Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/10/08 (2)MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, October 8, 1996 6:20 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALLTOO~ER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Scott D. Alevy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilia, and Mayor Shirley A. Horton. ABSENT: Councilmember Jerry R. Rmdon~ ALSO PRESENT: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager; Glen Coogins, Deputy City Attorney; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk. MSC (Padiila/Horton) to excuse Coundlmember Rindone's absence, approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submittad. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Bob McAlister - Resource Conservation Commission. The Oath of Office was administered by Deputy City Clerk Schwenke to Bob McAlister. b. Proclamation recognizing corporate co-sponsors of the City of Chula Vista 1996 Music in the Park Summer Concert series. Mayor Horton presented the proclamations to the Chula Vista Star-News, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., San Diego Gas and Electric Company, McMillan Companies, Eastlake Development Company, Bank of America, El Torito Restaurant, and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center. c. Proclaiming the month of October 1996 as National Arts and Humanities Month in the City of Chain Vista. Bill Virchis, Vice Chair of the National Arts and Humanities Committee, accepted the proclamation. d. Presentation made by Daniel Hentschke, City Attorney for Oceanside and Solana Beach, president of the League of California Cities' attorneys' department, concerning Proposition 218: voter approval for local government taxes; limitations on fees, assessments and charges; and initiative constitutional amendment. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR (No items pulled.) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the Deputy City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 1011/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. 6. RESOLUTION 18449 DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED CITY REPRESENTATIVES TO ACQUIRE SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY - The City has been requested by the Department of General Services of the State of California to update our list of authorized representatives for acquisition of surplus property. This list was last updated in February, 1993. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to participate in this program, it is necessary to update this information. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 7. RESOLUTION 18450 ACCEPTING DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE AND APFROPRIATING SAID DONATED FUNDS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF RUBBER FLOORING FOR THE INDOOR FIRING RANGE - The Police Department recently received an unsolicited donation in the amount of $2,200 from North Island Federal Credit Union. The donation was presented to the department for the specific purpose of purchasing flooring needed at the indoor firing range. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/Sth's vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 18451 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WIIH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFlED PORT DISTRICT FOR RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 AND AMENDING THE CITY'S EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR PRODUCTION OF THE HARBOR DAY FESTIVAL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PASS-THROUGH OF $30,000 OF THE PORT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THAT EVENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - In July 1996, the City submitted a financial assistance request to the San Diego Unified Port District for pa~ial funding of the Chula Vista Harbor Day Festival. The Board of Port Commissioners approved the funding and requires the City to enter into a formal agreement which stipulates certain conditions and City requirements for receipt of the approved funding. This also amends the City' s agreement with the Chamber of Commerce to preduee the event. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Public Information Coordinator) 4/Sth's vote required. 9.A. RESOLUTION 18452 WAIVING THE BID REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE URBAN CORPS OF SAN DIEGO (NOT TO EXCEED $34,500) FOR USED OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT - These actions have been funded by a Used Oil Block Grant awarded the City by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Urban Corps will continue to provide support services to the 33 businesses in Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and National City that Voluntarily accept used oil from the public. The Urban Corps will also assist October 8, 1996 Page 3 the businesses with the addition of used oil filter recycling. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Conservation Coordinator) B. RESOLUTION 18453 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET TO ADD A TEMPORARY, PART-TIME POSITION (INTERN) IN UNCLASSIFlED SERVICE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNIT AND REALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR 10. RESOLUTION 18454 AUTHORIZING CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER PE-372 - St. John's Episcopal Church recently requested that it be issued an encroachment permit to connect its private drainage facilities to the City's storm drain system. This request do~ not fall within the saop~ of the types of cncroachments that may be authorized by the City Engineer without first being approved by Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 11. PUBLIC HEARING ZAV-96-12; CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPEAL FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A ROOFTOP SIGN FROM 35 FEET TO 42 FEET FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUlLDING LOCATED AT 396 "E" STREET IN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE - MARTIN ALTBAUM - This is a continuation of a public hearing from 9/17/96 involving an appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to allow the construction of a roo~op sign to 42 feet in height for the commercial building located at 396 "E" Street. At that hearing, Council directed staff to negotiate with the applicant to find a mutually acceptable solution regarding the height of the proposed rooftop sign in conjunction with overall signage on the site. Staff met with the applicant who indicates a willingness to reduce the rooftop sign area to 124 square feet and a height of 38 feet. However, all four facia signs would be installed as well. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of planning) RESOLUTION 18437 DENYING THE APPEAL OF COIN MART FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEREBY DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF-MOUNTED SIGN TO 42 FEET ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 "E" STREET WITHIN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director, provided overhead transparencies showing diagrams of the facia signs and proposed rooftop sign for Coin Mart. From a staff perspective, the proposed rooftop sign is a variance in terms of height regulations. To arrive at variance findings, Council must find a hardship on the property. Staff was unable to make findings of hardship justifying any sort of variance for the rooftop sign. Earlier this year, they originally discussed with Mr. Altbaum a compromise of 105 square feet, but that was on the basis of no facia signs proposed at that time nor were any considered. Again, the Planning Commission brought that same issue up, but they felt that some sort of compromise was reasonable in their minds as long as they were talking about a rooftop sign and not dealing with additional signs. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, was proud of the City for taking a strong business attitude to bring in new business and in helping our own businesses relocate. He stated the building sat empty for several years and was an eyesore to the community. The building had the large sign for several years, and Mr. Altbaum should also have the sign. He implored the City to continue their business friendly attitude. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 4 · Martin Altbaum, 396 E Street, Chula Vista, representing Coin Matt Jewelry, spent $24,000 for the four facia signs and did not want to throw them in the trash because of its history. He purchased the boilding on November 21, 1995, after it had remind vacant for 3-1/2 years. Prior to the purchase, he went to the planning Department and asked what type of sign was allowed. Stephen Griffin pulled the files and showed him pictures of the Central Federal Savings sign that was put up in 1972, the Coast Savings sign that was put up in 1989, and the Home SaVings sign that was put up in 1991. All of the pictures showed the height of the sign to be 45 feet off the grade. With that information, he felt he was entitled to the sign. The engineers at Central Federal in 1972 designed the sign and put it at a height of 49.5 feet which they thought was visible. The City report states that no one noticed that, and the City never had any height in their records. The signs were approved in 1989 and 1991, both without a variance at the 49.8 feet height. He was asking for a sign that was only 10 feet less than the sign that had originally been there for 20 years. When he purchased the building, the Planning Department told him he needed a variance, and he spent $1,000 for that. He went to the Planning Commission and there was a heated debate with a 3-3 vote for over I-1/2 hours. The Acting Assistant City Attorney told the Planning Commission the item could not be referred to Council unless it was a 4-2 vote, so Bill Tuchscher, Chairman of the Commission, voted against it so the issue could be forwarded to Council. The draft reports and the Planning Department indicated he was not able to have the rooftop sign under any circumstances. After the denial by the Planning Commission, he was faced with the dilemma of Christmas coming np and not having any signs. Against his better judgment and architectural feelings, he went ahead and put a $12,000 deposit for the facia signs he did not want but had no choice. The signs are legal and he is enti~ed to that, as well as a rooftop sign as long as it did not go over 35 feet. The reason for the facia signs were because if Council denied it, he would have to go to a higher authority which could take 2-1/2 years and during that period of time, he didn't want a building without signs. Now that he was forced into the fecia signs, he was told by the Planning Department that if he didn't have them, they would have approved the roeflop sign. The reason for a fairly big sign is if there is a picture, it cannot be more than one-fourth of the square footage of the sign; and if you have letters on the sign, it cannot be more than one-half of the square footage. He explained the sign would face E Street, but there would be no view from the other two directions. The sign would be 6 feet above the roof and from standing across the street, you would not be able to see the entire sign. The banks felt they needed more visibility which was why the sign was installed so high. Councilmember Alevy asked if the sign ordinance parameters were based on feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Lee replied the sign parameters were based on feet from the front property line and sidewalk, and the City did not allow for moving or flashing lights. Councilmember Moot asked Mr. Altbaum what would the hardship be for Council to justify granting a variance if he was going to have four lucia signs anyway. Mr. Altbaum replied the justification was that he originally wanted the rooftop sign and not the lucia signs. The Planning Commission was not interested in rooftop signs at all, so it was either lucia signs or nothing. He felt he had a discrimination case, as well as a case whether there was some type of vested interest in refusing the sign because twice it was given to people after it had been abated, and staff's findings indicate the City did not have the height of the building or sign. Councilmember Moot said he was trying to understand the connection between the current claim of hardship and how that hardship could be used to factually justify a variance for the rooftop sign. Mr. Altbaum said the lucia and rooftop signs were needed because the building was large, and it was necessary to promote the traffic situation and distance to see the signs. If Council's decision was that it should be at 35 feet, he would appeal it. In addition, he would put up a rooftop sign at the 35 foot level, it would not be what he wanted but it would be legal. He added that another authority would decide whether of not the financial hardship was caused by him or another agency. He was upset that the Planning Commission now had the Building Department Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 5 involved, who suggested he take the pole down. He did not believe the Building Department was ever involved during the 20-year history of the sign. Mr. Altbaum said the pole would stay up until the sign issue was taken care of and until a federal judge ordered it to happen. Councilmember Padilia asked the City Attorney if Council had latitude allowing them to grant the variance under a broad array of grounds. Mr. Geegins said under the City's ordinance and applicable Government Code provisions to which the ordinance was adopted, in order to grant a variance, Council needed to offer written f'mdings in support of the four propositions in the draft resolution. In order to sustain a granting of a variance, there has to be substantial evidence in the record to support those findings. The finding states that Council needs to find that a hardship exists peculiar to the property, and that it was not created by any act of the owner. The hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone. In this context personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations were not hardships justifying a variance. A previous variance can never set precedence for each ease must be considered only on its individual merit. That is the example of the finding Council would need to make in order for the City Attorney to defend any action Council made. Councilmember Padilia asked if there were other findings that Council could make that were consistent with the policy to allow for the variance. Mr. Geegins said no and that Council needed to make all findings provided in the ordinance to justify the granting of the variance. If Council could not make findings on any one of them, that would be the basis to deny the variance. The hardship frnding under generally applicable laws is usually based upon hardships that are peculiar to the property, for example, size of the lot, topography, and other kinds of things; that is the classic variance finding. Councilmember Moot was concerned about the ability to make a finding of hardship that would hold up to legal challenge of a private citizen who might not like a rooftop sign and four facia signs. He didn't want the City's taxpayers to be in the position of having to defend a lawsuit, and felt the City needed to work out reasonable solutions and compromises so they did not get put in these types of situations. He asked if he was perceiving a situation that was not a realistic possibility. Mr. Gungins said Councilmember Moot's perception was accurate and if Council was interested in approving the variance, in light of the fmdings and testimony, he suggested allo~/mg staff additional time to analyze their concerns and issues in what Council considered to be the basis for granting the approval. The additional time would allow staff the opportunity to come back with better findings to support such an action. Councilmember Moot said his concern was that the type of hardship Mr. Altbaum articulated did not stFtke him as being the type of hardship that could justify the variance, because the hardship in a sense was self-crested as Mr. Altbaummade the decislon to purchase the facla signs. In another case, he eould see thejustificationoffmding a hardship and allow the pole sign because of architectural reasons and the fact Mr. Altbaum had already made the decision that it would hurt business. Mr. Geegins said Councilmember Moot was accurately expressing a concern in b~mg able to make such a finding on those circumstances. He shared his concern and believes the finding would be difficult to defend in a legal context which is one of the reasons staff recommended denial in this case. Councilmember Padilia asked if staff was willing to support any type of variance. Mr. Leiter said the compromise was based on the discussion of no facia signs being installed. The City felt, and the applicant agreed, that the architecture was not such that it was a preferred solufton. The facia sign was really integral to staff's position earlier that a variance for a rooftop sign could be supported. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 6 Councilmember Padilia mentioned as staff stated earlier, Mr. Altbaum was free to put up as ninny facia signs as he wanted, but it was not the issue. The issue of how many facia signs he has on his building was irrelevant to the height of the rooftop sign and that was the basis for his appeal. If that is tree, and staff is willing to support that in their report, staff and Mr. Altbaum am very close to tompromising. He asked Mr. Coogins of the latitude to amend the ordinance, because it was needed to examine things on a case-by-case basis, as this was not business friendly. Mr. Googins stated if Council wanted to approve any particular proposal, his preference would be to get together again with staff, take another look at the fmdings, and see what type of findings they could come up with in order to support that proposal. One of the considerations that staff weighed in their evaluation of the significantly larger sign is their view that a larger sign, in combination with the facia signs, would be such a proliferation of signs that it might be considered a substantial detriment to adjacent property owners. That was one of staffs calculations in determining whether or not they would be able to recommend a combination of both the monument sign and the facia signs. He agreed that the undue hardship finding was difficult to make, and he suggested more time to offer Council sustainable findings on those circumstances. Councilmember Moot said it was important to note that Mr. AItbaum made it dear of his intention to bring legal action against the City, and that would cost the City money. He has felt all along that Mr. Altbaum had the right to the pole sign. There was certainly a possibility that a neighbor might not like the four lucia signs and could also big legal action against the City. He believes it would be appropriate for legal staff to come up with a potential set of findings to give Council the best legal opinion as to whether a finding of hardship could be sustained if the City was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Mr. Altbaum said he initially rejected the earlier compromise by the Planning Commission because it was a huge reduction in a sign where the letters could not be seen because of the background. After be'me turned down by the Planning Commission, he told Mr. Griffin he might reconsider the 105 square feet and 8 feet high sign. He was told by Mr. Griffin that the offer was no longer on the table, so at that point them was no redesign for 105 square feet. He did not want to sue anybody, but he was trying to understand what he was going to do if the man across the street with a single story puts up four signs and a 150 square feet sign, allowed under the City's ordinances, and it read jewelry. He asked if at that point the City Attorney would feel he had a financial hardship. Mayor Hotton requested that Council needed to get the proper legal advice so they could move forward. Councilmember Alevy stated that the facia and rooftop signs were basically the same, and he asked if Mr. Altbaum intended something different. Mr. Altbaum said he had not crossed that situation because the original designs were taken off the table by the Planning Commission. At the time the sign was designed, it was to be the only sign. Mr. Leiter said Mr. Altbaum indicated he came to the counter, obtained the information that a rooftop sign was allowed, and then was later told that a variance was required. We did not get any indication from staff that Mr. Altbaum was shown a particular sign at a particular height and was told it was okay. The other point he clarified was the legal issues regarding the previous signs on the bank. In the early 1970s when the code enforcement and abatement program was an issue, it was not noted on this particular building that the tooflop sign exceeded the height limit. We checked our files and there was no record. The bank owners changed twice, but the sign's structure, as we see it from our files, remained the same. After the building was abandoned, the sign structure was removed, and the sign ordinance makes provisions for a new sign to meet the code requirement. It is important to understand how the City's sign ordinance works and how it was enforced. In this case, he did not think it was ever viewed as being discriminatory against a particular land use, because it had to do with the circumstances that were in place when the abatement program was started, and the circumstances when this particular proposal was brought in. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 7 Councilmember Alevy hoped for a good resolution for everyone and requested staff to return with something constructive and with answers to Council's questions. There b(mg no further public testimony, the public heating was declared closed. MSC (Alevy) to have staff come back with a more definitive solution, approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ® Archie Hall, 3665 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, was ooncemed with Council's actions on 9-24-96 regarding the Bonita Golf Resort Hotel. The land considered for sale to the Citrons was purchased with public funds in 1965 after a special election by the voters of Chula Vista, and it was pledged to remain a public facility. It should not become an expensive resort for outsiders when it was purchased to be used by Chula Vistans. There are too many unanswered questions for Council to make a premature decision on a development that would affect so many citizens. There has been no public hearing process, and the item has not been put before the Parks and Recreation Commission. No definitive real estate appraisal has been submitted, and th~ valu~ b~ing considered was not accurately determined. The developer has put unreal demands on this City to secure funding they have not been able to gain in over five years. There are plenty of more expensive golf courses in the area, but we need to maintain this recreational facility for our youth and those on fixed incomes. He understands the fees would increase about 28 percent, at which time he would be unable to play the golf course. The hotel would negatively impact this area. The developers have missed two milestones from the process time line and have not paid a cent in staff fees for the delay. One of the most beloved family activities in South Bay is feeding the ducks and geese near the pond at the 18th hole. The development plan would put an intersection and hotel access directly through that location and destroy a truly wholesome activity enjoyed by countless of thousands through the past years. The existing plan does not offer any compatibility with runners, walkers, and riders using the trail; with golfers accessing the golf course; or automobiles entering the hotel. He asked where would everyone park. Them is a strong perception that the decision has already been made by Council and staff. Our government should be for the people and not just about making money on the behalf of others. It should be in the benefit of the taxpayers because they elected Council. There is a substantial concern about the City carrying the liability for 50 percent of the note on the property and that is a violation of public trust. · Dan Higgins, 881 Energy Way, Chula Vista, CA, of Laidlaw Waste Systems, announced that on October 1 Laidlaw and the City began offering curbside pickup of used oil and oil filters. The program is significant because it protects the environment, as improperly used oil can end up in the bay. Residents can pick up empty five-quart used oil containers at the City, businesses, and Laidlaw, and they can call I~dlaw at 421-9400 to schedule pick-up of the used oil or filters at their home within 48 hours. The City of Chula Vista is the third jurisdiction in the County to offer pick-up of used oil, and the first jurisdiction in the County to offer curbside pick-up of oil filters. ® George Vickey, 153 J Street, Chula Vista, CA, lives in an area zoned R-1 and believed the property adjacent to his was engaged in commerce, zoned C-1. Perishable goods were sold at the property, and he believed it was a violation of the City Ordinance. Mayor Herton referred staff to contact Mr. Vickey in order to resolve the problem. · Mike Peissner, 951 St. Germain Road, Chula Vista, CA, a homeowner in the St. Claire development, stated within a few days after the bankruptcy judge's decision, Baldwin had people come out with a tractor and dean most of the tumbleweeds. He showed Council some before and after pictures of the area, and stated things appeared to be moving along. * * * Meeting recessed at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m. * * * Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 8 BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 12. RESOLUTION 18455 APPROVING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF MARINA VIEW PARK TO THE UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE A PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS - The City has requested that the Unified Port District acquire certain City and Redevelopment Agency properties on the Bayfront, including Marina View Park on Marina Parkway and three properties on Lagoon Drive (the former Marina Motor Hotel, Shangri-La and Cappos properties). City staff has been negotiating the sale of these properties which have been delayed for a variety of reasons including legal incumbrance and contaminated soils which are now close to resolution. Staff has recently received amended terms of sale for the Marina View Park property which are acceptable and are being forwarded to Council for review and authorization to proceed. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Councilmember Padilia was not convinced that once the park transferred to the Port, it would remain a park, despite the market conditions that were cited. Councilmember Alevy indicated his concern of mathtaining the area as a public park. He asked if this was a deal breaker and if we could we get some sort of an agreement from the Port that would make it a commitment to being park land. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, said he did not think we could get the Port attorney or the Port Commission to agree to it being a park in perpetuity. Our Port Commissioner has assured us, like every other item we have done with the Port, it is not likely they would act unilaterally. There are a number of arguments to be made that there is about 300 acres of developable land in the Bayfront area for commercial or other types of uses, and this site would not likely have to be taken because of that amount of property. One of the Port charges is to provide recreational facilities, so it would not be likely they would abandon that. They would continue the agreement for police and maintenance of the park. Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, commented that staff has hammered hard in terms of their negotiations in this matter, both in the attorney's office and community development, and what was before Council was what they believed to be the best deal they could bring forward without jeopardizing the deal. Mayor Hotton recommended continuing this item to do further research and to speak with other commissioners. Councilmember Moot said the representation had been made that it would remain a park but wanted staff to research whether there were any incidents which a sale of park land had occurred like this and then the Port turned it into something other than park land. While he accepts what people tell him at face value, when you are dealing with something as important as a park and what that means to a community, it is best to be careful. If there is any history of the Port District possibly acquiring a park and then turning it commercial, he wanted to know so Council could factor that into their decision making process. Glen Coogins, Deputy City Attorney, stated his office prepared a report outlining the natore of land use control that the Port would assume upon acquisition of the property. Some of the practical realities makes staff believe they are likely to keep the property as a park, but at the same time it could be converted to non-park use. When a Port District acquires property even outside their tidelands jurisdiction, they assume land use control over the site. In this ease, in order to convert the land use to an alternative use, they would need to process that through the Coastal Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 9 Commission, so in fact while the City is not the governing body in that case, we would have input into the Coastal Commission process in order to provide our official comments whether or not we thought any kind of converted use would be appropriate. He said another point that may not have been made in the staff report is that one of the district purposes stated in its own trust end charter is to provide park amenities, so in fact that would be a legitimate Port purpose to continue maintaining the property as a park. Beyond those practical realities, there is absolutely no provision in the agreement which formally restricts the Port to keep the property as park land. One of the reamus for that, end their resistance to that, is the fact they are paying us an appraised value for the property. It is difficult for the Port to justify an acquisition where there is a long-term restriction on the nature of the use of the property. A couple of things we have at least tentatively explored with them are some form of deed restriction, maybe of limited duratinn, to assure park use for some period of time, a meet and confer obligation that is actually contractual that before they propose any kind of converted use, they would reasonably meet and confer with the City to formally obtain our input into that process. Another option for the City is for repurchase or right of first refusal in the event that a conversion was proposed. The City could repay the mount of monies that were paid to it in connection with the acquisition and if it chose to do so, retain the property as park land. Counc'tlmember Moot felt the suggestions were very good end that eventually this City, the Port Commission, end probably Rohr, should sit down in a joint platruing process end really look at the Bayfront in its entirety. He felt the City needed a cohesive master plan and strategy for the entire Bayfront that absolutely encompassed keeping park lend on the Bayfront for public access. MSC (Horton/Alevy) to continue this item, approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. 13. REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY IMPLEMENT A PILOT PROGRAM CHANGING THE FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL YARD WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM - The yard waste program collection frequency would chenge from every week to every other week for a six mouth pilot period. The savings accrued from a permanent chenge in service should be up to $0.52 per month per household. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Conservation Coordinator) Michael Menchum, Conservation Coordinator, pointed out that all of the savings accrued from the program adjustment would be funds established to suppert rates at the time of the next rate review. The City and Laidlaw would receive none of the fmencial benefit if this program adjustment took place. Staff requested Laidlaw to look at the programs end for ways the program could be made more efficient end cost effective. This was their response to a list of those items. We received two inquiries with concerns regarding the program about the frequency of collection over the entire year, and the times of the year when more waste would be generated. This is proposed as a pilot program. With the realization that the program is really only a benefit to the rate payers end customers in Chula Vista, at the end of the six-month period or eny time during the pilot period if we found that it was not of benefit to customers, we have the opportunity to stop the program end return to regular collection. We have also provided for unusual circumstances during the program if people have some special circumstances that require a week of a collection, and we think we cen come up with a fair way of accommodating them. Councilmember Moot was concerned that the six-month cycle was running during a period in which grass end yard waste did not grow at the same volume and rate as it did during the summer or other months, and he asked if we would we get a fair idea how it was going to work if it started now. · Dan Higgins, with Laidlaw Waste Systems, said for the last two years they looked at the tonnages for the program, end at the beginning of September the tonnages were about half. This past July end August, Laidlaw had the highest tonnages of yard waste diverted from the lendfill. They wented to start the program when they had the reduced tons. The focus was trying to reduce the costs as much as possible, divert the amount of tonnage they are able to, end then pass on the rate savings to customers. The program has been very successful, the citizens have embraced it and saved a considerable amount of funds in terms of diverting yard waste from the landfill. There Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 10 will be some situations during the entire year when certain residents generate yard waste, and Laidlaw can arrange for considerafwn for those residents. Laidlaw has the flexibility if rainfalls return to the level they did two years ago to go back and provide the weekly service if that was deemed appropriate. Laidlaw looks at this as an opportunity to reduce the cost and pass it on to the rote payers. They will monitor the program to see how residents embraced it and as the tonnages start to increase in the spring, Laidlaw has the flexibility to return to the weekly service. He stated the pilot program would begin in November. Councilmember Alevy said that somewhere during the six months, there should be a few months of the program when people had more cuttings. The savings would be passed on to the rate payers, and this puts them in a position of not having to look at rate increases. Mr. Higgins said residents would be able to put nearly double the amount of yard waste on their curb. The rate payers would be provided with at leest two free stickers. Laidlaw typically picks up to five cans or bundles of yard waste at any one household, and that number would double during the time Laidlaw picked up every other week. Where the average household could generate up to five containers or bundles of yard waste at no additional cost, they would be able to generate up to ten containers or bundles. One of those cans would have to labeled with the sticker and as long as it faced the street, the driver would know where to stop. The primary adjustment they were asking rate payers to make when they mowed their lawns was to adjust thdr schedule a day or two before collection takes place. That way yard waste would not be there longer than normal. The typical routing from Laidlaw showed that many residents did not put their yard waste out every week. The reason Laidlaw wanted to start the program now was to accrue as much savings as possible during the slow growth period for rate payers at the next rate review. People could obtain stickers by calling Laidlaw at 421-9400 and the stickers could be mailed to them, or they can be picked up at City Hall. Stickers would be issued to any single-family home who had a current and paid up-to-date billing with Laidlaw. MSC (Alevy/Horton) authorizing the City Manager to execute the public education plan, voted 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. 14. REPORT CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT fENV1RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - The City of San Diego has re-circulated the Draft MSCP Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for public review. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the Draft EIR/EIS. The report contains staff comments regarding the Draft EIR/EIS, as well as comments received from the Planning Commission and the Resource Conservation Commission. In addition, staff will be rehLrning to Council with additional discussion and comments regarding the Draft MSCP and the City's Subarea Plan in the next few weeks, Staff recommends Council authorize staff to forward a draft letter and any additional comments that Council has to the City of San Diego regarding the draft MSCP Plan EIR/EIS. (Director of Planning) Bob Leiter, Director of Planning, said the City wanted to send their comments on the EIR for the MSCP. They outlined a process for obtaining additional input on the actual MSCP plan and subarea plan from beth the Plsnnlng Commission and Resource Conservation Commission, as well as the University Task Force. The process would last about one month, and he would return to Council with a report and reeommendatious on the plan. It would include addressing the issues regarding the financing of the MSCP plan, comments raised earlier of the potenftal impacts of Proposition 218, as well as other financing issues. The comments shown in the report from the Planning Commission were primarily about the financing of the MSCP, and staff would be prepared to respond to those and provide additional informatinn at that time. Staff's reeommendafmn was to authorize comments on the EIR and then endorse the process they have outlined for further review of the plan with the Council and other boards and commissions. Mayor Herton mentioned that future implementation of this program could result in significant additional City administrative costs. She asked if there was an idea what type of impact this would have on the City budget. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Leiter explained that he did not have specific figures at this point. The MSCP plan had some overall costs for the MSCP region which included Chula Vista, along with the City and County of San Diego, but he needed to delineate the costs more specifically for Chula Vista. The answers would be included in the report that would be provided at a later date to Council. Councilmember Alevy expressed a concern that the university site information was problemtic and needed to be addressed in our favor. If Proposition 218 passed, what impact would it have on the financing of the overall program, and how would it impact property owners within the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Leiter stated he could report on those specific issues when the item was brought back to Council. MSC (Alevy/l'adilla) to approve authorizing staff to forward the draft letter and endorse the process for review of the final draft MSCP plan, voted 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. OTHER BUSINESS 15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. None. 16. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Discussion of City Attorney process. Continued to 10/15/96. 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moot said he received more complaints about clutter and visual contamination caused by failure of the City to enforce the sign ordinance. They are repossession signs, auction signs, weight loss signs, etc. literally posted on fences, etc. and the time has come to propose a solution that is going to work. He requested staff consider creating a group to contract to assist in the enforcement of the sign ordinance. This group could conduct inspections, take photographs, note the violations, bring those violations to the attention of the violators, and then the City would need to impose a fining system. A portion of the fme could possibly be dedicated to this group to enforce the sign ordinance, so it could pay for itself. It is clear that the City does not have sufficient staff to enforce our ordinance, and there is absolutely no reason to have an ordinance on the books when it is not being enforced. As one person violates the ordinance and gets away with it, he simply invites another person to violate it. He would like the City to create a solution, one that could be funded out of the fines, that would resolve this problem so our City can be a visually pleasing one. He asked if something along those lines could be created and to see whether it was possible for a private non-profit group to assist the City with enforcing our sign ordinance. Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to a closed session. CLOSED SESSION 18. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · SNMB, L.P. vs. the City of Chula Vista and MCA. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · Metro sewer issues. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54957. CONFERENCE I~qTH 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 Um'epresented. 19. 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 Patricia Sehwenke, Deputy City Clerk