HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/03/21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, March 21, 1995 Council Chambers
6:04 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton
ALSO PRESENT: Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager; Brace M. Booguard, City Attorney;
and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES: March 7, 1995 (Joint Council/RDA) and March 14, 1995
MSUC (Moot/Horton) to approve the minutes of March 7, 1995 (Joint Council/RDA) and March 14, 1995
as presented.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclamation commending the Chula Vista South Pony League upon the occasion of their 30th
Anniversary. Mayor Pro Tem Rindone presented the proclamation to Israel Cosio on behalf of Carlos Sosa,
President of the Chula Vista South Pony League.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 5b and 6)
MAYOR HORTON OFI~ERED THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that us a result of deliberations that occurred in Closed Session
on 3/14/95, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the acceptance of an offer to settle a disputed claim with
Cypress Creek by increasing the "walkaway limits" for the Palomar Trolley Center to $21/square foot.
Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable action taken by the City Council in Closed
Session. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter of resignation from the Child Care Commission - Elizabeth Stillwagon, 73 North Second Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk b~
directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. Pulled from
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Padilla felt it appropriate to accept the resignation publicly with regret and express as one member
of the Council his support and appreciation to Ms. Stillwagon for service on the Commission. She approached it
from a unique point of view and he felt it important to remember that the commissions should be balanced and
represent a wide spectrum of point of views. He hoped in consideration of future appointments to the commission
the Council would look to someone that would have that type of experience.
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 2
c. Letter requesting a financial contribution from the City to help sponsor trip to Australia and New
Zealand with "People to People" - Robin Reader, 285 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is
recommended that the request be denied.
6. ORDINANCE 2629 AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE CODE OF ETHICS TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OF A FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER LEAVING OFFICE (first reading) - On 1/10/95, Council directed
the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the provision of the Ethics Code prohibiting a former elected official
from appearing before a City body or City officer or employee as an agent for someone else soliciting a benefit or
entitlement in front of the City. The Council's interest was evaluating an expansion of that provision to preclude
a former elected official from being employed for the same one year period of time after leaving office. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Padilla questioned the rationale for the inclusion of language for a 4/5th's vote to allow for persons
covered under the ordinance to be employed by the City.
Mr. Boogaard replied the Board took very seriously the fact that the ordinance could preclude an elected official
from a field of employment. If it should happen that an elected official was the best suited person for a particular
job with the City the Board did not want to preclude the City from having the opportunity of employing that elected
official after leaving office. It was felt with the 4/5th's vote of the Council it would have a public airing, public
disclosure of the fact, and a determination by a super-majority of the Council that the person, despite their previous
service as an elected officer could still serve the public in a paid employment capacity.
ORDINANCE 2629 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved unanimously.
7.A. RESOLUTION 17835 AMENDING CONDITION NUMBER 38 OF RESOLUTION 17618
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 88-3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS -
On 12/20/94, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 95-03, Parcel R-20 of EastLake South
Greens, known as Ventana. Council also approved on 7/18/89, the Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 88-3,
EastLake Greens and on 8/16/94, approved an amendment to the southerly portion of said EastLake Greens
Tentative Map. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works, Director of Planning
and Director of Community Development)
B. RESOLUTION 17814 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 95-03, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 20 (VENTANA)
C. RESOLUTION 17815 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS
OF RESOLUTION NUMBERS 17774 AND 15200 APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
PARCEL R-20, KNOWN AS VENTANA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
Mr. Boogaard informed Council that he had secured a letter indicating EastLake's consent to the amendment of
Condition No. 38 of Resolution 17618.
8.A. RESOLUTION 17836 REJECTING LOW BID FOR ALTERNATE A (SIDEWALK RAMPS) FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MINORITY AND WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
"CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETlVE CENTER (ST-513, STL-213)" - On 2/1/95,
the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and
Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive Center." The City bid three alternates (A,
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 3
B, and C). Alternate A provides for construction of only sidewalk ramps. Alternate B provides for paving of only
the entrance road to the Nature Interpretive Center. Alternate C provides for the construction of both under one
contract, thus, allowing interested contractors the opportunity to bid both Alternates A and B. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17837 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ALTERNATE A {SIDEWALK RAMPS) PORTION OF "CONSTRUCTION
OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT CONCRETE ON
ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER (ST-513, STL-213)" AND AUTHORIZING STAFF
TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT
C. RESOLUTION 17838 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ALTERNATE B (PAVING ACCESS ROAD TO NIC) PORTION OF
"CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER (ST-513, STL-213)
9.A. RESOLUTION 17839 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
FOUR CHEVROLET CORSICA SEDANS TO SOUTHBAY CHEVROLET The fiscal year 1994/95 equipment
replacement budget provides for the replacement of four sedans, three pick-ups, one utility vehicle, and one crew
cab. For each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be sold. Monies from the auction will be placed in the
Equipment Replacement Fund. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and
Director of Finance)
B. RESOLUTION 17840 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
THREE SONOMA PICK-UP TRUCKS TO GMC TRUCK DIVISION
C. RESOLUTION 17841 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
FORD CREW CAB F350 PICK-UP TO FULLER FORD
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
* * * Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting convened at 6:35 p.m. * * *
10. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton
Commissioners Fuller, Martin, Tarantino, and Chair Tuchscher
ABSENT: Commissioners Ray, Salas, and Willett
Chair Tuchscher stated Commissioners Salas and Willett were attending the California League of Cities Planning
meeting and requested their absence be excused.
MSC (Martin/Fuller) to excuse the absences of Commissioners Salas and Willett, approved 4-0-3 with Ray,
Salas, and Willett absent.
11. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: February 22, 1995
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 4
MSC (Martin/Fuller) to approve the minutes of February 22, 1995 as presented, approved 4-0-3 with Ray,
Salas, and Willett absent.
Chair Tuchscher stated the public review period for the EIR had expired at the 2/22/95 meeting.
12. PUBLIC HEARING GPA 95-01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING 20-ACRE
SATTERLA PARCEL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; GPA 95-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DESIGNATING 21.84-ACRE LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE; GPA 95-03 GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT DESIGNATING SAN DIEGO CITY WATER RESERVOIR, OTAY WATER DISTRICT
PROPERTY AND OTAY LANDFILL AS PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC - In January of 1994, Council directed staff
to prepare a Sphere of influence Update Study (Planning Case Number PCM-93-05) for the City. That Study, along
with several associated General Plan Amendments and a Second Tier Program EIR, are up for Planning Commission
and Council consideration. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Special planning Projects Manager,
Otay Ranch Project) Continued from the meeting of 3/14/95.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17831 AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION EIR 94-03
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND TIER) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR
94-03) FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATE-
MENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY AS AMENDED AND
DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR
ADOPTION
Councilmember Moot stated he had been advised to abstain from participation because after the General
Development Plan had been approved by the Planning Commission and Council he took on the representation of
a client on matters unrelated to the property. However, during the course of that representation he was advised that
his client was a general partner in a partnership that owned some land within the Sphere of Influence. The FPPC
had advised him that until an opinion was issued in writing he should abstain.
This being the time and place as advertised the Council and Planning Commission public hearings were declared
open.
Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Team, stated on 2/16/95, the Resource
Conservation Commission unanimously recommended the draft program environmental impact report for the City
of Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence Update Study be certified as being complete and adequate. On 2/22/95, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to close the public hearing on the EIR and directed staff to prepare the
final program EIR before Council and Commission for certification.
Bruce Mclntyre, Lettieri-Mclntyre and Associates, Environmental Consultants, gave his analysis of the final
program EIR, issues, and conclusions. The EIR served two purposes, i.e. addressing the Sphere of Influence and
the General Plan amendments. No matter whether the property was developed under the County jurisdiction in the
unincorporated area or under the City's jurisdiction under the incorporated area the land uses and, therefore, the
impacts that accompany that development would be essentially the same. Most of the impacts addressed in the Otay
Ranch EIR were independent of the location of the Sphere of Influence boundary. An addendurm had been attached
to the EIR. Several comments during the comment period raised issues regarding cumulative impacts of the
implementation and approval of the Sphere of Influence update. The EIR originally concluded there would be no
significant impacts associated with the implementation of the Sphere of Influence Update, but subsequent to that it
was determined that a more conservative approach would be appropriate. Since there were cumulative significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the Otay Ranch project and with additional development of Gerhardt, Ross, and
Watson it could be deemed to have a significant impact because it would contribute to an already significant
unmitigable impact. The findings outlined mitigation measures. Concern had been raised by LAFCO that the EIR
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 5
did not determine who would be the preferred provider for water and sewer. Addendum #2 clarified that the
preferred provider for water was the Otay Water District and the preferred provider for sewer would be the City
of Chula Vista. The Metropolitan Water District requested clarification to one of staffs responses as to whether
there could be cut backs in water supply. It was noted there could be a cut back in water supply from the State
water project to provide for fishery and habitat protection and the word "and" had been inadvertently deleted in the
staff response.
Mayor Herton stated Otay Water District was designated as the preferred provider for the sphere update area and
questioned what the capacity was for the existing reclamation facility and if the distribution system was in place.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated the capacity of the Otay Water District reclamation facility was
approximately 1,000,000 gallons per day. There was currently a distribution facility in place for parts of EastLake
but there was no distribution facility for the Ranch. That would be done as the Ranch was built out. In order for
the Otay Water District to serve sewage for the entire area they would have to either purchase additional capacity
from the City of San Diego, which they did not have, or they would have to build a treatment plant with outfalls,
etc.
Mayor Herton stated concern had been expressed from residents in Bonita regarding flooding.
Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer, Otay Ranch Project Team, replied that the Bonita residents were concerned with
the drainage along Central Avenue and the impacts City projects had in that area. A portion of EastLake I, which
included the Salt Creek I project, did drain into that basin. Project plans were reviewed to ensure there was no
increase in runoff to that basin. With the development of EastLake I there was a detention/retention facility
constructed to collect approximately 60% of the runoff from the two projects. The problem in the Central area was
that a facility along the northside of Central Avenue was inadequate to handle the current flow. The entire area
being discussed was in the County.
Mayor Herton questioned if the area would have adequate drainage when developed so it would not increase the
existing problems along Central and the lower Bonita valley area.
Mr. Jamriska stated only 7% of the area of the drainage basin existing in Salt Creek and EastLake were draining
towards the Bonita area and all that water flow was contained within the various drainage basins. The addition of
the sphere line did not change that. The problem was that the County had not adequately planned for the area to
handle the water, drainage, and traffic issues and the Bonita residents had looked to the City of Chula Vista to solve
those issues.
Councilmember Fox stated it was his understanding that the unincorporated side of Bonita, as long as they remained
unincorporated, had to be in someones sphere of influence.
Mr. Jamriska replied that was correct. LAFCO in 1985 allocated it to the City of Chula Vista at the request of
some of the residents of Bonita.
Councilmember Fox stated there was a disagreement with the County regarding the resort area and industrial area
and he questioned how those disputes would be resolved. It was his understanding that the disagreement for the
industrial area was due to land designation, but it was an issue of sphere of influence for the resort area.
Mr. Jamriska replied that Planning Area 2 (resort area) was being added because the area could best be provided
services by the City of Chula Vista. The City would have to petition the Otay Water District, the preferred
prorider, to petition the Metropolitan Water District to add the area to the Water District. Staff felt the issue of
the resort area could best be resolved between the period of the sphere request and the time the City applied to
LAFCO for annexation. A tax agreement between the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista would
be required. Staff had begun the framework for those discussions.
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 6
Councilmember Fox hoped that the issue of money could be put aside with the determination b~mg made as to who
could best deliver the services. He questioned what would happen if the County objected to the inclusion of that
property into the sphere.
Mr. Jamriska responded that LAFCO would ultimately decide who could be provide an urban type of level services
to all of the area. The City Council Land Use and Housing Committea for the City of San Diego took action
recommending that a portion of Planning Area 4 not be deannexed from the City of San Diego and annexed to the
City of Chula Vista. While the precedent had already been established on the other parcels along the common
boundary line, staff had changed their recommendation since it had bean presented to the Planning Commission K,
recommend that the entire Planning Area 4 be designated as a Special Study Area for LAFCO consideration. It
included the City of San Diego property as well as the remaining area south of the Otay Valley Regional Park in
the County.
Councilmember Fox questioned why they would pull out the entire Planning Area 4 instead of just the City of San
Diego area.
Mr. Jamriska stated that was a possibility but the issue would then become whether the City could best plan for the
provision of urban level services to the limited industrial area. It was staffs position that the City of San Diego
or County of San Diego would be the best provider.
Chair Tuchscher questioned how much of the 300 acres contributing to the Sunnyside Water basin was developed
or graded.
Mr. Ullrich replied that there were 340 total acres and 300 of those were developed.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if staff felt the retention facility addressed 100% the City's contribution to the
drainage problem.
Mr. Ullrich responded that the combination of the retention facility and the grading of the site had reduced the
runoff from the site to that which existed prior to development.
Councilmember Padilia referred to the fiscal projections and questioned if the structure utilized was dependent upon
the tax transfer agreement negotiated between the City and the County. A structure could be formulated so over
the total time line neither the City or the County would realize a deficit.
Mr. Jamriska replied that could be one of the criteria to be looked at during negotiations for the tax agreement.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if the City retained their franchise rights under the change regarding the
designation of the Otay Water District as the preferred provider.
Mr. Jamriska responded that was correct as franchise authority was part of the City Charter.
· Joe Convery, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA, representing LAFCO, distributed a letter expressing
their appreciation for the cooperative spirit and hoped it would hold over into the LAFCO review process and
LAFCO hearing process. Once the Sphere of Influence was submitted they would contact and solicit comments
from all of the affected agencies and interested groups and citizens. At that time, they would schedule the item for
consideration by Special Districts and Cities Advisory Committee. Following their review of the proposal they
would prepare an Executive Offices Report and recommendation to the Cormmssion and schedule it for a public
hearing. Based on their previous experience with Sphere of Influence updates it was anticipated that the review
process with LAFCO would be approximately six months. They did appreciate the critical time frame and they
would do everything possible to expedite the process.
Chair Tuchscher questioned if the six months included the assumption that some of the issues would not be resolved.
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 7
Mr. Convery staled they were assuming that some of the issue could be resolved during that period.
Chair Tuchscher questioned if there were specific time frames for public comment, etc.
Mr. Convery replied that on Sphere of Influence updates in the past they had given an extended time frame for
comment, i.e. one month to six weeks.
® Stan Waid, 5617 GallopingWay, Bonita, CA, representing the Bonita Highlands Homeowners' Association,
Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, and Sweetwater Valley Planning Group, stated the basin was not holding back
the water and there was flooding on Central. When water came down Central Creek it hit a cul-de-sac and then
would swirl. The resulting silt then filled the culvert and the water backed up. He requested that staff look at the
whole thing and not just parts of it and then resolve the problem. There was one property owner that refused to
dig out his section and the County stated they could not force him to do it. Until the infrastructure was in place
he did not feel any extensions should be approved that would affect Bonita valley.
Mayor Herton stated there were flooding problems prior to EastLake being developed.
Mr. Waid stated there had been flooding problems since he had lived there, i.e. 1975. He was addressing the
inverted "L" property.
Chair Tuchscher questioned if the inverted "L" portion was in the Sunnyside Water Basin.
Mr. Ullrich responded that it was not.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce,
stated residential property, because of the tax split with the County, did not bring money to a city. There had to
be industrial/commercial development to offset it. The plum of the industrial/commercial property was an 800 room
resort. He felt it very important to the future of the area and the ability of the City of Chula Vista to afford to
provide the services needed that it be within the City's sphere of influence and when built annexed to the City.
There were 39 tax rate areas (TRA's) in the City of Chula Vista and the County received twice as much proparty
tax as the City did. The assumption was that the County could provide mental health services, jails, etc. Mental
health services had been reduced and the City now paid a booking fee. He hoped when an agreement was
negotiated with the County they could reach something closer in parity.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing The Baldwin Company, stated they
supported the staff recommendation with the exception that they had agreed to remain neutral on Planning Area 2,
the resort site. None of the areas in the proposed update area drained toward Bonita and should not be a matter
of concern related to the document.
· John Dauz, 5311 Robinwood Road, Bonita, CA, stated he was one of the owners of the DeGraff parcel.
He felt there was a serious mistake in the EIR as it stated the parcel was one piece containing 9.64 acres. It was
actually two parcels, i.e. the DeGraff parcel of 7.82 acres and the parcel owned by Lucille Roman of 1.82 acres.
Only one unit would be allowed on the entire 9.64 acres. The owners of the DeGraff parcel opposed the open space
1 unit per ten acres designation and felt it was arbitrary, unfair, and denied their right of the economic use of their
land. He felt it was clea~y an act of condemnation and use of eminent domain. They bought the property based
upon the density allowed, i.e. 4-12 units per acre under the City of Chula Vista General Plan and 7.13 units/per
acre under the County of San Diego General Plan.
Mayor Herton stated they were not making a land use zoning decision but addressing the Sphere of Influence study.
Mr. Dauz stated he understood that but he wanted their opposition to be known.
Mr. Jamriska stated Attachment B in the EIR detailed the public notices distributed as well as parcel size. It was
two parcels and would be entitled, under the current General Plan of the City, one dwelling unit on each because
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 8
they were planned as open space and the maximum dwelling unit was one per parcel. The action recommended
would not affect those two parcels because it was currently planned by the City to be open space. Staff was asking
that the two parcels be included in the sphere. The property was still in the County of San Diego and would be
permitted to have 57 dwelling units in the County regardless of the action taken by Council. If Council authorized
those parcels to be annexed to the City that would be when the zoning would change.
Commissioner Martin questioned why the City was at odds with the County over Planning Area 2. It was his
understanding that when the two cormmssions had met there were upscale homes in the southeast comer of Otay
Lakes. The commissioners agreed to eliminate those and that Planning Area 2 would be within the Chula Vista
sphere of influence and would be the developed area. He was frustrated to hear that there was a problem.
Mr. Jamriska stated in the preparation of the sphere study staff did a preliminary draft and circulated it among
several agencies for the purpose of soliciting their input as to the adequacy of the data only, not to the
recommendations because they were not even formalized within the City structure. The County of San Diego took
that report without the EIR being prepared or without a final draft of the Sphere of Influence study, directly to the
Board of Supervisors and the Board, at a public hearing, took an advisory vote on the issue and directed their staff
t~c~nveythatp~siti~nt~the Board of Supervisors subcommitte ew~rkingwiththeCityandtotheirsta~. City staff
felt that their action was premature.
Commissioner Martin stated both Planning Commissions had agreed upon the deletion of Village 13, eliminate the
upscale homes southeast of Otay Lakes and to the resort being in the City's sphere.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was also his recollection and he concurred with Commissioner Martin.
There being no further public testimony, the Planning Commission public hearing and Council public heating were
declared closed.
Councilmember Fox stated he was confident there would be ultimate resolution on the areas of conflict. The issue
of who could best provide services had to be considered and he felt it was Chula Vista. He agreed with comments
made by Rod Davis that the dwellings would not pay their way and the City would have to be active in seeking
industrial/commercial development to help pay the way. The City and its residents could not afford to shoulder that
burden.
Chair Tuchscher appreciated a LAFCO representative being present but expressed his concern with the six month
time frame.
MSC (Fuller/Martin) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution EIR 94-03. Approved 4-0-3 with Ray, Salas,
and Willett absent.
MS (Fox/Rindone) to approve Council Resolution 17831.
Mr. Boogaard stated there were technical changes that needed to be made in the proposed resolution: 1) change
the date of 3/14/95 to 3/21/95; and, 2) paregraph 10, the Sphere of Influence study would be referenced as
appreved by Council on 3/21/95. He had secured an indemnity from Baldwin and wanted Council approval to
consider the indemnity. He waited to present it to Council so that it would not affect or in~uenea their deliberation.
He was satisfied with the indemnity as it would protect the City against any litigation exposures and also gave the
City an additional right they had not had at the General Development Plan level which was the right to initiate any
negotiations for settlement. He requested Council set aside the pending motion and that Council approve the
agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City.
MSC (Fox/Rindone) to approve the agreement of indemnification with Baldwin and authorize the Mayor to
execute on behalf of the City. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 9
* * * Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. * * *
The Regular City Council Meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
13. PUBLIC HEARlNG TO CONSIDER ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS THAN EIGHT PERCENT - Late last year Council
considered reports regarding whether to abate the scheduled rate increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
or allow the rata to increase from 8% to 10%. Following discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and Chula
Vista Motel Association, staff recommends approval of the following Resolutions A, B and C. (Deputy City
Manager Thomson and Senior Management Assistant Young)
A. RESOLUTION 17842 TAKING NO ACTION TO ABATE THE SCHEDULED INCREASE IN THE
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO RISE FROM 8% TO 10% EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1, 1995
B. RESOLUTION 17843 ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR
VISITOR PROMOTION, SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND RELATED
CONTRACT
C. RESOLUTION 17844 APPROPRIATING $22,782 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL
FUND BALANCE FOR INTERIM FINANCING OF A VISITOR DISPLAY AT THE SAN DIEGO
CONVENTION CENTER AND MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER -
4/Sth~s vote required.
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, stated all 31 motels, RV parks, and campgrounds that collected TOT had been
contacted. As of the meeting time no opposition had been expressed. Both the Chamber and Chula Vista Motel
Association had been working with staff on the proposal before Council.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Patrick Mandas, 699 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Motel Association, stated
they viewed the increase of the TOT as a win/win situation for the City, the retail establishments, Chamber, and
motels. With the ARCO Training Center coming on line and the Chamber of Commerce now managing the
Visitor's Information Center they felt the timing was right and the increase would have a positive impact and not
take them out of the market.
® Alan Wu, 801 Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Palomar Inn, spoke in opposition to the
staff recommendation. They belonged to a group of small to medium size motels within the City. They opposed
the increase because their occupancy was down, inflation due to the devaluation of the peso, and they did not feel
they could be competitive.
Mayor Hotton stated the proposal would put more money into advertising and marketing of the City and hopefully
would generate higher occupancy rates.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated they
supported the increase to 10% which would be approximately $.81 on the average bill. It was a unique opportunity
for the City to raise revenues and for those who knew best how to advertise motels, restaurants, and retail
establishments, i.e. those that operated them, to have funds to do that. The two campgrounds had expressed
concern, but they both felt with the economic situation and the City being the second lowest rate in the County it
would be appropriate. They also felt it was a win/win situation.
· William Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, representing the Economic Development
Commission, stated they endorsed the increase in the TOT. They requested that Council seek their input regarding
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 10
the utilization of the funds, especially as they related to City image, promotion, public relations, and job creation.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone stated a lot of work had bo~n done on the item and he complimented staff on their report
and interaction with the Chamber and the Motel Association. He supported staff recommendation but wanted to
ask Mr. Davis if the Chamber would support amending Resolution 17843 to read "Adopting a Council Policy to
provide support for a Chula Vista Visitors and Convention Bureau ...... '. He felt if it was heightened and made
official that it could be enhanced and made a partner with the Chamber.
Mr. Davis replied they would support that amendment. The last line of the report stated the desire on the behalf
of the Chamber and Motel Association to see it become a stand alone entity.
RESOLUTIONS 17842 AND 17844 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived. RESOLUTION 17843 AMENDED TO READ "Adopting a Council Policy to provide support for a
Chula Vista Visitors and Convention Bureau, subject to annual approval of a budget and related contract".
Councilmember Fox stated funds were being earmarked for a specific purpos~ and he felt that was why the business
community supported the increase. He hoped that Mr. Wu would get actively involved with the association in order
to promote his business. He questioned if the $26,000 for advertising was in addition to what Chula Vista was
presently doing.
Mr. Thomson stated it would not be in addition, but replace what was currently being done. There would have to
be further discussions with the Chamber as to whether the San Diego ad would continue or if other advertising
would be more cost effective.
Mr. Bocgaard stated staff had gone out of their way to avoid in the documentation the indication that funds were
being 'earmarked". That could be an isolated comment without consequence, but could not be the adopted attitude
of the Council. The documentation clearly showed staff was trying to avoid it. He wanted to make the record clear
in case it was reviewed in court. Council would be appropriating a source of funds completely different from the
TOT revenue sources.
Mayor Herton stated she would support the motion on the floor. As a member of Council for over four years she
had not supported any tax increases. She recognized the economy had not gained the momentum as hoped in the
South Bay, however, there were projects that would benefit the hotel/motel industry in the future and the city needed
to be marketed. She felt the timing was appropriate. She hoped that all members of visitor serving facilities would
become involved in the program.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
14. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-94-05: CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO ADOPT A CHILD CARE
ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN - On 3/1/94, Council approved a work program which called for staff
from the Parks & Recreation Department and Planning Department to coordinate with the Child Care Commission
to review current City policies and regulations relating to streamlining the permitting of child care facilities and to
develop a comprehensive Child Care Element to the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17845 ADOPTING A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner, gave a brief review of the element. Each of the policies and implementation
measures could not be implemented immediately because staffing, funding, and existing work program priorities
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 11
needed to be considered. Staff would return to Council with a phased work plan for implementation. The only
letter received regarding the proposed element was from EastLake Development Company. They felt the element
should focus on the revision of City policies and ordinances to enhance the ability for the community to provide
adequate facilities without mandating additional fees or onerous actions on the business community. Staff felt the
implementation of policies and measures in the element would necessitate a continuing joint effort between school
districts, the development community, business community, and the City. EastLake also felt the element should
recognize and support those agencies already providing child care services rather than creating new institutions to
address the problem. EastLake requested that the statistics in the element be substantiated and that additional
research be conducted on the local level. The intent of the statistics in the element were for a benchmark to start.
Further work with the various elements in the community should refine those estimates prior to utilizing any of those
numbers for subsequent implementation.
· George Hartman, 1034 Paseo Entrada, Chula Vista, CA, Chair, Child Care Commission, stated the element
represented two years of work by the Commission. He thanked staff for their support and recommended Council
adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Rindone stated there was the concern with the proposal, i.e. there could be a fee imposed in the
future on the business communities and thus raise the price of housing within the City. He questioned how the
objectives could be met without assessing additional fees.
Mr. Hartman replied that he did not believe they were looking at assessing fees as a method of paying for child
care. It had been suggested that there be homes in the new developments that were child care ready. That could
entail additional expenditures by the developer, but they would be reimbursed when selling the home. There was
nothing set in stone and everything was in a state of flux. He did not see the developer paying for child care.
Robert Letter, Director of Planning, stated pages 59-60 dealt with incentives for new developments to provide
locations for child care facilities. It also pointed out that the City had certain provisions in place, i.e. the
Community Purpose Facility ordinance, which provided for sites to be provided for community facilities. Five or
six other possible incentives were listed that could be looked at. Only number 6 contemplated a fee. It would be
staffs intent to try to identify those options that would have the minimum, if any, impact on development before
getting into any fee proposal.
Mayor Hotton questioned if staff anticipated an increase in the development impact fee.
Mr. Letter stated even though it was listed as a possible source he did not t~el it would be necessary to implement
that in order to make a significant improvement in child care.
Jess Valenanela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated when new recreation and conununity center facilities came
on line in the new developments staff would consider the potential of child care going into that facility. Although
the City was not a direct provider they could go into a contract with an agency with that expertise for pre-school
or latchkey services.
· Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Road, San Diego, CA, representing The Baldwin Company, stated they
supported the adoption of the Child Care Element and expressed concern that in the future the element could be used
as a mechanism to enact further fees from new development to help pay for child care facilities. If that occurred
they would oppose that at the time. He hoped the final document reflected Council's reluctance to impose exactions
on new development for child care.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone questioned why the fiscal impact statement did not include cost assessments.
Mr. Letter replied that the fiscal impacts of implementing the Child Care Element would not be known until a
program was development for implementation. By adopting the element Council would be giving basic policy
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 12
direction. When staff returne~l with a work program for implementation they would identify the costs and request
Council direction on scheduling priorities.
Councilmember Rindone referred to page 14-3, item 4.0.a and requested clarification of that section.
Mr. Leiter stated there was a recommendation that as another follow-up action to the element there be an evaluation
of the City's current role in providing child care for city employees and if that could be expanded upon in the
future.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was supportive of the Child Care Element, but felt item #6 on page 60 should
be deleted as that was not the direction the Council wanted to go.
Mayor Herton felt "subsidy vouchers to reduce child care costs and reconciliation of child care licensing
requirements with City requirements and standards" should be left in the element.
Councilmember Rindone recommended that it read "Consider subsidy vouchers to be used to reduce child care costs
and reconciliation of child care licensing requirements with City requirements and standards".
Councilmember Fox r~ommended the inclusion of "information and referral assistance and/or subsidy vouchers
Councilmember Fox referred to page 60, community purpose facilities and incentives, and questioned if the City
would be providing incentives for for-profit day care centers as well as non-profit organizations.
Mr. Leiter replied that the Community Purpose Facility ordinance allowed for child care as part of community
purpose facilities. It did not allow for private day care facilities on those sites.
Councilmember Fox was concerned that extra incentives would be given to for-profit day care providers.
Mr. Leit~r did not feel the element would support that approach. The ordinance focused on facilities such as
churches that provided day care. There could be reasons to provide incentives for develop~is to ensure that sites
were provided for all kinds of child care facilities, but not in a way that would subsidize them or provide an
economic incentive. The incentives would be for lower cost types of child care.
Councilmember Fox did not feel that was what the element stated. The non-profit organizations could not compete
against the for-profit agencies.
Mr. L~iter stated Council had full discretion on what kinds of incentives were provided and what kind of child care
facilities were offered as a trade-off. Council could make it clear that if the program was developed it was only
for the lower cost child care facilities.
Councilmember Fox recommended that page 60, top paragraph be amended to read, "However, the City should
consider establishing a program which would provide other incentives for establishment of locations and/or facilities
for not-for-profit child care in new development'. He also recommended that Objective No. 2, page 55, be
amended to read 'Locate child care facilities near homes, schools, work places, and major transit facilities or
routes'. He requested that under Policies and Implementing Action, 4.1.1, page 55, a No. 8 be included to read
'The City shall work in partnership with non-profit organizations to encourage development of affordable child care
facilities as well *. The Chnla Vista 2000 report indicated that affordable child care was one of the highest needs
in the City because there were so many children left home alone becaus~ the parents could not afford child care.
Councilmember Padilia felt Council was getting sidetracked, i.e. Council was not considering implementation of
the program. There were costs still to be calculated that could be associated with implementation and he felt it could
be prudent to look at specifics as part of a policy direction instead of going ahead and proceeding and then having
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 13
staff come back later with implementation ideas as to specific costs. Costs would not just be limited to impact fees
or assessments, there were other costs with the City doing a number of the recommendations in the report. He
supported adding a Child Care Element to the General Plan, but he felt the City needed to do it right. He was
unsure if they were overlooking some potential hazards in going ahead without more specifics. In regards to the
community purpose facilities, it was his understanding that it was basically an allocation tool in the process to reduce
land costs that were multiple use within designations, i.e. there was no distinction between for-profit and non-profit
organizations.
Mr. Leiter replied that the ordinance was focused primarily on community purpose facilities such as churches,
community centers, and other similar facilities and did not allow the use of those sites for private for-profit day care
facilities. It was intended to allow those community purpose facilities to have designated cites within the master
planned communities because they were not being provided when the ordinance was adopted.
Councilmember Padilia felt it would be prudent to clarify that language and how it was applied and include it in
more specific implementation policies and identify some of the potential costs.
Councilmember Moot supported the recommended additions by Councilmembers. He was very reluctant to support
anything when the fiscal impact had not been analyzed in advance. He would support conditionally approving the
Child Care Element plan with the revisions offered, to go forward with the study, with the study being brought back
for approval when the fiscal impact was included.
MS (Moot/Horton) to adopt Resolution 17845 and conditionally approve the Child Care Element as an
addition to the General Plan with the additions offered by Councilmembers Fox and Rindone. Staff is to go
forth in preparing the implementation policies with the fiscal impacts and bring back to Council for final
approval.
Councilmember Padilia questioned the time line.
Mr. Leiter replied that staff contemplated the implementation of the work program at 1-2 years. Staff proposed
incremental implementation over a period of time, i.e. similar to the implementation of the City's Housing Element.
As part of the budget process staff would return to Council with an implementation work program and request
Council direction on the priority and timing for those individual actions.
Councilmember Moot questioned if Council would receive the fiscal impact for each section being implemented.
Mr. Leiter replied staff would provide cost estimates of each section and seek direction on how much staff time
should be spent on the item and what the priority would be.
Councilmember Fox stated the proposed policy #8, page 56, should not exclude churches from the organizations
the City might want to form partnerships with to provide child care.
Mr. Boogaard stated if Council wished to word a proposal that said to work in partnership with non-profits for
affordable child care that would probably include all churches as he assumed they were all non-profits. He urged
Council not to specifically refer to the churches due to the separation issues of church and state.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the motion as it included those revisions to Item 6 on page 60.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated there
would be a city-wide graffiti out on 5/13/95 and they challenged the City to form a team and participate. He
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 14
distributed four of the five new postcards on sale in the Visitors Center along with a holder for trolley passes and
identification.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
15. Recommendation by the International Friendship Commission to have the City Council formally
request Sister Cities International to designate Ussuriysk Russia us Chula Vista's Fourth Sister City.
Recommendation is based on: 1) that there are a significant number of people in the community who are interested
in a successful relationship with Ussuriysk; 2) the existence of a group that has demonstrated organizational strength
in matters such as accumulating a paid membership; and 3) that the "Friends of Ussuriysk" appear to be moving
toward a program of self supported activities that would benefit the community. (Larry Breitfelder, Vice Chair,
International Friendship Commission)
· Carol Dysart, Vice Chair, Intemational Friendship Commission, stated there had been an ongoing interest
for over one year in forming a Sister City relationship with Ussuriysk. As a result of the trip by the former Mayor
and Eduardo Serrano there has been international trade.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that Council would be receiving a report on the former
mayor's trip to Ussuriysk.
Mr. Morris felt that Council had requested that the former mayor make a presentation to Council regarding his trip.
Ms. Dysart stated a newsletter had been included in the agenda packets. Mr. Nader and Mr. Serrano had reported
to the IFC and the Friends of Ussuriysk.
Mayor Hotton felt the item should be postponed until the budget hearings as she wanted to know what it would cost
the City to provide a good program for a new Sister City.
Ms. Dysart raplied that in polling members of the IFC and members of the community they did not feel them would
be any further budgetary requirements. Funds were being raised by the Friends of Ussuriysk and they hoped to
show that a community could be self-supporting in those types of activities.
Mayor Horton requested a copy of the budgetary projections, what had been done up to the present time, and where
they anticipated going in the future.
Councilmember Moot suggested that the request be brought back for consideration when the fiscal impact was
included.
Councilmember Fox stated there was an informational memo from the City Manager which stated he could not at
the present time put a figure on the request because the program had not requested funding for activities held.
Mr. Morris stated the budget manager and she had met with the Commission and the information she received was
that they were not requesting additional funding at the present time and could live within their existing appropriation.
Councilmember Moot questioned how the other sister city program were handled.
Mr. Morris replied that the IFC was funded with a total budget and the Commission utilized those funds. If there
was a special event, i.e. a visit from one of the existing sister cities the City looked for additional funds or
donations.
Councilmember Rindone felt everyone wanted to find a way to make it possible and the budgetary issue was one
aspect. He was concerned about the implications on the existing sister city program ira new sister city was added.
Questions such as: 1) was there a desire to continue with the existing sister cities; 2) at what level; and 3) what
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 15
participation was planned in the future for the three cities should be answered. It was not the number of sister cities
but the quality of participation. That information was not before Council and he would not be willing to add another
sister city until those issues were addressed.
Councilmember Padilla stated he was uncertain there was a significant fiscal issue. He felt if Council requested
additional information there should be a time line as the Mayor of Ussuriysk would be visiting Chula Vista in June
and the issue should be settled prior to that visit.
Councilmember Fox stated he was prepared to accept the IFC recommendation because there was a city that wantad
to have an American sister city and had taken all the necessary steps to that. Council could tell the IFC not to spend
any more money and maintain the current level of relationships with Odawara and Irapuato and that a report should
be brought back to Council on what should happen with the third sister city, General Roca. He felt Chula Vista
would not only benefit from the cultural contacts but also economic development.
MS (Fox/Padilla) to accept the International Friendship recommendation to have the Council formally request
Sister Cities International designate Ussuriysk Russia as Chula Vista's fourth sister dry. There is to be no
additional costs associated with the relationship, the IFC is to maintain or enhance the level of relRtiouships
with Odawara and Irapuato, and the IFC is to make recommendations on the City's future relationship with
General Roca, Argentina.
Councilmember Moot stated with the stipulation that there would be no additional funds for the IFC and that a report
would be coming back to Council he would support the motion.
Mayor Horton said the Mayor or a Councilmember was expected to visit the sister city and she questioned if that
would be paid for out of the sister cities fund raising.
· Paul Catenzaro, Member, International Friendship Commission, responded that was correct. They were
looking for the Friends of Ussuriysk to grow and fund those efforts not only culturally but also for business. He
looked at the Friends of Ussuriysk as an example of what could be done in the community to form the Friends of
Irapuato, etc. and to revive the sister city relationships, not on the present scale but with expanded community
involvement. They were looking at making changes in how they approached the sister city relationships and the
lack of community involvement.
Mayor Horton questioned what the procedure would be if the request was approved.
· Eduardo Serrano, 4050 Bermuda Dunes Place, Bonita, CA, representing Friends of Ussuriysk, replied if
adopted the City would make an official request to Sister Cities Intemational. Their organization was also planning
on working with the existing sister cities on uniting in their efforts. The issue should be the benefits received and
not the cests involved. The Friends of Ussuriysk had sent out a 20 ft. container in association with Universal
Grocers to Ussuriysk.
Councilmember Rindone stated the comments by Mr. Catenzaro was the type of input Council had requested when
the item had been previously discussed. It was more than just adding a fourth sister city. His concern was with
the anticipated working relationship of the IFC with the other three sister cities. He felt there was time to address
those issues and he would support the request when that information was brought forward.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed.
ACTION ITEMS
16. RESOLUTION 17846 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR 260 PLAZA BON1TA ROAD - On 11/24/92,
Council approved the Pier I Import project at 3001 Bonita Road. As part of that approval, Council directed staff
to complete street improvements from Plaza Bonita Road to the I-805 northbound on-ramp. The ROW must be
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 16
obtained to properly construct the improvements. The plans are complete and waiting on final permits from the
Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Board. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, informed Council staff had received a letter
from Todd Lee, an attorney for Jose Gonzales, advising the City that his client was willing to grant the easements
subject to working out the details conceming utilities, existing easements, etc. Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales had met with
staff to talk about the right-of-way dedication and they both indicated their willingness. Staff felt all the details
could be worked out without any further problems. Staff did recommend Council adopt the resolution because of
the importance of the project and advertising it and awarding it before June 30th. It would indicate Council's
willingness for staff to move in that direction if necessary.
RESOLUTION 17846 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
17. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that staff had received the bill from the City of San Diego
for the first three-quarter payments for sewer service and also for the first payment of the front-ended charges in
the amount of $5 million. Staff was analy~ng the bill because it was presented in a form that was not easy to
breakout the contract costs versus the fair share costs. Staff would report back to Council in the future.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 5b and 6. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order,
OTHER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Morris stated the 1995 Youth Summit would be held on March 291h at 5:30
p.m. in the Chula Vista Library. Staff was in the process of planning a legislative day for Chula Vista and they
would invite the area representatives to attend a briefing on issues of importance to the City.
19, MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointments: Amira Walker - International Friendship Commission; Jon C. Thornburg -
Resource Conservation Commission.
MSUC (Rindone/Fox) to ratify the appointment of: Amira Walker - International Friendship Commission;
Jon C. Thornburg - Resource Conservation Commission.
b. Mayor Horton announced that the Senior Volunteer Patrol would expand by thirty additional members.
The City was seeking additional volunteers and the academy for the next class would begin on Monday, April 10,
1995.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a. Councilmember Rindone stated he would be out of town for the 3/28/95 and 4/4/95 meetings and requested
the absences be excused. ~'~
MSUC (Padilia/Moot) to excuse Councilmember Rindone's absences on 3/28/95 and 4/4/95.
Minutes
March 21, 1995
Page 17
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:35 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on March 28, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 9:35 p.m. and adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
Council met in Closed Session at 9:43 p.m., reconvened at 10:35 p.m., and adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
21. 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.
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) and EPA lawsuit.
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.
22. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
-[IEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by: Vicki C. Soderquist, Deput~Clerk