Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1991/02/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR M~TING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 26, 1991 Council Chambers 6:07 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Malcolm, Nader, Rindone and Mayor Pro Tempore Moore ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attomey; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER, 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 18, 1990, January 15, 1991, and February 12 and 19, 1991 MSUC (Nader/Moore) to approve the minutes of Deeenlber 18, 1990 and January 15, and February 12, 1991 as presented. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None CONSENT CAT~NDAR Citems pulled: 7, 8, and 16) MSUC (Moore/Nader) to continue Item #15 to the meeting of March S, 1991. BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MOORE, reading of the tell: was waived, passed and appreved unanimously. S. VVRI'I'I'EN COMMUNICATIONS: None 6. ORDINANCE 2441 AMENDING SECTION 3.20.040 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE PUMP STATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FE.F_~ (second reading and adoption) - Section 3.20.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides for payment of sewer service charges, penalty for delinquency and discontinuation of sewer service for non-payment. The consequences of non-payment of pump station operation and maintenance fees are not addressed in this section or any other section of the Code. Staff recommends that Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) /~'b..~'~ 7. ORDINANCE 2442 AMF2qDING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 1~ 1~I ATING TO THE CONSENT CAI .~.NDAR FOR (;fly COUNCIL MEETINGS (second readin~ and adoption) - expected to require specific action or discussion by the Council placed under a new "Action Items' section Minutes February26, 1991 Page 2 on the Council Agenda. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back proposed guidelines for what would constitute Action Items, as opposed to Consent Calendar items, in preparation for implementing the Action Items concept. Staff recommends that Cotmcil place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Deputy City Manager Thomson) Pulled from Consent Calendar. Councilman Rindone recommended the adoption of the Ordinance with voluntary participation beginning next week. ORDINANCE 2442 OFFERED BY COUNCH MAN RINDONE, with voluntary participation beginning ne. xI week reading of the text was waived. Councilman Malcolm stated that ordinances go into effect after a thirty day period unless adopted as an urgency ordinance. He questioned how this could be done by next week. City At~omey Boogaard responded that it would be a mandatory thirty days after the second reading, but it could be done voluntarily upon direction by the Councfi. Councilman Malcolm stated there was a current ordinance for the City which dictates how the agenda is to be set. This ordinance repeals that ordinance and does not go into effect until thirty days after the second reading. City Attorney Boogaard responded that by unanimous vote the City Clerk could be directed to voluntarily prepare the agenda as prescribed by Ordinance 2442. Councilman Rindone withdrew his motion regarding the voluntary participation of the Action Aganda. VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2442: approved unanimously. 8. ORDINANCE 2443 AMENDING ORDINANCE 1993 SECTION 21, REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING COIJ.ECTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND VOLUNTARY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING COI.I .RCTION (second reading and adoption) - Staff recommends that Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Manager) Pulled from Consant Calendar. Stephanie Popek, Principal Management Assistant, informed Counc~ that the ordinance would allow Laidlaw to go out and get voluntary contracts which other companies are currently doing. Councilman Malcolm questioned whether the other companies were operating legally. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the City did not have a recycling contract for commercial units and that the other companies were operating legally. Councilman Malcolm questioned the need for the ordinance. Ms. Popek responded that staff was trying to be sensitive to Couneil's desires regarding future commercial/industrial recycling. City Attorney Boogaard stated that Council could, by minute action, state that Laidlaw could voluntarily participate in recycling of commercial materials. Staff felt Council had directed that Laidlaw was not to get into commercial recycling and therefore staff had specifically told Laidlaw not to get involved in commercial recycling. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 3 Councilman Nader responded that it was not Council's direction to restrict Laidlaw from participating in a voluntary commercial recycling program. MC (Nader/Malcolm) to table the amendments to the ordinance and direct staff [o inslruct Laidlaw that they can compete for voluntary commercial recycling Contrac[s on the sanle basis as any other commercial recyder/hauler. Ms. Popek stated the proposed ordinance also dealt with multi-family units which are receiving curbside refuse collection. There is a small group of single-family attached homes, i.e. multi~family0 which Laidlaw had been instructed were multi-family homes and would have to be included when multi-family goes out to bid. City Attorney Boogaard responded that staff had limited Laidlaw's ser~ce to single family detached service. Council could also, by minute order, ~ive direction to Council stating that the current franchise gives Laidlaw the anthodty to service single family attached homes. AlVlEND~ TO MOTION: toalsoadviseLaidlaw~hattheymaypursuevuluntaryrecydinginmult~-farnily City Manager Goss stated it was not sta~s recommendation to include single family units but attached single family units. These are duplexes up to sixplexes. Councilman i~ndone stated he felt Council should proceed as judicially as possible an the bidding process for commercial recycling. The motion should not spec~cally address Laidlaw but all haulers. Councilman Nader stated he would include LaidZaw and all haulers in his motion. VOTE ON MOTION AS AlVlENDED: approved 3-1 with Mayor Pro Tempore Moore vo~ing no. 9. ORDINANCE 2~.~?. AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.020, 2.04.050 AND SECTION 2.O4.090, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 2.04.580 AND 2.04.590 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH COUNCIL WORKSHOPS AS REGULAR *CONDITIONAL* MEETINGS, VEST COUNCIL WITH *FULL MEETING AUTHORITY', REQUIRE THE SEI'IING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, OR AS THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA PERMITS, AND ELIMINATE CERTAIN HISTORIC ANOMALIES (first reading9 - At it's 1/22/91 meeting, Council was presented with an exhibit and ordinance implementing its provisions establishing Council Workshops as regular council meetings to be held on the fourth Thursday of each month, and vesting the Counc~ with *full meeting authority~ at such meetings, along with other matters therein referred to therein. Council directed the removal of the *Fourth Thunday~ provision which created the mandatory duty to meet for a fifth regular council meeting each month. This ordinance created the concept of a 'conditional~ regular meeting which makes the nCouncfl Workshop Meeting' a regular meeting conditional on the announcement by the Council during any regular City Council meeting, on three affirmative votes, to convene a Council Workshop Meeting. Staff recommends that Council place ordinance on fffst reading. (City Attorney) 10. RESOLUTION 16076 APPROVING AG1H~PMENT BETWEEN THE crP/' OF CHULA VISTA AND SUSAN BIGFIOW ASSOCIATES TO DESIGN A t2-1Y-WIDE RECORDS MANAGEIVIENT SYSTEM, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AG]~ F. EMENT - Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) ./,~'~{~ 0 Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 4 11. RESOLUTION 16077 CAIJa'NG AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL Rt-PCTION TO BE HRIn ON TIJESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991 FOR THE RI~-CTION OF MAYOR AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, AND REQUE~-ruqG THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT AND CONSOLIDATE SAID RI~-CTION (City Attorney) /,~'O~/ 12. RESOLIfrlON 16078 ACCr, e~uTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR OPEN SPACE ,DISTRICT 20 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - Bids were received and opened for Open Space District 20 Landscape Maintenance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) /da'Z~/**t 13. RESOLUTION 16079 APPROVING RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES AS THE CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE M/D-MANAGFaMENT SALARY SURVEY AND ADDITIONAL ANALYSES, AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS - At it's 7/24/90 meeting, Council approved Resolution 15729 which established a compensation plan for the middle management employees for FY 1990-91. As a follow up to Council authorization, a salary survey committee referred to as the Mid-Management Compensation Task Force, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of services related to conducting a salary survey and related analyses for the Mid-Management group. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Personnel Director/City Manager) 4/5's vote require& 14. RESOLUTION 16080 APPROVING FIRST AMENDMF_.aNT TO AGJ~I:I~MENT WITH JOHN C. TSIKNAS FOR SYsr,'~i IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MASTER CONTROL S~:/I-I~IVI - In February 1987, Council engaged John Tsiknas to provide consulting services for the planning and implementation of a computerized Traffic Signal Control System for controlling over 100 traffic signals within the City limits. Mr. Tsiknas' contract fund has been depleted. Although the computerized traffic control system is in its final implementation phase, additional services are needed from Mr. Tsiknas to finalize the implementation phase and provide in depth training of staff for the use of the master traffic computer once the timing schedules are in place. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and authorize an additional $15,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Traffic Signal Fund for said extension. (Director of Public Works) 4/5's vote required. /~"0~ ~ 15. RESOLUTION 16081 APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGRRRMENT FOR THE INTER-AGENCY WATER TASK FORCE - On 11/20/90, Council considered the enactment of an ordinance creating an Interagency Water Task Force to be set up by the City of Chula Vista. Instead of a task force set up by ordinance, staff was directed to consider a Cooperative Agreement signed by the three agencies (Chula Vista, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority) to establish the task force. Staff recommends approval of theresolution. (Director of Public Works) /5'0~5' Continued to the meeting of March 5, 1991. 16. REPORT ON THE PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF HIGH-PLOW WATER FIXTURES ON RETAlLF~RS AND INSTAIJ.RRS OF SAME WITHIN CHULAVISTA - At it's 2/11/91 meeting, Council directed the City Attorney to return with a proposed ordinance regulating the installation of "high flow" water fLxtures within the City. Staff recommends that Council accept the report. (City Attorney) Pulled from the Consent Cou/~cilman Malcolm felt the City needed to prohibit the use of high-flow toilets and shower fL,-'mres. After talking to the Consumction Industry Federation and the representative from McMillin, they showed their Minutes February 26, 3.991 Page 5 support of having new development reduce water usage throughout the City of Chula Vista. For approximately a $400 fee on any new permit taken out in the City, it would allow the retrofitring of low-flow fixtures. It would be his intent that the net water savings be forwarded to the appropriate water authority, providing that it is first spent in Chula Vista for retrofitring homes in the City. Councilman Rindone stated that direction to staff in the past was the reslriction of high-flow fixtures. He would like a more in-depth analysis particularly regarding the mount of water per flush. It is his understanding that there is only one manufacture making toilets utilizing 1.5 gallons and they are extremely hard to get. He agreed that this was a critical issue and should be brought back as soon as possible but further research was needed regarding the 3..5 versus 3.5 gallon fumxres. Councilman Malcolm felt the ordinance should be amended from 2.0 to 3.5 gallons with the ordinance being amended in the future as technology advances. Councilman Rindone stated he could support that amendment as it addressed his concerns. MS (Malcolm/Rindone) to amend the staff recommendation and ordinance from 2.0 gallon toilet to a 3.5 gallon toilet. Councilman Nader stated he was unsure as to what the final mot/on would be and therefore found it difficult to vote for the amendment. Staffs recommendation was to send the ordinance to a variety of groups and individuals before Council adopts. If the final motion was to obtain input, he could then support the amendment. He would like further input on the availability of the ultra-low flow. If it is not feasible to legislate this now he could support the amendment. Councilman Malcolm responded that there was no problem in obtaining low-flow toilets but that ultra-flow toilets were extremely difficult to obtain. Councilman Rindone felt the intent was to change the 2.0 to 3.5 gallon toilets and recirculate the ordinance for input. Councilman Malcolm stated that when a product is readily available on the market staff should return with an amendment for ulna-low flow toilets. Councilman Nader questioned whether the final intent of Council would be to obtain input from the community. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated he had been informed that the ultra-low flow toilets were virtually unava~able. He noted that the staff recommendation was to approve the ordinance conceptually. Councilman Malcolm stated it was not his intention to approve the ordinance conceptually but to place it on first reading. Due to the nature of the ordinance, he would also support the adoption as an Urgency Ordinance. He would like to start collecting tomorrow to off set any water usage that they are generating. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore questioned how an ordinance could be approved conceptually. City Attorney Boogaard responded that if approved conceptually it meant that the ordinance would be circulated in the community as an ordinance Council is seriously considering. Conceptually meant that Council is flexible and would receive further public input and consideration of the policy issues contained. If the ordinance is placed on fLrst reading, it is then adopted at the next Council meeting. Staff is not Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 6 recommending that the ordinance be placed on first reading as it would not allow input from the community. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Robert C. Maxwell, 473 Betland Way, Chula Vista, California, expressed his appreciation to Council for addressing the water issue. The low-flow or ultra-low flow rua~res would be acceptable. He felt the City should work closely with the water districts, the County and the State to discover other water sources. People need to adapt to lower water usage also. He expressed his concern over the new growth in a time of water shortage and noted the usage of reclaimed water. He suggested desert landscaping and the usage of water saving awards. A water saving house should be established as a model within the City to demonstrate water conservation measures. John Seymour, 6336 Greenwich Drive, #7, San Diego, California, representing the Construction Indusny Federation, handed out a copy of their draft program. It states that all new development when hooking up to the system will pay a fee into a fund to be used for retrofitring. He felt there were administrative policies that needed to be addressed before these fees could be collected. Issues such as: establishment of a fund within the City, how disbursed, amount of rebate, flee fnctures, etc. also needed to be addressed. Effective January 1, 1992, State law mandates that all new development shall have ultra-low flow (1.6 gallons) shower heads and toilets. He will submit a list of manufactures that have 1.6 gallon toilets available now. They are working on an internal and external media program to get people involved in saving water. Councilman Malcolm did not feel there was a problem in implementing the fee program. He stated that in the past, whenever a fee is implemented, there is a rush to obtain permits in order to 'beat" the fee. Mr. Seymour recommended that Council direct staff to come back at a later date with a policy requiring that all new building permit applications be conditioned with this requirement, such as the community purpose facilities ordinance. There is also the issue of including multi-family homes and commercial/industrial development. He would like to have the City staff review their draft program and submit their input. Councilman Nader questioned what the problem would be with a policy that applied to all developers requiring that through a program of conservation and retrofltting that the development offset water use. This leaves the private sector flee to devise new ways to achieve conservation and meet the same goals. Mr. Seymour responded that it would be a great idea. Councilman Malcolm did not understand why Council would not want to place the ordinance on fn'st reading. If new information came before Council before next week it could be changed. He felt this issue deserved emergency action with a fee implemented as soon as possible on every building permit issued in order to retrofit other homes. The details of administering the fee could be worked out at a later date, the important issue is the collection of the fee. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore felt that ff Council moved to fast it would scare many homeowners and developers. He liked the intent of the ordinance but felt that Council needed the input of the community. There should be news releases and coverage and he did not feel the ordinance should be implemented without input. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the ordinance would only affect the existing homeowner ffinstalling new fixtures. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 7 Kenneth Laxsen, Director of Building and Housing, stated the first item under the ordinance, Subsection D, Sale Notice of Intent to Install, should include an exemption clause in case a retailer does not have access to a manufactured specially designed watercloset. There should be a clause that allows a waiver from the Director of Building and Housing so that these types of specialized fixtures could be installed. Councilman Malcolm stated that the staff recommendation and ordinance had been changed to 3.5 gallons. Mr. Larsen stated the other area of concern was the collecting of an additional $388 per dwelling unit prior to any posting at the public counter or public hearing. City Attorney Boogaard replied that the collection of a fee was not included in the ordinance presented tonight. Mr. Larsen stated that the State of California currently mandates 3.5 gallon to~ets and therefore there would be no need to bring this ordinance forward as currently structured. The shower heads and other fixtures will be required by the State on January 1, 1992. Counc~man Malcolm felt this should be a State mandate, but until that time, the staff would be circulating this ordinance throughout other cities in the County. Councilman Rindone stated that as soon as there was availability of ull~a low-flow or new technology, staff would bring it before Council for amendment. He suggested that the ordinance be placed on first reading and allow time for recirculation of this with comments brought back to Council for final adoption. Councilman Malcolm questioned the 2.5 gallon low-flow shower heads venus the 1.9 gallon fixtures. Mr. Larsen responded that 2.5 had been established as the minimum acceptable criteria for the State of California. According to the California Energy Commission, low-flow is recognized as 2.5 gallons per minute. Anything up to 2.5 gallons would be less than minimum standards. Mr. Seymour stated that he had gotten the 1.5 ultra-low flow shower head from the County Water Authority. He had not seen the ultra-low flow shower heads available anywhere. A 2.5 to a 1.9 fLxture is considered a low-flow fLxture, the ultra-low flow is 1.3 to 1.5 gallons. He felt the ultra-low flow shower head would be coming on the market within the next several months. ORDINANCE 2446, AS AMENDED, pLAcRn ON FIRST READING BY COIJNCILMAN NADER, reacting of the text was waived. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore stated staff should still circulate the ordinance through the business community, staff should also address the issue of notifying the public. VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2446 AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) direct staffto offer the opportunity for ongoing input on market availability of ultra- low flow fixtures from each of the org~niT~tious listed in the staff report and add the Ecological Life Systems Institute and any other organ~7~tion staff may feel appropriate. Staff is to come back to Council as deemed appropriate with sUengl~ning amendments to the ordinance. MS CNader/lVloore) refer the issue of fees to staff to work with the water authorities to develop a proposed program either of collecting fees with disbursement to the water authorities for retrofitring as a condition Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 8 of land use approvals or a policy of requiring dlx~ct retrofit by the developer, Le. such as the Rancho Del Rey III SPA. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore requested that the motion include the Inter-Agency Water Task Force. Councilman Nader agreed to the addition if their review did not delay implementation of the program. If so, staff could contact the water agencies direc~y. Questions regarding the implementation of the program could be addressed by the Inter-Agency Water Task Force. City Manager Goss requested that the motion include talking to the two water districts about expanding the ability to get money to. retrofit, as the City of San Diego had done. Councilman Nader responded that he would agree to the addition of City Manager Goss' request to the motion. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanitnously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 17. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY SIXTEEN ACRES FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TO CHULA VISTA AND THE SUBSEQUFANT DETACHMENT OF SAID TERRITORY FROM THE BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, LOCATED IN THE NORTHFAgTERLY QUADRANT OF q-r' ~-i-REET AND HILLTOP DRIVE, KNOWN AS 'F_.L RANCHO VISTA REORGANIZATION' - The San Diego Local Agency Formulation Commission adopted a resolution approving the subject reorganization proposal at their meeting of janua_ry 7, 1991 and authorized the Chula Vista City Council to initiate reorganization proceedings. Staff recommends that Council conduct the public hearing, and continue action to the meeting of 4/12/91. (Director of Planning) I~& '/ Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, reviewed the history of the land owner petition to the City for annexation of approximately sixteen acres from the County of San Diego to Chula Vista. Regarding the public hearing procedure, Government Code Section 57002 requires the City as the conducting authority to conduct the public hearing on the proposed reorganization. Staff is recommending: 1) Council open the public hearing and acknowledge the written protests which are ~ed with the City Clerk, request the ~ing of any additional written protests, 2) request the withdrawal of any written protests which have been ~ed, and acknowledge such withdrawal, 4) close the public hearing and defer any standing protests to the City Clerk for confirmation and evaluation, and 5) bring back the item on April 12, 1991 for final adoption of appropriate form of resolution pursuant to evaluation of protests received. Councilman Malcolm questioned what the conditions were of the streets, sidewalks, curbs, cutters, etc. Mr. Leiter responded that the area could be served upon annexation without an increase in manpower or equipment. No specffic concems were raised during the review process. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that there were curbs in most of the area, sidewalks were not present nor is sewer. The quality of the streets appear to be satisfactory, but an in-depth study was not conducted. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 9 Councilman Malcolm stated that the status of the infrastructure was his major concern. City Attorney Boogaard stated that the function of Council at this meeting is more ministerial in which protests are received or rescinded. Ed Batcheider, Assistant Planner, responded that LAFCO had ordered this under resolution and the City under the Cortese-Knox legislation would take protests and that a protest was the only vehicle that could end the annexation at this point. Counc~man Nader questioned whether Counc~ was allowed during the thirty day period to address the issues raised by Counc~man Malcolm with reconsideration if deemed appropriate. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it was within the powers of Council to evaluate the costs to the City in taking on additional territories. Reconsideration of prior resolutions is also within Council authority. He did remind Council that the scope of the public hearing was a protest receipt and withdrawal hearing. Mr. Batcheider stated that the request for reconsideration from LAFCO had to be submitted within thirty days of the adoption of their resolution. This thirty day period has sunseted. The thirty day period referenced in the staff report is incorrect, the protest ends with the closing of the hearing and there is no furrier time for evaluation. k N. Feldzamen, 473 E1 Rancho Vista North, Chula Vista, California, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations. He felt a majority of the voters and land owners were in opposition to this action. Petitions in opposition have been fLIed with the City Clerk's Office and he felt the City had also committed a civil rights violation for which a lawsuit would be filed in Federal Court under 42 U.S. Code 1833, in that the City did provide sewer service to certain residents and as partial payment required a promise that they would not support petitions or vote against annexation. He also felt the notification process, i.e. newspaper versus direct mail, was a violation of due process. Additional petitions were given to the City Clerk during the meeting. He requested that Counc~ investigate the process and the way in which their questions and petitions were handled by the City. Counc~man Malcolm stated that if Mr. Feldzamen obtained signatures of 50% plus 1 of the registered voters opposing the annexation, the Counc~ would be required to adopt a resolution abandoning the annexation. City Clerk Authelet responded that the form of the signature is compared and that the use of an initial would be acceptable. Todd McCredie, 45 El Rancho Vista, Chula Vista, California, questioned the costs to the City if the area is annexed. Councilman Malcolm felt the information regarding costs should have been made ava~able and that direct ma~ings should have been done. He did not feel the Public Hearing should be held due to those issues. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the City had notified the area as cited by government law. Council had authority to continue the public hearing and require further notice. Mr. Batcheider replied that a mailed notice was sent to each home in the area from the City. Staff had received phone calls prompted by the notice for clarification. Mr. Leiter stated that an annexation handbook had been complied which included information on property taxes, public sentices provided by the City, estimates of differences of fees between the City and County, etc. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 10 These were given to anyone contacting the City within the last two weeks and were available to anyone requesting this information. Bren Pfller, 473 E. Rancho Vista North, Chula Vista, California, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendations. She stated the notice had been received less than two weeks ago and was the first notice they had received regarding the proposed annexation. They currently have 53% of the assessed valuation that have signed their petitions. She expressed her concern over the lack of help received from the various City departments. After deciding that they would present signatures on petitions for assessed valuation she had been informed that the signatures would have to be those of registered voters. Mr. Feldzamen requested that staff marl him a copy of the existing sewer hook-up policy for those residences outside the incorporated area. Peter Leon felt that the comment by staff regarding the lack of need for sidewalks in the area was an unfair statement. Arthur Johns, 70 El Rancho Vista, Chula Vista, California, spoke in support of the staff recommendations. He stated he was responsible for circulating the land owner petitions submitted to LAFCO. Out of the 33 lots, 31 of which have homes, 19 of those signed saying yes that they wanted to annex to the City of Chula Vista. This would be 59% of the land owners. He filed, with the City Clerk, a withdrawal for 464 El Rancho Vista North this morning. If their assessed valuation with subtracted, it is now 47% that say they are opposed to the annexation. There are 15 signatures in opposition, of those 15 signatures, only 6 were there prior to Proposition 13. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore questioned how assessed value would be determined due to the discrepancy caused by Proposition 13. Mr. Batcheider responded that the valuations are to be determined on the last equalized assessment role which wonld be calendar year1990. Ifthepropenyownerhadn'tpurchasedahomewithinthelastseveral months, they would be on that role. Councilman Malcolm disagreed and stated that it was reassessed only if recently sold or an addition was added. It did not correctly represent the assessed valuation of the property. Mrs. Lasman, 471 Jackaranda Drive, Chula Vista, California, stated she was unaware of the annexation until contacted regarding the petition in opposition. She had contacted LAFCO regarding the notification procedure and felt it was unfair. In all fairness the public hearing should be continued to give time for those in opposition to the annexation to protest. Mr. Lasman, 471 Jackaranda Drive, Chula Vista, California, stated two people would be prohibited in the election would be prohibited from voting against the annexation due to prior commitments made when they were hooked-up to the City sewer system. He felt this was a violation of rights and urged Council to continue the public hearing. Artira Leon, 457 E1 Rancho Vista North, Chula Vista, California, stated that the petition in opposition to the annexation contained the signatures of 24 property owners. Robert Strauss, 465 E1 Rancho Vista North, Chula Vista, California, felt that those in opposition were concerned that they would be forced to put in sidewalks and that all the property would be reassessed in today's current market values. He did not feel this would happen and stated there were many in the area Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 11 that wanted the ability to connect to the City sewers. He had been given the information from staff regarding the process and costs involved. Jack Coleman, 410 E1 Rancho Vista Drive, Chula Vista, California, stated he was strongly opposed to annexation. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Malcolm questioned what would happen ff there was less than 50% of the assessed valuation. Mr. Batcheider responded that ff the value is more than 25% of the entire assessment it would go to a vote. Councilman Malcolm felt there were concerns over health issues, i.e. septic systems. If the only reason the property owners want to annex to the City, the City should expand the policy regarding sewer hook-ups. He would support a petition from those ownen requesting that the City further investigate this policy. City Attorney Boogaard stated that Council now needed to invite anyone who had signed a petition the opportunity to withdraw their protest. David M. and Teresita F. Matsunaga, property owners and registered voters residing at 464 E1 Rancho Vista North withdrew their protest in opposition to Resolution R090-13 of LAFCO and expressed their desire to reaffu-m their signatures on the Landowner Petition signed 8-20-90 in favor of annexation to the City of Chula Vista. City Attorney Boogaard stated that the City Clerk would confirm the protests over the next thirty days. MS (Moore/Nader) to approve staff recommendations: 1) aclmowiedge wlitten protests fried with the City Clerk, and request the filing of any additional written protesl2s; 2) request the withdrawal of any written protests filed and acknowledge such withdrawal; 3) refer standing protests to the City Clerk for confirmation and evaluation pursuant to Government Code Sections 57052, 57075, and 57078; and 4) within 30 days of the hearing, adopt the appropriate form of resolution pursuant to protest evaluation. Mr. Batcheider stated staff was trying to determine whether the election for annexation could be combined with the mayoral election in June. He stated the only way the annexation proceedings would go no further would be if signatures, in opposition, of 50% or greater were received. City Attorney Boogaard responded that staff would repor~ back to Council with the election information. Councilman Malcolm stated he could support a two week delay in which those in opposition would be given time to obtain signatures on their petitions. He felt this could possibly save the City the cost of an election. SUBb-rrrLITE MOTION: (Malcolm/Nader) to reopen the public hearing. Approved unanimously. Mayor Pro Tempore Moore reopened the public hearing. MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) to continue the public hearing for two weeks to allow submittal of petitions. City Attorney Boogaard stated that this time period would allow for the submittal of petitions in opposition and the withdrawal of signatures. Minutes February26, 1991 Page 12 Councilman Rindone requested that all property owners be sent a copy of the informational handbook along with notice of continuation. 18. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISI-flNG A STORM DRAIN FEE - On 12/8/88, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations for the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate storm water discharge into the waters of the United States. The final version of these regulations was issued on 11/16/90. These permits wffi require agencies discharging storm water into the waters of the United States to develop management programs for the purpose of controlling pollutants. The proposed Storm Drain Fee will pay for the establishment and implementation of said programs. Fee collection is proposed to commence on 7/1/91. Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution and place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works] /.~'~,~' John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, requested that the item be Filed at this time with the hearing being rescheduled at the end of the fiscal year. MSC (Nader/Rindone) to not open the public hearing and file the item at this time. Approved 3-O-1 with Counc~man Malcolm absenL ORDINANCE 2445 ADDING CHAPTEa 3.10 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A STORM DRAIN FEE (first readin~ RESOLUTION 16082 AMENDING THE MA~'I'ER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD A STORM DRAIN FEE OTHER BUSINESS 19. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 20. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: None 21. ITEMS pULI.Rn FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - (Items pulled: 7, 8, and 16) The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. 22. CI'IY MANAGERS REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings - A Redevelopment Agency Meeting w~l be held on Thursday for discussion of the Bayfront. The meeting will be videotaped for rebroadcast at a later date. 23. MAYOR'S RF/K)RT(S) a. Council appointment of second member to Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. I..6'06 MSUC (Malcolm/Rindone) to appoint Mayor Pro Tampore Moore as the second member to the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 13 b. The Clean Water Act Advisory Group has formed three subcommittees to address fiscal, management, and engineering issues. He requested authorization to accompany a group of representatives from San Diego on a one day trip to Sacramento on Monday. MSUC (Malcohn/Rindone) to authorize Mayor Pro Tempore Moore to travel to Sacramento on behalf of the Clean Water Advi~ty Group. c. Stated that a member of the International Friendship Commission would like to go to the annual festival as the designated representative from the City of Chula Vista. If the designation is made, they had requested assistance with travel expenses. City Attorney Boogaard stated this was not an agendized item and that if it was an emergency situation, Council could then take action if a unanimous vote was taken to place the item on the agenda for action. If it was not an emergency item it should be placed on the agenda for discussion next week. d. AARP and AA1LD Chapter 1657 will conduct a forum for all candidates for Mayor on Saturday, May 21st, 1:30 to 4:30 p.m., at Lauderback Senior Center. 24. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Malcolm: a. Stated he had asked staff to follow through with the County of San Diego to see if a vacation could be obtained behind the Bonita Store in order to continue the horse trail that ties into Rancho Del Ray and Bonita Canyon. ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjoumed at 8:30 p.m. to a joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to discuss: 1 .A. RESOLLrl'ION 16083 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, 'fRAN~i~'F. RRING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PARKWAY SWIMMING POOL REHABILITATION IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (City Council) - On 1/9/91, bids were received for the rehabilitation of Parkway swimming pool in the City of Chula Vista. The project includes the installation of new mechanical and chemical systems including filters, pumps and necessary piping; replastering of swimming pool; installation of new waterline title racing lanes, and turn targets; replacement of existing underwater lights; installation of new main drains and piping; and the installation of new deck equipment. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions and the appropriation of $36,920 from the unappropriated balance of the Residential Construction Tax (RCID fund, transfer $10,000 from Tennis Court Relighting Project (PR138), transfer $5,930 from the Redcarpet Recreation Center (PR147), accept bids and award contract to Mission Pools of San Diego in the amount of $191,160, also that the Redevelopment Agency appropriate $36,920 from the unappropriated balance of the Town Centre Redevelopment Fund to the Parkway Pool Rehabilitation Project. 4/5's vote require& /.,~O ~0 RESOLUTIONS 16083 AND 1157 OFFERED BY COUNCIl MAN/MEMBER MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived. Councilman Rindone questioned the liability to the City regarding the incorrect installation of the underwater lights and whether there was a possibility of the City retrieving costs. Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 14 John Gates, Senior Recreation Supervisor, responded that there was an accident approximately two years ago in which a swimmer cut the bottom of a foot while exiting the pool. A small settlement was made at that time with no other accidents. There had been minor renovations since that time to t~r to alleviate some of the liability. VOTE ON RESOLUTIONS 16083 AND 1157: approved 'nnanlrnOUSly. B. RESOLUTION 1157 APPROVINGTHRAPPROPRIA'IIONOFREDEVEI,OPMENTFUNDSFORTHE PARICVVAY SWIMMING POOL REHABILITATION IN THE U-tY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA eRedevelopment Agency) 4/S's vote required. 2.A. RESOLUTION 16084 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOP, THE DEMOLITION AND SITE ~-PARANCE OF ABUILDING (CABRILLO LANES) AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON APARC~-L OF LAND LOCATED AT 740 "E* STREET IN THE t;HY OF CHULAVISTA (City Council) - On 2/6/90, sealed bids were received for the demolition and site clearance of a site building located at 740 "E" Street in Chula Vista. The project involves the demolition and site clearance of the Cabrillo Lanes building located at 740 "E" Street. The work includes asbestos abatement, demolition, and grading of the site which is adjacent to the "E" Street Transit Center. Future plans call for expanding the transit center's parking lot. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions and accept bids and award conl~act to Diamond Pacific of San Diego for $72,100, and appropriate $109,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Fund to the Cabrillo Lanes Demolition Project. 4/5's vote required. If'OF/ B. RESOLUTION 1158 APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF REDL~TnLOPMENT FUNDS FOR DF2VIOL1TION OF CABRILLO LANES BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT LOCATED AT 740 "E" b'fREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA CRedevelopment Agency) 4/S's vote requirecL RESOLUTIONS 16084 AND 1158 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN/MEMBER MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. City Attorney Boogaard stated Closed Session was not necessary to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section S49S6.9 - Hall venus the City of Chula Vista and Bayscene Resident Negotiators ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on March S, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitred, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk \ Vicki C. Soderc/d[st, Depu~lerk