HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/05/28MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
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: May 14, 1996
MSUC (alevy/Padilla) to approve the minutes of May 14, 1996 as presented.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Brandon Tuck - Youth Commission; Teresa Thomas - Resource Conservation Commission;
Michelle Castagnola - Child Care Commission; and Daniel Wood - International Friendship Commission. The Oath
of Office was administered by City Clerk Authelet to Brandon Tuck, Theresa Thomas, Michelle Castagnola, and
Daniel Wood.
b. Proclaiming May 29 and May 30, 1996 as "Buddy Poppy Days." Jack Carlton, Commander of the VFW
and Shirley Sadulski, President of the Auxiliary accepted the proclamation.
c. Interviewing and hiring of legal counsel.
* * * Mr. Boogaard left the dais * * *
· Mr. Boogaard stated, not as the city attorney, that at the previous meeting he had objected to Mr. Levy's
representation of the city based on prior attorney/client relationship. He recommended that public comment be
allowed, Council comment be allowed, but rather than interviewing and retention of an attorney, that it be deferred
for a period of 30 days to allow Mr. Levy to meet with him and his counsel for the purpose of deciding if there
could be an amicable resolution of the matter. If not, Council would then conduct interviews for outside counsel
at that time. He was willing to provide a limited waiver of conflict of interest for that period of time to the use of
Mr. Levy. Council had established a relationship with Mr. Levy on the matter in the past and his use could be
economical. It would be in the best interest of the city to negotiate a settlement.
· Mark C. Mazzarella, 3435 Malito Drive, Bonita, CA, 1~11 Mr. Boogaard's suggestion was practical and could
result in the avoidance in both expense and a difficult and trying situation. They requested the deferment of
selection of counsel to advise on a procedure. In lieu of that procedure, they would have an opportunity to have
calmer and more objective individuals assist in the process. He f~lt they should try to reach an amicable solution
before things escalated and were irreversible and damage was done to the city attorney and the city. His purpose
was to avoid a mistake and to retain other counsel was inconsistent with that objective and sent the wrong message.
He would not take an adverse position with the city, if it reached that point he would withdraw.
Councilmember Padilla felt the situation was slipping into a lose/lose situation that would be very damaging to the
city and for all involved. He had not been intbrmed of the concerns or charges against Mr. Boogaard and he was
in the position of having to decide, when and if, outside legal counsel should be hired. That was very difficult
without knowing what was going on. He had not heard Mr. Boogaard threaten to the sue the city and did not
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 2
believe that was his objective. He was prepared to listen to the Mayor's concerns, but felt the proper procedures
should be followed.
Mayor Horton stated it was not her intent to embarrass the city attorney. It was her preference to go into closed
session to discuss the matter as it was not appropriate to discuss such a personnel matter in public. She believed
that she was doing what was in the best interest of the city, citizens, and business community. Council needed the
proper legal advice before discussing the item in public which was Mr. Boogaard's preference. She did not want
to put the city in jeopardy.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was surprised by Mr. Boogaard's recommendation, but felt it could avoid a
lose/lose situation. No one would ask for the city to be unrepresented and Mr. Boogaard had recommended that
Mr. Levy represent the city during that period. Council had to make every effort in exploring viable options. The
Mayor had shared her concerns regarding Mr. Boogaard and they shared different views on the seriousness of those
concerns. Council had honored the requests of other top management in the past regarding their reviews and he
f~lt Mr. Boogaard deserved no less.
Councilmember Moot did not feel that Mr. Levy would accept any request to represent the city because of the things
that Mr. Boogaard said. If one of the attorneys felt Mr. Levy, because of his prior knowledge, was the best person
to engage in settlement discussions then he would follow that advice. He felt it was better to have an independent
person help them decide what to do.
Mr. Mazzarella stated he spoke with Mr, Levy and it was his observation that Mr. Levy could set aside the
comments made by Mr. Boogaard at a previous meeting. He had proposed the waiver to Mr. Levy and it was his
understanding that it was acceptable.
Councilmember Moot did not feel Mr. Levy was in a position to advise Council procedurally on how to go forward.
Councilmember Alevy felt the reality was that it was already nasty and divisive. He was trying to listen to what
everyone had to say, but staff had told him that city government was virtually paralyzed due to the unfortunate
situation that existed. He felt personnel matters were private and should be handled that way. He did not want to
take a major step without knowing what was legal, and it was in the best interest to hire outside legal counsel.
Mayor Horton stated she did not have a problem in letting Mr. Levy represent the Council on the matter. She
would leave it up to the Council as to how they moved forward, but she did not feel it was healthy for the city or
it's employees to let the situation drag on.
Councilmember Moot stated he would not move forward until Council had independent legal advice. No attorney
could effectively be in Mr. Levy's position. Mr. Levy could serve a very limited role such as discussing a
settlement, but he was not in a role to independently advise the city on what it should do or how it should go
forward.
· Ms. Melanie Poturica, Liebert, Cassidy and Fierson, stated it was their understanding that the interviews should
be taking place in open session.
· Peter Brown, Liebert, Cassidy and Fierson, stated that Government Code Section 54957 of the Brown Act
provided that a legislative body could hold a closed session to consider appointment, employment, evaluation of
performance and other things of a public employee. The section went on to say that "employee" included an officer
or independent contractor that functioned as an employee. He did not believe that outside legal counsel functioned
as an employee and, therefore, Council could not go into closed session.
Councilmember Rindone felt Council had tried to keep all staff out of the situation with the unanimous motion made
last week. It appeared that staff had coordinated the interviews. Council needed to ensure that staff, other than
those in the Mayor/Council office not be involved.
The following interviews were conducted by Council:
1. Whitmore, Johnson and Bolanos - Ms. Cynthia O'Neal, Senior Partner - $175/hour
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 3
2. Leibert, Cassidv and Fierson - Ms. Melanie Poturica, Managing Partner - $190/hour; Peter Brown, Senior
Associate - $180/hour
3. Best. Best and Kreiger - Ms. Arlene Prater, Partner - $150/hour
4. Kemp & Pratt - H. Wesley Pratt, Partner - $150/hour
5. Foley Lardner Weissburg & Aronson - Larry L. Marshall, Partner - $188/hour
All interviewees were asked if they had talked to anyone regarding the specifics of the situation and all responded
that they had not. They were also asked if they had a business or personnel relationship with any member of the
Council or senior management. Ms. Prater stated that she had worked for the city through the city attorney and
personnel department approximately one year ago on revisions to the Department of Transportation Drug & Alcohol
Testing Policy. Mr. Pratt stated that he knew and worked with Councilmember Rindone on the Metropolitan Transit
Board. Mr. Pratt also stated that he had worked with the city, in conjunction with another law firm, in 1993 as
co-bond counsel on city industrial development bonds.
· Jeff Phair, 3440 Bonita Woods, Bonita, CA, urged Council to take 30 days and reach an understanding. He felt
the present action was divisive to the city, and the city and the people of Chula Vista would be the ones that were
hurt.
· Dennis Rowley, 209 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt the public had the right to know the charges being
levied. Mr. Boogaard had the right to his "day in court" and know why the action was being rushed through. He
suggested that action be deferred until after the election in November.
· Barbara Salazar, 1925-157 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, speaking on behalf of Eleanor Jackson, 275
Orange #130, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of Mr. Boogaard.
Mayor Horton stated she did not feel comfortable in retaining a firm that had past contact with city staff or Council
or had other business dealings with the city.
Councilmember Alevy stated he concurred with the Mayor's connnents. Council wanted as fair a decision as
possible decision. He supported Mr. Marshall due to the firms local knowledge, experience, and concern expressed
in mediating and reaching an amicable agreement.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was impressed with the presentation by Leibert, Cassidy & Fierson and their
degree of expertise in the field and major resources available.
Councilmember Moot stated the reputation of Mr. Whitemore was very good, but he understood the argument of
keeping the work local. He was also impressed with Mr. Marshall.
Councilmember Padilia stated Council was well aware of the legal risks and applicable laws, but he believed in the
fundamental issue of fairness when dealing with an employee. He would not support any motion to retain counsel
at the present time. He felt all employees deserved an explanation as to why they were being terminated.
MOTION: (Rindone) to hire Leibert, Cassidy & Fierson as outside legal counsel to the City Council, motion
died for lack of second.
MSC (Alevy/Moot) to hire Foley Lardner Weissburg & Aronson as outside legal counsel to the City Council,
approved 3-2 with Padilia and Rindone opposed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 11)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved unani~nously. Councihnember Moot abstained on Item 6.
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 4
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that in Closed Session on 5/21/96 Council discussed a potential case
of litigation, the name of ~vhich is being withheld under the authority of Government Code Section 54956.9.1,
and MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to appropriate $25,000 for additional investigation fees in connection with
Personnel cases. The Council also discussed the proposed sale of property regarding Marina View Park.
Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable action taken by the Council in Closed
Session. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter requesting assistance in easing the traffic flow on East "J" Street by Halecrest Elementary School -
Vera M. Madison, Principal, Halecrest Elementary School. It is recommended that this item be referred to staff
and the Safety Commission for further review.
c. Letter of resignation from the Youth Cmnmission - Stephen Noble. It is recommended that the resignation
be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the
Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
d. Letter of resignation from the Growth Management Oversight Commission - Glenn E. Goerke. It is
recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately
according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6. ORDINANCE 2675 AMENDING THE LAND USE DISTRICT MAP ESTABLISHED BY THE RANCHO
DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA I PLAN BY 1) CREATING ONE LAND USE DISTRICT FROM
TWO EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICTS BY COMBINING SAID TWO DISTRICTS, 2) REDESIGNATING
APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES OF LAND 1NTO THE NEWLY CREATED LAND USE DISTRICT, 3)
DELETING TWO EXISTING LAND USE DISTRICTS, AND 4) MODIFYING THE PERMITTED,
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES APPLICABLE THERETO FOR THE
NEWLY CREATED LAND USE DISTRICT (second reading and adoption) Applicant is requesting that the
parcels currently designated under the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area I Plan as Employment Park 1A and
Employment Park 1B (EP-1A and EP-1B) be combined into a new district called, Employment Park. This would
entail creating the new land use district and deleting the two old districts and defining the permitted, conditionally
permitted, and prohibited land uses applicable thereto. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading
and adoption. (Director of Planning)
Councilmember Moot abstained from participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest.
7. ORDINANCE 2676 AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION 10.48.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE -
DECREASING STATE LAW SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND ESTABLISHING A SPEED
LIMIT OF 40 M.P.H. ON PASEO RANCHERO FROM EAST "H" STREET TO TELEGRAPH CANYON
ROAD (second readimz and adoption) - The City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic
hazards and traffic congestion, and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Paseo Ranchero between
East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road be decreased from a prima facie 55 mph to establish a 40 mph speed
zone, and install an all-way stop at Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street due to limited sight distance available. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
8. ORDINANCE 2677 AMENDING SECTION 10.48.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, INCREASING
STATE LAW SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 35
M.P.H. ON EAST "J" STREET FROM RIVER ASH DRIVE TO PASEO RANCHERO (second readin~ and
adoption) Based on the provisions of the Safety Commission Policy, whenever the Safety Commission and the City
Engineer differ on the recommendation of a traffic related issue, both parties have the right to appeal the matter to
the Council for final resolution. The report is the City Engineer's appeal to overrule the recommendation of the
Safety Commission to install an all-way stop at this intersection. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance
on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 5
9. RESOLUTION 18303 APPROVING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ATS COMPUTERS, INC.
TO PROVIDE DESKTOP COMPUTERS, PRlNTERS AND PERIPHERALS ON AN "AS-NEEDED" BASIS
THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 1996, WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR AN
ADDITIONAL EIGHT (8) MONTH PERIOD THROUGH JUNE 30, 1997 -Standard specifications for desktop
computers, printers, and peripherals have been developed and bid out on the open market. The intent of the bid
process was to commit to a single supplier over a period of time for favorable terms and pricing. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
10. RESOLUTION 18315 GRANTING THE 1996 RICHARD WELSH MEMORIAL AWARD TO THE
OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER LOCATED AT 1750 WUESTE ROAD - On 9/20/88, Council created the
Richard Welsh Memorial Award in memory of Mr. Richard Welsh, a long-time resident of the city, an architect,
an educator and a former member of the Design Review Committee. The award is intended to recognize both
superior architectural design and characteristics exemplifying the beautification of Chula Vista. The Beautification
Awards Committee had nominated the Olympic Training Facility to receive the award. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
11. RESOLUTION 18316 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "THE
CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIAN ISLANDS ON COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IN THE CITY (TF-222) - On
5/1/96, sealed bids were received. Funds for the construction of the project were included in the fiscal year
1995/96 Capital Improvement Program budget. The work to be done includes the installation of stamped concrete
medians, pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, and traffic control. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Alfred Salganick, 855 Country Club Drive, Chula Vista, CA, felt the concrete would be unattractive and would
not serve the putpose staff proposed. He felt there should be more enforcement of the speed laws.
Mayor Horton stated it was her understanding that members of the neighborhood had requested that Council install
the median islands.
Mr. Salganick stated he could not speak on behalf of other people. The concrete would visually impact only two
homes. They also wanted to have the rubber barriers removed.
Mayor Horton felt uncomfortable moving forward if the neighborhood did not want the project. She felt Council
needed to rehear the item so Council could obtain a greater understanding of what the neighborhood's needs were.
Councilmember Alevy requested input from the police department as to whether it was an item of public safety.
Councilmember Moot felt it important to re-canvass the neighborhood.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated they had been contacted by residents
regarding the problem and he recommended that residents be notified with the item brought back to Council as an
action item.
· Teresita Salganick, 855 Country Club Drive, Chula Vista, CA, requested that Council revisit the issue.
MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) to continue the item for three weeks (June 18); staff to notify residents for final
resolution; and check with the police department regarding any safety problem in t. he area.
12.A. REPORT COMPLETION OF DESIGN PLANS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER,
AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN
CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE - During the FY 1995/96 Capital Improvement
Program budget process, Council approved funding for the installation of i~nprovements along the east side of
Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. Where gratis dedication was granted, the
city would install said improvements at no cost to the property owners. Where gratis dedication was denied, the
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 6
city would install asphalt berm and sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. Shaft recommends Council accept
the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 18317 ACCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO COMPLETE
DESIGN PLANS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND
ORANGE AVENUE
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
* * * Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. * * *
This item was set for time certain at 6:00 p.m.
13. RESOLUTION 18318 APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
INCLUDING BOTH THE FY 1996/97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF
THE FY 1996/97 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - On 5/7/96, Council received public comment on the draft Consolidated Plan for FY
1996/97 and reviewed all pro. iect and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day
comment period to review the draft Consolidated Plan began on 4/18/96 and ended 5/17/96. All public comments
received have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, integrated into the final version of the Consolidated Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) to cnntinue the item to the meeting of 6/04/96 as recommended by staff.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
14. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES
REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY
CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - The first Otay Ranch SPA Plan governs Villages One
and Five. SPA One covers 1,061.2 acres generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo
Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. The Otay Ranch SPA One application is the first SPA/specific plan
submitted to implement the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP jointly approved by the City and County on 10/28/93. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special planning Projects
Manager, Otay Ranch Project) Continued from the meeting of 05/14/96.
A. ORDINANCE 2674 APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PCM 95-01B) {first readine)
B. RESOLUTION 18286 RECERTIFYING THE SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLAN AND APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN,
VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS,
PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE
2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY
CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN, AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Richard Rosaler, Senior Planner, stated six issues needed to be addressed by Council. The first two dealt with the
conveyance plan of the Phase II RMP. Village Development had requested that the two items be continued to
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 7
6/04/96. Therefore, staff recommended that Item e-3 - Resource Management Plan - Conveyance and e-4 Resource
Management Plan - Conveyance Timing be continued to 6/04/96. Staff combined their presentation on the SPA
I Phasing, Temporary Access, and Trigger Points.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Michael Woodward, 555 S. Flower Street, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, representing West Coast Land Fund,
referred to their letter of 5/24/96 which requested a delay on final action of the Baldwin Plan until their motion to
seek relief from stay to proceed with their foreclosure action on Tiger Two Development property was heard. A
heating date had been set for 7/03/96. If Council took action, they proposed the multiple ownership condition, as
they felt there was going to be a change of ownership and had submitted a letter in opposition to the Conveyance
Timing and Phasing issues. They supported the phasing plan recommended by the city's Planning Commission.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if Mr. Woodward was aware that the Baldwin Company only owned
approximately 1,000 acres of the 23,000 acres.
Mr. Woodward stated he was aware of that in/i~rmation, he was ret~rring to Tiger Development Two which was
an affiliate of the Baldwin Company and Village Development. In SPA I, Tiger Development Two, owned 24%
of the land. That land was currently subject to it's own bankruptcy case. The other Baldwin bankruptcy, Baldwin
Builders, included other properties.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what the vision was of West Coast Land Fund ti>r their acreage in Village 5.
Mr. Woodward replied he did not believe they were prepared to develop the land at the present time and would look
to sell to a local developer.
Councilmember Alevy questioned how long West Coast Land Fund had an interest in the property in the Otay Ranch
Development. He further questioned if it was just an ownership interest in the parcel.
Mr. Woodward responded that they renegotiate the loan on the property in April 1994, and at that time they did
that on the reliance of the GDP and SRP as approved by the Council and Board of Supervisors in 1993. The first
payment on that loan was due September 1995, and when they found out that there were plans by their borrower
to change the land uses they became concerned. They participated at~er the default.
· Bruce N. Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue #100, Chula Vista, CA, EastLake Development Company, addressed access
to a piece of property, southwest comer of Otay Lakes Road and future SR-125, that would become a future piece
of EastLake. In December, EastLake requested that an alternative subdivision plan for the Otay Ranch Village 5
project be reviewed so that four-way access could be provided to the EastLake property. Without such access,
ingress and egress to the property would be limited to a right-in and right-out only. In March, staff responded that
they had done an analysis of their request and ~bund that there would be constraints such that if an access was
approved through the Otay Ranch parcel, it would be egress only. Staff also recommended that discussion be
deferred until the tentative map. They were in concurrence with that, but they had not heard acknowledgement of
that from Council.
Multiple Ownership Condition
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, Village Development, emphasized that the Baldwin
Company owned approximately 1,000 acres, none of which was in SPA I or particularly relevant to the SPA I
proceedings before Council. The West Coast Land Fund made allegations that Village Development's intention was
to sell off land, and as they had stated repeatedly, their intent to was secure the tentative map entitlements and have
the project annexed to the City of Chula Vista so they could sell some lots to guest builders to generate sufficient
revenues in order to pay off their obligations, including West Coast Land Fund. After the first SPA was approved
and they were able to sell off several hundred lots to guest builders, they would retain title to 14,000 - 15,000
entitled homes in Otay Ranch. They hoped to market that area and eventually build themselves in order to generate
profits. The Tiger Two property, which was collateral for West Coast Land Fund, was approximately 1,100 acres
and only 250 of those acres were within SPA I. It was their hope and expectation to retain title to that property
as soon as they could sell land and satisfy their obligations. It was important to emphasize that the SPA plan had
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 8
not changed and did not conflict with the GDP. There was a sense that Baldwin manipulated the land plan to burden
West Coast's collateral with undesirable land uses and that was not correct. The land plan was developed through
two years of heavy deliberations and the land uses were where they were in order to be consistent with the GDP.
Therefore, they felt the proposed Multiple Ownership Condition was not necessary. With the condition it would
be difficult for them to sell lots to guest builders and then West Coast Land Fund's threat could be come a reality.
He requested that Council agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to deny inclusion of the condition.
Mr. Rosaler stated that staff felt if West Coast Land Fund took over the property they were interested in replanning
Village 5. The city attomey's office suggested the condition as a way to give Council the option to stop and replan
Village 5 if the ownership did change. The Planning Commission voted 5-i not to add the condition.
Councilmember Moot questioned if Village 5 could be replanned without the condition.
Mr. Rosaler responded that there was nothing to stop the city from replanning Village 5, but the attomey's office
felt having the applicants agreement that it could be don~ if there was a change in property ownership. Council had
that authority under the city's zoning ordinance and PC districts.
Mr. Goss stated one of the concerns was that if the SPA plan was approved and annexed to the city, and then
Baldwin sold the property, the property would probably be sold on the basis of that approval rather than the
replanning that might take place. There was also a question as to what the city's liability would be with dual
ownership.
MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) non-binding approval of the Planning Commission recommendation: to deny the staff
recommendation and delete the condition.
Regional Transit Funding
· Bill Leiberman, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, stated it was their intent to get the dedication of the
right-of-way to the prnperty, and beyond that look at funding part of the cost for construction from an assessment
district that would primarily Irbcus on the vacant lands that constituted Otay Ranch and possibly City of San Diego
and Otay Mesa area, not a city-wide type of assessment district. The lowering of densities in the Villages was of
some concern because 14 was getting to the lower limit for light rail. There was no inducement to build a line to
an area that did not have high densities. They had been supportive of the project from that start due to the promise
of high densities and the transit/pedestrian orientation. If the transit orientation was simply bus orientation then the
densities would not be as critical. If they were looking at public investment in a light rail line there needed to be
some return for the public for that investment. The change in density from 18 to 14 had a lot of implications, they
had originally suggested 20-22 units per acre.
Phasing of Development
Mr. Rosalet gave a brief presentation on the phasing in the PFFP. The High School District indicated that they
were concerned with the phasing of the project and the high school site. Staff modified Condition 45 to address
their concerns. They had since withdrawn their letter of concern.
Councilmember Alevy stated the phases were market driven and questioned the time frame for phasing.
Mr. Rosaler stated it was a difficult question. Staff had purposely avoided time in doing the phasing, all facilities
were based on dwelling units. The traffic study looked at a 15 year build-out of the SPA which was conservative.
Councilmember Moot questioned the logic in developing both villages at the same time.
Mr. Rosalet replied that was the applicant's proposal as they felt there was a strong single family market and that
the villages were far enough apart geographically that they could open them both at the same time and meet the
market demand. The initial first phase was the Village Core and Village 5 and then work to the north with single
family development. The improvements on LeMedia would cost approximately $6 million and the developer did
not feel they could afford such off-site road improvements to open the villages, so they were looking at something
less expensive with the two road connections at Telegraph Canyon. Staff understood the economic situation and
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 9
there were conditions of approval where at 1,400 units the developer would have to report to Council on a number
of different issues.
· Kent Aden, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, Village Development, felt that each one of the villages was
marketable under a separate identity, potentially catering to a different market segment. They concurred with the
staff recommendation on phasing. A goal in the phasing was to provide adequate emergency access, traffic capacity,
adequate schools and parks, infrastructure be economically feasible and realistic as compared to the development
phase, market driven, aesthetically desirable, and provide critical mass to insure the success of the core. They
would be putting in twice the amount in Phase I as the project would generate in DIF fees.
Councilmember Alevy stated Telegraph Canyon Road would be widened to six lanes and include an easement for
light rail. He questioned if the easement was to the south of Telegraph Canyon along the easement.
William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that staff was not intending to have the transit right-of-way dedicated
in that area at the present time.
Mr. Rosalet stated precise design had not been done by MTDB, but their indication was that the right-of-way would
be on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road up to I-805, and they had not addressed how it would fit in past
that point.
Mr. Aden stated they had worked with staff through a number of issues and both the staff and applicant supported
the phasing plan at the present time. He requested that Council support the market driven plan.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what incentive Village Development had to develop beyond the single family
units.
Mr. Aden responded that the intention was to sell off the first few phases in order to bring current financial
commitments. At that point the incentive to go forward was the additional 10,000-12,000 units and finally make
some money on the project. It was a long term investment.
Councilmember Moot questioned what guarantees there were that if the applicants phasing plan was followed that
there would be money available to build LeMedia and extend Paseo Ranchero.
Mr. Aden replied that as those phases of development occurred, the standard city practice was to require bonding
for the off-site improvements. When the final maps for each of the phases were recorded the improvements would
have to have plans prepared and be bonded. The streets were guaranteed under the city's normal development
process.
Mr. Woodward stated it was not clear to him from the conditions on SPA I which final map they were talking
about. The conditions talked about a first final map and then later a different provision allowing them to sell to a
merchant builder. It was at that point Baldwin would sell off the super block. He questioned when the bonds would
be posted. There was no market for multi-family dwellings but that was being loaded on the West Coast collateral.
He questioned why a village was not built out to completion.
· Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated her concern was mass transit, i.e. the trolley. She
recommended that the trolley go up into the back of the SPA and then out so the route would not have to be changed
which could interfere with the already functioning system in the southern area of the city. She was opposed to gated
comrnunities.
MS (Rindoneatorton) non-binding approval of the staff recommendation: to approve the phasing program
as proposed by the applicant (opposite of the Planning Commission recommendation).
Councilmember Moot stated it was a difficult decision and he had not made up his nfind at the present time.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 10
Trigger Points Established
Mr. Rosaler stated the trigger points dealt with parks, high school and elementary school, traffic, and sewer and
drainage routes.
MS (Horton/A!evy) non-binding approval of the staff recommendation: establish the trigger points for
construction of parks, schools and public infrastructure improvements as presented.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the trigger points fi~r the schools took into consideration development occurring
outside the project.
Mr. Rosalet responded that it did not. The individual elementary schools were based solely on development within
SPA I. When the project generated the demand for half of the high school site, the school had to be provided. The
high school was shown in Village 7 which was centrally located in the western parcel. The district was concerned
with the development of the surrounding area and that the site would be needed sooner. That was acknowledged
in the conditions of approval and in Condition 45. The high school did take into consideration the development
outside of the project.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if the Parks & Recreation staff was satisfied with the trigger points.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated he was satisfied with the neighborhood park triggers. The
community park allocation concerned him, but he hoped that would be worked out because where ever the high
school site went the community park would go with it, and that had yet to be determined. One assurance they had
was that the developer would be paying park fees into a separate account, then if the development did not occur in
it's entirety there would be set aside monies to be utilized.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
PC District Regulations - No action taken.
· B. Suzanne Farley, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland. CA, representing Estate of Patrick, not present when called
to dais.
· Donald R. Worley, 101 W. Broadway, Suite 1300, San Diego, CA, representing the Birch Foundation, SNMB,
Inc., and Jewels of Charity, was not present when called to the dais.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
15. PUBLIC HEARING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PCA-96-05; CONSIDERATION OF MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15.04.145 (EXCAVATION, GRADING
AND FILLS) - CITY INITIATED - In December 1994, the Council updated the city Landscape Manual. Certain
minor procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are needed in order to reflect consistency with the updated
Manual. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of
5/14/96.
ORDINANCE 2678 AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15.04.145 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE REVISED LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS (first
reading)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public hearing was declared closed.
ORDINANCE 2678 PLACED ON FIRST READING, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
unanimously.
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 11
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Barbara Salazar, 1925-157 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated she supported Mr. Boogaard.
Mayor Hotton stated the item had been previously discussed and requested that those supporting Mr. Boogaard stand
to be recognized. Those recognized were Eleanor Jackson, Paul LaPierre, and Ed Nagorski.
· Ralph B. Zahn, 262 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of Mr. Boogaard. He was upset with
the arguing between councilmembers as he felt it was destructive for the city.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submittexl.
ACTION ITEMS
16.A. REPORT DENIAL OF REQUEST BY ELITE RACING FOR A DONATION OF $12,300 FOR A
BICYCLING EVENT "TOUR DE SOUTH COUNTY" ON JULY 14, 1996 - Elite Racing has submitted a
written request for a donation of $12,000 (plus in-kind staff support services) tBr the 7/14/96 event. Staff
recommends the request be denied and the resolution not be approved. (Director of Parks and Recreation and
Budget Manager)
B. RESOLUTION 18320 AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $12,000 FOR A DONATION TO
ELITE RAClNG FOR THE "TOUR DE SOUTH COUNTY" - 4/5th's vote required.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the timing of the program was in July and Mr. Murphy
had to begin his planning. Normally it would have been included in the normal budget process. The staff
recommendation was financially driven, but staff felt it had been beneficial to the city.
· Tim Murphy, 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway #102, San Diego, CA, representing Elite Racing, stated they had
been working on events with the city for eight years and had raised over $100,000 tbr local charities. They would
appreciate Council's continued support.
Councilmember Alevy stated he supported the event, but t~lt Council would have difficult budget decisions ahead
in order to ensure that necessary services continued. He questioned if Council could approve the in-kind services
requested.
Mr. Valenzuela responded that it would be allocating hours that had been budgeted, but not budgeted for that event.
Staff costs were estimated at approximately $3,000 which would be from normal operating expenses.
Mayor Hotton stated she would support the in-kind staff services.
MS (Rindone/Horton) to support Elite Racing with the in-kind services the city had provided in the past.
Councilmember Rindone stated even in-kind services could impact the Parks & Recreation budget. He supported
the race, but it was a tight budget year and he supported the staff recommendation.
Mr. Murphy stated they had a $20,000 sponsorship from McMillin Companies last year, but they were not
sponsoring the present race. They would put the event on because their reputation was on the line, but it would
be the last race. He did not feel it was good fbr the community to let the event die. He felt they would lose
approximately $20,000.
Mr. Goss stated there were a lot of unknowns going into the first quarter of the new fiscal year. He suggested that
Council defer action on the item until the revenue issues became clear.
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 12
Councilmember Rindone stated it was a professional/for profit marketing group and he could not support it at the
present time due to the proposed budget cuts Council would have to consider. The present budget had a deficit of
approximately $3 million.
Councilmember Moot felt it would be in the city's interest to provide at least the police in-kind services for traffic
and crowd control and to work with the sponsor to develop safe and appropriate use of the city streets. The public
works department should also be included.
Councilmember Alevy stated his motion was for in-kind services that did not go into overtime, i.e. costing the city
additional funds.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Rindone opposed.
17. REPORT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) - OTAY RANCH
UNIVERSITY SITE - ON 5/21/96, Council provides] direction to staff regarding draft 'Subarea Plans" for Chula
Vista to be analyzed in the final draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the MSCP. The Council deferred
action regarding delineation of the Otay Ranch University Site, pending further discussion with the wildlife agencies.
Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 5/21/96.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated staff recommended that the final draft EIR for the MSCP include two
alternatives: 1) reflecting the adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan and university site designation; and
2) consideration of two policy options, i.e. (a) designation of a reconfigured and reduced university site east of
Villages 9 and 10 which would include approximately 288 acres and reduce impacts, and (b) consider the purchase
of the 400 acre portion of the currently designated university site by the wildlife agencies for inclusion into the
preserve system and acquisition of an alternative university site acceptable to the city through a land exchange or
other acceptable mechanism. The second alternative came out of discussions with the wildlife agencies and would
be subject to certain principles set forth in the letter. Staff would work with the university task force to evaluate
other alternative sites for consideration while the biological analysis was prepared on the two alternatives as part
of the EIR. Staff would return with final recommendations on the issue. A letter had been received from the
Endangered Habitats League raising specific concerns regarding that approach.
® Rod Davis, 46 Center Street, Chula Vista, CA, past member of the UCCV Task Force, stated it scared him to
hear staff talk about an alternate site. The document regarding requirements for a university site was approximately
150 pages and one was a specific description of topography, water view, etc. The one site was unique and fit most
of the requirements. He requested that Council not take action until reviewing the document to see if them were
any other compatible sites within the city. The university claimed that they would bring $100 million to the
community. He urged Council to move slowly in putting the property in the preserve when it could possibly be
the only site in town.
Councilmember Rindone did not feel there was another .site and that Mr. Davis was correct. If Council proceeded
it was a vote against the university in Chula Vista. He was disappointed in the staff recommendation and would
not support the request.
® Michael Beck, P. O. Box 841, Julian, CA, represenl:ing the Endangered Habitats League, clarified that he had
been informed that their letter could be considered a threat and that was not their intent. Their position had been
consistent over the years, i.e. the resource value of the area should determine the land use if the city participated
in the MSCP program. If the decision, based on the resource value, was that a university site was not allowed
there. Villages 9 and 10 were adequate, which they supported. It was a question of being able to reconcile two
conflicting desires, i.e. a desire to participate in the program and the benefits of the MCCP program, and to have
a specific university site which was in the middle of significant habitat and would probably not be permitable from
their position. They supported a site in Villages 9 and 10.
Conncilmember Moot stated his position had also been consistent from when he was on the Planning Commission.
He felt the 400 acres should be designated as a possibility, but it could be that the Endangered Habitats League was
correct and that no university could build in the area due to the resources involved. To give it up before it had been
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 13
planned or looked at did not make any sense. The 400 acres did not make or break the viability of the MSCP
preserve.
Councilmember Rindone stated he agreed with Councilmember Moot's comments. Council needed to be vigilant
in their efforts to make it clear that it would not be included.
MOTION: (Rindone) to table the item.
Councilmember Moot stated the message to staff should be clear, i.e. Council wanted every eftbrt made to the
preserve the university site.
Councilmember Padilia stated a previous designation was not being deleted nor would Council be limiting their
flexibility. It would allow for language in the MSCP for alternatives. The original applicant had given up a lot
and the ability to attract a university to Chula Vista was critical. The staff recommendation would allow flexibility.
Mr. Letter responded that the two alternatives would be forwarded to the City of San Diego for inclusion into the
final MSCP EIR and they would then be studied within the EIR. Staff would return to Council with a final
recommendation when the study was completed.
MOTION: (Padilia) to approve the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what the impact would be of his motion.
Mr. Letter replied that staff would have to return to Council tbr further direction if the implication was that staff
was to study only the university site as designated in the Otay Ranch GDP.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was his intent and felt it sent a strong message to staff and everyone else that
the university site set aside was extremely important to the city. n
SECOND TO MOTION TO TABLE: (Alevy) motion failed 2-3 with Horton, Moot, and Padilia opposed.
MSC (Padi!la/Horton) to approve staff recommendation, approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 11. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss reminded Council that the budget overview would be on Wednesday, May
291h at 6:00 p.m. He requested that Council hear the Nature Center, Fire, City Clerk, Finance, and non-
departmental at that time.
19. MAYOR'S REPORT(S}
a. Ratification of appointment: Chester S. DeVore and Jean A. Rogers - Board of Ethics.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to ratify the appointment of Chester S. DeVote and Jeau A. Rogers to the Board of
Ethics.
b. Authorization to hire legal counsel. Mayor Hotton noted that the item had been discussed under Special Orders
of the Day.
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 14
c. Public employee perlbrmance and condnct, consideration of discipline or discharge - City Attorney. Mayor
Horton stated the item wonld be discussed with legal counsel at the 6/6/96 meeting under her comments.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moot
® Survey of county trash rates. Conncihnember Moot stated the City of Chula Vista had the lowest rate for
residential standard trash service of any of the I7 cities in the county, but the city was quite high regarding
commercial rates.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, gave a brief report on the city's residential and commercial trash
rates and the savings to residents due to the recycling program.
Councilmember Rindone
· Councilmember Rindone reqoested inlbrmation regarding services paid for the city manager and requested that
it be listed under his comments tbr the next meeting. "Concerns regarding and full accounting of attorney fees paid
for services provided to the city manager, i.e. how it came about, what was specifically authorized, what was
charged and who paid tbr it, and what precedent it set fbr Council."
Councilmember Moot stated there had been discussion whether the city attomey should be allocated funds for legal
counsel and he felt that should also be placed on the agenda for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:00 Midnight to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 4, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
A special joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting convened at 11:30 p.m. and adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
Council recessed at 11:30 p.m., met in closed session at 11:50 p.m. and reconvened at 12:00 midnight. Staff met
in closed session to discuss Marina View Park.
21.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Tiger Development Two/Baldwin - motion for relief from stay.
· Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Give Instructions to Negotiators
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
· Proposed sale of property: 2.71 acre portion of Marina View Park, located at south side of J
Street, west of Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Salomone on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency and Larry Killeen, Executive Director, San Diego Unified Port District.
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 15
Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee tbr 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.
22. 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
Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC,~y City Clerk