HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1982/11/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Tuesday, November 9, 1982 Council Chamber
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
Councilmen pre sent: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers McCandliss, Moore, Malcolm,
Scott
Councilmen absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus,
Assistant City Attorney Harron,
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 October 28, 30 and November 2, 1982
MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to approve the minutes.
2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (None)
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. James Matherly, 402 Oaklawn Avenue, Apt. G, Chula Vista. Councilman
Malcolm commented that Mr. Matherly has been speaking before the
Council for years on the subject; he refuses to salute the flag; and
that he should be given time at the end of the City Council meeting
to present his same testimony rather than at the beginning. Mayor
Cox stated he would allow Mr. Matherly to give his presentation. Mr.
Matherly read the prepared speech he gave to the MTDB in which he
asked for the resignation of the Chairperson, Judith Bauer, the high
cost of government spending, and the "money losing project - Tijuana
Trolley."
b. Darlene Spurgeon, 1014 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, spoke in
opposition to the mandatory trash collection service, stating that
she and her husband run a commercial greenhouse-gardening business
for which they have a commercial dumpster. They deposit their own
trash in this container and asked that they be exempted from this
mandatory trash service. The Mayor explained the provisions in the
ordinance in which she could apply for an exemption.
c. D. Robinson, 1341 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, stated that he too
opposes the mandatory trash pick-up, that he lives in Los Angeles and
keeps a home here in Chula Vista, has very little trash which he
City Council Meeting - 2 - November 9, 1982
sometimes brings to his Los Angeles residence for disposal, that
there is a homeowners association he belongs to that transports the
trash to the landfill. Mr. Robinson also asked for a variance from
his water processing bill Isewage fee) stating that his water bill
comes to $6.50 a month and his sewage is $10.80 bi-monthly.
In answer to the Council's question, Assistant City Attorney Harron
responded that if people refuse to pay their trash pick-up service
bills, it would be processed through small claims court.
City Engineer Lippitt commented that the staff is looking at a
"sliding scale" approach for low-volume water users. The sewage fee
could be based on a percentage of their water bills.
MSUC ICox/McCandliss) to ask staff to look into the feasibility of
having a sliding scale for sewage fees and report this back to the
City Council.
Councilman Scott commented that there should be some type of variance
system and provide for it by the sliding scale by exceptions to the
sewage fees rather than to the system as a whole. MAYOR COX STATED
HE WOULD INCLUDE THIS IN HIS MOTION, COUNCILMAN MCCANDLISS AGREED TO
THE SECOND AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
d. Warren Nielsen, 3885 Birch Street, San Diego, said that RFP's are now
going out for development of Route 252. He felt Chula Vista and
other involved communities should have some input in this project.
MSUC IScott/Cox) to refer this item to the Legislative Committee.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. Petition to have a four way stop installed at the corner of Rienstra
Street and Melrose Avenue.
MSUC IMcCandliss/Scott) to refer the petition to the staff and Safety
Commission to include in their report.
b. Request from The Downtown Committee to incorporate the passageway
from Third Avenue to public parking lot on Madrona in the maintenance
program established by the City under the "Town Centre Lighting and
Maintenance District."
MSUC (Cox/Moore) to refer this matter to staff.
Mayor Cox commented on Item 12 at this time.
City Council Meeting - 3 - November 9, 1982
12. DISCUSSION OF SANDER PROjECT
At the meeting of October 12, 1982, the Council continued any further
discussion on the SANDER project until the meeting of November 9, 1982.
Mayor Cox reported that the SANDER Authority met last Friday and ruled out
the "J" Street/Bay Boulevard site for the SANDER Project. He explained
that there is a problem with removing this project from the site at this
time because the Request For Proposals specifically stated that location.
Both proposers verbally agreed that they would consider constructing the
plant at some other location.
MSUC (Cox/Moore) that the City Council not consider Item #12 and that it
not discuss SANDER at any future time and allow the reservation of the "J"
Street/Bay Boulevard site to expire a natural death as of December 31,
1982.
Councilman Scott remarked that he attended the meeting of the SANDER
Authority and they asked that someone from the Council be selected to sit
on the Siting Committee so that they could give recommendations on the
proposed site, whether it's in Chula Vista or some other location.
Councilman Moore volunteered to serve.
MSUC (Malcolm/Cox) to appoint Councilman Moore on this committee.
Councilman Scott spoke on the item of Oral Communications stating that
public hearings are always set for a time certain at the City Council
meetings and that sometimes Oral Communications continues for a long
period of time. He suggested that for a trial basis Oral Communications
be put on the agenda after the scheduled public hearings.
MSUC (Scott/Malcolm) to try on an experimental basis placing Oral
Communications after the public hearings on the agenda; time period to be
six months.
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Public hearing Consideration of appeal on rezoning 6.28 acres at East
"J" Street and 1-805 from R-l, P-C and R-1-H to
R-l-P(4); or, consideration of rezoning to R-1-H -
Dr. Harold Weinberger (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public
hearing.
Principal Planner Ken Lee explained that in November 1981 the City Council
unanimously denied a zone change application submitted by the applicant to
zone the property at 1-805 and East "J" Street to R-1-P at a density of 4.8
dwelling units per acre. The Council then referred the matter back to the
Planning Con~nission for consideration of zoning the property R-1-H.
City Council Meeting - 4 - November 9, 1982
In January 1982 the applicant was granted a 90 day delay on the consideration
of the R-1-H zoning in order that he could review the design of the project
and meet with the residents of the area to discuss possible solutions and
alternatives; however, his attempts to meet with the residents were not
successful.
On September 16, 1982 the property owner filed a new application requesting
rezoning of the property to R-l-P(4) (single family residential subject to the
Precise Plan Modifying District at a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per
acre).
On October 13, 1982 the Planning Commission voted 3-2 (with 2 members absent)
i n favor of rezoning the property R-l-P(4) with a density limitation of 24
dwellings; however, four affirmative votes, representing a majority of the 7
member commission, is needed to forward a recommendation to the Council.
Therefore, there is no recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lee showed slides of the proposed development explaining the site
distances from the homes on "J" Street to the roofs of the proposed homes in
this development; the compatibility of the single family homes in that area
with the proposed duplex units; the various levels of the topography in the
construction area; the applicant's proposals for a 20 unit development and
24 unit development; a precise plan placed on the development would have to
come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval; that the
developer has addressed every issue raised by the adjacent residents;
explained the Hill side Modifyi n9 District; and recommended that the 6.28 acre
parcel of property be rezoned to R-I-P(4). In answer to Councilwoman
McCandliss' question, Mr. Lee stated that of the 6.28 acres approximately 1/2
is developable property.
Mayor Cox noted for the record the petition with 931 signatures opposing the
appeal.
Speaking in support of the project were Michael Wilkes and Homer Delawie,
2827 Presidio Drive, San Diego, architects for the proposed development, who
stated that they tried hard to solve all of the problems regarding traffic,
site distance, density, and preservation of the views from the adjacent
residences. They stated that the project would maintain a great deal of open
space and would create jobs (approximately 40 jobs a year) and would generate
approximately $9,500,000 into the economy.
Dr. Leonard Bloom, 5333 Lake Murray Boulevard, La Mesa, declared that the
professionals have spent a great deal of time in analyzing all of the problems
associated with this development. He stated it was one of the best
developments being proposed for this site and asked the Council to address the
legal issues and not the emotional ones.
Those who spoke in opposition were: Richard Sterba, 770 Nolan Avenue, Chula
Vista; Rosemarie Ballard, 771 Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista; Melvin Aden, 709
Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista; George Fetter, 725 Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista;
City Council Meeting - 5 - November 9, 1982
Paul Kincade, 715 Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista; Fred Wetmore, 344 East
"J" Street, Chula Vista; Jackie Payne, 339 East "J" Street, Chula Vista; and
Joy Sheresh, 688 Robert Avenue, Chula Vista. In summary their comments were:
a. They are in favor of R-1-H zoning.
b. Gave the background of the City Council and Planning Commission
actions on this project.
c. Addressed the emotional issues involved.
d. Noted the City Council motion made in November 1981 for the Planning
Commission to consider R-1-H zoning.
e. They were never contacted by the developer; the only one contacted
was Jackie Payne.
f. If the project is approved the Council should stipulate that plans
go through the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and
City Council and that the residents have a chance to make comments.
g. The open space easement in the plan should be definitely spelled out.
h. There was no presentation by the staff at the Planning Commission
for R-1-H zoning.
i. The proposed homes have no front or backyards.
j. The traffic factor was addressed and violations noted.
k. There will be an additional 200 vehicle trips per day generated by
this development.
1. Based on the ingress and egress of the proposed development, some
residents will experience difficulty getting in and out of their own
driveways.
m. The Fire and Police Department will have a very difficult time
servicing this development.
n. Nothing has changed since the last year's proposal.
o. The land is too steep to build on.
p. The freeway cuts through this property and no one wants to live near
a freeway.
q. The plan circumvents the "H" modifier.
r. East "J" Street is a scenic route and should be preserved as one.
City Council Meeting - 6 - November 9, 1982
s. The Safety Commission will be considering this proposal tomorrow.
t. The residents are outraged as to the time element involved in
getting this development plan to the City Council.
u. There are many vacant houses in the City and this will only add 25
more vacant units.
Mr. Warren Nielsen, 3885 Birch Street, San Diego, spoke in favor of the
proposed development, stating it was a first class duplex condominium proposal
and it would only increase the value of the homes adjacent to it.
Mr. Delawie responded to the testimonies given stating that planning has
changed since their homes were built 15 years ago. There are very few level
plots of land available in the City. The developer is trying to fit the homes
into the terrain; they will stipulate that they are meeting the requirements
of the Fire, Police and Traffic; they will agree to have Engineering paint the
curbs red in front of the units in order to eliminate any on-street parking;
88 parking spaces will be provided for the development; willing to stipulate
that no roofs will be higher than five feet from the street level; the
original proposed project called for 29 units and this one is for 24 units;
and they will be undergrounding all of the high tension wires which will
further preserve the views for the residents.
There being no further comments either for or against, the public hearing was
declared closed.
Councilwoman McCandliss stated her concerns that this area is in a
neighborhood R-1 single-family area; that only three acres are developable;
the density would be eight units per acre.
MS IMcCandliss/Scott) that this area be zoned R-1-H for the 6.28 acres.
Discussion of motion; Council discussion followed regarding the proposed
development contributing to the well being of the neighborhood; the noise
issue as orientated toward the freeway; (Principal Planner Lee stated the
noise issue is addressed in the Environmental Impact Report); philosophy of
in-filling; the views will not be lost, that it would be hypocritical to state
that as a fact; si ngle-family residences with two stories would block the
residents' views; the R-1-H zoning and its application throughout the City.
Assistant City Attorney Harron stated that there is no conflict of interest
involved for Councilman Malcolm owning property near this location and al so
for the Mayor who lives within 300' of this proposed development.
Substitute Motion
MSC (Scott/Moore) to approve R-1-H-P zoning. Councilman Malcolm voted no.
A recess was called at 9:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
City Council Meeting - 7 - November 9, 1982
Mayor Cox explained that the intent of the motion on Item 5 was to allow no
more than five units but at the same time, reserve the discretion of those
units to preserve the view.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES, FIRST READINGS
6. Resolution 11059 Reciting the fact of the special election held in
consolidation with the general election held on the
2nd day of November 1982, declaring the result
thereof and such other matters as provided by law
(City Clerk)
In accordance with the City Clerk's Certificate of Canvass, the results of the
election were as follows:
YES NO
Proposition J - 17,488 74.74% 5,912 25.26%
K - 15,878 65.44% 8,385 34.56%
L - 17,415 75.40% 5,681 24.60%
M - 15,914 68.75% 7,233 31.25%
N - 15,987 69.09% 7,153 30.91%
0 - 12,642 53.92% 10,802 46.08%
P - 16,511 71.63% 6,540 28.37%
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
7. Resolution 11060 Authorizin9 destruction of records kept in the Parks
and Recreation Department (Director of Parks and
Recreation)
The resolution itemizes certain Parks and Recreation Department records which
are no lon9er required for public or private purposes.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived
by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
8. Resolution 11061 Adopting Street Tree Maintenance Policy (Director of
Public Works Operations)
During its fiscal year 1982-83 budget hearing Council approved in concept
staff's recommendation to delete the trimming by City forces of trees located
between the sidewalk and the adjacent dwelling. City crews will trim the
trees located between the sidewalk and curb. The Street Tree Committee met on
October 29, 1982 and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the policy.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
City Council Meeting - 8 - November 9, 1982
Councilman Moore suggested that the public be advised of this policy through
media releases lat minimal cost to the City).
9. Resolution 11062 Approving map of Chula Vista Tract 80-25, Castle Park
Townhomes, accepting on behalf of the public the
public streets dedicated on said map, and accepting
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the easements
granted on said map within said subdivision, and
approving agreement for the completion of
improvements required by said subdivision and
authorizing the Mayor to execute same (City Engineer)
The Fi hal Map represents a conversion of 39 apartment units to condominiums.
The developer has signed the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, posted the
necessary surety, paid all fees, and submitted all required documents.
Approval of the Final Map includes acceptance of street tree easements along
Hilltop Drive and Tobias Drive and dedication of right-of-way adjacent to the
subdivision along Hilltop and Tobias Drives.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
lOa. Resolution 11063 Amendin9 Master Fee Schedule (City Manager)
b. Ordinance 2011 Amending several chapters and sections of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, all relating to the Master Fee
Schedule - First reading
On September 28 and October 19, 1982, Council held a public hearing to
consider revisions to the Master Fee Schedule for fees relating to land
development and took testimony on non-development fees as well. Council
specified the full cost recovery levels to be implemented for various fees and
directed that staff return with the appropriate resolution amending the Master
Fee Schedule.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
MSUC (Scott/Malcolm) to place the ordinance on first reading, the reading of
the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
In answer to Council's questions, Director of Management Services Thomson
explained the formula used in arriving at various fees in the schedule, the
annual review directive and other concerns of the Council which staff will
monitor but which were not stipulated as conditions in the resolution.
MSUC (Moore/Scott) for the staff to provide a listing of all the Parks and
Recreation facilities and/or programs and equipment available without charge
to the public.
City Council Meeting 9 November 9, 1982
Councilman Malcolm expressed his concern with the type of video films being
distributed through the Video Department i n the Library. He indicated that
only the wealthy, the people who could afford these sets are the ones who are
checking out these films.
MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to refer to the Library Board the concerns of the Council
regarding the video department, especially the video cassettes and bring back
a report as far as their recommendation and also note the concerns of the
Council for continuation of this program.
CONTINUED MATTERS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
ll. Report on deferral request of underground requirement at 670-680
"L" Street (Continued from the meeting of 11/2/82) (City Engineer)
A public hearing was held on 10-19-82 and continued to 11-2-82. On
November 2, the Council continued the matter for one week to obtain cost
figures from the applicant.
Bennet Greenwald, representing the DAN Company, discussed the cost involved in
the undergrounding project stating that if the staff recommendation is
accepted, they will have to cancel this project - his client still prefers the
deferral of the undergrounding requirements. If they are asked to contribute
towards the project they will contribute $50,000, that is all they can afford
and they asked that this be done by phases and they be allowed to bond for the
contribution until and if it is formed and funded.
Councilman Scott remarked that this is an entrance into the City and he felt
Alternative 3 discussed at the last meeting should be the one approved by the
Council.
City Engineer Lippitt submitted a plat noting the 12 poles that will be
removed and 4 relocated.
MSC (Cox/Malcolm) to accept a contribution in the amount of $103,000 which is
the cost of doing the electrical work on the south side of "L" Street only.
Councilman Scott voted no.
12. DISCUSSION OF SANDER PROJECT
See page 3.
13. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER
MSUC (Malcolm/Cox) for a closed session at the end of the meeting for employee
negotiations.
r I"IT
City Council Meeting - lO - November 9, 1982
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
14. Report on traffic problem associated with the Regional Center driveway
onto Garrett Avenue (City Engineer)
At the meeting of September 14, 1982, the City Council requested that staff
and Safety Commission review the traffic problem between the La Espana
Apartments and the County Regional Center. David Curdie, a resident of the La
Espana Apartments, compl ai ned that when the Regional Center traffic queues up
on Garrett Avenue at "H" Street, some drivers take a short cut through the La
Espana Apartments' parking lot to Glover Avenue.
The City Engineer contends that the problem with vehicles taking the "short
cut through the La Espana Apartments will be reduced if the driveway providing
egress from the Regional Center onto Garrett Avenue is relocated to the south
to line up with Mankato Street and is recommending that Council direct staff
to work with the County and Sweetwater Authority to expedite the driveway
relocation for the Regional Center.
David Krogh, 383 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, noted the deterioration of his
street adding that with the new driveway and increased traffic, the "street
will get beat up that much faster."
David Curdie, 515 Glover Avenue, Chula Vista, stated he was there only to
answer questions and spoke of the "natural path" now made by the people coming
out of the Regional Center.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to ask staff to look into the condition of the roadway and
whether it would be appropriate to consider implementation of the 1911 Act for
that area.
A MOTION MADE by Councilman Scott that the City pay one-third of the cost of
that street improvement died for lack of second.
MSUC (Malcolm/Scott) to accept the staff recommendation.
15. Report - Chula Vista Band Review Request (Director of Parks & Recreation)
The Chula Vista Band Review has requested authorization to conduct their
Fourth Annual Band Review on November 20, 1982, and further requested police
reserves, barricades and a flatbed truck be provided. In previous years, the
City has donated requested support services. This year, to recover incurred
costs, the City will have to be reimbursed in the amount of $100 for the use
of the ~ atbed truck.
Mr. Gerald May, 662 Mariposa Circle, Chula Vista, President of the Chula Vista
Band Review, stated the organization is not makin9 any money; they were under
the impression that this item was budgeted the same as it was last year
($633); that the City would be sponsoring the event again this year; that it
was a very good publicity event for the City; and they would have problems
City Council Meeting - ll November 9, 1982
raising the $100 fee. Assistant City Manager Asmus explained that they did
ask for $600 during the budget process, the staff recommended zero with the
recommendation that the City would furnish the services. The $100 fee is for
the overtime pay that would be involved for the City employees working on this
event.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) for the City not to charge the $100 fee.
16. Report - Chula Vista Jaycees-Rohr IOK Run (Director of Parks &
Recreation)
The Chula Vista Jaycees and Rohr Industries wish to co-sponsor a IOK run at
7:30 a.m., Saturday, December 4, 1982, using the same route used last year.
The race is to be sanctioned by "End of the Line Race Consultants" and A.A.U.
and would, therefore, entail entry fees. The Director of Parks and Recreation
recommends that the sponsors be required to hire special officers to provide
traffic control. Cost to provide these 12 special officers for two hours is
$146.16.
MSUC (Scott/Cox) to approve the report.
Councilman Moore questioned the impact this is going to have on the citizens
living in that area with 14 intersections being closed off. Director of Parks
and Recreation Pfister stated that Police Reserve Officers will be at the
intersections and that they will open up the intersections as the runners
pass. He added that the $146.16 would be paid for by the Jaycees and Rohr
Corporation.
17. MAYOR'S REPORT
a. Mayor Cox stated he received a call from a lady living near the
"H" Street Trolley Station complaining about the lighting and the
"deplorable" landscaping conditions.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to refer to staff to check into the lighting
problem at the "H" Street Station and for staff to work with MTDB
and explore the possibility of having the City of Chula Vista
provide landcaping service on a contract basis.
b. Mayor Cox discussed the number of political signs still remaining
along the streets after the last election.
MSUC ~Cox/Scott) for the staff to dust off the political sign
ordinance and bring it back to the City Council.
c. Mayor Cox commented that he has been contacted by the Principals of
the Vista Square and Hilltop Elementary Schools concerning the
Schools' Safety Patrol Program; that the motorists are not paying
City Council Meeting - 12 - November 9, 1982
too much attention to the direction of the guards and that perhaps
some type of informational campaign should be made available to the
--/ public concerning this program.
MSUC (Cox/Scott) to request the Safety Commission to look into the
use of the School Safety Patrol Program, that perhaps some
informational campaign could be inaugurated and newspaper coverage.
d. Mayor Cox stated that several cities, Oceanside, Long Beach, Palo
A1 to, etc. have incorporated a Municipal Solar Utility Leasing
Program. This allows a city to be a sponsoring agency to provide
the leasing program as an investment for developers to come into the
city. There is a state law that allows a tax credit; however, this
expires on December 31, 1982 unless an ordinance is passed by the
City.
MSUC ICox/McCandliss) that the staff contact the City of Oceanside
and other cities that have this program and request the information
they have which established this program and come back to the City
Council with a report and a recommendation as to whether it would be
a good program for Chula Vista.
Assistant City Manager Asmus remarked that the Director of Building
and Housing has already been informed of this and is working on it.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
a. Councilman Scott noted the letter received concerning the Planning
Commission granting additional display space to the mini-market
service station at 407 "E" Street, Chula Vista (Thrifty Oil Company)
for the display of alcoholic beverages. Director of Planning Gray
stated that the appeal on this particular Planning Commission action
expires today and if the Council wished they could appeal this
decision which would bring the matter forward.
MS (Scott/McCandliss) that the Council bring this forward and make a
decision on it, in fact, to set forth an appeal. The motion failed
by the following vote:
AYES: Scott, McCandliss
NOES: Cox, Malcolm, Moore
ABSENT: None.
MSUC IScott/Moore) for a policy to brought forth to the City Council
on this.
b. Councilman Malcolm stated that he arrived at the Council meeting
shortly after 6:00 and there were only a few parking spaces
available around the public services building - the entire lot was
taken up by City employees. He asked that the City Manager be
City Council Meeting - 13 - November 9, 1982
directed to take action, that especially on Tuesday evening, no City
employees be allowed to park in this area.
MSUC (Scott/Moore) for the City Manager to be directed to make sure
no City employees (including the City Attorney) park in both the
area west of the public services building and along Memorial Way.
In answer to the Council's query, City Manager Cole stated that the
Library parking lot is not permit parking, it is for use by the
public.
c. Councilman Malcolm referred to a letter received from Assistant City
Attorney Harron concerning a proposal to put pornographic news racks
at City intersections.
MSUC (Malcolm/Scott) to refer this matter to staff with a
recommendation that they curb pornographic newsstands at the corners
in the City.
The Council recessed to closed session at 10:45 p.m., the City Clerk was
excused and the City Manager reported that the session ended at 11:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for November 16, 1982 at
7:00 p.m.
nnie M. Fulas