HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1985/01/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Tuesday 7:00 p.m. January 22, 1985
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Malcolm,
McCandliss, Scott, Moore
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Hatton,
Assistant City Manager Asmus
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, 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 meetings of January 8, 12 and 15, 1985
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to approve the minutes.
2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (None)
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLAN CHECK FEES AND PERMIT FEES FOR BUILDING
RENOVATIONS TO THE STARLIGHT CENTER, 1280 NOLAN AVENUE, CHULA VISTA
(Doris M. Blackman)
The request was for a waiver of any Plan Check or Permit Fees for renovations
to the Starlight Center.
The City Manager recommended all fees be waived in connection with this
request.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to accept the staff recommendations.
b. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL LIGHTING WITHIN PARK AREA (Jan Ferrier, Board
President, Parkwoods Homeowners Association)
Due to the number of break-ins at the Parkwoods Condominiums, the Homeowners
Association requested installation of additional lighting within (Memorial
Park) area to illuminate those portions of the park that adjoin the southern
boundary of Parkwoods Condominiums.
Phase II of Memorial Park renovation and construction project includes
additional lighting in this and other areas of the park. The City Manager
reported staff will meet with representatives of the Association to review the
current plans as designed to determine if this anticipated work on the City's
park will satisfy the request expressed in this letter.
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to accept the report for staff intended action.
City Council meeting - 2 - January 22, 1985
c. REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY INTEGRATED NARCOTICS
TASK FORCE - SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
The request was for the City of Chula Vista to join the rest of the County in
the San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force.
City Manager Goss stated he will be discussing budget priorities within the
Police Department, including staff participation on the Task Force as part of
the budget review. He recommended this letter be referred to consideration in
the Police budget in connection with the 1985-86 review process.
MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to refer to staff for consideration at the FY 1985-86
budget review process.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
4. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-85-1; AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19.66 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AS THEY
RELATE TO NOISE MEASUREMENT AND REGULATIONS -
(Continued from the meeting of January 8, 1985)
(Director of Planning)
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.66~060 REPEALING SECTION
19.66.070 AND ADDING CHAPTER 19.68 TO THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
NOISE CONTROL - FIRST READING
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public
hearing.
The Council directed staff to prepare new noise regulations for the City as
well as purchase new noise monitoring equipment in response to specific noise
complaints in the Otay Valley Road Area and that Chula Vista's standards and
equipment were outmoded.
Director of Building and Housing Grady reported that in October lg84, the
Building and Housing Department purchased more sophisticated noise monitoring
equipment. He contended the measurement techniques, standards, enforcement
mechanisms and new equipment should assure the City and the community that
noise hazards and nuisances can be prevented and controlled.
The ordinance proposal includes eight main section headings: general
provisions, definitions, exterior noise limits, interior noise limits,
prohibited acts, special provisions (exemptions), exceptions and enforcement.
The Director of P1 arming recommended concurrence with the P1 anning Commission
approval in accordance with their Resolution PCA-85-1.
Senior Electronics Technician Bill Albrektsen demonstrated the new equipment
including the data logger, generator, standard hand-held noise monitor and
reader analyzer which measures impact noise. He discussed the printed
readouts and also explained problems with Tables II and III regarding
non-conformance involved. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss query, Mr.
Albrektsen said the equipment is calibrated after every use.
City Council meeting - 3 - January 22, 1985
Council discussion ensued regarding the amplitude distribution regarding
decibal levels-dB exchange rate; storage of information on micro-cassettes for
future analysis; reading print-out explanation; security of equipment on-site
to discourage vandalism and discussion of Tables II, III and IV of the
proposed ordinance.
Mayor Cox questioned the dB reading level (on Table II) inconsistencies in
regard to the Environmental Protection Agency's goals for noise levels and
suggested more consistent terms be used. Mr. Albrektsen discussed the ldn
(level day night) factor, explaining the penalty factor of lO db of
measurements taken after lO p.m. This factor is added to the figure metered,
increasing the average figure. Mayor Cox requested that consistent
denominators be used in the language.
Mr. Clint Sadlet, 47 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista, representing the Legislative
Action Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Committee approved of
the equipment, indicating it is sophisticated enough to stand up in Court.
The Committee, however, had concerns regarding the fol 1 owl ng points:
Page 8 paragraph 3
"n the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the enforcement
I
officer, contains a steady, audible sound such as a whine, screech or
hum, or contains a repetitive impulsive noise such as hammering or
riveting, the standard limits set forth in Table III shall be reduced by
5 dB".
This gives the Enforcement Officer the authority to ask people to reduce the
noise by 5dB and may be an enforcement problem.
Page 9 paragraph b
"Correction for character of sound. In the event the alleged offensive
noise, as judged by the enforcement officer, contains a steady audible
tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is an impulsive and repetitive
noise such as hammering or riviting, or contains music or speech
conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table
IV shall be reduced by 5dB".
Instead of using the equipment the Enforcement Officer is judging decibal
1 evel s.
Director of Planning Krempl discussed discretionary use of judgment by the
Enforcement Officer; allowing the enforcement officer to interject some of
his/her own professional judgment along with the equipment for certain types
of noise which might not be approaching the Ievel of being harmful or
affecting safety or health}but still very much of a nuisance as those types of
noises are not always quantifiable. There is some carryover between that
which would be enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and that which would
be enforced by the Police Department. If the noise gets over into the
category of "nuisance noise" such as motorcycles, barking dogs or stereos it
is possible for the Police Officer to issue a citation based on "nuisance
noise" as opposed to environmental aspects.
City Council meeting - 4 - January 22, 1985
Director of Building and Housing Grady explained the instruments could be used
to prove the decibal levels to the individuals involved, along with the exact
time.
City Attorney Harron stated he was concerned there would be no set standard
for the Enforcement Officer. The ordinance could read "limits could be
reduced up to 5 dBa."
Guy Lichty, 1652 Pt Sal Court, Chula Vista, discussed two adjacent 1 and uses
which may not be compatible, noting the General Plan states "the standard of
the lower will be set". He stated the language is not strong enough and in
referring to the noise element of the General Plan and its objectives, it
clearly recognizes, in Chula Vista, there are adjacent non-compatible land
uses. One of the objectives of the noise ordinance is to rectify
incompatibilities that exist and Mr. Lichty stated this ordinance should take
a further step in that direction.
Mr. Lichty discussed the ordinance, page 8, No. 4:
"If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible in Table
III, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient
noise level. The ambient level shall be measured when the alleged
noise viol ations source is not operating."
Mr. Lichty explained if the ambient level is measured, it seems to say you can
have a rising ambient level of noise. Otay Valley Road residents are going to
have a problem in the future. The two situations existing are non-compatible
industrial land use abutting against residential land use and a scale where
the ambient level is allowed to rise. He felt this was in opposition to the
stated policy of the General P1 an which is a problem as far as enforcement of
this ordinance and stated that analogy can be carried out in other parts of
the City as well.
Councilman Malcolm asked Dr. Lichty how an ambient level can be reduced. He
responded this is one of the problems and there is a lot of construction which
will address that specific problem. Noise buffering is a problem. Adjacent
land uses is another problem to be looked at regarding noise buffering.
According to the general plan every homeowner has the right of the quiet
peaceful use of their home and property. According to the State Constitution
this is a specific right. If an industrial use comes in and is inflicting on
that right then it is the obligation of the City Council to address and
rectify that problem.
There being no further comments either for or against, Mayor Cox closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Cox suggested deferring any final action and refer concerns for staff to
evaluate. He asked Table II be deleted or reworked to make it more consistent
with the thresholds talked about in the EPA guidelines.
City Council meeting - 5 - January 22, 1985
MS (Cox/Malcolm) to continue this item for two weeks to repond to the concerns
of Dr. Lichty and Mr. Sadlet and to ask staff to re-work or eliminate Table II
and incorporate the goals somewhere else in the ordinance.
Councilman Scott recommended leaving the public hearing open since more
testimony will be given at the February 5 meeting.
Councilwoman McCandliss suggested referring this to the County Noise Control
Officer for review. Mayor Cox added these to the motion; Councilman Malcolm
agreed to the second and the motion, as amended, carried unanimously.
MOTION CLARIFIED
Mayor Cox clarified the motion, stating it was to continue this item for two
weeks to respond to the concerns of Dr. Lichty and Mr. Sadler; for staff to
evaluate Table II; to keep the public hearing open; and to refer this to the
County Noise Control Officer for review.
5. PUBLIC HEARING PCS~85-2 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR C-DEL MAR, CHULA VISTA TRACT 85-2 - MITCHELL N.
ANGUS (Continued from the meeting of January 8, 1985)
(Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR C-DEL
MAR, CHULA VISTA TRACT 85-2
Attorney Don Lindberg requested a continuance to the first meeting in March
when a consolidation of properties will be worked out and a different program
presented to the Council.
MSUC {Scott/McCandliss) to continue this item to the 1st meeting in March
(March 5, 1985)
6a. CONSIDERATION FINAL EIR-85-1, BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued
from the meeting of January 15, lg85) (Director of
Planning)
RESOLUTION llg02 CERTIFYING FINAL EIR-85-1, BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
b. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CHULA VISTA
BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from the meeting
of January 15, 1985) (Director of Planning/Community
Development Director)
RESOLUTION llg03 ADOPTING THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE
BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
c. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE (TITLE XVIII) TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from the meeting of January
15, 1985) (Director of Planning/Community Development
Director)
City Council meeting - 6 - January 22, 1985
ORDINANCE 2100 AMENDING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE XVIII) TO IMPLEMENT THE
BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST READING (Continued
from the meeting of January 15, 1985)
d. CONSIDERATION CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued
from the meeting of January 15, 1985) (Director of
Planning)
RESOLUTION 11904 ADOPTING "CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS" AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox re-opened the public
hearings on Items 6a, b, c and d.
Director of Community Development Desrochers said he distributed a copy of the
City's proposed response to the State Commission staff. Mr. Desrochers stated
if the City approves all of the State Commission staff's recommendations they
will change their recommendation and ask the Commission to approve the City's
implementation plan. The State staff has requested that the 188 acres of
marsh be owned by the State Department of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Mr. Desrochers explained it would be more appropriate to
have joint-ownership of the marsh by the Bayfront Conservancy Trust and the
State Department of Fish and Game. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
becomes owner the City is not only subject to the Federal budget but also the
marsh would not be eligible for the State funds passed last June. City staff
is adamant that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not be an owner of
the marsh property.
Councilman Malcolm stated because of Coastal Commission recommendations he
hoped Council would continue this item until Thursday, January 24, Council
Conference. Coastal staff is 1 ooking into recommending a joint ownership with
California Fish and Game and the City and if there are any last minute changes
Council might wish to adopt these changes and suggested not discussing this
i tern now.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss} to continue this item to Thursday, January 24 at
4 p.m. to be added to the Council Conference agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF CHULA VISTA SANITARY SERVICE, INC.
REQUESTED RATE INCREASE (Continued from the meeting
of January 15, 1985) (Director of Finance)
a. RESOLUTION ll911 REVISING THE CHULA VISTA SANITARY SERVICE COLLECTION
RATES
Councilman Scott stated he will abstain on this item and left the dais at this
time.
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public
hearing.
City Council meeting - 7 - January 22, 1985
Director of Finance Christopher explained that this item was continued from
the meeting of January 15, 1985 in order for staff to receive all financial
information requested from Chula Vista Sanitary Service and their auditors.
Chula Vista Sanitary Service, Inc., has requested an increase in service rates
of 8.9% for residential properties and an average of 10.02% for trailer parks
and commercial/i ndustri al.
The Finance Department has performed an evaluation of the proposed rate
increases indicating the requested rate increases are reasonable and
justified. The new rates, if approved by the City Council, will be effective
February l, 1985.
The Finance Department ' s eval uati on i ncl uded:
1. An examination of the Sanitary Service's audited financial
statements for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1981, 1982, 1983
and 1984 and financial projections for 1985.
2. A look at the consumer price index covering the period since the
last rate increase.
3. Calculations of Chula Vista Sanitary Service's return on investment.
4. A comparison of current rates in other cities in this area.
The Director of Finance recommended approval of the rate increases.
There being no comments either for or against, Mayor Cox declared the public
hearing closed.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved with Councilman Scott abstaining.
The Council commended the Director of Finance on the excellent report.
Councilman Malcolm proposed that in order to keep future cost increases on
franchises down for the staff to automatically grant any rate increase up to
the level of the first 6% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Anything over
the CPI the franchise company would only get 5(}%. This would be automatic
without having to go through any audits. Any increases in landfill charges
that the County might have, that rate would be divided out between the
customers.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to refer to staff to bring back to Council to allow
this particular franchise CPI increases for the first 6%, (100% of it) and 5(}%
over that plus any County increases in landfill charges.
The motion passed with Councilman Scott abstaining.
City Attorney Hatton noted the Charter provisions which require a public
hearing for any franchise increases.
· 'T '
City Council meeting - 8 - January 22, 1985
Councilwoman McCandliss stated the motion was to refer this to staff to have
it brought back to Council. Councilman Malcolm agreed to that.
City Manager Goss reported on the mandatory service stating staff has been
evaluating various options. This report will be submitted to Council in about
a month. Mr. Goss reported there are presently 300 uncollectibles each
month.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (None)
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES, FIRST READING
9. REPORT CONCERNING CREATION OF A SEWERAGE FACILITY
PARTICIPATION FEE (Director of Public Works/City
Engineer)
a. RESOLUTION 11912 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 26, 1985
CONCERNING CREATION OF A SEWERAGE FACILITY
PARTICIPATION FEE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt explained Chula Vista is one of
very few agencies in the County which does not impose a charge against new
construction for sewage treatment plant and/or trunk sewer capacity. Capacity
in such facilities is characteristically provided at public expense and by
intent is sufficient to accommodate growth. A sewerage facility participation
fee is a means of permitting the citizens of an agency to be repaid for their
investment in capacity to accommodate growth.
Mr. Lippitt recommended that a draft ordinance be prepared for review by
interested parties, and a public hearing scheduled concurrent with
consideration of the draft ordinance on February 16, 1985.
Mayor Cox asked how single family dwellings would be impacted. City Manager
Goss stated this would apply to new construction only. In answer to Mayor
Cox's query, City Manager Goss explained if annexations were involved some
existing dwelling units would apply. City Engineer Lippitt explained if there
was an existing house that has not connected to the sewer it would be applied
at the time of the connection.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MAYOR COX, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
10. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER (None)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
ll. REPORT OPTION TO RENEW AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES,
INC. TO OPERATE HANDYTRANS FOR FY 3985-86 (July 1, 1985 TO
June 30, 1986) (Director of Public Works/City Engineer)
City Council meeting - 9 - January 22, 1985
Transit Coordinator Gustafson explained that in February 1983, the Transit
Coordinator issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for contract operation of
HandYtrans for a two-year term commencing on July 1, 1983 through June 30,
1985, with an option to negotiate an agreement for one additional year - for
the period July l, 1985 through June 30, 1986. Community Transit Services,
Inc., was selected to operate HandYtrans. The two-year agreement with
Community Transit Services, Inc., expires on June 30, 1985. The Transit
Coordinator has negotiated an hourly rate with Community Transit Services,
Inc., for FY 1985-86 in the amount of $30.69, an increase of 4.9% over the
current rate of $29.24.
In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss' question, Transit Coordinator Gustafson
explained no potential bidders were notified this was coming to Council for
consideration as the intent was to first obtain Council's reaction to renew
the option. This is the second year of the two-year contract which expires on
June 30. If Council does not wish to exercise the option to renew, Request
For Proposals {RFP's) would have to be exercised.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss)to accept the report.
12. REPORT STREET LIGHTING, 616 OAKLAWN ~ GENTRY CONSTRUCTION CO.
REQUEST FOR DELETION OF INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT
(Director of Public Works/City Engineer)
Oaklawn Avenue is a straight street between "I" Street and "J" Street, a
distance of approximately 1300 feet. There is one street light on Oaklawn
Avenue 648 feet from the curbline of "I" Street. This particular development
(R-3) is composed of approximately ll units which would generate 60-80 trips a
day on Oaklawn. A street light in the area of this apartment complex would
aid in traffic safety from those cars entering and leaving the subject
driveway. It is staff's opinion that the $3,000 cost for street light to
serve ll units is very reasonable.
Mr. Gentry asked Council to consider the use of Residential Construction Tax
for installation of this street light. The City Engineer reported the City
has never used residential construction tax to install public improvements
needed as a condition for a building permit. The purpose of residential
construction tax is to help pay for other needs in the City that are generated
by this development such as drainage projects, park projects, community
facilities that cannot normally be required as a condition of a particular
development. Therefore, it is recommended that RCT monies not be used for the
installation of this street light.
MS (McCandliss/Scott) to accept the staff recommendations.
Attorney Don Lindberg, 335 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, Counsel for the
applicant, Gentry Construction Company stated there is no legal requirement
for an ornamental street light at 616 Oaklawn. He explained Council has not
adopted any policy requiring such lighting; there is no burden created by the
development of this property which would demand the addition of a street light
City Council meeting - lO - January 22, 1985
at this position; by City Ordinance the purpose of requiring improvements and
dedication of property is to spread the costs to all abutting property in an
equitable manner. The requirement imposed on the property owner does not
spread the cost of this improvement in any manner, the property along Oaklawn
is fully developed and cannot at any time in the future be subject to
reimbursement, therefore requests the requirement for the street light be
deleted.
Council discussion ensued regarding the basis of safety; equitable
apportionment of street lighting being required as development occurs; street
lighting requirement based on distances between street lights; suggestion for
project to pay for one-half of the project and the City to pay for the other
half; extra light was a condition of the permit and not a condition of the
project; only ornamental street light on that block - all others are leased
from SDG&E; staff's opinion this is the best location for a street light at
this location.
MSC (Scott/Moore) to have the fee be set up for $1500 and the rest be borne by
the entire citizens of Chula Vista and the City paying.
Councilman Malcolm stated since this is a $400,000-$500,000 project, the
$3,000 is not an exorbitant amount to pay for the street light. Waiving the
fees and allowing that type of density is not something he can support.
Mayor Cox clarified the motion noting the developer would be required to put
up 50% of the cost and the City the other 50% of the cost.
The motion carried with Councilman Malcolm voting "no".
13. REPORT BONITA ROADRUNNERS REQUEST TO CONDUCT A lOK ROAD RACE -
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
The Bonita Roadrunners, Inc. requested permission to run a lOK race around
Rohr Park on Sunday, March 10, 1985. A waiver of fees is also requested.
The Director of Parks and Recreation recommended that Council:
1. Approve the race, subject to staff conditions.
2. Deny the request to waive fees, since an entry fee is being charged
for the event.
MSUC (Moore/Scott) to accept the report and staff recommendations 1 and 2.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
a. Mayor Cox requested a Closed Session after the Council meeting for the
purposes of litigation.
MSUC (Moore/Scott) for Closed Session for litigation regarding the Sierra Club
vs. California Coastal Commission and for proposed litigation.
City Council meeting - 11- January 22, 1985
b. Mayor Cox discussed the report in the Council packet dealing with the
potential representation on the Mayor's Elderly and Handicapped
Transportation Committee. Staff recommended Council request the SCOOT
Board to redesignate the Mayor's Elderly and Handicapped Transportation
Committee as the SCOOT E1 derly and Handicapped Transportation Committee.
MSUC (Cox/Moore) to docket this item for consideration at a Council meeting in
two weeks. (March 5, 1985)
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
a. Councilman Malcolm commented on the new office building constructed on
Bonita Road between 1-805 and the Bonita Store. He stated the
sewer/drainage work done by the County was not done properly.
MSUC {Malcolm/Moore) for a letter to the County to be send out over the
Mayor's signature requesting the County pave the road in an appropriate manner
with a copy of the letter to be sent to the Sweetwater Authority.
b. Councilman Scott discussed a newspaper article regarding National City's
opposing any "evening-up" of boundaries with Chula Vista. (Chula Vista's
northern boundary).
Mayor Cox stated informal contact with National City has been established to
explore their interest in pursuing a boundary adjustment that would provide
for Route 54 to be the boundary adjustment at 1 east from 1-805 to the bay.
The Council recessed to Closed Session at 9:05 p.m. The City Clerk was
excused; the Mayor reported the Session ended at 9:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. to the Council Conference scheduled on January 24, at
4:00 p.m. and to the City Council meeting scheduled for January 29, 1985 at
7:00 p.m.
WPG: 0528C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss OF ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Jennie M. Fulasz, being first duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista;
That the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Chula Vista was
held Tuesday, January 22, 1985 and said meeting was
adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment ATTACHED
HERETO:
That on Wednesday, January 23, 1985 at the hour of 8:45 a.m.
I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place
at which said meeting of January 22, 1985 was held.
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Held January 22, 1985
The City Council met in the Council Chamber at the City Hall,
276 Fourth Avenue on the above date at 7:00 ~ p.m, with the
following:
Councilmen present: Cox, Malcolm, McCandliss, Scott, Moore
None
Councilmen absent:
ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting until Thursday, January 24, 1985
at i:00 p.m. in the X}Aq0X~X0~XiKX~X~X~XN~X"X~Conference Room, City Hall,
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
I, JENNIE M, FULASZ, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that this is a full, true and correct copy of an order by the
City Council at the meeting of Januarv 22, 1985
J NIE M. FUnASZ CMC City C rk
~(ity of Chula ViSta, ealifornia