HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/02/07MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COlINCH,
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, February 7, 1995
4:07 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Fox, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton
John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24, 1995
MSC (Fox/Rindone) to approve the minutes of January24, 1995 as presented. Approved4-0-0-1withPadilla
abstaining.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclamations honoring winners of "Voice of Democracy" contest. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone presented
the proclamations to: Maureen DeRuntz, Mar Vista High School; Amanda Leming, Castle Park High School;
Wendy Paff, Bonita Vista High School; and Brian Sayers, Chula Vista High School. The four first place winners
presented their speeches.
b. Oath of Office: Cultural Arts Commission - Amira Walker; Safety Commission - Douglas E. Cochrane.
The oath of office was administered to Amira Walker and Douglas E. Cochrane by City Clerk Authelet.
c. Proclaiming the week of February 5 through February 11, 1995 as "South Bay Environmental
Awareness Week." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Tem Rindone to Frank Roseman, Commodore of
the Tall Ship Society of San Diego County.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 6A & 6B)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken from the
Closed Session of 1/24/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter of resignation from the Veterans Advisory Commission - Nicholas S. Aguilar, 936 Redbud Rd.,
Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be
directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
c. Letter requesting financial support in sponsoring attendance at the 1994 Youth Leadership
Conference at Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania - Larissa Martinez, 2499 Golfcrest Loop,
Chula Vista, CA 91915. It is recommended that $100 of the Council Contingency Account be granted with the
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 2
understanding that in exchange for receiving the funds Ms. Martinez will make presentations to two of the City's
youth or community groups.
d. Letter of resignation from the Economic Development Commission (Ex-Officio) - Charles E.
Sutherland, 1891 Nirvana Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with
regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the
Public Library.
e. Letter requesting the City prohibit smoking in bingo halls - Group of concerned citizens. It is
recommended that, as an interim measure, staff be directed to contact the various bingo halls in the City
encouraging that they take into consideration the concerns of non-smokers using their facilities by voluntarily
providing better ventilated and separate areas for their non-smoking clientele. Further, that staff meet with the
bingo hall operators to receive their input before bringing back an ordinance prohibiting smoking in bingo halls.
Councilmember Fox questioned if a similar request had not been belbre Council in the past and, if so, what the
recommendation had been.
Mr. Goss replied that he did not recall a similar request regarding bingo halls in the past.
6.A. ORDINANCE2621 CREATING A HIGH TECH/BIO TECH ZONE, CREATING A
SUBCOMMITTEE TO GOVERN CERTAIN MATTERS WITHIN THE HIGH TECH/BIO TECH ZONE
OF THE CITY, AND DELEGATING CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO SAID SUBCOMMITTEE (second readin~
and adontion} - The proposal is to officially implement previously approved project processing streamlining
measures within the EastLake Business Center and EastLake Planned Community. Staff recommends Council place
the ordinances on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning and Director of Community Development)
PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
B. ORDINANCE 2622 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-95-11
(second reading and aduntion) PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Rindone stated it had been brought to his attention by the Director of the Chamber that staff had
provided a correction to a statement they had made earlier during the previous meeting rregarding the subcommittee
and whether they had final authority on the issues. The original response was that the subcommittee did not have
final authority.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that the subconurmttee would have fmal land use authority on items
that would normally be handled by the Planning Commission or the Design Review Committee. The only way that
those would be forwarded to Council would be if they were appealed to Council.
Councilmember Rindone stated the proposed package of incentives would not be within the final authority of the
subcommittee and would go before Council.
Mr. Leiter responded that regarding the economic incentives, the actions taken by the subcomnuttee and the review
by the Council would be clarified through further policy on that matter. That had not been fully defined.
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, replied that the ordinance, page 6A-2, Section 3c, enabled the City
to adopt a policy or do it via the agreement with EastLake, to utilize the subcommittee in some way as it related
to financial or economic incentives. It did not currently give any authority to the subcommittee in that regard.
Councilmember Rindone stated currently decisions such as that had not been delegated by Council to any other
body. He wanted assurance that would continue to applicable regarding the financial and economic incentives.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 3
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, stated it was his understanding that Councilmember Rindone wanted to know
if the subcommittee had final authority as it related to the incentive package in the final agreements. The specific
answer was no, they did not have final authority. They would be only advisory and it would come back to Council
for approval. That was staffs recommendation and intent.
Councilmember Rindone requested that staff provide Council a specific report delineating powers currently vested
in the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission that could be within the realm of final authority, unless
appealed to Council. It did not have to be an agendized report and he requested that it be submitted within two
weeks.
Mr. Morris stated he had indicated that in terms of the agreements on any write-downs or whatever agreements
might be entered into related to high tech bio tech that the subcommittee was advisory and that was incorrect. They
were not even advisory in that capacity. That was something that would be brought from staff to Council for final
action.
Councilmember Padilia referred to Section 3c, Economic Development Agreement Authority of the Subcommittee,
and felt it should be clarified that it was not a replacement authority or an expansion of a delegated authority. He
felt it dealt with: 1) determining eligibility for any existing incentives that may be agreed upon at a future date; and
2) recommending the level, if any, of support, all of which was specifically subject to the approval of the full
Council. He interpreted that as giving the subcommittee advisory authority.
Ms. Dye stated it said "as permitted or required by one or more agreements with EastLake Development Company
or by future adopted City policy ". As written, the subcommittee did not have the advisory authority, but if it were
to be permitted or required by a future agreement or policy adopted by the City, as per the language, they could
be given that authority.
Councilmember Padilia felt the language in Section 3c was ambiguous and it should be cleaned up with the points
being made very clear on the process.
Mr. Booguard recommended that if Council wanted the power in Section 3c to be advisory, that the words in the
second line, "all matters relating to" be proceeded with the words "advise the City Council on all matters related
to determining eligibility ...".
Mayor Horton stated because the final policy would have to go before Council she felt that was exactly what Section
3c did.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that on the proposed incentives they would come before
Council and the subcommittee would not have an advisory position. Only the planning and design authorities would
be delegated to the subcommittee.
Ms. Dye referred to page 6A-I and 6A-2, Sections A and B, and stated the ordinance clearly delegated the authority
of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee to the new subcommittee. It was an advisory capacity
to the City Council. Section 3c was enabling. If at a future time, it was brought back to Council in an agreement
with EastLake or future City policy, the subcommittee could be given some advisory authority in terms of economic
incentives. At the current time staff was not recommending that, but included the enabling language so it could be
changed in the future if appropriate.
Mayor Horton felt the underlying language was "as permitted and required by one or more agreements with
EastLake Development Company and the City of Chula Vista". The City would be working within those guidelines.
Mr. Booguard stated the language delegated the authority to the subcommittee as may be delegated in future
agreements. Council would have the right in the future to approve whatever agreements came before them and
know what the agreements did to delegate the authority to the subcommittee.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 4
Councilmember Rindone felt Section 3c should be removed, put under an enabling section, and clarified. He
recommended that the item be continued for one week for clarification of the language.
Councilmember Padilia referred to Section 3c and stated he was in support of the concept. A structure was being
put in place for something that did not exist, i.e. advice or determinations made by the subcommittee regarding
agreements that did not exist. He questioned whether that was the wisest thing to do as the key component to the
high tech/bio tech zone would be any future agreements. He did not have a problem in granting authority to the
subcommittee provided that it was understood that the role of the subcommittee regarding that authority was limited
to determining eligibility and recommending what, if any, level of support. There needed to be a clean-up of the
language to make it clear that the subcommittees role was to determine eligibility and make a recommendation to
the full Council. He did not feel there was a question as to whether or not Council wanted them to look at it or
be advisory as that was the purpose of creating the subcommittee.
Mayor Horton stated if the agreement had already been approved by Council then the subcommittee should have
the authority to go forward and act on it. That was the whole purpose, i.e. breakdown the layers of bureaucracy
and expedite and streamline processing. She was not opposed to clean-up lungtinge if Councilmembers did not
interpret Section 3c as she did. The menu would have been approved by Council so the subcommittee would be
working within those parameters. The concept was to try to let the company know the City was there to help them
and expedite their project with the guidelines already approved by Council.
Ms. Dye stated the agreement would provide the parameters for individual companies to be assisted. Council would
review the agreement and approve the overall parameters for what kind of incentives could be provided. It was
staff~s intent to return to Council with an agreement for Council consideration and approval, and as part of that
agreement, to provide for a definition of what the subcommittees role would be in that process.
Councilmember Padilia stated there was nothing anticipated in any of the potential agreements that would make an
application of any of the economic incentives automatic to any specific applicant. It was his understanding that the
agreements were totally separate, in the literal sense, from the structure being approved by Council. Council would
be concluding separate agreements with entities for the purpose of providing a menu of available economic
incentives. The subcommittee could look at the individtml applicant and make a recommendation to the full Council
as to the specific applicants qualifications under the agreement and what, if any, incentives they recommended the
full Council apply to that particular applicant. As long as it was understood that they were cooperating but separate
structures, it should be clarified under Section 3c what the role would be in terms of process in determining the
eligibility for whatever was concluded in the future with EastLake and to make recommendation to the full Council
about what, if any, from the menu of incentives, should be applied to that particular applicant.
Mr. Boogaard recommended that Section 3c read: ".. except as to matters other than legislative matters required
to be vested in the City Council, all matters related to recommending to the City Council eligibility for and level
of economic support as permitted or required by one or more agreements between EastLake Development Company
and the City of Chula Vista and/or by City policy unless final authority is delegated to the subcommittee in
subsequent agreements~. Council may want to, in subsequent agreements, give the subcommittee authority to grant
minor CUP's, minor density changes, minor DIF waivers, etc. but anything over a certain level would have to be
brought to Council.
Mayor Hotton questioned why Council would want to change the language. The purpose was to expedite the
process.
Mr. Bungnard stated the language would preclude the subcornnuttee from having final authority on anything.
Council could make the subcommittees role on economic development strictly advisory; reserve whatever authority,
advisory or final, at a later time in a later agreement; or preclude their ability at the present time to have final
authority on anything in the future. The current language, as written, gave Council the right to enter into
agreements to delegate either recommendation power or final power.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 5
Councilmember Moot felt the subcommittee had no authority to recommend any thing and that all financial decisions
were solely within the discretion of the Council. Only when the Council asked the subcommittee for recommending
authority were they able to do so. He felt the recommendations by Councilmember Padilia were giving the
subcommittee more authority than given in the language currently drafted.
Councilmember Padilia felt it was instituting ahead of time the ability to make digibility recommendations
and recommendations from a menu, as entitled by Council, as to a particular applicant. He felt that was
good and he would support that. He would not support delegating through the present structure or in any
future agreemenls, the final authority to the subcommittee to conclude agreements with an applicant as to
any particular economic incentive because they were major fiscal decisions that had major fiscal impacts and
bdonged in the purview of the full Council. His intent was to add flexibility to the subcommittee and to
ddineate some lines of authority to make it specific that ultimatdy these concluding agreements were the final
jurisdiction of the full Council.
MSUC (Rindone/ltorton) to continue the item one week with language drafted reflecting the intent described
by Councilmember Padilia.
Councilmember Fox questioned if Council would be presented with options when the item was brought back. He
wanted to be able to compare the new language to the existing language.
Councilmember Rindone stated the intent of the motion was to return with clarifying language as per the intent
outlined by Councilmember Padilia prior to the motion.
Councilmember Moot felt Council needed to be clear as to what it was trying to do. The language as presently
written did not give the subcommittee any recommending authority. As currently written, Council made all
decisions on financial commitments and only when the Council wanted to delegate recommending authority would
they have it.
Mr. Boogaard stated the authority that would be delegated to the subcommittee would be defmed by a subsequent
agreement, i.e. the menu agreement. It was not a well defined agreement, but an agreement that created a formula
for granting incentives to individual applicants on an expedited basis. A two stage process was being proposed: 1)
an agreement with EastLake that would define how much land would be granted, discounts granted, and what kind
of concessions could be exchanged; and 2) an individual agreement with an applicant for a particular discount or
subsequent concession with EastLake in a particular case.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the second agreement would come before Council for approval.
Mr. Boogaard replied that was what Council was currently debating. The first agreement would come before
Council. Whether or not the second agreement came before Council was the subject matter of whatever authority
Council gave the subconumttee.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was the heart of the discussion. He could not support Council delegating
authority to the subcommittee without final review by Council. The purpose of the subcommittee was to expedite,
fast track, select from the menu, and then bring it back to Council for final approval.
Mayor Hotton stated it was her interpretation that both agreements would be approved by Council. The
subcommittee would work under those parameters and have flexibility to go forward.
Mr. Goss stated he did not feel the master list of concessions would be vague, but very specific. When Council
got to the point of reviewing those items they could be very controversial. He felt that list would be subject to
change with time, i.e. some would be removed as they were no longer pertinent and others would be added. The
value of the individual items would also change with time.
Minutes
February7, 1995
Page 6
Mayor Hotton stated it was a framework to work under and any time the subcommittee wanted to vary from that
menu it would have to be brought to Council for approval.
Councilmember Moot felt the confusion was that Section c had nothing to do with the menu that would be before
Council in April. The language stated the subcommittee had no authority to recommend from that list what the
Council would do. It was solely in the discretion of the council unless at some later time the Council wanted to
delegate that authority to the subcommittee.
Councilmember Padilia stated he supported the concept and felt Council's discussion could layout some of the perils
in bringing forth structural concepts without having the proposed agreements that formed the heart of a successful
high tech/bio tech zone. The bottom line was what could be offered to a potential investor to have them locate
within the City and until Council looked at the costs involved they would not know the bottom line.
7. ORDINANCE 2623 AMENDING SECTION 10.56.040 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - METER
ZONES - DESIGNATED FEES - SCHEDULE XI (first readimp) - Staff conducted an analysis on the need to
convert additional short-term meters to long-term meters in some of the downtown parking lots. The City Attorney
determined that the authority to determine the proper configuration can be delegated to the City Engineer and could
be done through an ordinance. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Community Development, Director of Finance, and Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 17799 APPROVING JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN CERTAIN FACILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENT -The development of the Palomar Trolley Center required the installation of a 66-inch storm drain
and an 8-inch sewer line on the project site and the public street accessing the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board trolley station as public improvements. The public improvements are placed within an SDG&E easement
for transmission lines. SDG&E requests the Joint Use Agreement to govern the installation and maintenance of the
public improvements. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
9. RESOLUTION 17800 AMENDING SCHEDULE V, SECTION 10.52.320 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE - STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING - PROHIBITED DURING CERTAIN HOURS ON
CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE AUTO PARK Pursuant to Assessment District 90-2, the City will be asked
to accept the street improvements in the Auto Park, Auto Park Drive, and the extension of Brandywine Avenue.
In accordance with the Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan and Auto Park Master Plan, both sides of the streets have
been posted with "No Parking" signs. The Auto Park dealerships have requested parking be allowed on the streets.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17801 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TREE
TRIMMING SERVICES IN THE CITY - On 1/11/95, sealed bids were received for tree trimming services. The
tree trimming project was budgeted for Fiscal Year 1994/95. The project includes the trimming of a total of 2,619
trees located at various locations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
11. REPORT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1994 - State Government Code Section Number 66000 requires local agencies assessing Development
Impact Fees (DIF) to make available specified financial data to the public each fiscal year and review the
information at a public meeting. Local agencies are also required to make findings once each year for any funds
remaining unexpended or untoremitted for five or more years. The findings must identify the purpose for the fee
and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. Staff
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 7
recommends Cotmcil accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Finance and Director of Public
Works)
RESOLUTION 17802 MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE UNEXPENDED FUNDS IN THE
VARIOUS DIF FUNDS ARE STILL NEEDED TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR
WHEN THE FEES WERE COLLECTED
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
12. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-95-05; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT A DENTAL PRACTICE AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A DENTAL LABORATORY OF DENTAL
APPLIANCE MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT PARK LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (EP-IB)
LAND USE D1STRICT OF THE RANCHO DEL REY BUSINESS CENTER - The proposed amendment is to
allow dental offices as an accessory use to a permitted dental laboratory and dental appliance manufacturing. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning)
ORDINANCE 2624 AMENDING CHAPTER IX-A.I, PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
OF THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN PC DISTRICT
REGULATIONS (first reading)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public heating was declared open.
® Gary Cinti, Cinti Land Planning, 3639 Midway Drive #292, San Diego, CA, representing Dr. Ernesto
Underwood, stated he was present to answer any questions.
There being no further public comments, the public heating was declared closed.
ORDINANCE 2624 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF RATE INCREASE FOR COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL OF REFUSE - A public hearing was opened on 1/10/95 to consider a rate increase to cover increased
rates paid by Laidlaw at the County landfill system since 10/1/94. Since only ten cities in the region were charged
the higher rates, the differential rate was litigated. The public hearing was continued in anticipation that significant
actions by the County might affect the amount of the rate change to be passed along to ratepayers. Landfill rates
were subsequently reduced on 2/1/95, but reimbursement of the four months of differential charges is one issue to
be addressed at a 2/22/95 settlement conference. Staff recommends the oublic hearinll be continued to 2/28/95.
(Deputy City Manager Krempl and Principal Management Assistant Snyder) Continued from the meeting of
1/10/95.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MOTION: (Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 2/28/95.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, stated she was not
opposed to the extension of time but felt the information should be available to the public prior to the public hearing.
She specifically requested that it be made available to her.
SECOND TO MOTION: (Fox), motion approved unanimously.
Minutes
February7, 1995
Page 8
14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REGARDING AB939 SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE) AND REAPPROVING THE SRRE AND HHWE - The SRRE
and HHWE presented for approval have not been changed since Council approved them on 12/15/92. A second
approval of the documents is necessary to complete a new environmental review requirement imposed by the State.
The new environmental review does not require a change in the contents of the documents previously approved and
none is recommended. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Conservation Coordinator)
RESOLUTION 17803 REAPPROVING THE SRRE AND HHWE AND AUTHORIZING THAT
BOTH DOCUMENTS (AS AMENDED) BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE FOR APPROVAL AND
RESUBMITTAL TO THE COUNTY FOR INCLUSION IN THE COUNTYXVIDE INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN REGARDS THERETO
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, requested that the
public hearing be continued because the information regarding increased rates could be pertinent to accepting the
SRRE.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Padilia clarified that nothing had changed except for the specified amendments outlined in the staff
report since the categorical exemption was submitted.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, stated that was correct. It was at the request of the State and a series
of public notices had been put in place that required a significant amount of staff time and if postponed that process
may have to be started over again.
RESOLUTION 17803 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, intbrmed Council that
she had submitted a grant proposal to the Border 2000 Planning Grants Program. The Border 2000 Planning
program was an opportunity to provide collaborative, appropriate technology education for public awareness in
economic development. It would compliment plans for the high tech/bio tech centers established through the Border
Environmental Commerce Alliance.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
15. REPORT ANNOUNCING CHANGE IN MEETING DAY FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY,
MARCH AND APRIL FOR INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION (Suzanne Ramirez, Chair,
International Friendship Commission)
Mayor Horton informed the public that there were two vacancies on the Intematinnal Friendship Commission.
ACTION ITEMS
16. ORDINANCE 2625 AMENDING CHAPTER 18.16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER
TO ALLOW FOR THE POSTING BY DEVELOFERS OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF SECURITY FOR
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 9
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRING COMPLETION GUARANTIES IN FAVOR OF
THE CITY AND MAKING MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS (first reading) - The developers of the
Channelside Shopping Center (which includes a 120,000 square foot Wal-Mart) are requesting that a Wal-Mart
"corporate guaranty" be accepted as security for the public improvements that the City and the Redevelopment
Agency are requiring for the Project. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director
of Community Development, Director of Public Works, and City Attorney)
Councilmember Fox questioned if the ordinance also waived the pre-amendment requirements or if Council would
have to take separate action to do that.
Mr. Boogaard replied that the staff recommendation requested waiver of the application for the Wal-Mart situation.
Staff recommendation was ~ place the ordinance on first reading and waive the application of the old requirement
to Wal-Mart. Therefore, Wal-Mart would get the benefit of the ordinance and not have to wait the thirty days for
enactment.
Councilmember Rindone referred to item 2 of the ordinance amendment and questioned whether it was legal, i.e.
security offered in fifty times more valuable than the improvements. He understood staffs concern about setting
a precedent but was uncertain whether it unfairly targeted wealthy companies and would not be conducive to
promoting growth for companies that may not be as fiscally well off as Wal-Mart.
Mr. Boogaard stated staff felt it reasonable in light of the fact that the City did not have a third party to rely on to
meet the performance requirements required under the agreement. It would also prevent its application in a
proliferation of cases where staff would have to evaluate net worth of companies wishing to propose development.
It would only apply to very large and wealthy companies where the risk of default was not significant. There was
a rational relationship in the particular case for discriminating in favor of wealthy companies because the City
wanted companies to be able to stand behind their performance obligations. Wealthief companies were better able
to withstand financial downturns. Everyone else could pay the additional 11/2 - 2% premium for a surety and still
have the ability to perform their agreements.
Councilmember Fox stated the ordinance allowed the City, in dealing with future developments, to retain the right
to replace their corporate guarantee with cash or another bond. He questioned if the City Attorney felt comfortable
that if there were uncompleted public improvements and there was a corporate guarantee that a demand to replace
it with something else would get the job done and protect the City.
Mr. Boogaard responded he was comfortable because the agreement would have a provision to not issue the
certificate of occupancy until the substitution was completed. If they wanted to occupy thebuilding they would have
to convert their corporate guarantee to a third party surety relationship.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the remedies against the surety bond were different than if they were standard
surety bonds.
Mr. Boogaard replied they would be identical remedies. It was almost the exact language as used in the surety
bonds.
Councilmember Moot questioned if it was substantially identical as to what an insurance company would offer if
they came in as the bonding authority.
ORDINANCE 2625 PLACED ON IqRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text
was waived. Motion to include staff recommendation for waiver for applicant. Approved unanimously.
17. RESOLUTION 17804 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SUBDIVISION AND PRECISE
PLAN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTRE ASSOCIATES, L.P., FOR
THE PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 10
CODE AND THE PRECISE PLAN RESOLUTION AND TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FOR THE
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT - Before the Parcel Map is approved, the developer must
either complete all the public improvements required as part of the project, or enter into an agreement to insure the
performance of all required public improvement work is complete within a specified period of time. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
RESOLUTION 17804 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
18. RESOLUTION 17805 ADOPTING A 1995/96 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND LEGISLATIVE
WORK PROGRAM - The Legislative Program represents Cotmcil's consensus position on items likely to be acted
upon by the State Legislature, Congress, or administrative agencies. By adopting a Legislative Program at the
beginning of each two-year legislative session, the City can take a proactive role in sponsoring, supporting, or
opposing bills related to various legislative priorities. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Assistant City
Manager)
Councilmember Fox expressed concern over the proposal to impose border crossing fees. He personally opposed
such fees because they were anti-business and penalized legal crossing. The area should be enhancing relationships
with Mexico. He felt Category 2 should include should support of efforts opposing border crossing fees.
MOTION: (Fox) to amend the Legislative Program, Category 2, under Opposing Efforts, to oppose efforts
of imposing border crossing fees on our international border.
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, stated that Part 2 required staff to return to Council for official action which
could pass on a majority vote. If placed under Opposing Efforts staff would return with additional information and
it woould be a preliminary indication of Council's intention towards a piece of legislation. Based on information
presented by staff Council could alter their position.
Councilmember Padilia questioned whether action was premature because a specific legislative proposal had not been
developed. Therefore, he was opposed to placing it in the "opposed" category without having specifics and
background information.
SECOND TO MOTION: (Moot)
Councilmember Fox stated because it was in Category 2, any action would have to be brought back to Council.
It was a preliminary position and a formal position would be taken only after review of a full report. He noted it
was part of the President's budget proposal.
Mr. Morris offered an alternative for Council consideration, i.e. the addition of a "watch" category. Staff would
continue to monitor legislation and return to Council with interim reports and possibly a final action.
Mayor Horton agreed with comments made by Councilmember Padilia. She felt Council should wait to see the fmal
proposed legislation.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: (Fox)
MSUC (Fox/Padilla) to put the issue of imposing border crossing fees on our international border in a
"watch" category in the Legislative Work Program.
Mr. Goss suggested that Council solicit comments from the community on the issue. There had been some
discussion that if it was imposed it would be countered in-kind by the government of Mexico. There was also a
number of concerns as to what it would do to many of the businesses in Chula Vista.
Councilmember Rindone stated there would be community forums and before a recommendation was made the full
aspect of the proposal would be understood. He felt it was appropriate to place it in a "watch" category.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 11
Councilmember Moot questioned if there was legislation to put state-wide restrictions on unfunded mandates he
would support that at the State level as well as Federal.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if other cities within the County, other than San Diego and Chula Vista, had
paid lobbyist. He requested that the report contain a comparison of the sixteen cities in the county, i.e. full-time,
part-time, etc. He questioned whether the cities were pooling their legislative resources.
Mr. Goss replied that San Diego, City and County, had full-time people working on legislation and Chula Vista and
other cities had contractual relationships. On certain issues the various consultants had pooled their resources.
Councilmember Rindone requested that the report contain background information on Advocation Inc. He
questioned whether the requirement for public restrooms at service stations was within the City's authority or if
legislative action would be required.
Mr. Booguard stated it was a question of Home Rule that had not been litigated. Home Rule was decided on a case-
by-case basis and the balancing factors were if it was an internal matter to the city that did not implicate a state-wide
interest then the city did have Home Rule authority to legislate. He did not know if the City had Home Rule
authority and it would be helpful to have state legislation giving the City local authority to require it.
Councilmember Rindone requested that the Home Rule authority issue be included in the report back to Council.
RESOLUTION 17805, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
19. REPORT
given by staff.
UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be
A. REPORT LANDFILL DISPOSAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO - It is recommended that Council not approve the
agreement but place it on hold to be reconsidered in the future should County landfill rates be increased. (Deputy
City Manager Krempl)
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated staff was recommending that Council not enact the agreement. Staff
negotiated the contract in good faith over several months and that had been overtaken by events. The rational for
not proceeding with the agreement had been discussed with City of San Diego staff and he felt they understood.
He recommended that it be conveyed in written form to the City of San Diego along with thanks.
Councilmember Rindone stated that events had changed significantly and he supported the staff recommendation.
Had the agreement not been negotiated with the City of San Diego, Chula Vista would not be where they currently
were. It was clear that Chula Vista was willing to be proactive and find an alternative solution for long term rate
relief to the ratepayers. He requested that the Mayor's Office convey the Council's appreciation to the Mayor's
Office in San Diego.
MS (Rindone/Fox) to accept the staff report.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether the fees would be reduced further and what real commitment there was
to reach that reduction.
Mr. Krempl responded that the Board of Supervisors had approved the reductions as goals and had formed a
subcommittee of two Board members and two Authority members to work on the budget issues, in particular the
NCRRA issue. They had endorsed it but implementation was yet to be seen. If implemented the rate would be
reduced an additional $5.00 to $50.00/ton as of 7/1/95.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 12
B. REPORT ONGOING STRATEGY WITH REGARD TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
OPTIONS AND TRANSFER STATION - The purpose of the report is to review progress on the development
of a solid waste transfer station, assess current options in light of recent events, and request further Council
direction. The three options are: put all actions on hold indefinitely; continue with current plans for first phase
of the transfer station (site, design and permitting only); or allow private contractor to proceed independently at this
time. It is recommended that staff continue with current Council direction to site, design and permit a solid waste
transfer station. Additionally, it is recommended that staff be directed to: (1) Monitor County progress towards
reducing costs and landfill rates; (2) Pursue additional information on other viable alternatives such as a "pod" truck
system; and (3) Provide Council with a monthly written status report on expenditure obligations incurred as a result
of the transfer station development. (Deputy City Manager Krempl and Principal Management Assistant Snyder)
Mr. Krempl stated the report attempted to accomplish: 1) give Council all the background information; 2) remind
Council of the recent changes on the part of the Authority and the County and try to project what the impacts of
those changes were, both short-term and long-term; 3) revisit the transfer station and various options; and 4) point
out what the financial commitments had been to the City to date. Staff% recommendation was not a commitment
towards construction of a transfer station or to acquire land, but an option for property.
Councilmember Rindone felt the City was in an even better scenario than anticipated. There were three factors that
illustrated where the City currently was: 1) page 19B-4, second paragraph, "A transfer station is likely to still be
needed in the future". Therefore, the question was not whether a transfer station was needed, but when it would
be necessary. The second point, page 19B-5, fourth paragraph, "It is also the possibility that a transfer station could
become an intricate part of a regional solid waste system and revenue possibilities through host fees if the transfer
station is developed in Chula Vista". The third point, page 19B-5, last paragraph, "No money will or need to be
paid to Sexton unless the transfer station process is terminated ". He was pleased with the progress being made but
admonished Council to not let their defenses down because the County situation looked more favorable. Other
options needed to be considered.
* * * Councilmember Padilia left the dins at 5:32 p.m. * * *
MSC (Rindone/Fox) to approve the staff recommendation: staff continue with current Council direction to
site, design and permit a solid waste transfer station. Additionally, it is recommended that staff be directed
to: (1) Monitor County progress towards reducing costs and landfill rates; (2) Pursue additional information
on other viable alternatives such as a "pod" truck system; and (3) Provide Council with a monthly written
status report on expenditure obligations incurred us a result of the transfer station development. Approved
4-0-1 with Padilia absent.
* * * Councilmember Padilia returned to the dias at 5:35 p.m. * * *
20. ,REPORT
by staff.
UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that legislation had been drafted, HR 794, by
congressmen from the San Diego district which would define those agencies that had a facility that had an outfall
of four miles or longer, 300 feet deep, and used chemical treatment as being the same and consistent with secondary
treatment. That had not been approved by congress, but if it was approved Point Loma would be in compliance
with the law and San Diego would not necessarily have to do the other improvements. Point Loma could then be
built out to 234 million gallons/day. San Diego was indicating that under the Waiver Provisions in the current law
they could bill the City. The TAC met last Friday and agreed that the extension of the Metro contract should go
out to infinity if the cities had to pay. There was a lot of disagreement between TAC members as to whether the
costs for the facility should be spread out.
Councilmember Moot stated the City of San Diego was proposing to build reclamation plants and have all other
agencies share equally in the costs of building those facilities even though the City of Chula Vista would not directly
benefit from the facility. He questioned the theory used.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 13
Mr. Lippitt replied that was correct. They proposed that the costs for all of the water reclamation facilities be paid
based on flow whether or not cities were using the facilities. They were looking at it as one system. Their
argument was that there was a provision in the agreements, i.e. 1960 agreements, that the system had to be operated
in compliance with federal law and if they had to do something to conform with federal law then everyone had to
pay for it equally. Many of the participating agencies were considering arbitration but had decided not to take
formal action until after the bills were sent out.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if the flow was in terms of an aggregate impact on the entire system and not just
on Chula Vista.
Mr. Lippitt replied that was correct. It was a regional system and they felt all members had equal benefit. An area
of disagreement was that the cities were working from a contract which had specific provisions and until those
provisions were changed or renegotiated the cities were not ready to pay.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 6A and 6B. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
21.
OTHER BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
Scheduling of meetings. No report given.
22. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointments: Design Review Committee - Michael Spethman; Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission - Steve Epsten (Ex-Officio).
MSUC 0torton/Rindone) to ratify the appointments of: Michael Spethman to the Design Review Committee
and Steve Epsten as Ex-Officio to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission.
b. Appointment of Council representative to the SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Policy Comnuttee.
MSUC (Rindone/Fox) to appoint Mayor Horton as the Council representative to the SANDAG Bayshore
Bikeway Policy Committee.
c. Appointment of Council representative to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Task Force (ADAPT).
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to appoint Councilmember Padilia as the Council representative to the Alcohol and
Drug Abase Task Force (ADAPT).
23. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a. Budget Process: (1) Eliminate practice of funding non-specific encumbrances from previous year's budget;
and (2) Establish procedures for authorizing expenditures from Mayor/Council annual budget. Continued from
the meeting of 1/24/95.
Councilmember Rindone requested that his item be trailed for two weeks.
Minutes
February 7, 1995
Page 14
Councilmember Fox
b. Councilmember Fox requested a phone call from staff regarding the impact of any delay on property
owners (626 Second Avenue) regarding their interest or ability in selling property to the City on "historic row".
Property owners were currently being told that the City was not interested in purchasing the property at the present
time.
CLOSED SESSION
Council recessed at 6:28 p.m., met in Closed Session at 6:38 p.m., and re, convened at 7:26 p.m.
Mr. Boogaard informed Council that Conference with Labor Negotiators would not be discussed in Closed Session.
24. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
· City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego regarding approval of a major use
permit for Daley Rock Quarry.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive Management,
Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western
Council of Engineers (WCE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
· Property: 855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA (Parcel Number 644-040-16) or
894 Energy Way, Chula Vista, CA (Parcel Number 644-182-07 and
644-182-08). As and for transfer station.
Negotiating parties: Director of Community Development.
Under negotiations: Price and terms of payment.
25. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 7:28 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on February 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
The Redevelopment Agency convened at 6:28 p.m. and adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: Vicki C. Soderquist, De;City Clerk