Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1978/05/25 MINUTES OF )~N ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA tteld Thursday - 4:00 p.m. Hay 25, 1978 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Hobel, Cox, Scott Councilmen absent: Councilman Egdahl Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Planning Peterson, Director of Parks & Recreation Hall, Deputy City Manager Wittenberg Guests: Members of the Chula Vista Planning Commission John G. Harlow, Project Manager, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Motion to change It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Mayor Hyde order of agenda and unanimously carried by those present that the order of the agenda items be changed w~th Item 3 being considered first, then Item 2 second and Item 1 last. 3. REPORT ON MOVE OF Parks & Recreation Director Hal! said a meeting was held COMaMUNITY DEVELOPMENT with the citizens group in the E1 Rancho del Rey park area BUILDING TO THE EL RANCHO on Wednesday night (May 24) and the concept of the proposed DEL REY AREA PARK mini recreational center was explained to them. He said residents opposing the move expressed the following con- cerns: (1) that this facility was not needed at this time; (2) traffic problems will be created; and (3) the children in the area will be served with the construction of the new community school. Council discussion Council discussion followed concerning alternate sites, problems in locating the facility on school grounds, the need to move the building by June 9, and the consensus of opposition among residents. Motion not to move It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded by Councilman building in this area Hobel that the building not be placed at this site. C. C. Christensen Mr. Christensen said he was representing the group and that 1367 Santa Cruz Court due to the time factor, they only had two hours to contact Chula Vista residents prior to the meeting on Wednesday. He said the 58 persons attending the meeting were 100% opposed to the move, expressing their concerns that the area is attractive to aliens and the lack of security in the park could create  a problem. Question regarding survey In answer to a query from Councilman Cox, Mr. Hall said it would take two to three weeks to make a survey concerning interest in the neighborhood center. Speaking against motion Councilman Cox spoke against the motion, stating his concern that a survey should be taken to be sure that the 60 persons opposing the move are a representative sample of people in the area. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hyde Noes: Councilman Cox Absent: Councilman Egdahl Adjourned Regular Meeting -2- May 25, 1978 Motion for staff It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Cox recommendation for and unanimously carried by those present that the staff other disposition be requested to come back to the Council at the next meet- ing with a proposal for disposition (of the building) in some other manner. 2. REPORT REGARDING City Manager Cole submitted a written statement outlining GRIEVANCE OF POLICE in detail the background of the grievance concerning vaca- RELIEF ASSOCIATION tion accruals presented by Officer Stille at the Council meeting of May 23, 1978. Staff problem in Mr. Asmus reported that after clarification of Council complying with intent, staffing problems had been encountered in reducing vacation limitation excess vacation days to the two-year limitation by employees of the Police Department. A grievance had been filed and the Council had directed that this be handled in meet and confer sessions. Mr. Asmus said that this was done with other employee organizations, but not with the Police Relief Association as other problems were unresolved and no Memorandum of Understanding was signed for FY77-78. Motion to accept It was moved by Councilman Hobel and seconded by Council- staff recoramendation man Cox that the staff proceed as indicated in Paragraph No. 5, page 3 of the City Manager's report: "...for the City and the Police Officers Association to meet and confer on this item during this year's negotiating sessions and either retain the policy as currently set forth or reach some other agreement acceptable to the City." Richard Strickland Officer Strickland questioned what will happen to those Representing Chula Vista police employees who have vacation time over the two-year Police Officers limit and said the problem will continue to be difficult as vacations are scheduled on a seniority basis. The Council concurred with Officer Strickland,s concern and noted that these matters will be addressed in the meet and Motion carried The motion carried unanimously by those present. 1. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT Mayor Hyde explained that the purpose of the meeting was to OF BOOZ, ALLEN & have any questions raised by the Council clarified, to have HAMILTON, INC. ON THE an opportunity for staff response and have a free discussion OPERATIONS OF THE regarding the findings and recommendations in the report. PLANNING DEPARTMENT (A copy of the report is on file in the City Clerk's office.) Follow-up evaluation in City Manager Cole said the consultant firm has fulfilled the six months contract with the exception of the follow-up evaluation in six months. Letter received from Councilman Hobel referred to a letter received today from  Chamber of Commerce the Chamber of Commerce requesting that payment to the con- sultant be withheld pending a review of the report. Motion for letter to be It was moved by Conncilman Hobel and seconded by Councilman part of record Cox that the letter be made a part of the record. Council discussion Council discussion ensued concerning the relevance of the letter to the proceedings at this meeting, and since payment has already been made, the Council concnrred that an acknowl- edgment of the letter would suffice. Motion withdrawn Councilman Hobel withdraw his motion. Councilman Cox agreed to the second. John Harlow Mr. Harlow explained that the consultant took an objective Project Manager view of the Planning Department to see how it is organized and how it operates. The first two chapters outline the background, purpose and methodology of the report. Chapters 3 and 4 cover findings, conclusions and recommendations. Adjourned Regular Meeting -3- May 25, 1978 DISCUSSION OF Councilman Hobel expressed his strong concern that the CHAPTER III - final report was changed from the initial draft that was FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS submitted to the City Manager and Planning staff for review. Mr. Harlow discussed the practice of the consulting firm to contact the department they are dealing with to make sure the facts are right and that the final recommendations are realistic. He said that with the Planning Director involved in the development of a new General Plan, the need for an assistant in the department is important, and this change was made in the final report. Council discussion Council discussion ensued with staff and Mr. Harlow concern- ing changes in management roles; assitant position involved with external relationships; reorganization of departments being considered by the City; the need to up-date the General Plan; consultant recommendation to delegate more authority to the Planning Commission; importance of Council decision as to the degree the Council wants to be involved in the planning process; additional time for Council involve- ment; Planing Commission members werenot interviewed by consultant (due to lack of time); and the survey of devel- opers and citizens taken by the consultant. No contact with Planning Commission Chairman Chandler expressed the Com- Planning Commission missions concern that the members had not been contacted by the consultant. He commended the Planning Department and Planning Director for their performance. An in depth discussion followed including long range plan- ning, current planning, zoning development, legal requirements, functional comparison with other cities, staffing, possible delegation of tentative subdivision map approval, quality of planning work, and status board system of control. Motion for recess It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Mayor Hyde and unanimously carried by those present that the Council break for dinner and come back at 7:00 p.m. Consultant conclusion - Councilman Hobel commented on the statement in the report specific objectives not on page 24 which reads: "the Department takes on special established for current studies without a clear understanding of the impact on cur- or long range planning rent workload or the relative priorities of the various projects." Me asked for clarification of this statement. Mr. ttarlow explained that if the Council requests a special study, there is no procedure for staff to evaluate the work load and deadlines - the work is performed without question as to priorities and cost in terms of time. Suggestion for criteria In response to further questions from the Council, Mr. tlarlow to be developed regarding discussed statements in the report concerning the Planning use of time Department at times preparing alternate development plans when unacceptable proposal are received and that plans may be prepared in more detail than is necessary. He stated that criteria should be developed to determine how time should be alloted~ It was noted that procedures could be changed when the new complex is completed and departments reorganized. (Councilman Cox arrived at this time - 7:1~ p,m.) Council discussion In depth discussion followed concerning the time and degree of involvement of the Council in planning matters; value of "small town" rapport enjoyed by the Council and citizens; suggestion regarding possibility of combining Planning Com- mission and Council public hearings in the interest of time; the project accounting system not being an effective planning management tool at this time; possibility or more effective use being made of the Planning Commission (by delegation of authority]; and the coordination between the Planning Depart- ment and the Public Works Department ~n the CIP programs. Adjourned Regular Meeting -4- May 25, 1978 DISCUSSION OF Council discussion regarding recommendation included CHAPTER IV - (1) projections of economic changes (i.e. housing demands); RECOMMENDATIONS (2) whether the new General Plan should address this matter; (3) whether the Planning Department can be delegated certain responsibilities held by the Planning Commission, subject to the appeal process; (4) simplification of reviewing development proposals; and (S) disagreement of Planning Commission Members with recommendation concerning manner in which the Planning Department should prepare reports - (they prefer the summary now being used.) RECESS A recess was called at 8:10 p.m. and the meeting recon- vened at 8:20 p.m. Recommendations for Mr. Harlow explained that the recommendation is for the changes in assignment Planning Director to assume more of a management role with of responsibilities long range planning rather than the day to day procedures, with the Assistant Director of Planning assuming day to day responsibilities, including the project accounting system and budget. Ne referred to a recommended organizational chart included in the report detailing this suggestion. Council discussion An in depth discussion ensued concerning the recommended changes in responsibilities and the delegation of authority, including the role of the City Manager in the management process. In a response to a query from Councilman Scott, City Manager said the administrative staff was in agreement with the conclusions as discussed. Suggestion that specific In answer to a comment by Commissioner O'Neil regarding objectives be established Exhibit XlII - "Efficiency measures for use by the Planning Department" - Hr. Harlow said that specific objectives should be established in each area listed. DISCUSSION OF Mayor Hyde noted the report recommended that "the City CHAPTER V - Manager's Office should assume overall responsibility for IMPLEMENTATION AND directing the implementation and should appoint a task force NEXT STEPS to assist in the process." In answer to his question con- cerning the City Attorney being a member of the task force, Mr. Harlow said that this was important insofar as legal changes that might be necessary. Motion for staff It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman Cox review and joint that the City Manager and staff be directed to review the Council/Planning report and to schedule a joint Council and Planning Com- Commission Conference m~ssion conference at which time the City Manager would comment on the recon~endations and propose a plan for imple- mentation of them, as approved by the Council, with a time- table for implementation. Discussion ensued concerning the consultant returning in six months to make an evaluation; the importance of making changes soon; the need for someone to be designated to follow through with implementation; some recommendations could be implemented by the City Manager while others require Council action and/or Planning Commission reaction. Motion carried The motion carried unanimously by those present. Director of Planning Peterson referred to a comment in the report on Page 33 - third paragraph - concerning the Depart- ment taking a close look at the amount of time devoted to regional planning activities. He questioned the extent to which the Department should be involved in regional planning. Adjourned Regular Meeting -5- May 25, 1978 Use of outside contractors In response to a query from Councilman Cox, Mr. Harlow questioned clarified statements regarding the fact that the Depart- ment makes little use of outside contractors. He said this aspect of study was a requirement in the contract with the Consultant, but the conclusion was that they did not find many areas where effective use of outside contractors could be used, except perhaps for special studies (EIR's, etc), or when the General Plan is revised. Response to be made to Mayor Hyde referred to the letter received from the Chamber letter from Chamber of of Commerce and said a response would be sent indicating Commerce that the Council made an extensive analysis of the report at this meeting and it was the consensus to proceed with pay- ment of the contract. Motion for Executive It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Mayor Hyde Session and unanimously carried by those present that an Executive Session be held on personnel matters at the conclusion of the discussion on the report. Request from Assemblyman Mayor Hyde said he had received a request from Assemblyman Kapiloff for meeting Kapiloff for an opportunity to meet with the Council on a Saturday - either June 3 or June 10 - to present comments on his proposal for legislation to create a San Diego Regional Planning and Transportation Commission. Motion for Council It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Cox and Conference on June 10, unanimously carried by those present that a meeting be 1978 (Saturday) scheduled with Assemblyman Kapiloff on Saturday, June 10 at 8:00 a.m. (in the Council Conference Room, City Hall). EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council recessed to Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. with the Deputy City Clerk excused. City Manager Cole was appointed Deputy City Clerk pro tempore. He reported that the meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 10:21 p.m. to the regular meeting scheduled for June 6, 1978 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. Jane A. Diedrichs Depn~ City Clerk