Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/04/26MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, April 26, 1994 Council Chambers 6:05 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), Horton, Moore, Rindone (left the meeting at 7:25 p.m. and returned at .8:25 p.m.), and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: 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: April 19, 1994 MSC (Rindone/Moore) to approve the minutes of April 19, 1994 as presented. Approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Proclaiming the week of April 24 through April 30, 1994 as "PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK." The proclamation was presented by Vice Mayor Horton to Alicia Gonzales, Administrative Office Assistant II of the Community Development Department. 4b. Proclamation commending the Silver Dollar Saloon for fundraising activities on behalf of David Fitchorn. The proclamation was presented by Vice Mayor Horton to Don E. Norman, owner of the Silver Dollar Saloon and John Anderson representing the Chula Vista Police Department. CONSENT CALENDAR (None) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 5. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARIES BETWEEN CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 AND DISTRICT NUMBERS 1 AND 10 - Three property owners within the reference open space districts have requested that their property, as proposed to be modified by adjustment plats 92-6 and 93-9, be assessed by only one open space district. On 4/5/94, Council declared the retention to adjust the boundary between Open Space Maintenance District 20 and Districts 1 and 10 and set the public hearings for 4/19/94 and 4/26/94 at 6:00 p.m. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) RESOLUTION 17464 ORDERING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 20 AND DISTRICT NUMBERS I AND 10 TO BE ADJUSTED TO FOLLOW THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AS SET FORTH IN ADJUSTMENT PLATS 92-6 AND 93-9, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE PLATS Councilmember Fox stated he would abstain due to ownership of property in the District. Councilmember Moore questioned if both open space districts concurred with the action. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 2 Clifford Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded that a vote of all of the districts had not been taken. All three property owners did concur. City Attorney Boogaard stated there were several hundred members of the District that were not notified due to the negligible effect on their interests. Because there was a boundary line adjustment it required an adjustment in the open space district as it was on the border of that open space district. It also happened to be, unbeknownst to staff and after the preparation of the agenda item, on the boundary of two special assessment districts. There was no policy of addressing the need to adjust the territory of the special assessment districts similarly to the situation where there was no policy adjusting the boundary line. He wanted to start a precedent of doing what the school districts did which was to file a Notice of Exemption of the new territory of the special assessment districts. He requested that Council: 1) allow discussion on the agenda as an addition to the item; and 2) allow staff to provide the Notice of Exemption so that the territory that was moved into the special assessment district would not have to pay the tax for the small strip of land that was incorporated into the new special assessment districts. It would take four votes as it arose after the preparation of the agenda. Mayor Nader questioned whether Councilmember Fox had a conflict with the urgency item. City Attorney Boogaard responded that his conflict was practically negligible because of his mere membership in the District. In order to get the item placed on the agenda he requested Councilmember Fox participate, as his abstention was due to avoidance of appearance of any impropriety, to allow the matter be heard and then three votes would carry it without his participation. * * * Councilmember Fox returned to the dias* * * MS (Horton/Moore) to find there was a necessity to place the item on the agenda as the knowledge of the item arose after the preparation of the agenda as it would be an efficient administration of the City's business to allow Council to deal with it at the meeting and it did not have a significant impact on any persons interests requiring notice. Councilmember Moore questioned the amount of property involved. Ed Elliott, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA, representing Rancho Del Rey Investors, responded that it was approximately 1 / 100th of an acre. A fence was in the wrong place and they were trying to straighten that out prior to the future filing of the subdivision. Councilmember Horton called for the question. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. * * * Councilmember Fox left the dias* * * This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION 17464 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-0-1-1- with Rindone absent and Fox abstaining. City Attorney Boogaard recommended Council authorize staff to use the Notice of Exemption procedure exempting parcels of property that were moved into an assessment district, only by virtue of a boundary line adjustment, and file with the County Recorder's Office the appropriate Notice of Exemption from special taxes and assessments similar to the form distributed to Council. MSC (Nader/Horton) authorize staff to use the Notice of Exemption procedure exempting parcels of property that were moved into an assessment district, only by virtue of a boundary line adjustment, and file with the Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 3 County Recorder's Office the appropriate Notice of Exemption from special taxes and assessments. Approved 3-0-1-1 with Rindone absent and Fox abstaining. * * * Cmmcilmesnber Fox returned to the dins * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Mary Coburn, 360 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association, informed Council that the DBA had used pony rides in conjunction with their festivals in the past. Concern had been expressed and had been indicated that they should discontinue the pony rides. The vendor was well established, carded a $1 million liability policy naming the DBA and City as additional insured and the DBA earfled a $1 million liability policy naming the City as an additional insured. There would be one adult leading the pony with the child on it and the saddle included a safety belt for the child. Councilmember Horton questioned who felt the pony rides would be a problem. Ms. Coburn responded that it came from the Community Development Department. Mayor Nader questioned whether it had been reviewed by the City Attorney. City Attorney Boogaard responded that he did not feel the City had a serious liability. Based on the insurance and past practice there was evidence the horses would be tethered and a one-on-one basis. He felt it was a worthwhile risk the Council could assume. Councilmember Moore stated the reason it came up was because he knew what the Council policy was and was uncertain that anyone else did and felt Council should review it and make the decision. The policy was for owner ridden and owner operated horses only. MS (Nader/Moore) to find an urgency as the event was to be held on Sunday. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. City Attorney Boogaard stated he and the Risk Manager concurred to recommend approval of the booth. MSC (Naderatorton) to approve staff recommendation, i.e. approval of the booth for My Little Pony Rides. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent. * * * Council recessed at 7:53 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m. * * * · Dr. Robert Penner, 681 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista representative on the San Diego Port District, stated the Port had met regarding the capital improvement program and discussed the distribution of the revenues available, specifically in regard to the expansion of the convention center in San Diego. The CIP ad-hoc committee recommended removal of the expansion of the convention center from the CIP program and everything on the CIP list other than the convention center expansion was left in. They also recommended the following distribution of funds: 1) $4 1/2 million per year for the next 20 years to the City of San Diego to support a bond issue for the convention center - no other funds were recommended; and 2) for the first 7 years $9 million per year would be guaranteed to be put into a restricted fund in which all of the Southbay projects would be done. The Commission conceptually approved the recommendations. They now needed to ensure what was conceptually approved was actually written into the Memorandum of Understanding. Councilmember Horton questioned if the Southbay cities received a fair share of the CIP monies. Dr. Penner stated they would get every project that was on the list and probably a little earlier as everything was moved up into the first seven years as opposed to being stretched out over ten years. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 4 Councilmember Hotton questioned whether legal language could be put into the document to ensure that cost overruns on the expansion of the convention center would be the responsibility of the City of San Diego. City Attorney Boogaard stated it could be done if agreeable to all parties. Councilmember Moore questioned if the Port owned the land for the expansion of the convention center. Dr. Pennet responded that the expansion would go on Port owned property. Councilmember Moore stated there was always a problem with new projects built in anyone city because more money for operation and maintenance also went to that city. That money came from the Port to that city and eventually the Port may never make a profit, there would always be a need for operation and maintenance. City Manager Goss questioned what action was taken regarding the airport. Dr. Penner responded that they were going forward with the Immediate Action Plan. The proponents from Miramar requested that the Port not go any further than that. · Larry Dumlao, 650 Rivera Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed his gratitude to the elected officials, City staff and all segments of the community for making Chula Vista a better place to live. He participated in the City Heights Economic and Crime Summit and was tremendously impressed with the strong spirit of the citizens participafmg. * * * Councilrnernber Rindone returned to the meeting at 8:25 p.m. * * * · Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, reported on the Earth Day event and the survey she took on the INDWELLER Resource Recovery Park concept. She had an additional 147 signatures of Chula Vista and Southbay residents on the petition for the INDWELLER alternative. Those were in addition to the 300 names on the petition submitted to Council in 1990. She also requested a refund of the $10.00 she was charged for a copy of the City's General Plan. Mayor Nader stated resource copies of the General Plan were available for public use at the Library. He questioned whether her plan had been presented to the Resource Conservation Commission. Ms. Aland stated the plan had been presented to the RCC when Councilmember Fox was a member. Mayor Nader requested the City Clerk check the files for the petition submitted in 1990 and send a copy to Ms. Aland. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 6. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS FOR SERVICES - On 4/5/94, Council accepted the staff report and recommendations regarding the preliminary technical and financial evaluations of the five proposals for solid waste services received in February 1994. Three proposals were recommended for further evaluation and comparison to a projected cost to the City for remaining in the County system. At Council's direction, a more detailed examination of the proposal was also to include expanded information on alternative disposal sites, as well as an update on the viability of the primary site listed in all three proposals (Campo landfill). The report forwards a Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 5 technical memorandum from the consultant describing the results of an economic analysis of the County system costs and how they compare to the updated information on the three proposals. Staff recommends Council accept the report and provide input to staff for further refinement of data in order to generate recommendations in a final report to be received at the 5/10/94 Council Meeting. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, gave a brief synopsis of the interviews held with Sexton, Laidlaw, and Mid- America. Staff had nothing further to report, but would use the information obtained in the interviews m formulate the final report and recommendations to Council. Staff would return on May lOth with the final report. Tracy Swanborn, representing Brown, Vence & Assoc., summarized Phase II of the economic analysis conclusions reached. Under the assumptions there was a cost advantage anywhere from 7% to 20% for the altematives as proposed. Mayor Nader questioned whether LaPaz County, Arizona had contacted the City regarding disposal of trash. Mr. Krempl stated they were one of the responders to the RFP in conjunction with Brown & Ferris, Inc. and were deemed to be non-responsive in terms of the submitted proposal. Staff was aware of the correspondence and would follow-up. Their proposal was incomplete, they did not respond to the information requested, did not provide detailed cost estimates, etc. Mayor Nader questioned whether they had been ruled out at the present time. He heard that another city was looking very seriously at that proposal and it sounded extremely attractive. He felt it was something the City may want to give some consideration to. Mr. Krempl stated it was a matter of whether or how Council wanted to entertain proposals that had been either deemed incomplete or were not originally submitted. City Attorney Booguard stated staff had consulted with him on the matter and he had advised them that there was a certain amount of caution that needed to be exercised. They had been ruled out for non-compliance in the RFP procedure and in order to keep the remaining bidders in the process and encouraged to participate the City should not been seen as giving credence to those that failed to pass the first round of evaluation. While staff was proposing to see what they had to say, they were not proposing to enter into negotiations unless Council intervened and directed to the contrary. Staff was trying to get the existing bidders to give the City their best proposal and the organization that was now coming in, after being rejected, had the benefit of seeing the other proposals. The City needed to keep some faith with those already selected in the first round. Mayor Nader stated he did not want to have higher trash rates than a neighboring city because the process was set up so that a favorable proposal could not be considered. He hoped staff would keep the Council apprized as to what LaPaz County had to offer as it was a polity decision to be made by the Council when all information was received. Councilmember Moore stated there were forty-six items listed for different arcas of funding that the County had in the solid waste management system and there were only five that the City would have responsibility for. He questioned if there were any items of the remaining forty-one that would fall on a potential contractor if waste hauling was contracted out to someone else. Ms. Swanborn responded the analysis was set up in such a way that all the budget items listed for the County system were be~mg covered under the option of leaving the County system and many of the costs were being picked up by the proposer that would be providing the transfer and disposal services. Councilmember Moore stated when the report was brought back to Council it should include those items that would probably fall under the future contractor. He felt that would have some relationship to the negotiated prices. He questioned whether the State required a certain amount of money for landfill closures. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 6 Ms. Swanborn stated that would be covered by the tipping fees that the proposers offered. She would clarify the presentation of the material. Councilmember Moore questioned how they arrived at the fact that the City would have no responsibility for the other forty-one items. Councilmember Rindone suggested the following be included in the report when it came back to Council: 1) concern regarding indemnification and extent of coverage; 2) ensure that the component for the Clean Greens Program and the best tonnage for the City would be introduced; 3) host fees - what options were available, what were the reasonable expectations, and benefits to the retepayers if Chula Vista was the host city, what costs could be passed on and who could participate in it; 4) the relationship between administrative costs and staffing and justification; and S) the assumptions being correet. He questioned whether the following assumptions were correct: 1) that El Cajon was the only city that would not participate in a JPA if adopted by the County; 2) that the quantities would remain constant in the County system of tonnage delivered and the projection that it would be reduced over the ten year analysis in Chula Vista; and 3) that the San Marcos landfill would remain an active site. He felt it was a very conservative position and if anyone of the assumptions were to change the profit and substantial savings to the ratepayers would be there. * * * Councilmember Fox arrived at 6:32 p.m. * * * MS (Rindone/Fox) direct staff to include clarification in the final report on: 1) issues related to indemnification, i.e. what the requirements were for the successful bidder, what the impacts were for the ratepayers; 2) to review additional options for the Clean Greens program to ensure that the best rate was received for the dtizens; 3) host fees, i.e. the potential impact, how the program would be instituted, who would be affected, what the range of options were, and how it could mitigate the costs of the entire program; 4) further clarification on the need for a solid waste supervisor and particularly the initial efforts in providing the administrative support should the contract be awarded; and 5) additional analysis if any or all of the assumptions previously described were modified, what the potential range and profitability impacts were to the City. Councilmember Fox questioned if Laidlaw was going to present the economic analysis of their proposed alternative sites prior to May 10th. Mr. Krempl responded that staff had requested that information, but would have to have it almost instantaneously in order to meet that time frame. They did feel that the costs of the other alternatives submitted would be comparable to those for Chaquita Canyon. Councilmember Fox referred to page 6-12, regarding the uniform allowance for land to each of the tipping fees and alternatives for transfer station capital costs and questioned if the May 10th report would elaborate on the significance of the assumption and potential for variation. Ms. Swanborn stated that was correct. The technical memorandum of 4/5/94 included the possible range of land costs and how they could impact the tipping fee. Councilmember Fox stated there were obvious problems with siting and permitting of a transfer station and questioned if it was possible to get a brief synopsis on what the problems had been in the past for other jurisdictions and projections of potential problems for the City. Mr. Krempl responded that a number of sites had been identified with several of them potentially viable. Staff would provide more information to Cormell. Councilmember Fox stated another assumption that was made was that Chula Vista would be meeting AB 939 diversion rates. He wanted justification for that statement. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Krempl stated staff provided an option in the proposal for a MRF facility in order to meat All 939 requirements and staff would elaborate on that item. Councilmember Fox referred to the assumption regarding public education services which were presumed to be handled by existing staff and additional costs had been included to cover salaries and benefits and questioned if it had been verified. Ms. Swanborn responded that those were some of the responsibilities that some of the City staff members would pick up. The assumptions were made for the purpose of making sure that the comparisons were equal. They may chose to procure a service through an alternative means. Mr. Krempl stated it was understood that if the City was to operate the system it would require additional staffing, the question was how many, at what level, at what cost, and what they would be doing. Councilmember Fox referred to the second key assumption which stated the City would deliver to the Otay land fill at the same cost per ton as other jurisdictions and he felt a legal opinion was needed regarding the probability of that really happening. He also felt a legal analysis was needed on the fourth key assumption regarding the City not having any obligation to the NCRRA facility, active disposal sites, or new facility developments once the City left the County system. · Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Mother ALAND, statad she shared the concerns regarding the assumptions. She was in favor of accepting the report as they did a free job in covering the costs and comparisons. Her proposal took into consideration the indemnity, qualifications, Clean Green Program, host fees, clarification for administrative support, and assumptions for the range of impact. The transportation and hauling costs needed to be refined before a decision was made. Her proposal was based on avoiding as many environmental costs as possible. She was out of the analysis at the present stage and had not bean asked to present any of those facts, i.e. existing facilities, transfer sites, etc. She suggested Council meat in a workshop setting to discuss the cost analysis. · Donna Tisdale, Box 1275, Boulevard, CA, representing Back Country Against Dumps (BAD), presented information regarding Mid-American's financial instability and ethics. She questioned whether the Council could rationalize sending the City's trash to a community that generated less than 1,000 tons of trash per year. Indemnification was only as secure as the company offering it and in the case of Campo and Mid-American they were not secure enough to offer legitimate indemnification to the City or anyone else. The risks involved in using the Campo landfill far outweighed any perceived benefits. Councilmember Horton stated there were uncertainties throughout the report and she felt Council needed to ensure that the rntepayers were protected. She was concerned that if the City stayed with the County that the fees would be raised by an exorbitant amount, but she was not sure there was an alternative to leaving the County system. The City needed to strongly look at a private system. When the report was brought back in May there needed to be exact figures and what the impact would be on the ratepayers. Councilmember Moore stated Council could not and should not compare tipping fees for a site that was built 10 - 40 years ago and still had capacity versus a potential new site and the costs involved. He questioned if the consultant had considered the following regarding the overall costs to the City in the comparison: 1) sub-regional contract to haul everything outside of the County and what control would be lost if everything was outside the County, what the haulers contract was and what the checks and balances were on fee control; 2) what if the San Marcos plant was closed and costs were reduced by 50% and the debt was paid off on a plant that was not used, if that was factored into what the County costs would be; and 3) if yard waste was added to the present 3 % ~ 5% of the recycling, what the actual reduction would be to the landfill, had they reached a point where that could be evaluated and if not, how many months would that have to be in place before it could be evaluated. Councilmember Fox stated Council was going to have to be aware of the risks involved in leaving the County system and whether the cost advantages were worth those risks. One critical assumption for the City to leave the Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 8 system was that the Campo landfill would be available, he hoped the report would include an update on the status of the landfill, potential for availability, implications in the foreseeable future of it not being available and the useful life of alternate disposal sites. He referred to the comment in the report regarding external factors impacting the alternate disposal sites such as environmental or legislative restraints and questioned if the restrictions already existed. The report should elaborate on the certainties involved and existing restrictions. Mayor Nader felt the paragraph referred to by Councilmember Fox dealt with the uncertainty as to how existing law could be applied to the Campo landfill situation. Speakers had questioned the adequacy of the environmental document, legality of the project under international treaty, etc. Councilmember Fox stated he was referring to the alternate disposal sites as well. Mayor Nader stated he understood the paragraph as saying that anyone could read that law, but how it would be applied to any particular site was not something that could be predicted with certainty. Ms. Swanborn stated that was correct. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Fox, agreed to by the Maker of the Motion) staff is to include responses in the final report to comments and concerns expressed by Councilmember Fox. VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanirnonsly. MS (Rindone/Fox) to direct staff to provide additional information regarding a transfer station, City ownership, or transfer of ownership from a private entity to the City, and legal interpretations requested by Councilmember Fox (bullets 2 & 4 on page 6-15). Councilmember Moore stated they were looking at negotiating points regarding a transfer station and/or the site. Councilmember Rindone stated the transfer station should be located somewhere within the city limits of Chula Vista. Mayor Nader stated in terms of the analysis on host fees, he assumed staff would look at the City's ability to charge host fees irrespective of whether the City was part of the County system or not. He also assumed it was understood by Council and staff that the motions were inclusive and not exclusive of other issues staff felt needed further development. Councilmember Moore stated he was of the opinion it was a volume type of business and the more volume the more economic it would be for the ratepayers. He felt comparisons regarding the City going alone versus a sub-region venus a JPA should be included. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 7. RESOLUTION 17465 APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND ACCEPTING CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PARALLEL SEWER IN INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD FROM NORTH OF PALOMAR STREET TO SOUTH OF ANITA STREET - On 6/8/93, Council awarded a contract in the amount of $248,000 (including contingencies) to JSA Engineering, Inc. for the installation of the parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street. The work is now complete. Changes to the contract work resulted in a net overrun of the project by approximately $31,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. RESOLUTION 17465 OFlYERED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unauimonsly. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 9 8. RESOLUTION 17466 APPROPRIATING $12,200 TO SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY PRIDE FAIR, AND EVALUATING THE CITY'S COMMUNITY FESTIVALS - On 4/27/93, Council directed staff to complete an evaluation of the 1993 Cultural Arts Festival/Community Pride Fair and Fourth of July Fireworks event to determine the feasibility of combining the two events in the future. On 1/4/94, Council directed staff to develop a recommendation for the necessary staffing and resources to conduct an International Friendship Festival. The report briefly evaluates the 1992 and 1993 Cultural Arts Festivals, and the 1993 Fourth of July Fireworks event, discusses similar events that are conducted by other cities in San Diego County, and analyzes the impacts of combining events. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/5th's vote required. Mayor Nader questioned whether the staff recommendation and commission recommendations were the same. · Suzanne Ramirez, representing the International Friendship Commission, clarified that the report indicated that the IFC had been presented with the idea of the community pride fair and that had not been brought to them, Therefore, any comments included regarding a position by the IFC were improper, A staff person did present information on the Festival of the Sun and the IFC was in support of that. The IFC was interested in doing an International Friendship Festival, but due to the budget and lack of staffing they were not able to do so. She asked that Council assign the IFC part-time support as was done for the Parks & Recreation Commission. She agreed with the concerns expressed by the commission and Police Department. MS (Nader/Rindone) to approve staff recommendations Nos. 1 & 2 - 1) direct staff to conduct the Cultural Arts Festival entitled "Festival of the Sun" and Community Pride Fair as separate events in 1994 and expand the Fourth of July event by adding a Community Pride theme; and 2) appropriate $12,200, in FY 93/94 to support the expansion of the Fourth of July/Community Pride Fair. Councilmember Moore stated he had a problem with appropriations being brought in mid-year, all programs should compete within the budget process. The idea was good, but advanced planning and budgeting was also good, therefore he could not support the motion. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed. * * * Councilmember Rindone left the meeting at 7:25 p.m. * * * Ms. Ramirez stated the IFC did not have a clear indication of what Council was trying to achieve. They felt their responsibility was to dealt with anything that deal with international relations and did not believe that Community Pride fell within their responsibility. They would need a years lead time in order to do anything similar to the International Friendship Festival sponsored by the City of El Cajon. They did not want any responsibility for anything that would be done in July. Mayor Nader stated Council was not asking the IFC to do anything, but was seeking their recommendation. It was his understanding that without assignment of staff to the Commission it would not be advisable to proceed with that type of festival. In the current fiscal climate he did not know if that would happen. Councilmember Moore did not feel staff was designed to do such an event, the comnussions were not designed to do a lot of major events, and if they did not have key volunteers in addition to commissioners then staff had to do. He questioned whether Council needed to take action on the resolution. City Attorney Boogaard responded the resolution addressed all three recommendations. Since Council took action on Recommendations 1 & 2 by the necessary votes, Council did not need to take action on the resolution. Mr. Valenzuela questioned if action by Council meant that they supported the integration of both festivals. Mayor Nader stated that Council did not take action to integrate the festivals, they would remain separate with no additional festival. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 10 9. REPORT EAST OTAY MESA SPECIFIC PLAN - The County of San Diego is currently processing a Specific Plan for East Otay Mesa. The City has previously raised concerns regarding traffic, transportation facility financing and phasing, jobs/housing balance, and biology. The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take action on the matter on 5/4/94. Staff recommends that Council review and enforce a final set of comments to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on the matter. (Director of Planning) City Manager Goss stated staff requested a one week continuance as the County Board continued their consideration also. Mayor Nader stated if that was the only reason he did not agree with the request for continuance. The goal was to get the Council's comments to the County in a timely manner so they could address them without further delaying the plan. He questioned whether staff concerns or Council comments were likely to change as a result of the week continuance. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded staff was continuing to meet with the County staff on the traffic circulation issues and that was the primary reason for the continuance. Things could change due to those meetings. · Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Mother-A-Land, stated the item directly relate~l to the Solid Waste Report on the agenda. She did not feel it was appropriate to bring it up without som~ of the background information being presented at the same time. She felt it was a ploy by the County to force the City into a situation where they would pay for the costs. Mayor Nader stated the biology impact section of the letter indicated unresolved concerns and the staff report indicated that the biology concerns had been resolved. City Manager Goss stated he was not sure what the language was, but the Planning staff had indicated that the County had proposed additional language in the Specific Plan which the City staff felt adequately covered the initial concerns raised. The letter that went to the Planning Commission of the County, as well as the Board and staff, led to the postponement of the hearing and direction to County staff to meet with City staff to resolve those issues prior to it going to the Board. Mayor Nader stated if that was addressed the language stating otherwise should be deleted from the letter. If it was not addressed Council should receive more information. City Manager Goss stated it was staff's intent to include that in the report that would go back to Council in one week. Mayor Nader referred to the policies in the first full paragraph of the letter and stated it would be helpful to him to know what those policies. In thejob/housing section, the focus seemed to be in making sure that the City was building housing fast enough to accommodate the jobs that were being created on the east mesa and he felt there were several other job/housing issues that needed to be focused on, i.e. 1) the proximity of housing to jobs, not just in Otay Ranch, but in the region so that non-automobile transportation, or non-individual transportation was facilitated; and 2) he did not see a provision for public transportation infrastructure which he felt should be at least as high a priority as automobile circulation. City Manger Goss stated the letter covered it briefly, generally, and broadly but did not cover the public transportation infrastructure. The statement was that the City felt the development on the mesa, as well as on the ranch, should be monitored to make sure there was adequate housing stock available for future needs of the sub- region and to mitigate traffic impacts that resulted from a jobs/housing imbalance. He felt that meant the City was concerned regarding the proximity of housing. Mayor Nader stated if that was correct it was more imperative that there be adequate public transit infrastructure and that issue was not specifically addressed. Vv'hat the transit policies were needed to be put in front of Council Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 11 and more information on the proposed East Mesa Specific Plan would enable Council to have a sound discussion on what their concerns were before passing them on to the County or requesting a continuance. When there were future land use planning issues that were felt to affect the quality of life in the City, it would be advisable to inform the Planning Commission and Resource Conservation Commission as soon as possible so Council would have the benefit of their input without causing a delay, Councilmember Moore felt there were two critical issues: 1) traffic circulation; and 2) job/housing balance. He did not know what the job/housing ratio should be and requested that information. He felt one of the City's key emphasis over the past several years was a transportation phasing plan for Otay Mesa. He questioned where the plans were for the City of San Diego and County of San Diego as they pertained to Otay Mesa. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to continue the item to the 4/29/94 meeting and direct stuff to incorporate information to address the concerns expressed in Council discussion in the final report. 10. REPORT PEDESTRIAN ROUTES BETWEEN THE NEW LIBRARY IN SOUTH CHULA VISTA AND SURROUNDING SCHOOLS - On 4/19/94, Council requested that the staff report on pedestrian routes between the new library in south Chula Vista and surrounding schools be agendized for discussion. Questions were also raised about the cost of installing a sidewalk on Fourth Avenue from the Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. Staff has prepared a report for the CIP budget process and that information has also been included as part of the report. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Horton stated one of her major concerns was in getting the improvements done on Third Avenue and Orange, the area which was inconsistent with the rest of Third Avenue. She questioned when that would be completed as it was her understanding that Council had made that a priority due to the safety hazard, Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the project was SANDAG funded and it was moving forward. Staff would be putting in an asphalt sidewalk so it would move ahead a little faster. Staff would provide Council with the time schedules. Councilmember Moore stated one of his major concerns was that the City would be building a super library that would be a magnet to school children and he wanted to make sure they had a sidewalk to walk on. He approached the Non-Motorized Committee last year and informed them of the safety concern and requested the utilization of funds for sidewalks versus bicycle lanes. Councilmember Rindone suggested that in the future yellow not be used on maps as it did not delineate areas well. He questioned why they were using asphalt tbr the sidewalks. Mr. Swanson responded that asphalt was being used because: 1) the project was funded with TDA funds (non- motorized funds) and SANDAG rules stated it could be used for sidewalks only, even if the City had to install a curb and gutter in order to install the sidewalks, therefore, to do the entire project with concrete curb and gutter and widen it to the correct widths would require a considerable amount of additional funding; 2) there were commercial structures that were within the future right-of-way lines so that if the curb, gutter, and sidewalks were installed at the correct locations it would necessitate the removal of businesses; 3) there were vacant parcels that were commercially zoned that were vacant and could be developed, staff felt they should bear the cost of their own development to save the City funds for other projects; and 4) if the right-of-way conflicts were avoided with those businesses that were in the way there would be areas that were wider than others and staff felt that undesirable. Councilmember Rindone stated the proposal was for an interim sidewalk and questioned when the asphalt would be replaced with concrete. Mr. Swanson responded that in some cases it could be less than five years and in others it could be more as there were businesses built within the fight-of-way. MSUC (Fox/Nader) to accept the report. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 12 ITEMS PULLED FROMTHECONSENTCALENDAR None. OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 1 la. Scheduling of meetings. City Manager Goss questioned whether Council wanted the initial budget overview held during a regular Council meeting or at a special meeting/workshop. Councilmember Rindone felt it should be at a regular meeting as it established a good basis for the public and would be televised. Subsequent meetings could be held in workshop settings. 1 lb. Follow-up report regarding Olympic Training Center funding. City Manager Goss stated staff conferred with Dr. Penner and his position and recommended that the proceeds be as an unrestricted gif~ for the completion of the Phase I core facilities, Councilmember Rindone questioned whether there was any tie-in provision to encourage that the first construction of Phase II be the gymnasium. City Manager Goss sated that was not a specific understanding between the Port representatives and the San Diego Sports Training Foundation of San Diego. He felt that it was something as a City that could be done. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to direct staff to indicate Council's desire to have the first construction of facilities under Phase II be the gymnasium. 12. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 12a. Mayor Nader stated he had been asked to announce that St. Johns Church was seeking portable structures that would house up to 100 people to be used for church services. 12b. Mayor Nader questioned when the graffiti report would be back to Council. City Manager Goss stated staff indicated that it would be before Council the second week of May. Mayor Nader requested that if it was not on the agenda for the second week of May as an agendized item by staff that it be agendized under his comments. 12c. Mayor Nader stated there had been discussion regarding continued participation in the San Diego Area Waste Water Management District and it was becoming increasingly clear to him that the same situation existed there as compared to the Solid Waste Management District. He felt the City needed to be moving forward with a separate district and that it would be appropriate to have weekly updates from staff on progress. He requested that the Clerk put the initiation of a weekly report on sewage under his comments for next weeks agenda. 12d. Mayor Nader stated he had received a letter from Mr. Gurnee requesting an extension of the deadline (4/27/94) for him to vacate the premises on the bay. He wanted access to his equipment without the necessity of the City having a security guard accompany him. He had not been in actual contact with him. He would support a motion to take it up as an emergency item if that was the direction of the Council. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 13 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore 13a. Ratification of appointments to the Economic Development Conmussion: John Munch (Financial Background) - Ex-Of~cio Member - Continued from the meeting of 4/19/94; and Don Read - Voting Member, Mayor Nader requested that the ratification of appointment for John Munch be placed under his comments for the next Council meeting. MSUC (Moore/Nader) to ratify the appointment of Don Read as a voting member of the Economic Development Commission. 13b. Councilmember Moore stated Council had set aside $200,000 for the abatement of graffiti and he wanted to reallocate those funds to have the Police Activities League or another group convince the youth to use peer pressure for something good rather than something adverse. If the City had a policy that for the base year 1993/94 there would be $200,000 for a period of ten years all the money that was saved on that due to a decrease in graffiti could be reallocated to do something special for youth to decrease crime. Just painting over paint did not get to the source of the problem, He felt there should be a report from staff listing what was bad and what was good about the proposal. Mayor Nader felt there should be direct input from the youth community regarding what would be most effective. He felt the Youth Commission should also be contacted for input prior to the meeting. Councilmember Horton 13c. Beautification Awards Banquet: Request that each Councilmember invite members of the business community to attend. Councilmember Horton stated several years ago Councilmember Moore set up a program whereby each councilmember would invite a member of the business community to attend the beautification awards banquet. She felt it would be an excellent opportunity for Councilmembers to invite a new or existing business owner to attend the banquet and let them get to know the community better and the people. MS (HortonfNader) each Councilmember was responsible for inviting a member of the business community to the beaufifieation awards banquet at the City's expense. Councilmember Rindone questioned if that was a businessperson and their spouse or guest. Councilmember Moore stated it would be a total of two people. He did not feel they had to be from Chula Vista as the City was working with people that were interested in bringing businesses to the City. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 13d. Councilmember Horton stated at the last San Diego Area Waste Water Management meeting one of the major issues discussed was the MOU being presented by the City of San Diego. One of the major concerns by almost all of the participating agencies was the weighted vote issue, There was a motion that would allow San Diego or any agency to call for a weighted vote, the motion could be seconded by any other agency, then San Diego plus three other agencies would have to vote in order for the weighted vote to pass. That motion did not pass. Another proposal did pass which called for the same formation except that it would take the City of San Diego plus three votes rather than three agencies. She had voted against the motion as it would strengthen the City's position to have three agencies having to vote to support a weighted vote position. Mayor Nader stated any change would require State legislation. He felt Chula Vista should be ready to get out if they wanted to protect themselves. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 14 Councilmember Horton stated the item was to be taken back to the individual agencies for discussion and she requested that it be placed under Council Comments on next weeks agenda. Councilmember Rindone 13e. Councilmember Rindone stated he had met with several former gang members and they expressed concern that all young people were not interested in athletics and that there should be other activities available to them. They felt the Police Activities League was good for some, but not for all. Mayor Nader stated the Police Activities League was envisioned as including non-athletic as well as athletic activities. Councilmember Horton stated they had invited a representative from the Cultural Arts Commission to participate on the PAL because they wanted to expand it beyond athletics. Councilmember Rindone stated they indicated that they wanted to do things with computers. He wanted to refer to staff to examine the option of a gang diversion activity - that as the telecenter came on line that there be an opportunity for the center to be open late at night, i.e. 11:00 p.m. or midnight, for use. Councilmember Fox 13f. Councilmember Fox stated the Religious Youth Summit/Partnership of Faith had been held with fifty participants from Chula Vista and Bonita. One of the top recommendations was to hold more youth summits. Item off agenda: City Attorney Boogaard informed Council that there had been a request for waiver of a sewer connection fee for the veterinarians building on 1172-C Third Avenue. Mayor Nader stated it was a location within the same shopping center necessitated by fire. City Attorney Boogaard stated the staff reeontmendation was that Council authorize the waiver, pursuant to Section 3.45 of the Municipal Code, of the Sewer Capacity Charge and approve the City Manager's waiver of the Traffic signal Fee, in the following amounts for the remodeling construction of an existing facility to permit a veterinarian use, at 1172-C Third Avenue: 1) Sewer Capacity Charge of $5,039.40; and 2) Traffic Signal Fee of $1,690.00 on the finding by the City Manager that the following facts exist: 1) there has been an involuntary relocation of the Sewer Capacity Charge payee, such as in the case of a fire, earthquake, or other Act of God; 2) there is a corresponding reduction in "capacity rights" at the old location by consent of the old entitlee; 3) no recovery has been received, or is likely to be received, from any third party, such as an insurance company, which compensates the applicant for all or nay portion of the 'charge"; and 4) a deferral of the fee is not a more appropriate way to balance the economic hardships of the applicant against the need of the City to collect the revenue (as in the case of a cash shortage due to betterment). Except as provided, the decision shall not constitute a precedent for other waiver decisions. MSUC (Nader~lindone) to find that the item was a matter of urgency that arose after the posting of the agenda. MS (Nader/Horton) to approve the City Attorney's recommendation. City Attorney Boogaard sta~.~t if the City Manager determined there was an insurance recovery based on the evidence of a fee charge imposed, the Manager would then not waive it. Minutes April 26, 1994 Page 15 CLOSED SESSION 14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: City Attorney Boogaard informed Council that there were no items to be discussed in Closed Session. 15. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No report given. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:38 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Deput~6i~y Clerk