Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/04/16MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, April 16, 1996 6:09 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers Public Services Building Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 9, 1996 (City Council Meeting) and April 9, 1996 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Councilmember Alevy requested that the RDA minutes of April 9, 1996, Item #4 reflect that he abstained from participation and that Member Rindone seconded the item. MSUC Otorton/Alevy) to approve the minutes of April 9, 1996 (City Council Meeting) as presented and April 9, 1996 (Spedal Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency) as amended. * * * Council recessed at 6:11 p.m. and reconvened at 6:13 p.m. * * * 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Joanne D. Clayton - Housing Advisory Committee; Michelle Monroy - Youth Commission; and Virgil Whitehead - Board of Ethics. The Oath of Office was administered to Michelle Mortroy and Joarme Clayton by City Clerk Authelet. b. Proclaiming Monday, April 22, 1996, as "Earth Day" and the week of April 21 through April 28, 1996 as "Earth Week." The proclamation was not presented. c. Terry Thomas, President, Chula Vista-Odawara Sister Cities Association, invited people to participate in the activities of the Friends of Odawara, including a teacher exchange. d. Terry Thomas presented an update on the Chula Vista International Sister Cities Foundation. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 6, 12, and 13) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WR1TTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 4/9/96. It is recomraended that the letter be received and filed. 6. ORDINANCE 2669 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT THE REFINANCING OF REGIONAL UTILITY PROJECTS UPON A FINDING OF CITY BENEFIT (second readin~ and adoorion) - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has requested that the City take the necessary steps to become legally able to assist them in refinancing two Industrial Development Bonds, similar to financing the City Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 2 did for them in 1992. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney and Director of Finance) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Boogaard stated that staff recommended the second reading of the ordinance. If there was any litigation it would only be brought if the City was awarded the bond issue and chose to validate it. It was an option Council could evaluate at the time. · Mark Sullivan, 1200 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA, Business Finance Manager, Economic Development Department, City of San Diego, stated a letter dated 4/1/96 had been sent from their Economic Director to the City's Finance Director and a letter had been faxed that afternoon from the City of San Diego's City Attorney. The proposed bonds would be unsecured, the 1992 IDB's were secured, therefore, the proposed bonds would carry a lower credit rating. Significant changes were underway in the utility industry due to deregulation and increased competition. No one knew what was in store over the next 20-30 years, but it should be addressed by any issuer undertaking debt obligations on behalf of SDG&E. It was an unprecedented preemption of outstanding bonds of another issuer; that had never happened before in the State of California. There were also significant differences between the two cities policies in how IDB's were handled. By policy, San Diego reinvested revenues derived from economic development revenue bonds in other economic development programs, including regional economic development efforts. Chula Vista intended to use the revenues in the General Fund. Collaboration had been the hallmark of their relationship with the City's economic development staff over the years and they wanted that to continue and grow. They hoped that the City would deny the request of the company and allow the City of San Diego to continue to manage their own outstanding debt obligations and work with the company to affect the refinancing of the bonds. Mr. Boogaard informed Mr. Sullivan that action by Council would only position the City to take action at a later date. The City was not deciding to impede the City of San Diego. Unless Council took action on the ordinance the Council would not even be able to discuss it in the future. Mr. Goss informed Council that SDG&E had asked the City to cooperate with them, but it had not been decided by either the City or SDG&E whether there would be any deal. Councilmember Rindone questioned if IDB's were always refunded with the original agency or if it was put out to bid. Robert Powell, Finance Director, responded that the City had been advised by various legal counsel that it was up to the borrower to decide who the issuer would be. Staff viewed it similar to a homeowner with a mortgage going to a different lender to refinance that mortgage. Councilmember Alevy questioned if it was considered illegal or liable for legal action if a third party was utilized in general business. Mr. Powell stated that he did not know of any situation that was considered illegal where an existing debt was refinanced in order to obtain a lower rate. Councilmember Padilia felt it was clear that the City was not considering anything that was illegal. He requested that staff comment on the nature of IDB's and that relationship to the City's governing position, i.e. why the City would be involved as a conduit, what was unique about IDB's, and why cities issued them. Mr. Powell responded that the purpose of IDB's was to supply low cost capital to companies. Typically the capital served a public need. State codes authorized the issuance of IDB's through conduit governmental entities to achieve tax exempt rates for those projects. The structure was such that the security for the debt was not a debt of the issuer, but the security for the debt was the funds loaned to the entity for the project and security for the payment was the loan payment from the borrower. Councilmember Moot stated he did not see anything wrong with the proposed action. He felt SDG&E had decided to introduce healthy competition in the market place. ORDINANCE 2669 PLACED ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 3 7. RESOLUTION 18254 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET TO INCLUDE 1.00 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POLICE AGENT POSITION, SUBJECT TO CONTINUED GRANT FUNDING, TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE (USCS) SAN DIEGO AIR/MARINE NARCOTICS INTERDICTION GROUP; ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING UNANTIClPATED GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 FROM HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA (HIDTA) GRANT FUNDS - The Police Department has one agent working with the USCS which is a coordinated multi-agency drug interdiction unit that services the southwest border area. The agent's position is funded through a HIDTA grant. As a result of the ongoing success of Operation Alliance, the USCS submitted another HIDTA grant to fund an additional agent position. The grant has been approved, and the USCS is now requesting the position be filled. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/5th's vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 18255 ENDORSING IN CONCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE SD NTC, KNOWN AS CAMP NIMITZ FOR USE AS THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING INSTITUTE - Conveyance of Camp Nimitz is currently under review. Two proposals have been submitted for consideration. The first one is a proposal by the City of San Diego to acquire and develop Camp Nimitz for use as the San Diego Regional Public Safety Training Institute. The second proposal has been submitted by the Port District for expansion of the airport. Police staff has reviewed both proposals and believes the 102 acres available can be used to meet both proposers' needs. The compromise solution would provide for a world-class public safety training institute and expansion of the airport. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 9. RESOLUTION 18256 ACCEPTING IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR STREET PURPOSES, DEDICATING AND NAMING STREET EAST ORANGE AVENUE WITH EASTLAKE GREENS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 - Right-of-way for East Orange Avenue with EastLake Greens, previously offered to the City through an irrevocable offer of dedication, must be accepted prior to final payment of acquisition of improvements in Assessment District Number 94-1. A separate irrevocable offer to dedicate document for East Orange Avenue offsite right-of-way has been prepared and is also ready for acceptance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 10. RESOLUTION 18257 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF GAS TAX FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR SHY LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE TWO TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTIES - The County of San Diego's Tax Collector's Office notified the City of several parcels of land that were to be auctioned for back taxes. There were two parcels staff determined should be purchased. The County has prepared agreements to complete the purchases. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. 11. RESOLUTION 18258 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "REPLACEMENT OF SEWER MAIN CROSSING IN BONITA ROAD JUST EAST OF I-805 FREEWAY (SW-207)" - Sealed bids were received on 4/10/96. The work consists of removing 4 existing concrete encased 8" diameter PVC sewer mains and replacing with a new 18" concrete encased PVC sewer main just east of I-805. The work includes excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, shoring, reconstruction of base of existing manholes, traffic control, preservation and restoration of property, and other miscellaneous work required by the specifications. Staff' recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. 12. RESOLUTION 18259 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM The fiscal year 1996/97 TDA Article 4.0 Claim is in the amount of $6,400,495. The claim was submitted to the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on 4/1/96 as required by State law. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 4 · Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee, stated that transportation meant business. Good and reliable transportation was needed within the City. She also supported the Handytrans system. RESOLUTION 18259 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Councilmember Moot noted that $2 million was for three hydrogen fuel cell buses and questioned if the City would get the project. Councilmember Rindone stated the City had less than $600,000 toward the goal before the project could be culminated. It was hoped that PVEA funds could be utilized to close the gap. It looked extremely encouraging. 13. RESOLUTION 18260 APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 CLAIM FOR HANDYTRANS OPERATION - The fiscal year 1996/97 claim to support Handytrans Operation was submitted to MTDB and SANDAG on 4/1/96 as required by State law. The claim, in the amount of $399,000, consists of TDA Article 4.5 funds, Transnet funds, MTDB/ADA funds, and estimated fare revenue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. RESOLUTION 18260 OFFERED BY C OUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 14. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE SEGMENT OF EAST ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND WUESTE ROAD - The proposal consists of changing the street name to "Olympic Parkway." This is the first phase of an overall program to rename East Orange Avenue from Interstate 805 to Wueste Road. Future street name change phases will occur as the area along East Orange Avenue is developed. Staff recommends the public hearine be continued to the meeting of 5/7/96. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 3/26/96. MSUC (Horton/Padi!la) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 5/07/96. 15. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSAL TO DEFlNE "COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY" IN THE EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR STREETS AND MODIFY THE FEE RATE SCHEDULE - Currently, the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" (TransDIF) program does not discuss the land use category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Other fee programs such as the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPF from the fee programs. Staff proposes to correct the inconsistency by defining the CPF land use, and excluding that class from the TransDIF. Staff also proposes to refund or reimburse certain fee payments previously made by Community Purpose Facility Projects. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to the meetine of 4/23/96. (Director of Public Works) MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to table the item until further notice. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Henry O!ivas, 708 "H' Street//15, Chula Vista, CA, stated graffiti was getting out of hand. He had been cleaning off gra~iti within the City and felt that he needed police protection because the taggers carried weapons. He requested that the Council assist him in obtaining that protection. · Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing San Diego County Veterans Advisory Committee, informed Council that the enabling legislation for bonded indebtedness on the Veteran's Home was moving forward. The legislation was favorable to the Chula Vista site and was being endorsed by Veteran's Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 5 organizations. The County Board of Supervisors took action on their Consent Agenda to find mitigating land for the site. · Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed her support for the Veteran's Home in Chula Vista. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 16.A. RESOLUTION 18261 APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT W1TH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR OTAY RANCH - The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement sets forth the financial terms and conditions that have been negotiated by City and County staff to be applied upon annexation to those portions of the Otay Ranch that are included in the City's current Sphere of Influence as well as those portions of the Otay Ranch that are anticipated to be added to the City's Sphere of Influence at the 5/6/96 meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Property Tax Transfer Agreement is contingent upon the adoption of the companion Landfill Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Thomson) B. RESOLUTION 18262 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGARDING THE OTAY RANCH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND OPERATION OF OTAY LANDFILL - As a component of the pending actions on the proposed Sphere of Influence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax agreement and annexation of the western parcel, the County wishes to ensure that the City will not interfere with the ongoing operation or expansion of the Otay Landfill. They do not wish the current litigation and potential early closing of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated in the South Bay as a result of actions of the City. The agreement addresses that protection. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) Mr. Goss requested that Council hear Items 16A and 16B concurrently. The Property Tax Transfer Agreement was developed so that it would be more favorable to the City than applying the Master Property Tax agreement which had been agreed to by the County and all of the cities of the county. The County had indicated, as a condition to the Property Tax Transfer Agreement, that there had to be a Landfill Agreement. The County had a veto power over whether the annexation would proceed via the property tax transfer agreement. It was their last chance to take any action that they felt would protect them before annexation occurred. The economic terms in the Property Tax Transfer Agreement staff felt were complete. The Landfill Agreement terms had progressed, but he did not feel there was an agreement with the County staff at the present time. Therefore, staff requested that Council approve the terms of the Property Tax Transfer Agreement in concept. The item was on the Board of Supervisors' agenda on 4/17/96 and it was recommended that they continue the item for two weeks. Staff was working with the County and property owners of the Otay Ranch to develop a revised Sphere of Influence to develop annexation of most, if not all, of the western parcel. The annexation was important to the future of the City due to the land use control and tax resources. Staff recommended that the Landfill Agreement be continued for one week. Item 16A · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Village Development and Baldwin Company, felt all parties would agree that the landfill issue was difficult and one no other jurisdiction had experienced. The City had filed an annexation petition for all of the Otay Ranch western parcel and as a major owner of a bulk of that area they looked forward to the annexation to the City and fully supported the annexation application. However, to date the staff at LAFCO had expressed the inclination that until such time that the landfill issue was resolved and the EIR currently being processed with their first specific plan was certified, they would not process the annexation application and that it would take approximately 90 days after those tasks were completed to process the application. They were concerned because they wanted to see the annexation application processed long before that time frame. He requested that Council and the County Board of Supervisors ask LAFCO staff to move as quickly as possible on the annexation applications. He felt every level of analysis had been done regarding the annexations as part of the Sphere of Influence process over the last year. The remaining tasks, i.e. review by the auditor, assessors, outside agencies, and staff analysis move forward relative to the City's annexation application Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 6 and alternatives so that LAFCO could act on the annexation in June or July assuming that by that time frame the City and County had reached agreement on the landfill issue. Mr. Goss sated that staff concurred with Mr. Kilkenny. The reason the City submitted the annexation application and alternatives was to get LAFCO staff in a position so they could proceed. The original application was the entire western parcel which was larger than the City's current Sphere of Influence. Therefore, LAFCO would not process the application. An annexation application within the existing sphere had been applied for along with two other alternatives. Staff felt LAFCO could proceed in getting the tax information and property information from the Assessor' s Office, proceed in circulating three alternatives to interested parties and obtaining comments, and prepare their report on the overall annexation. He agreed with the request to ask LAFCO staff to proceed with the City's annexation application. Councilmember Rindone did not feel that the agreements should be related, but hoped Council would be able to move forward. The annexation was also in the County's interest which would allow the buildout of the western parcel and tax revenues to the County. The Master Tax Agreement, negotiated in 1984 for annexations was tilted to the County, i.e. 59% to the County and 41% to the cities. The proposal had adjusted that to 50/50 which was a positive move for the City, but from buildout and initial years the City was at a severe financial disadvantage. He questioned what the typical master tax agreement was in other counties and whether the 50/50 percentage was off base. Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manger, responded that he did not have statistical data on other counties, but in other counties it was more severe, i.e. counties refused to negotiated master tax agreements. It had become a very divisive issue around the state. Councilmember Rindone felt Council could conceptually move forward on some components, but when it was brought back he wanted information about master tax agreements in other counties. He referred to the projections within the report and stated that it appeared that the County received the lions share with the City taking the greatest risk. Councilmember Alevy felt the City needed to move forward, but he would appreciate more time to study the item. It was obvious when looking at the charts that 2/3rd's of the income the City would realize over the 30 year estimate was in the last five years. He was concerned that the proposal stated "All provisions of the agreement will terminate upon closure of the Otay landfill property ....... and the life of the landfill could be another 20-25 years. ' He was concerned that if the landfill closed in 20-25 years how it would affect the back loaded income. Some of the figures were based on assumptions that certain percentages of income would come in based on acreage dedicated to commercial property. He questioned what percentage that was based on, whether it was market driven, if there were any guarantees, and if it was assumed that there would not be an economic decline in the economy. There should be some equity in income and risk. Mr. Goss stated staff had negotiated to eliminate the deficit position, i.e. under the FIND Model to project what the revenues would be to the City and the County. There was a transfer arrangement in the formula to transfer some of the money from the County at the front end to minimize or eliminate the deficit the City might otherwise suffer. Councilmember Rindone stated if there was a more equitable benefit to the City in the early years, that would mitigate having to get into the developers reserve fund. He did not know how a developer having to provide that insurance would price that out, He agreed with Councilmember Alevy's concerns. He was not opposed to the elimination of the developer reserve fund if a more equitable agreement could be negotiated. The developer would then be more able to market the homes which would be more beneficial to the City and County. Councilmember Padilia felt additional information was needed on the FIND Model and methodology, i.e. type of methodology employed; factors incorporated into the methodology; what it would mean in real terms regarding projected revenues, expenditures, and costs; and what would affect it and what would not. Having that information would be the key to understanding the model and what the numbers meant. He also felt the information would help to explain the operating deficits for the City in the early term. It was his understanding that the developers reserve fund would provide a revenue source for the yearly fiscal analysis costs for the County and potential shortfalls. Mr. Thomson responded that was correct. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 7 Councilmember Padilia felt that was essential to the agreement and he was concerned that there was not a lot of information on what the developers reserve fund meant and what the mechanisms involved meant. If the City was going to rely on that fund Council needed to understand that agreement and how it worked. He questioned if the General Development Plan anticipated that the developers would cover any operating deficits. Mr. Thomson responded that the General Development Plan was a little vague, but it basically stated that the developer would cover any deficits on either side. It did not really speak to the distribution between the City and County. County staff suggested that the developer cover the City's deficits and there were long negotiations over that issue. Councilmember Padilia stated he was not as interested as to what the County's posture was, but he was concerned as to what the language was agreed upon when the City concluded the General Development Plan with the County and what had changed since then and why. Mr. Thomson then reviewed the relevant sections of the General Development Plan. Councilmember Padilia requested that the information reviewed be included in the report when brought back to Council. Councilmember Moot stated he was on the Council Subcommittee and was familiar with where the City started and ended in the process. He noted that many of the questions being asked were the same questions he and Mayor Horton had asked at the subcommittee level. He felt it important to point out that the FIND Model was a projection and based on that projection the County had committed to transfer funds to the City so that there would be no deficits to the City during any portion of the agreement which he felt was critical. It was difficult to convince the County that the FIND Model was valid, but staff felt it was a good tool in predicting the impact of new development and was useful for the City. It was important to understand what it was doing; what it meant; why it did project deficits early on; and why it would catch up later. The agreement would not have been acceptable to him had it not been beneficial to the citizens of the City. Mr. Goss felt the item should be continued as Council had requested additional information. Because the County would be asked to continue the item for two weeks, he did not feel Council needed to take action in approving the Tax Revenue Agreement in concept. He requested that Council take action to request that LAFCO move forward with the City's annexation application. MS (Horton/Alevy) to continue Item 16A to 4/23/96; direct staff to contact LAFCO to express the Council's concerns regarding the scheduling of the annexation process. Mayor Horton agreed with Councilmember Moot's comments and understood the Council's concerns. It was a complex issue and she felt after the other Members had been briefed they would have a better understanding. She complimented staff on their efforts. Mr. Goss stated the workshop on 5/30/96 was on the Otay Ranch project and he felt it was directly related to the subject of that workshop. VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TO 5/30/96: approved unanimously. Item 16B Mr. Goss felt significant progress had been made on the agreement, but recommended that the item be continued to the 5/30/96 meeting to allow staff time to update Council. MS (Horton/Rindone) to continue Item 16B to the meeting of 5/30/96. Councilmember Rindone stated the "poison pills" on page 16B-2 were extremely significant. Tieing the agreement into the Property Tax Transfer Agreement was unfortunate as it should be a separate issue. Any one of the poison pills, if triggered, had the potential to bankrupt the City. There needed to be direction to staff to continue to negotiate to remove the poison pills. There also needed to be more safeguards and protections. He requested clarification of the definition of the "buffer zone" and what land use conditions would be acceptable to the County. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Goss responded that the buffer zone was defined, in terms of distance, as 1,000 ft. from the perimeter or boundary line of the land fill. In terms of what it was, staff had tried to compile a list of what would be compatible and what would be incompatible, and the conclusion was that at the present time it would be impossible to do, i.e. as intense and complicated as the Property Tax Exchange Agreement. It was conceptualized that the City would agree to pursue a General Plan Amendment which would primarily apply to Village II, which was presently residential and right next to the landfill. In Village VI, the GDP showed it as industrial and the County showed it as residential. If it annexed into Chula Vista the industrial designation would apply. The buffer was being addressed through a General Plan Amendment and discussion with the property owners regarding the possibility of utilizing a nuisance easement during the life of the landfill. Councilmember Rindone stated in past negotiations regarding tipping fees and land fill rates with the County, they had stated the anticipated life of the Otay landfill was 5-7 years and in the report the County indicated the life of the landfill could be another 20-25 years. He questioned the disparity. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, replied that the change was from the potential relining of the Otay landfill, increasing the elevation of the landfill territory within the unincorporated territory, and less waste going into the landfill in total quantity. Mr. Goss felt the poison pill issue needed to be discussed at some point. Mayor Horton requested that the City Manager address that issue with Councilmember Rindone or include it in the information to Council for the 5/30/96 meeting. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 17. RESOLUTION 18252 APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY - On 11/15/94, Council directed staff to return with a new exclusive negotiating agreement with Joelen Enterprises to develop the proposed hotel located on the 4400 block of Bonita Road adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 4/9/96. Councilmember Alevy stated that due to an association prior to his appointment to Council he would abstain from participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Mayor Horton stated that staff recommended the item be continued to the meeting of 4/23/96. · Josef Citron, 765 Bangor Street, San Diego, CA, representing Joelen Enterprises, stated they were cooperating with the request for a one week continuance. They were committed to the project and had very strong interest from their funding sources at the present time. The time period had been cut by one year, therefore, time did become a major factor. MSC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the item to the meeting of 4/23/96, approved 4-0-0-1 with Alevy abstaining. 18. RESOLUTION 18251 APPROV1NG AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - On 10/3/95, Council approved an agreement with the County of San Diego and Southwestern College. The estimated cost of the Southwestern College Bus Stop Improvement Project is $1,350,000. The County has designated $900,000 for the project, leaving a shortfall of $450,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. Continued from the meeting of 4/9/96. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that the Southwestern College Board had approved the agreement as written. He then reviewed the commitments made by the College Board. Staff was dissatisfied with the licensing provision of the agreement, Section 2C. The College would license the City to use their property, subject to mutual agreement from both parties. If the College did not agree to it they could tell the City to leave Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 9 the site at any time. Due to the City funds involved, staff felt that section should be renegotiate with the College and Mr. Conti stated that they would renegotiate. Staff recommended that the agreement be approved subject to renegotiating Section 2C and that terms be approved by the City Manager and City Attorney prior to award of any contracts for construction. MS (Rindone/Moot) to approve the staff recommendation to approve the agreement subject to renegotiating Section 2C and that terms be approved by the City Manager and City Attorney prior to award of any contracts for construction. Councilmember Alevy stated he was satisfied with the answers he had received regarding the location and design of the facility. He was not satisfied with Section 2C and did not feel the City had adequate protection. He questioned if striking the words "as long as it is mutually agreeable to beth parties" would be sufficient. Mr. Lippitt responded that would be satisfactory to the City staff, but it had not been discussed with the College staff. Councilmember Alevy felt there should be conditional approval but that it should be brought back to Council tbr ultimate approval. Councilmember Padilla stated the meeting with staff answered many of his questions. The College staff had agreed to relook at the issue of Section 2C which he felt was good. He wanted language in the resolution that made Council approval of the agreement conditional upon resolution of Section 2C. Mr. Boogaard proposed that the resolution be either modified or replaced with the following Minute Resolution: To approve the contract subject to a resolution of the license termination provision in a manner acceptable to the city manager or the city attorney. If the item was not acceptable to the City Manager it should be brought back to Council. With the approval of the contract, subject to the resolution of Section 2C prior to the letting of the bid, the County could advertise the contract, but not let the contract until the issue was resolved. Staff did not want to give specifics on how the issue should be resolved so that the City did not propose a way that was not acceptable to the College. Staff wanted the flexibility to entertain their concerns regarding length of license before making a commitment. MSUC (Padilla/Aievy) to amend Resolution 18251 to add language that the improvement was subject to the resolution of Section 2C to the acceptance of the City Manager. RESOLUTION 18251, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 19. RESOLUTION 18263 DENYING REVOCATION OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER PE-340 ISSUED TO BETTIE WARREN FOR A FENCE AND GATE ON CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 89 FIRST AVENUE - Bettie Warren, owner of the property known as 89 First Avenue, recently applied for and was granted an encroachment permit to allow her to install chain link fencing and a gate across a City-owned parcel, in front of her house. The neighbors are pefitioning for revocation of the encroachment permit. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, gave a brief review of the item. He then presented slides of the area. There was a private driveway owned by Mr. Garcia and Ms. Warren had an easement over Mr. Garcia's driveway to access her home, as well as all of the other properties on the east side of the City owned property. Residents of the general area of First Avenue had been walking along the driveway and accessing the canyon. With the installation of the fence and the gate it was extremely difficult for individuals to get around. Mayor Horton questioned if there was other access to the canyon. Mr. Swanson responded that there was access off Second Avenue, through the KOA property, and from the properties located directly along the canyon. The trail ran through the easement area. Councilmember Alevy questioned if Mr. Garcia was objecting to the gate and did not object to people walking through his property. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Swanson stated staff had not been contacted by Mr. Garcia. It was staffs understanding that Mr. Garcia did not object to people walking through his property. Those speaking in opposition to the gate and fences were: ® Melody Ashman, 33 Shasta Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Rosebank Kindergarten classes, presented a poster from the class in opposition to the gate and lack of access for the children to the canyon. · John Jensen, 89 Minot Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated his family built their home 50 yearn ago and that the area had been used for access to the canyon during that time as well as access to private property on both the east and west side. A fence along Ms. Warren's property line would solve the problem. There had not been any criminal activities, other than when Ms. Warren denied access to the area. He questioned why the City would allow a single resident to be the gatekeeper to an public passage way for so many people. · Henry Amador, 110 First Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had a clear view of the fence and easement and he had not seen any problems other than Ms. Warren calling the police. · Susan Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt a regular flow of people through the area increased security for the area and the canyon. People entering the area through other access points could be trapped by the fence, which had already happened. The fence was constructed on Mr. Malago's land which resulted in trespassing on his property. The fence was unsightly and she felt it would lower their property values. There was nothing in the staff report to substantiate the allegation that there was an increase in crime. The road was in the same condition it had been for the last 17 years and was perfectly safe. If the City chose to upgrade the road the neighborhood would be delighted and would also support signage prohibiting entrance after sundown. She felt liability was a false issue and the permit had been issued purely at the convenience of a single individual at the expense of the communities established practices. It was a community issue. · Frank Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt the staff report had been based on Ms. Warren's unfounded assertions. There was another house to the noah of Ms. Warren's which had been occupied for some time and Ms. Warren had signed a statement which stated the building would be used for storage. Staff was aware of the dwelling but it was not addressed in the report. He questioned why Ms. Warren received preferential treatment. He then referred to other inconsistencies within the report. If homeowners had been contacted staff would have been informed that "hot roding" did not exist in the area. The motorized vehicles utilizing the mad were Ms. Warren's renters and their guests. He referred to the problems Ms. Warren had stated she encountered and noted that if staff had contacted the property ownera they would have found that her complaints were unfounded as Ms. Warren's property was completely enclosed. Ms. Warren had a 5 ft. fence in her front yard and he questioned if that was allowed by the Municipal Code. He further questioned if the new fence was on City property. One of the requirements of the permit was to give owners of the land locked parcels keys which she did not do. · Frank Russo, 68 "D' Street, Chula Vista, CA, presented a petition in opposition to the fence and gate signed by 11)13 people in the surrounding area. He felt he could obtain a lot more signatures if needed. He walked the canyon twice a day and had never seen criminal activity. · Andrew Becerra, 87 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had used the canyon ever since he had been able to walk. He utilized the canyon as a short cut to Plaza Bonita and for exercise. · Douglas W. Hill, 1167 Cayamaca Avenue, San Diego, CA, presented a letter from Mr. VanZant, Principal, Rosebank Elementary School. Teachers at Rosebank had used the canyon as a classroom to study nature. Contrary to Ms. Warren, it was not a dangerous place and there had not been one case of a student being hurt on a field trip to the canyon. Ms. Warren had stated that the principal of Rosebank had told his staff not to take students to the canyon because "a child might get hurt." The letter addressed that issue, and it was untrue that Mr. VanZant had issued that bulletin. Children also walked to school through the canyon rather than walking on "E' Street which was more dangerous. The open space area was a valuable asset to the community. The local community was more than willing to help Ms. Warren protect her and her property. · Edward Garcia, 99 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated they lived next door to Ms. Warren and wanted to peacefully coexist with her, but her actions had become unreasonable. He stated that she was baiting and trapping their cats. She was manipulating the City for her own gain. The fence was being used as a weapon against the entire community. His father had owned the property for 14 years. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 11 Councilmember Alevy questioned if there had ever been damage to their property. Mr. Garcia responded that they had not had property damage. Teodulo (Ted) Garcia, 99 "D' Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated the fence and gate would deny access to the public lands extending to the canyon. His property contained the easement to the public land and Ms. Warren's property. For 14 years there had not been any problems. All should enjoy the use of the public land. Robert Rice, 401 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, Worley Schwartz Garfield and Rice, representing Mr./Mrs. Ed Malago and Mr./Mrs. Frank Luzzaro, stat~l there was a recorded easement granted by judgemerit many years ago and that was not in question. The fence was on City property, but was also 6-8 ft. on Mr. Malago's property to the west according to the surveys that had been prepared. Unfortunately, the survey had been done prior to the fence. He then distributed a letter from Mr. Malago which he stated had been submitted to staff, but Mr. Malago had not received a response. A pathway had been developed by people going around the fence well into Mr. Malago's property. He did not feel staff had all the information when reviewing Ms. Warren's request. Ms. Warren had also planted several trees on the west side of Mr. Malago's property line. Council had an opportunity to correct those issues. The Malago's were supportive of removing the fence and gate and had never experienced any problem with vandalism or any situation they felt would be a risk management problem. Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minot Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had utilized the easement for 39 years as well as his family. Michelle Catagnola, 92 "D' Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she was concerned that there were issues regarding private encroachments and past and present occurrences. She was also concerned with fire and public safety access with a locked gate. If the permit was not revoked, she felt a compromise could be made, i.e. Ms. Warren fence in her property and/or a fence with pedestrian access or removable posts that would prohibit vehicular traffic. Bettie Warren, 89 First Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated she had lived at that address for 28 years. She could not believe that an issue between herself and the City was being challenged by a few recruited individuals in the Rosebank area. The challengers were trespassors and intruders and had no say about the issue. They did not own property in the area. The City's easement was unimproved and undedicated for use by the public and the City was concerned regarding liability. The fence was erected for safety reasons because there were no street lights or police patrols. It would also serve to keep out vehicles. She lived on the easement and was the only one that knew what went on in the area. She had paid to obtain the easement to gain access to her home and maintained it with rock. There were three access areas to the canyon and people did not have to trespass on private property. There had been vandalism, trespass, and personal injury and the fence had helped a great deal. The principal of Rosebank School had stated that he would issue a bulletin prohibiting field trips in the canyon. All of the requirements of the permit had been met. Mayor Horton questioned if Ms. Warren's greatest concern was the vehicular traffic and noted that it appeared that the fence was encroaching on private property. Ms. Warren stated that vehicles were her greatest concern. Whether there was encroachment on private property was for the property owner to prove in a court of law. She had measured it for 38 ft. She wanted to live in peace and harmony and did not feel cats were the issue. She had experienced damage to her car due to cat scratches. She presented Council with pictures of the area. Mr. Garcia's property had street lights and police protection and he did not see what happened in the area. She expressed concern that illegal aliens were being "dumped" in the area, people were doing drugs in the area, and there were transients. Her property was for sale because she was afraid to live there any longer. Councilmember Alevy questioned the zoning of Ms. Warren's property. Ms. Warren responded that it was R1 with a granny flat on the property. Relatives were staying there and they would be moving in September. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 12 Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated that when the City property was being considered for the American Legion, he had not been able to obtain access without trespassing on private property. He felt it was a disservice to the community to have a fence and gate. Nancy Parks, 124 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated they lived there for 10 years and had the same problems Ms. Warren had, i.e. people walking dogs, kids parking, graffiti, etc. Everyone had problems but they had to deal with them. The previous fence in the area had a walk-thru opening which the new fence did not have. She walked in the area every day and had not see criminal activity. Public access should not be blocked. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated they had experienced the same problems many years ago and had established a park on the easement. Councilmember Padilia referred to a photo copy dated 10/28/88, City of Chula Vista Building & Housing, signed by Bettie Warren, which stated that the second building on the lot was "intended solely for workshop/storage use and not for habitable uses." He questioned if there was an explanation. Mr. Swanson replied that the Planning Department and Building & Housing would look into that. It was not addressed in the present report because it did not directly affect the use of the easement or encroachment permit. Councilmember Padilia questioned the extent of staff communication with Mr. Malago. Mr. Swanson stated that to his knowledge there had been no correspondence with Mr. Malago. Councilmember Padilia questioned if there was fence that encompassed Ms. Warren's property. He further questioned when the fence was constructed. Mr. Rice informed Council that a new chain link fence had been installed parallel to Ms. Warren's property which was not shown on the slides. Councilmember Padilia felt a legitimate issue regarding fairness had been presented and that there had mis- communication and mis-information. There was the potential of having other property owners being affected that the City was not aware of and there was a long history of pedestrian traffic. He questioned what the police department's criminal activity record in the area had been. He felt Ms. Warren solved some of her own problem with the installation of a fence around her property. It was clear that there was a benefit to the community. If it could be determined that there was a vehicle problem, then there could be a compromise of putting up posts that would stop vehicles and allow pedestrian access. If Ms. Warren's property was fenced, it was possible that the fence and gate could be taken down with the other problems being addressed by the police department. He was not prepared to support the resolution, but supported a compromise and revocation of the encroachment permit. Councilmember Moot questioned if the parcels along the easement were land locked. Mr. Swanson stated the parcels had the same access easement Ms. Warrren did. Each property owner was sent a letter by the City asking for their input as to whether they would be affected by a fence across the easement. One of the conditions of the easement was that all the property owners, Parcels 2-6, be issued keys so they could access their property. No input was received from any of the property owners. Councilmember Alevy stated it appeared that Ms. Warren had legally obtained an encroachment permit for the fence and gate. He questioned what the cost would be to put a slurry finish (or something of that type) on the drive to replace the rocks. The City had many natural and beautiful areas that people enjoyed using and it was too bad that the situation had escalated. The people that spoke on the item owned property in the neighborhood and were raising their children in the neighborhood. He felt there needed to be a compromise that would work for everyone. It appeared that the problem was with motorized vehicles. He had a problem in taking away what had become a part of life for the community. The fence was legally installed, but he was not certain that it was totally within the City's easement. He was concerned with the City's liability. There was no legal signage and he felt that could be part of the problem. The City needed to make it clear that the easement was available to the public, but they needed to respect the property fights of others. He supported the compromise as outlined by Councilmember Padilia and Ms. Castagnola. Minutes April16,1996 Page 13 Mr. Swanson stated staff had not verified the length of the fence, but issued Ms. Warren an encroachment permit to only go across the City property. If the fence went off the City property the encroachment permit would no longer be valid. She was advised that she should get a survey to determine the location of property lines. Ms. Warren responded that the fence was measured for 38 ft. on the 40 ft. City easement. Councilmember Rindone stated Council strived to reach compromises on issues, but what Ms. Warren had done was beneficial to the City and congruent with the City's legal rights and position regarding the safety issue of automobiles. He did not see any public benefit that would convince him that vehicles needed access into the area at any time. The competing concerns had to be weighed along with the legal requirements. He noted that Mr. Garcia had not granted an easement for public access. The City needed to address the legal and safety issues and the prohibition of access of automobiles should continue. He felt there should be a gate through the fence to allow walking access provided that prescriptive rights were granted by Mr. Garcia. If that was not obtained it was incumbent upon the City to continue what it was doing, i.e. deny access. He preferred to have the item referred to staff to see if the property owner was agreeable. As a Councilmember he was not happy to see public access through the area. It was an area that was waiting for an accident to happen and when looking at all options Council needed to maintain the safety and security of the area. Mr. Swanson clarified that the 40 ft. width of the City property did not begin until further into the property. The location of the fence, if the diagram was drawn accurately, was considerably less than 40 ft. at that point. If the fence was 38 ft. it could be on private property. Mr. Goss stated if there was going to be a gate to block vehicular traffic there was a need to allow access for police, fire, and sewer crews as well as property owners. A modification of an opening in the fence to allow pedestrian traffic could be done while leaving the gate for necessary vehicular traffic. The property was a right-of-way the City had in-fee for a number of years. The parcel had no connection with the dedicated street at either end and the width was not sufficient to construct a street which would meet minimum standards. In the past when the City had excess parcels, or parcels not being used for a formal public use, it had been offered to adjacent property owners for purchase. The City would need to retain an easement to maintain sewers. Councilmember Moot stated the issue was illustrative of the point that government could not be all things to all people and there was a limit of government's ability to solve problems. In such a situation he felt it best to remain neutral. By granting the encroachment permit the City ceased remaining neutral. It was unfortunate as it was a problem between private property owners and the people that lived in the area. He felt the issue should be solved by the people involved, therefore, he felt that revocation of the encroachment permit would be appropriate. If there were safety issues the Council should address those on the City property. MOTION: (Alevy) 1) revoke the encroachment permit; 2) remove the existing fence at the City's cost; 3) install at least two countersunk barrier poles at least 4 - 6 inches in diameter in the City easement that would restrict vehicular traffic; and 4) install official bi-lingual City signage stating "the area is not intended for passage and that those passing do so at their own risk and not hold the City liable." Councilmember Rindone stated there were competing interests, i.e. property rights and whether Mr. Garcia would be willing to grant an easement for public access. He felt the best action should address the following: 1) ensure that vehicular access to the area, other than emergency vehicles, would be prohibited and those with property fights would have access; 2) pedestrian access would be available; 3) the easement rights would be granted for public access by Mr. Garcia; 4) signage would be posted; and, 5) any modifications in the fence would be at the City's expense. Staff to return in two weeks to Council with a report. Councilmember Padilia stated it was his understanding of the recommendation that staff find out if Mr. Garcia was willing to grant an easement for public access and not revoke the encroachment permit, but modify the existing fence to allow pedestrian access and vehicular access for fire and public safety and property owners. He would favor that action. Councilmember Moot cautioned that there were probably several property owners that had easement fights over the same piece of property (owned by Mr. Garcia) and felt the issue could be more complex than the solution being offered. The City's obligation was to remain neutral and work for a solution between the people that had the property rights over the area in dispute. He felt the principles outlined were correct, i.e. there should be pedestrian access and if possible stop vehicle access with cooperation of the property owners with easement rights. Council's Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 14 first action should be to go back to a neutral position and direct staff to work with the property owners in the area to see if the recommendations by Councilmembers Alevy and Rindone could be accomplished. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Moot/Horton) Council adopt a resolution revoking the encroachment permit PE- 340; direct staff to meet with the property owners who have property easement rights in the area at issue; bring back a recommendation that would permit pedestrian access without prohibiting access rights of the owner in the area; and if agreeable, on privately owned land control vehicle access acceptable to the property owners with easement rights. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Alevy, agreed to by the Maker of the Motion) to install bi-lingual signage. Councilmember Alevy stated that whatever was installed should not be obtrusive to the area. A clear view was much better than chain link for the area. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported Councilmember Moot' s motion, but he was concerned with the removal of the fence prior to securing prohibition of vehicular access. He did not want to see an interim period which would allow vehicular access. If staff agreed that the fence would not be eliminated until the rest of the motion was achieve he could support the motion. Ms. Warren's concerns were with vehicular access and not pedestrian access. Mr. Swanson informed Council that if the permit was revoked the City would have to serve notice to take it down. A motion that vehicular access not be eliminated until another method was worked out would cover the situation. Mayor Horton questioned if there was a way to prohibit vehicular access while still allowing pedestrian access. Mr. Swanson responded that next to the vehicular gate, the fence could be modified to leave an open area 3 - 4 ft. wide to allow pedestrian access. Councilmember Padilia stated Councilmember Moot wanted the City to remove the fence, get out of the situation, take a neutral position, and allow the property owners to reach a solution. That would solve the City's concerns, but would not address the concerns by Ms. Warren regarding vehicle access. The Council was involved, the fence was there, and everyone's concerns should be addressed. He was not certain that there should be a revocation, but a modification of the existing fence which would address Ms. Warren's concerns. Councilmember Moot wanted everyone to have a solution they could live with. It was his belief that the permit should be revoked and start over. He did not have a problem with the status quo and felt the item should move forward. Councilmember Rindone felt Council needed to more forward. Councilmember Padilla's suggestion was not incongruent with Councilmember Moot's comments. He could support the motion if the portion revoking the encroachment permit was removed and it allowed a modification of the fence for pedestrian access until there was resolution. Councilmember Alevy stated he was concerned with the aesthetics. Those in the area liked the rural aspect. It appeared that the five property owners were apathetic regarding the fence. Council needed to make a decision and remove the fence. Vehicular traffic could be prohibited without a chain link barrier on City property. Ms. Warren should be allowed to keep any portion of the fence that was on her property. Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted to support the motion, but it did not address the vehicular traffic. Therefore, he could not support the motion. VOTE ON MOTION FOR REVOCATION: approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed. Councilmember Moot stated that staff was to return to Council as soon as possible with a recommendation that would address the vehicular access to the area, so that if reasonable, it could be prevented to preserve Ms. Warren's safety concerns and address the City's safety interests and reduce potential liability. Mr. Goss stated he was concerned that if the fence was removed the recommendation could be to put the fence back in a modified form. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 15 Councilmember Moot stated the revocation could be effective within 30 days. That would give staff 30 days to roturn to Council with a resolution. Mayor Horton stated that in the interim, pedestrian access needed to be provided in the existing fence. * * * Council recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 10:02 p.m. * * * 20. RESOLUTION 18264 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "BROADWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND ANITA STREET (ST-143)" - On 3/29/96, sealed bids were received. The work to be done includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaped medians, storm drain and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot questioned where the money came from during the interim period. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded that there were sufficient funds in the account to fully fund the cost of the contract and the utilities. There would be money left over for staff charges, but most of those charges would not accrue until after July 1st. Mayor Hotton stated the report referred to problems encountered with the contractor on a prior project, she questioned what safeguards were in place for the project. Mr. Swanson replied that the contractor would do one side of the street first, one-quarter of a mile at a time; would have to complete the improvements within the one-quarter mile; and after the existing curb and gutter were removed they would have 10 days to install the new curb and gutter. Those safeguards had been used on the last project and it allowed the contractor to get in and out without affecting the businesses. RESOLUTION 18264 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the safeguards were inherent in the bid. Mr. Swanson responded that was correct. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 18264: approved unanimously. 21. RESOLUTION 18265 APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE SALT CREEK SEWER LINE, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MITIGATION PROPERTY - On 2/13/96, Council approved an appropriation of sewer funds for the construction of a portion of the Salt Creek Sewer Trunk line which lies within the same proposed easement as SDG&E's pipeline 2000 project high pressure gas line. On 2/27/96, Council approved a Joint Use Agreement and a Joint Construction Agreement with SDG&E for the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and construction of the sewer line by SDG&E as part of their gas line project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Planning) 4/5th's vote required. RESOLUTION 18265 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanilnously. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 6, 12, and 13. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT{S) a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated the Board of Supervisors approved an item that provided for mitigation for the regional Veterans Home in Chula Vista. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 16 b. Mr. Goss stated that he had been selected to be a respondent to a lecture being given by David Janssen on 4/22/96 at 7:00 p.m. at the Red Lion Hotel. 23. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Current City Council Committee assignments. Mayor Horton felt committee assignments should be reviewed annually, but she had waited until after the election. She did not have any specific recommendations to change assignments but there were several vacancies that needed to be filled. She requested that Council consider an alternate for the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee as she would miss one of the meetings due to surgery on her arm. In the past it had been the Mayor Pro Tem. MSUC (Rindone/Padilla) to appoint Councilmember Moot as the alternate to the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee. Mayor Horton requested that Councilmembers contact her regarding the various appointments. She requested that the item be continued to the meeting of 4/23/96. 24. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. Scheduling of meeting, considering further Solid Waste Transfer Station Agreement. Councilmember Rindone requested an update from staff. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, presented Council with an update on the Solid Waste Transfer Station agreement. Staff requested flexibility to either bring the item back at the time they felt it was ready or continue it to 5/14/96. He did not feel the urgency existed, as it had previously, to bring the item to conclusion. · Councilmember Rindone congratulated staff on Chula Vista Expo '96. Those that were able to participate deemed it a great success. He requested that the Mayor send a letter of appreciation to staff on behalf of the Council. Councilmember Alevy · Councilmember Alevy stated he had attended the Miss Chula Vista contest with his daughter. He encouraged staff to invite the Queen and her new Court to be introduced to Council. He also felt there should be an official thank you to Cody Winslow, the outgoing Queen. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11:25 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on April 23, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency convened at 6:11 p.m. and adjourned at 6:13 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Horton stated Council would discuss SNMB vs. the City of Chula Vista, Tiger Development Two Bankruptcy, and purchase of property from R.E. Hazard Contracting Company. Council met in Closed Session at 10:53 p.m., and reconvened at 11:25 p.m. Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 17 25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · SNMB, L.P. vs. the City of Chula Vista. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Tiger Development Two Bankruptcy. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Purchase of property from R.E. Hazard Contracting Company, 1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. by: Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Cc~a'3~Vicki C. Soder~Uist, puty City Clerk