compliance with Local, State, and Federal building and fire code regulations.

Finally, the Code Compliance Division within the Community Development Department addresses quality of life issues for the Imperial Beach community as it pertains to violations on private and commercial properties, such as property appearance, nuisance abatement, land use and zoning violations, and enforces the City’s municipal code relating to these areas. The Code Compliance Division does so by responding to and investigating citizen complaints of violations of the City’s Municipal Code, with an emphasis on voluntary compliance. Code Compliance coordinates with other City divisions and departments including Planning and Zoning, Building, Public Safety (including Animal Control), Public Works, and the Sheriff Department to encourage and enforce adherence to State Building Codes, State Health & Safety Regulations, and the Imperial Beach Municipal Code. The Code Compliance Division responds to complaints about private and commercial properties. The goal of the Code Compliance Division is to educate and assist Imperial Beach citizens to enhance their neighborhoods and quality of life through cooperation, involvement, and community spirit in the City’s “Classic Southern California” community.

Overview of Code Compliance Division Enforcement
When Code Enforcement is considered holistically, the collaboration between many different divisions and departments within the city is what leads to the maintenance of a safe, clean, and inviting community. However, some of the more prevalent enforcement violations that are typically discussed within the realm of code enforcement primarily pertain to the Code Compliance

Page 346 of 351 ends

P a g e | 4
Division. As such, a deeper discussion and overview of the Code Compliance Division within the Community Development Department is provided below:

The Code Compliance Division is comprised of one (1) full-time Code Compliance Officer and one (1) part-time Code Compliance Officer. The different types of Code Compliance Violations are categorized within the tracking and reporting system as one of the following types:
- Short Term Rental Violation
- Blight
- Nuisance Abatement
- Encroachment
- Illegal Construction w/o permit
- Business License Violation
- Rental Housing - Maintenance
- Stop Work Notice - Building
- Fire Safety
- Other
- Solid Waste
- Storm Water Residential
- Housing
- Rental Housing - Multi Family
- Animal Control
- Storm Water Construction
- Sign Code Violation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Storm Water Case/Code Enforcement
Within the past two years, there have been 1,364 new code compliance cases reported and opened (631 in 21/22 and 733 in 22/23) and 1,201 cases closed. Of those case types, (669 cases) 49% of the new cases opened are “Nuisance Abatement” cases and 93% (623 cases) of these cases are closed and resolved through Code Compliance Action and Processes. The graphic provided below illustrates the breakdown of Code Cases received and opened. The highest percentage of code cases are attributed to:

1. Nuisance Abatement

2. Illegal Construction w/o permit

3. Short Term Rental Violations

4. Business License Violations

5. Encroachment

Page 347 of 351 ends

P a g e | 5
The Code Compliance Process is largely guided by the procedures set by the Imperial Beach Municipal Code (Chapters 1.12, 1.16, and 1.22) and appropriate Government regulations. The code compliance process typically follows an administrative citation procedure (IBMC Section

1.22.030), however, as applicable, a nuisance abatement procedure can be initiated to abate nuisances within the City (IBMC Chapter 1.16).

Both processes start with the City being informed, generally by receiving a confidential complaint by a member of the public, regarding an issue that is observed. Prior to the nuisance abatement procedure being initiated, the administrative citation procedure is followed. The administrative citation process starts at the time of receipt of the confidential complaint. At that time, the complainant is requested to provide evidence of the violation, should this be available, to supplement the code case that is opened. After a complaint is received, a code case is opened, and a Code Compliance Officer (CCO) is assigned to the case. After assignment, the CCO sets a date to inspect the alleged violation. When an inspection occurs, and no violation is identified, the case would be considered unfounded and closed. If upon inspection the validity of the complaint is confirmed, the CCO would include the pertinent evidence to the case file documenting the identified violation and then proceed with issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV) to both the property owner and the tenant, as applicable. The NOV would include the details regarding the violation, the relevant code sections that are being violated, a date to address said issues by, and contact information for the pertinent City staff to facilitate addressing and resolving Code Cases
Nuisance abatement Blight
Encroachment Solid Waste
Business License Violation Stop Work Notice - Building
Illegal Construction w/o permit Rental Housing - Multi Family Rental Housing - Maintenance Other
Sign Code Violation Housing
Short Term Rental Violation Storm Water Case/Code Enforcement Noise Abatement Storm Water Ind/Comm
Storm Water Residential Storm Water Construction
Animal Control Americans with Disabilities Act
Fire Safety Proactive/Systematic Enforcement

Page 348 of 351 ends

P a g e | 6
the issue. Should the individual in violation of the code not contact and/or resolve the identified violation within the set time frame, a civil fine shall be assessed by means of an administrative citation issued by the CCO and shall be payable directly to the City. Fines are assessed in the amounts as specified by Resolution by the City Council or as specified in IBMC Section

1.22.030(D). Of note, if the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to life, health, or safety of persons or property, then the responsible person shall be issued a warning only on the first violation. The warning will advise the responsible person of the nature of the violation and the date upon which the violation shall be corrected. The responsible person will be given a reasonable period of time to correct the violations, and the time provided to correct the violation will depend on the nature and extent of work required. If the violation is not corrected within that time eriod, an administrative citation with a fine shall be issued. If after receipt of the administrative citation, the responsible person resolves the violation and pays the civil fine, the code case is closed. However, once the administrative citation is issued, the recipient of the administrative citation may contest that there was a violation of the municipal code, or whether the recipient is the responsible person, by completing a request for hearing form and returning it to the City within 30 calendar days from the date the administrative citation is issued. At this time, the appeal hearing procedure may be completed consistent with IBMC Section 1.22.100 where the appellant would be able to contest the administrative citation before a Hearing Officer. Note, that to file the appeal the appellant must pay the assessed fine. The Hearing Officer, after considering the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, must prepare a written decision that is provided to the relevant parties within 10 calendar days of the hearing and shall either affirm the issuance of the citation as issued or dismiss the citation. Should the citation be dismissed, the deposited fine would be refunded and the code case would be closed. If the Hearing Officer affirms the issuance of the administrative citation, then the fee deposit with the City shall be retained by the City; and if the violation has already been addressed and resolved, then the case would be closed.

If the violation(s) are not resolved, then another civil fine would be issued via an administrative citation.

In the scenario where the violation is not resolved and the fee is not paid within a 30-day period of the assigned date, a delinquent notice and a notice of intent to lien would be provided to the responsible person and a lien would be recorded on the property. Should there be an ongoing violation or a recurrence of violation within an 18-month period, the assessed fine amount increases incrementally and would be considered a second or subsequent violation.

For scenarios where the violation is not resolved by the administrative citation procedure and the violation and/or issue identified is classified as a nuisance (IBMC Section 1.16.030), the nuisance abatement procedure can be initiated. This process is similar procedurally to the administrative citation process; however, it also includes the provision of abatement by the City with the invoice being sent to the owner of the property where the abatement occurred. The details of the nuisance abatement process are provided in IBMC Chapter 1.16 Nuisance Abatement.

Most Common Complaints Received, Code Compliance Case Context, and the Historical Approach to Implementation of Code Compliance Enforcement While from a reporting standpoint the most common case type opened is “Nuisance Abatement”, the actual content of the complaints received by the City are varied. In general, the most common complaints and/or reports of issues submitted include the following:
- Short term rentals illegally operating
- Illegal Sheds
- Recreational Vehicles parked in the driveway or on non-compliant surfaces - Blight – primarily along Design Corridors (IBMC Section 19.83.020)

Page 349 of 351 ends

P a g e | 7
- Neighbor disputes
- Signage
- Illegal construction
- Illegal Work Completed in the right-of-way
o Driveway/flatwork
o Curb cut
o Parkway concreted
- Illegal creation and use of off-street parking spaces (within the front yard) - Operation of food trucks
- Abandoned vehicles
- Overgrown weeds and landscaping
- Illegal dumping
- Damaged/overflowing trash enclosures
- Mold Reports
A commonality with many of the cases are responses received from the person(s) who are in violation of the code. Many of the individual(s) that receive the NOVs informing them of the violation express or experience confusion, are upset, and/or affronted by receipt of the notice and/or citations. It is not uncommon for those in violation of the code to respond with concern.

The following are examples of the rationale for said infractions:
- Lack of funds to address or correct the violation
- The work completed or purchased was expensive and/or makes the property better - Individual property rights
- Examples of other violations throughout the City
To be more community forward with code enforcement, the City Council previously provided direction to City staff to adopt a “You Plus Two” procedural approach to Code Enforcement for matters that did not relate to public health and safety. For example, if a complaint was not a safety issue or considered largely a nuisance to the surrounding community, three separate complaints would need to be provided for the same violation to the Code Compliance Division prior to code enforcement action taking place. A large part of understanding this approach to the code enforcement process is understanding the context with which the public receives and responds to the violations and how that impacts the implementation of code enforcement throughout the City. The evolution of the “You Plus Two” approach was created in direct response to a recreational vehicle (RV) off-street parking violation. Off-street parking is not allowed within the front yard setback (IBMC Section 19.48.110.F and 10.36.110), and historically, when RV’s were parked within the front yard setback, if a complaint was received a NOV would be sent to the property owner and tenant as applicable consistent with the administrative citation process.

However, at one point, a single complainant provided numerous complaints of similarly parked RVs in driveways within the front yard setback within a single neighborhood. Each of these complaints became a code compliance violation consistent with the code enforcement policies at the time. Ultimately, a City Council Meeting was held to discuss the approach to code enforcement. In response, the conclusion by the City Council was to implement the “You Plus Two” approach to Code enforcement.

Occasionally, the approach to code enforcement should be evaluated. As such, staff recommends that the City Council consider code enforcement procedures and provide direction, as necessary.

Page 350 of 351 ends

P a g e | 8
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A

Page 351 of 351 ends

Imperial Beach City CouncilAugust 16, 2023

Imperial Beach City Council
August 16, 2023