Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1998/08/11MINUTES OF A REG~ MEETING OF TRE CITY COL~NCIL OF TRE CITY OF CHI/LA VISTA Tuesday, August !1, 1998 6:04 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: PP~SENT: ABSENT: ALSO pP~ESENT: Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER Councilmembers: Rindone, Salas, Councilmembers: Moot (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), Padilia, and Mayor Horton. None City Manager, David D. Rowlands; city Attorney, John M. Kaheny; an~ City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet 2. PLEDGE OF ~tT.RGIANCE TO ~ FIAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APpROVaL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF inz DAY: A. Presentation by Donna Hale, Chair of the Chula Vista Yacht Club, inviting the Council and residents to the fourth annual Bayfair Chula Vista Yacht Harbor Day to be held August 30, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Chula Vista Marina Parkway Pier. B. Presentation by Fran Larson of the International Friendship Commission of the following Japanese Exchange Students from our Sister City in Odawara, Japan: Oikawa Kenichi, Yumi Tanaka, Satoko Ishizawa, and Yukiko Imamura. C. Proclamation commending Pat Barnes upon her retirement from SDG&E on September 1, 1998, was presented by Mayor Morton. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 6 by the public) D~/~CEOFT~ECONSENTC~T.RNDAROFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, headings read, te~ts waived, passed and approved unanimou~l~ 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter from the Cit~ Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge fro= actions taken in Clo~ed Session on August ~, 1998, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brow~ Act to be reported. Per staff's recommendation, the letter was received and filed. Approved unanimously 5-0. 6.A. ORDINANCE 2740 AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.23, 8.24, AND 8.25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MOVE THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING FRANCHISE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INTO A SEPARATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND MAKING TECHNICAL CHANGES (second reading and adoption) - This is to approve the agreement for solid waste collection, processing and disposal services, and to establish a rate schedule for services provided under the agreement to be effective September 1, 1998 which: (1) includes a freeze on current rates through June 30, 1999; {2) provides a reduction in rates for commercial fiber recycling and multi-family recycling for dwellings of nine units and under; and (3) establishes fixed rates for industrial "roll-off," compactor and optional services. Staff is further requesting the amendment of Chapter 8.23 of the Municipal Code to reflect the adjustments made into the franchise agreement. Per staff's recommendation, Council placed the ordinances on second reading and approved their adoption and ~ug~st ~1, 1998 ,age 2 approved the resolution unanimously 5-0. (Deputy City Manager and Conservation Coordinator) B. ORDINANCE 2741 GRANTING A WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE RENEWAL TO PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME (second readinq and adoption) C. RESOLUTION 19131 ADOPTING THE SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND GREEN WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OR PROCESSING SERVICES AS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGENT (PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES) EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 item was originally pulled by Gregg J. representing Debris Box. However, he Council. King, 554 Dawn court, Chula Vista, withdrew his request to address the ORDINANCES 2740 AND 2741 WERE PLACED ON SECOND READING FOR ADOPTION AND RESOLUTION 19131 WAS OFFERE~ BY COUNCII34EMBER RINDOWE, headings read, texts waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. 7. RESOLUTION 19136 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A REPLACEMENT 1500 GALLON PER MINUTE (G.P.M.) TRIPLE COMBINATION FIRE APARATUS TO SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPMENT, INCORPORATED, THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES - The fiscal year 1998/99 Equipment Replacement Budget provides for the replacement of a Fire Department 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus (fire pumper). The Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Resolution Number 6132 authorizes the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City, therefore, is participating in a current City of Los Angeles bid from South Coast Fire Equipment for purchase of a 1500 G.P.M. Per stsff's recommendation, the resolution was approved unanimously 5-0. (Director of Public Works) 8. RESOLUTION 19137 APPROVING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER GRANTING A FIVE-YEAR GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO SDG&E AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 - The City's gas and electric utility franchise with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E} expired on November 30, 1997. The Council approved two extensions of the franchise, most recently until June 30, 1998. City and SDG&E staff have now concluded negotiations for a five-year renewal of the franchise. This item requests that Council set a public hearing to consider the proposed franchise on the terms and conditions described. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved unanimously 5-0. (City Attorney) 9. RESOLUTION 19138 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECT, ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT-HILLTOP DRIVE AT SDG&E EASEMENT IN THE CITY (DR-130)' -- On July 8, 1998, sealed bids for "Storm Drain Replacement Hilltop Drive at SDG&E Easement" were opened. The work includes removing and replacing deteriorated pipes. Shoreline Contractors was the lowest responsible bidder at $24,499.97. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved 5-0. (Public Works Director) Councilmember Moot stated that this was so far under the engineer's estimate, he asked if we were sure we will get proper performance under this contract. John Lippitt, Public Works Director, stated that staff has checked references, and we have dealt with the issue with the contractor. Staff is as sure as we can be that we will get performance. We believe it can be done. 10. RESOLUTION 19139 ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "'BAYFRONT TROLLEY STATION PARKING LOT IMPR0VEMENTS IN THE CITY (DS-038) - On May 20, 1998, sealed, August 11, 1998 informal bids were received for the Bayfront Trolley Station Parking Lot improvements. The work includes removal and replacement of alligatored asphalt concrete pavement and striping. American Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $34,459.20. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved 5-0. (Public Works Director) ll. RESOLUTION 19140 ESTABLISHING THE KENNETH LEE MEMORIL AWARD FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING - The City has established an annual Beautification Awards Program to recognize projects completed during the prior year which reflect exceptional architectural and site planning solutions. It is recommended that the City Council establish the Kenneth Lee Memorial Award, in memory of the recently deceased Assistant Planning Director, to be given for a project which reflects excellence in cormmunity planning per staff's recomendation, the resolution was approved 5-0. (Planning Director) 12. RESOLUTION 19141 APPROPRIATING $600,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO THE INSURANCE BUDGET FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES - This action will appropriate funding for payment of previously authorized claim settlements. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved 5-0. (Risk Manager) ~/5ths vote required * * * End of Consent Calendar OR3~L COM~F3WICATIONS None 13. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-98--01, AN APPLICATION TO REZONE FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) TO CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE), PART OF THE PARCEL AT 619 EAST MANOR PRIOR TO A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - The City was approached by the applicant with a lot line adjustment in January 1998. It was recommended by staff that the applicant apply for a rezone to bring the parcel into land use and zoning conformance. Since 1989, the parcel has been split zoned along with others in the 600 block of Broadway as R-1 and CT. The land use activities are a combination of commercial and residential land uses. The subject parcel has been a single family residential home facing onto East Manor and a commercial parking lot for Discount Tires facing Broadway. The northwest portion of the parking lot is in the R-1 Zone, so it is practical and concise to include the whole parking lot in the CT Zone through a rezone action prior to the processing of the lot line adjustment. Per staff's recommendation, it was approved 5-0 to place the ordinance on first reading. (Planning Director) ORDINANCE 2742 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING PART OF PARCEL LOCATED AT 619 EAST MANOR AVENUE AND 600 BROADWAY AVENUE FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) (first readinq) There was no staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no one indicating a desire to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. ORDINANCE 2742 WAS PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, headiug read, text waived, approved 5-0. 14. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-98-06, APPLICATION TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.62.100 TO CHANGE "TEMPORARY" PARKING FROM SIX MONTHS TO TWELVE MONTHS AND M&=~tes August 11, 1998 Page 4 INCLUDE PARKING AREA PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE VEHICULAR AREAS INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE - Nearly a decade ago, the City developed standards for paving of temporary and permanent parking lots, which were adopted by policy resolution of the Planning Commission. Staff has recently updated these standards to bring them into conformance with current environmental and design standards, and to revise the time limits for temporary installations. staff is recommending that these updated standards be adopted to bring them into conformance with current environmental and design standards, and to revise the time limits for temporary installations. Staff is recommending that these updated standards be adopted as part of the Municipal code at this time. Per staff's recommendation, it was approved 5-0 to place the ordfnance on first reading. (Planning Director) ORDINANCE 2743 AMENDMENT THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.62.100 OF CHANGING THE TIME PERIOD FOR "TEMPORARY" PARKING FROM SIX MONTHS TO TWELVE MONTHS AND ADDING THE PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE VEHICULAR AREAS (first readinq) There was no staff report given. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no one indicating a desire to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. ORDINANCE 2744 WAS PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER RINIM3NE, heading read, text waived, approved 5-0. 15. PUBLIC HEARING DRC-98-16A, APPEAL OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND UPHELD BY THEE PLANNING COMMISSION-HYUN/JVP, LTD/AUTOPLEX, APPELLANT - On April 3, 1998, the appellant filed an appeal to the Design Review Committee's conditional site plan and architectural approval of a 1,677 square foot, two story office building located at 1450 Broadway. At its meeting of May 13, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal and voted to uphold the Design Review committee's approval of DRC-98-16 and denied the appeal. The appellant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision on May 29, 1998 to the City Council. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved 4-0-0-1 (Moot abstaining because of a potential financial interest through one of hie law partners). (Planning Director) RESOLUTION 19142 UPHOI~DING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING AN APPEALTO DESIGN REVIEW CASE NUMBER DRC-98-16 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Addressing Council were: Robert Leiter, Planning Director, stated that staff doesn't have any additional information to the staff report. Michael McDade, 945 4th Avenue, San Diego 921D1, representing Hyun/JVP/Autoplex Appellant submitted 47petitions in opposition to this project. He stated that the project was a small project. He emphasized that it was a vital matter to the Council. The Hyun family who own the Autoplex took over a project and have upgraded it to the point that it is contributing substantial sales tax revenue to the City and other benefits to the com&nunity. It is a well designed project, well landscaped project, and a project with significant setbacks from the road. The project before Council for building a two-story building is objected to, not because its development, but because we think it is the wrong type of development. It is a project that is coming in that is out of character and out of scale with the surrounding development. It will block off the signage of some of the merchants. They were not asking for no development on this property. What they were asking was to take cognizance of the fact that it is a substandard lot. This is taking a postage-step size lot and cranuning as much potential development on it as possible without any concern for the neighborhood. If they would scale it back or reorient the building and move it to the north to take advantage of the site, there would be no objections at all. They have tried to accomplish that in negotiations with the project proponents. AUgust 11, 1998 ~age 5 · David Hyun, 1954 Redsdale Avenue, Los Angeles, 90039, representing Hyun/JVP/Autoplex, stated they Objected to the project on technical grounds. He read a statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office. · Ron Stanard, 1971 Bucknell Street, Chula Vista, a businessman in the complex. He felt it would affect his business, the signage, and the parking. If the building has to go in there, he would appreciate it if the City would take a good look at their idea of moving the building north enough to spread the eye appeal of the whole center to make it look more presentable. Ed Stahl, 1415 Broadway, Suite 1, Chula Vista, representing Broadway Automotive, which is adjacent to this proposed project stated that not only will this two story building block the obstruction to his business, but his main objection is the parking. There is a parking problem now. This project will only increase the problem. · Jorge Hernandez, 1418 Broadway, Chula Vista, representing Hernandez and Santiago, owner of the subject project. They have tried to accommodate both the City and owners of the adjacent properties, but they haven't had any success in trying to become good neighbors. They have gone out of their way to try to acc~ml,odate their'demands, but nothing has worked. He requested that the Council uphold the decision of the Design Review and the Planning con~nission. · Jose Luis Gomez, 709 Melrose Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, representing Hernandez and Santigo, project manager for this project. Everyone from the City who has looked at this project feels that this project is the right project except for the persons appealing. He urged Council's denial of the appeal. · Jose Martinez, 10525 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 120, San Diego, architect on the project, urged Council's denial of the appeal. · Ronald W. Williamson, 4411 Morena Boulevard, San Diego, 92117, representing Hernandez and Santiago that owns the property, urged Council'S denial of the appeal. · Brad Clark, 2377 Lynwood Street, San Diego, works for the Autoplex in a management capacity. He stated that almost all of the tenants have expressed a concern about the impact that this particular building will have on their businesses, their visibility, and their parking. There being no one else indicating a desire to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Robert Leiter, Planning Director, stated that this is a legal lot of record which means that it was not required to meet the minimum lot size. Nonetheless, staff applied all the appropriate zoning Standards in ter~ns of setbacks, parking requirements, and height limits and it met all of those standards. The Design Review Committee looked at issues such as landscaping and site access and in relationship to the surrounding buildings and made a determination that the project conformed to the City's guidelines in those areas. That was the basis of staff's analysis and recommendations. Mayor Morton stated that in regard to the setbacks, they also adhere to the policies that are in place and they did it without a variance. Councilmen~er Salas stated she tried to understand the basis for the objection. She was not understanding how the businesses would Suffer. From what she understands, its a CPA firn and that doesn't really generate a lot of traffic either to or from the business. How would this affect the business of the appellant? One of the objections mentioned was the lack of landscaping. According to the Design Review Manual, there is a ten percent guideline which addresses when there is a very large parking lot, but it was mentioned that there was actually more landscaping than the ten percent. She hasn't been convinced that this is detrimental to the appellant. Minutes AUgust 11, 1998 Page 6 RESOLUTION 19142 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS, heading read, text waived. Councilmember Rindone stated that there is still one issue which staff has not responded to. He asked staff's analysis of 1427 Broadway, Building 101. It was raised that at least that a redesign or relocation or setback further of that center building would be beneficial to the neighbors and the surrounding property owners and businesses. He would like staff's analysis and response to that request. He did not underctand how this would help. .Mr. Leiter stated that one of the representatives of the appellant at one point indicated that moving the baildinS further north might mitigate some view blockage. He did not know if staff had analyzed that. Just in visiting the site, he felt they would need to explain further how that would work because the building itself doesn't appear to use a lot of that overall view in the front of the site. He was not sure how moving it further north would affect that one way or the other. That is something that they have asserted, but he did not know if we really had a chance to analyze. Mr. McDade stated that the issue of it being located on the south is multifold. First, they contend that it will block the signage for many of the tenants from traffic traveling to the south. This is what many Of the tenants are objecting to. Pulling the building back to the north would relieve that or at least move it back to where the site lines weren't blocked to the same degree. In fairness, they did pursue this with the applicant and asked them to consider it, and they did consider it. They found they were deficient in parking spaces if they moved it to the north. They could only make that design work if his client wac willing to give them parking spaces on their property which has not been able to be negotiated. They feel that the building is just too big for the space that it is being put into. Its a tiny space and they feel a smaller building would easily meet parking requirements, but there has been no willingness to redesign to the affect. Councilmember Rindone stated that it was his understanding that there were six parking spaces required. And the designer has met that. Mr. McDade stated that he has for the current design. It would be deficient, in his view, if they moved it to the north. Jose Gomez Stated that the Planning Commission did analyze that. It is basically a block wall; there is no signage there now. There is a financial detriment to the applicant redesigning and going back to the drawing board. As an angle, there is no visibility problem; southbound vehicles need to look across a landscaped median, so that is the first visual that the City put in and then there is the building. Then there is a block wall. Building 101 is a total block wall and the building will be situated in front of it. Martin Miller, Associate Planner, stated the way the building is situated in staff'c opinion, it wouldn't make a large difference whether the building is located currently where it is planned or moved to the north property line so far as blockage of buildings. cars coming by on Broadway are traveling at 30-35 miles an hour. In staff's opinion, this was not a big issue. Mr. Leiter stated that it was clear that Building 101 that the wall facing that direction is basically a blank wall. From our view, there wasn't any signage or other features of that wall that were being blocked significantly. Mr. McDade added that Building 101 wasn't really the issue although it could be because there could be the right to open up that building on the end for retail space and that would be precluded by this building. The blockage of view, we are talking of is of the monument sign that sits out at the front along the roadway and also blockage of some of the buildings on the other side. They felt it was a detriment at this point. Good design doesn't put two story buildings in front of one story buildings. August 11, 1998 Page ? Mayor Horton stated that they would have a hard time redesigning the building. At this point in time, we might consider doing something with the monument sign, having it placed elsewhere. Would that help satisfy your client's situation? Would that help the view corridor? Tahn Hyun, 1568 Valecroft, Westlake, representing Hyun/JVP/Autoplex, had a small architectural model which he showed to Council that would demonstrate the difference visually. One qf the solutions they figured out is that they have a 16D0 square foot building of which around 400 to 500 is stairwell. If you downsize and go to single story, you will get the same square footage between llDD-12OD square feet Of usable space and you eliminate one parking space. If you flip it on the north side, it works out. Mayor Horton stated that what he was talking about would require them to redesign the building. Are you going to p~y for the cost to have it redesigned? Mr. Hyun stated that is what we have been fighting about. They want him to pay the cost. Councilmember Padilla stated he did not see the Council sitting in a position regarding this appeal in a posture as if we were reviewing the project to direct amendments to the project but rather recognizing that you have approvals from two separate co~issions that advise the Council. You have an appeal on those decisions that has gone through those bodies and the ap[eal has been denied and the original decisions upheld. Now that appeal is in front of the Council. In looking at the staff report and listening to the testimony, it is clear to him that there are not many purely legal disputes as to whether or not the lot size is in conformity and whether or not there are specific statutory clearly defined requirements with the Design Review Committee or at the Planning Commission level that were violated. However, the difficulty with this Council reviewing the appeal, is that the quidelines grant the power to the individual commissions that reviewed it the ability to make those decisions as to whether or not they are in conformity or not. Lacking some glaring fact that clearly demonstrates that a clear standard has been violated or misinterpreted by the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission, he has not seen anything in the record yet that indicates that. There is some reference to compatibility with neighboring businesses, but the redesign and comments at the Design Review level and the cormments by the applicant seem to address that those issues have been looked at and addressed. So what he was looking for were ways that demonstrate that any of the judgements that were made at the conunission levels were so far out of line that the Council should overrule them. He could not see it. Councilmember Salas stated that the Council is being asked to consider is whether or not to uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission to deny the appeal. She appreciated the Mayor's offer of looking at moving the monument sign to try to. alleviate at one of the concerns of the appellant. She felt that getting into a discussion about whether to redesign the building or move it at this time is not what the Council was being asked to consider. Therefore, she was going to uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. Glen Googins, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Councilmember Padilla was right in the philosophy Of his approach not to overrule the determinations of the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission without some identification of a glaring error. That is a legitimate approach. He wanted to clarify that in fact the Council, in your capacity in reviewing that decision, does have the authority to modify those conditions that were imposed. So, it is not entirely a pure review Of the appropriateness Of their action, you do have within the realm of your authority the ability to modify those conditions and/or refer it back to them for further action. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 19142: . Approved 4-0-0-1 (Moot abstaining). August 11, 1998 Page 8 16. PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW AND CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE BIrD SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE APPLICATION FOR $215,000 TO FUND A PORTION OF THE OTAY RECREATION CENTER - The City Council approved a Master Plan for the Otay Park on May 24, 1994. On October 21, 1997, the city Council approved the purchase of the land for the project site at 3554 Main Street. Council adopted both the Capital Improvement Program and the 1998/99 CDBG Consolidated Annual Plan which directed staff to pursue a Section 108 loan guarantee to fill the funding gap for the construction of Phase I. Par staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved unanimously 5-0. (Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 19143 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE HUD SECTION 108 LOAN APPLICATION FOR $215,000 TO FUND A PORTION OF THE OTAY RECREATION CENTER NO staff report was given. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no one indicating a desire to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION 19143 WAS Or'~'ZRED BY COUNCIIaME14BER RINDONE, heading read, tenwaived, passed and approved ~anlmously 5-0. BOA~j) A~rD CO~4ISSION HECOMME~{DATIONS None submitted ACTION ITEMS 17. REPORT CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENTS - The City Manager recently consolidated the Planning and Building and Housing Departments following the resignation of the Building and Housing Director. Staff has provided a report regarding this consolidation including identifications of necessary changes to the Municipal Code. Per staff's recommendation, Council received and filed the report and placed the ordinance on first reading. (Planning Director) ORDINANCE 2744 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDED CHAPTER 2.17 ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT (first readinq) No staff report was presented. Councilmember Rindone asked if approximately after a year, there will be a report back to Council on the assessment of the consolidations (this one and the previous one), so that if there were any additional changes or recommendations by staff at that time that would afford the Council an opportunity to review them. He asked staff if that was a correct understanding? David Rowlands, City Manager, stated from his perspective that was a Council approved action. If you want a report back, then we can do that. He recommended that this take place during the budget discussions next year. Councilmember Rindone stated that would be fine. He wanted to make sure that there will be an opportunity that it will be discussed after a period of time after implementation so if there are any concerns identified at that time, then it would be analyzed. With that understanding, he was comfortable. THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED AND FILED AND ORDINANCE 2744 pLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, heading read, text waived, and approved unanimously 5-0. 18. RESOLUTION 19144 AMENDING THE 1998/99 BUDGET TO ADD THREE ASSISTANT ENGINEER II, ONE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR II, ORE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II August 11, 1998 Page 9 POSITIONS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR The additional staffing needed to respond to the unprecedented surge in land development activities has been brought before Council twice since March 31 of this year. Working with the Human Resources Department, the Engineering Division was recently able to hire one Civil Engineer and two Assistant Engineers to fill all currently budgeted positions in the Land Development Section. Staff has looked at several options to solve the staffing needs and believes that the best option is to hire additional permanent staff. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved unanimously 5-0. (Public Works Director) 4/5ths vote required RESOLUTION 19144 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORnTON, heading read, text waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. Item 6 was pulled by the public. The minutes reflect the original agenda order. OTMER BUSINESS 19. CITY WJ~qAGER'S P~'PORT{S] Mr. Rowlands reminded council that the meetings for August 18 and August 25 have been cancelled. The question is that there is an item scheduled for the September 1st agenda concerning the franchise with SDG&E. We have been requested by SDG&E to have it on that agenda if possible. It will be a very short agenda. Or, we could have the item heard on September 8. We could then cancel the September 1st meeting. By policy, the September 8 meeting is after Labor Day and is cancelled. Mayor Horton stated that Councilmember Rindone would like the short meeting on Septen~ber 1. 20. MAYOR'S REPORT{S) - None 21. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURJ~4ENT The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC/~3~E City Clerk