Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/11/19MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, November 19, 1996 6:10 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Scott D. Alevy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilia, Jerry R. Rindone and Mayor Shirley A. Horton. John Goss, City Manager; Ann Moore, Acting City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk. 2. FLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 20, 1996 (City Council Meeting), August 20, 1996 (Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency), September 17, 1996 (Special Meeting of the City Council), October 22, 1996 (City Council Meeting), and November 5, 1996 (City Council Meeting). MSUC (Alevy/Moo0 to approve the minutes of 8120196, 9117196, 10122/96, and 1115196; Padilia abstained on the minutes of 9/17/96. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. A proclamation "Commending Citizens Against Alcohol Abuse" was presented to Stephen Zolezzi, Chairman of Citizens Against Alcohol Abuse, by Mayor Hotton. b. A proclamation "Commending Elite Racing" was presented to Tim Murphy, President of Elite Racing, by Mayor Horton. c. County of San Diego Solid Waste Update by Supervisor Greg Cox. Supervisor Greg Cox presented an update regarding the solid waste program in San Diego County. Mr. Cox looked forward to a continued working relationship with the City of Chula as it relates to solid waste. Councilmember Rindone stated most rate payers only want to know the cost and what day is the pick-up. With the rates escalating, it has created a lot of commotion and concern throughout the County, and Council wants to assure the best rates to our residents. Mr. Cox stated he would be prepared to discuss these issues hilther on 12/17/96 and could offer three- or five-year contracts at pre-determined prices. If they can provide the City an agreed-upon price for a certain period of time to meet the City's needs, the City can either decide to do that, or choose to float with the market. * * * The meeting recessed at 6:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. * * * Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 5b and 8) THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OI~'FERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the Acting City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 11/12/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter from the Building Industry Association of San Diego County regarding Chula Vista's Development Impact Fees. · Gerald Livingston, 6336 Greeulch Drive, Suite A, San Diego, CA, Legislative Advocate with the Building Industry Association, said in light of recent publicity regarding BIA's release of its fee report, he felt it necessary to address a number of concerns. There was indication there had been no previous communication regarding the issues surrounding BIA's fee report, and he pointed out there were four previous letters the City did not reply to. There was indication that this would result in increasing the profitability for developers in a community, and the truth is that any result from the possibility of fees having been misapplied would be refunded to homeowners, rather than developers. The Construction Industry Federation originally supported the 1993 fee update; however, the reason for their support is there were no increase. s, and there was a significant decrease in the commercial industrial development portion of that fee. Concerns were expressed of consolidating the foes allowing the opportunity for cornmingling of funds and the difficulty of establishing the inherent nexus for those fees to different projects. He believed the report the BIA produced validates that concern. The BIA asks that Council consider reviewing these fees, the ongoing philosophy behind the fee collection, and the distribution. He offered BIA's support for a comprehensive review, both of the capital improvement program and the development impact fees over the course of the next year. He agreed the building industry nee~ls to pay its fair share, but they have some concerns about the allocation process. Mr. Livingston provided Council with copies of letters the BIA mailed to the City, and indicated he would send a toll copy of the BIA's report to the City as soon as possible. Councilmember Moot said the manner in which he heard about the BIA's report was not one that pleased him. He would like to think this City worked very hard with the builders in a cooperative venture. He would have preferred that the BIA, instead of giving to the press, would have given their report at a public hearing. This City extends great courtesies to the builders in our community by giving them ample time to work out areas where there is disagreement. He thinks a reciprocal behavior by the BIA would have been a more appropriate manner in which to deliver their findings and report to the Council. Mr. Livingston s~td a letter was mailed to the City on 11/4/96 which was a week in advance of discussions with the papers. They did not actually do a press conference, but had individual discussions with reporters. The intent by mailing the letter early was to give everyone notice. It is the same reason why they didn't mail the letters before the election, to avoid trying to appear to be grandstanding. He stated the BIA looks forward to working with this Council. He added that with the previous letter being unanswered by the City, the BIA assumed it was the answer. Mr. Goss stated that one of the problems is sometimes what is reported in the newspapers is not fully reported as to the intent. The Chula Vista requirement is a matter of philosophy that new development should pay for itself, no more and no less. He thinks it was clear that we have worked with representatives of the BIA, as well as local developers, in terms of adjusting the formula if it is appropriate for the development impact fees. We've done that many times and this is not a new issue, because it's been in place in this community for probably a decade. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 3 6.A. ORDINANCE 2692 AMENDING SECTION 9.12.160 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO LICENSE TAXES (first reodin~) - Assembly Bill 2770, which is effective 1/1/97, prohibits cities from taxing the gross receipts of bingo games. The Municipal Code currently imposes a tax of one percent on monthly bingo receipts in excess of $5,000, as authorized by State law. As of January 1, cities will no longer be authorized to charge this tax. In its place AB 2770 authorizes cities to charge a $50 annual bingo license renewal fee. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Finance) B. RESOLUTION 18498 AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL FEE FOR BINGO LICENSE RENEWAL FROM $10 TO $50 7. RESOLUTION 18499 APPROPRIATING $5,000 FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUES FOR PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER AND RELATED EQUIPMENT TO BE REIMBURSED TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL AUTO THEFT TASK FORCE (RATT) - As compensation for the additional vehicle theft and recovery information entered by participating agencies for the RATT Computerized Vehicle Data Model, RA'I'F will reimburse each member agency involved with the project up to $5,000 for computer hardware, software and related training. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/Sth's vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 18500 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,500 TO SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION OF CHULA VISTA HARBOR AS THE SOUTHERN HOME PORT OF THE TALL SHIP CALIFORNIAN - The City's agreement with the Nautical Heritage Society to designate Chula Vista Harbor as the southern home port of the tall ship Californian requires that the City make a $27,665 grant in fiscal year 1996/97 to the ship's organization. In consider,,tion of the value of the ship as a shared community asset, the County has allocated $6,500 in its Community Enhancement Funds to support this service. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Public Information Coordinator) (This itenl was pulled by Gary Cooper, who left the meeting prior to discussing this item.) · John Willitt, 97 Montebello Street, commodore of the Tall Ship Society, indicated that his organization consists of volunteers, and they were requesting an open house for six days of the week. RESOLUTION 18500 OI~'ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the handing, title read, text waived, and approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. * * * END OF CONSEN'I' CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 9. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ABATING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1997 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RATES TO RETAIN THEM AT THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR 1996 LEVELS - The Business License Tax ordinance is structured so that the business license tax rates increase mannally unless Council takes action to abate them each year. Since 1991, tax rates have remained the same due to annual abatements. Since the tax rates have not been increased, the taxes would mere than double for the vast majority of bnsinesses on 1/1/97 unless abated to a lower level. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) RESOLUTION 18501 ABATING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1997, HOLDING CALENDAR YEAR 1997 TAX RATES AT THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR 1996 LEVELS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NEW BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO THE FIRST YEAR $25 TAX RATE, WHO DO NOT APPLY FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE WII'HIN 30 DAYS OF BUSINESS COMMENCEMENT, FOR WHICH THE TAX WILL BE ABATED TO Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 4 Robert Powell, Director of Finance, stated after receiving comments from the Chamber, staff performed a survey resulting in mere current and detailed data. The data still shows, with the exception of small businesses with no employees, the City of Chula Vista's business license taxes remain well below the region's average among cities. The proposed resolution would leave the business license taxes at the current levels which have been in effect since 1991. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. ® Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, supported the abatement. The Chamber asks that Council and staff look into this issue next year in terms of competitivehess, because it is sometimes not enough to maintain the rate if everybody else lowms theirs. There is a risk of losing businesses because it suddenly becomes cheaper to reeve next door. Councilmember Rindone stated whether the business license is maintained, raised or lowered, the current scenario limits the Council in realistic options. He requested bringing back the master fee schedule for 1998 to reflect the proposed rates of 1992, which is the tirst year it was abated. He requested staff not only consider the abatement next year, but to consider revamping so if there is an adjustment and a significant business up-turn, there is an option for Council to reflect it in a modest rate adjustment. RESOLUTION 18501 OFkERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, title read, passed and approved unanimously. 10. PUBLIC HEARING ZAV-96-12; APPEAL FROM 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 BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 "E" STREET IN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE - MARTIN ALTBAUM - This is an appeal f~om the planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to allow the construction of a rooftop sign to 42 feet in height for the commercial building located at 396 "E" Street, within the C-T Thoroughfare Commercial zone. The C-T zone limits the height of rooftop signs to 35 feet above grade. At the reauest of the applicant. staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of 12/10/96. (Director of planning) MSC (Horton/A!evy) to continue to the meeting of 12110/96, approved 4-0-0-1 with Rindone abstaining. II.A. RESOLUTION 18416 APFROVING A RESOURCE CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 96-04 - (This is a related item. but does not require a public hearlnl) B. RESOLUTION 18417 APPROVING AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT FOR TRACT 96-04 - (This is a rdated item. but does not reuuire a public hearing) C. PUBLIC HEARING PCS 96-04: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 96-04 GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT AND EXCLUDING 288 ACRES IN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 642-060-11 AND A PORTION OF APN 642-080-11 - Adopt a Second Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and recertify FEIR 95-01 and the First Addendum for the Otay Ranch SPA One and Tentative Subdivision Map for Village One and Phase 1-A of Village Five of the 0tay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 96-04, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Otay Ranch Manager) Continued from the meeting of 11/12/96. D. RESOLUTION 18398 AD01'rING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 95-01 (SCH #95021012) AND FIRST ADDENDUM Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 5 READOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE FEIR AND APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS AND CONTINUING ALTERNATIVE TENTATIVE MAP PROPOSALS Jerry Jamriska, Otay Ranch Special Projects MEager, gave a presentation regarding the Otay Ranch development. Councilmember Rindone askod why was Section 7.1 of the agreement changed to reflect the B Map level, as it was not recommended for any other developer. Ann Moore, Acting City Attorney, said that condition of the development agreement was tied to the conditions of the tentative map approval, such as Condition 108, which works hand in hand with one another. Bonding is required when the improvements are triggered by the PFFP. Mr. Jamriska stated the improvement phasing schedule required to be submitted will identify all of the backbone facilities, and before the City Engineer approves the first final B map, that condition will identify all the required backbone facilities, as well as a plan for the financing. The backbone facilities would not be triggered by the conveyance of those lots to a different property owner. The trigger points for the hackbone facilities occur when the final B map is requested. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, gave an example of EastLake Greens, that they came in with an overall A map for the backbone streets and some of the hackbone facilities. They were required to bond for those streets within their facilities and were required to provide some off-site improvements. The City would have the right to withhold building permits if they weren't done, and it was to conform with our level of service ordinance and the growth management ordinance. Those wouldn't have to be bonded until such time as they were approaching those thresholds. Mayor Hotton didn't believe there was ever an effort to have the primary land owners or developers sell at a particular stage, and as to what is currently being proposed, there was never a movement to do that with Eastlake or Rancho del Rey, so it may not apply in this situation. She stated the concern was addressed in the report when it talked about the different stages; however, it is her understanding that staff incorporated the protections that the facilities will be built. Ms. Moore said Section 7.1 shifts the bond requirement to the master builder, that they will be responsible for all the backbone facilities regardless of the merchant builder. There would be a number of issues and concerns if we were to require merchant builders coming in with smell projects to build or construct major backbone facilities. Section 7.1 puts it back to the master builder for their responsibility, and it is her understanding that bonding for the hackbone facilities has occurred at the A map stage. In this case, it's being done at the B map stage, except for two improvements that are listed in Condition 108. Councilmember Moot asked if the merchant builders would provide the bonding or would Village Development obtain the bonding before the City allows a sale to the merchant builders. Mr. Jamriska said there were four basic items that needed to be bonded prior to the first phase of the backbone facilities, and it is anticipated it will be the requirement of the master builders. All subsequent backbone facilities will probably fall upon the burden of either the master builder and/or the merchant builders. Councilmember Padilia didn't think there was a distinction there and as far as breaking down what the obligation level would be at the guest builder level. You either have a complete obligation to guarantee 100 percent of the backbone facilities at the A map stage or you have 100 percent transfer or relief of that obligation to the successors in interest. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Moore said the bonding is the safest guarantee the City can have, and having the bonding at the A map stage is a mere secure position for the City than doing it at later stages. Mr. Lippitt said it was stafPs opinion as long as there was a condition in there, they can't do any B maps or any developments because this has to be resolved. It is a shift in time, but not a shift in development staging between Maps A and B. Councilmember Rindone said if we change the time sequence of this and there is some question of responsibility that when a merchant builders comes in and cannot afford that, the master builder doesn't have the responsibility. He did not hear the assurance that the City increased its protection, because the merchant builders will not have the resources the master builders would have. Mayor Hotton said it was her understanding from the staff report that it is the sole responsibility of Otay Ranch Ltd., or its successors in interest, to provide or finance the cost of the backbone facilities required in any final map. including both A and B maps. Ms. Moore said it was correct and what staff could do to clarify it would be to insert specific language in Section 7.1 that states they shall provide the bonding. Councilmember Padilia asked what were some of the potential issues if the City allowed the bonding to be at the B map stage, as opposed to the A map stage. Ms. Moore said if you require the bonding at the A map stage, you have the bonding up front. If something were to happen to the master builder, we would have the bonding to go after in order to construct the improvements. If we wait until later stages, even though there is that provision in the agreement that deals with its successors in interest, there is always the potential that we might not be able to get the master builder to actually construct the backbone facilities, and we won't have bonding at that point because it was done at a later stage in development. We would then try to go to the merchant builder, which would be difficult to have the merchant builder actually construct major backbone facilities. Councilmember Alevy said in reading the minutes of the planning Commission, Councilmember-elect Mary Salas expressed the specific concerns that the master builder is forever obligated to do the backbone infrastructure should they not survive lienholders to become obligated to the backbone infrastructure, etc. and the timing is the issue we're talking about, but the reality is that the master builder is required to be able to bond to do that. Councilmember Rindone said the requirements of funding the backbone facilities is a greater risk. In order to try to compensate that risk, we've put other safeguards in the agreement. Council has the responsibility to ensure that the backbone facilities are built. He did not see why the old rules were changed, because they worked well and provided adequate safeguards. He said the bottom line is that with the size of the 0tay Ranch and the projected buildout, we don't have the assurance from the very front that the backbone infrastructures are in place, and it will set the wrong tone for this development. If we had required the bonding at the very beginning as done in the past, we wouldn't have to come up with all of these conditions. Ms. Moore said according to the development agreement, if language is added to specifically deal with bonding, it would require Village Development, and its successors in interest, to provide the bonding. Then is also a provision in the agreement that talks about subordination so it requires the lenders to subordinate to the development agreement. It is not the same as having the bonding up front, but there is a provision that holds Village Development ~ provide the facility and the bond. Councilmember Padilia said this issue presented itself at the request of Village Development. There is a reason economically why they want to be able to sell off parcels without making the guarantees up front on this size of a SPA or at the A Map stage, but the question is whether that is what Council wants. The question here is this was changed at the request of the applicant, there are reasons for that and the question for Council is whether or not Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 7 when we get to the development agreement end we look at the tentative maps, whether we will be satisfied, and we have enough comfort with this level of a guarantee. There is no question that the manner in which staff is recommending is less security to the City then if we required the bonds at the A map stage. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El C. amino Real, Sen Diego, CA, representing Village Developments, stated that City staff end Village Development staff put a lot of time to ensure the problems that occurred in St. Claire are not experienced in Otay Ranch. Village Development is seeking to provide security consistent with the PFFP, end that is when a phase of development requires en improvement in order to serve that phase, then adequate security has to be provided. The development agreement states that Village Development is the entity responsible. As a general rule when you have a tentative map approved, end that's what Village Development is seeking in this heating, there is not en obligation in State law or Council policy that en applicant follow-up a tentative map approval with en A map. What is different about this project is through the development agreement came a proposal from staff that Village Development be required to do en A map on the whole of the SPA, village by village. If you look at the conditions of approval, they have to be bonded at the twice their estimate, which is $160 million. If Council were to pursue the common practice of allowing Village Developments to do A maps on a lesser area, Village Developments would be willing to provide the security on the improvements associated with that lesser area. If they do en A map on the whole of the village or en A map on the whole of the SPA, then the bonding security requirements becomes burdensome because the tentative map is so large. If you look at the whole of development agreement in conjunction with the tentative map requirements, the City is assured that facilities will be built in a timely manner, the St. Claire experience will not re-occur, end the cost of the facilities will be equitably shared amongst all benefiting properties in the project. Councilmember Rindone asked if staff considered Mr. Kilkenny's suggestion of the A map for a smell portion of the project to ensure the backbone facilities were pert of the A map. Councilmember Moot stated staff's proposal was a better guarantee for the City. Mr. Lippitt replied it was correct. Staff tried to come up with a mechanism that would meet the developer's needs end also assure the City's compliances. Richard Rosaler, Senior Planner, continued staffs presentation regarding the Otay Ranch project. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · William Lieberman, 852 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista, CA, Director of Planning and Operations with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, suppofie, d the project. He expressed concerns relating to guarded entries end densities in the villages. · Rick Williams, 3130 Bohita Road, Chula Vista, with Point Builders, spoke on behalf of West Coast Land Fund, owner of the 288-acre parcel spanning Villages I end 5. West Coast supports staffs recommendation, although they would like to perhaps build the concept to defer any approvals in Village 5 until the City, West Coast, and Village Development have en opportunity to meet and explore issues. · Kim Kilkenny, representing Village Development, supported staffs recommendation with the exception of modifying a portion of the tentative map in Village 5 to encompass all of their ownership in Village 5, with the exception of two specific parcels. * * * Councilmember Padilia left the dais at 11:11 p.m. * * * · Kent Dayden, 11975 El Camino Real, Sen Diego, CA, representing Village Developments, gave a presentation regarding Otay Ranch end referred to the report by Village Development. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Kilkenny concluded with the issue of the scope of the tentative map. He indicated Village Development supports staff recommendation with the single modification that the scope of the tentative map should include Village Developments ownership in Village 5, except for two parcels that immediately abut West Coast property which is Parcel R-29 end Parcel P-3. West Coast has previously indicated they would like to flip a school or park onto our ownership. The portion of the property in R-29 and P-3 which should be excluded from the map is approximately 10 to 15 acres, an ample size to flip those kinds of uses, not that they are accepting or advocating that, but at least it provides the possibility. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Moot expressed concern of the practical effects of delaying the bonding until the B map level. He asked what assurances were in place that the backbone infrastructures would be constructed. Mr. Kilkenny enswered that the development agreement contains a statement that until released by the City Council, Village Development is obligated to provide for the backbone infrastructure. The development agreement also requires the provision of a subordination agreement by the lender on the property in the event they take title to the property, they are bound by the provisions of the development agreement, including the backbone provision. There are a couple of levels of assurances in this project. The City of Chula Vista has a very aggressive development impact fee program and each building permit that goes through the process has to pay for those development impact fees for a whole array of facilities, and the City will constantly have the flow of revenue to make sure each individual parcel pays for its fair share of the facilities. What both the development agreement and tentative map have are requirements that security be in place through bonding, but there are other mechanisms to ensure completion of the facility in a timely manner. Councilmember Alevy asked why the project did not include speed bumps, because it was different from the policy Council enacted in recent months. Mr. Jamriska explained the speed bumps were not provided in response to requests by the Fire Chief and Chief of Police who felt any impediment to the traffic flow would hinder their quick response. Councilmember Alevy asked staff to address the impact of MSCP on a County-wide basis on this particular project, and what are the impacts of Proposition 218 on this project. Mr. Lippitt said one impact would be if we had the open space district to maintain the open space around the village. If there are gated communities, everything private within the gated community would be maintained by the homeowners' association, end it would not be regulated at all by Proposition 218. For the portion probably along the slopes of Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue with issues such as drainage, those could be end probably would fall under the provisions of Proposition 218 which means the initial hearing would be set up before people moved in. If the people had already moved into the project before the assessments, there would have to be a vote. Councilmember Moot expressed concern about guarded communities. He did not favor staffs recommendation end doesn't see the big difference whether it has a gate or guard, because the concept is still the same. He could not se~ valid reasons to restrict eny citizen in the City of Chula Vista from driving in end around this pa~icular area. Councilmember Rindone was concerned that guarded or gated communities sends the inappropriate message of what this project was originally conceived to be. When you have artificial barriers end even the insinuation of those barriers, even if they are guards that are not there during the day, it creates a diffex'vnce sense of arabianee. We want to have the presence this is a good community end all parts have good protection end safety, not just those who can afford to be in the single-family or higher residential facility. He did not favor guarded communities in eny form. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 9 Mayor Horton indicated that gated communities were common, and there were two areas in Rancho del Rey which Council did not oppose. There are mobile home parks behind gates, because it is the lifestyle the particular mobile home parks wanted. She doesn't think it is exclusive; it is a choice and marketing tool for this project. Councilmember Alevy referred to an article "The Next Eden," from California Lawyer magazine that talked about the benefits of having gated communities. Earlier this evening Council spoke at length regarding section 7.1 of the development agreement and the backbone infrastructures, and it was clear that Council did not want to create a situation in this development that was not required of other developments. He indicated we need to turn that around with respect to gates, because we have allowed gates in other paris of the City. We have private single-family residence developments with gates in both Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey, and he stated Council should be consistent. If we are going to hold Rancho del Rey and Eastlake to the same requirements on other issues as Village Development, then we should be ceusistent and do the same with giving them the opportunity from a marketing standpo'mt to allow guarded portions of their development. MSC (Horton/Alevy) to allow gate closures from dusk to dawn, failed 2-2-1 with Moot and Rindone opposed and Padilia absent. MSC (Alevyalorton) to allow some facilities guarded from dusk to dawn, approved 3-1-1, with Rindone opposed and Padilia absent. RESOLUTIONS 18416, 18417 AND 18398 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, with the exception of taking the issue of the bonding separate which is It~n 12, approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. 12. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT - An amendment to the development agreement to further guarantee infrastructure improvements where the developer wants to create parcels for sale prior to fmalizing the final subdivision map. The amendment also addresses future problems with regard to any debt payment that might be levied to make public improvements or should development be only partially completed on any particular project due to any stoppage of work especially due to a bankruptcy action. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on tirst reading. (Deputy City Manager, Planning Director, and Otay Ranch Manager) Continued from the meeting of 11/12/96. ORDINANCE 2691 AMENDING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTAY RANCH, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (firSt ORDINANCE 2691 OFIvERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, including adding the bonding language to section 7.1, approved 3-1-1 with Rindone opposed and Padilia absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ® Bill Brasher, 1755 Old Gillette Avenue, Irvine, CA, representing Baldwin Builders, gave an update with the St. Claire Crossing development. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 10 ACTION ITEMS 13. RESOLUTION 18494 DISSOLVING THE COUNCIL APPOINTED INTERIM BECA BOARD - On 8/22/95, Council approved an Interim BECA Advisory Board represented by 11 organizations/individuals. These organizations/individuals were recommended by staff to provide a mix of public and private entities who are stakeholders in the regional BECA alliance. The Board's contributions include working with staff in the areas of coordinating and leveraging regional resources, enhanced program marketing, and providing technical advice. These functions may be best served by the Board continuing to act in an advisory capacity to the BECA program and staff. For the purposes of legal clarification, staff is recommending the existing Interim Board, as appointed by Council, be dissolved and the new Board membership be selected by staff. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 11/12/96. Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, said staff recommends Council dissolve the Council-appointed BECA advisory board, with the understanding that staff would appoint a board. Councilmember Moot suggested constituting an Ad Hoc Council subcommittee on the BECA board and requested staff research the issue of an ad hoc subcommittee with Council serving as an ex--ofiicio non-voting member. RESOLUTION 18494 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the heading, title read, text waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 5b and 8. The minuW, s will reflect the published agenda order) OTHER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. John Goss, City Manager, indicated there has been difficulty in scheduling a common date for the priority setting workshop, and he suggested Council bring their calendars to the next meeting. 15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) Mayor Herton requested staff come back at the next meeting with a report regarding a change on the agenda to move Oral Communications after the Consent Calendar. This would eliminate people having to wait end listen to all of the public hearings prior to speaking on issues not on the agenda. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. Issuance of subpoenas for public hearings regarding enforceability of Chula Vista's Campaign Ordinance. · Councilmember Alevy had an item agendized relating to the issuance of subpoenas and setting a public heating regarding the enforceability of our campaign ordinance. Minute~ November 19, 1996 Page 11 Ann Moore, Acting City Attorney, recommended that the City Council go into closed session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 under anticipated litigation, because there is a claim filed against the City alleging this particular ordinance is unconstitutional. The claim was filed by Dr. Salganick on 10/29/96, so under the anticipated litigation provision of the Brown Act she advised Council discuss this item in a closed session. M (Horton) to go into a dosed session for the reasons the Acting City Attorney stated, vote failed 2-2-1 with Alevy and Rindone opposed and Padilia absent. Ms. Moore advised the Chair has the authority to request Council go into a closed session. She suggested going into a closed session to discuss the item first, and perhaps Council can decide what they want to do at the opened session. Mayor Horton reqmsted Council go into a dosed session. * * * Meeting m:essed at 12:20 a.m. to a dosed session and reconvened at 1:02 a.m. * * * The meeting adjourned at 1:02 a.m. CLOSED SESSION 17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. · SNMB, L.P. vs. the City of Chula Vista and MCA. 2. Antidpated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Metro sewer issues. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 CONFERENCE ~VITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54957.6 a Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid- Management, and Unsepresentod. 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 Unsepresented. Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 12 18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: There were no reportable actions taken in closed session. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Pat~cia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk