HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/05/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 3, 1994 Council Chambers
4:10 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (arrived at 4:13 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Brace M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Berlin
Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
4a. Proclaiming the week of May 2 through May 8, 1994 as "YOUTH WEEK." The proclamation was
presented by Councilmember Fox to Woody Ullman, Exalted Ruler of Chula Vista Elks, and Garry Hummel, Youth
Activities Chairman.
4b. Proclamation recognizing the Bonita Optimist Club for developing a family park area of Rohr Park
known as the Bonita Optimist Family Park.
4c. Proclaiming May as "Older Americans Month." The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tem
Hotton to Dorathea Grindle of the Commission on Aging.
4d. Oath of Office: Don Read - Economic Development Commission. The Oath of Office was administered
by the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency, Berlin Bosworth.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 7, 8, and 10)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
5a. Claims against the City: Claimant Number 1 - Aurelia Hemandez, c/o Jorge O. Gonzales, Esq., Wood
& Gonzales, Attorneys at Law, 1810 Palm Ave., National City, CA 91950; Claimant Number 2 - Fermin Mora,
c/o Donald Wayne Russell, Attomey at Law, 209 Third Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the
claims be denied.
5b. Letter of resignation from the Commission on Aging ~ Anne M. Nute, 425-B Oaklawn, Chula Vista,
CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately
according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 2
6. A. ORDINANCE 2591 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH
THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM {first readimt} -Memorandums of Understanding with the Chula Vista Employees Association, Police
Officers Association, and International Association of Fire Fighters contain provisions whereby the City agreed to
amend its contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to include the optional benefit known as
Military Service Credit as Public Service for local miscellaneous and local safety members. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Personnel)
B. RESOLUTION 17467 INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
WITH THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
7. RESOLUTION 17468 ESTABLISHING FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 FRINGE BENEFITS FOR
UNREPRESENTED, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT - At the 3/8/94 Council
Meeting, directions to negotiators were provided during closed session. The resolution establishes the fringe
benefits for Unrepresented, Middle and Executive Managers in accordance with those directions. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Rindone felt Council would be remiss in approving the benefits until a subcommittee was formulated
for executive management and he could not support the staff recommendations until that procedure was followed.
MS (Rindone/Horton) the Mayor to establish the Council subcommittees for the evaluation of the employees
reporting to the Council and for the review of 1993/94 fringe benefit plan proposed for all of the categories.
Mayor Nader requested a separate vote on setting up the Council subeonumttees and adopting the 1993/94 flex plan.
The item had been discussed previously and was based on the same change in the benefits plan that was being given
to line level employees represented by the Chula Vista Employees Association. It was a conservative approach,
but a reasonable one given the current budget. He felt Council's prior instruction to negotiators regarding that item
was well thought out and he would support the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Moore stated it was routine to defer action on top management until last. If there were going to
be subcommittees, the only way he would accept it would be within the next two weeks.
VOTE ON CREATION OF SUBCOMMITTEES TO REVlEW BENEFITS AND EVALUATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO COUNCIL: approved 4-0-0-1 with Moore abstaining.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader/Fox) to adopt staff recommendation.
Mayor Nader perceived the motion as being more budget driven. Council had enacted a pay freeze for executive
management and gave no pay raise to line level employees either for budgetary reasons. The other City employees
did get an adjustment in their benefits package to take care of inflationary costs and he did not feel it would be fair
to penalize executive management in not getting that same adjustment. Due to the state of the budget he could not
support giving them an increase in benefits that went beyond that.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would oppose that because there was also the option of not grantIng it at all.
He felt a thorough review along with an evaluation of the individual employees was an ess~nfml responsibility of
the Council.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: failed 2-3 with Horton, Moore, & Rindone opposed.
City Attorney Bnngaard stated that on page 7-8, the only increase was in the flex plan, and the deletion of the
second paragraph on B2 would prevent any additional compensation from being received by the three appointed
officers, i.e. City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Staff would bring beck an amended resolution that
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 3
would be consistent with anything the Council approvexl for the three appointed officials. That would provide the
rest of the executive group with compensation according to the resolution.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: (Rindone, agreed to by the Second of the Motion) deletion or the second
paragraph of the resolution on B2 that would prevent any additional compensation from being received by
the three appointed officers, i.e. City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved ,1-1 with Fox opposed.
RESOLUTION 17648, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text
as waived, passed and approved unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION 17469 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
*'PLACEMENT OF VARIOUS TYPES OF STREET SURFACING (ASPHALT CONCRETE, ASPHALT
RUBBER HOT MIX, ASPHALT RUBBER AND AGGREGATE MEMBRANE WITH SLURRY SEAL) FOR
THE 1993/94 OVERLAY PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS
STREETS IN THE CITY (STL-206)"; AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO
EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT - On 3/23/94, bids were received for placement of
1-1/2 inch thick asphalt concrete overlay, asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal and asphalt
rubber hot mix overlay. The work also includes removal of alligatored pavement areas and replacement with asphalt
concrete; the milling of street pavement in certain areas; signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of manholes and
storm drain cleanouts; adjustment of survey well monuments; removal of curbs, gutter, and sidewalk; and the
construction of pedestrian ramps, and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated the item was discussed in Closed Session pursuant to the advice of the City Attomey.
MSUC (Nader/Fox) to continue the item for one week.
9. A. RESOLUTION 17470 AMENDING SCHEDULE III "PARKING PROHIBITION AT ALL
TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS" RESCINDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG FOURTH AVENUE
AND RETAINING THE PARKING RESTRICTION ALONG DAVIDSON STREET - On 4/11/94, staff
received a memo from the Police Chief stating that the parking along Fourth Avenue was no longer needed for
"Official Vehicles" and should be restored to public parking with the caveat that the parking be "One-Hour Time
Limited" to provide additional parking for patrons of the Civic Center complex. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17471 AMENDING SCHEDULE VI "PARKING TIME LIMITED ON
CERTAIN STREETS" AND CREATING A ONE-HOUR PARK1NG ZONE IN THE AREA OF FOURTH
AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE
10. REPORT REQUESTING COUNCIL SCHEDULE CONSIDERATION OF THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 1993 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 26, 1994 - In prior years, the Council has requested that their
review of the GMOC report be conducted in a workshop setting. The GMOC has prepared their report and is ready
to meet with Council. Staff recommends Council confirm the 5/26/94 workshop date for consideration of the
GMOC's 1993 Annual Report. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would only be available at 4:00 p.m. if a workshop was held on 5/26/94.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 4
Councilmember Moore stated the GMOC report was to have been scheduled for review within the budget period.
Mayor Nader suggested that the item be trailed and discussed under 'Scheduling of Meetings" under the City
Manager's Comments.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
11. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND
CHANGES FOR COX CABLE'S BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - As authorized
by the Federal Cable Act of 1992, the City is reviewing the rates charged by Cox Cable since 9/1/93 for the Basic
Service Tier of cable television service and associated equipment. Cox Cable has requested additional time to
review the City's analysis of its Basic Service Tier rates and to review new regulations issued by the Federal
Communications Comrmssion on 3/30/94. Staff recommends continuance of the public hearing and approval of the
resolution. (Administration)
RESOLUTION 17472 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ACCOUNTING ORDER
TO COX CABLE
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, stated Cox Cable had requested that the public hearing be continued until after
6/15/94. Staff recommended the public hearing be opened, public testimony taken, and the public hearing continued
until 6/21/94.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Hale Newcomb, 515 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated a charge had been added in excess of $20.00
to remove a service and get back to standard service. That had now been reduced to $10.00 but he saw no reason
for subscribers to pay for something taken off their service. If a subscriber declined a service it should be removed
without a charge. He recommended that the service reduction charge be eliminated and the reduction of service
down to basic be removed completely.
Mayor Nader requested that anyone testifying be notified of future hearings on the item. He also requested that a
summary of testimony be given to Council when the item was reheard.
Councilmember Moore felt the pro's and con's regarding the speakers comments should be included when the item
was reheard.
Councilmember Rindone did not believe that the requests made by Mr. Newcomb were under the authority of the
Council and requested clarification by the City Attorney.
Mr. Thomson stated it was his understanding that it was an issue that was under the City's regulation and he would
clarify that further with the FCC. The FCC did provide that up to $2.00 could be charged for services that could
be done through a computer terminal. The service referred to by Mr. Newcomb did require a trip out to the
customers home.
Councilmember Rindone requested that during the interim, Mr. Newcomb be informed regarding the authority.
· Steve Collins, representing Cox Cable, stated a truck roll was necessary and under the guidelines they were
allowed to charge a specific fee for disconnection of a particular service. They were working closely with the City
Manager's office.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 5
· Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, requested that TV programming be improved after
10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.
MS (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public heating to 6/21/94 and adopt Resolution 17472.
Councilmember Fox requested clarification regarding FCC action relating to regulated services, i.e. whether that
applied to municipal regulations or FCC regulations. He questioned whether the City had the flexibility to reduce
by 10% or 17%.
Mr. Thomson responded that it would be applied to both. The regulations provided that either the FCC or the City
could reduc~ the rates up to 10% under the old rules and up to 17% under the new rules or a benchmark number,
whichever was higher. It depended on how high they were in September 1992 compared to nationwide data.
Mayor Neder questioned what the legal effect would be of approving the resolution. He further questioned if the
approval of the resolution would either lock the City into, or preclude the City from, any action that it would
otherwise take.
Mr. Thomson responded that it would enable the City to order refunds retroactive to September 1, 1993 if after
making a final determination the Council ordered those refunds. Without taking such action at the meeting, or next
weeks meeting, the City would lose the opportunity to retroactively reduce rates. The resolution fully enable the
City to have all options available.
VOTE ON MOTION AND RESOLUTION 17472: approved unaniraonsly.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, thanked Harlan Wilson for the installation of a bus
bench at the corner of First Street and Quintard.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Executive Director of INDWELLER, reported on
alternatives of solid waste, transfer, and disposal. She had arranged with Urban Ore Incorporated to provide
information that was pertinent to contract negotiations for solid waste disposal. She specifically requested
information on transfer facilities. Information would be presented to the Resource Conservation Commission on
5/9/94.
· Mark Whillock, 346 Front Street, El Cajon, CA, representing Whillock Contracting, stated he had not
received the retention held by the City on a project they completed for the City. The contract called for approval
by Council thirty-five days after the contract was completed. The City had not followed through from the very
beginning of the contract through the completion of the project. It was a waste of the Council's time and his time
to follow-up on contract agreements. He questioned what it took to get the City to follow through with their
agreements.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he had reviewed the contract dispute and while he could not speak to the payment,
he assured Council that staff was vigilant in protecting the interests of the City. Any disputes that were resolved
should have been resolved in favor of the City in his opinion. There were a lot of problems with the project.
Clifford Swansun, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the retention payment was forwarded to
the Finance Department that day and Finance would issue a check on Friday. Staff would work with Finance to
see if it could be issued earlier.
Mayor Nader requested that staff be prepared to report back to Council next week if the check was not received
by Mr. Whillook by then.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 6
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
12. RESOLUTION 17473 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR FORMATION OF A
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE CONVERSION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - PHASE II AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 17,
1994 AT 6:00 P.M. TO ESTABLISH THE DISTRICT - In October 1990, Council authorized EastLake
Development Company to construct a portion of Telegraph Canyon Road from east of Paseo Ladera to east of
Apache Drive and further agreed that the costs associated with said construction would be eligible for Transportation
Development Impact Fee (DIF) credit. EastLake Development Company has requested that the underground
conversion costs associated with the project be DIF eligible. However, the costs have typically not been eligible,
and City staff recommends that a Reimbursement District be formed instead. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Councilmember Moore stated he had a problem with the continued burden of assessment districts and open space
districts. It was his understanding that a reimbursement district would not add an additional burden to the individual
property owners.
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether there was an escalator clause on the interest rate charged.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded there was not. It was expected that the reimbursement would
be completed when the southside villages were developed.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated it was an annual 7% and was not a flat
fee of 7 % regardless of how long it went.
RESOLUTION 17473 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
13.A. ORDINANCE 2592 AMENDING SECTION 17.10.100 TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF
REQUIRED PARK FEES 60 DAYS AFTER MAP APPROVAL BUT BEFORE MAP RECORDATION, AND
AMENDING SECTION 18.16.100 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE ALLOWING BONDS TO BE PROVIDED
AFTER MAP APPROVAL (first reading) - On 1/19/93, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. The fourth final map for said tentative map is now before Council for
approval. The developer has requested that payment of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees be deferred
until after map approval. The proposed Municipal Code amendment would allow the alternative. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolutions. (Director of Public Works, Director of
Planning, Director of Community Development, and Director of Parks and Recreation)
B. RESOLUTION 17474 RENAMING THAT PORTION OF GOTHAM STREET WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SUBDIVISIONS TO CHATEAU COURT
C. RESOLUTION 17475 AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION
NUMBER 16960 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH
CANYON ESTATES
D. RESOLUTION 17476 AMENDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 17279 REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 16960,
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 7
APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
E. RESOLUTION 17477 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 93-03, TELEGRAPH
CANTON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD I UNIT 2, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE
PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, AND THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
City Attorney Boogaard stated two proposed changes were negotiated at the last minute and administrative staff had
not had a chance to review them. The pressure to propose the change was created by the need of the developer to
record a map and their financing was dependent upon doing so. The ordinance in the Council notebook required
the developer to pay the PAD fees and other required fees within 60 days of map approval. That was a change
from the current policy and past practice of having the developer pay the PAD fees at or before map approval. He
was not advocating Council's adoption but was not objecting it either because it contained a provision that the fund
into which the fees would go would collect interest at two percentage points above the average interest earnings.
He felt that created a cash equivalency between a current payment and a future payment secured by a AAA rated
insurance company or a letter of credit. The City Manager and City Attorney would have to agree on the proposed
security. It was in the form of an ordinance because it would be available to any proposed fee payer. The first
amendment to the supplemental subdivision improvement agreement also had changes as marked in the handout.
Mayor Nader stated he had asked for information on low income housing, i.e. Condition #6. The information
presented was incomplete, but the condition was for the provision of three buildable acres for low income housing
and it was left open as to who it would ultimately be provided to. The materials in the agenda packet suggested
that it had been changed to a different set of conditions and were now being further modified in the City Attorney's
proposal. He was unclear as to when the modification was done by the Council.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the agreement being referred to was contained on page 13-13 and Condition 68 was
repeated on page 13-16. Tentative Map Condition #6 provided substitution rights of three buildable acres.
Mayor Nader stated it was not a substitution fight, it was a condition that there be three buildable acres. It appeared
there was a change. He questioned if that condition was preserved in the proposal or if it was altered.
City Attorney Bungcard responded that it was altered. There was a duty to provide three off-site buildable acres
of affordable housing and the agreement before Council allowed, at the Council's option, the right to require the
cash or land equivalency to the burden of building 17.2 low income units on 11/2 acres. The affordable housing
requirement for three buildable acres was being converted to the Council's option of having I 1/2 acres of land.
Mayor Nader questioned why that was being done and why it was not more explicitly spelled out for Council. He
felt that was a significant change.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the changes occurred late that afternoon. He felt it could be a more rigorous
condition than the previous Condition #6. The Council would have the fight to require enough raw land to be the
equivalent of providing the land and constructing the units.
Dave Gustarson, Assistant Director of Community Development, responded that Condition #6 was altered to the
degree that the moderate income units could be provided on site and staff felt that was an advantage. The low
income units would still be off-site and the option available to Council would be to require the dedication of the land
to build them. The previous condition stated there would be three acres, half of which would be moderate income.
Mayor Nader stated that was the standard obligation, but was not what was incorporated into that particular tentative
map. It did not specify that half would be low income housing. The intent was that the condition would ultimately
be satisfied by deeding over either to the City, or a community non-profit organization agreeable to the City, three
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 8
buildable acres that could be used for low income housing. He felt that condition was an overriding consideration
that justified the environmental impact of the project. He was disturbed that it appeared there was a proposal to
substantively change a condition the policy makers intended and it should have been put clearly before Council.
He questioned why there needed to be a change in the original condition.
City Attorney Booguard stated there needed to be one change if progress was to be made, i.e. the developer had
the right to defer the duty to have a housing agreement with the City until the fourth final map and the intent was
to defer that until the fifth final map or subsequent maps. He was not certain there was a conscious intent to subvert
the option created in Condition #6. Council, under Condition #6 had an option in lieu of requiring the devehiper
to build affordable housing provide another acre of land. He felt the developer would have preferred to donate the
land. If the City only received the land there would be the expense of approximately $30,000 to build each unit.
Mayor Nader questioned whether staff had taken the position that the land had to be conveyed to the City at which
point the City would build the units. The intent of the original condition was that the conveyance could be to a
community non-profit organization that might have the ability to get the units built.
Councilmember Moore questioned whether Council could move forward with the other items with staff making
copies of all information for other Councilmembers.
Mayor Nader stated Council could move forward with resolutions that were separate from that condition or just
resolve it by leaving the original condition as it was and incorporating it into the resolutions.
City Attorney Boogmard stated the developer wanted approval of Item E, i.e. approval of the final map. Staff did
not want that approved until they were sure the developer would perform the other conditions. Item D addressed
the housing issue.
Councilmember Moore questioned if any Councilmember disagreed with 17.2 moderate income housing units on
the present site.
Mayor Nader stated he did because it was a change in what was previously acted upon which stated the entire
affordable housing element would be satisfied with a provision of buildable acreage off-site for 34 units of affordable
housing.
RESOLUTION 17474 OFI~ERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
4-1 with Rindone opposed.
Councilmember Moore questioned whether there were other items that could be considered that were separate from
the low/moderate housing requirement.
City Attorney Booguard stated Item A, Ordinance 2592, granted the developer the permission that had not
previously been extended to other developers, i.e. permission to let them pay fees, primarily the PAD fees, by
giving the City security with payment to be made on or before the first Certificate of Occupancy.
City Manager Goss stated he did not have a problem with a sixty day delay in getting the PAD money from the date
of acceptance of the map by Council or recordation. He did have a problem that there was a guarantee process that
could be met and that the fee might not actually be paid until Certificate of Occupancy in which case it would
substantially delay the PAD fee. Staff had advised him that they would like to look at the language for a week
before supporting it. They also wanted to talk to the Parks & Recreation Director and Public Works Director
regarding the impacts of the proposal. The PAD money was currently in the negative and Council had made
commitments from those funds.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what the industry standard was for the payment of fees. He did not feel he
could vote for the proposed changes until staff had an opportunity to review it. Unless there was a time
consequence that was so significant that Council had to take action it should be continued for one week.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 9
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the Subdivision Map Act called for payment of park fees
at final map, but did give flexibility of payment up to the building permit stage. In his survey with surrounding
cities in San Diego County it appeared that the payment of park fi~s was consistent across the board and Chula
Vista stood out as one of the only cities where park fees were required prior to final map recordatinn.
City Manager Goss felt the proposal undercut the policy issue staff was working on.
® Fred Arbuckle, representing the Baldwin Company, stated he could only respond to the payment of the
parks fee issue. They needed to have the map finaled so they could pull building permits as soon as possible. Their
intent was to have the map recorded next week and preferred there not be a delay regarding the map. He
apologized to staff and Connell regarding the confusion regarding the payment of the fees and the idea that it was
a last minute change. He had a certain understanding and a mis-understanding about what was before Council for
consideration. They asked that Council approve staffs original recommendation, not the modified recommendation,
which would permit the payment of the fees within sixty days of Council action, but prior to recordation of the map.
As a follow-up they would like to meet with staff over the course of the next two weeks and return at that time
regarding a postponement of the payment of fees. They were looking at ways to satisfy staffs concerns regarding
security. They had successfully utilized the posting of a bond with the City of San Diego.
Mayor Nader questioned what the security concern was with the ordinance.
City Attorney Boogaard stated there was no security problem with the ordinance in the Council agenda packet. It
was unsatisfactory to the developer as they needed credit beyond the sixty days and still had to have the right to pull
building permits right away.
Mr. Arbuckle responded that was correct, they wanted to postpone fees, record the map, and start construction.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the Parks & Recreation Department was working on a referral from
Council regarding the issue of paying park fees at the time of building permits rather than at map approval. He
had been informed that the issue would go to the Park & Recreation Commission on 5/19/94 with a report back to
Council in early June. He felt that report could also look at payment of the fees at occupancy.
Councilmember Fox questioned if the City had any restrictions in the agreement that would allow the City to
determine the proximity of the community purpose facility sites to the project site.
Mr. Gustafson responded the Council had the authority to approve the specific site. The intent in the original SPA
Plan was that the site would be in the Otay Ranch, one of the first villages. That had been designated in the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan. If that could not occur in the development time frame for the project, a site had
also been designated in their project that could meet the requirement.
· Tim O'Grady, representing the Baldwin Company, stated they had identified the site with the assistance
of the Engineering and Planning Departments. It was felt it was a reasonable site within the project boundaries to
provide such a facility. The intent was to provide it off-site within the Ranch.
City Attorney Boogaard stated even though the ordinance would not take effect until thirty days after the second
reading, the concept was that Council was approving a policy that would be available to all developers of deferral
and that staff would administratively apply the policy.
ORDINANCE 2592 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived,
passed and approved unanimously.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended that Item D, be amended to read, first four lines, "Developer agrees that
without permission of the Council, would not apply for Council approval of a final map covering the 200th lot
within the property to be subdivided until the City and developer have entered into an Affordable Housing
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 10
Agreement in accordance with Condition #6 of the General Development Plan and SPA Plan'. He stated that
Baldwin would need to consent to the changes in the agreement.
Mr. O'Grady stated that would be acceptable if it was the 201st lot due to the way their boundary lines were set
up. It was anticipated that the seventh map would be before Council in five to six months.
· Kim Kilkenney, representing the Baldwin Company, stated when the three acre requirement was negotiated,
the intention was that the three acres be provided within Otay Ranch. The problem they had encountered since then
was that it was not within the City of Chula Vista and not likely to be within the next six months. The specific plan
and subdivisions would not be approved in that time frame and therefore there would not be a specifically identified
buildable lot that could be conveyed to the City or a third party. They could enter into a contract to do that and
the Otay Ranch General Plan had language that required them to do that. In terms of hard and fast security, they
had not been able to give the City the lot, unless the City would be satisfied with a Covenant.
Mayor Nader felt there were several legal devices that would comply with the spirit and would be binding providing
the County allowed them to do anything on Otay Ranch. He did not feel it was fair to have building permits held
up over a condition Baldwin wanted to fulfill.
MSUC eqader/Munre) to amend the agre~nent approved by Resolution 17476 to read first four lines,
"Developer agrees that without permission of the Council, would not apply for Council approval of a final
map covering the 200th lot within the property to be subdivided until the City and developer have entered
into an Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with Condition #6 of the General Development Plan and
SPA Plan".
MS eqader/Fox) to amend Resolution 17475 to read, page 13C-2, language in the indented section read
"Developer agrees that without permission of the Council, would not apply for Council approval of a final
map covering the 200th lot within the property to be subdivided until the City and developer have entered
into an Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with Condition #6 of the General Development Plan and
SPA Plan".
Councilmember Rindone questioned what the interest income rate was on the PAD fee. He further questioned what
the time would be from the original proposal for the fourth map to the occupancy stage.
Mr. Krempl stated the income rate was approximately 4. + %.
Mr. Kilkenney responded that they typically constructed a production unit between five and six months.
Councilmember Rindone stated if it were six months, on $170,000 at 4% it would only be $3,400 annually.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 17475: approved unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS 17475 AS AMENDED, 17476 AS AMENDED, AND 17477 OFFERED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Moore questioned what the next step would be, i.e. would the applicant and staff continue to
negotiate.
Mr. Kremp! responded that was correct.
Councilmember Fox questioned if it was possible that the item would be brought back for Council consideration
of deferral of fees until the occupancy stage.
Mr. Krempl stated it was a possibility for consideration of future maps, but it was his understanding that they
wanted to record the present map and it would seal the conditions approved by Council.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 11
Councilmember Moore questioned if the 34.4 units of affordable housing had been settled.
Mr. L~iter stated the condition referred to the SPA Plan and would be the basis of negotiations.
Mayor Nader statp_xl it was unsettled at the current time.
Mr. Kilkenney responded that when the project was originally approved the Baldwin Company made a commitment
to three acres and they stood ready to try to provide 17 moderate income housing units on site, but he heard
Council's preference for three acres off-site.
Mayor Nader stated Council had approved a motion several years ago regarding their preference for three acres off-
site. It was understood at that time the developer would fulfill their requirement by the City exercising that option
rather than by requiring the units be build on-site.
Councilmember Moore felt that should be clarified in no uncertain terms in order to resolve it for once and for all.
MS (Nader/Horton) to reiterate previous Council action that Condition #6 should be fulfilled through a
provision of affordable housing off-site by way of three buildable acres, whether conveyed to the City or to
a non-profit housing entity approved by the City for the purpose of building affordable housing units (34
units).
Councilmember Horton stated page 13-3 stated the original condition was not an option but required. If the minutes
were different it should be clarified.
Mayor Nader felt language was missing on page 13-3 in the last paragraph. When changes in policy were being
recommended the original Council action needed to be provided as part of the backup information. He felt the
motion on the floor provided clarification and allowed the project to move forward.
City Attorney Booguard urged Council to appreciate that the developer would not have a problem as it was a
cheaper alternative for them.
Mayor Nader stated the confusion was whether Council was attempting to get money out of the developer or
attempting to provide a public benefit. His goal was not to focus on the dollar amount the City received from the
developer, but to focus on how many truly affordable housing units the City would be able to provide to families
in the region and at what reasonable cost. If they could get them provided more efficiently, with less burden to the
developer, and more favorable impact to those in the community in need, that was what he wanted to do.
City Attorney Booguard felt he needed to advise Council as to the feasibility of getting the project through sweat-
equity. He was unaware of any feasibility study on being able to do that. Council should know that if they were
getting three acres of land how many housing units could be achieved through sweat-equity and if they wanted it
in the City or on land that may never come into the City. Staff did not know if they were being directed to accept
three buildable acres in Otay Ranch that were not annexed to the City. If Council foreclosed those options by
directing staff without studying the economics and where it was located Council may not have the policy study done.
Mayor Nader stated no policy study was directed. Council asked for three buildable acres for affordable housing.
It had been discussed thoroughly two years ago and those issues were raised by staff at that time.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Moore/Horton) to direct staff to include the present motion within the negotiations
with the applicant and bring back the pro's and con's to the Council within the time frame of the total report.
Mr. Kilkenney stated it would take approximately six to eight months for the sixth final map or the 200th lot.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether six months could be included within the motion.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 12
Councilmember Moore stated it would be brought back with the other report and should be within the six months.
Mayor Nader stated he did not feel that was fair to the developer, Council, or the citizens for whom the affordable
housing agreement was designed. They were at a stage where there was a tentative map with the condition included
and a developer preparing for submission of final maps within the next six months. He did not see why that should
be delayed further.
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the applicant had a problem with the amended motion on the floor.
Mr. Kilkenney responded that he felt they could perform under any alternative, but felt it would be more clear to
provide under the initial motion.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
* * * Council recessed to Closed Session at 6:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:03 p.m. * * *
14. 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)
Continued from the meeting of 4/26/94.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated staff had met with the management staff of the Planning and Public
Works Departments and had another meeting scheduled for later in the week. The City Manager was scheduled
to meet with the Deputy CAO on Monday. Staff was continuing to resolve the issues and hoped to go to the Board
of Supervisors with a more specific recommendation.
MS (Rindone/Fox) to approve staff recommendations #1 and #2: 1) consult with County executive staff
regarding issues transmitted previously to the County if San Diego Planning Commission; and 2) transmit the
letter to the County Board of Supervisors (attachment 2), which requests that the Board postpone final action
on the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan to enable the City and County to address concerns with the analysis
contained in the Final EIR as well as policies contained or laking in the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan.
Mayor Nader questioned if the proposed letter was any different than the letter before Council last week.
Mr. Leiter stated the comment regarding biology had been removed as it had been based on previous information.
Staff did verify that and added additional policy language regarding biology. In addition, the recommendation at
the end of the letter was made more specific as to the changes staff was recommending in their plan. They did
follow the same line of thing included in the first letter. The County staff did not have a problem with
recommendation #1, but there were some issues regarding the requirement for a Facility Phasing and Financing Plan
that they had not reached agreement on.
Mayor Nader questioned when it was scheduled for review by the Board of Supervisors. He further questioned if
anything was added to the letter regarding the use of public transit to deal with circulation and traffic impacts.
Mr. Leiter responded that it would go before the Board on 5/11/94. Under Item #I they specifically referenced
that the EIR should include specific mitigation measures including both roadway improvements and non-automobile
transit improvements such as mass transit facilities and transportation demand measures.
Mayor Nader questioned why the City could not ask that they amend the Specific Plan in some way to require that
before tentative maps were approved that the City's concems be addressed. That way they could move forward
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 13
with their land use planning and the City would not be in the position of delaying industrial development that the
region needed.
Mr. Leiter responded that the recommendation was that the County include some policies that required they do
Facility Financing Plans before the tentative map stage. Staff was not requesting that they do them now, but felt
there should be action in the Specific Plan that committed the County to those actions. There was concern that the
County staff had not indicated a willingness to provide specific recommendations along those lines to the Board and
staff was concerned the Board would not have enough time to react to the specific proposals and incorporate them.
Mayor Nader questioned if the County staff had not been advising the Board of the City's concerns.
Mr. Leiter stated he did not believe they had been brought to the attention of the Board.
Mayor Nudes preferred the City not request a delay in action, but the adoption of amendments or supplemental
actions concurrent with the adoption of the Specific Plan that would address the City's concern. Then if the Board
felt because of their staft's negligence they did not have enough information to take that action without delaying the
project it would be up to them. That would remove the City from the position of asking another government agency
to delay action due to their concerns.
MS (Nader/Moore) to modify staff recommendation and direct staff to revise the letter to the County Board
of Supervisors to delete specific requests to delay action on the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan and to request
that actions be taken to address the City's concerns outlined in the recommendations portion of the letter.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Moore, agreed to by the Maker of the Motion) that staff be at the meeting
on 5/11/94 before the Board and have specific language that could be handed out to the Board outlining the
specific concerns (in bullet form). Approved unanimously.
VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
15. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report
will be given by staff. No report was given.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 7, 8, and 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
16a. Scheduling of meetings. City Manager Goss stated 5/23/94 and 5/26/94 would be available for budget
meetings. It appeared that the meetings of 5/10, 5/17, and 5/24 were fairly crowded for the overall budget
introduction.
Councilmember Fox stated he would be in town for the June dates.
Councilmember Rindone requested that the overview be on 5/10 as he would not be available on 5/17.
City Manager Goss stated he would do the budget overview on 5/10. It appeared that 5/23, 5/26, 6/1, and 6/2
would be available for budget workshops.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 14
Mayor Nader questioned if a date had been set for the GMOC report.
City Manager Goss responded that he would try to work it into one of the four dates given for a budget workshop.
17. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
17a. Ratification of appointment to the Economic Development Commission: John Munch (Financial
Background).
MSUC (Nader/Fox) to approve appointtnent of John Munch as an ex-offlcio member to the Economic
Development Commission.
17b. A progress report on sewage. Mayor Nader stated the City needed to work very quickly on Council
direction to work with staff counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions regarding potential formation of an alternative.
If those jurisdictions were not interested, the City needed to move forward in setting up a separate district alone.
The point of the item was to have a weekly report from staff on the progress of carrying out that direction so
Council and the public could be kept apprised and ensure they were moving forward toward a timely resolution.
MSUC eqader/Fox) to direct staff to make a regular weekly items of an "update on sewage issues" similar
to the weeMy report on the "update on solid waste disposal issues".
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that the District Board took action that allowed any
agency to call for a weighted vote which would require a second by another agency, and in order to carry it would
require a majority of the members of the City of San Diego contingency plus three other votes. If the vote carried,
the original vote would be superseded, if it did not carry the original vote would carry. The City of Chula Vista
and City of San Diego voted against that for different reasons. Judge Brewster met with the attorneys and had set
January as a date for them to come forward with some type of compliance plan. There was a meeting on
Wednesday with the consultants and staff from other Southbay agencies to further explore the issues expressed by
Council. San Diego was looking at some Southbay options, but the results would not be known prior to the
withdrawal date. Councilmember Herton requested that the issue of extending the withdrawal date without penalty
be placed on the next agenda.
Mayor Nader stated in order to change the weighted vote procedure it required State legislation and indications in
the past had been that it would not be forthcoming without the support of the City of San Diego. Therefore, any
change supported by the Board of the District was merely advisory and did not have any legal effect. He questioned
what progress had been made in assembling or conducting meetings with the relevant staff of neighboring cities,
the County, and Otay Water District.
Mr. Lippitt responded that the consultants had been working on report. The first formal meeting would be held
on Wednesday with the staff representatives.
Mayor Nader questioned if the potential annexation of some part of Spring Valley by LaMesa was still a live issue.
Councilmember Moore stated that as the City's representative to LAFCO, it was not on the short range agenda, it
had been dropped.
Mayor Nader stated one of the La Mesa councilmembers expressed potential interest and felt it was dependent upon
annexation of Spring Valley. Staff should monitor that issue. He questioned if Council's concerns regarding
capacity rights had been expressed to the District.
Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 15
Mayor Nader stated Council was also concerned with all financial obligations imposed by signature to the MOU.
The matrix also indicated that the issue of payback for sale of excess capacity was only an issue to National City.
Chula Vista also had excess capacity contracted and would expect that if the capacity was taken back under the new
district that the ratepayers or the City would be compensated for that.
Mr. Lippitt responded that it was not marked because Chula Vista would be using the capacity. There was a
provision where the City would be paid beck.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was expected that Chula Vista would use all of its capacity.
Mr. Lippitt responded that it would not cover Otay Ranch. The way the MOU was working the City would
continue to keep the extra capacity and collect back from them. He felt staff needed to go over that in more detail
as the situation progressed.
17c. Mayor Nader stated he had received a letter from Joe Conti, President of Southwestern College, responding
to the Council's request for a joint meeting on the transit center. The letter indicated they were agreeable to such
a meeting subject to certain conditions. He did not have a problem with the conditions with one exception, i.e. the
limits to be placed on public participation. He was uncertain as to whether that was legal for a City Council
meeting.
City Manager Goss stated the item was agendized for the 5/10/94 meeting. He talked to Mr. Conti and his intention
was not to limit the public participation to three people commenting, but in terms of sitting down and being part
of the discussion that it be limited to three members of the public.
Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted to see the staff report before the Council was polled for a meeting date,
there were other concerns and he wanted staff to address those issues.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moore
18a. Councilmember Moore stated a semi-emergency had arisen and he would not be attending the 5/10/94
Council meeting. The graffiti item was to be agendized on that date and should include a response to his previous
comments.
Councilmember Hotton
18b. Weighted Vote Issue for Special Act District (SAD). Councilmember Horton stated she was to take a
recommendation from Council back to the District meeting on the fourth Friday of the month.
MSUC (Naderfltorton) to take a Council position to be conveyed to the District that the proposal was
unsatisfactory in at least two respects: 1) it should take the vote of at least three other agencies in addition
to the one calling for a weighted vote to pass something on a weighted vote; and 2) the weighted vote should
be used only to veto proposed action and not to impose any affirmative action.
Councilmember Fox
18c. Councilmember Fox stated he had attended the first meeting of the Regional Open Space and Park District
meeting and shared with Mr. Cooper the City concerns. Mr. Cooper had responded in writing and he requested
that the City Manager make copies for all Councilmembers.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Council opposed formation of the District or took no position on the issue. It was
his understanding that Council chose not to take a position and have Councilmember Fox attend the first meeting
and report back to Council.
Councilmember Fox stated it was mostly staff level positions attending the meetings and staff had informed him that
they would monitor the situation.
Minutes
May 3, 1994
Page 16
City Manager Goss respondeel that he did not believe the Parks & Recreation Comrmssion was monitoring the
meetings and was unsure as to whether staff was.
Mayor Nader requested that the item be docketed on the 5/10/94 agenda.
CLOSED SESSION
19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
City Attorney Boogaard requested that Item 8 be added to the Closed Session agenda as he needed to discuss
potential for litigation.
MSUC (Nader/Fox) to add lte~n 8 to the Closed Session to discuss potential for litigation.
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· American Bonding vs. the City of Chula Vista
· City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego (Surcharge) - The item was not
discussed in Closed Session.
· Chaparral Greens vs. the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and Baldwin - The
items was not discussed in Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
· Property: Potential acquisition of Bayscene Mobilehome Park, 110 Woodlawn Avenue,
Chula Vista, California. The item was not discussed in Closed Session.
Negotiating parties: Richard Hall/Hall Company, Community Development, and the City
Attorney's office.
Under negotiation: Purchase price and terms of payment.
20. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - City Attomey Boogaard stated no final
actions had been taken in Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:05 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 10, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 8:05 p.m, and adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submittal,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
\ ~
Vi~ki C. Soderquist, Deput~ Clerk