Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/05/25 (2) MI~ OF A REGULAR IvIEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CI-IULA VISTA Tuesday, May 25, 1993 Council Chambers 6:08 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Hotton (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader (arrived at 7:53 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLF. GIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINIYYES: April 27, 1993 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), May 4, 1993 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), May 11, 1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council) and May 11, 1993 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) MSC (Moore/Fox) to approve the minutes of April 27, May 4, and May 11, 1993 as presented. Approved 34)-2 with Horton and Nader absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: · City Manager John Goss will present an overview of the proposed Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget. City Manager Goss gave an overview of the Operating Budget for fiscal year 1993-94. In preparing the budget staff incorporated three goals established by Council last September: 1) maintain service levels; 2) avoid lay- offs; and 3) protect the general fund reserves. Action proposed by the State could impact the City by $1.5 million. The proposed FY 1993/94 budget did not reflect that possibility. He then reviewed cost saving efforts taken by the City, i.e. major/minor cost reduction measures, entrepreneurial efforts, partnerships, obtaining non-tax revenues, increased revenues based on improved collection procedures, and increased efficiency. General fund expenditures and revenues were also reviewed. If cuts were needed in the future, due to the action taken by the State, staff would return to Council with a proposed cut list. Councflmember Rindone recommended that the budget overview be given during a regular Council meeting in the future. Gity Manager Goss reviewed the completed 1992-1993 CIP projects, projects under construction, and proposed projects. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the interest from the res~icted funds would go into the General Fund. City Manager Goss responded that the interest had to stay in the restricted funds. Councilmember Rindone requested that staff return with the following information: 1) a chart of consultant fees paid by the City for the current year and two previous years and the projected consultant fees for FY 1993/94; and 2) a chart of the actuals for the current year and two previous years and the projection for FY 1993/94 CIP. Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 2 Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, requested that future budget hearings be held in the Council Chambers rather than the Council Conference Room. CONSENT CAI.ffNDAR (Items pulled: 8 and 10) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT GAl.ENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. Councilmember Fox abstained from voting on Item 9A and 9B due to a conflict of interest. Items 16A and 16B were included on the Consent Calendar. 5. ~ ITleLN COMM1JI~CATIONS: a. Letter requesting ' ' - - . mstallanon of a sound s~gnal for pedestrians at the mteI~ection of Third Avenue and 'E' Stxeet - Mildred Heck, Chairman, Visually Impaired Group, Fredericka Manor, 183 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff and the Safety Commission. b. Letter questioning usage of sewer funds for various City projects - Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff. c. Letter of resignation from the International Friendship Commission - Mafia Capetanakis, 770 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. 6. ORDINANCE 2556 AMFa'qDING EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE 2546 ADOPTING CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S JANUARY 15, 1993 ACTIONS ON THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITFAL NUMBER EIGHT AND ACCEPTING AND INCORPORATING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPE~I-'IC PLAN I[second reading and adoption) - On 1/15/93, the California Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) Number Eight for development of the Midbayfront with modifications that were acceptable to City staff and consultants. Council adopted and authorized the California Coastal Commission actions on 3/16/93. However, one Coastal Commission modification to the Specific Plan was not included. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Community Development) 7. RESOLUTION 17117 JOINING WITH OTHER COUNTY AGENCIES IN OPPOSING THE RF~UCTION IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS AND URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO SEEK ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING - Opposing shift of $2.6 billion in property tax revenue away from local governments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) Continued from the meeting of 5/18/93. 8. RESOLLFFION 17126 APPROVING THE VOLL~ITARY TIM/~ OFF 0gro) POLICY. Council directe d staff to develop a policy to allow employees to voluntarily reduce their work week with a corresponding reduction in pay. The policy accomplishes that and has been approved during a formal meet-and-confer process by the Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Police Officers Association (POA), and Western Council of Engineers (WCE); and an informal process with Executive Managers, Middle Managers, and Unrepresented Employees. International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) elected to deal with the VTO Policy during negotiations for Fiscal Year 1993-94 and, therefore, are not included in the policy at the present time. Staffrecommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 3 Councilmember Rindone questioned whether all employees in all bargaining units, non-classified, and management were paid the same number of pay periods. He also questioned whether the one day off without pay could be cumulative. Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel, responded that all employees had the same number of pay periods. The days were not cumulative, it was limited to one day off per pay period. City Manager Goss felt if an employee was involved in the program they would probably take one day off every pay period, they would either be in the program or out of ir. It was possible, on a case by case basis, to work out arrangements with employees to take more than one day off per pay period. Councilmember Rindone questioned how the policy was different than the policy currently in place. Ms. Boshell responded there had been a past practice of allowing employees, on a case by case basis, to reduce their work week. In those cases, their benefits had been correspondingly reduced. With the new policy there was no reduction in benefits. Mayor Nader questioned how the policy compared to the City of San Diego's policy. Ms. Boshell responded that it was similar. Both the County and City of San Diego had more experience and possibly allowed more voluntary time off per period. Staffwould review the policy after it was established to determine what the usage was. Mayor Nader requested a review of the program in two months and that staff consult with the employee organizations. He wanted to make sure it was an employee friendly program as it was to the benefit of the employees and tax-payers if the policy was used as much as possible provided it did not impair operations. RESOLUTION 17126 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Fox questioned whether the savings had been anticipated in the proposed budget. City Manager Goss stated ir had not been included. Staff did project salary savings which was a fairly substantial amount based on turnovers during the course of the year. He felt more experience with the program was necessary in order to see what the benefit would be. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17126: approved unanimously. 9.A. RESOLUTION 17127 APPROVING THE ENGINFYmR'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTFaNANCE DISTRICTS 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN GENTRE, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSIvlF2qTS AND SETTING ,}IJLY 13, 1993 AND a'IJLY 20, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - On 3/2/93, Council directed staff to prepare and file reports of assessments for all existing City Open Space Maintenance Districts. The resolutions approve the reports and sets the dates for public hearings to consider the spreading of assessments. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation) B. ILESOLUTION 17128 APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL ~ 1993-94 SPREAD OF ASSESSMFA'qTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT TEN, DECldLRING THE INTEaNTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMKNTS AND SETI'ING JULY 13, 1993 AND JULY 20, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATES AND TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS May 25, 1993 Page 4 \ .Gouncflme. mber Fox stated he would abstain from voting on Items 9A and 9B due to ownership of property m one of the Open Space Maintenance Districts which created a conflict of interest. 10. RF~ORT PROPOSED SPE(2AL RULE RF2dkTED TO LISTING OF CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AS A THREATENED SPECIES BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIGE - On 3/25/93, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced that the California Gnatcatcher had been listed as a threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act. On 3/30/93, the USFWS published a proposed special rule which would allow regulation of incidental take of gnatcatcher habitat as well as long-term habitat management planning to occur through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP). The proposed special rule was released for a 60-day public review period which ends on 6/1/93. Staff recommends that the City take a position in opposition to any changes to the special rule which would mandate the use of the Clean Water Program Multiple Species Conservation Plan or other subregional planning programs other than the NCCP as a basis for compliance with the special rule. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. MSC (Moore/Fox) to accept the report and staff recommendation. Mayor Nader questioned what the impact would be of the proposed rule. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that the main issue staff was concerned about was the decision making process related to the Clean Water Program plan versus a locally developed plan. The Clean Water program plan was currently under the oversight of the City of San Diego and was for the entire Clean Water program study area. The actual process for the adoption of that plan had not been fully identified. Staff was concerned the federal rule required the City's planning to be directed by the City of San Diego through the Clean Water Program. Mayor Nader suggested the City be fairly specific in conveying the City's position ro the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the concern of having an entity that was answerable to only one entity in the region and that it had no accountability to the elected officials over much of the area it covered. The specific concern was that if the City had to follow a particular process or program it be one which the City had some voice. Councilmember Moore stated he put more confidence in the NCCP than he did in the City of San Diego and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Agreeable to the Maker and Second of the Motion: to advise Fish and Wildlife that the City's opposition was not based on a willingness to participate in a regional planning process per se, but it should be a process in which the City had an equitable say. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RFU~TED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 11. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF REQ~ TO REDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 MEI.ROSE AVENUE - The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission in January 1992 and consequently appealed by Council in response to concerns with traffic impacts and an Minutes May 25, 1993 Page S over-concentration of alcohol sales facilities. Consideration of the appeal has been postponed to coincide with reconsideration of the alcohol sales issue. Continued from the meeting of 5/4/93. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to 6/1/93. (Director of Planning) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. MSC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 6/1/93. Approved 4q)4)-1 with Nader absent. 12. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-10; APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF REQ~ TO SEI.L ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT PROPOSED MINI- MARKET AT 1498 MFI.ROSE AVENUE IN C-N ZONE - In January 1992, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved a request to sell beer and wine at the proposed Texaco mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N zone. The request was proposed under the City's recently adopted Conditional Use Permit (CUP) procedure for alcohol sales in the C-N zone. The decision has been appealed and has been scheduled to coincide with the appeal of the CUP for the mini-market/car wash. Continued from the meeting of 5/4/93. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to 6/1/93. (Director of Planning) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. MSC (Horton/Fox) to continue the public hearing to the 6/1/93 meeting. Approved 40-0-1 with Nader absent. ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS · William E. Claycomb, 457 Delaware Street, Imperial Beach, CA, representing Save Our Bay Inc., referred to testimony presented to the San Diego Unified Port District by John Willitt representing the Tall Ship Society and Chula Vista Yacht Club supporting the $3,203,705 Chula Vista Nautical Center. He felt the testimony had been incorrect regarding the potential impact upon the birds in the area. * * * Mayor Nader arrived at 7:53 p.m. * * * BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOIVIMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 13. RESOLUTION 17129 APPROVING AGRF. F. MENT BY, BETWEF. N AND AMONG TIIE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTFJtIM SOLID W/~-t'~ COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, AND COMMITTING FIFTY PER CENT OF THE CITY'S W~ TO THE COUNTY- On 3/30/93 and 4/20/93, Council discussed regional solid waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement. Since that time, a San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) committee of elected officials has been meeting to negotiate the revised agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and acceptance of the report. (Administration) REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SOl.ID WASTE ISSUES Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 6 City Manager Goss recommended that Council continue the item to the meeting on 5/26/93 which would give the City the opportunity ro see what action was taken by the other cities in the County. Mayor Nader stated there had been discussion by some County officials that less than unanimous concurrence by the various cities in the County might suffice if some of the cities committed over 50% of their trash flow. City Manager Goss stated he had discussed the issue with Supervisor Bilbray and he stated if there was a certain critical mass committed they would go ahead. He also realized and committed that if there was a ci-itical mass committed, and there were concerns with the agreement, the County would be open to further modifications to the agreement. They also realized the June 1st deadline might not hold. Councilmember Fox stated he would like to have the City Attorney's concerns answered. Based upon the information currently before Council he would not support the agreement. Councilmember Rindone stated the 82,000 ton figure was a base amount and questioned if it was a stationary figure. Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, responded itwas a valid concern. There was a provision in the agreement which allowed the commission, once formed, to adjust that figure. Councilmember Fox questioned why the City Attorney had not recommended giving the newly established governing body the fight to site landfills. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the recommendation was that the cities had a major vote in the sighting decision to overcome what had been going on regarding the siting of landfills. A special consideration would have to be given to any weighted vote requirement so ir would not be left in the hands of the County. Councilmember Fox stated he could not support bonding for twenty years when the expected life of the San Marcos landfill was seven to ten years. He was extremely concerned regarding the financing and felt it would be difficult to defend such action to the community. Mrs. Snyder stated that over $43,000,000 had already been spent out of reserves and the bonding would replenish those reserves with the remainder going toward the reserves. Councilmember Moore stated there was only one game in town, the County had been handling all trash in the County for years. The cities needed to buy into the system with some degree of protection. The tipping fees paid the bill and should cover the project from "birth to death". He urged Council to give specific direction to staff and be prepared to make a decision at the Thursday meeting. Councilmember Fox felt the County had proven they were not capable of siting landfills and maybe it was time to address the issue and give the authority to the cities. He was concerned that if the City entered into the agreement it would be harder to get the County to go along and allow some type of governing body the landfill siting authority. Mrs. Snyder stated that under AB939 the County, along with the cities, was required to adopt a county-wide siting element. The siting element would require all the cities and the County to come together within the -ext few years and adopt a siting plan stating where facilities would be located in the county. It was the ~hderstandings of the cities that regional participation would help that siting because all the cities would be part of that decision. Minutes May 2S, 1993 Page 7 Councilmember Fox questioned whether the siting authority would be vested in a governing body that was yet to be determined. Mrs. Snyder stated the differentiation needed to be made between the authority to site and the individual land use authority. Throughout the process there was interest in having a mutual commitment for facility siting and a determination of the handling of the facilities. There was never interest in upsetting the current local land use authority, i.e. for the County or cities. The decision would be a mutual process of where regional facilities were needed. In the end, the cities would not have the authority to take away the local land use authority from an individual jurisdiction. City Attorney Boogaard stated the statement that the County had land use siting authority was correct but it was also correct that with a joint powers agreement anyone could surrender land use siting authority to a group or another entity. When he suggested that land use siting authority had to be transferred from the County to either cities or a commission it would have to be with consent of the County. Gouncilmember Fox questioned whether an analysis had been done as to whether the City could go on its oIArn. City Manager Goss stated he could not say there had been an analysis showing that it was not feasible to go alone. He was not aware of any options available that seemed reasonable to pursue. If a city went out individually to site a landfill it could be a multi-million dollar process. He felt it was a mat~er of burden of proof, were there studies showing there were options available. Gouncilmember Fox requested information on the Grand Jury report. Councilmember Rindone felt the agreement was not in the best interest of the City. A real problem was the twenty year loan for a ten year facility. It was not a one year agreement, it was a twenty year bonding capacity and the cities would have committed at least 50% of their flow for twenty years. He was also concerned regarding the legality of traditional flow and governance and whether the City had that authority. Under the proposed agreement, if a cheaper alternative were found in the future, the cities would not be able to take that option or protect the interests of the rate payers. The agreement transferred the legal authority of the elected officials to a non-elected commission that would have the authority to make decisions on rates. He felt it was a permanent surrender of the authority of elected officials. There were no studies regarding projected tipping fees or an analysis of where it would go. He was also concerned regarding the surcharge on the uncommitted 50% of flow. Not approving the agreement did not solve the issue. He requested that staff bring back a report, before Thursday, on what would have to be done to the agreement to effectuate the City Attorney's recommendation regarding the ability to terminate the flow control covenant at such time as the City's general fund may be obligated to pay for the tipping fee. He was also supportive of the City Attorney's recommendation to specify that as to the Otay Landfill Host Fee, "the City of Chula Vista shall receive all of said Host Fee for the duration of the Flow Control Covenant". Councilmember Moore stated whether it was the County or the cities, planning needed to be done and therefore a commitment was needed. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned with the approach that it was the "only game in town". He felt there were other options, whether they were wise choices that was another question. He was concerned regarding cost control and accountability issues. There should be amendments that would give the Council the ability to review costs and/or greater assurance. He did not want to be put in a position such as the City was with the sewer system where the Council had to vote on rate increases for the City based on decisions the Council had no control. If another entity was going to make the decisions setting the City's ratepayers rates he wanted them to set the rates. He did not want that to be a Council vote. If the City was going to be setting Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 8 rates he wanted some control and review authority over decisions another entity would be making that was going into the rate setting decision. He did not have a problem with the County having that authority/f it made more sense on a regional basis. He did not want the County making decisions that drove rates and then ask the cities to pass the rate increases. He was also concerned regarding recycling and cost control and the relationship of the flow control agreement and the franchise agreement with Laidlaw. He questioned to what extent the City had authority to require the franchisee, under the franchise agreement, to take their flow to a specific place as designated by the County. City Attorney Boogaard responded the franchise agreement did not have specific authority to require Laidlaw to take it. There was a pass-through clause that stated whatever the tipping fee was they could pass it through to the residents in the rate base. Laidlaw would not have an objection to taking it to a County facility because they would not be put to any expense. If they objected, the City could not tolerate Laidlaw not taking it, the City would have to convince them through adequate consideration, to take it to an area stipulated by the Gity. The ordinance would have to be amended in order to give the City that authority. Mayor Nader felt the franchisee should be included in the process. Mrs. Snyder stated staff would research the issue but she felt there was a clause in the franchise agreement which stated the company would take the material to whatever place designated by the City. Councilmember Rindone requested that staff respond to the potential impact on the general fund. Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a provision in the flow control agreement that would actually limit tipping fees charged by the County to actual cost recovery and review for the reasonableness of rates. Councilmember Moore stated the word "reasonable" was not included in the agreement. City Attorney Boogaard felt any member would have the ability to litigate the issue of whether or not the fees were reasonably set. He felt the City was protected in that regard. MS (Fox/Nader) to continue the item to the meeting of Wednesday, May 26, 1993. Councilmember Rindone questioned how realistic it was to have staff bring back the informatiofi requested by the 5/26/93 meeting. City Manager Goss responded that some of the material was available but he was concerned the response would be piecemealed and the response would not address the whole picture. AMENDS: (Fox/Nader) to continue the item to the meeting of Thursday, May 27, 1993. City Manager Goss stated if Chula Vista was the only city that had not approved the agreement he felt 7/1/93 would be a firm deadline. If some of the other cities did not commit, and there was not a critical mass, he felt the deadline would be moved back. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. Mayor Nader stated he had an urgency item he would like considered in Closed Session. It dealt with the vote taken that evening by the San Diego City Council on extending the moratorium on Otay Mesa. The Mayor of San Diego had been authorized to meet with other San Diego City Councilmembers and with Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 9 foreign and federal officials to negotiate some form of bi-national agreement and bring it back to the San Diego City Council. In the mean time they would allow industrial development, but not residential development, to proceed in an expanded moratorium area. Itwas his understanding that schools would not be allowed. MSUC (Nader/Moore) add discussion of potential litigation related to the Otay Mesa airport proposal to Closed Session and dedaring an urgency as the San Diego City Council took action on 5/2.5/93 and there was a potentially short statute of limitations. 14. RESOLIYF[ON 17093 TRANSFERRING $2,500 OF UNUSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FROM VARIOUS SUB-GRANTEF~ TO THE L~ SOGIAL SERVIt~-g OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE 'THURSDAY'S MEAL' PROGRAM - In July 1991, Lutheran Social Services and the South Bay Ecumenical Council started a weekly meal program for homeless people. The 'Thursday's Meal' program currently serves 200 people, half of whom are children. The committee overseeing the program has recently expanded to serve meals on Mondays at the Presbyterian Church. Lutheran Social Services has sent Council a letter requesting $2,500 to cover the cost of utilities, maintenance, and insurance. It is a one- time request and immediately needed due to the rapid growth of the program. Unused CDBG social services funds are available from various sub-grantees. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 4/Sth's vote required. Continued from the meeting of 5/11/93. RESOLUTION 17093 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Rindone requested the memorandum of 5/24/93 from Chris Salomone addressing his questions regarding the separation of church and state be made a part of the record. The memorandum will be on file in the City Clerk's office. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17093: approved unanimously. 15. REPORT REQUEST BY SAN DIEGO AREA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO SHARE IN THE cOST OF TREATING TIJUANA SEWAGE - There is an item on the agenda for the San Diego Area Wastewater Management Board of Directors (SDAWMD) meeting of 5/28/93 to approve sharing the costs of treating Tijuana sewage between all the participating agencies if the Federal government does not pay their share. Staff recommends acceptance of the report. (Director of Public Works) MSUC 0Vloore/Rindone) to accept the staff report and recommendation. **** The City Council met as a Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency at 7:17 p.m. to discuss the following: 16.A. cOUNCIL RESOLIJTION 17130 APPROVING THE MEMORANDOM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOLD WITH THE REDEVELOPMF2qT AGENCY AND THE PRICE GOMPANY - The proposed MOU provides for assistance in improving the traffic access to the Price Club Shopping Center off of Palomar Street. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1328 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF D2qDERSTANDING ~¢~OU) WITH THE CITY AND THE PRICE COMPANY Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 10 Items 16A and 16B were approved on the Consent Calendar. **** The Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting adjourned at 7:21 p~m. to the regular Gity Council meeting ***** ITEMS PUl.! .ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 8 and 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. City Manager Goss stated the following meetings had been scheduled: l) budget workshop on Wednesday, 5./26/93 at 6:00 p.m.; 2) Council workshop/meeting on Thursday, 5/27/93 at 4:00 p.m.; 3) regular Council meeting Tuesday, 6/1/93 at 4:00 p.m.; 4) joint Council/County Board meeting on 6/2/93 from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. and the Youth Summit at 6:00 p.m.; and $) budget workshop on Thursday 6/3/93 at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Nader stated he had seen a list being circulated with meeting dates for Otay Ranch and questioned whether they were announced dates. City Manager Goss stated he was uncertain as to whether the dates had been set. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that dates not be committed to with the County until the Mayor/Council had been polled. 18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Ratification of appointments: Ignacio Valdovinos - Aging Commission; and Marie Mields .Child Care Commission. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to approve the ratification of appointment of Ignacio Valdovinos to the Aging Commission. Mayor Nader requested the appointment of Maria Miekls be continued for one week. 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilwoman Horton · ACA 25 (Woodruff): State College/University Funding Guarantees. Legislative Committee Recommendation: OPPOSE. Continued from the meeting of 5/18/93. Councilmember Horton stated the Legislative Committee opposed the bill for the following reasons: 1) it would take away available funding from cities and counties; and 2) universities had the ability to raise funds through mechanisms not available to other public school districts and community colleges. MS (Horton/Moore) to oppose ACA 25 (Woodruff) State College/University Funding Gua/~ntees. Minutes May 25, 1993 Page 11 the legislation. He felt the State needed to face the fact that all entities and services worth funding needed to have some assurance of their funding. He would like to do more than just convey opposition to the legislation, i.e. say to the State that they needed to comprehensively legislate a stable source of funds for higher education, K-12, cities, and counties and not make them all compete against one another. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Rindone) commtmicate to the State Legislature that the City would support a guaranteed funding level for higher education coupled with a similar mechanism to guarantee stable funding sources for local governments. Councilmember Moore recommended the City support the State taking action that would treat all public agencies equal in establishing appropriate funding. Mayor Nader stated the intent of the amendment was to address education and local governments. Therefore, the City would not just be reacting to the bill. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the amendfi~ent also included adult education. Mayor Nader responded that adult education was to be included. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The City Council recessed at 9:52 p.m. and met in a closed session at 9:55 p.m. to discuss: Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego, Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. Corifinued from the meeting of 5/18/93. Instruction to negotiators pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Bayfront negotiations. Continued from the meeting of 5/18/93. Instruction to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers Ga/CE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 5/18/93. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 P.M. to a Special Worksession/Meeting on Wednesday, May 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, thence to a Regular Worksession/Meeting on Thursday, May 27, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 1, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vi'ck'~i C. Soderquist, Depu~ City Clerk