HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/03/07 MINUTES OR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Council Chambers
4:06 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moot (arrived at 4:11 p.m.), Padilia, Rindone (arrived
at 4:15 p.m.), and Mayor Hotton
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: February 28, 1995
MSC (Fox/Padilla) to approve the minutes of February 28, 1995 as amended. Approved 3-0-2 with Moot and
Rindone absent.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: none)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMI~iUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that as a result of deliberations that occurred in Closed Session
on 2/28/95, Council authorized the retention of an attorney for Lyman Christopher to defend the complaint
brought by Gina Chammas. Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable action taken
by Council in Closed Session. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. ORDINANCE 2627 AMENDING SECTION 10.52.070 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO POLICE REMOVAL OF VEHICLES (second readino and adoorion) - The Police Department
has been experiencing problems with chronic refusal by certain businesses to obey the prohibition against parking
cars on the sidewalk. In order to enforce the law by removing the vehicle, it is necessary for Council to explicitly
authorize same by Ordinance. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
(Chief of Police)
7. ORDINANCE 2628 ENACTING THE CITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEDURAL
ORDINANCE (second readin~ and adoption) - On 4/12/94, Council adopted the proposed Resolution of Intention,
adopted the boundary map, and requested consent and jurisdiction from the County to order the acquisition and
financing of the public improvements for Assessment District Number 94-1. On 5/5/94, Council approved the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement for the district. On 6/7/94, the County of San Diego gave the City consent and
jurisdiction to construct improvements and levy assessments on properties located within County jurisdiction. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 2
8. RESOLUTION 17826 ACCEPTING B!])S AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO TCB ELECTRIC
INC. FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY PROJECT TO UPGRADE THREE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LOCATIONS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - On 2/15/95, sealed bids were received from six
electrical contractors for the modification of traffic signals at three intersections as part of the Fiscal Year 1994/95
Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade Project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required.
9. RESOLUTION 17827 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHULA VISTA PORTION OF
THE 1994-2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) AND
AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) -
On 2/22/94, Council approved a resolution adopting the 1994-2001 seven-year RTIP. On 7/22/94, the SANDAG
Board of Directors adopted the RTIP including the TRANSNET program of projects. The first amendment
primarily concerns changes to the cost estimates and schedules or projects in the biennial element of the RTIP (FY
1995 and 96). The SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled to accept the amendments for distribution on April
28. A noticed public hearing will be held on May 26, and final SANDAG Board adoption is targeted for 6/23/95.
The deadline for local agency project submittals to amend the RTIP is 3/10/95. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
10. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF RATE INCREASE FOR COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL OF REFUSE - On 10/1/94, the County of San Diego and the Solid Waste Authority approved an
increase in landfill tip fees from $55/ton to $74/ton for all cities refusing to join the Authority. The differential fee
was subsequently eliminated on 2/1/95 when a tip fee of $55 for all system users went into eft¥.ct. Although
Laidlaw paid the higher disposal costs for the four months, the increase has not yet been pass on to ratepayers.
Laidlaw has requested a rate increase in the landfill component to be spread over the next four months in order to
recover the additional disposal costs paid out from 10/1/94 through 1/31/95. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl and Principal Management Assistant Snyder) Continued from the
meeting of 2/28/95.
RESOLUTION 17824 APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
OF REFUSE EFFECTIVE 3/1/95
Mr. Boogaard distributed a confidential memorandum assessing the issue. If Council had questions he recommended
that it be done in Closed Session. It was a matter of pending litigation and Council had the authority to go into
Closed Session to review litigation.
Councilmember Fox stated he had several questions regarding the memorandum and had asked questions that were
still unanswered from the last meeting.
* * * Council met in Closed Session at 4:13 p.m. and reconvened at 4:44 p.m. * * *
Mayor Horton announced that no reportable actions were taken in Closed Session.
This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Fox/Padilla) to continue the item for one week.
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
11. RESOLUTION 17820 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RETROFITTED ELECTRIC SHUTTLE; APPROPRIATING
$20,000 IN GRANT FUNDING TO THE ENERGY CONSERVATION FUND AND APPROVING BUDGET
FOR SAME; WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF $20,000 FOR THE ELEKTRUK - In 1993, Council accepted $20,000 in grant funding from
the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The funds were designated to purchase an electric shuttle to service the
Telecenter Project. Approval of the contract with APCD would authorize staff to purchase the electric vehicle.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) 4/5th's vote required. Continued from the
meeting of 2/28/95.
Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resources Manager, stated the warranty for the vehicle was for six years and
included maintenance for the first year. There was a question as to whether a certain portion of the purchase price
would be withheld through the period of the warranty or at least for the first year for the maintenance agreement.
The other issues had been resolved.
Mayor Horton requested that the warranty be explained and what would happen if the company went out of
business, i.e. how would the City be protected.
Ms. Bamberger outlined the warranty. If the company went into bankruptcy the City would have to find another
company to make change out of parts or provide warranty service to the City. The Public Works Department could
handle the maintenance as they had been working with electric vehicles for 11/2 years.
RESOLUTION 17820 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
12. REPORT DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RENEWED SEMI-EXCLUSIVE
NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GOLF
RESORT HOTEL ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT BONITA ROAD - In 1990, the City issued a Request
for Proposal for acquisition and development of a 3.1 acre City-owned parcel in the 4400 block of Bonita Road next
to the municipal golf course. Four proposals were received. On 4/23/91, Council selected Joelen Enterprises'
proposal to develop a 200 room golf course resort hotel on the City-owned three plus acres as well as on the
adjacent four acres leased by the City to American Golf Corporation for operation of the existing restaurant facility.
Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to prepare a renewed semi-exclusive negotiating
agreement with Joelen Enterprise. (Director of Community Development)
Councilmember Fox stated he would abstain from participation due to a potential conflict of interest as he may be
involved in the financing of the project.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the two projects had been previously considered by
Council. Two significant differences existed, i.e. RPG proposal was for a retail center and they had increased the
acquisition price from $400,000 to $800,000. The Joelen Enterprise exclusive negotiating agreement ran out and
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 4
at that time they reaffirmed their commitment to the project although they could not attest that they had financing
in place and requested right of first refusal. Staff was asking that an exclusive negotiating agreement be granted
to Joelen based on their commitment to build the project on a time frame that would lead to a 1998 building time.
StafFs position was based on the highest and best use for the site and economic benefits to the City.
Councilmember Padilia requested that new members be given a copy of the preliminary marketing study for the
hotel. He questioned if the timing benchmarks would be for a shorter time frame than proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Salomone stated they wanted to be realistic with benchmarks. The applicant wanted a one year processing of
discretionary permits which would require performance on both their part and City staff part to expedite. The one
benchmark that could not be controlled was financing which was the key element.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if the applicant could provide assurances regarding the potential financing.
Councilmember Moot questioned the definition of a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement.
Mr. Booguard stated a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement was developed in the context of the owner participation
rights in a redevelopment agency. The Agency could not commit to preclude a participant in a development area
from negotiating on his own behalf for his own development of the site. Therefore, the Agency could not enter into
an agreement for an exclusive negotiating agreement because they had to recognize the owner/participant rights.
Since it was not in a redevelopment area they could have an exclusive negotiating agreement.
Councilmember Padilia requested an answer to his question regarding financing.
Mr. Salomone replied that staff did not have any updated knowledge regarding financing of the project. Staff had
met with a number of lending institutions on behalf of the applicant and knew that consortiums and lenders were
being put together. The applicant was actively pursuing a number of lending institutions.
® Joseph Citron, 561 Golden Park Street, Point Loma, CA, representing Joelen Enterprises, stated after being
awarded the RFP in 1990-91 they started work on the design of the hotel which included environmental,
management, and financing. The key to the Bonita resort was the golf course and working out agreement with the
City, operator of the golf course, and community. They were projecting a 1998 opening. They had already spent
over $200,000 to get the project to where it currently was. He anticipated it would cost $3 - $5 million before the
funds would be in place and that was why they needed an exclusive negotiating agreement for no less than 24
months. They were initially looking at 17,000 sq. ft. of meeting space and the possibility that they would have to
go to 21 sq. ft. They were not in a position to tell any potential lender that they were in any way in control of the
property. They needed something that was rock solid. They would work with staff in setting realistic benchmarks.
The only way the hotel would be open before 1997 would be with a bond issue.
® Larry Malcolm, 4609 Schaumberg Place, Bonita, CA, Principal and Developer of the retail proposal, stated
he was not opposed to the hotel and had been in favor of it for years. The problem in his opinion was financing
and did not see it as practical or feasible for that site. If the development was viable he recommended that they be
given an exclusive agreement which would allow them to go to the bank for financing. He felt they should be able
to secure their financing within a reasonable time, i.e. six months. Leaving the property vacant was costing the
City about $15,000/month in sales tax, property tax, and the $800,000 they had offered for the property. He would
defer his project if Joelen could obtain their financing, but he did not think they would be able to do it.
Councilmember Rindone questioned which retailers had signed letters of intent.
Mr. Malcolm replied that they had signed letters of intent from Boney's, Hollywood Video, and Baltimore Bagel.
He would develop a loose site plan and not develop every square foot available. He had sufficient commitments
to where he was willing to make a financial commitment and could obtain his financing within 60 days. ~"
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 5
Mayor Horton stated she had originally voted against the project because she did not feel the site was adequate to
support a resort facility and have the draw the proposer anticipated. She also did not feel they could obtain the
financing. With the opening of the OTC and other things happening in the City she felt there could be a market
for such a facility. She felt another retail center would destroy the ambiance of the community. Her tirst
preference would be to have high-end condominiums but she did not feel there was a market for that at the present
time or that it would generate the needed revenues for future growth and to provide services to the citizens.
Therefore, she supported the recommendation from staff. In order for Joelen Enterprises to obtain funding they
needed to show they had full support of the City and control of the land.
MS (Horton/Rindone) to direct staff to renegotiate a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with Joelen
Enterprise for the development of a golf resort hotel on City owned property in the 400 block of Bonita Road
with the term limited to six months.
Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the project from its inception. He did not feel there was any one single
project that would have more of a benefit to the community than a first class hotel with banquet facilities. He
questioned if the six month time frame was to short.
Mr. Citron replied that if six months was all the City wanted to commit to the project, when they were willing to
commit that they would build a hotel, they would have to back out. Six months was out of the question. He felt
Chula Vista was in need of the project and they could prove that. They needed a 24 month period and were willing
to set benchmarks an the property would not be tied up for two years and the City would not end up with a hotel.
Mayor Horton stated she had a problem with 24 months. She questioned why they needed 24 months and what the
money would be spent and on what would it be spent on.
Mr. Citron stated there were a lot of environmental concerns which were time consuming and expensive to address.
They would have to do a sufficient plan for lenders as well as architectural and engineering fees. They would have
over $250,000 into the project before reaching the point to take it to a lender to finalize the commitment and start
negotiations. Negotiating would take approximately 6-9 months for a $35 million dollar project.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone/Horton) to adopt staff recommendation to renegotiate the semi-
exclusive negotiating agreement not to exceed 24 months.
Mayor Hotton stated some of the work should already be in place.
Mr. Citron responded that they had off-shore money offered to them but they would rather not take it. They wanted
it to be an American project. He felt the country needed to address the balance of payment problem and image in
the world. They were working within Chula Vista regarding funding and hoped to keep it within the state.
Mayor Horton stated she was reluctant to support the motion but the City did not have another resort developer
knocking on the door. There was a need for quality facilities in the community and hoped something could be
accomplished within the next 12 months.
Councilmember Moot stated he was not prepared to commit to 24 months. He did feel the Citron's should be given
every opportunity to pull the project together. Staff did not recommend a time frame, but if staff could come back
with a proposed semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with benchmarks and had reasonable "out" clauses he
would be more comfortable.
Mayor Horton stated she would agree and incorporate that into the motion, if agreeable to the Moaker of the
Motion. Agreed to by the Maker of the Motion. She questioned if24 months could be removed from the motion
and allow staff and the Citron's work it out.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would agree to "up to 24 months".
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 6
® William Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, representing Joelen Enterprises, requested that
the 24 months time frame be included with very stringent benchmarks. That would be more beneficial than
benchmarks without the 24 month time frame. That would give the proponent of the project the ability to represent
to prospective investors and lenders and that they did control the property and had thresholds to meet. The Citron's
were confident that they could meet those thresholds and move forward with the project.
Cotmcilmember Moot stated the motion was to have staff bring back a proposed semi-exclusive negotiating
agreement for Council approval and that it be brought back in a time frame staff felt comfortable with. Council
could then give the Citrons what they needed to go forward.
Councilmember Rindone clarified that it was up to 24 months.
Mayor Horton stated that was correct.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Fox abstaining.
* * * Council met in Closed Session at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at 7:47 p.m. * * *
Mayor Horton stated no reportable actions were taken in Closed Session.
* * Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:18 p.m. * *
13. REPORT POLICE INITIATED TOWING SERVICES -- RATE SCHEDULE AND
SELECTION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS - The City currently contracts with five companies to provide Police-
initiated vehicle towing and storage services. The firms have requested that Council review and amend the existing
tow rate structure. Staff has evaluated the request and is not recommending a tow rate increase at this time.
Additionally, based upon prior Council direction, Police Department staff has designed a competitive process to
select providers of Police-initiated towing and impound services after 6/30/95. The report discusses both the
operator's proposal to increase tow rates and the components and time-line for the competitive process recommended
by staff. Staff recommends Council defer any increase in towing and storage rates until the conclusion of the
proposed competitive process. (Chief of Police)
Richard Emerson, Chief of Police, stated it had been approximately thirty years since some of the tow companies
had been involved, i.e. over 100,000 tows. The City was looking for a competitive process and a referral fee and
the towing operators were looking for a rate increase. Staff had received a FAX from the five existing tow
operators which had been distributed to Council for review.
· George Bagdaharian, 9640 Alto Drive, La Mesa, representing Alcon Towing, requested the City utilize
a competitive bid.
· Peggy Roland, 622 Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Arnold's Garage, requested support
for Alternative #1 and a raise in fees.
· Ed Wood, 140 Reed Court, Chula Vista, CA, representing Glenview Towing, requested support for
Alternative #1.
· Jeanette Charlton, 305 E Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Anthony's Towing requested support for
Alternative #1.
· Bo Lemler, 3487 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Paxton Towing, Inc., requested continuance
of existing program for 18 months to study the issue.
· Clay Platt, 395 Montclair Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Platt's Towing, supported Alternative #2.
The problem he had encountered was the zoning requirements of the City for a towing/automobile
storage lot.
· Brad Ramsey, 5320 Overland Drive, San Diego, CA, representing A to Z Metro Towing operating out of
850 Energy Way, Chula Vista, requested support of Alternative #2.
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 7
· Duane Pudgil, 378 San Miguel Drive, Chula Vista, CA, representing South Bay Towing, requested support
for Alternative #1.
· John Clark, 720 Camino De La Riena, San Diego, CA, representing J. C. Towing, requested support of
Alternative #2.
Councilmember Padilia stated previous council's had requested measurement of average response times, undertaking
of vehicle abatement activities, etc. and he questioned if the agreement provided for specific measurements for
performance.
Kevin Hardy, Principal Management Assistant, replied those conditions of the contract had been included and staff
had measured them and found that the companies had complied throughout the term of their contract.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what full cost recovery was for the services per tow.
Chief Emerson replied that there were two other programs that helped fund the towing program. The program was
approximately $66,000 short of full cost recovery. It would be approximately $18-$20 short per tow.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a provision for collecting the money, i.e. frequency.
Mr. Hardy replied that staff had not proceeded that far with the referral but was looking for direction from Council.
Councilmember Rindone stated if a referral fee was instituted it could be paid on a monthly basis. He questioned
what the penalty would be if they did not pay.
Mr. Hardy replied that City policies were in place for late fees and it would be subject to those policies. It was
his understanding that there was a 10 day grace period and then a late charge was imposed on the tow company.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a penalty such as not using the tow company until the fees were
paid.
Mr. Emerson stated that could be considered if a referral fee was instituted.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was a complex issue. He felt Councd's first responsibility was to have effective
towing and good service. Council also wanted to have the best rates possible and he would be reluctant to honor
a rate increase. The one time Council may want to consider raising a fee was when it applied only to the person
requiring that special service. The City could go out to bid and the lowest price bid would be the rate, but then
every company would have a different rate and it could be confusing. Another possibility would be to establish a
cap with a referral fee to help abate the costs of City services. The owners had pointed out that their costs had gone
up over time also and they were required to take credit cards and, therefore, absorb the credit card charges. Delay
of the process would delay any implementation of a referral fee which he did not feel was beneficial. A
compromise would be to authorize raising the fee from $55 to $70 with a referral fee, collected immediately, of
$10 and put out an RFP to be effective in six months. The companies would not bid the rate as it would be a
universal rate, but bid on what the referral fee would be.
Chief Emerson stated that setting up the process would be part of the RFP, i.e. how to collect, when to collect, what
the fines were, etc. He felt staff could develop an RFP within 60 to 90 days.
Chief Emerson felt it could be completed by 7/1/95.
MS (Rindone/Horton) increase the police initiated towing rates for Chula Vista from $55 to $70 per tow
effective March 15, 1995; to continue with the five companies currently operating towing services in the City;
$10 of the $70 effective March 15th would be a referral fee to be paid to the City no later than the 10th of
the month following collection; and, staff is to develop a competitive bid to be submitted by 4/1/95 to maintain
the same rates and make a recommendation to Council regarding the operation of the towing services with
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 8
the respective referral fees effective 7/1/95. Contracts to be for a period of five years with three one-year
options.
Councilmember Padilia did not feel Council should be setting rates at the current time. Staff had asked for direction
to defer the fee until they had completed the RFP process and open it to competitive bidding. He understood the
companies had provided a lot of good years of service, but there were other operators in the City that wanted the
opportunity to compete and he felt that was the best course of action. He would support the staff recommendation
to defer it until it could be opened up to the competitive bidding process.
Coaneilmember Fox agreed with Councilmember Padilia.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Fox/Padilla) to adopt the staff recommendation on page 13-1 to defer any increase
in the police initiated towing and storage rate at the current time and authorize staff to conduct the proposed
competitive bidding process including the referral fee.
Mayor Horton requested clarification of Councilmember Rindone's motion.
Councilmember Rindone replied if the substitute motion was approved there would be no immediate referral fee or
full cost recovery. Depending upon when the competitive bid went out would be when the institution of the change
would be. He was concerned also that if the bidding process was for both the referral fee and tow charge it would
result in different rates to the user. He supported free competition, but felt an opportunity would be lost to institute
a referral fee intmediately.
Councilmember Padilia stated they had a fiat rate that was negotiated with the provider regardless of who they were
for the contract with the City. There was no concern with anyone in the field concerning themselves with varying
rates. It was not an element of discussion and was set by the agreement and was universal.
Mayor Horton agreed with Councilmember Rindone as it would make the users pay for their service and save the
taxpayers money. The last part of the motion was to go forward with the competitive bidding process. The service
provided by the five companies and history with the City should be taken into consideration.
Councilmember Moot questioned why staff was not recommending that the rates not be raised at the current time.
Chief Emerson replied that staff wanted to get into the competitive process without getting into referral fees at that
time.
Councilmember Moot stated if the rate was raised now it would be rigging the deck for a higher rote when it went
out for competitive rate.
Cotmcilmember Rindone stated the motion would institute an immediate referral fee and when staff came back to
Council prior to 4/1/95 they would give Council a recommendation on how they wanted to see it bid.
Councilmember Padilla stated he was not prepared to support anything that did not leave all questions up to the
competitive bidding process.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Fox/Padi!la) approved 3-2 with Horton and Rindone opposed.
14. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated the City of San Diego informed them that the sewer billing would
be in the mail. The City did get a request from the Special Act District to continue the operation of the
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 9
organizationon a low key basis and pay $12,000. Staff was working on a report to Council for 3/21/95 to discuss
that issue.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated there would be a joint Planning Commission and City Council
meeting on 3/14/95 to discuss the Otay Ranch Sphere of Influence issue. On 4/6/95 at 6:00 p.m. the Friends of
the Library would be sponsoring a preview of the South Chula Vista library. The March 1995 edition of the San
Diego Home & Garden magazine contained an article about the South Chula Vista library.
16. MAYOR'S REPORT{SI
a. Discussion of proposal by the Department of Corrections for a female offenders' residential treatment
facility for convicted felons.
Mayor Horton stated she was opposed to the residential treatment facility for convicted felons and wanted to send
a clear message to the Department of Corrections that they were not invited into the community. She felt the idea
of helping women break the cycle of addiction and incarceration was noble and long overdue but no where did it
say the facility was to be located in Chula Vista or next to a proposed school site.
· Ron Trimm, representing Senator Steve Peace, read a letter from Senator Peace (a copy on file in the City
Clerk's Office) which stated DOC was not and would not be pursing the Vista Hill site. In the process of siting
the Donovan Prison, DOC made specific conunitments to not seek additional facilities in San Diego County south
of I-8. He felt DOC would honor that commitment and he intended to hold them to that commitment.
Mayor Horton stated the Southbay had their fair share of those types of facilities. She questioned if promises were
made when the prison was built to not bring those types of facilities into South County.
Mr. Trimm stated it was his understanding that was a condition of siting the Donovan Prison.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the City felt there were benefits for focusing a service on a specific target
of population of non-violent felons seeking rehabilitation if there could be negotiations to bring the facility into the
community.
Mr. Goss replied he was uncertain as to whether the comn~tment was made to the state legislature or how binding
it might be. He did feel negotiations could be held between the City and DOC if that was the only issue. He did
not know how the other city councils in surrounding cities would respond to another correctional facility in the South
Bay area.
· Adam Day, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA, representing Supervisor Greg Cox, read a letter from
Supervisor Cox (a copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) which stated he was adamantly opposed to the siting of
the facility in Chula Vista or the South Bay as the area had an inordinate amount of those types of facilities.
Those speaking in opposition to the siting of the facility in Chula Vista or the South Bay due to affects on property
value, inordinate amount of facilities in Chula Vista and the South Bay, deterioration of neighborhood, crime,
graffti, concern for safety of youth, location of schools to proposed site, traffic, change in land use for the site,
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 10
question of definition of "non-violent" felon, location to the veterans home and medical center, children attending
local schools at costs to the taxpayers, economics, etc. were:
· Denton Henodel, 3133 Evening Way, La Jolla, CA, owner of Denmar Property Management and
Managing agent for Charter Point Homeowners Association, 274 owners.
· Cathi Jamison, 1097 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA,
· Janay Kruger, 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA, representing Sunbow Villas apartments.
· Harriet Acton, 265 Nixon Place, Chula Vista, CA.
· Dan Kreyling, 9938 Chocolate Summit Drive, El Cajon, CA, representing the United Veterans Council.
· Patty Davis, 1375-17 Callejon Montefrio, Chula Vista, CA.
· Ronald C. Delllinger, 1013 Guitay Avenue, Chula Vista, CA.
· R.C. Flaugher, 521 Orange Avenue//58, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Mobilehome Owners Political
Action Committee (MOPAC).
· Tom Sorensen, 4042 Bonita View Drive, Chula Vista, CA.
· Dr. Goomar, 5 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, representing 45 residents in his neighborhood.
· George Kost, 3609 Belle Bounie Brae Road, Chula Vista, CA.
· Ted Bell, 111 Noah Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing KOA.
MS (Moot/Fox) Council opposed the Department of Corrections from siting the treatment facility for
convicted female offenders at the Vista Hill site in Chula Vista.
Councilmember Fox requested that letters be sent from the Mayor/Council office to appropriate authorities stating
the City's position. He felt it was insulting to state that a detention facility would "enhance" a community. No one
was challenging the program, but Chula Vista and the South Bay had enough. All communities should share the
burden.
Councilmember Padilia felt there was a disproportionate amount of such facilities for the per capita population in
the City as compared to others in the county.
Councilmember Moot agreed with Councilmember Padilia. As a past member of the Planning Commission he had
looked at siting of different land uses and could not think of a worse place to site such a facility. Due to the
location he felt it was an invitation for trouble.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had discussed the issue with a representative from DOC at which time they
indicated that if the community did not want the facility they would not locate theN. He questioned if the City had
fmal authority regarding land use and if the state could overrule the City.
Mr. Booguard replied that his office was researching the preemption of the local zoning code by the state. It was
his understanding that upon invitation to leave the DOC would not consider the site.
Councilmember Rindone felt in fairness, even for non-popular or controversial issues, that they be examined
thoroughly. DOC had indicated they would like to address the Council but would not be able to make their
presentation until 3/21/95. He felt Council needed to hear both sides and research the legal issues before making
a decision. He hoped the item would be continued for two weeks.
Mayor Horton stated she had met with representatives from DOC and had done a lot of reseamh on the issue.
There was nothing that she was aware of that would make her want to support the project. The purpose of bringing
the item to Council was to bring closure to it. When she ran for Mayor she stated she would place public safety
first and foremost and if she let it slip through she was not living up to her promise and she would not do that. A
clear message needed to be sent to DOC that they were not wanted and did not have an invitation into the
Councilmember Padilia called for the question.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had not met with representatives from DOC but had a brief conservation on the
telephone. It was apparent to him that DOC was not welcome and he would concur with Council. He hoped that
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 11
Council would allow the advantages and disadvantages of issues to be explored in the future. It transcended to a
lot of issues including the project for the homeless and he hoped Council would be just as proactive in that area.
Mayor Horton stated if the issue was not so important to the public safety of the commnnity she would agree with
Councilmember Rindone, but she had done the research and felt comfortable in letting DOC know they were not
welcome.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
b. MTDB proposal for Mission Valley trolley extension.
® Leon Williams, Chair, Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), stated the issue before SANDAG
was the transfer of funds for rail purposes only from Mission Valley East to Mission Valley West. Mission Valley
West would be from Old Town to just past the stadium. MTDB was a State agency created for the purpose of
building and maintaining public transportation in the metropolitan area of San Diego. They felt it was MTDB's
mission to determine the feasibility and practicality, etc. of building and maintaining the system. They believed that
it was the best they could do at the present time. The rail system had the potential to carry up to 100,000 people
a day which was one-third of the traffic on I-8. There was no way the right-of-way could be increased on I-8 for
the cost of putting in the rail. The expansion of I-5 in Orange County, i.e. 8 miles was going to cost around $1
billion or $1 million per mile for widening the freeway. The viability of the project was not before SANDAG, they
were only being asked to transfer funds from one project to another.
Mayor Horton stated SANDAG had postponed action due to Supervisor Slater's concerns regarding the cost and
viability of the project. When analyzing the cost benefit for the project the costs were outrageous.
Mr. Willjams stated that was her assertion. The MTDB Board and staff had done extensive analysis and decided
it was a feasible project. He referred to the costs of widening I-5 in Orange County and noted they would not have
other problems associated with public transit, i.e. handicapped access, air pollution, etc.
Mayor Horton questioned the projected ridership tbr the first five years.
Mr. Williams replied that the projections were about 16,000 for the six miles.
Tom Larwin, General Manager, MTDB, stated the 16,000 was additional ridership that was forecasted for the next
10 years on that segment only which would be on top of all the other ridership on the system, i.e. bus and trolley.
Councilmember Rindone stated if Fashion Valley and Jack Murphy Stadium were added it would increase ridership
from the Chula Vista area. The ridership being submitted was only for that linkage but he felt the other lines would
also have increased ridership, it would enhance the system. If Mission Valley West was not completed the other
linkages to Lindberg Field, up I-15 and I-5, or Mission Valley East would not be built. It was the missing link and
would stop the trolley.
Mr. Larwin stated that every city that had reviewed the issue had voted in support. The TransNet subcommittee
of SANDAG had also voted in support. The EIR was certified in May 1992, the Plan was adopted by the City of
San Diego in 1985 and adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan by SANDAG in 1984. It went where
people wanted it to go, was in the heart of the valley, and there was no cheaper alternative.
Councilmember Fox questioned what reasons were given by those in opposition to the project. He felt the proposal
sounded quite reasonable.
Councilmember Rindone stated the issue had been discussed extensively by the MTDB Board. The project would
be using $50.8 million from a federalized project for Mission Valley East and transfer that to complete the
construction of Mission Valley West then it would be paid back. There was a caveat that in order to pay it back
in the future it needed to be federalized projects and three that were on the books and being examined were: 1)
Mission Valley East; 2) I-15; and 3) I-5. There could be other extensions also for the repayment. The key on
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 12
Mission Valley West was to not use federal money thereby expediting the project. Each month of delay was
millions of dollars.
MSUC (Rindone/Fox) to support the transfer of $50.8 million from the Mission Valley East project for the
construction of the Mission Valley West project.
Councilmember Moot noted that a letter had bean received from Eric Bowlby, Treasurer, River Valley Preservation
Project, P.O. Box 7098, San Diego, CA 92167, in opposition to the project.
c. Appointment to Economic Development Commission - Leonard Moore. Mayor Horton stated that when
Mr. Moore had been appointed they did not have a vacancy. Staff had proposed that he be appointed to Brene
Patrick's seat, with Brene Patrick being appointed to the Ex-Officio seat vacated by Charles Sutherland. In July
when Ms. Patrick returned she could be appointed to fill a different term.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to appoint Leonard Moore to Brene Patrick's seat, with Brene Patrick being
appointed to the Ex-Officio scat vacated by Charles Sutherland.
d. Mayor Horton stated the International Friendship Commission was looking for members of the community
to participate in the trip to Odawara, Japan.
17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone:
a. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the joint meeting with the Planning Commission was time certain ~"
or how it would be handled.
Mr. Goss replied that he felt it was time certain but he did not know what time. Normally it was time certain and
at the beginning of the meeting.
b. Councilmember Rindone referred to staff for a written report or oral presentation on how the library was
meating the challenge of multi-media technology.
CLOSED SESSION
18. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
® City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego regarding approval of a major use
permit for Daley Rock Quarry.
· Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Chammas vs. the City of Chula Vista.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
· Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western
Council of Engineers (WCE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented.
Minutes
March 7, 1995
Page 13
19. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:22 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting and a Joint Meeting of the City
Council/Planning Commission on March 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:48 p.m., recessed at 8:18 p.m.,
reconvened at 9:22 p.m., and adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Vicki C. Soderquist, DeputylCity Clerk
'i It