HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1982/01/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETI~IG OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Tuesday, January 5, 1982 Council Chamber, Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
Councilmen present: Mayor Cox, Councilmen McCandliss, Scott, Gillow, Campbell
Councilmen absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City
Manager Asmus, Development Services Administrator Robens
The pledge of allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Cox followed by a moment of
silent prayer.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for the meetin§ of December 22, 1981
MSUC (McCandliss/Cox) to approve the minutes.
2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a. Introduction of Council Guest. Mayor Cox introduced Patricia Phoenix, Office
Manager, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and a member of the Board of Directors
of the Chamber of Commerce.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 10734 - EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LORI SHEIN IN HER COVERAGE OF
THE CITY HALL BEAT (Mayor Cox)
Lori Shein has accepted a position with the "Corpus Christi Caller-Times" and
will be leaving her job with the "Star News" on January 8. By this Resolution,
the Council expresses their appreciation for her fair reporting of 'the City
activities.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN MCCANDLISS, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Cliff Roland, 1100 Industrial Boulevard, commented on a recent newspaper article
concerning the relocation of South Bay Auto Parts and the efforts of the Community
Development Department to "circumvent" requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (minimum
wage law) in assisting the South Bay Auto Parts in its relocation.
b. George Pannel, 13715 Proctor Valley Road, Jamul, requested Council support of his
objective of restoring the historical structure known as "Our House" at 666 Third
Avenue. He explained that the developer of the site has scheduled demolition of
the structure in i~id-January; that he would like to relocate and to restore the
building; he has a Planning Commission appeal scheduled which cannot con~ before
Council until January 19. He asked that Council correspond with the developer and
request that demolition be postponed beyond January 19. City Attorney Lindberg
commented on the legality of Council represent!ny itself as interested in preserving
the structure (designated as "Historical Site #4).
MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to give that authority: that the Council states to the
person who is going to demolish the building that the Council would appreciate it
very much if he would wait after the hearing on the 19th.
c. John ~urti~s.,~Imperial Beach, stated that he is a seasonal lifeguard at Silver Strand
State Park and requested Council's support in contactin§ the State Department of
.Parks ahd .Recreati~nto obtain a sufficient number of fresh water showers on the
ocean side of the Park and to repair or replace the shade ramadas which are being
~ removed witbou't ~lans for repla~em~n~. ·
Mr. Curtis submitted a letter dated January ~, 19~2, from the State Department of
Parks and Recreation, responding to his concerns.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to refer~hi§ to~.staff for.repo~t.~back to'Council ....
City Council Minutes -2- January 5, 19~2
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING CURRE2T TAX FOR BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL AREA AND MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID AREA
(Acting City Manager)
The public hearing was continued from the meeting of December 22, 1981 in order to
give all parties an opportunity to study an alternate proposal presented by the City
Attorney - characterized as the "Lindberg Amendment" relating to a revised formula
for the levy of the promotion tax.
This being the place and time as advertised, the public hearing was reopened.
Referring to the written report, Director of Finance Grant compared the four alter-
nate proposals presented to the Council noting that under the current formula, the
professional group is paying approximately 45% of the total revenue generated and
under the compromise proposal offered by the professionals, they would pay approxi-
mately 23% of the total monies collected. Mr. Grant noted that under the "Lindberg
Amendment", the professionals would pay 36% and under the Attorney's second pro-
posal, they would pay 31% of the total fees. The average improvement fee for the
Downtown Improvement District is $57.97 - the staff's proposal would have the pro-
fessionals pay $50 (or one times their business license fee) along with a cap of
$200 for any multiple professional group.
Speaking in favor of the staff's proposal was: Dr. John Grubb, 345 "F" Street;
William S. Cannon, 345 "F" Street. Their comments were: (1) support of Resolution
No. 10707 as presented at the December 22 meeting since this is a fair compromise;
(2) the argument is about principle and not money; (3) vertifying the fact that each
additional practioner would pay $15 with a maximum of ten ($150) and $50 for the
first practioner would make the cap of $200; (3) the professionals have been paying
more than the benefits they receive from the Downtown Association advertising, etc;
(4) Lindberg's Amendments did not take into account the disproportionate assessment -
the average retailer is paying $57 and Lindberg's proposal would have the professionals
pay $75.
Speaking in opposition of staff's proposal was: Don Ritchey, 92 "F" Street, Chairman
of Town Centre Business Professional Association; John McGruer, Naval Architect who
will locate in the improvement district by February 15; Niek Slijk, Chamber of
Commerce; Maynard Rochester, owner of Silver Cue~ In summary, comments were:
(1) The Town Centre Association supports Lindberg Amendment #1; (2) in 1981, 14
out of over 300 businesses objected to the assessment; (3) the improvements will
attract a greater number of people into the district and a §reater number of cli-
entele which will provide exposure to the professionals; (4) there should be no
separation of the professionals and the business men - they are the same; (5) strong
request not to change the formula which might mean dissolvement of the improvement
district; (6) the $100 should be considered the cost of doing business in the central
area of Chula Vista.
Director of Finance Grant clarified the fact that there were many more complaints
than 14 - that was the number of business people who were threatened with complaints
of court proceedings for non-payment of the fees.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Council discussion followed with the members making the following comments:
(Campbell) there are dimished returns from the promotional activities that take
place to those in the professional category with the other business categories -
support of staff's original resolution with a cap of $200; (Scott) suggestion to
leave the area (south of "H" Street) in the district but delete the fees; (Cox)
Christmas decorations still need to be purchased for the area between "F" and "G"
Street - (Niek Slijk stated the improvement district will spend approximately
$8000 next year on these decorations); because of the capital improvements, he
supports the Lindberg Amendment #1; the ultimate solution is to change the formula
sometime in the future; (Gillow) difficult to measure the gain received by the
professionals; agree the Councilman Campbell is support of the staff's proposal;
(McCandliss) both groups receive benefits from having a thriving business district -
a vital area that people will come into.
MSC (McCandliss/Cox) to approve the initial Lindberg Amendment and have a resolution
brought back incorporating that. Councilmen Gillow and Campbell voted "no".
City Council Meeting -3- January 5, 19~2
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING CURRENT TAX FOR BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL AREA AND MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES (Continued)
Discussion of Motion: Councilman Scott indicated he would support the Lindber9
Amendment but have a "meeting of the minds" sometime during the year to review this
and get comments from all people in the business district prior to acing on next
year's proposal. Councilman Gillow stated he agrees with the motion except for the
amount - this Amendment puts too much of a burden on the professionals. Council-
man Campbell remarked that what is proposed this year is promotional expenditures
and not capital improvements.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) to amend the ordinance to reflect that the area south of "H"
Street be kept in the district but designated a "sub-district" with zero fees to
be raised from that area.
5a. ORDINANCE NO. 1964 - AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 1372, 1390, 1584, 1658, 1715 AND
1885 ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING AN ADDITIONAL BUSINESS LICENSE
TAX UPON THE AREA INCLUDED IN THE PARKING AND BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT AREA DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL
PROMOTION OF RETAIL TRADE AND OTHER COMMERCIAL AND PROFES-
SIONAL BUSINESSES AND MODIFYING THE ~OUNDARIES OF SAID
PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - FIRST READING AND
ADOPTION
MSC (Scott/Cox) to place the amended ordinance on its first reading and adoption.
~ouncilmen Gillow and Campbell voted "no".)
6. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPF~qL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION DENYING THE REZONING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
STREET BETWEEN BROADWAY AND CEDAR AVENUE FROM R-I TO R-3 -
MICHAEL K. O'NEILl (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing.
In his written report to Council, Director of Plannin§ Peterson explained that on
November 18, 1981, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request to
rezone .34 acres located at 554 "I" Street from R-1 to R-3. The Commission expanded
the area to include the properties located between 558 and 586 "I" Street in order
to establish a logical zone boundary for the proposed R-3 district - 2.2 acres.
The Planning Commission, however, denied the rezoning based on the determination
that the R-3 zoning would (a) not be appropriate at the particular location; (b)
likely disrupt the neighborhood; (c) probably result in future rezoning requests
along "I" Street. The applicant has appealed this decision. Director Peterson
added that the Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-82-11 for this project and forwarded it to Council for approval.
Responding to Mayor Cox's query regarding the need for a four-fifths vote, Director
Peterson stated that a four-fifths vote is not required for a rezoning appeal.
Speaking in favor of the rezoning: Kevil O'Neill, applicant, 554 "I" Street, and
Balding Baehr, 568 "I" Street, owner of five parcels of property on "I" Street.
Speaking in opposition: Charles Grim, 618 Cedar Avenue; Mrs. Richard Bridges, 615
Cedar Avenue; Mr. T. W. Lilly, 622 Cedar Avenue; Kenneth Heffron, 621 Cedar Avenue;
Mr. D. E. Polk, 609 Cedar Avenue; Gerald Lofredo, 627 Ash Street; Mrs. Cramsy, 630
Beech; Ollie Brighton, 644 Beach Avenue; Mr. Lee, 641 Ash Avenue; C. F.Thompson,
604 Cedar Avenue; Richard Knight, 644 Ash Avenue.
Comments of the opponents included: disruption of the harmony of a long standing
single-family neighborhood; increased traffic and noise; interference with the
successful Neighborhood Watch Program because residents will be unable to identify
residents from outsiders; rezoning of one lot will set a precedent that may make
it easier for other property owners to have higher densities on their lots; that
the General Plan promotes maintaining the quiet of single family neighborhoods.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Council commented on the character of the neighborhood as a well established part
of the City; it is not blighted; that while it is close to a commercial area, the
orientation of the shopping center is away from the neighborhood with walls
buffering the residential area.
MSUC (McCandliss/Scott) to deny the appeal.
City Council Meeting -4- January 5, 1982
Nayor Cox called for a recess at 9:02; Council reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF REZONING 288-290 DEL MAR AVENUE FROM R-3
TO C-O - JOSEPH CASEY, D.D.S. (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing.
Director of Planning Peterson, referring to his written report, explained that this
hearing involves a rezoning request for the property measuring 45' x 135.5' located
on the west side of Del Mar Avenue about 100 feet north of "F" Street. The property
was originally one lot which has since been divided into two equal parcels. The
applicant is proposing to remodel and upgrade the property (presently occupied by
two single family homes) for expansion of his dental office. On November 10, 19~1,
the Chula Vista Parking Place Commission recommended expansion of the boundaries
of the Parking District to include this site. On December 2, 1981, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend the rezonin9 and Director Peterson concurred with
their recommendation.
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
7a. ORDINANCE NO. 1964 - AMENDING ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 288-290 DEL MAR
FROM R-3 TO C-O - FIRST READING
MSUC (SCOTT/Cox) to place the ordinance on first reading.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA
TRACT 82-5~ CENTRE VILLAS~ 344-345 "G" STREET
(Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing.
. Director of Planning Peterson explained that the applicant is requesting approval
of his tentative map in order to develop a one-lot condominium project consisting
of 26 units on 1.1 acre parcel. On December 2, 1981, the Planning Commission adopted
the Negative Declaration on IS-81-33 and forwarded it to the Council for adoption
along with the mitigation measures, and further, recommended approval of the map
in accordance with their Resolution PCS-82-5. Mr. Peterson noted the adjacent zoning
and land use; the approval of the Design Review Committee based on eight conditions;
and outlined the proposed development.
Director Peterson referred to the increased surface drainage which would result
from the development and stated that solution of the drainage problems has been
addressed in the Conditions of Approval accompanying PCS-82-5. He explained that
the natural existing flow is to the west and south and that applicant has approached
the affected property owner to seek his cooperation in accommodating that flow, but
has not been successful. Therefore, alternate solutions to the ultimate development
could involve slight filling of the property to drain most of it to "G" Street.
Tony Janus, 610 Mariposa Circle, co-owner of the property, expressed concern over
the drainage issue and commented that the project plans indicate that the water
will flow entirely to Vance Street; presently the water flow in large part goes to
"G" Street, and if the flow were redirected to go to Vance Street, the only path
it could take would be through the apartment unit which he co-owns at the southwest
corner of the subject property.
Director Peterson responded that one of the conditions of approval requires that
the developer prepare grading and drainage plans for the site to be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer; the condition also requires that if the developer
does intend to take drainage to the west, that calculations be made as to depth of
flow in the gutter along Vance Street; that the conditions of approval developed
by the Planning Commission are appropriate for either drainage to the west (depen-
dent upon approval of the adjacent property owner) or for drainage to "G" Street.
William Slinkert, 374 "G" Street, questioned what arran9ements have been made for
parking, what the price range of the units would be and commented on the density
of the project.
City Council Meeting -5- January 5, 1952
8. PUBLIC HEARING - Centre~Villas (Contined)
Director Peterson responded that the proposal is for 24 units and zoning permits
34 units per acre; the project will provide more parking than is required by the
zoning with one garage for each unit, plus 18 open spaces, totalling 46 spaces.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
8a. RESOLUTION NO. 10735 - APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA
TRACT 82-5, CENTRE VILLAS
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN MC CANDLISS, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
9. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF LOTUS DRIVE REORGANIZATION (Director of
Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing.
In his written report to Council, Director of Planning Peterson reported that LAFCO
(Local Agency Formation Commission) approved the reorganization on November 2, 1981;
on December 8, 1981, Council adopted Resolution No. 10702 initiating reorganization
proceedings and set the public hearing for January 5, 1982. The proposal involves
annexation of 3.77 acres of land to Chula Vista and detachments from the Montgomery
Fire Protection District, the Montgomery Sanitation District and the San Diego County
Flood Control District - Zone 4. The proponent is requesting the annexation in order
to obtain comprehensive municipal services for a 29-1ot single-family subdivision.
The staff's recommendation is for approval of the reorganization.
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
9a. RESOLUTION NO. 10736 - ORDERING THE LOTUS DRIVE REORGANIZATION INVOLVING ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE DETACHMENT OF THE TERRI-
TORY FROM THE MONTGOMERY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT~ THE
MONTGOMERY SANITATION DISTRICT AND THE SAN DIEGO FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT - ZONE 4
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
lO. RESOLUTION NO. 10737 - ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
(Director of Public Works Operations/Purchasin~ A~ent)
Bids were received on December 23, 1981 for the asphaltic concrete for the period
January 1, 1982 through June 30, 1982 - an estimated 4,500 tons of material will be
picked up at the vendor's plant by City trucks. The resolution awards the bid to
the low bidder, Daley Corporation of San Diego in the amount of $100,125.00.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous
consent, passed and approved unanimously.
ll. RESOLUTION NO. 10738 - ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER PAPER
(Director of Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation/Purchasing)
Bids were received on December 23, 1981 for the paper for the Data Processing Divi-
sion for an estimated one year requirement. The resolution awards the bid to the
low bidder, Burroughs Corporation of San Diego in the amount of $7,331.76.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 10739 - GRANTING A 20-DAY EXTENSION OF CONTP~qCT TO COMPLETE DEMOLITION
AND SITE CLEARANCE OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
TOWN CENTRE (Director of Building and Housing)
The contract for demolition and site clearance of buildings on sixteen parcels of
land within the Town Centre Redevelopment Project was awarded to John Hansen Con-
struction Company, Inc. on July 27, 1981 with the completion d. ate of Dec-
ember 8, 1981. The contractor is requesting a 20-oay extension due to ~ne additional
time required to have the Arnold Garage building vacated. The extension would extend
the completion date to January 7, 1982.
City Council Meeting -6- January 5, 19d2
12. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCIL~.~N SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 10740 - APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TENNIS PROFESSIONAL
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
The existing agreement with Mr. Ed Collins expires January 1, 1982. Under this
agreement and for the past two years, Mr. Gary Quandt has been the teaching pro
with Mr. Collins operating the Center. Mr. Collins has now recommended that a
new agreement to manage the facility be made with Mr. Quandt. Staff is su§gesting
a one year agreement inasmuch as the Parks and Recreation Department is in the
process of evaluating the City-wide tennis program to find ways to make the program
more effective and less costly.
Director of Parks & Recreation Pfister explained one change in the contract on
page 4, Section H, which should read, "including Saturdays from 9 a.m. until
5 p.m. and closed Sundays and holidays."
Councilman Campbell questioned language in section 2(a) referring to sale of tennis
items at the manufacturer's retail price, thereby prohibiting the tennis pro from
selling at a sales price.
MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to amend Section 2(a) of the contract to delete reference
to the sale of items at the manufacturer's prices, and ending the sentence after
"tennis complex."
RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was
waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
14. RESOLUTION NO. 10741 - ACCEPTING CONTRACT WORK, CHULA VISTA TRANSIT CENTER, WOOD-
LAWN AVENUE AND "H" STREET (City Engineer)
Dyno Construction Company has completed the construction of the Chula Vista Transit
Center at the "H" Street Trolley Station (Resolution No. 10464, dated June l~, 1951).
The same resolution assigned the contract and delegated the duties to SCOOT (South
Coast Organization Operating Transit). The resolution accepts the contract work and
imposes a charge of $950.87 against the contract for City expenses incurred for work
performed beyond the contract completion date of November 10, 19~1.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by unani-
mous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
15. RESOLUTION NO. 10742 - DECLARING L & L DEVELOPMENT IN DEFAULT AN~ ~KING UE~N~
UPON SUMITOMO BANK OF CALIFORNIA, ITS SURETY ~ity Engineer)
On December 11, 1979, the City Council approved the map for the subdivision Bonita
Haciendas and accepted the dedication of public streets within the boundaries.
Under the subdivision agreement, L & L agreed to improve the property - these im-
provements were guaranteed by letters of credit issued by the Sumitomo Bank of
California. L & L Development has now abandoned their work on the subdivision.
The resolution requires a demand that its surety put up the funds necessary to
improve the property.
City Attorney Lindberg responded to Council questions regarding the action of
declaring default on a surety; stating that in order to collect any amounts from
the surety a declaration of default must be made by the Council and that this is
the first time such an action has been instituted.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous
consent, passed and approved unanimously.
16. ORDINANCE NO. 1966 - AMENDING CHAPTER 10.64 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THROUGH TRUCK ROUTES - FIRST READING
(City Engineer)
The ordinance updates the truck route system established in 1975 adding "H" Street
between 1-805 and Third Avenue and Third Avenue between "H" Street and "L" Street.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to place the ordinance on first reading.
City Council Meeting -7- January 5, 1982
UNANIMOUS CONSENT ITEM
16a. RESOLUTION NO. 10743 - ASSIGNMENT OF JIMMY'S ON THE GREEN CONTRACT FROM R. E.
MARTIN TO JIMMY'S FAMILY OF FINE RESTAURANTS
(Assistant City Manager)
Assistant City Manager Asmus explained that this resolution enables the Jimmy's
organization to be the principal in securing a bond with the contractor who is
unable to secure the necessary bonding. The Jimmy's organization will be respon-
sible for seeing to completion of the contract work.
Councilman Scott questioned the "closeness" of the relationship betwen the con-
tractor and Jimmy's and asked for assurance of its legitimacy. Assistant City
Manager Asmus stated that in the past Martin was an employee of Jimmy's but is
not now an employee.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMEN MC CANDLISS, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
CONTINUED MATTERS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
17. ORDINANCE NO. 1961 - AMENDING CHAPTERS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSFER
OF FEE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE CODE TO THE MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 10730 - SECONO READING
AND ADOPTION (City Manager)
At the meeting of December 22, 1981, the Council approved Resolution Ilo. 10730
which amended the Master Fee Schedule. At this same meeting, the ordinance modi-
fying various ordinances that refer to the fees included within the Master Fee
Schedule was placed on first reading.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) to place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
18. ORDINANCE NO. 1962 - ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS Oil PASEO DEL REY BETWEEN
EAST "J" STREEI' AND TELGRAPH CANYON ROAD - SECOND READING
AND ADOPTION (City Engineer)
At the meeting of December 22, 1981, the Council placed the ordinance on first
reading which establishes a 35 mph speed limit on Paseo Del Rey between East "J"
Street and Telegraph Canyon Road.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) to place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
19. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER
a. Report on proposed effective date of the Montgomery Annexation (Acting City I4anager)
Acting City Manager Asmus reported that staff has analyzed a proposed annexation
effective date of July 1, 1982 if the election on the question is affirmative.
Referring to his detailed report this study, Mr. Asmus noted, in particular, the
police service which will be provided and the financial implications involved in
the overall annexation. He recommended that the City Council confirm its inten-
tions to assume full service responsibilities for the Montgomery area on July 1,
1982, if the vote on the annexation question is favorable in June.
Mr. Asmus stated that the initial position of the Assistant Chief Administrative
Officer of the County is in support of the County continuing to provide Sheriff
services in the amount of the property tax money which represents approximately
three months worth of time at the present service level. Subsequent to that time
it is estimated that the City would be expected to pay the "going contract rate"
to maintain the existing level of service in that area which would be $~40,000
to $150,000 per quarter. As stated in the report, he recommended the July 1st
effective date, with full realization that the City may expend $300,000 in con-
tractual sheriff's services and considerable money in training time of rookie
officers that may be hired.
Councilwoman McCandliss questioned how much discretion the County Board of Super-
visors would have in determining payment for contractual services if the payment
is mandated by the annexation law. Acting City ManagerAsmus responded that the
question has been posed to the County Counsel, LAFCO and Supervisor Hamilton
without any response to date.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) to accept the staff recommendation.
City Council Meeting -8- January 5, 1982
19. REPORT OF THE CITY ~Y~NAGER (Continued)
b. City Manager Cole reported that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal
on the Bayfront. City Attorney commented that the matter has been referred to
t~ ~ou~qth Di~rict Court of Appeals and that it will be heard in due course - not
an accelerated appeal.
c. Mr. Cole stated that County staff is willing to provide a Council tour of the
South Bay County Regional Center before it is occupied and suggested Thursday
at 3 p.m. or Wednesday, January 13th.
By general consent, Council directed the City Manager to schedule the tour for
Thursday, January 7th at 2:30 p.m.
d. Mr. Cole distributed Local Coastal Plan Data Books for Saturday's Council Conference.
e. Mr. Cole distributed revised schedule of Council meetings, tours and conferences
and noted the addition of a potential conference on January 14th to discuss the
pending Sander Project.
MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to schedule the Sander Project as an item for Council con-
sideration on January 14th at 4 p.m.
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS - None
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIOI~S
20a. Parking Place Commission report regarding modifying the Parking District boundaries.
At their meeting of November 10, 1981, the Parking Place Commission considered the
request of Dr. Joseph Casey to expand the boundaries of the Parking District to
include the proposed new building on his property (northwest quadrant of "F" Street
and Del Mar Avenue). After deliberations, the Commission recommended approval of
the request stating that there would be no significant parking problems within the
area due to the expansion.
MSUC (McCandliss/Cox) to accept the report and recommendation.
2Ob. Staff report on modifying Parking District boundaries.
Assistant City ManagerAsmus submitted a report to Council detailing the request of
Dr. Joseph Casey to expand the boundaries of the Parkin§ District in order to
include his adjacent property. Mr. Asmus listed the alternatives available to
Dr. Casey and recommended approval of the request noting that the in-lieu fees into
the Parking District which Dr~ Casey would have to pay will amount to approximately
$4,000.+ Mr. Asmus further asked that the Council direct staff to prepare an amend-
ment to Ordinance 847 modifying the current Parking District boundaries to reflect
the inclusion of this property.
Councilman Scott questioned the relationship of items 20a and 20b since he did not
want his vote on 20a to mean acceptance of the recommendation in 20b with which he
disagreed. He disagreed with the $4,000 in-lieu payment; that it should more
appropriately be $8,000 inasmuch as the property owner has opted to utilitze his
property in a way that benefits him only.
Councilman Scott added that the in-lieu payment in this instance would be "more of
a convenience" and not in the spirit of the ordinance which was intended to provide
a vehicle for property owners who could not provide onsite parking; if an exception
is made in this case, the individual would bear a bigger burden because he could
provide the parking, but does not want to for personal reasons.
Additional con~ent and discussion followed concerning the formula set by Ordinance
847. Councilman Scott asked if special conditions could be set (beyond the existing
options) and City Attorney Lindberg explained the rationale of the ordinance, indi-
cating that special conditions could not be imposed.
After continued discussion, Councilman Scott requested reconsideration of Item 20a.
Mayor Cox stated that he supports the recommendations under both 20a and 2Ob, but
that both items should have been listed as separate reports under the same item and
not as different action items.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to reconsider action on the previous item (20a).
City Council Meeting -9- January 5, 1982
CONSIDERIIIG BOTH REPORTS
MS (Cox/Gillow) to approve the modifications recommended by the Parking Place
Commission and by staff.
Chairman Yoder (Parking Place Commission) referred to the plat of the area reflecting
the public parking immediately to the north of Dr. Casey's property. He commented
that the property probably should have been included in the parking district when
it was first established, and since it would most likely not be used for any other
use, the Commission felt it was appropriate to recommend annexation to the Parking
District.
ACTION OF THE MOTION:
The motion passed by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Cox, Gillow, McCandliss, Campbell
Noes: Scott
Absent: None
21. MAYOR'S REPORT
a. Mayor Cox stated that he received a letter from Supervisor Eckert requesting that
Council take a position in opposition to SB 811 which would prevent local elected
officials from "making progress toward clean air."
~lSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to refer this bill to the Legislative Committee for recom-
mendation back to Council.
b. MSUC (Cox/Gillow) to docket the letter from George Hil§er on the next Council
agenda under Written Communications.
22. COUNCIL COMMENTS
a. Council m~n Campbell reported that he attended the "change of command" at the Port
District where Phil Creaser surrendered his seat as Chairman to San Diego Commission
Wolsheimer; Mr. Cohen of Coronado is Vice Chairman; Mr. James of National City is
Secretary.
b. Councilman Gillow received a letter from Patti Seversike indicating a traffic
hazard at Fourth and "E" Street where she witnessed a traffic accident.
MSUC (Gillow/Cox) to refer her letter to the Safety Commission.
c. Councilman Gillow received a letter from Melanie Ashley concerning the yield sign
at Orange Avenue and Quintard Street which she recommends be changed to a stop sign.
MSUC (Gillow/Campbell) to refer this letter to the Safety Commission for report.
d. Councilman Gillow reported that the Legislative Committee met concerning AB 540
which was referred by the City of Del Mar for support and concerns shoreline
erosion control. The bill allocates $1 million to identify and plan shoreline
protection in the Oceanside area, possibly from San Clemente to La Jolla.
MSUC (Gillow/Scott) to contact the appropriate representatives in support of this
bill.
e. Councilman Gillow reported on SB 810 (Garamendi) concerning hazardous waste manage-
ment. The bill requires that hazardous waste generators develop plans dealing
with hazardous waste reduction and provides for financial incentives.
Councilman Gillow responded to members questions concerning impact of the bill on
Chula Vista; its financial impact and control.
MSUC (McCandliss/Scott) that the Legislative Committee provide Councilmembers with
a copy of the bill analysis.
City Council Meeting -10- January 3, 1982
22. COUNCIL COMMENTS (Continued)
f. Councilwoman McCandliss commented that representatives of the State Department
of Health will be holding a session at 11:00 a.m. Friday for County elected
officials on standards and placements of toxic waste dumps and asked if the City
has been notified. She referred to the dump on Otay Lakes Road and said that the
City should be aware of developments in the area, new sites, and standards that
are being set.
MSUC (McCandliss/Scott) that the City Manager's office contact the County's Office
of Intergovernmental Affairs to find out more about the meeting on Friday.
ADJOURNMENT at 10:25 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Saturday, January 9 at
8:00 a.m.; to the regular meeting scheduled for January 12
at 7:00 p.m.; to the Council Conference scheduled for
January 14 at 4:00 p.m. and to January 16, 1962 at ~:00 a.m.
(CPR COURSE).
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~FFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF S~q DIEGO ) ss OF ADJOUkN~,~NT OF .~IEETI!~G
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Jennie M. Fulasz, being first duly sworn depose and say :
That I am t-he duly chosen, qualified and acting City Clerk of the
City Council of t_he City of Chula Vista;
That the re§u]a~ meeting of t_he Council of the City of
Chula Vista was he.!d. Tuesday~ Janua~¥5~ 1982
and said meeting was adjo~l-ned to ~he time and place specified in
the order of adjournment ATTACHED HERETO:
That on Wednesday, January6, 1982 at t_he hour of 9:40 a.m.
I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near
the door o~ the place at which said me'ting of January 5) ]982
was held.
Clerk
sttbscribed and sworn to before me this
day of
19
Notary PuSulic in and for said County
and State of California
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Held January, 5, 1982
The City Council met in the Council Chamber at the Public Services
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue on the above date at 7:00 p.m. with
the following
Councilmen present: COX, McCandliss, Scott, Gillow, Campbell
Councilmen absent: None
ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at ]0:25 ~.m. until Thursday,
Saturday, Januar~ 9, 1982 at 8:00 ~.m. in the Council Conference
~Dom, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
I, Jennie M. Fulasz, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a full, true and correct copy of an order
by the City Council at the meeting of January 5, 1982
J/~,!~i'~. FULASZ, CMC~ CITY C~FRK
~i~y of Chula Vista, California