Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/06/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 24, 1986 6:00 p.m. (Closed Session) Council Chamber MSUC (Moore/Campbell) to recess to Closed Session for litigation matters (Hopper vs. Chula Vista and "Meet and Confer)." The Council recessed at 6:00 and reconvened to the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, Campbell, McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron, Assistant City Manager Asmus PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 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 meeting of June 17, 1986 (7:00 p.m.). MSUC (Campbell/McCandliss) to approve the minutes. 2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY a. PROCLAIMING JULY 1986 "HIRE A YOUTH MONTH" The Proclamation was presented to Tim Mullenix, representing the Private Industry Council. Don Heye presented Mayor Cox with a photograph of the Mayor taken as a token of their appreciation for the Mayor's work in this program. b. PROCLAIMING JULY 1986 "PARKS & RECREATION MONTH" The Proclamation was presented to Manuel Mollinedo, Director of Parks & Recreation. Minutes - 2 - June 24, 1986 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. CONCERNS REGARDING JUNE 5, 1986 SPECIAL MOBILEHOME ISSUES COMMITTEE MEETING - Heinz D. Seiler Mr. Seiler asked that the Mobilehome Issues Committee meeting of June 5, 1986 be declared invalid and requested the following: a. The National CPI as the triggering mechanism for 1997. b. NO pass-throughs. These costs are already figured in the CPI. c. Binding arbitration. This was not even brought up at the meeting of June 5, 1986. d. Other mutual park problems could be mediated by the Chula Vista 1997 Commission, upon request of 51% of residents, since too many parks cannot get a meeting with the owners, for various reasons. e. Roll back of rents to a year such as 1982. The City Manager recommended the communication be acknowledged and filed. MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to approve staff recommendation. b. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION PROHIBITING TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS IN MOTOR VEHICLES - Fred J. Lee, Executive Director, San Diego Humane Society & S.P.C.A. Inc., 887 Sherman Street, San Diego 92110 The Humane Society requested passage of legislaton relating to the safe transportation of animals in vehicles for the safety of other drivers. The City Manager indicated that while the rationale contained in this letter appeared convincing to adopt ordinances for the protection of pets riding in -pick-up trucks, he was recommending this be referred to staff for report in order to determine why this proposal failed to pass the State Legislature. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to file the request. c. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL TO SEEK COST RECOVERY FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR PROVISION OF COUNTY SERVICES TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - Susan Golding, Supervisor, District 3, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego 92101 The City Manager stated City Council may wish to support this proposal. If not, he was recommending it be referred to staff for report. Minutes - 3 - June 24, 1986 MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to respond to Supervisor Golding's request and that the letter go out over the Mayor's signature. d. pETITION CONCERNING LOT SPLITS BORDERING LAS FLORES DRIVE NEAR "D" STREET - Residents at 123, 135, 138, 139 and 171 Minot Avenue, Chula Vista The request of the residents was that any future lot splits bordering on Las Flores Drive have driveways exiting onto Las Flores thus alleviating excess traffic coming on to Minot Avenue. The City Manager reported that Planning expects that the Las Flores zoning study will be done in 30-60 days, with a 30 day review. There is currently one active application referenced in the letter from the residents in the area. If Council wants to institute a moratorium, it should be referred to staff to bring back an ordinance with appropriate findings; otherwise, he recommended the letter be received and acknowledged with the understanding that the study will be processed in the above mentioned time schedule, and with the further understanding that it is staff's intent to deny the parcel map now pending. Mr. Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minor Avenue, Chula Vista, stated that he was present 15 months ago when the Council directed staff to come back with a report and to take some action. Nothing has been done since then and in the meantime the lots are continually being split. MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to accept the staff recommendation and if the parcel is approved that it be appealed directly to the City Council. e. REQUEST FOR REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS/COMMISSIONS - Mayor Cox The following individuals have requested appointments: Kevin O'Neill - Design Review Committee Frank Tarantino Human Relations Commission Beverly Strahl - Human Relations Commission Doris Cox International Friendship Commission Eric Money-Penny - International Friendship Commission Peggy Donovan - Resource Conservation Commission Gregory Rowe - Resource Conservation Commission Suzanne Harris - Safety Commission MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to approve the reappointments. Minutes - 4 - June 24, 1986 f. REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION ON JOINT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO/SANDAG "REGIONAL GROWTH AND PLANNING TASK FORCE" Leon L. Williams, Supervisor-Fourth District, County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego 92101 Supervisor Williams asked for Council's support and participation on the 21-member Task Force. The City Manager noted that Supervisor Williams' comments regarding the need for comprehensive evaluation of regional growth and planning within the County certainly are worthwhile considering. As he observes, there is a need for such planning, and often it is accomplished on an ad hoc basis among affected jurisdictions. The City Manager recommended this proposal be supported but that it be accomplished through SANDAG as the Regional Planning Agency of which the County and various cities in the County are members. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to approve staff recommendation. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF UNDERGROUNDING EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES THROUGH THE PROPERTY AT 612 PASEO DEL REY (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt explained that the owner has applied for a building permit for a Day Care Center. The City Code requires that all structures and buildings being constructed within the exterior boundary lines of such property shall have all electrical, distribution service wires and/or cables placed underground. The owner has requested a waiver of the undergrounding requirements. The recommendation was that (1) the Council hold the subject public hearing to consider a deferral of the undergrounding requirement rather than a waiver and, (2) the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he agrees to waive the right to protest the formation of any future undergrounding district and to participate in the district in the event such formation occurs. Councilman Malcolm voiced his concern with allowing the deferral noting that this road is designated as a scenic highway. Minutes - 5 - June 24, 1986 Mr. Sam Barnhart, 7636 Miramar Road, San Diego, representing Child's World, Inc., stated (1) the waiver should be granted, (2) the undergrounding requirements were an unknown factor, (3) the cost is already $125,000 more than that charged by the County of San Diego for a facility they are building there, (4) they had to build a retaining wall along the channel and put in a crib wall, (5) all the utility lines they are putting in will be underground, (6) investors will be coming in to take over the facility asking for a 25-year lease and this cost may affect that sale, (7) $40,000 is unfair to request them to pay for the undergrounding - the $11,000 is a "back-breaker;" however they will agree to their fair share. There being no further testimony either for or against, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Malcolm stated he would like to refer this item back to staff. Although he does not approve of having a day care center here, it was a decision of the Council to allow this. He would like to see staff meet with SDG&E and perhaps get the cost down and also, to consider placing a lien on the church property so that the City can recapture that money once the improvements are in. MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to refer this back to staff for a report on how to remove the poles in a joint cooperative effort with the City of Chula Vista (being the potential property owner). The report is to come back in two weeks (July 8) at which time the public hearing will be reopened. 5. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A DISPOSITION & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH KIDS UNLIMITED FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (Continued from May 13, 1986)(Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 12551 ENTERING INTO A DISPOSITION & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH KIDS UNLIMITED FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITY PROPERTY AND APPROVING THE GRANT DEED FOR SAID SALE This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open. In a written report to Council, Community Development Director Desrochers stated that in February 1986, the City Council accepted a bid from Kids Unlimited for the purchase and development of City-owned property north of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of Paseo del Rey. Since that date, the Design Review Committee has reviewed and approved the development's site plan and elevations and the Planning Commission has issued a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a child care facility. Also, an escrow account has been opened by the City for conveyance of the site. Minutes - 6 - June 24, 1986 To complete the project's processing, the applicant needs to: (1) submit and obtain a waiver for the undergrounding of SDG&E transmission lines that cross the property; (2) agree to provisions of a disposition and development agreement; and (3) finalize a schedule of performance. The recommendation was that the City Council enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Kids Unlimited for the sale and development of City property and approve the Grant Deed for said sale. With the sale of the property the City will realize for the General Fund ~67,360 less escrow charges and ~101,640 to the gas tax fund. Mr. Desrochers noted that the approval of this development agreement is contingent in the escrow agreement. Councilman Malcolm noted the referral to a specific title company in the agreement stating he would prefer the staff solicit another title company along with a local escrow company. There being no further testimony either for or against, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Malcolm/Cox) to change the agreement that staff be given the right to choose any reliable title company and a local escrow company. The motion carried with Councilwoman McCandliss voting "no." City Clerk Fulasz pointed out the resolution has been changed with the addition of the words "and grant deed" in Section 4. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, as amended, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved with Councilman Malcolm voting "no." 6. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-86-D: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S PROPOSAL TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 45.75 ACRES OF TERRITORY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE TERMINUS OF MACE STREET AND EXTENDING IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO THE NORTH FACING SLOPES OF THE OTAY VALLEY WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO TO A-8 (AGRICULTURE) AND F-1 (FLOODWAY) ZONES (Director of Planning) Minutes - 7 - June 24, 1986 ORDINANCE 2154 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE PREZONING APPROXIMATELY 45.75 ACRES AS "F-l" (FLOODWAY ZONE) AND "A-8" (AGRICULTURAL ZONE) - FIRST READING This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared the public hearing open. Director of Planning Krempl explained that the City of Chula Vista, on behalf of certain property owners, adopted a resolution (#12408) to initiate the annexation of approximately 45.75 acres of territory located southeasterly of the terminus of Mace Street and extending in a southeasterly direction to the north facing slopes of the Otay Valley. The subject territory is within the City of San Diego and within the City of Chula Vista's Sphere-of-Influence. The total acreage in the proposed Mid-Otay is 61.64 acres. One parcel consisting of 15.89 acres was prezoned A-8 as part of the Fenton/Lake prezoning. The proposed reorganization, called the wMid-Otay Reorganization," involves the deannexation of the said acreage to Chula Vista. The proposed "A-8" prezoning is this municipality's agricultural zone which is closest to the City of San Diego's "A-l-10" zone. The minimum building site under "A-8" is 8 acres. The minimum building site under San Diego's A-l-10 is 10 acres. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 19 exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. The recommendation was for Council to enact the ordinance to prezone within the Otay Valley and within the City of San Diego to A-8 (Agriculture) and F-1 (Floodway) zones. Mr. Bob Fox, 44-3 Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, urged the Council to approve the Planning Commission recommendation and continue with their deannexation efforts The area is in two and three jurisdictions and is not being serviced properly. He attended a meeting of the San Diego Rules Committee and they did not favor one portion of this project. Mr. Fox noted there is a need to develop the open space plan and to develop more park area in this vicinity. Mrs. Ruth Schneider, 1042 Piccard Avenue, San Diego 92154, Chairman, Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning Committee, spoke in opposition to the prezoning stating it is a flood plain and this has not been taken into consideration; it is one of 5 rivers in San Diego County; emergency services for this area are much better coming from San Diego and should continue to do so. Minutes - 8 - June 24, 1986 Mr. Katherine Cheers, 505 Gatty Court, San Diego 92154, stated she is in opposition; has contacted Congressman Bates, Senator Deddeh and other legislators because there are "under the table" politics going on; there is an indication that a major development will be going on in there and they are not being told about it; once the new Mayor comes on in San Diego, she will be asked to have a full investigation of this matter. Mr. Robert Tarr, 506 Garry Court, San Diego spoke in opposition to the annexation stating that policing the area will be a great expense to the City of Chula Vista and they cannot do a better job than the City and County are doing right now. Mr. Craig Beam, Attorney representing Fenton Materials, 110 "A" Street, San Diego, stated this is a prezoning proposal with the same zoning as currently exists in the City and County of San Diego. This area is in the City of Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence; it is very difficult for any combination of agencies to plan this floodway area; Fenton Materials has no plans for development of the area. Mr. Ted Brumley, representing Fenton Materials, 702 West Washington Street, San Diego, confirmed that his firm is not planning anything in particular for this area at this point. They feel a comprehensive plan would be the best for the area and support the efforts by staff so far. There being no further testimony either for or against, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Cox said he offered to meet with any of the planning groups in this area at their convenience; Chula Vista has worked in a most cooperative effort to provide all the materials requested by Mrs. Schneider; this is not a devious plan, it makes more sense to have all of the floodway area in one jurisdiction; there is a need to provide more parks in the area; the area is included in the City's Sphere of Influence. Councilman Malcolm noted that the planning designations in the City are much lower than that in the County, adding that floodway planning is very expensive and he would personally prefer to see it remain in San Diego. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved with Councilman Malcolm voting "no." Minutes - 9 June 24, 1986 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS a. Mrs. Bess Pocklington, 656 Glover Place, Chula Vista referred to the Council's recent action on the Raso home on 165 Murray Street. She is concerned with the Council willing to use taxpayers' money to rectify the mistake that Mr. Raso made. She declared Planning would never approve the plans as presented by Raso; that he, in fact, tried to deceive the City. Mrs. Pocklington spoke on recent annexations to the City stating that she views the City as "a Pac-Man going around gobbling up all the land it can grab." Councilwoman McCandliss indicated the City is not without Dlame in the Raso plans and they will share some cost but not the major portion of the cost. In response to Mrs. Pocklinton's annexations questions and cost of the Montgomery area, City Manager Goss stated that they are projecting a $625,000 surplus from the Montgomery area which will be used to cover the same level of services as that enjoyed by the citizens of Chula Vista. Councilman Moore asked that the City Manager give Mrs. Pocklington one of the cost factor sheets on the Montgomery annexation which he presented to the Council at budget time. b. Pat Barajas, Chula Vista, stated he was in complete agreement with Mrs. Pocklington; however, he blames the Planning Department for letting this happen noting the · building inspectors are not without blame either. He declared that the City should not pay any of the cost of renovating the mistakes. CONSENT CALENDAR (8 - 26) Pulled items 15, 16, 17, 24 and 26. MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to approve the Consent Calendar. 8. RESOLUTION 12552 ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY ACCEPTING A GRANT NOT TO EXCEED $375,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO BE REIMBURSED SAID FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BAYFRONT NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER (Community Development Director) On March 20, 1986 the State Coastal Conservancy approved a grant to the City of Chula Vista in an amount not to exceed ~375,000 for construction of the Bayfront Nature Interpretive Center. The Conservancy must authorize disbursement of funds through execution of an agreement between the City and Conservancy within the 1985-86 fiscal year. Minutes - 10 - June 24, 1986 The recommendation was for Council to: 1. Enter into an agreement with the State Coastal Conservancy accepting a grant not to exceed $375,000; and 2. Authorize the expenditure of said grant to reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for construction of the Nature Interpretive Center. 9. RESOLUTION 12553 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR THE LEASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN EUCALYPTUS PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT (Director of Parks & Recreation) The City and the South Bay branch of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) had a 20-year lease agreement for the property at 50 Fourth Avenue which expired on June 30, 1984. The City and YMCA have been operating under a lease on a year-to-year basis. Staff has now renegotiated a .five-year lease with the YMCA. At its May 13, 1986 meeting, the City Council considered approval of an agreement with YMCA which called for one million dollars of liability insurance. Council referred the item back to staff to ascertain whether YMCA could support carrying two million dollars of liability insurance. YMCA was contacted and is willing to carry the higher amount of insurance. 10. RESOLUTION 12554 APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR HARBORSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND/PARK AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO REIMBURSE THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENDING AGREEMENT WITH GILLESPIE DeLORENZO ASLA & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES (Director of Parks & Recreation) On May 6, 1986, the City Council approved an agreement with Gillespie DeLorenzo ASLA & Associates, Inc. for design improvements at Harborside School playground/park. A concept plan has been developed based on the input received from the community and the school district. The design and working drawings for certain items incorporated in the concept plan were not included in the architect's original project scope. An amendment is needed for the architect to undertake the additional work. The school district is willing to construct certain improvements detailed in the concept plan if reimbursed for time and materials. Minutes - 11 - June 24, 1986 The recommendation was for Council to approve the concept plan, authorize staff to reimburse the school district for certain construction costs and amend the agreement with the landscape architect. The preliminary costs for the project total $137,150 which include the 20% contingency. Sufficient funds are available to pay for the additional design costs and the improvements to be made by the school district in Account No. 630-6300-BGllO. 11. RESOLUTION 12555 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SCOOT FOR TRANSIT SERVICE FOR FY 1986-87 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) On April 1, 1986, SCOOT submitted a claim to SANDAG and MTDB in the amount of ~759,950 claimed against the City of Chula Vista's total FY 1986-87 TDA Article 4.0 apportionment of $1,854,047. This claim amount included $751,110 for operations, $8,840 for proposed capital expenditures, leaving a .balance of $1,094,097. A portion Of this balance will pay for San Diego Transit (SDT) Route 32 service in the City of Chula Vista and the unclaimed apportionment will remain in a reserve account and may be used for future capital or operations expenditures. Following is a summary of TDA Article 4.0 funding to support SCOOT operations in FY 1986-87: 1. FY 1986-87 SCOOT Claim City County Account Account Total Operations $ 751,110 ~35,390 $ 786,500 Capital 8,840 0 8,840 Total $ 759,950 $ 35,390 $ 795,340 2. City of Chula Vista Account $1,000,000 prior years' reserve + 1,854,047 FY 1986-87 apportionment 759,950 FY 1986-87 SCOOT claim - 177,840 San Diego Transit claim for Route 32 $1,916,257 Estimated balance through FY 1986-87 Minutes 12 - June 24, 1986 12. RESOLUTION 12556 APPROVING AND ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT CERTAIN SUBDIVISION KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS HILLTOP TERRACE SUBDIVISION (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) Ameriland Development Company has completed the public and private improvements for Hilltop Terrace Subdivision. A final inspection was made on September 5, 1985 and a letter of discrepancies prepared. A reinspection of the public improvements was made on June 9, 1986, and all work was found to be done in accordance with the plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Ameriland Development has posted a bond in the amount of $14,250 to guarantee the improvements as to material and workmanship for a period of one year after acceptance of the improvements by the Council. 13. RESOLUTION 12557 AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO THE FY 1984-85 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.5 CLAIM (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) The FY 1984-85 TDA Article 4.5 claim submitted by Chula Vista for the operation of HandYtrans was in the amount of $176,756. This claim was based on the estimated costs and revenues for HandYtrans operation during FY 1984-85. The actual net cost of HandYtrans operation for FY 1984-85 was $5,543 less than the original claim estimate. The Assistant Director of Finance has received a letter from the County Auditor directing the City of Chula Vista to return ~5,543 to the Local Transportation Reserve Fund. 14. RESOLUTION 12558 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) FOR SAN DIEGO TRANSIT ROUTE 32 SERVICE FOR FY 1986-87 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) The contract for Route 32 service next fiscal year will be between the City of Chula Vista and MTDB instead of between the City and San Diego Transit as in the previous years. The contract is in the amount of ~177,840 which includes the Montgomery area. The Transit Coordinator is recommending two changes to the Route 32 Minutes - 13 - June 24, 1986 service next fiscal year: deletion of the two last trips (11:20 p.m. and 12:35 a.m.) and extension of Route 32 to the Bayfront Trolley Station when the station opens in October 1986. These two modifications will be brought back to Council by MTDB in a First Amendment to the agreement before the trolley station opens in October. The total estimated revised annual cost for and the deletion of the two late evening trips i 0 Diego Transit requires approval of these two service modifications by July 1 in order to implement these changes in fall 1986. The recommendation was for Council to approve: 1. The agreement between MTDB and City of Chula Vista for Route 32 service in the amount of $177,840; 2. Deletion of the two last trips on Route 32 which will be effective September 7, 1986; 3. Extension of Route 32 to the Bayfront Trolley Station, with the understanding that MTDB will submit a First Amendment to the City for approval to incorporate revised costs due to the deletion of the two trips and extension to the Bayfront station. The SDT claim against the City of Chula Vista's FY 1986-87 TDA apportionment of $1,854,047 for Route 32 service in the amount of ~177,840 will leave a total estimated balance through next fiscal year in the amount of $1,916,257, computed as follows: $1,000,000 Prior Years' Reserve + 1,854,047 FY 1986-87 Apportionment - 759,950 FY 1986-87 SCOOT Claim - 177,840 SDT Claim for Route 32 $1,916,257 Estimated Balance through FY 1986-87 15a.RESOLUTION AN APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-86-24M; REQUEST TO CONTINUE AUTOMOBILE DISMANTLING AND SCRAP OPERATION ON THE EASTERLY PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 128 MACE STREET - CHULA VISTA RECYCLING (Director of Planning) Pulled from Consent Calendar. b. RESOLUTION AN APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-86-24M: REQUEST TO CONTINUE AUTO DISMANTLING ON THE WESTERLY PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 128 MACE STREET - PHIL'S AUTO Pulled from Consent Calendar. Minutes - 14 - June 24, 1986 c. REPORT REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION OF 140 CENTER STREET OR LISTED ON THE PERMIT PCC-86-24M Pulled from Consent Calendar. 16. RESOLUTION APPROVING A STATEMENT OF INTENTION WITH HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER (Community Development Director) Pulled from Consent Calendar. 17. REPORT MONTGOMERY SANITATION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND FUND BALANCE TRANSFER TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SEWER SERVICE FEE FOR THE MONTGOMERY AREA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 Pulled from Consent Calendar. 18. ORDINANCE 2155 AMENDING SECTIONS 15.08.010 THROUGH 15.08.180 OF CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1985 EDITION, AND ADDING SECTION 15.08.200 - FIRST READING (Director Of Building & Housing) Major changes to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition is in Chapter 6 regulating buildings and structure in assemblies of large occupancy. Chapter 26 regulates the design and use of concrete. Chapter 6 has been revised to limit the height of bleachers, grandstands, and reviewing stands of combustible and non-combustible material for outdoor and indoor locations. Chapter 27 has revised the design strength for flexure without axial load and axial load with flexure also, wall design for eccentric loads and other lateral loads. The adoption of the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 adopted by Resolution 5656 which endorses the establishment of Uniform Building Regulations in the jurisdictions of San Diego County. Minutes - 15 - June 24, 1986 19. ORDINANCE 2156 AMENDING SECTION 15.28.010 OF CHAPTER 15.28 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1985 EDITION - FIRST READING (Director of Building & Housing) All o~ the political jurisdictions in San Diego County are in the process of adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1985 Edition. Only minor changes to the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1985 Edition were made and that was to include new products and methods. 20. ORDINANCE 2157 AMENDING SECTIONS 15.16.010, 15.16.020, 15.16.030 OF CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1985 EDITION AND APPENDIX A, CHAPTER 22 OF APPENDIX B, AND APPENDIX C - FIRST READING (Director of Building & Housing) The Uniform Mechanical Code 1985 Edition has minor changes relative to hazardous electric wiring, hazardous plumbing, hazardous mechanical equipment and inadequate exits. The adoption of the Uniform Mechanical Code is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 adopted by Resolution 5656 which endorses the establishment of Uniform Building Regulations in the jurisdictions of San Diego County. 21. ORDINANCE 2158 REPEALING EXISTING SECTIONS 15.24.010 THROUGH 15.24.330 AND ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS 15.24.010 THROUGH 15.24.090 OF CHAPTER 15.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1984 EDITION - FIRST READING (Director of Building & Housing) The adoption of the National Electrical Code, 1984 Edition is in conformance with the City Council Policy 500-04 adopted by Resolution 5656 which endorses the establishment of Uniform Building Regulations in the jurisdiction in San Diego County. There have been no major changes to the National Electrical Code, 1984 Edition. The minor changes incorporate new materials and new methods of construction. Minutes 16 - June 24, 1986 22. ORDINANCE 2159 AMENDING SECTION 15.20.010 OF CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1985 EDITION - FIRST READING (Director of Building & Housing) The Uniform Housing Code 1985 Edition has minor changes relative to hazardous electric wiring, hazardous plumbing, hazardous mechanical equipment and inadequate exits. The adoption of the Uniform Housing Code is in conformance with City Council Policy 500-04 adopted by Resolution 5656 which endorses the establishment of Uniform Building Regulations in the jurisdictions of San Diego County. 23. ORDINANCE 2160 AMENDING SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS - FIRST READING (Director of Planning) This provision clarifies the non-conforming status of dishes by stating that replacement of one dish with another means the new dish falls under the present zoning provisions. Second, if for any reason a dish has to be removed from a roof for, say, repair of the dish or the roof, an individual has 60 days to re-erect the dish to retain the non-conforming status associated therewith. 24. REPORT RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL'S MOTION TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF VILLA SAN MIGUEL (Continued from June 10, 1986)(City Attorney) Pulled from Consent Calendar. 25. REPORT ON INSURANCE COST ADJUSTMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SCOOT AND COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. FOR FY 1986-87 (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) The Transit Coordinator has been notified by Community Transit Services, Inc. (CTS) that the liability and comprehensive damage insurance costs for FY 1986-87 in the SCOOT agreement for CVT operation will be for $10,000,000 of liability coverage, which is required currently in the agreement; $172,769, a 147% increase over the $70,031 allocated by CTS for insurance; a reduction of liability coverage from $10,000,000 to $5,000,000 will result in a premium for next fiscal year of ~125,269, a 79% increase over the $70,031 allocated for insurance costs next fiscal year. CTS has requested additional compensation from SCOOT under the FY 1986-87 agreement to offset this insurance cost increase, and has Minutes - 17 - June 24, 1986 indicated that it cannot operate the service without a cost adjustment to the contract. Because this increase was beyond the internal control of CTS to anticipate when submitting the bid for CVT operation in spring 1985, the Transit Coordinator has negotiated a proposal with CTS whereby insurance costs will be considered as a Consumer Price Index item subject to compensation adjustment under Section 6c (2) of the agreement. Applying the CPI clause to insurance cost for $5,000,000 of liability coverage and physical damage coverage would result in SCOOT paying CTS ~48,321 of the ~55,238 increase. The CPI adjustment to insurance costs for $10,000,000 of liability coverage would result in SCOOT paying $95,942 of the $102,738 increase for this amount of coverage. The recommendation is that Council recommend to SCOOT Board that: 1. Liability insurance be retained at $10,000,000; and 2. Scoot Board adopt resolution authorizing adjustment to the FY 1986-87 Scoot/CTS agreement for insurance cost increase in the amount of $95,942. FISCAL IMPACT: 1. Amending the FY 1986-87 SCOOT/CTS agreement to increase insurance costs in the amount of $95,942 for $10 million liability coverage would result in a gross contract cost per mile (before fuel savings) of $1.646, a ~0.1679 per mile increase or 11.4% above the FY 1986-87 contract cost per mile of $1.478. 2. Amending the FY 1986-87 SCOOT/CTS agreement to increase insurance costs in the amount Of $48,321 for ~5 million liability coverage would result in a gross contract cost per mile of $1.563, a 5.7% increase over the FY 1986-87 contract cost per mile of $1.478. 3. The City of Chula Vista's TDA, Article 4.0 balance through FY 1986-87 is estimated at $1,916,257, computed as follows; $1,000,000 prior years' reserve + 1,854,047 FY 1986-87 apportionment - 759,950 FY 1986-87 SCOOT claim - 177,840 San Diego Transit claim for Route 32 $1,916,257 Estimated balance through FY 1986-87 26. REPORT EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR DETACHED LIVING QUARTERS (Assistant City Attorney) Pulled from Consent Calendar. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes - 18 - June 24, 1986 15a.RESOLUTION 12559 GRANTING A MAJOR USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE DISMANTLING OPERATION AND A SCRAP OPERATION BOTH LOCATED AT 128 MACE STREET (Director of Planning) At the hearing of June 10, 1986, Council moved to modify Major Use Permit PCC 86-24M to separate the three businesses currently being conducted on the property. Council opted to approve the eastern portion of the site at 128 Mace Street, now occupied by Chula Vista Recycling as a scrap yard, until December 31, 1986, at which time the use is to be terminated. The portion of the Major Use Permit subject to this condition is described as that portion of 128 Mace Street extending from the eastern property boundary abutting Mace Street to the existing fence bisecting the property 300 feet west. The portion of the Mace Street site now occupied by Phil's Auto Recycling has been approved for a maximum period of two years, subject to conditions. Mr. Dick Reynolds, 71 North Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, questioned the legality of the City ordering a business to "cease and desist." In response, City Attorney Harron stated that barring any fundamental unconstitutional right, the City can prohibit any business from operating in the City. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. At the hearing of June 10, 1986 Council moved to modify major use permit PCC 86-24 M to separate the three businesses currently being conducted on the property. Council opted to approve the application for a major use permit for auto dismantling for that portion of the property located at 128 Mace Street now occupied by Phil's Auto Recycling, the permit to expire at the end of two years or 60 days after approval of the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever comes first. The permit area is described as that portion of 128 Mace Street extending from the western property boundary abutting Center Street to the existing fence bisecting the property 300 feet east. b. REPORT REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION OF 140 CENTER STREET OR LISTED ON THE PERMIT PCC-86-24M The Director of Planning reports two options regarding the major use permit request for vehicle dismantling at 140 Center Street: 1. Refer the item back to staff for reconsideration and reevaluation. Minutes - 19 - June 24, 1986 2. Require the filing of a new major use permit application. Mr. Reynolds referred to his letter of June 19 in which he asked Council reconsider redesignating the 140 Center parcel - the owner is willing to dedicate a portion of this property for right-of-way and will put in the full street improvements. After the Specific Plan is approved, they will then apply for another permit. Planning Director Krempl explained that action was taken to authorize the towing service only to continue on the property. The applicant is requesting to do some wrecking of tow trucks ~nich requires a Major Use Permit - the auto towing and storage does not requiere this permit. In response to Councilman Malcolm's question, Mr. Reynolds stated that his client is willing to dedicate the right-of-way along 140 Center for interim improvements it would extend to the Chula Vista Recycling. He asked for a longer term permit in order to put in the needed street improvements rather than the two years as approved by the Council. Mr. Patrick Gay, 3343 South Barcelona Street, Spring Valley, expressed his thanks to the Council for the work being done in that area. They request there not be a longer term permit issued unless a commitment is made to put in all improvements immediately. In response to Councilman Campbell's question, Director of Planning Krempl stated that no Major Use Permit action needs to be taken; however, the Council does have to authorize the use of the towing/storage area. MSUC (Campbell/Moore) that the tenant file for a Major Use Permit because of his desires to change and add to that business in terms of dismantling. Councilwoman McCandliss commented that she does not want the applicant to be under the impression that the Council is encouraging him to obtain the Major Use Permit. 16. RESOLUTION APPROVING A STATEMENT OF INTENTION WITH HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER (Community Development Director) The Agency has been working with the Homart Development Company towards the renovation of the Chula Vista Shopping Center at Broadway and "H" Streets. Homart has invested substantial funds in the planning of this project and is about to enter escrow for the purchase of the sections of the Center owned by Louis Nohl and Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. They have requested an agreement with the City and Agency establishing an understanding and outlining actions toward the renovation of the Center. Minutes 20 - June 24, 1986 Community Development Director Desrochers recommend~M~ed Council adopt the Statement of Intention and direct staff to work with Homart to process plans, revise the Towne Centre II Redevelopment Plan and pursue other actions as may be required. The Agency will also be requested to adopt the Statement of Intent. CounCilwoman McCandliss stated that the Statement of Intention should have been reviewed by the Council's sub-committee before coming to the Council for action. She recommended the following changes: under page one, item D that the word "a successful solution" be put in instead of "the successful sFlution"; on page two, item 1 instead of the word "attempt" there should be a more definite wording in here. Community Development Director Desrochers suggested the words "will diligently pursue." City Attorney Harron noted that this is not a binding agreement; the official agreement will follow and at that time the Council can spell out all the changes they want to pursue. Councilman Malcolm voiced his concerns with the Council approving such an agreement: there. are problems throughout the entire document; would prefer to see an expert brought in to review the agreement before the City takes any action; the Council is unaware of the exact costs; the agreement states the City will "donate" the land of the Boy's Club property which is worth a great deal of money; the City will agree to pay for their (Homart) public affairs and consultants; the City is going to guarantee them a 13% return investment. Councilman Malcolm added he cannot believe the Council is even contemplating going "down the primrose path in trying to make this deal." Community Development Director Desrochers commented the staff will be recommending that an independent financial market analysis person go over the agreement. Councilman Campbell noted the wording of the resolution where it states it is a binding agreement. MS (Malcolm/Moore) to refer this back to staff to bring in a professional (attorney or negotiator) to go over the agreement and to come back with some type of intent that will lay out an agreement between Homart and the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Marshal Krupp, President, Community Associates, agreed there should be experts involved in such a complex project of this kind; one of the problems in the shopping center is that it is owned by two owners and both are negotiating with Homart; Homart does not want to get into any type of agreement without knowing there is a partnership they will be participating with; the best way to facilitate this is to bring before the Council the Memorandum of Minutes 21 - June 24, 1986 Understanding; this sets the perimeters on which Homart feels they can go ahead with the project; Mr. Krupp noted there are unknown costs and the equity of the developer has to be taken into consideration; this agreement does not guarantee anything to Homart; they will list all of the costs and have an evaluation of the project before the 13% return can be considered. Councilman Malcolm asked that this matter be brought back at the meeting to be scheduled for Thursday. He remarked Chula Vista is a very cooperative City and will work very closely with Homart; however, it cannot guarantee that firm any particular return now. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSUC (Malcolm/Campbell) to direct staff to prepare for the Thurdsay meeting a draft Agreement of Intent incorporating the City Council's concerns and the statements made by Mr. Krupp of Community Associates this will be a joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting to take place at 4:00 p.m. 17. REPORT MONTGOMERY SANITATION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND FUND BALANCE TRANSFER TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Director of Public Works/City Engineer) RESOLUTION 12560 ESTABLISHING SEWER SERVICE FEE FOR THE MONTGOMERY AREA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 Under the terms and conditions of the Montgomery area annexation, the Montgomery Sanitation District and the Areawide Street Lighting District will be dissolved July 1, 1986. Beginning July 1, the City of Chula Vista will begin operating the sanitary facilities and will also be responsible for the street lights. The City, because of the dissolution, will receive revenues from the sewer user as has the Montgomery Sanitation District. The Board of Supervisors as the governing board of the District will transfer all the assets of the Montgomery Sanitation District including reserves sometime in July. The recommendation was that Council approve the resolution continuing the sewer service fees for the newly annexed area that are currently in place ($39 per year per EDU) for FY 1986-87 to be collected on the property tax bill and that staff be directed to study and report at a future date how to most equitably distribute the reserves. Councilman Malcolm questioned the amount being charged to the citizens of Chula Vista and those of Montgomery stating he disagrees with this - there should be one fee. He added that the operating reserve does not have enough money in it noting that in the Country Club area, the City spent millions of dollars fixing up those sewer problems. He would like to see the Montgomery area brought up and have an equitable fee for everyone. Minutes 22 - June 24, 1986 City Manager Goss stated the fees quoted in the staff report are for the R-1 residential areas and not the commercial. He commented on the Board of Supervisors stand setting aside ~600,000 in capitol reserves and the question of disposing with that money. His recommendation would be to reserve the status quo for the coming year and evaluate it after that time. Councilman Malcolm asked for a report back on bringing this area into conformity and it was moved by Councilman Malcolm to bring the Montgomery area into the same fee collection basis as with other parts of Chula Vista in one year from now starting July 1, 1987. The motion died for lack of second. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt noted the $39 annual fee covers the entire cost and part of that money will be coming out of the reserves. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved with Councilman Malcolm voting "no." 24. REPORT RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL'S MOTION TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF VILLA SAN MIGUEL (Continued from June 10, 1986)(City Attorney) City Attorney Harron reported that at its April 22, 1986 meeting, Council directed staff to research the question of reversion to acreage and to set a public hearing on this matter with regard to the Villa San Miguel Subdivision. There is currently litigation between two neighboring property owners, Mr. Ferreira and the Percova Company. Mr. Ferreira has filed a claim against the City related to this matter which is a necessary condition precedent to filing a lawsuit. Pursuant to the discussion of this matter in Closed Session, it was recommended the. matter be tabled until the pending litigation is resolved. Mr. Steve Schwarz, representing Percova Company, referred to the long list of complaints filed by Mr. Frank Ferreira stating that they too, have an equally long list against Mr. Ferreira. They have a lawsuit pending in San Diego courts and asked that Council agree with the staff recommendation to table this item until such time as the litigation is resolved. In response to Councilwoman McCandliss' question, City Attorney Hatton stated the Council does have the power to call for another hearing on the approval of the map; however, findings must exist - it cannot be done because the Council has a "change of heart." As to the reversion in acreage, Attorney Harron noted there must be a public need demonstrated for that easement. Minutes - 23 June 24, 1986 Mr. Bob Casey, 17 Crest Way, Chula Vista, testified he has been in the construction business for 38 years and has built 30 subdivisions in the City. For every one of his subdivisions, it necessitated his posting a bond to cover the public improvements. He would like to see the Council compel this developer to do the same. Mr. Mike Poyner, Attorney representing Frank Ferreira, 225 Broadway, 6th Floor, San Diego, referred to the staff report of April 22. The developer (Percova) is asking the City of Chula Vista to accept a defective work easement; the reason the project has not gone forward is because they have liens on the property; Percova has back property taxes to pay; they have not provided any soils tests; they have ignored the four stop orders issued by snaff; Mr. Ferreira filed the lawsuit because of the defective easement fronting his property causing him delays in construction; rather than wait four years until the litigation has been resolved, he is requesting Council call up the bonds for putting in the public improvements. Councilman Malcolm stated he has been getting calls from people living along that area (Crest Way); they have been assured that certain improvements, landscaping, and street lights will be put in; this was promised to them 6 years ago and nothing has happened since; this is a terrible project and he urged Council to have the developer fulfill his obligation to put in the street improvements. MS (Malcolm/Campbell) to direct the City Attorney to take whatever appropriate actions to see that the improvements are put in per the commitments of the map and demand that the bonding company honor those improvements; further, to table the proposed hearing on the reversionary. Mr. Steve Schwarz stated that conceptually the motion makes sense; however, Percoval is not the original owner. They received inadequate bonding and a great many problems and there is approximately $50,000 left on the bonds. In answer to Council's question, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt stated that the two bonds call for 9186,000 each. Councilwoman McCandliss declared the Council should know how much the bonds are and how much the improvements will be costing before they call up the bonds. Councilman Moore noted the bonds are issued under 1979 dollars and this makes a difference since inflation has caused prices to oncrese since that time. The Council needs to know how much money is there and then prioritize the improvements going in.. MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to table item 24 - public hearing on the reversion of acreage. Minutes - 24 - June 24, 1986 MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to refer to staff the question of calling up the bonds to find out how much money the bonds cover and what type of improvements Dased on the commitment to the project - how much of the improvements can be done. 26. REPORT EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR DETACHED LIVING QUARTERS (Assistant City Attorney) On June 17, 1986, Council directed staff to return with an "urgency" ordinance which would require all living structures to be attached in an R-1 zone. Assistant City Attorney Gill reported Chula Vista Charter ~311 limits the adoption of emergency ordinances to those situations where specific evidence exists that the ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety. Due to the testimony of staff members relating to the limited number of detached living quarters in R-1 zones (3 within the last 30 years), the Assistant City Attorney is of the opinion that facts do not exist to support the adoption of an emergency ordinance. Councilman Malcolm asked the City Attorney why an emergency ordinance was not brought forth to the Council as directed. City Attorney Harron explained the Charter does not permit an emergency ordinance under these conditions. The situation does not happen very often in the City to warrant an emergency ordinance. Mr. Harron indicated there are 3 aspects of Police power for the Council; one is the general welfare standards of which the City Charter does not address; however, th~ Charter Review Committee is going to address this issue and recommend that it be put into the Charter. Councilman Malcolm indicated the City Attorney should have brought back an ordinance to be placed on First Reading if an emergency ordinance was not appropriate. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed with the staff recommendation. If a department head has a disagreement with the City Council she welcomes having them report this, further she does not feel that this situation warrants an emergency ordinance. MSC (Malcolm/Moore) to file the report and direct staff to being back an ordinance at the next meeting or as soon as possible. Councilwoman McCandliss voted "no." 27. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER a. City Manager Goss noted the Council will be meeting Wednesday, June 25 at 7:00 p.m. with the Jaycees and questioned whether any staff should be present. Minutes - 25 - June 24, 1986 Mayor Cox stated staff is invited but their presence is not mandatory. b. City Manager Goss noted the latest fire ratings issued by ISO noting that in the past, Chula Vista was Class IV and Mpntgomery Class V. The new ratings now show Chula Vista reduced to Class III and Montgomery to Class III. This will be a reduction in the fire rates. He commended the staff for their work on these ratings. 28. MAYOR'S REPORT None. 29. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. In answer to Councilman Moore's query, City Manager Goss stated he will'be checking with the County as to a report on the hazardous waste home program and will report to the Council. b. Councilman Moore discussed the sewer and water capacity on Otay ValleyRoad, noting that both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency have expressed concerns about this. This was done at the April 28 committee meeting and he asked that staff review this. c. Councilman Malcolm commented on the lack of staff, the incomplete reports coming to the Council, the glaring errors being made in the reports, staff being overly-swamped with reports, with one of the chief causes being annexations currently pursued. He felt that the Council should now stop all habited annexations and go on record as having a moratorium, so that no more time is spent on annexations for at least a period of 3 years. He added that the Council is demanding too much from the staff noting Montgomery has presented numerous problems that staff has not perceived. MS (Malcolm/McCandliss) to request Council form a policy that it will not annex any habited properties and expand the present properties in Chula Vista for a period of at least 3 years and after that time review the situation. Council comments followed in which Councilman Malcolm noted the Bonita/Sunnyside Fire Protection District negotiations; Councilman Campbell indicating he detested the word "moratorium"; recommending that the staff be directed to come to the Council for action as soon as they hear a mention of an annexation. Councilman Moore suggested that the motion indicate that if the staff exceeds a certain number of hours pertaining to work on an annexation that this should receive Council approval. Minutes - 26 June 24, 1986 Mayor Cox spoke against the motion stating the City has always had an open door policy to anyone wanting to annex and it would be inappropriate to tell these people that the City does not want them. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed but added it should not be the place of the City Council to actively go out an solicit annexations. City Manager Goss responded as to the staff peak loads, the number of staff added after the Montgomery annexation and the number of requests and additional staff approved by the Council in this next Fiscal Year budget. He reported the staff is responding to the present workloads SUBSTITUTE MOTION MS (McCandliss/Campbell) for a policy statement to come back to the City Council that habited annexations are not a priority and the City Council will not actively solicit annexations. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION Councilman Campbell felt the motion should state that before staff begins work on any proposed annexation, the City Council should be notified at the outset and make a decision at that time whether or not staff should go ahead with it. Councilman Moore said he cannot support the motion, reiterating that it should be based on the number of hours staff would be spending on the annexations then it should come to the City Council for approval. He commented that he had proposed some time ago that every 6 months there should be a City Council/City Manager workshop in which the City Council can go over their goals and priorities with the City Manager. RESTATEMENT OF THE MOTION Councilwoman McCandliss explained she is asking for a policy statement as far as the staff work goes that habited annexations are not a priority when it comes to assigning work and that individual Councilmembers should not go out and actively solicit for annexations (which sometimes includes staff work). Further, that before any processing of the annexations, staff should notify the Council of the pending annexation. MOTION RESTATED AND CHANGED MSC (McCandliss/Campbell) before staff works on any annexations to the City, the City Council is to be notified in writing - to be sent to the City Council'formally of all annexations - habited and inhabited. Councilman Malcolm voted "no." Minutes - 27 - June 24, 1986 Councilman Moore asked that the staff consider having a policy on boundaries of reorganizations to the City. d. Councilman Malcolm asked for a Council Conference in which the Council will deal with the subject of the length of the City Council meetings. He stated there should be a policy whereby the Mayor would be given guidelines to follow to speed up the meetings. e. Councilman Malcolm noted that a meeting has been called for Thursday, June 26 at 4:00 p.m. and stated he would like to discuss asking for a Grand Jury investigation of the Bay Hospital. MSUC (Cox/Malcolm) to set this as an agenda item. f. In response to Councilwoman McCandliss' question, City Attorney Harron reported the Wheeler home on Oleander defaulted on the abatement. The Attorney's Office is notifying the banks which have an interest in the property that if Mr. Wheeler does not take down the building, the City will go in and do it for him and place a lien on the property. g. Councilwoman McCandliss referred to the letter received from Joe Raso responding to Council's action at the last meeting concerning the sharing of costs for the corrections to his home. She stated Mr. Raso does not fully understand what the Council actually did and it is imperative that staff respond to this letter as quickly as possible. MSUC (McCandliss/Malcolm) for staff to prepare a response to that letter and have it available at the next City Council meeting and for review to make sure it is exactly the information the Council wanted to convey to Mr. Raso. h. Mayor Cox referred to a letter just received from Helen Motto concerning the City taking over the' Metro Food Project program. MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to refer this letter to staff for a reply. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:25 p.m. to the meeting scheduled Thursday, June 26 at 4: 00 p .m. at which time the Council will discuss the Bay General Hospital issue and the Homart plans; to the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 8, 1986, at 7 p.m.; and to the joint meeting with the school districts on July 9, 1986 at 4:00 p.m. 0825C/as MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held June 24, 1986 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, Malcolm, Moore, Campbell, McCandliss Councilmen absent: None .ADJOURNMENT The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m. until Thursday, June 26, 1986 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. - ',Joint C0unci] C0nference/Redeve]pment Agency Meeting) I, Jehnie 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 June 24, 1986 _.