Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/10/15MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, October 15, 1996 6:05 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Scott D. Alevy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilia (arrived at 6:39 p.m.), Jerry R. Rindone (arrived at 6:11 p.m.), and Mayor Shirley A. Hotton. John Goss, City Manager (arrived at 6:09 p.m.); Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 1, 1996 MSC (Alevy/Moot) to approve the minutes of October 1, 1996, approved 341-2 with Padilia and Rindone absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Joseph Noble - Civil Service Commission (Commission appointment). The Oath of Office was administered by Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk, to Joseph Noble. b. Terry Thomas, President of the International Friendship Commission, will give an update on the forthcoming visit of the Japanese delegation from our sister city, Odawara, Japan. (Ms. Thomas was unable to attend the meeting. ) c. Special presentation to the Mayor and Council by Superintendent Ed Brand, Sweetwater Union High School District, on the Advanced Curriculum through Technology Grant project. Mr. Brand said the School District was awarded a grant of over $4 million for the program called Advanced Curriculum Through Technology. The funding will supplement Sweetwater's Master Technology Plan to put more computers in classrooms and link every campus to the Worldwide Web. d. I Love A Clean San Diego is an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and one of the Leading Environmental Public Education and Advocacy groups in Southern California. The City of Chula Vista was selected as Environmental Government Partner of the Year. Michelle Moreno, Executive Director of I Love A Clean San Diego, presented the award to the Mayor and Council. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: None) CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the Deputy City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 10/8/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. 6. RESOLUTION 18456 AMENDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) POLICY - In adopting the budget, Council approved several changes to the VTO Policy that will serve as a benefit to employees. Those changes are: increasing the allowable VTO per pay period to ten hours for those employees who work eight hour days; allow VTO to be taken in one-half hour rather than one hour increments; overtime and VTO will be allowed in the same pay period, however, not in the same week. These changes will not affect Mid- Management and Executive employees who must still take VTO in full day increments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Human Resources) 7. RESOLUTION 18457 (1) APPROVING CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN THIRD AVENUE AND CHURCH AVENUE ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS BETWEEN 2:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. FOR FARMERS' MARKET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; (2) WAIVING BUSlNESS LICENSE FEES FOR PARTICIPATING VENDORS; AND (3) APPROPRIATING $2,500 FOR ADVERTISING - On 10/3/95, the City approved the closure of Center Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue to accommodate a Farmers' Market on Thursday afternoon from March 1995 to October 1995. The Market is now so popular with the residents, the sponsoring organization, Chula Vista Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the City would like to extend it to be year-round. To implement the extension, the street closure and business license waiver must be authorized and the DBA has requested f'mancial assistance for advertising. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 4/5th's vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 18458 ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS - On 7/25/96, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, Council awarded a contract in the amount of $53,108 (including contingencies) for the alley improvements from "J" Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue to Fox Construction Company. The work is now completed and improvements have been accepted by the City Manager. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 9. RESOLUTION 18459 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO RESTATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SMITH AND KEMPTON FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND THE EASTERN CHULA VISTA STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $178,000 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND - On 8/8/95, Council approved an agreement with Smith and Kempton to implement steps in the East Chula Vista Strategic Plan. A first amendment to that agreement was approved on 1/23/96. A Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 3 significant amount of progress has been made towards templefrog the tasks contained in the agreement and first amendment. The date of completion contained in the first amendment extended the contract to 1123197. Not all of the work is complete and, therefore, a second amendment to the contract needs to be approved to complete the tasks. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. Councilmember Rindone asked if the amendment could be retroactive to August 1, 1996. Glen Geegins, Deputy City Attorney, answered that under the appropriate circumstance, s, contracts could be approved with an effective date previous to the date of approval. Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, explained it was because the previous contract work expired, work had been continuing with Caltrans on the project, and we did not want to stop in the middle of work. He added it was a lengthy process to get the contract revised, and Caltrans could be paid for continuing the work. 10. RESOLUTION 18460 APPROVING COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS - There are two road projects in the Bonita area that the County of San Diego is processing which have small portions in the City. The projects are: (1) Chip Seal of Sweetwater Road; and (2) Coustrocfion of a third west bound lane at Plaza Bonita Road and Bointa Road. The County has requested City financial participation for the portions of work within City limits. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 11. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BALDWIN BUILDERS - The purpose of this item is to present a development agreement with Baldwin Builders. On 6/25/96, the planning Commission and Council considered a series of development agreements with Village Properties, United Enterprises, Greg Smith, and the Foundation. (The Foundation agreement was subsequently split into three separate agreements.) The remsinlng party who is a property owner of a portion of the Otay Ranch property is Baldwin Builders, which is the trustee for the bankntptcy. Staff reconamends Council place the Ordinance on first reading. (Deputy City Manager) Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96. ORDINANCE 2690 ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND BALDWIN BUILDERS (first reading) This being the time and plac~ as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. ® Bill Brasher, 17550 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, CA, representing Baldwin Builders, said people were asking what effect the bankruptcy had on warranties of some contractors and was it stayed. The answer was no, their express stated warranties were not treated any differen~y than they normally would be; however, their warranties do not limit the statute of limitations in regard to any defective products. In response to Councilmember Alevy's question with regard to the infrastructure, medians and open space, would the proceeds from escrow be used to refurbish these accounts. The answer was yes, to the extent there were proceeds available, post-being. Councilmember Rindone stated that providing new proposals to be added at the tentative map schedule would strengthen map conditions as security and additional guarantees. He asked if there were other factors that could provide options for security. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 4 Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Project Manager, responded that the conditions staff referred to were related to an issue coming next week regarding the tentative map with Village Developments. The present development agreement involves Baldwin Builders, who is not part of that tentative map. When and if Baldwin were to come in and seek entitlements through the tentative map process, similar conditions, such as the one that is recommended being imposed on Village Developments, will also be applied to Baldwin. To specifically answer Councilmember Rindone's question, yes, staff can go beyond the requirements they recommend as part of the development agreement, but there may be a question of legality and fairness, and that is why staff felt we have gone far enough in the applications of the additional conditions. The conditions go beyond the typical application of a tentative map because of the current financial situation of the developer. Councilmember Rindone wanted the new applicant to be responsible to ensure that construction for all building permits would be completed in a timely manner, and that an adequate financing mechanism be in place prior to the issuing of new or additional building permits. Mr. Jamriska said staff looked beyond the typical tentative map and will be recommending to Council next week that cash bonds on the tentative map be provided for the maintenance of open space. Staff recommends that bonds be provided according to a phase schedule, and all future owners of the property, as well as current lienholders of the property, will be governed by the requirements, not only of the tentative map, but the specified planning area, the public facilities icing plan, the resource management plans, and the general development plan. We are requiting this development agreement, as well as the development agreement with Village Developments, subordination of all liens and placing those requirements as part of the entitlements they were getting, so that any future buyer, owner, or lienholder would be placed on record knowing these requirements would be met before any entitlemerits were given. If the requirements are not met, the authority within the development agreement is to withhold further issuance of building permits as it relates to completion of construction. If the developer does not pursue completion of the units, the City can, at its own discretion, declare it a nuisance, initiate the removal, put a lien on the developer's property, and with the subordination the City would become the primary lienholder on that entitlement. Councilmember Rindone asked if Condition 108 included new enhancements from previous map development agreements. Mr. Jarmiska explained they went beyond the typical development agreement, as well as conditions. In general, they went as far as they could in working with the developer and citizens of the community to ensure what Council was approving could be implemented. Councilmember Rindone stated the City has been proactive in trying to come up with every reasonable option to provide effective development in a timely manner. He commented that if we went too far and required the full bonding, it would cut off the potential for this developer, and any other developer, to realistically provide the expansion of the job market and be able to get the loans to construct the homes. The developers am not going to be able to leverage their monies if we require full bonding, we would end up with zero growth and everyone would lose, He requested staff to provide a summary memo describing the enhancements that were provided as safeguards for the tentative maps. He also suggested staff send a copy of the memo to the St. Claire residents. Councilmember Alevy was concerned this would not be enacted prior to the 11/5/96 election. He wondered if Proposition 218 passed, how would it affect this development agreement, and how would it restrict or enhance the ability to form assessment districts. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, replied if the laws changed on the assessment districts, they would have to be followed. Most of the agreements and assessment districts we enter into with new projects are developer initiated. There really is not a vote or protest hearing, so it would have very little impact on the way we were doing it now. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 5 Councilmember Moot asked if Mr. Jamriska could identify the portion of the development agreement that required completion of the St. Claire project before this development could be effective. Mr. Jamriska referred to Section 7.9, "Assurance of Compliance," and while it did not call out specifically St. Claire, it called out the assurance of being in compliance with all of the Municipal Code requirements. Councilmember Moot asked according to the Otay Ranch Phasing Plan, when was the first of Baldwin Builders properties scheduled to come on line for development. Mr. Jamriska responded that in the current general development plan, it would probably be Phase 6 or 7, and closer to 15 to 20 years, but all that could change depending how the infrastructure would be provided. It is a site that could be developed earlier if the applicant desired, and if they went through the expense of providing the necessary infrastructure. Councilmember Moot asked when staff expected the bankruptcy trustee to complete the St. Claire project. His concern was that there did not seem to be a hurry in improving the development agreement, and while the bankruptcy trustee has taken the first step in finishing St. Claire, the project was not completed. He was reluctant to enter into an agreement with the bankruptcy trustee unless there was assurance that St. Claire would be completed. He did not see anything in the current agreement that would make the effectiveness of this development agreement contingent upon the completion of St. Claire. Glen Geegins, Deputy City Attorney, commented he was unaware that Section 7.9 actually applied to any currently existing defaults with respect to the St. Claire project. His understanding was that this development agreement only applied to the Otay Ranch properties for purposes of vesting of entitlements and other issues, and not directly to St. Claire. There was no provision in the agreement that tied performance under the St. Claire project to the effectiveness and benefits of this agreement flowing to the developer. There were a number of ongoing discussions involving members of the City Attorney's office which evaluated issues where the effectiveness, provisions, and remedies under one agreement tied into other projects; the St. Claire project for example. For various reasons, they were not incorporated into this agreement. Mr. Jamriska referred to Section 6.3 where staff added language that if the developer was in violation of the Municipal Code when he applied for a discretionary act on the Ranch, and he was in violation elsewhere, the City Manager could recommend denial based upon the other provision. Mr. Goss mentioned the City Attorney's office and George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, were working on this issue. The enfomeability of a section in this agreement to require the completion of St. Claire would be questioned, and based on that, staff negotiated the language in the present agreement. There is a policy issue, because the problem was not really caused by the people attempting to bring the project back to life. Mr. Geegins was unaware if a definitive conclusion was reached on that point as to whether or not the provisions would be enforceable or could be defensible under the appropriate circumstances. Councilmember Alevy stated the St. Claire project needed to be completed to the satisfaction of the City. If it was not enforceable, the question was whether we are comfortable with this agreement and our relationship with the developer, and how the overall picture looked. Councilmember Rindone said there were two major issues, the pre-annexation agreement and the impact on annexation. He asked what impact it would have on the annexation if the item was continued. Mr, Goss replied there was probably no impact, b~cause what was holding up the annexation was the issue of perfecting the nuisance easements. After that is accomplished, Council would take action, and it would be sent to the State, and that could go beyond three weeks. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Brasher said the topic was discussed, but it was unacceptable to the trustee. What Baldwin has done and what they agreed to is exac~y what they said they would, and they have supported annexation since 6/25/96. They agreed to negotiate using due diligence and good faith, they did everything they could for St. Claire Crossing, but were being asked to put a condition on a piece of property that could bring a number of different problems. Baldwin went through a number of different alternatives that created problems, but the biggest problem was it reduced the value of an asset of the estate, and that made it an unacceptable condition to Baldwin. The agreement Baldwin made with the City was to be treated in the same fashion as the owners of the Ranch, and Baldwin agreed to some conditions because they understood Couneil's concerns. Councilmember Moot asked Mr. Brasher when the bankruptcy trustee would anticipate attempting to sell the asset, which would be the subject of the development agreement. Mr. Brasher did not know at this point in time if there was a completed definitive plan, whether it was going to be sold, or whether it was going to be attempted to be developed. If Baldwin went in today, the earliest they could expect to be out and come to Council would probably be two years, because they have a specified planning area to do. Councilmember Moot pointed out that Baldwin has shown good faith in the stops they have taken so far, Mr. Brasher has been true to his word to date, but the realistic premise was that the property under the jurisdiction of the trustee would not be on line for development for some time. He did not see the particular harm that would accrue if Council waited to see that construction of St. Claire was completed. It seemed that if all parties acted in good faith, and once St. Claire was built out, Baldwin would have the assurance of Council that the development agreement would be approved immediately. Mr. Brasher stated the City has all the protections sought under the development agreement in regard to that property. The problem is that Baldwin made a definitive agreement with the City nearly four months ago. Councilmember Moot said at the time the agreement was made, he was unaware there was a significant number of uncompleted homes in St. Claire, and it was before approximately 20 to 40 homeowners brought it to the attention of Council. Mr. Brasher said that on the night of the agreement, there was another development agreement approved by the parties directly responsible for this problem, and that was where the focus should have been had it been known. He further added that the problem is that there was conversation about making this contingent upon St. Claire, an item that was discussed at great length during the negotiations, and all the problems inherent with it were brought up. That is why Baldwin agreed to a number of other things in the agreement to make sure that the same kind of thing would not happen to the property Baldwin was asking the City to approve the development agreement for. The City's position all along has been that they support annexation. Mayor Horton replied that staff went to great lengths in putting the protective language in the agreements, so that what happened in St. Claire would not happen in the future. She mentioned the trustee has shown a lot of effort in trying to resolve the problems, and the St. Claire property owners were pleased at this point in time. ORDINANCE 2690 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY MAYOR HORTON, ti~e read, and reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Padilia was concerned about some of the dialogue occurring with staff and the City Attorney's office with regard to some of the protections that should be revisited in future development agreements. He believes further protections and issues need to be examined more, and in examining what occurred in St. Claire, although it was under a separate agreement, he is unsure they are completoly separate. He was willing to continue the item in order to deal with some of the issues further. VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2690: approved 3-0-2 with Padilia and Moot opposed. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 7 12. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDliNG EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER, AS SUBMITTED BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY VIA FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION (FCC) FORMS 1235, 1240 AND 1205 - In May 1996, Cox Communications instituted a $3.79 increase in its Cable Programming Services tier. This charge is subject to FCC regulation, thus any complaints must be filed with the FCC. At the same time, Cox proposed to raise its Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier, which is subject to City regulation. Both of these changes were based on costs to upgrade Cox's infrastructure. Further cost-based increases in Maximum Permitted Rates were requested in July, along with decreases in the rates for associated equipment/installations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Principal Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96 RESOLUTION 18447 DISAPPROVING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER; DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC ON BEHALF OF LOCAL SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN THE CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER RATES; APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED RATE DECREASES FOR ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED INCREASES IN THE MAXlMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER Gerald Young, Senior Management Assistant, said there was concern about some changes in Cox Commtmication's rates: (1) upgraded related change, (2) a cost base or inflationary change, and (3) a decrease in the equipment and installation rates for Cox. The equipment rates and inflation based changes in the rates have been reviewed by a consultant and found to be appropriate and staff recommends approval. The remaining change, which is the upgrade base change, is still a subject of some discussion and dispute between the City and Cox. Cox was provided with a copy of the consultant's report concerning those rates and in their response, they concurred with some of the findings in the report and revised their proposal accordingly. Most of the rates were maximum permitted rates and they are not what is currently charged on customers' bills. As things currently stand, regardless of the decrease of about 65 cents in what Cox is proposing, we still have approximately $5.11 indispute. There is apereentage ofthe eost ofthe infrastmcture upgrade attributed to existing channels, and in Cox's response, that percentage was reduced from 80 percent to 73 percent. This means that Cox's current customers were charged, or are proposed to be charged, an additional amount based on how this upgrade improved service. The consultant's report claims that most, or at least a large portion, of this upgrade should not be charged to existing customers since there were no additional basic cable channels added to the service as a result of the upgrade. Cox's position is that since there was some increase in the quality of the signal being received by customers, it is appropriate for some percentage of the charge to be passed along to the customer. The real question we are faced with is what that percentage should be. It is a technical question and one that can be resolved in one of two ways. The City can work with our consultant, at additional expense, to do a more detailed rate study to determine what that exact rate should be, or the matter can be turned over to the FCC as a formal complaint. In terms of reviewing the rates, cities are not required to determine what the exact rate should be. If we determine that the rates, as proposed by the cable company, are not appropriate, the City can file a complaint with the FCC. It is incumbent on the FCC to determine what dollar figures we should be talking about and that is what staff recommends. Staff also recommends that a caveat be added to the resolution to allow staff one additional week to meet with Cox to discuss other potential options. Cox also requested a one-week continuance. If the City chose to submit a complaint to the FCC, we are facing a deadline of 10/28/96, and there would be sufficient time at the 10/22/96 meeting to take whatever actions by Council. He added that since we are looking at a situation where additional rate studies would require additional time and expense of City staff and a consultant it is somewhat unlikely we would reach a compromise. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 8 Staff recommends that if Council chose to take action tonight, to add language "be it further resolved that Council hereby authorizes staff to continue to discuss the subject rate request with Cox Communications, with any complaints to the FCC tabled until the conclusion of those discussions, but in no ease tabled beyond 10/23/96. If alternative terms can be structured to the satisfaction of both parties, they shall be brought back to Council on 10/22/96 for final consideration." This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Mary Teets, 5159 Federal Boulevard, San Diego, CA, representing Cox Communications, stated they have been working with staff to come up with some type of compromise, so they can avoid the City filing a complaint with the FCC. In Cox's opinion, it is not something in the best interest of the City, for Cox, or their customers. Cox submitted a revised Form 1235 and requested the opportunity to continue working with staff for the next week, and to have this item brought beck to Council on 10/22/96. Councilmember Moot asked if the FCC had an alternative dispute resolution forum where the City and Cox could go to a mediator, without having to go through the time and expense of filing a formal complaint. Ms. Teets said Cox had formal discussions with the FCC and the City' s consultant to try to work on this issue, and the consultant is of the opinion that this is a gray area in terms of FCC guidelines. Cox would like to work with staff to come up with some type of compromise that would be acceptable to the City and Cox to avoid an FCC complaint. At this point, Cox is unaware of an alternative process. Councilmember Moot said private industry has come to the conclusion that these types of disputes are particularly amenable to mediation, and he asked Mr. Young to check if that was an available alternative. Mr. Young said he would look into that, and added that one of staff's concerns in this process was that there was a revised filing that showed a 73 percent application of the upgraded costs to existing channels. If staff and Cox were able to arrive at some compromise, it was unclear whether it was an entirely arbitrary figure or an inappropriately justified figure. That is where we would incur some additional expense if we were to get into arbitration or require further work with the consultant. In terms of filing a complaint with the FCC, there would be no additional expense incurred by the City. If Cox continued charging the rates they were currently charging, that would be part of the subject of the complaint. Cox would not be precluded from that during the term of the complaint and if they chose to overrule the City turning down the other rate increases, they could charge those rates, until the FCC ruled otherwise. Councilmember Alevy asked for justification on the 1235 filing, because the May rate increased from $15.90 to $19.69, which was about 24 percent. He said we should do all we can to keep this in-house, and to come up with an agreement with the City and Cox before we ask the Federal government to make the decision for us. MSUC 0torton/A!evy) to continue the itan to the meeting of 10122/96. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 9 13. REPORT STATUS OF PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE I-805/TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE - In February 1996, staff initiated design efforts aimed at implementing the final phase of planned improvements at the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange. This project is the top priority interchange improvement among those currently programmed in the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee Program. The primary objective of the project is to improve the flow of traffic along eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road through the interchange, thereby complementing previous improvements made for westbound travel. Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to proceed with environmental studies. (Director of Public Works) Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works, said the purpose of this item was to advise Counc'd on the status of the study for proposed improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Road/Interstate 805 interchange and for Council to direct staff to proceed with environmental studies. The purpose of the project is to relieve traffic problems at this interchange. Among the problems iterated in the staff report were (1) the center lane of eastbound L Street/Telegraph Canyon Road to the west of the freeway becomes a trap lane, requiring drivers in that lane to enter the freeway, even though they may wish to continue east on Telegraph Canyon Road; (2) there is a capacity problem with only one eastbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road; and (3) vehicles exiting the northbound freeway off-ramp cut across traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road to access Halecrest, creating a safety hazard. Staff and consultants worked with Caltrans to find a potential solution satisfactory to them, and staff held a public meeting to obtain input from the affected commtmity. Based on the communlty's input, we developed another alternative that answered their concerns. The main aspect of the current proposal, that is different from the one presented at the community meeting, is the change to the median at Halecrest which allows traffic eastbound on Telegraph Canyon to enter Halecrest. The partial closure to the median would preclude the unsafe movement of northbound off-ramp traffic moving across six lanes of traffic to enter Halecrest. It was also determined that the southbound Halecrest to eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road movement was light, and the effect of the partial movement prohibiting left tunas out of Halecrest would be minimal. It would have a major positive impact on the overall traffic flow. In order to alleviate some of the minor hardships created by prohibiting northbound off-ramp traffic from entering Halecrest, staff proposes to signalize the shopping center driveway entrance. This would allow better access to the center and provide U-turn movements for those people wishing to access Halecrest from the northbound off-ramp. He indicated that Caltrans gave their preliminary approval to the concept. It is important to note that regardless of the proposal, Caltrans must approve the work, or the City will not be able to do anything to alleviate the problems for our residents using this interchange. · Gary Wilson, 490 Hale Street, Chula Vista, CA, lives on the street directly behind the service station, and asked why this was not a public hearing, because his neighbors and nearby business owners were unaware of the item tonight. He asked if his taxes would increase as a result of this, and when the project would start. Mr. Swanson stated the City sent over 1,000 notices to the residents for tonight's meeting. The City began receiving phone calls Friday morning from people who had received the notice. In addition, the City will meet with the owner of the shopping center on 10/16/96 to discuss the aspects of possibly widening the shopping center driveway. There would also be a follow-up public hearing in January or February 1997 after the environmental study was completed. He explained this would be covered by the Capital Improvement Project budget end from transportation development impact funds paid by the developers. This project was needed because the City was growing. He explained that most of the traffic either came south on the freeway to Halecrest, or from the far west Chula Vista on L Street to Halecrest, and they could enler the turn pocket from the center lane and make that motion. There will still be a signal to control that movement so they can make that tuna in safety. It was true people could no longer come from Halecrest and make an eastbound movement, because it is a very minor movement. It may inconvenience some of the residents in the area, but there are alternative ways of accessing that. The benefits significantly improve the traffic flow through this intersection, because there are not as many signal phases to contend with, and the entire eastbound flow, once you get past the freeway, would be unsignalized until Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 10 you reached the shopping center. As far as the construction date, we are currently working with Caltrans and would like to be under construction by next summer. · Bob Grandy, Smith & Kempton, commented there was a community meeting on 8/22/96 at the Elks Lodge and approximately 40 to 50 residents artended. He anticipates doing that again in January or February. Councilmember Moot said people who accessed East J Street, Halecrest Elementary School, and several businesses, as well as the business owners, were dependent on this intersection, and there was unanimous opposal in the community. The proposal staff outlined was far superior to the initial proposal which was to close off Halecrest entirely for a left-hand turn. He encouraged taking this proposal back to the neighbors in a community forum. Mr. Goss said with people coming from Halecrest and heading east on Telegraph Canyon Road, where would the traffic go and how would the traffic flow be handled. As the eastern part of the City developed, to what extent was the light traffic flow anticipated to increase. · Andrew Schlaefli, Urban Systems Associates, Inc., said one of the things they looked at was the left turn, and they found approximately 70 to 80 percent of people making the left torn were actually going to the shopping center. The concept of a new signal at the shopping center entrance halfway down provided more direct service and reduced the move at this left torn, which improved the safety characteristics in the traffic flow. For the relatively small number of people heading east on Telegraph Canyon Road, they will need to divert to the shopping center or other access routes such as Crest/Oleander. Mr. Goss asked how much additional traffic would be on the residential street behind the shopping center, and if some of that stream could be diverted through the shopping center to get to the traffic signal. Mr. Schlae~i explained they also looked at the increase in traffic as part of the stodies and actually conducted a corridor evaluation all the way down to Crest/Oleander through the entire interchange area. Traffic flows do increase over the near term, but with these improvements, we will be able to accept that additional traffic and still maintain approximately the current level of service. Over the long term, with other improvements into the overall transportation system, traffic is actually projected to decrease. For example, when Route 125 is constructed as a tollway or facility, that would give people another way. A lot of the traffic came from the eastern territories. Mr. Grandy added that he would provide at the next hearing a graphic in the environmental documents that would specifically show where those left tums would be diverted and the volume. He said the funds were budgeted for the next fiscal year beginning in July 1997. He further stated that he anticipated starting construction late summer of next year, but if they missed that window, it would probably be early spring of 1998. Another issue in scheduling the interchange improvements is that Cultruns is making seismic retrofit modifications to this interchange early next year, and we are trying to work with them to schedule the construction so they can be done to minimize the impact on traffic flows. That is something Cultruns can't make a commitment to us right now because their seismic project takes top priority. Councilmember Alevy was concerned with having to add a traffic signal halfway through the shopping center. He believes the problem was partially flow, and if a signal was put there, it would cause a lot of problems, especially during rush hours of traffic going in the predominant direction. A lot of people were going to be diverted through the shopping center parking lot with speed bumps, and with people erossing to get from the parking lot to the stores, it would put people in peril. He asked if what Council was voting on included blocking off left-hand turns from Halecrest to eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Swanson said it would, and that overall it would be much safer for traffic to come out at the signal light's driveway in mid-block. Beeanse of the proximity of the Halecrest traffic signal to the traffic signal at the freeway, we probably have a wome situation now than removing that signal and adding a mid-block one by the shopping Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 11 center. This would also help the residents at the condominiums and apartments on the south side for ingress and egress purposes. MSC (Horton/Padilla) to accept staff report and have staff proceed with the environmental studies, approved 4-0-1 with Alevy opposed. 1TEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None * * * Council recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:05 p.m. * * * OTHER BUS1NESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. None. 15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Discussion of City Attorney process. Continued from the meeting 10/8/96. Council set aside 10/21/96 for the selection process for the City Attorney. The outside panel consists of a judge from the South Bay Municipal Court, a City Attorney from Ventura County, and a high level attorney administrator from the San Diego District Attorney's office. This was basically done in the last two reernitments for City Attorney and primarily to provide Council input from experts in law. Another thing done in the past was to videotape the interviews. Orientation would start at 8:00 a.m., with the outside panel interviews beginning at 8:30 a.m. There could be a group exercise at 11:30 a.m., and then Council interviews later in the afternoon. In the evening, there could be Council discussion and some type of dinner with the candidates in a more informal social setting. The issues are whether or not Council wanted to use the outside panel, and if Council wanted to have dinner in Conference Runms 2 and 3 or a more formal situation like in a restaurant. Councilmember Alevy felt Council should not go to an outside restaurant, because it would take extra time and cost money. Mayor Herton mentioned in her experience with different types of interviewing processes, more is learned about a person when you get in a more casual setting. She strongly suggested Council follow the format staff recommended. Councilmember Rindone was concerned that two of the raters were local, and although they were qualified people, he preferred they not be to avoid any bias on the part of the rater. Mr. Goss thought having a local judge was useful in the past. Also in the past, there were local City Attorneys on the panel, but given the nature of some of the candidates, it would be inappropriate. Candy Emerson, Director of Human Resources, said she tried 20 to 30 contacts to locate raters out of the county, but was unable to find anyone else except the rater from Ventura County. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Goss wanted final direction on whether the City should pick up travel and lodging for the rarer and candidates from out of the area. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to pay for travd and lodging for the rarer and candidates who reside out of San Diego County. Councilmember Rindone suggested Council provide some of the interview questions, but for staff not to return to any Councilmembers what the final exercises were so con~dantiality was maintained. Mr. Goss said he would come up with a list of suggested questions, and any input from Council on the content of the questions for the interviews would be appreciated. Councilmember Rindone also suggested members of the public who wanted to submit questions to send them to the City Manager or City Attoruey's office. Ms. Emerson said there were some blocks of time when the candidates would not be interviewing or eating lunch, and she asked if Council wanted Human Resources to coordinate anything for the candidates, such as a tour of the City. Mr. Goss said in other executive management recruits, there were written exercises for this time, but he is not sure it would be useful with this group because the candidates have already provided written materials with their applications. He suggested on keeping it more on the light side with tours rather than heavy duty work. Councilmember Rindone said the written exercise would reveal one's analytical skills and their application of the laws to a particular problem. Councilmember Moot said he would shy away from giving an attorney of the experience of these candidates a test. If they did not have it by now, no test we could give was going to reveal that deficiency. He feels their time could be far better served touring the City. Some of them may not have been to our eastern territories and know the scope and breadth of some of the development issues they will face. Councilmember Padilla said the general outline prepared by staff seemed to be appropriate. Arturo Barrios Invitational. Mayor Herton announced the Arturo Barrios lnvitational set for 10/19/96 for children and 10/20/96 for adults. On 10/20/96 the 5K run starts at 7:30 a.m., and the 10K run starts at 8:30 a.m. Some of the best athletes in the world are involved with the event, and there will be a $25,000 purse. ESPN will televise the event, which will be on prime time on 10/30/96 at 10 p.m. The event is sponsored by the City of Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, and Fedco, and applications are available at the City and Fedco. California League of Cities. Mayor Herton said she just returned from the California League of Cities meeting and the hot topic was Proposition 218, which is on the November ballot. Last week there was a presentation made by the Oceanside City Attorney explaining what the proposition was about. It is a proposed amendment to the California constitution claiming to give voters more control over local government spending by requiring elections to authorize any assessment and fees for public projects and services. In reality, the initiative has exactly the opposite effect. It grants huge new voting powers to corporations, big land owners, developers, and non-citizens, while prohibiting more than 3 million California voters from voting because they might be non-owners and tenters. Proposition 218 eliminates funding for vital public safety services and diverts funds needed to keep California schools working towards excellence. This proposition hum cities, children, and seniors, and she urged people to carefully read the ballot, because this was a proposition that could have negative impacts to communities. Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 13 16. COIJNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moot mentioned that the 751h anniversary of the Fire Department was a huge success. Many people attended, and there were several things for people of all ages to do. He hoped this was an event to come more often, because the children enjoyed looking at the fire tracks and equipment. Council concurred. Councilmember Rindone a. Request for assignment of Department Oversight within the City Manager's Office as of 10/1/96. Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96. Councilmember Rindone asked this item to be continued to 10/22/96 and requested the City Manager prepare a memo. Councilmember Rindone would also provide information to be included with Council's packets. b. Research request on Internet E-mail. He requested research as to whether there were potential libel and slander issues applicable to Internet communications, and the answer was affirmative. If the individual was described, the information needs to be evaluated, because there were some concerns that expressed the City genetically. He was not pleased to see someone providing information like this on the Internet and not taking responsibility for their efforts. He requested staff to pursue if there were any grounds for legal actions as to who the perpetrator of the information was. Councilmember Moot commented that it was irresponsible for people to spread information like that. It is blatantly false, there is no basis in fact, and this kind of activity has no place in public disclosure. MSUC (Rindone/Moot) to authorize staff to pursue with counsd to see if there were any grounds for legal actions on who the perpetrator of the information was. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION 17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · Metro sewer issues. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 14 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid- Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresent~l. 18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: There were no reportable actions taken in closed by: Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Patrieia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk