Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1974/09/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF T~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Tuesday September 17, 1974 A regular meeting of the City Cduncil of the City of Chula Vista, California,~ was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Manager Bourcier, Acting Director of Public Works Robens, Director of Planning Peterson, Purchasing Agent Espinosa, Associate Planner Lee, Assistant Director of Personnel Trowbridge The pledge of allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Hamilton, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Hobel and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of September 10, 1974 be approved, copies having been sent to each Councilman. INTRODUCTION OF GUEST CO~ISSIONBR Mayor Hamilton introduced Mrs. Ada Thompson, member of the Board of Ethics, as guest commissioner for this meeting. NUMBERING OF COUNCIL SEATS Numbers one through four were put into a box by the City Clerk, and the Council- men drew the following numbers: Councilman Egdahl - No. 1 Councilman Scott - No. 2 Councilman Hyde - No~ 3 Councilman Hobel - No. 4 ORAL CO~UNICATIONS Mrs. Carol Webb Mrs. Webb asked the Council for reconsidera- Executive Director tion of its action at a previous meeting California Society for endorsing the euthanasia chamber for un- Prevention of Cruelty wanted pound animals. She asked that the to Animals injection method be instituted citing an excerpt from a booklet put out by the Humane Society of the United States which recormmended the injection of sodium pento- barbital. Dr. Coleman Dr. Coleman agreed with Mrs. Webb regarding Veterinarian the injection method. He cited a law B1Cajon pending before the Legislature which would allow assistants to give the injections. City Council Meeting -2- September 17, 1974 Mayor Hamilton discussed the use of the recommended drug noting this was a controlled substance by the Federal government. He questioned how Chula Vista could obtain this without a license even if the law were to pass and a technician was allowed to administer the drug rather than a licensed veterinarian. Tom Money, Jaycees Mr. Money asked permission to hold a Bike Chula Vista Race on Sunday morning, October 20, 1974 using the following City streets: race to start on Madrona and Third, north to Davidson and Seeond Avenue, Second to G Street, G to ~ird and back to starting position. Request approved It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hobel and unanimously carried that the request be approved with any conditions that might have to be put on by the staff. Reconsideration of action It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded regarding euthanasia by Councilman Hobel that the Council recon- chamber sider its previous action regarding the endorsement of the euthanasia chamber. Council discussion Council discussion followed in which Councilman Hyde suggested the staff re- search further into this matter to find other opinions within the State of California - contact veterinarian organizations. Coun- cilman Scott felt the staff reports sub- mitted to the Council were adequate and indicated the matter should not be pro- longed in view of the fact that the City now has a sub-standard chamber that needs to be replaced. In answer to the Council's query, City Manager Thomson stated the new chamber has been ordered; however, lie can put a hold on it. Councilman Egdahl commented that if the staff finds additional information is avail- able and they can inform the Council that the costs are such and the personnel to administer the injections are favorable in terms of the City, and, in fact, there seems to be some weighed majority of those involved (Poundmaster and Veterinarians) that would be in favor of the injection method, he would be in favor of the re- consideration. Substitute motion It was moved by Councilman Egdahl that the staff check this out further and advise the Council whereupon the Council can then subsequently reconsider its action. City Council Meeting 3 September 17, 1974 No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Original motion failed The motion for reconsideration of Council action regarding the euthanasia chamber failed by the following vote, to-wit: Ayes: Councilmen Hyde, Hobel NOES: Councilmen Egdahl, Scott, Hamilton Absent: None ITEMS MOVED UP ON THE AGENDA Hearing no objections from the Council, Mayor Hamilton moved the reports of the Department Heads up'on the Agenda at this time. REPORT ON SIGN CRITERIA Director of Planning Peterson reported IN THE BAYFRONT AREA that the staff has reviewed the criteria regarding signing in the Bayfront Specific Plan and has found them to be vague and in some cases unnecessarily stringent. Recommended guidelines ~r. Peterson recommended the following guidelines: 1. Permanent freestanding freeway oriented signs should not be allowed in the Bayfront Area. 2. Temporary freestanding signs in the Bayfront Area oriented toward the free- way are acceptable for an interim period - a period of seven years - With the provision that they would come down at the end of that time. Also, those signs should be no larger than necessary in order to be legible from the freeway. 3. Permanent signing should be limited to small ground signs (close to the street that gives access to the property) on the order of 36 square feet and wall signs area 3/4 of a square foot for each linear foot of building frontage. Discussion of guidelines Councilman Egdahl questioned another guide- line in the Director's report: "temporary identification may take the form of free- standing signs attractively designed to the minimum height and area necessary for identification from the freeway." Director Peterson said this would be easily determined based on the size of the letter and the distance to the off-ramp a car would have to take. Time limitation of signs The Council discussed the seven-year time limitation proposed. Councilman Hyde noted this was an amortization based on the cost of thesigns; however, developers putting up a sign in four or five years from now would not get the amortization City Council Meeting 4 September 17, 1974 of the seven-year span. Councilman Egdahl suggested temporary signs be installed and a provision written into the ordinance -- define "temporary" and the period in which they will be temporary. Also that the appli- cant sign an agreement that 1981 would be the terminal date and a bond be posted. If the applicant does not remove the sign at that date, then the City would do it. Motion to refer to Planning Commission It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried that Item 4a be referred to the Planning Commission for study and consideration: 1. Permanent freestanding freeway oriented signs should not be allowed in the Bayfront Area. 2. Some sort of identification to free- way traffic is necessary during the period the Bayfront Area is in trans- ition from undeveloped and industrial use to commercial-visitor and recrea- tional use. This identification need is confined to the areas which are zoned C-V and which obviously rely on freeway traffic. Such temporary identi- fication may take the form of free- standing signs attractively designed to the minimum height and area necessary for identification from the freeway. 3. Permanent signing (beyond 1981) should be limited to small ground signs (on the order of S6 square feet) and small wall signs (perhaps ten feet of sign area for each 3/4 linear foot of building frontage), neither of which are freeway oriented. 4. Should the Bayfront Area not be de- veloped by 1981 to the point where it has acquired an identity of its own, consideration will be given to an extension of time for the temporary freestanding signs. Councilman Egdahl asked that comments of the Council be considered by the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATION OF EXCEPTION TO On August 14, 1974 the Planning Commission SIGN CRITERIA FOR SUBAREA "D" recommended that Anthony's be allowed OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN their requested pole sign (2S' high, 75 TO PERMIT FREESTANDING SIGN square feet in area) for a period of FOR AN~{ONY'S FISH GROTTO seven years after which time the sign would be removed. On August 27, 1974 the City Council filed this request and directed the staff to review the total set of criteria pertinent to properties in the Bayfront Area. City Council Meeting 5 September 17, 1974 Director Peterson stated that the staff agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Anthony Ghio Mr. Ghio said he was part-owner of Anthony's 1671Paseo Bonita Fish Grotto. The sign they are proposing La Jolla would be below the top of their building, below the slope on the east side of the building. The building is 35 feet high and their sign is 25 feet. Mr. Ghio discussed the cost of the sign and the amount of business needed to cover their investment of $800,000. He statod that the criteria set is "extremely stiff" but that they would be willing to take the sign down after seven years. In answer to Councilman Hyde's query, Mr. Ghio declared that once this freeway- oriented sign is taken down, they will ask for a small ingress sign on Bay Boulevard to show the people where to come into the parking lot. Motion to grant approval It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded by Councilman ltobel that the ex- ception be granted with the condition that a bond be posted and agreement signed for the removal of the sign within the seven-year period. Councilman Scott questioned whether a lien would be more acceptable. City Attorney Lindberg stated that a cashnbond, bond issued by an insurance company or a lien are as oqual in effectiveness for assuring reraoval of the sign after the seven-year period of time. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit AYES: Councilmen Egdahl, Hobel, Scott, Hamilton Noes: Councilman Hyde Absent None REPORT ON NATIONAL In a written memo submitted to the City FLOOD INSURANCE Council, Acting Director of Public Works PROGRAM Robens discussed his concern of the cost of this National Flood Insurance Program. He made the following recommendations: 1. The City exert its in'fluence to cause the F.I.A. to withdraw the current "Flood }lazard Boundary Maps." Accord- ing to the F.I.A. guidelines, with- drawal of the "Flood Hazard Boundary Maps" will ~t least temporarily remove the City from the regular program and return the City to the emergency program. Hr. Robens suggested that letters be sent to the City's congressional repre- sentatives as well as the Flood Insurance Agency. City Council Meeting 6 September 17, 1974 2. The City further seek to cause guidelines for the delineation of special hazard areas to be changed to more closely approximate actual areas subject to flooding hazards. Report accepted It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the report of the Acting Director of Public Works be accepted. REPORT ON 24-HOUR OPERATION Director of Planning Peterson noted that on OF 7-ELEVEN STORES IN C-N Ju~y 24, 1974, the Planning Commission voted ZONES to permit five 7-Eleven ~tores in C-N zones to operate on a 24 hour-a-day basis. At the meeting of September 3, 1974, the Council discussed the complaints received regarding the 24-hour operation of the 7-Eleven store at Otay Lakes Road and Gotham Street. Mr. Peterson added that one of the complaints received centered on the teenagers loitering around the rear of the building after 11:00 p.m.; the presence of illegal Miens; and the lights from the store shining into the bedroom windows of the complainant. The Manager of the store was contacted and he was to attempt to correct the lighting problem prior to this meeting. Mr. Peterson further added that a check with the Police Department revealed that the 24-hour operation was not a significant contributing factor to the incidence of robbery. It was the conclusion of the Director that the lighting problem was a valid complaint and, if not corrected, the staff would follow through to see that the lighting of the store is properly shielded to avoid similar problems in the future. Report accepted It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously car- ried that the report be accepted. Councilman Scott commented that when there is exception to the ordinance in the C-N zone, it should be done on a location by location basis, rather than considering the five locations at one time, REPORT ON CASTLE-PLYMOUTH SIGN City Attorney Lindberg asked for an ex- tension of time. Continued for one week It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that this matter be continued for one week. City Council Meeting 7 September 17, 1974 TOUR OF CITY City. Manager Thomson noted that the tour of the City for the Council will take place on September 28, 1974. He will submit alternate tours to the Council for con- sideration at the meeting tomorrow night (September 18, 1974). Councilman Hobel questioned whether they will be able to get one of the San Diego T~ansit mini-buses. Mr. Thomson said he would check into this. PUBLIC HEARING - In a report to the Council, Acting Director CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF of Public Works Robens explained that the A PORTION OF MOSS STREET FROM Planning Commission, on August 14, 1974, I~S FREEWAY TO BAY BOULEVARD determined that this p~mtion of Moss Street is no longer necessary for public use and recommended that it be vacated. All utility companies were notified and only California-American Water Company requested an easement for a water main and fire hydrant purposes. Public hearing opened This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Hamilton opened the public hearing. Public hearing closed There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 7456 - Offered by Councilman Scott, the reading of ORDERING THE VACATION the text was waived by unanimous consent, OF A PORTION OF THE passed and adopted by the following vote, PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY to-wit FOR MOSS STREET AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: None Absent None RECESS A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Director of Planning Peterson referred to CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO his written report to the Council in which THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING he noted that the present sign provisions TO REVISION OF SIGN PROVISIONS of the Zoning Ordinance have been in effect for over three years during which time the City and the business community have had an opportunity to work with this ordinance and make evaluations. Mr. Peterson submitted an analysis of the sign proposal, the preparation of the draft in which he noted the meetings held with the Broadway Association and interested citizens, review of the Chamber of Commerc¢'s proposal and the inventory of signs in the City. City Council Meeting 8 September 17, 1974 Recommendation of Planning Director Peterson'r~commended that the Director Council adopt the ordinance as drafted by the staff, giving consideration to a modi- fied grandfather clause which would allow existing signs which meet the ourrent adopted standards of height, area and projection to remain until a building permit is issued for rework or removal of the sign. Recommendation of City Manager City Manager Thomson recommended a pro- vision to allow grandfathering of all signs in commercial zones. Mr. Thomson added that if the Council does not wish to grandfather signs, he would then recom- mend that the amortization period schedule be extended beyond the existing limitations to a point where the City Attorneys are very certain that legal challenge over amorti- zation time schedules would be fruitless. Slide presentation Associate Planner Lee showed a slide pre- sentation of those signs in the City which would be allowed to exist under the grand- fathering clause as recommended by the City Manager. Council discussion A lengthy discussion followed in which the Council questioned and discussed the grand- fathering clause, discretionary powers of the staff, amortization of the signs, recom- mendations of the Chamber's sign committee, and general overall comments regarding various provisions of the draft of the sign ordinance. City Attorney's comments City Attorney Lindberg referred to the City Manager's:memo dated September 13, 1974, stating that it reflects some of the views discussed by his office and that of the Manager. He commented that to allow non- conforming signs to continue for an in- definite period of time does confer special privilege and benefits upon those persons who are operating under older regulations and it does make limitations upon new businesses and new signing programs. There is nothing, however, illegal about using the grandfathering program. The basic disagreement centered around trying to establish amortization periods relative to the permit or cost of the signs, and what is being suggested to the Council now is a flat period of amortization for all non-conforming signs. In those cases where the owner can prove, by his records (Internal Revenue Service records) that he had not fully depreciated hi5 sign within this flat period, then an extension could be granted. Councilman Scott suggested grandfathering everything with a maximum period -- 15 or 20 years. Public hearing opened This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Hamilton opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting 9 September 17, 1974 Ed Hey, President Mr. Hey stated there were many items in Chamber of Commerce the draft of the sign ordinance that the business community does agree with; however, there remain three controversial issues which make this sign ordinance unacceptable: 1. Grandfathering clause. The business community feels strongly that the grandfatherring clause should apply to all existing signs that initially were legally permitted to be put up. 2, Discretionary process clause. The staff has stated that this has been reduced to sign review; however, sign review is the crux of the whole matter. The business community feels that there should be no discretionary clause -- with a little bit of more work on the part of the staff, the guidelines could be elaborated upon. They feel that these discretionary powers "smacks somewhat of totalitari- anism and police state and inhibits individualism." 3. Pole signs in C-T zones in the original ordinance were allowed for $0' high and 22S square feet in area. This has now been reduced to 35 feet. Mr. Hey stated that the Chamber strongly recommends keeping the $0' high and 225 square feet, in the'ordinance. As a group, the average merchant will not be erecting a sign of that area; however, they believe there ~ould be future applica- tions of signs - future terrain limita- tions - new roads ~ut in new areas - where it might be necessary to have a sign slightly higher than 35 feet. Speaking against the proposal Merchants speaking against the proposal were: Jerry Prior, Barbeque Pit, H Street; Bob Green, 219 Ocala Street (Driving School on Third Avenue Extension); Dick Callahan; Victor Halmaghi, Victor's "Too", 637 H Street; Fran Burger, Pacific Sign Company, Chula Vista; Dick Schuricht, Aztec TV, Broadway. Their comments were as follows: Prior: (1) real problem on hand is still the philosophy} (2) small businesses have to rely more on signs than those national corporate businesses; (3) the business com- munity is not against the sign ordinance - the main argument is the administration and nature of these controls; (4) grand- fathering clause is necessary - the businessman needs to function in the community without having his assets removed in any given time; (5) approving the ordinance as proposed would deter annexations to this City; (6) strong feeling against the discretionary powers of the staff; (7) against the provision allowing five tenant identifications on a sign--suppose there are six or more tenants in a shopping center? (8) consider City Council Meeting 10 September 17, 1974 the economic impact on the business com- munity; (9) should have a maintenance clause written into the ordinance whereby the merchants would be cited for disorderly looking signs; Green: (10) cansider the cost of inflation; (11) cited his business location stating that they are allowed 30 square feet of sign area - with four businesses in the building, this would limit them to 7~1/2 square feet and when the other building is constructed adjacent to this one, his signing area would go down to 3-3/4 square feet; Callahan: (12) give the Planning Department definite direction on the grandfathering clause; Halmaghi: (15) cited his business which is built in back of the C&R Clothier store and cannot be seen by the passing motorist - stating that if the present ordinance is passed, he would not be able to put up any sign because C&R Clothier has all the square footage allowed by the existing ordinance in their sign; Burger: (14) according to the existing ordinance, in order to have 22S square feet of sign area, the sign must be up 50 feet in height - and then every 5 feet as it comes down, there is a reduction in the sign area. To conform to the present C-T zone, the merchant cannot put another sign on the building - the C&R sign would have to be raised. Another sign cannot be put on the C&R pole because the footing and sign pole is not sufficient to hold it; therefore, another pole must be erected 6 feet from this one and then convert this sign to a two-pole sign; Schuricht: (15) instead of having a sign ordinance, have it involved with the building permit - have rules governing the signs at the time one takes out a building permit, and in this way, many of the problems would be solved. RECESS During the testimonies, a recess was called at 10:15 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:2S p.m. Public hearing closed There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. General discussion ~e Council and the Director of Planning responded to the testimonies presented. Political signs Councilman Hyde indicated that the standard sign boards used in most political signs exceeds four feet (by a~0u~ 40 square inches). He suggested this ordinance be changed to state five square feet as recommended by the Fair Elections Committee. Motion to adopt Planning Commission It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded recommendations by Councilman Egdahl that the Planning Commission's recommendations be adopted (to accept the recommendations of the staff) and also, that :: all existing legal signs be grandfathered in subject to the following conditions: City Council Meeting 11 September 17, 1974 1. That non-conforming signs be required to come into conformance upon change of use of the property. 2. Signs to come into conformance upon change of ownership of the property:regardless of whether the use changes or not. 3. Signs to come into conformance if the sign is changed - an alteration of the sign. 4. That all non-conforming signs be ter- minated at the end of the 10-year period. This would start at the date of the effective- ness of this ordinance. Motion items to be taken separately Mayor Hamilton requested that the motion be taken in separate categories. Motion to adopt Planning Commission It was moved by Councilman Hyde and recommendations seconded by Councilman Egdahl that the following PIanning Commission recommendations be approved: 1. Adoption of the proposed revisions re- lating to height, size and type of signs specified for the agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial zones. 2. Approve the recommendation pertaining to sign planning with a review by the Zoning Administrator subject to an appeal to the Planning Commission. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Hyde, Egdahl, Scott, Hamilton Noes: Councilman Hobel Absent: None Motion for Grandfather clause It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Scott that a grandfather clause be adopted providing for allowance of all legal existing signs to exist in a non- conforming use subject to the following conditions: They shall become conforming under the following circumstmmes: a. Change of use of the property; b. Change of ownership of the property regardless of whether the use is changed; c. Alteration of the sign; d. Ail non-conforming uses shall terminate 10 years after the effective date of this Clarification of motion City Attorney Lindberg clarified "c" and "d": "c" would be a structural alteration rather than just repainting the sign, and add to "d" that if the owner of the sign could show City Council Meeting 12 September 17, 1974 through IRS records that his sign had not been depreciated at the end of the ten- year period, he could ask for an extension of time. Added t~ motion Councilman Hyde agreed to adding these comments to the motion; Councilman Scott agreed to the second. Discussion of motion Councilman Itobel agreed with the grand- father clause but spoke against "b" - ownership change. If the business remained the same, but the ownership changed, under this motion, the sign would have to be taken down. A~so, he questioned the need for the ten-year time period. Councilman Scott indicated that the time period was not significant - with the ether conditions as listed, there will be a great number of these non-conforming signs brought into conformance. He suggested a fifteen-year period of time. Director of Planning ?eterson remarked that the Assistant City Attorney researched the question regarding the change of owner- ship and stated it would not be legal. Amendment to motion It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded by Mayor Hamilton that the motion be amended to read "no ownership clause" and the time period to be fifteen years. Councilman Hyde requested that the motion be restated and taken separately. Amendment restated It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded by Mayor Hamilton that the owner- ship element of the conditions be deleted. Councilman Scott clarified this to state it would be the same use - the facia and plastic can be changed hut the can should remain. Councilman Hyde further clarified this to state it should be a physical change of the dimensions of the sign. Councilman Scott agreed to this clarifica- tion. In answer to the City Manager's question~ the Council stated that the "legal" signs would be those that a building permit was obtained for and it met the Building and Electrical Codes. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hamilton~ Hobel, Egdahl Noes; Councilman Hyde Absent: None City Council Meeting 13 September ~F, 1974 Motion amended regarding It was moved by Councilman Scott an~ seconded time period by Mayor Hamilton that the time period limitation be changed from ten years to fifteen years. Motion failed The motion failed by the following vote, to-wit: Ayes: Councilmen Scott, Hamilton NOES: Councilmen Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl Absent: None Motion amended to eliminate It ~-~ moved by Councilman Hobel and seconded time period by Mayor Hamilton that item "b" be eliminated from the main motion which is the establish- ment of a period of time where all signs must be in conformance. Motion failed The motion failed by the following vote, to-wit: Ayes: Councilmen Hobel, Hamilton NOES: Councilmen Hyde, £gdahl, Scott Absent: None Motion amended regarding It was moved by Councilm~n Hobel and time limitation seconded by Councilman Scott for reconsider- ation of the amendment changing the time limitation from ten to fifteen years. Motion carried ~Ine motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Scott, Hamilton Noes: Councilmen Hyde~ Egdahl lbsent: None Main motion carried as amended The vote on the main motion as amended (change of use, physical alteration of the sign, fifteen year time period under the grandfather clause) carried unanimously. Motion for Design Review It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Egdahl for approval of Design Review as recommended by the staff (Page 34, paragraph F of the proposed draft o~dinance). Discussion of motion Mayor Hamilton noted the testimonies given tonight which strongly opposed this review. The Mayor preferred that it be sent back to the Planning staff for a more complete understanding of the process of what it means. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit AYES: Councilmen Hyde, Egdahl, Scott, Hobel Noes: Mayor Hamilton Absent None City Council Meeting 14 September 17, 1974 Motion for deletion It was moved by Councilman Hyde and of paragraph seconded by Councilman tfobel that the fol- lowing paragraph be stricken from the ordinance (page 32, paragraph [b]): "A sign that is non-conforming because of height or area at the adoption of this ordinance shall be permitted to remain if the sign does not exceed the height and/or area requirements by more than ten percent (10%) ." Discussion of motion Councilman Hyde felt this was no longer needed inasmuch as all legal existing signs would be grandfathered in. Councilman Scott indicated it was a reasonable clause since it states that those signs that are now non-conforming would fall into the conforming category if it is not more than 10%. Motion withdrawn Councilman Hyde withdrew his motion; Councilman Hobel withdrew his second. Councilman Egdahl felt this paragraph should spell out more clearly stating that any sign that is currently within 10% of the adopted standards becomes a conforming sign. City Attorney Lindberg commented that it should read: "shall be construed as a con- forming sign." Motion for change of language It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that this language be changed to conform with the discussion. (Section [b] will read: "a sign that is not conforming because of heights or area at the adoption of this ordinance shall be conforming if it does not exceed height or area requirements by more than 10%). Political signs It was]moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously car- ried that Under "Political Signs" section, the size of the signs throughout the section be changed from four feet to five feet, and also that the signs must be posted at least five feet instead of ten feet from the property line. Councilman Hobel commented that it was now incumbent upon the staff and City Attorney, with this grandfathering clause, to look over the entire ordinance before it comes back to the Council. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS It was moved by Councilman Scott and 33.501, 33.502, 33.503, 33.504, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously 33.505, 33.506, 33.507, 33.508,, carried that the ordinance be brought back 33.509, 33.5]0, 33.511, 33.512, at the next meeting (September 24, 1974) 33.513, 33.5~4, 33.950 AND 33.1401 with the amendments as made tonight and OF CHAPTER 33 OF THE CHULA VISTA also any discrepancies or contradictions CITY CODE ALL RELATING TO THE that may appear under the changes made REGULATION OF SIGNS IN ALL ZONES tonight -- these to be brought to the IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council's attention. City Council Meeting 15 September 17, 1974 RECESS A recess was called at 11:50 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 12:06 a.m. SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were submitted: 1. That a representative of the Chula Vista · Pbtice Department Youth Services Bureau and a member of the Safety Commission be permitted to meet with the Supe~rintendents of the school districts to discuss current and future problems and plans for the "Bicycle Safety Program." 2. The Commission be allowed to change back to its regular meeting schedule: 4:00 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of each month and the workshop to be held at 4:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of the month. Requests approved It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seoonded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously car- ried that the requests of the Safety Commission be approved. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that the "Consent Calendar" be approved and adopted with the exception of Item 15 (Resolution regarding Proposition 17). RESOLUTION NO. 7457 - The following bids were received on August ACCEPTING BIDS ~ND AWARDING 26, 1974: CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR COMPACT PICK-UP TRUCKS Lambi,ChevMolet - CheviLUV CL~0503 - $2,700.65 S. D. Datsun - Datsun PL620 - $2,828.00 Marck Motors - Ford Cour~er - $2,835.12 It was recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Lamb Chevrolet. RESOLUTION NO. 7458 - The following bids were received on ~gast ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING 26, 1974: CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF ONE 1 - 3/4 YARD WHEEL LOADER Hawthorne Machinery - Caterpillar 920 - $27,900 Metro Equipment - Case W-14 - $28,422 Consolidated Equip. - Allis Chalmers - $29,312 940 It was recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Hawthorne Machinery Company. RESOLUTION NO. 74S9 - The Department of Labor has allotted addi- APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN tional funds to be expended under this program. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND Chula Vista has been allotted $72,958 to SAN DIEGO COUNTY RELATING continue its participation beyond the amended TO EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC termination date of December 31, 1974. The EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM [PEP) original PEP agreement is amended to authorize the acceptance and expenditure of the ad- ditional allocation. City Council Meeting 16 September 17, 1974 RESOLUTION NO. 7460 - The contract work has been completed by the ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS contractor, Western Service and Equipment FOR THE INSTALLATION OF VAPOR Company, A final inspection was made on RECOVERY EQUIPMENT FOR September 9, 1974 and all of the public CORPORATION YARD, POLICE improvements in the project have been eom- FACILITY AND GOLF COURSE pleted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and in accordance with the requirements of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 7461 - The development of Chula Vista Live Steamers GRANTING AND APPROVING at Rohr Park requires an underground electric EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS service from an existing power pole at AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR Sweetwater Road. San Diego Gas & Electric ELECTRICAL PURPOSES AT Company will own and maintain the electrical ROHR PARK distribution system after the City has in- stalled it and accepted by the utility company. RgSOLUTION NO. 7462 - In the 1974-75 Community Promotions budget, APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN the Council approved $700 for this organiza- THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE tion (MAAC) to be expended for toys to METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY children of low income families at a CO~4MITTEE IN REGARD TO THE Christmas party to be held at Chula Vista EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS High School on December 14, 1974. APPROPRIATED RESOLUTION NO. 7463 - At the meeting of September 10, 1974, the ENDORSING A JOIN~ CPO- Council directed the City Attorney to bring COUNTY AIR QUALITY back a resolution endorsing the cooperative MAINTENANCE PLAN planning process involving both CPO and the County. The resolution was to include an endorsement of the parking management plan currently under preparation by CPO. Resolution offered Offered by Councilman Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous con- sent. The resolution Wa~ ~ass~d and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: ~YES: Councilmen Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Scott Absent: None (End of Consent Calendar) RESOLUTION NO. 7464 - Proposition 17 on the November 5, 1974 URGING A "NO" VOTE ballot will stop construction of the New ON PROPOSITION 17 BY Melones Reservoir Project on the Stanislaus ALL CITIZENS River, upon which $80 million will have OF THE STATE been spent by November. Offered by Councilman Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. The resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen ltobel, Hamilton, Egdahl, Scott Noes: Councilman Hyde Absent: None City Council Meeting 17 September 17, 1974 RESOLUTION NO. 746S - The resolution authorizes the expenditure of APPROVING APPROPRIATION OF $1,000 for the City's participation with FUNDS TO SPONSOR EXHIBIT Rohr Industries in a display at the National AT NATIONAL LEAGUE OF League of Cities Conference in Houston, Texas, CITIES CONFERENCE on December 1 and 2, 1974. Resolution offered Offered by Councilman Scott, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Community Redevelopment Coordinator Henthorn TRANSFER AND EXPENDITURE explained that the City of San Diego, through OF PARKING METER FUNDS a contractual agreement with the City of FOR PAYMENT OF RELOCATION Chula Vista, is processing relocation assis- ASSISTANCE AND CLAIMS PROCESSING tance claims associated with the recent ac- quisition of a parcel located at 282 Del Mar Avenue. Two of the five claims are presently being forwarded to the City by the Central Relocation Office. It is recommended that a total of $21,500 be appropriated from the unappropriated surplus of the Parking Meter Fund, $20,000 of which is to be expended for replacement housing payment while $1,500 will be ex- pended for claims processing. Council discussion Discussion ensued in which the Council questioned the legality of this proposal, the cost element, future relocations under the redevelopment plan, obtaining a waiver, selling the property, and options available to the Council. Motion to continue for one week It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Scott that this matter be continued for one week and direct the City Atty. City Manm~er and see if there are any options available to the Council which would be more favorable. Motion carried The motion c~rried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Hyde, Scott, Egdahl, Hobel Noes: Mayor Hamilton Absent: None Motion for letter to Legislators It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that a letter be sent to all the San Diego County legislators explaining the exact situation and what the Council's position is - the inequities of this law and how completely absurd are the good intentions which they had and what the conclusions City Council Meeting l~ September 17, 1974 MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Hamilton reported on the Mexican Independence Celebration held in this City on September 14 and 15, 1974. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Mayor Hamilton, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried that an Executive Session be c~lled at the close of the business meeting, for personnel reasons. CPO AIRPORT HEARING Councilman Hobel announced that CPO will hold a general assembly on October 7, 1974 at 12:30 p.m. to hear further testimony on the proposed airport location. Support of Lindberg Field Councilman Hyde remarked that the City's position was against Brown Field and per- haps the Council should supplement this po- sition indicating support of continued use and further development of Lindberg Field. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Councilman Hobel reported that the number one (#1) priority rating was the South Bay corridor - San Diego to Chula Vista. No. 9 on the report was Chula Vista to the Border. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Correspondence from property Thirteen property owners have signed a owners in vicinity of 155 Landis letter complaining that the south side of Avenue requesting investigation the empty lot adjacent to 155 Landis Avenue and action regarding use of property is being used for parking and storage of heavy trucks and miscellaneous construction equipment, boats and oil bowsers. The property owners complained that this use constituted a junkyard in the center of a residential area and further, that the dust and dirt from the moving trucks filters into their homes creating clean-up problems for everyone in the area. Referred to City Manager It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that this request be referred to staff for report back and possibly a letter of response to these people. Correspondence from Mayor Kile Morgan Mayor Kile Morgan of National City cited regarding an area in the Sweetwater the area in the Sweetwater River valley south River Valley of "0" Avenue Terrace along 30th Street in National City. He stated that this area is used as a dumping grounds and that there are a number of little shacks with signs on them just laying about. ~layor Morgan asked the assistance of th~ Council to "seeing to it that the area is kept clean and tidy." ~rs. Susan Watry, 81 Second Avenue, re- sponded to the newspaper article citing this complaint and requested that the Mayor of National City be asked to do something City Council Meeting 19 September 17, 1974 about their Rubbish Service trucks who use Second Avenue leaving "bits of flying litter behind them." Referred to staff It was moved by Councilman ttyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the request be referred to the staff to respond to this letter and avoid the temptation to cite the things this City doesn't like about National City's appearance. RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Council closed the business session of MEETING this meeting and recessed to the Redevelop- ment Agency Meeting at 12:36 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:40 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION ~]e Council recessed to Executive Session at 12:40 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 12:53 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 12:53 a.m. to the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. for a Workshop on the Disclosure of Assets Statements and at 8:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission.