Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/02/08' MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, February 8, 1994 Council Chambers 6:04 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Hurton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bmce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: 4a. City Manager Goss introduced James Hardiman as the new Fire Chief fur the City of Chula Vista. 4b. Proclamations will be presented to local high school students for achieving first place awards in the "Voice of Democracy" speech contest. The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Hurton to Vi Nguyen (Bonita Vista High School). Van Cheng (Castle Park High School) and Andrea Toth (Mar Vista High School) were not in attendance. CONSENT CALENDAR (items pulled: 7 and 9) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OI~II~IERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 5a. Letter requesting Council intercede to prevent loss of San Diego's megacenter status and eventual closure of the data processing center at North Island Naval Air Station which could impact local and state economies - Ilona H. Harpe, 795 Paulsen Ave., El Cajon, CA 92020. It is recommended that this letter be referred to staff. 5b. Letter requesting financial support for the Bonita Vista High School's Music Machine to perform at the first International Show Choir Festival in the Netherlands and at Euro Disney Terry Myers, Booster Club President, Bonita Vista High School, 751 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that Council authorize the expenditure of $2,000 from the Council Contingency Fund for financial assistance for the Music Machine to perform at the International Show Choir Festival and Euro Disney. In exchange for this funding, the Music Machine is to perform at City functions, such as the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony, etc. 6. ORDINANCE 2588 REPEALING SECTION 5.26.220 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FEMALE BARTENDERS (second reading and adoption) -The proposed ordinance will repeal an obsolete and unconstitutional provision of the Municipal Code preventing women from being bartenders. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney) Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 2 7. RESOLUTION 17383 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF POLICE PATROL VEHICLES VIA A COOPERATIVE BID) - The Fiscal Year 1993/94 budget provides for the replacement of 13 Police patrol vehicles in the Equipment Replacement Fund. The City is able to purchase the vehicles on a cooperative bid via the City of San Diego Bid Number C4079/94. It is recommended by staff that the purchase be from Bob Baker Ford. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Interim Finance Administrator) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. · Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated the City was talking about establishing a commerce zone to revive the Southbay economy. He questioned why the cars were being purchased in Mission Valley and not Chula Vista. Councilmember Horton stated she shared Mr. Garcia's concerns and questioned who actually made bids on the proposal. Susan Merrill, Interim Finance Administrator, stated in the past the City went with the State on their bids due to the huge volume. Last year the City was able to go with the City of San Diego on the bids which was less than the State. Both local dealers had the advantage to put in bids. They did not do so and, therefore, they were not included in the overall bid that included San Diego, Chula Vista, and other entities. Mr. Garcia stated he could assure the Council that the $14,891 price could be matched by any Ford dealer. There was basically no advantage of saying that by purchasing a large quantity they would be cheaper because cars were sold on a cost plus basis. He spoke to the Fleet Manager and Leasing Manager at Fuller Ford and they knew nothing about the bid. He was not saying that anything improper was done but it appeared that efforts could be made to contact the local dealers and compare the prices. He wanted to see his tax dollars spent in Chula Vista. Councilmember Moore stated Council had expressed their concerns in the past regarding "buying in Chula Vista'. The report should have listed what the savings were and what the costs would be if purchased through a Chula Vista dealer. RESOLUTION 17383 OFI~IERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was an attempt by staff to follow-up with the local dealerships to see if they received the bids or if the did not want to submit a bid. Ms. Merrill stated City staff did not follow-up, but assumed the City of San Diego staff did. Staff could follow through with that next year to conform with Councils' request. Councilmember Rindone questioned if a one week delay would cause any problems. He really felt that was Councils' intent and it should have been done. David Byers, Deputy Public Works Director/Operations, stated the State bid was for chevrolets and he and the Police Chief preferred to stay with ford because the maintenance was easier. He then asked the Purchasing Agent to try to find another agency that had bid fords and to check the price. He then found that the City of San Diego had bid for Fords and they indicated they had mailed Fuller Ford a bid. If the City did not take the cooperative bid, the City would have to go out to bid alone. Under the law they could not have Fuller Ford match the bid, the City would have to go out to bid unless Council found some compelling reason to waive the bidding process. If the item was not approved by next week the City would not only lose the San Diego bid, but any model cars for 1994. Mayor Nader stated that if Council approved the item next week it would still be okay. Mr. Byers was stating the City could not do anything other than approving the item without it taking longer than a week and then the opportunity for the 1994 cars would be lost due to the legal requirement that new bids be put out. Councilmember Hotton stated it was more complicated than originally thought. In the past the local Ford dealer had never come in below other competing dealers. She noted the City did nep_A to take into consideration the sales tax. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 3 Councilmember Moore stated it was more than just sales tax, it was jobs, employment, and spin-off from those sales. He felt staff should have better informed Council regarding the complexities. AMENDMENT: {Rindone\Moore) Council approve the resolution, but prior f~ the consideration of any vehicles purchased in future years there would be an effort by staff to ascertain local dealers response 1o other bids to ensure they could not beat the price prior to the end of the model year. Mayor Nader questioned if it was legal when a bid was out to contact a specific vendor to see if they could beat the bid of another vendor. City Attorney Boogaard responded that if the City was not granting preference, but simply soliciting local interest it would be a marketing outreach program which was legal. Mayor Nader strongly encouraged staff to consult with the City Attorney in carrying out the motion. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved unanimously. VOTE ON RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. 8. RESOLUTION 17384 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TURF MOWER The Fiscal Year 1993/94 budget provides for a turf mower in the Parks Division. Bids were received from three vendors. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract to the low bidder, San Diego Turf. (Interim Finance Administrator) 9. RESOLUTION 17385 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THREE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS - Bids were requested for the purchase of three traffic signal controllers required within the City. Two bids were received. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract to the low bidder, John C. Henberger Company. (Interim Finance Administrator) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Hotton requested an explanation as to what a traffic controller was. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded the traffic signal controllers were the control units that went in the individual control boxes at each intersection that told the signals when to change, etc. They were permanent items and would be installed in two new lights with a spare being kept in the shop for emergencies. RESOLUTION 17385 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Mayor Nader stated he had been informed by the City Attorney there were two items that should be considered by Council off-agenda on an urgency basis. One was consideration of approval of a market feasibility study with Nielsen Capital for $18,500 which related to the Bio-Tech Zone in the City. The other item was to add discussion of a potential settlement of the litigation with Mr. Gurnee to Closed Session. MSUC (Nader/Horton) to find that on both items information arose after the posting of the agenda which required that Council take action at the meeting. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 4 Urgency item nlaced on the A~enda: Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, stated Council directed staff to pursue the development of a High Tech/Bio Tech Incentive Zone in partnership with EastLake Development Company and in conjunction with a City Task Force. As part of the efforts, one specific component had been identified, i.e. the targeting of pharmaceutical companies moving from the research and development phase to the manufacturing phase which was creating a high demand for pilot manufacturing facilities. That presented an opportunity to look at the feasibility of establishing a shared pilot manufacturing facility to save companies time and money so it could be leased to them on a short term basis. Staff was recommending that Council approve the mselution which authorized a contract for a feasibility study to look at the feasibility of establishing such a pilot facility at the EastLake Business Park. The contract was for an amount not to exceed $18,500 and the City and EastLake would each be paying half. EastLake would pay up front and the City would pay upon completion of the approved product. They would be looking at the regional and national markets and there was an opportunity for the consultant to attend and international/national conference next week and in order for him to move ahead and prepare for that staff requested Council authorize the contract. RESOLUTION 17388 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH NIELSEN CAPITAL GROUP, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY REGARDING A SHARED BIO TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AS IS ATTACHED HERETO, AND WITH SUCH OTHER MODIFICATION AS THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY MAY AGREE ~N RESOLUTION 17388 OFI~ERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. MS (MoorefNader) to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to complete the agenda. Motion failed 2-3 with Fox, Horton, and Rindone opposed. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to consider the item under the Mayor's Comments and Closed Session. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 10. PUBLIC HEARING DRC-94-10, APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 51 SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1561 (BAYONA) WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY-KAUFMAN AND BROAD - The applicant, Kaufman and Broad, is requesting site plan and architectural approval for the construction of 51 homes on the undeveloped portion of the Bayona neighborhood located within the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. On 1/26/94, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the proposal. Anticipating a possible appeal by the neighbors, however, and not wanting to delay the project any more than necessary, Kaufman and Broad have themselves appealed the matter to Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 17386 DENYING THE APPEAL THEREBY APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 51 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1561 (BAYONA) ~VITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY Ken Lee, Deputy Director of Planning, gave a brief history of the project, project design and appeal. Due to concerns by the residents of the area, meetings were held with the applicant and attempts were made to arrive at a satisfactory design solution. The applicant made certain changes, but the residents indicated that the changes were not sufficient to meet their concerns. Based on those unresolved architectural solutions the Zoning Administrator forwarded the project on to the Planning Commission. The Commission on 1/26/94, on a 4-3 vote, upheld the applicants request subject to conditions outlined in the Planning Commission resolution. Typically, single-family Minu~s February 8, 1994 Page 5 homes were not subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission design approval. In Rancho del Rey, the approval of the Tentative Map met the design approval requirements for lots that were 5,000 sq. ft. or larger. Because the lots were less than 5,000 sq. ft. they were subject to the City's design review process. The guidelines, beth through the City's process and Rancho del Rey were not very specific. Staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation and requested Council deny the appeal. Councilmember Moore stated one of the conditions was removal of the trellis and questioned what the rationale was for the removal. Mr. Lee responded there was concern over long term maintenance, but staff did not feel it was a major design element. Councilmember Rindone felt the major contention by the residents was loss in the value of their homes. He questioned if the removal of the stone and brick veneer would cheapen the product and have a contrary effect. Mr. Lee stated it was an accent material and was voluntarily removed by the developer to try to bring the two projects together in terms of the stucco exterior. Councilmember Fox requested that staff elaborate on their statement that the Rancho del Rey guidelines suggested that architectural styles should not be mixed or competing and if staff felt they were indeed similar. Mr. Lee stated staff looked at the two product types, i.e. the stucco exterior and tile roofs and the style of the particular design. There was not a distinctive difference between them in staff's opinion. The Rancho del Rey guidelines referenced a very distinct change in styles. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Carolyn Little, 725 Esler, Chula Vista, CA, Bayona homeowner, stated she was in opposition and would let Mr. McKey, the attorney representing the Bayona homeowners, speak on her behalf. · Taras M. McKey, 111 Elm Street #350, San Diego, CA, Attorney representing twenty*one Bayona families, reminded Council they were not considering the architectural harmony of a newly proposed subdivision. They were discussing an awkward, poorly considered alteration of an already existing subdivision. He then utilized the overhead projector to show the proposed development which would create an off-set and uneven transition into completely different homes. The area was surrounded by open space and canyons on the north and south side. There was a park on the west side and a wall that divided Bayona from the next neighberhood so there was a distinct neighborhood that was designed to have all Bayona homes in it. It was also a plan the homeowners were sold on when they bought their homes and they were extremely upset now because the whole concept of the neighborhood they purchased was being pulled out from under them. He referred to the City's Site Plan Architectural Approval Principals and felt the two most relevant sections dealt with good design character and the siting of any structure on the property as compared to the siting of any other structure in the immediate area. Because of the uniqueness of the situation, splitting up an existing neighborhood and changing design lot to lot, it seemed the City's standard was not appropriate and thorough enough. He suggested to the Planning Commission that they consider the CC&R's that had been recorded on all the existing homes to help define exactly what the standard was. The CC&R's were drafted to maintain the architectural integrity, attractiveness, and desirability of the subdivision. If they City did not feel they were bound and ignored them, the City would be expressly declaring that the City standards, under the ordinance, were lower than the CC&R's and the net effect would be to render them useless despite the fact that they still bound the existing homes in the subdivision. He stated there had been a great deal of discussion about efforts to make the shape of the tiles for the roof similar and color schemes similar in a transition section of the new homes. He felt it was appropriate to examine the differences in the plans before closing any discussion as to whether the new homes were architecturally compatible. All of the new plan homes were smaller than any comparable model in the existing Bayona subdivision and a one level model in the existing subdivision was not offered in the proposed subdivision. He then gave a slide presentation of the Rancho del Rey area, Bayona area, and a comparison of the existing homes and homes that had been built by Kaufman and Broad. None of the Bayona homeowners had any idea that the change was coming. They were given the idea that the Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 6 subdivision would be completed as planned. In light of the treatment so far, it seemed like there had been only a ceremonial response to their concerns. Councilmember Horton questioned if their two main concerns were architectural compatibility and the devaluation of the existing homes. Mr. McKey staled that was correct, with the substantial downsizing of the subdivision, the change in materials, and disruption of the flavoring of the neighborhood it was less attractive. The proposed planned prices were as much as one-quarter less than the existing homes. Councilmember Horton stated those prices were due to the current market. She questioned whether the existing homes were worth as much as they were two years ago. Mr. McKey responded the rate of sale of homes in Bayona, up to the fall of 1993, was pretty consistent and the price went up until October. He did not know if there had been a major impact locally value wise. Councilmember Fox stated he had seen many appraisals over the last several years and a lot of people were now suffering. He had seen situations where there was an existing development that was faced with a new phase of development and the preference was often that buyers wanted to buy a newer model. Therefore, there was a downward adjustment on the appraisal for the existing homes. He was not sure that value was something that should be considered. He had not seen concrete evidence, i.e. an appraisal analysis, that the new development would have a negative impact on the value of the existing development. He was convinced that Council's primary charge was to make sure the City was living up to the development guidelines and architectural harmony. He questioned what the effect would be on the existing development if there was architectural disharmony. Mr. McKey responded there would be a radically different design going in next door. They were faced with a new developer with a totally different marketing scheme who built substantially different homes. Councilmember Fox questioned what year the CC&R's were recorded. Mr. McKey responded that the CC&R's he presented to Council were additional CC&R's that were recorded in March 1992. Councilmember Fox stated it was pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting that the original CC&R's were recorded in 1989. A provision was read into the record of at the Planning Commission which essentially said they were subject to change, etc. Mr. McKey responded they would not deny that they were subject to change, there was a lot of language put in for the convenience of the developer. His point was that whatever happened, the existing homeowners were bound by the original CC&R's and had to be careful with their fence, landscaping, etc. and their neighbors could do whatever they wanted. No one know what was being proposed for the CC&R's by the new developer. Councilmember Horton questioned whether all the homes throughout Rancho del Rey had the same roof as Bayona. Mr. McKey responded he did not know. Councilmember Horton stated she had not seen anything that was incompatible. She understood the homes were not identical, but they appeared to be compatible. The CC&R's stated it was not to restrict individual creativity or personal preference, but to keep the continuity of the neighborhood. Since the architectural styles were similar, i.e. spanish exteriors, she felt it was compatible. Mr. McKey stated there were now seven models instead of four; there would be another four models in a neighboring subdivision behind Bayona, and within a radius of a quarter mile there would be ten different models under the guise of a well planned harmonious scheme. It did not fit an organized plan. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 7 Councilmember Horton questioned whether Mr. McKey was satisfied with some of the conditions and changes made. Mr. McKey responded that any effort to change what was originally planned was certainly listened to by the Bayona homeowners. The fact that those changes were not originally planned indicated the non-consideration of the issue. Issues not addressed were the size issues and a large model that was not being duplicated. It was just not enough. He offered to get evidence to present to Council regarding change in value. Mayor Nader questioned if the existing CC&R's were to be applied to Norella Street if it would address the concerns of his clients. Mr. MeKey responded it would certainly help the situation and address a large portion of their concerns. Some of the planned homes were already in violation of the CC&R's as far as keeping consistency of windows, etc. The homes would still be different, there were still extra columns, porches, etc. Mayor Nader questioned if the slides shown by Mr. McKey of other Kaufman and Broad homes were representative of what would be built in the proposed development. Mr. McKey stated it was the closest thing they had seen. There were certainly some examples of specific models that were planned and the general flavor of the neighborhood was represented in the slides. Councilmember Horton stated the slides of the homes in Temecula could have been a first time homebuyer product which was a whole different area. She noted that the design guidelines that builders had to use in Chula Vista were significantly different than other cities and counties. Therefore, she did not feel she could compare design guidelines from other cities to what would be allowed in Chula Vista. Mayor Nader stated he was disturbed to see a comment in the Planning Commission minutes that stated landscaping was not an issue before the Commission. He felt landscaping would be an important element of compatibility with the existing community. He questioned what rules Kaufman and Broad would be subject to if Council adopted staff recommendations. Mr. Lee stated staff did not get into landscaping on single-family dwellings. There were standards and McMillin should respond to that as to what they allowed and required. Mayor Nader questioned whether the City had any type of landscaping regulations in terms of conservation requirements, etc. Mr. Lee responded the City did in terms of drought tolerant materials. As far as actual installation of landscaping, that was up to the developer and their client. Typically, the developer required that landscaping be installed within a certain date after sale. Mayor Nader questioned if the City's design standards would require that the development be completed to the same requirements as Bayona. Mr. Lee responded that Rancho del Rey had specific design standards that would be applicable regardless of whether it was Bayona or the new development. Mayor Nader questioned whether the standards would preclude the unfinished fencing and other incompatible designs. Mr. Lee responded there was a wall design adjacent to the canyon that was consistent. There were specific standards so there would be no diffi~rence between Bayona and the new development. Mayor Nader questioned if the landscaping was covered by the CC&R's for Bayona. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 8 Mr. McKey stated specifics were addressed in the additional CC&R's that bound the existing homes. He believed they had a choice as to the landscaping that could be put in, but it was a narrow choice and any changes had to meet the CC&R requirements and were subject to architectural review. Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a homeowners association at Bayona. Mr. McKey responded there was not. Councilmember Rindone stated with the removal of the stone and brick veneer it could reduce the cost of the homes for the new development and thus reduce their value. He questioned if that was not more of a concern than the compatibility and negating the true objective of the residents. Mr. McKey responded the lowest priced original model was more expensive than any new model. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the value of the homes was of lesser concern to the clients than the appearance of the homes. Mr. McKey stated he could not measure those as they were both of equal concern. They felt they were part and parcel of the same thing. He did not feel it was fair to represent that all they were concerned about was getting rid of the stone and brick veneer. That was one of many points they had raised about the differences. If the net result was that they did not get any other changes they felt they deserved and it would reduce the value of their homes, perhaps they were in a situation that was turning out differently than they planned. Councilmember Fox felt the removal of the stone and brick veneer could have a significant impact on the amhitectural harmony. Councilmember Hotton questioned if Mr. McKey felt the project complied with the architectoral compatibility of the neighborhood as it was more in keeping with the existing homes, i.e. style of roof, compatible color scheme, removal of the brick veneer. Mr. McKey stated it was not similar, it was one of the issues that addressed the differences. There were still other major differences. Mayor Nader questioned if there was an original tentative map that covered both the existing Bayona homes and the proposed area. He stated those that purchased homes did so under a map that covered the area being discussed. Mr. Lee responded there was a 91 lot subdivision. · Marvin Simkin, 950 Norella, Chula Vista, CA, Bayona homeowner, stated McMillin, as part of the original construction, put identical landscaping in every house. Therefore, it was a pattern that floated from house to house as a continuous line. One of their concerns was that the new lots would not have any landscaping at all or a patchwork quilt of landscaping. He moved into his home with the belief the homes had been sold for all the lots and that they would be built. The CC&R's were very strict as to what they could do to their homes and was designed to have a consistent look throughout the neighborhood. His concern was how the whole street looked and they had to consider the landscaping, tile, architecture, colors, etc. as a whole package. He circulated a survey among all his neighbors which unanimously opposed the development. He requested that Council deny any proposal that did not finish Norella as originally appruved and if that could not be done, he requested that Council finish Norella Street with the same materials and colors as the builder had agreed to do on lot one. He was not representing those that expressed concern regarding the market value of their homes. Mayor Nader questioned who the homeowners appealed to under the CC&R's. Mr. Simkin responded they had to apply to the Bayona Architectural Review Committee which was established by the original owners of Rancho del Rey and could be affiliated with McMillin. All business was done by mail. Mayor Nader questioned if the tentative map was still in effect. Minu~s February 8, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Lee responded that a final map had been recorded and was in effect. Mayor Nader questioned what the difference would be between development under the rights that existed under the final map and development under the project the Planning Commission was recommending approval of. He further questioned if the CC&R's were part of the final map. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, felt is was a legal question he did not feel staff could answer. City Attorney Boogaard stated it was standard practice to require the CC&R's as a condition of the tentative map. Mayor Nader questioned why the applicant needed to appear before Council if the CC&R's were part of the map. If they were, Council did not have any way to enforce them nor was there any obligation to enforce them. If they were part of the map the residents could have a stronger case because there was a change in the terms in which the subdivision began, initially developed, and sold. He questioned what the difference was between what tights the developer had between the City granting the appeal and allowing them to proceed under the existing fmal map or denying the map and allowing them to proceed with the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Leiter stated the City had a requirement, independent of the tentative map approval, to obtain site plan and architectural approval for the project. The changes proposed by the new applicant required site plan architectural review approval which staff evaluated, not in relation to the CC&R's, but in relation to the approved design guidelines for the project. Mayor Nader questioned if there was an existing site plan and architectural approval coveting the sulxtivision. Mr. Leiter stated that was correct. Mayor Nader stated if Council granted the appeal the developer would have the right to build the same number of units, but they would have to do it in accord with the existing plan irrespective of the CC&R's. Mr. Leiter stated that was correct. Councilmember Moore questioned if the City could force a property owner to build identical homes of a previous developer. City Attorney Boogaard stated the City did not have the authority to force anything. Their option would be to submit a new site plan architectural approval amendment, not build, or go along with the existing site plan approval. Councilmember Moore questioned whether there was ownership in design. City Attorney Boogaard stated there could be, but that was not the problem. The home would not be identical, but would have to meet the architectural guidelines approved for that tentative map area. ® Greg Lindhoff, 12626 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA, representing Kaufman and Broad, stated there was a set of master CC&R's that did apply throughout Rancho del Rey and all development was subject to those. They were enforced through an architectural review committee. In addition to the master CC&R's there would be supplemental CC&R's recorded against their lots at a future date that would provide further restrictions and discuss particulars that applied only to those lots. They were before Council for an administrative site plan and architectural approval which set forth certain criteria they were required to conform to. He then gave a slide presentation of their site plans and reviewed criteria in the zoning ordinance and Specific Plan. They met with residents on a number of occasions and voluntarily made changes in the product in an attempt to work with them. The changes made included changes in the color schemes, elimination of stone and brick trim materials on the exterior, reploting of homes in order to eliminate any flat tile roofs from being located immediately adjacent to existing homes, addressed a misconception regarding the lattice material around the front porch, and agreed to use an identical color scheme on the home to be build on lot #1 which was a stand alone lot. He did not feel the concern regarding value was an issue that affected the process. He then presented comparative exhibits between the two sub<livisions. They felt they had provided a product that was in every way compatible. They wanted to maintain the integrity of their own Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 10 product and properly respond to the market based on the response they had seen elsewhere. The slides presented by Mr. McKey of their developments in other areas were not the homes proposed to built in Rancho del Rey. The mid-street transitions were actually found in quite a number of areas throughout Chula Vista including the developed master planned communities. Any pricing Mr. McKey was made aware of did not come from Kaufman and Broad. They planned to release pricing inunediately before opening and not prior to. Landscaping was not a requirement of the City, but the CC&R's required that all landscaping be installed within a certain period of the closing of the home and would be binding on their homes. They had not designed front yard landscaping, but it was their current plan to add front yard landscaping as a marketing feature. They requested that Condition B of the resolution be deleted which referred to the lattice work surrounding the front porch. Councilmember Hotton questioned if there was a cost difference between the barrel tile versus the flat tile. Mr. Lindhoff responded the material cost was identical. Councilmember Horton questioned if Kaufman and Broad would be opposed to using the barrel tile. Mr. Lindhoff felt the product was better looking, added more value, and enhanced the value with a mix of the two tiles, which they routinely did. They wanted to retain the use of the two tiles, but had changed the emphasis of their product to barrel tiles, i.e. two of the three elevations for every plan type featured the barrel tiles. Therefore, the use of the flat tile would be fairly limited in the overall number of homes that used flat tiles. He had been given an indication that the barrel tile would be acceptable on Novella Street and would accept that as a condition. They met all the criteria of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan, the Rancho del Ray Architectural Review Committee, and the principals for site plan and architectural approval. The Planning Commission voted to approve the project and staff continued to recommend approval of the project. Councilmember Moore referred to the condition regarding the trellis feature and the concerns expressed regarding maintenance. He questioned if the applicant would make a commitment that if the trellis item was considered and allowed the developer would put four coats of paint on all strips. Mr. Lindhoff felt they would be agreeable to providing a minimum number of coats of paint to the plywood prior to application of the lattice work. Mayor Nader stated several of the Planning Commissioners indicated they would have voted for the project if Norella Street had been exempted. He questioned why they were not able to build the homes in accord with the existing architectural and site plan on Norella Street. Mr. Lindhoff stated the homes that were built by McMillin Communities were owned under copyright law by McMillin Communities and they did not have any rights to those plans from a legal standpoint. Mayor Nader questioned if the homes had to be identical to the plan owned by McMillin in order to conform with the existing plan already approved or if it was a matter of substantial similarity. Mr. Leiter responded that it would be a matter of substantial similarity. Mr. Lindhoff stated they were confident their product was compatible with the existing product and under that definition would comply. Mayor Nader stated if that was the case why was it before Council. Mr. Lee stated Kaufman and Broad had chosen not to build that particular model in the area as they were a new buyer and therefore, they came forth with an amendment to that approval. City Attorney Boogaard stated if they wanted that product they would have to have the amendment. Mr. Lee stated the reason they were before Council was because the lots were less than 5,000 sq. ft. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Leiter stated it was staffs determination that the floor plans for the units were different enough to require revised site plan and architectural approval. Staff was also saying they were compatible. Mayor Nader stated with that understanding they would not be required to use the identical plan owned by McMillin he questioned if there was any reason they could not use the existing site approval for Norella Street and their proposal for the two cul-de-sac streets. Mr. Lindhoff responded the product they proposed was one they felt was a high quality product and met the current market conditions. They did not feel that a different product that would be nearly identical to Bayona would necessarily be the most appropriate for the current market conditions. The product they were proposing met all the criteria and was the best product that could be built. There being no further questions, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmember Fox stated he wanted to see economic development in the Southbay, but it should not be done at all costs. The applicant and McMillin both had outstanding reputations and he did not feel they would build a product that would fail. He felt the issue was very subjective in nature and he was looking for compelling reasons to find there was not architectural compatibility and he could not find compelling reasons to support the neighborhoods claim that it would harm their neighborhood. He also felt there should be neighberhund diversity and that it would compliment the neighborhood. He felt, through experience, that values of homes could be affected negatively when future phases were built around the same models. He was inclined to support the staff recommendation and would consider any amendments regarding Condition B and Norella Street. He would not vote for a plan that required them to build Norella Street as Bayona was built. He would also consider an amendment requiring barrel tiles and landscaping that was compatible with Bayona. MS (Horton/Fox) amend the resolution with the following changes: 1) eliminate Item B and incorporate the four coats of paint on the trellis feature; 2) all roof materials were to be of the barrel tiles on Norella Street; and 3) the landscaping be consistent with what was already in place on Norella Street. Councilmember Moore stated he felt the landscaping should be substantially the same, but he might have added an item and questioned whether all homeowners should be required to plant the same item. The phrase "substantially the same" would be acceptable. Councilmember Hotton stated the condition was what the developer would provide. What the homeowner did was up to them. Mr. Lee stated under the existing plan the City did not review the landscaping for single-family dwellings. He questioned if Council was requiring a landscaping plan be submitted for the entire area to the City with a commitment on the applicants part regarding construction that staff would follow through and inspect. Mayor Nader suggested that prior to issuing an occupancy permit that staff check to see there was some reasonable landscaping compatible with neighborhood. Councilmembers Horton and Fox stated that was consistent with the intent of the motion. Councilmember Moore questioned if that meant the plan would be approved prior to occupancy and not that the landscaping be in place prior to occupancy. Councilmember Horton stated she wanted assurance that within a reasonable time the landscaping would be put in by the developer consistent with was already on Norella Street. Mayor Nader felt the intent was not that a landscape plan be submitted, reviewed, and certified by the City. He agreed with Councilmember Fox that some of the developments that were all the same color and styles were monotonous. The people living in the Bayona neighborhood were trying to protect their investments and that should be respected. Therefore, he felt Council should do everything within reason to assure some consistency with the subdivision plan they thought they were buying into. If it were not for those factors he would view it very Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 12 differently. He felt Condition B was a reasonable step in the direction of satisfying their expectations. The real key issues were the size and overall appearance. He requested a separate vote on the elimination of Condition B which he felt was intended by the Planning Commission majority and staff to address that concern. Councilmember Hotton and Fox agreed to bifurcate the motion to vote separately on the removal of Condition B. Councilmember Rindone requested an interpretation of what was meant by the landscaping condition in the motion. Mr. Lindhoff responded they would try to replicate, within a reasonable manner, the type of landscaping that was installed at the time that it was installed. It was regulated by the CC&R's and there was a criteria in place that would dictate what could and could not be done. Street trees that were found in the front yards were a requirement of the City and they would be required to install street trees on every lot. Councilmember Horton stated the condition was that the developer would provide that landscaping with the sale of the house so it would not be left up to the homeowner to put it in. The requirement was not materially different than what their planned course of action would have been. City Attorney Booganrd stated in order to have jurisdiction to change the recommendations of the Planning Commission the Council had to grant the appeal and approve them subject to the proposed changes. The proposed resolution denied the appeal. VOTE ON THE ELIMINATION OF CONDITION B: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed. VOTE ON THE BALANCE OF THE MOTION: approved unanimously. AMENDMENT: CNader) the homes on Norella Street would conform to the existing City approvals for the Bayona subdivision. Died for lack of second. Mayor Nader stated that by unanimous consent the resolution would be changed to reflect that the appeal was being granted conditionally approving the site plan. RESOLUTION 17386, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, approved unanimously. Council recessed at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ® Mary Coburn, 360 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association, distributed the 1994 Business Directory and Shoppers Guide. She also informed Council that the San Diego Home and Garden magazine contained an article showcasing Chula Vista and more particularly the Heritage Museum, Nature Interpretive Center, and Marina Park. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 11. REPORT RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT - The Commission is submitting fourteen recommendations for improving the environment. It is recommended that these matters be referred to appropriate staff for further analysis and recommendation. (John C. Kracha, Chairman, Resource Conservation Commission. · John Kracha, Chair of the Resource Conservation Commission, recommended that the recommendations be forwarded on to the appropriate departments for review and resolution. He and the Director of Planning had Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 13 made up a proposed teaming partner list to work toward resolution or clarification. He further proposed that the RCC return to Council with a status report on the issues in six months. Mayor Nader referred to recommendation #3, which indicated that a public notice appeared publishing the revised purchasing policy for the City. He questioned if the revised purchasing policy was apprnved by Council. Part of the environmental agenda sent by Council to staff included essentially the same recommendation, i.e. that there be a city procurement preference for recycled material. If a procurement policy was put out that did not implement that recommendation and was not approved by Council he was somewhat concerned. Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, responded that he was fairly certain that the reference was to the change in the purchasing ordinance related to the consultant selection process which was approved by Council. Mayor Nader suggested, if the recommendations were adopted, that staff note that the recommendation was part of the environmental agenda and should be considered and brought back for any necessary Council action. On recommendation #7, it was not only part of the environmental agenda, but he thought it was the subject of past Council action as far as encouraging drought tolerant planting. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that staff was now in the process of finalizing a new landscape manual which would have the critaria stated specifically. That would be coming before Council in April. Councilmember Fox questioned if recommendation #6 included identifying areas within the City that was potentially hazardous regarding brush removal or if it was to develop policies to identify those potentially hazardous areas. Mr. Kracha stated they would not identify the areas, but develop a policy on brush management as far as what _ would be allowed in the green areas. Councilmember Fox questioned if there was a policy with an enforcement mechanism where an area of potential hazard was identified. Mr. Leiter stated there was a policy that was enforced by the Fire Department. The Fire Department staff would meet with the RCC to discuss the existing policy and receive their input. Mr. Kracha stated there was a lack of information or education process regarding several of the recommendations. Councilmember Fox stated that recommendation #12 proposed that the City communicate with the City of San Diego in order to set a curfew on Brown Field. He questioned whether it was their opinion that there were late night landings on a regular basis. Mr. Kracha responded that one of the commissioners lived in that vicinity and that was where the complaint originated. It apparently did happen on a regular basis. Councilmember Fox stated before action was ~ken in communicating with the City of San Diego he wanted to know exactly what the problem was. If they were going to recommend a curfew he wanted to know exactly what the frequency was. Mayor Nader stated his interpretation of the fire hazard policy was that certain plants and shrubs should not be allowed in certain places as they posed an unnatural fire hazard. Mr. Kracha responded there were two ditYerent statements on the landscaping policy. One of them did cover the non-native high volatility plants. Mayor Nader stated he would expect staff to go beyond educating people about the existing policy and review that policy with an eye toward strengthening it if appropriate. Councilmember Moore stated recommendation #12 was the Brown Field curfew. He felt the ideal things to have would be the flight paths over the City approved by the FAA and also the military flight paths. He did not like the Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 14 idea that the City was responsible for overcrowding schools. It was good business policy to overcrowd schools and therefore there would always be overcrowding as long as funding was based on occupancy of the school. Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that the RCC was asking Council to refer the fourteen recommendations for further study. He would not support forwarding recommendation #13 due to erroneous assumptions regarding the overcrowding of schools. There were three elected school boards within the City, but he did not want the Council to go on the record as assuming that drugs, increased gang activities, increased graffiti, and falling test scores were a result of overcrowding. If there were concerns they needed to be addressed with the elected officials. He also objected to recommendation #14 due to the assumption in the last line. If there was to be a referral to change the process that would be different, but he did not see that included. Councilmember Hotton stated she shared Councilmember Rindone's concerns on both recommendations and recommended they be eliminated. Mayor Nader stated he concurred with removal of recommendation #14 as the Design Review Committee already considered environmental aesthetic qualities. He suggested that recommendation #4 be removed as the Recycling Coordinator position had been filled. He could not agree with the comments made regarding recommendation #13. There was a Council responsibility because the Council and no other body made land use decisions for the City. Those decisions had a direct impact on the use of school facilities. That was not to say it was exclusively the City's responsibility because the school districts and the State had critical roles. He could not speak about falling test scores, but increased use of drugs, increased drug and gang activities, and increased graffiti were exacerbated by overcrowding. Officials of the elementary school district had indicated that the cause and effect of land use decisions and school overcrowding needed to be taken into consideration. Council had repeatedly adopted statements of concern in the annual growth management process indicating issues with overcrowding. He did not interpret the recommendation as the City saying that by adopting the recommendation it was solely the City's responsibility to the exclusion of the school district. He felt it was asking staff to work with the school districts to identify what, if any, further measures could be done locally to alleviate school overcrowding. He felt that was a legitimate concern for the City. The background portion of all the recommendations was just the commission's subjective statement of their opinion. He felt the key was the recommended action. Councilmember Rindone stated the issue being referred was reducing class size and that was an educational policy decision of the respective school boards. The innuendos in the background information was offensive. The overcrowding of schools was a different issue than reducing class size. Mayor Nader stated it was a different issue as the City action had to do with the availability of facilities to meet demand as opposed to class size decisions that were made within that context. He questioned whether it should be amended to say "toward avoiding overcrowding". Councilmember Rindone felt it would be creative if the Council was willing to have joint meetings with the respective boards to address issues of mutual concern. That would show an interest to work ceoperatively and still show concern regarding those issues. Mayor Nader felt the "reducing class size' language should be stricken and replaced with a statement that the Council's concern was to work with the school districts so there were adequate facilities. He did not want to duck the fact that the availability of facilities did have some relationship with, among other factors, decisions the Council made. The quarterly meetings with the school boards were stopped because members of the other bodies did not feel they wanted to continue the meetings on a regular basis. Council could indicate to the school beards that they were interested in resuming that practice on a regular basis. MS (Rindone/Horton) to forward all recommendations, except #4, #13, and #14 for review us recommended by staff. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader) to forward recommendation #13 and change "reducing class size" to "assuring that adequate facilities were provided". Died for lack of second. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed. Minutes February8, 1994 Page 15 MSUC (Moore/Fox) the Mayor is to initiate correspondence to the three school districts in Chula Vista as to joint meetings with the City on a one-to-one basis once or twice a year. ACTION ITEMS 12. RESOLUTION 17387 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MERRICK AND COMPANY FOR PHOTOGRAMMETRY, SURVEYING, AND PLANIMETRIC MAPPING SERVICES - The Agreement is for photogrammetry, surveying, and planimetric mapping services to update two very important data sets, which are the sets of maps showing topographic contours and orthophotos. It will also establish first and second order survey control points in the City, and it will collect data on the sewer system and other City facilities which will be used to support the City's infrastructure maintenance programs. All of the data will be in a computer format so that it may be stored and maintained on the City-wide Geographic Information System (GIS). As part of the GIS, the data will be developed into various base maps and databases available to all City departments; and, thereby, supporting City staff in providing accurate and consistent information to the public. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution awarding an agreement in the amount of $572,128 with Merrick and Company, authorize the expenditure of $572,128 from the GIS project CIP, and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Horton questioned if the public had to pay for a map provided by the City under the program or if it would be a free service. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the rules had not been established, but he felt they would have to pay a fee for computer time, materials, and staff time. Councilmember Moore questioned what was in the agreement that ensured that data collected was strictly the property of the City so it could not be sold to others. City Attorney Boogaard responded it was the Ownership Publication Reproduction and Use of Materials clause, paragraph 12, page 12-23, that made all data produced exclusive and sole property of the City and gave the City legal remedy. Councilmember Horton questioned if there was a way to provide cost savings by sharing information between entities. Fred Wong, GIS Manager, stated staff was in contact with other agencies pursuing the sharing of common data. City Attorney Boogaard stated he had provided an informational memo to Council responding to Mr. Garcia's request for information regarding the use of the sewer fund. Staff met with him and reviewed the questions and responses. n Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated his original concern was with the sewer funds being used for other than sewer purposes and that had been addressed in the City Attorney's memo. He toured the GIS set-up and was somewhat satisfied that there was a great deal of merit to the project. The resolution was very clear as to the purpose of what a GIS program was, but he took exception to the item on page 12-54, second to last paragraph, last sentence, which stated it "could aid public safety ..... ". If the GIS system was going to be used to pry into the personal and business lives of the people of the community he would have to ask that the matter be corrected and the public given some assurance that it would not happen. Mayor Nader felt the question was how it would become a data base on the private lives of the people in the community. Mr. Garcia responded that the technology was there, the data base was there, the equipment was there and if it was to be used as an aid for public safety to map crime types and other crime statistics information would have to be utilized. It did not limit the type of information it could be used for and the Police Department would probably have a unit to access the data. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 16 City Attorney Booguard stated Mr. Garcia was concerned with the capability of the system and that it could be expanded to have private files on the owners of every parcel in town. Mayor Nader stated there was nothing in the resolution to provide for that to happen. Mr. Swanson stated the GIS was basically a property related data base and not a people related data base. Through the GIS mapping, staff could determine what was happening in a specific area of town regarding things related to property, not people. It was not set-up to track data on people. City Attorney Beoganrd stated that information was census tract specific and not parcel specific. Mayor Nader felt Mr. Garcia was concerned that the census information be confined to parcel related information and not individual census responses. There was no plan to input census responses. City Attorney Booguard stated he had researched the issue and it was his opinion that the sewer fund would be getting a proportionate amount of benefit to the amount of money it was contributing. It would be getting that benefit earlier than other systems that were being brought on line. Mayor Nader stated Council had previously taken action to require that the funds charged be reimbursed out of savings accrued through the system. He felt the control to avoid abuse of the system would be to make it very clear that the data would relate to the parcel and not be personal. It also had to be understood that a violation of that would carry specified penalties. He was concerned, after talking to Jim Bell, that he had not been consulted and his input had not been incorporated into the report. After talking to Mr. Bell he was convinced there were more uses for the system than were being developed. He was also concerned that other jurisdictions in the region may also be going forward with GIS capabilities that would overlap and there could be a benefit in working cooperatively with others to have an overall system that everyone could use and therefore save costs. He wanted to see the item continued for one or two weeks to allow staff to talk to Mr. Bell and contact neighboring jurisdictions to find out what systems they were developing and how the City could interface or cooperate with those systems. M (Nader) to continue the item for one or two weeks to allow staff to talk to Mr. Bell and neighboring jurisdictions to find out what systems they were developing and how the City could interface or cooperate with those systems. Motion died for lack of second. Councilmember Rindone stated it was the third step of the process and Council had authorized those steps to proceed. He was supportive of the Mayor's suggestion, but did not feel it would hinder action on the item before Council. Staff could then return in two or three weeks with a supplemental report as to the other dimensions. Mayor Nader stated action by Council would approve a contract with a specific firm to do specified services outlined in the contract. If Council decided they wanted to add to that or change services they would be in the position of doing change orders which could involve substantial costs. City Attorney Booguard stated it was the third phase of a multi-phase implementation plan. The current phase was the sewer, storm water, contours and elevations element. At the end of the current phase the City would have spent approximately $900,000 out of a $2.4 million program, so it was less than 35 % done. The next phase planned was street lights, traffic signals, trees, signage and the ultimate phases, which were perfect for Mr. Bell to be consulted on. There was a specific flight window and in order to conduct the activity. Approximately 2,000 locations had to be marked with paint in the City and then it had to be flown. In order to avoid shadows in the photography it had to occur at a certain hour on a certain day in March. Councilmember Moore questioned whether Mr. Bell would review what being done and what was intended so he could advise Council. Mayor Nader felt he would review what was being done, talk to staff, and give Council his input. MS (Nader/Fox) to continue the item one week and direct staff to contact Jim Bell, the County of San Diego, and any other jurisdictions engaged in GIS activities and obtain their input regarding the direction the City Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 17 was moving in, any further applications they may wish to include in the contract, and how the City might most cost effecfivdy interface with efforts underway with other jurisdictions. Councilmember Fox stated he seconded the motion with the understanding that he was relying upon the Mayor's statements being accurate and that the ability to do the fly-over in March would not be delayed. Mr. Swanson stated the window for the fly-over was March, but the contractor had a considerable amount of work to prepare before they could do the flights. It would take approximately four to six weeks for preparation. Mr. Wong had been in contact with SANDAG, Sweetwater Authority, Otay Water District, Coronado, National City, the County of San Diego, and other agencies. He had talked to Mr. Bell prior to the Council meeting and had indicated to Mr. Bell that if there was an item he was desirous of, and it could be mapped, it could be put on the GIS system. Staff had indicated they would be willing to work with him. Mayor Nader felt more specific discussion with Mr. Bell would be helpful before Council approved the item. Councilmember Moore questioned who was contacted that really knew the GIS system. Mr. Swanson stated the City was technically as far as any agency in the County. Staff was in contact with Bill Bamburger, head of the Ruiz project for the City and County of San Diego mapping program. In addition, Mr. Wong met with all the GIS people from other agencies in the county. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 13. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated governance was an item that was being discussed more and more. At the next meeting letters from Imperial Beach and Santee questioning the authority of the Interim Commission to levy charges against cities to pay for independent legal counsel and for an audit would be discussed on 2/17/94. On 3/3/94 the Audit and Budget Comnuttee would be giving a full report and recommendations regarding facility fees. Subregional JPA's would also be a topic at that meeting. Councilmember Fox stated he had an item under his comments regarding a proposed JPA creating the San Diego Solid Waste Management Authority. He had great concerns regarding the draft document distributed. He had asked questions of the Management Subcommittee they stated they did not consider it and did not plan to consider the proposal. Councilmember Rindone stated the Commission did concede to put the item on a future agenda. It had been indicated by Chairwoman Slater that if there were alternatives for the subcommittee to consider, other than a JPA, that would be done provided the request was submitted in writing and the City did exactly that. It seemed that every step had to be a negotiated step and it was a very laborious process. The other issue was the governance of a single JPA. He recommended that Council refer that issue to staff for their analysis and report and that the Council Subcommittee review it carefully with staff. If there were any substantial decisions to be made it could be brought back to Council. If not, they would carry the recommendations back to the Commission to see what they could get implemented to provide the best protection for the City should the JPA form of governance proceed. MS (Rindone/Fox) to refer the item to staff for review, once that was completed Councilmembers Rindone and Fox would sit down and work closely with them regarding review and make those representations at future meetings. Councilmember Fox stated the Commission was making comments line by line and he was not certain if there were any changes to the draft. On page 4 the City would grant and give up land use authority to the Commission. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 18 Councilmember Rindone stated the purpose of the last meeting was to solicit comments from participating cities and there was a lot of reaction to that item. He did comment on that issue as they could not instruct a Charter City on what to do. Mayor Nader stated he was also concerned about the governance structure and whether or not there should be a weighted vote. If there was a weighted vote he suggested that it should not be based on tonnage as it would penalize cities that had successful recycling. Councilmember Rindone stated if it was based on tonnage it would be based on the total tonnage of recycling and disposal. Mayor Nader stated the City would also benefit on a weighted vote based on population. He suggested that if there was a weighted vote it should be based on population because even if recycled tonnage was included it would penalize citizens that reduced their generation due to pre-cycling. Councilmember Rindone stated the direction given at the meeting was to look at all the options, i.e. population, tonnage, and a combination of both. All of those were preferable to a single weight vote for the City. Mayor Nader questioned when responses would be received on the City's RFP. Mr. Krempl responded they would be received on 2/15/94. Councilmember Moore stated another issue was the liability for non-active landfills and burn sites. His concern was that the State had mandated that a certain amount per ton be set aside for that. Before the City became a party to that liability they should know what funds had been set aside. Maybe more funds should be put into that before _ the "divorce". He felt that was critical. Mr. Krempl stated the Comnussion had asked for a full accounting of all the liabilities and assets of the current system. Councilmember Moore questioned whether the enterprise fund should be the full bearer of Palomar Airport sinking into a past landfill. They should have the following information: 1) who designed the plans; 2) were the plans done fight; 3) were the tests correct; 4) should it be sinking; and 5) should the enterprise fund be the full bearer of corrective action. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 7 and 9. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 14a. Scheduling of meetings - No report given. 15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 15a. Ratification of appointments to the Bayfront Conservancy Trust Board of Directors - Dr. Patrick Abbott and Isabelle Kay. Minutes February 8, 1994 Page 19 MSUC (Nader/Fox) to appoint Dr. Patrick Abbott and Isabelle Kay to the Bayfront Conservancy Trust Board of Directors. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone 16a. Coordination of nonprint materials collection for EastLake High School Public Library and South Chula Vista Public Library (CD Rom programs, on line data base, electronic card catalogues, laser disk and telecommunications). Continued to the meeting of 2/15/94. Councilmember Moore 16b. Request Council ratification of Council Seat Number 2 (Moore) nominations to Economic Development Commission. Continued from the meeting of 2/1/94. Continued to the meeting of 2/15/94. Councilmember Fox 16c. Proposed JPA creating the San Diego Solid Waste Management Authority. Discussed with Item #13. 16d. Discussion of City involvement in the Gospel Music Festival. Continued to the meeting of 2/15/94. ADJOURNMENT The City Council met in a closed session at 10:35 p.m. to discuss: Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 2/1/94. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego (Solid Waste Litigation). Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Chula Vista vs. San Diego Shipbuilding. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on February 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu~::~y Clerk