Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/03/03 MINtrI~S OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 3, 1992 Council Chambers 4:10 p.m. Public Services Building CAt .t .RD TO ORDER 1. ROlL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF AtJ.F. GIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 19, 1991 and February 1S, 1992 MSC (MoorefNader) to approve minutes of December 19, 1991 and February 15, 1992 as presente¢L Minutes of Decamber 19, 1991 approved 40-0-1 with Councilman Rindone abstaining. Minutes of February 15, 1992 approved unanimously. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Prodmnation *COMMENDING THE CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPAKTMENT ON THEIR SUCC~-e~SFUL EFFORTS IN ENDING THE HOSTAGE ORDEAL ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1992 IN THE ~dl'[~r OF CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA' - Mayor Pro Tempore Malcolm presented the proclamation to Police Chief Richard Emerson. Chief Emerson stated that it had been an effort by the entire Police Department and they had worked as a team. He was pleased with the way everyone in the department and the City worked together. He thanked the Council for the commendation. Councilman Malcolm said that both the junior high school and the elementary school handled the crisis very well. He suggested that the Mayor send a letter to the School Board recognizing the cooperation of the teachers and many of the students. He said the bad part of an already tragic situation was when the Police Officers asked the media to move back and the media refused, except for the Chula Vista Star News and Sal~ Diego Union. The officers had to put their lives in further danger by moving vehicles in front of the media to protect them. He felt that when the media had the audacity not to obey the orders of the officers and to jeopardize lives they should have been incarcerated. He was glad that nothing bad had happened, but believed the media deserved some type of "kick in the pants." Mayor Nader said proclamations were being prepared for the Elementary and High School Districts commending their cooperation with the Chula Vista Police Department in assuring the safety of the students. A proclamation was also being prepared for the San Diego Police Department thanking them for the assistance of their Swat Team. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 2 Councilman Rindone extended appreciation to the Chula Vista community for their cooperation in staying out of the area. b. Proclaiming the Month of March 1992 as 'MF2qTAL RETARDATION MONTH' - The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tempore Malcolm to Mr. Anthony De Salis, Area Director of the Starlight Center. Mr. De Sails thanked the Council, City, its residents, and businesses for supporting the Starlight Center over the last 37 years and looked forward to their continued support. C. Prodanlation commending the Bonita Oprirni~t Club for their 'Family Park Project at Rohr- Sweetwater Park - The proclamation was presented by Mayor Pro Tempore Malcolm to Mr. John Willerr, representing the Bonita Optimist Club. Mr. Willerr expressed his and the Club's thanks and said that they looked forward to working with the Park and Recreation Department to make the park a success. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 7 and 11) BALANCE OF CONSENT CALENDAR OFFFA1ED BY COUNCIL.MAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. By unanimous consent of Council, Item 19 was included with the Consent Calendar. 5. WRI]-I-I~I COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter requesting a renewal of lease for The American Legion - Robert L. McCauley, Chairman, Building Committee, The American Legion, Chula Vista Post 434, 47 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. It is recommended that staff be directed to continue negotiating with the American Legion until an agreement is reached on the key business tens and conditions of constructing a new facility at Eucalyptus Park. Mayor Nader asked staff to provide an update on the status of negotiations at a future meeting. b. Letter of resignation from the Design Review Committee - Adrienne Landers. It is recommended that Adrienne Landers' resignation from the Design Review Committee be accepted with regret and that a letter of appreciation be sent to Ms. Landers. c. Lettar requesting waiver of fees in excess of $1,000 for Used Car Facility at 1506 Broadway - Femando Durazo, 272 A Rancho Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that this request be referred to staff and the Planning Commission for review, evaluation, and a report back to Council. d. Clalmn against the City:. Claimant No. 1) Mr. Cipriano Tortes, c/o Law Office of Cesar E. Trevino, 860 Union Street, San Diego, CA 92101, and 2) Mr. Eliseo M. Villa, Paul W. Leglet, Esq., Attorney at Law, 231 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is the recommendation of the claims adjuston, Carl Warren & Company, and Risk Management that the claims be denied. 6. ORDINANCE 2496 ADOPTING THE SAN DIEGO DMSION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GRAFFITI ORDINANCE (second reading and adoption) - The San Diego Division of the League of California Cities appointed a task force to deal with the problems of graf~ti throughout San Diego County. The City of Chula Vista's City Attorney, in conjunction with the San Diego County City Attorney's Association, developed a model graffiti ordinance. The San Diego Division has requested that all cities adopt the model ordinance. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Councilman Moore) Minutes March 3, 3.992 Page 3 7. ORDINANCE 2495 CHANGING THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FROM I-L-P TO C-C-P FOR THE SOUTHERN THREE ACRES OF THE PALOMAR TROI.I.RY CENTER PROJECT, AND MAKING FINDINGS TO PERMIT APPUCATION OF THE *P' MODIFIER; AND CHANGING THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY SUBAREA B-3-A FROM APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL WITH A P-MODIFIER. NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-TWO UNITS PER ACRE CR-3-P-22*) (second readin~ and adoption) - The City-initiated General Plan Amendment, Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment, and rezone for three acres located on the southerly side of Palomar Street are required actions for implementation of an expanded 18.2 acre Palomar Trolley Center commercial project pursuant to Council/Redevelopment Agency direction in August 1990. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consant Calendar. Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, referred to Page 7C-S of the Ordinance and stated that in order to accommodate the concern that Jayken Way should not run through the entire project area, but be connected to the south side of the entire project area, he recommended the amendment of the first full paragraph on Page 5, starting with "i", fifth line, "Design, financing, and construction of the roadway facility be required to design the improvement on the entire project in such a manner so that the roadway facility can be connected to the south side of the entire project area without requiring the demolition of any significant structures, or any structures with significant value...." He thought there was a proposal that Jaykarl Way would be a constructed roadway through the project, but Councilman Moore corrected him and stated it was his intent that Jayken Way be connected to the south side of the project. Councilman Malcolm stated Council might have to use the right of eminent domain in order to put the road through, therefore there were a number of unresalved issues. He wanted it understood that it was a study not a commitment at that time. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the commitment be that the project would be designed to tolerate a connection across the SDG&E right-of-way while the two years or 70% occupancy was occurring. Councilman Malcolm stated he understood the motion as, staff had already looked at it, staff said they did not want it, Councilman Moore said he wanted to revisit it, so he thought they were looking at it again. He did not want a project designed, improvements moved around, or the project delayed unless it was necessary. City Attorney Boogaard felt there was a different philosophy between what Councilman Malcolm had expressed and Councilman Moore's motion. The motion stated "...at 70% occupancy, not to exceed two years, a study be designed on traffic circulation, and if indicated that it was necessary, to allow the terminus of Jayken Way to be connected to the south side of the project." Councilman Moore stated that if the developer knew that he might have to put it in, he would have to consider design. When the zoning was changed from industrial to commercial he had made a motion to make that one of the conditions. Councilman Malcolm stated he did not agree, the motion was for additional study. There was nothing in the motion to require the developer to redesign his project. City Attorney Boogaard responded that Councilman Malcolm was correct in that regard. As a result in drafting the language Councilman Moore proposed, it became evident that if there was to be any validity or usefulness to doing the study and a determination at the end was made, that the City would have to accommodate the consequences of the study. Councilman Malcolm stated they were trying to determine if they needed something for circulation. If the City did not have the traffic people on board, Council should hire them or a consultant rather than taking Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 4 two years and redesigning a project on a maybe. The City should get their act together and tell the developer whether or not he would have to do it. Councilman Moore stated his previous motion could be put in the Ordinance "as is" and the developer could do whatever he wanted to. He felt the change he had requested would be in favor of the developer rather than the City. Councilman Malcolm responded that he understood the motion to state "...further study to determine ff they wanted the road to go all the way through". Now it had been said the road was not to go all the way through. If he were the developer, he would want the City to say what was wanted. He supported the motion for an additional study with the expectation that the report would be back within several months so while the developer was starting their plans the City could tell them yes or no. MS 0~alcolm/Grasser Horl:on) to study the issue and dLrect staff to return with a recommendation on the i.~ue {should the City require the developer to have the road system, as outlined by Councilman Moore} no later than sixty days. Mayor Nader stated he might have misunderstood Councilman Moore's motion. He felt the intent was that the City would monitor the situation over a period of time or at a certain level of occupancy. Councilman Moore responded that was the intent of his motion. Mayor Nader questioned how that could be accomplished within sixty days. Dave Gustarson, Assistant Director of Community Development, said staff could return with a report within sixty days but that the intent of Councilman Moore's motion could not be accomplished within sixty days. Staff had assumed Council wanted some type of further ~raffic analysis. Mayor Nader stated it was an important project and he did not want it delayed any longer. He questioned whether the City could monitor the situation and keep options open for some later time without causing undue delay to the project. City Attorney Boogaard clarified that Councilman Moore had not proposed that Jayken Way run through the project. All the developer would have to do would be to design an accommodation for a terminus for Jayken Way to the parking lot at the south side of the project. That was much less intrusive of a condition than previously agreed upon. It was a technical correction of the Council's prior motion and that the Ordinance should be placed on first reading rather than second reading and adoption. Councilman Moore's motion was contained on Page 7C-4, Section IICb), the words underlined were added by the City At'~oruey. Councilman Moore stated that if the study had been done right in the beginning, he would not expect any major changes. He withdrew his motion and stated he would vote against the project. When the proper~y was changed from industrial to commercial, Council came up with about five conditions. There would be no parking or park on the SDG&E easement, the Day Care Center might be in place but located on the other side of a busy street and Jayken Way was not needed. Now the only thing that the City would receive from the conditions set to enhance the community would be the widening of Palomar. MOTION OF 2/25/92 WITHDRAWN: CMoore} died for lack of second. Councilman Malcolm did not feel it would be fair to state that the developer had eliminated the park. The City had removed the condition due to the questionability of safety due to the overhead power lines. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that the City would also receive child care services. The land originally designated for the park was not being developed in any way to preclude the City from establishing Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 5 a park there. He questioned whether the original language before them was what had been presented to Council when everyone was notified that the item was on the agenda. City Attorney Boogaard responded that all of Section II, Sub-paragraph B, was not there when the item was originally discussed. The developer was not notified regarding the change to the ordinance. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nadar/Moore) to stand with the original language of Councilman Moore's motion of 2/25/92. Mayor Nader felt that if after meeting, all parties agreed that the City Attorney's language was superior, it would be brought back for Council consideration. Mr. Gustarson stated he had talked with the developer after the last meeting and had been informed that they would have no problem if, when 70% occupancy occurred it was determined that Jayken Way needed to come through and "T" into the perimeter road at the south portion of the project and then come around the project. They would indeed have a problem if it was necessary to divide the Center with Jayken Way going through to Palomar. The preliminary plan staff had received would not have any problem in accommodating the perimeter road to Jayken Way. Councilman Malcolm felt it was a win/win situation if the developer agreed to have Jayken Way 'T' into the perimeter road. Councilman Moore stated his concern was that if the Center and surcounding areas were to become successful it would result in more traffic than anticipated. This would give the City a "plug to pull' without interfering with the development. If it did not come to pass, it would not adversely impact the project. Mr. Gustarson informed Council that the specific language was not discussed with the developer. The concept, if it proved necessary in the future, of ~T~ing Jayken Way into the perimeter road around the Center, was discussed after the meeting. City Attorney Boogaard felt the language in the second full paragraph on Page 5 would address Councilman Moore's motions intent and the developex% satisfaction. He recommended that the Ordinance contained in the agenda packet be amended and placed on first reading. The word "to" at the top of Page 2 at the end, and the words ',..be constructed on the..." be modified to read "...be connected on the south side oL...' AMF2qDMENT TO MOTION: (NaderAVloore) to modify the Ordinance, top of Page 2 at the end, and the words '...to be consffucted on the...' be modified to read '...be connected on the south side of....' City Attorney Boogaard stated the super-imposed language would not make sense because it was being super-imposed upon his language which Council was deleting by going back to Councilman Moore's original motion. MOTION WITHDRAWN: (NaderAVloore) VOTE ON ~MENT: approved unanimously. ORDINANCE 2495, AS AMENDED, PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading ef the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Councilmember Grasser HoEon absent, March 3, 1992 Page 6 8. ORDINANCE 2497 AMENDING SECTION 2.05.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF POLICE CAPTAIN AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (first readinff) - On 2/25/92, Council approved the movement of Police Captain classification from the Mid-Management group to the Executive group, subject to ordinance adoption. Additionally, Council approved placing the position of Assistant Director of Building and Housing in the Unclassi~ed Service; however, the Municipal Code was inadvertently not amended at that time. Approval of the ordinance will place both positions in the Unclassified Executive Service. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on first reading. (Director of Personnel) 4/Sth's vote required. 9. RESOLUTION 16528 DIRECTING CALL FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS IN ASSESSMENT DI~I'IaCT 90-2 (OTAY V. AIJ.R'y ROAD) - Preparations are being made to bring Assessment District 90-2, Otay Valley Road, to the Council in the near future for a public hearing. As a preliminary step in the proceedings, it is recommended that the City advertise for construction bids at this time. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 10. RESOLUTION 16529 ACCEPTINGBIDSANDAWARDINGCONTRACTFORTHECONSTRUCTION OF THE RANClIO DEL KEY FIRE TRAINING TOWER LOCATED AT 'H' STREET AND PASEO RANCHFRO - The general scope of the project is to construct a four-story concrete fire training tower on a two-acre site on Paseo Ranchero adjacent to East "H" Street. Currently, the Citys only existing fire Iraining tower exists at the East "J" Street Fire Station. Construction of the new fire station at East "J" Street has restricted the use of the existing fire training tower and a new training facility is needed. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and award contract to Diversicon General Contractors in the amount of $236,775. (Director of Public Works) 11. RESOLUTION 16506 APPROVIINGANAGREEMENTWITHFNPROjECTSTOPROVIDELOWAND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN SALT CREEK I - Condition No. 11 of the Tentative Map required the applicant to reach an agreement with the City to devote 10% of the project units to low and moderate income housing. The agreement provides for 2.S% low and 7.S% moderate income housing within the Salt Creek I "Condominium Project Area". The developer will subsidize the low income units be depositing $301,878.1S into an escrow account to be used by the City to assist approximately thirteen low income purchases in Salt Creek I. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Developmen0 Continued from the meeting of 2/25/92. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Nader understood that the City was restricted as to how long transfer of property could be restricted, but other devices could be used to ensure that anytime there was a transfer of property there would be some benefit to the low-moderate income housing program. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to direct staff to add some sort of shared appreciation agreement or arrangement so that some percentage of appreciation would be put into the Low-Moderate Income Housing Fun& RESOLUTION 16506, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 12.A. RESOLUTION 16530 APpROVINGAGREEMENTWITHESGILCORPORATIONTOPROVIDEPLAN CHECK ENGINRRRING SERVICES - The agreement will provide engineering technical support to the Department of Building and Housing for plan review on projects which mandate greater expertise in structural engineering due to complexity of the structural or building envelope analysis. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. (Director of Building and Housing) Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 7 B. RESOLUTION 16531 APPROVINGAGRFTe. MF. JCFWITHWnJnAN/kSSOCIATESTOPROVIDEPLAN CHECK ENGINEERING SERVICES - The agreement will provide the Deparunent of Building and Housing with plan review on projects which mandate greater expertise in structural engineering due to complexity of the structural or building envelope analysis. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. (Director of Building and Housing) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ~IATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANC~_~: 13. PUBLIC HEARING CONCFALNING THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABB/IY STRATEGY - The National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions applying for funding assistance under most programs administered by HUD to submit a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Staff recommends Council open the public hearing and take public comment. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the 2/25/92 meeting. REPORT DESCRIBING THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABH/IY SI'RA'rEGY (CHAS) Alisa l~_ogers, Community Development Specialist, presented the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Moore stated that on Page 19 of the Draft Element, there was a recommendation that partly read "...this Mfordable Housing Policy (AHP) should require a minimum of 10% of each housing development be affordable to low and moderate income households..,* He asked staff if that was a program which had been in effect for years. Margery Girbes, Housing Coordinator, answered that the current housing element did have a policy of 10% low and moderate. However, at the next public hearing, Council would be reviewing a new recommended Affordable Housing Policy, If Council adopted the Housing Element, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) would reflect the same language as the Housing Element. Councilman Moore stated he thought action had been taken recen~y for 5% moderate and 5% low and asked if a policy was not made at that time. Ms. Girbes answered that the policy had not been adopted. However, it had been the policy staff had been using recently with negotiating affordable housing provisions with the developers to try m obtain 5% and 5%. Councilman Moore said the policy now was 10% low and moderate which meant most of that was moderate. The paragraph continued *...10% of each housing development to be affordable to low and moderate income households, with at least one half of those units (5% of project total units) being designated for low- moderate households* and he thought in recent past it had been five to five and that was an appropriate effort. The word *minimum" meant to him that it could go to 10% low and he had a problem with making that type of policy exceeding 5%. He thought that was too big of a burden to bear in Chula Vista until they saw other cities in the county doing something similar. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that there had been an Affordable Housing Workshop about a year ago where the policy was discussed. He said there might be some confusion M,~'*h ], 1992 Page 8 between the two different hearings because both dealt with the housing policy issues. One was CHAS, which was the present hearing and the next hearing was the Housing Element which would address the minimum 5% policy issue. One was a federal requirement and one was a state requirement. Councilman Malcolm said he looked at Items 13 and 14 as being interwoven even though they were separate items, one by the state and one by the federal government putting responsibilities on Chula Vista. He was happy with providing lower cost housing, the problem was all the government regulations and red tape. He personally would rather continue to take fees from the developers, which should be dedicated for improvements for those citizens they represent before tr~ng to get people to move into Chula Vista on a lotto basis. He wanted to see a review on it by the Chamber of Commerce, sent to the Board of Realtors for their comments, on both Items 13 and ~L4 and any others, regarding the impacts. The low-moderate income housing goals had been met substantially. He did not mind the City taking their fair share, but felt the other communities throughout San Diego needed to participate. Mayor Nader thought it was important to have a policy along that line to assure that there were some affordable housing opportunities. He would like to see more specifically addressed and explored cooperation with non-profit entities to provide low income housing ownership opportunities and it should be in the policy that ownership was encouraged wherever feasible. Personally he thought people who had an ownership interest in their home enhanced and protected their neighborhoods and that it served the entire community. He hoped staff would take that comment back to the Housing Advisory Committee and address that issue before the item returned to Council Councilman Moore said on Page 13-2 it listed priorities one thr~ nine. He asked that before it went to Council for action it be addressed in a workshop meeting so Council could be advised as to what staffs intents and goals were as it pertained to those departments. He had a problem on number eight when it came to the San Diego Housing Authority. He thought it should be fewordeal to read "Continue to utilize...~ instead of n... work with the San Diego County Housing Authority to represent Chula Vista in providing public housing in Chula Vista" to bring back the concept of what the City was actually doing. MS CMoore/Malcoim) to amend number eight to read 'Continue to utilize the San Diego County Housing Authority to represent Chula Vista in providing public housing in Chula V'tsta.' Mr. Salonlone said the City Manager had advised staff of Mayor Nader's referral to look at the advisability of having a City Housing Authority, and staff intended to respond to that in three or four weeks. VOTE TO AMEND NUMBER EIGHT: approved unanimously. MSUC 0NTader/Moore) amend to add two specific items for examination by the Housing Advisory Committee: (1} the utilization of private non-profit entities to provide low income housing ownership opportunities; and, (2) t,~tarnination of the pros and cons of having a City Housing Authority in Chula Vist~t Councilman Rindone asked staff what their plans were to ensure wide publication for community input at the hearings. Ms. Rogers answered that staff had published notification of the hearings in the Star News and a summary of CI-IAS and it would again be published on two other occasions. In addition, the document had been placed in the Chula Vista Library, Otay Library, and the Woodlawn Library. It had also been sent directly to a few community based non-profit organizations and to several different lenders who had requested seeing the document. VOTE ON ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT: approved unanimously. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 9 14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAPT CHULA VISTA HOUSING I~.LF-MENT OF 1991 - The City-initiated amendment to the City General Plan constitutes an update of the Housing Element of 1986 as required by State law. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution. (Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 16532 ADOPTINGTHEHOUSINGRt.RMENTOF1991ASACOMPONENTOFTHE CrrY' GENERAL PLAN Bob Leiter, Director of Planning, presented the staff report. A presentation was made by Joe Casillas, 1060 Calma Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing the Blue Ribbon Committee Housing Element. He stated that the housing element was in three parts: (1) past performance for the previous five years; (2) needs assessment on what was required in the City of Chula Vista m live up to the commitments of what previous Councils had addressed for an Affordable Housing Policy and that there would be some guidelines and implementation procedures; and, (3) where the City was going m go in the next five years. He said the input from the various specters of the community were all included in the document. He commended the staff for their outstanding contribution and support of the Committee. The Committee had been unanimous in their recommendations to Council and all the recommendations were incorporated. Ed Batcheider, Assistant Planner, presented the Comprehensive Action Plan (part three) consisting of the Cinfs goals and objectives and the programs proposed for housing through 1996. In conjunction with the Blue Ribbon Committee, staff decided to take a different organizational approach than in the past and organized all of the City's actions around twelve principle housing objectives. Each one attempted to address a different area of housing provision, rehabilitation versus new construction, fair housing, etc. Projects over fifty units had been a component of City housing since 1981. By practice the 5% low and 5% moderate income had been implemented. It had been concluded that the 10% requirement would be somewhat unreasonable to impose from an economic perspective on the development community in Chula Vista. A lot of the City's affordable housing production under that policy had already been conditioned on development with the 5% low, 5% moderate income practice. Guidelines would define all of the affordability requirements, establish the incentives to exceed the 5% and also look at alternate methods of compliance other than developer-built in the project units such as land set aside, off-site projects and possibly payments of interim fees. The Blue Ribbon Committee had recommended that in addition to specifying the 5% and adding the incentives based program, that the policy be applied to all projects except owner-built single family homes on existing lots of record. In further review of that, staff recommended that it be for projects of ten units. The basic reason for that was the administrative burden in terms of cost and time for both staff and the developer that would be associated to administering agreements on smaller projects. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. John Seymour, 6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite F, San Diego, CA 92122, representing Construction Industry Federation, spoke in opposition to staff recommendation. He submitted his comments in writing. Mayor Nader asked if allowing for narcower streets at transit nodes and the use of non-profits for ownership opportunities for low income were included in the draft element. Mr. Batcheider answered yes. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Malcolm thought the reduction to ten units from fifty units was a substantial change and he did not like it. He said there were a number of areas where he did not think it appropriate to have low moderate income housing. High income housing was needed in downtown Chula Vista. The Council should be able to review and appeal any project that the property owner, staff or Council believed should not have Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 10 low-moderate income housing and needed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He asked staff if they, Council or the developer could deviate from the project whenever they wanted. Mr. Leiter answered yes, report specifically identified alternative methods of providing low income housing, including off-site and 'in lieu oF' fees and other methods. The recommendation from staff was to use ten as the cut off instead of the original fifty units. The Blue Ribbon Committee had proposed using one unit as the cut off. Staff felt that ten was reasonable from an administrative point of view. MSC (Malcolm/Grasser Hotton) to change the number of units from ten back to fifty. Approved 4-1 with Mayor Nader opposed. Councilman Moore stated he did not see anything in the printed material similar to the Foxhill project where the homes were built for first-time, new home buyers which had been very successful. Mr. Leiter said one of the specific items staff wanted to review in the implementation guidelines were flexible design standards. When talking about design it would not be just architecture, but also subdivision design, the use of naPPower streets, and reduced sidewalk requirements. That was not to say it had to occur, but that there should be flexibility to provide affordable housing to waive standards in certain situations. Councilman Moore asked if the 5% referred to single or multiple family units. Mr. Leiter answered it could be either or both. In reviewing the project it was staffs experience that the majority of the low income housing opportunities would be multiple family projects. There should be a review of the land use element designations in certain areas to see whether they provide enough opportunities for that type of development within the larger master plan communities. Councilman Moore said he could not see taxpayers subsidizing single family dwelling units and saying they wanted low income people in a singly family home. The definition of low income people was not necessarily poor people. He asked what low income was currently for a family of four. David Harris, Community Development Specialist, answered that $41,300 was regional medium and low income was 80% of that, which would be about $30,000 for a family of four. Moderate was between 81% and 120% of medium, so it would be from about $30,000 to $45,000 for a family of four. Mayor Nader said he understood that it could be amended at any time by amending the General Plan. He assumed that there would be some strict eligibility and verification requirements because there were some very specific definitions of what constituted low income. He also expected there would be some agreements and requirements written in either to the length of time that one would remain an owner, some son: of shared appreciation arrangement, or some other arrangement through a sponsoring non-profit entity that would assure continued affordability rather than allowing someone to buy at half or less than market value and then turn around and make a large profit right away. Mr. Batcheider said duration requirements were included in the implementation guidelines. Mayor Nader asked if those were minimum requirements set in concrete or if they could go beyond what was in that if adopted by Council. Mr. Batcheider said staff had not established that yet, it needed to be studied further. Mr. Leiter said it was recommended that guidelines to deal with those issues be brought back to Council at a later date. Council was not being asked to adopt specific guidelines on those kinds of issues then. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 11 Councilman Malcolm said his point was order of priorities. They were going to restrict them for ten years or more, but after that time it would all disappear. RESOLLrfION 16532 OP-I.-ERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text wa~ waived, ~ approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS a. Maggie Helton, 162 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, said she was angry because the previous evening Roger Hedgecock, while advertising his program on Channel 39, criticized Chula Vista's expenditure of City dollars on the hostage situation. He criticized the way the Chula Vista Police Department handled the situation with the closure of streets, etc. and the handling of the students by the schools. He also said that he personally favored more "Dirty Hart-y" action. Ms. Helton was against Mr. Hedgecock's approving more violence and requested the Council personally and publicly reprimand Roger Hedgecock for his remarks. She thought it was irresponsible and unconscionable. The Police DeparUnent had done an outstanding job in seeing that no human lives were taken. Councilman Moore said too frequently people with no responsibility mouthed-off and made unwise statements. Councilman Rindone said the City Manager had done a thorough investigation of the potential candidates in the highly competitive field for the police chief position and thought the City Manager's diligence paid off because the City now had the right kind of leader to represent the community. Police Chief Emerson made the saving of lives and protection of the hostages the highest priority. He was quite pleased that Rick Emerson was the police chief and that the law enforcement officers handled themselves the way they had. The incident was resolved with diligence and minimal need for forced action. Councilman Malcolm told Chief Emerson, the first night of the hostage situation, that whatever the Chiefs decisions were he would never second guess him, would stand behind him, and would publicly be there. He could understand why certain people might question the Chief but also understood criticizing members of the press to get more press, more recognition and to drive ratings up. There were a number of shows that he felt he could condemn that had no socially redeeming qualities, but did not think it was the Council's job to be doing that, Mayor Nader thought it was perfectly clear that the Council stood 100% plus behind the Police Department. He felt that Chief Emerson and the force did an outstanding job, as did the San Diego Swat Team. The media or anyone else had a right to express their opinion, that right was protected by the U,S. Constitution. John Goss, City Manager, was told by members of the San Diego Swat Team that they thought the Chula Vista Police Department had done an excellent job. b. Ernest L. Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, stated that he was there to speak on a matter that was especially important to the eider residents of Chula Vista. He lived on a cul-de-sac type street that had 22 homes. He said that SDG&E twice within the month had left notices of electrical service being cut off from midnight to 6:00 a.m. That meant all street lights, signal lights, house lights, and security systems were off. The last time had been on Saturday, February 22, 1992. He called the Police Department and was told it was not on their agenda to patrol that night. He also said that a number of vehicles drove up and down the street during that time and that the occupants had boom boxes blaring. He believed that when SDG&E turned off the power and the residents' security was gone, people were put in danger. He Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 12 thought SDG&E should notify the Police Department when power was being turned off so patrols could take place for the residents' safety and that SDG&E should pay their wages. Mayor Nader directed his staff to write a letter for his signature to SDG&E to request that they notify the Police Depatm~ent when an interruption in senrice was scheduled. He told Mr. Robbins that the City had an ordinance regulating noise from boom boxes. ACTION ITEMS 15, RE,?~LUTION 16525 C_)IJJNG AND GMNG NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ~..I.I~CTION AND REQ~NG THE SAN DIEGO COUN'IY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL FJ.I~CTION TO BE l-r~t.ll~ ON TUESDAY, dUNE 2, 1992, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMrt-I-ING TO THE VOTERS AN ADVISORY QUESTION REGARDING THE BI-NATIONAL AIRPORT AND A CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING RUN-OFF ELECTIONS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - Staff recommends approval of the resolution an appropriating $25,000 from the unappropriated general fund to 100-0170-5202. (Assistant CityAttorneyRudolfandCityClerk) 4/Sth'svote required. Continued from the mee~xg of 2/25/92. City Attorney Boogaard said the draft in front of Council brought up an issue that was not brought up at the last meeting and that was that all Run-Off Elections and minimum majority requirement issues should only apply at a General Municipal Election, not at a Special Election called to fill a vacancy and not at a Run-Off Election. If there was a failure to secure a majority vote at a Special Election called to fill a vacancy under Section 303 of the Charter, the plurality system would be reincorporated. It was not raised at the last meeting because they had not recognized it as being a problem. The language on Page 15-7, Subparagraph G, of the draft implemented that policy choice. Staff recognized the problem while drafting the final resolution and felt Council would not want a majority based system to apply to Special Run-Off Elections to fill a vacancy. Mayor Nader said he was concerned that it was the last opportunity to do any wording for a June ballot. Council had language in front of them previously which he thought the majority of the Council voted to put on the ballot and thought it late to be taking up new issues. City Attorney Boogaard said if the Council wished to have the language as previously directed without considering its applicability to a General or Special Election then the corrective language could be imposed by striking a few words. MS (Malcolm/Rindone) to require a majority vote on all elections, i.e. 80% plus one. Councilman Rindone said that the goal was to encourage favorable support for the Run-Off Election. The one thing they did not want to do was to have issues that were unresolved that could increase people to vote adversely to a Run-Off Election. Mayor Nader thought they had to have the precise wording ready to go for the ballot pamphlet and the Charter Amendment that would be enacted if the people voted yes on that proposal. City Attorney Boogaard said it was not needed for the ballot pamphlet, it was needed to ensure fairness in elections. He thought the ballots specific language could be changed up to 68 days before June. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 13 Beverly Authelet, City Clerk, said on Page 15-3 of the packet there was an election calendar. April 13-22 was when the ballots were actually going to be typeset and proofed, so it had to be before April 13. City Attorney Booguard said there were three types of elections: General Municipal Elections, Run-Off Elections and Special Elections. In the context of a Special Election to fill a vacancy, requiring a Run-Off Election would create a delay of up to six months and it would not make sense in the manner in which the Council proposed it for drafting. It was his impression, because Council wanted a June-November option to require a Special Run-Off Election to fill a vacancy, they could end up waiting many months in order to implement a November Run-Off Election in an even numbered year. Mayor Nader said ff Council did not change that provision of the Charter, the existing provision would remain in effect which would be that there would be no Run-Off in a Special Election. The run-offs would be in Regular Elections. SUBS'HTUTE MOTION: (Nader/Grasser Horton) to accept the City Attorneys recommendation a.s before Council. Councilman Rindone said he had a problem with the motion. The likelihood of having a Special Election was very remote. He supported the Run-Off Elections not only for the Regular Elections but also ff a Special Election should be called by the Council as provided in the Charter and felt it should be there as a safeguard. City Attorney Booguard suggested rewriting item #H. SUBSTITIYrE MOTION WITHDRAWN: CNader/Grasser Hotton) Mayor Nader called a recess at 7:50 p.m. Counc~ reconvened at 7:55 p.m. MSUC CMalcolm/Grasser Ho~ton) to pick Alternative B for ballot language. Councilmen Malcolm and Moore agreed to work with the City Attorney on drafting the language for arguments in support of the Run-Off Election. City Clerk Authelet stated that the last day for the Registrar to receive arguments was 3/23/92, so the language should be presented at the 3/10/92 meeting. Item trailed to wait for the return of the City Attorney. Mayor Nader stated he wanted a system that even if a candidate died or withdrew, the other candidate was not, under any circumstance, deemed an automatic winner. They did not want a candidate to be declared a winner by default without the voters having a say. He suggested the item be trailed to allow time so the City Attorney could draft implementing language. MSC (Moore/lqader) that the item of withdrawal be deferred to the November election. Approved 3-2 with Councilmen Malcolm and Rindone opposed. City Attorney Booguard stated he had written new language for Item H and I and asked that it be read. Curia Griffin, Administrative Secretary, read New #H: "Any person to be elected at a Special Municipal Election called to fill a vacancy pursuant to the provision of Section 303 for any numbered Council Seats, One through Four or the Office of Mayor, for which nomination papers have been filed shall be deemed elected upon receipt of (1) highest number of votes for the particular Seat or the Office of Mayor, and (2) Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 14 a majority of the votes cast for the particular Seat or the Office of Mayor at the election. If no candidate at such Special Election receives both the highest number of votes and a majority of the votes cast, there shall be a Special Run-Off Election to be held on a date set by the Council as soon after the Special Election as practical between the two candidates receiving the highest and second highest number of votes in the Special Election for said seat or the Office of Mayor in order to determine the winner and shall be seated upon certification of the results of the election. The candidates receiving the two highest number of votes at the Special Election shall be resolved by a Special Run-Off Election." City Attorney Boogaard said the last line should have been "By way of clarification, ties among the candidates receiving the two highest number of votes at the Special Election shall be resolved by a Special Run-Off Election." Ms. Griffin continued, New #I: "Any person to be elected at a Special Run-Off Election required under the provision of this section, for which nomination papers have been filed shall be deemed elected upon receipt of the highest number of votes for the particular Seat or the Office of Mayor and shall be seated upon certification of the results of the election. Ties among candidates receiving the two highest number of votes at such Special Run-Off Election shall be resolved by lot." MSC (Malcolm/Moore) to use the City Atrorney's language changes. Apprnved 4-1 with Mayor Nader opposed. Councilman Rindone suggested that "...at Otay Mesa..." be used instead of "...on the Otay Mesa...' and included as part of the amended resolution. RESOLUTION 16525, AS AMENDED, OI'FERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 16. RESOLUTION 16533 APPROVING AN APPROPRIATION OF $14,168 TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 91/92 BUDGET FOR NORMAN PARK CENTER AND PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS; LIPGRADING A RECREATION SUPERVISOR II POSITION TO SENIOR RECREATION SUPERVISOR; ADDING A ONE-TENTH FULL TIME EMPLOYEE RECREATION LEADER, AND A ONE-HALF TIME CUSTODIAN I - On 12/18/90, the City awarded a $2.3 million contract for the renovation of Norman Park Center. Construction began in January 1991 and staff begins the move to the new Center on 2/17/92. When the budget was being prepared for fiscal year 92, the anticipated completion date for the project was not definite. Therefore, the Norman Park Center budget was approved for twelve months of this budget year, for the 5,000 square foot building leased during construction of the new Center. The resolution will approve funding necessary to operate for March through June in fiscal year 92 in the new building. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/Sth's vote required. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN pUIJ.I~.D FROM THE AGENDA 17. REPORT CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF EAST NAPLES STREET FROM HILLTOP DRIVE TO 767 FEET EAST - On 5/28/91, Council directed staff to set up a meeting with property owners directly impacted by this project. The meeting was held on 8/8/91 and at that meeting the Mayor and several residents requested a detailed construction alternatives study and cost estimate. The report summarizes the alternatives considered and staff recommendations. Staff recommends that Alternative No. 3 be adopted which consists of replacing the existing unimproved channel with a concrete lined invert and grass lined side slopes. CDirector of Public Works) Sandra Tumangan, 65 E. Naples, Chula Vista, CA 91911, spoke in favor of staff recommendation. Councilman Malcolm stated that the staff recommendation was to line the bottom of the channel with concrete which would, hopefully, solve the standing water problem and address the concerns. Unfortunately Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 15 the process had taken so long because the Department of Fish and Game decided the City needed a permit from them for stream bed alteration work. MS CMalcolm/Rindone) to accept the staff report and recommendation. Joseph M. Byrne, 1077 Guatay Ave, Chula Vista, CA 91911, spoke in opposition to staff recommendation. He said there had been a lack of communication between the property owners and staff and any future planning should include interested property owners and residents. He was in favor of Alternative Number Councilman Moore asked if there had been any contact with staff in regard to sharing the cost between the property owners and the City. Mr. Byrne answered that the property owners were probably reluctant to pay for it all by themselves. If it included all the homes affected, including the 2,000 homes upstream, then the cost would be about $215. He did not think sharing costs had been proposed to the property owners. Mayor Nader referred to Page 10 and asked if that additional channel would address the otherwise remaining problem of flooding at the low point on Hilltop. Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, answered that as the channel in the rear built up and reached the level that the road, it would allow the water to run out onto Hilltop Drive and down another storm drain system further on without flooding the homes. Councilman Malcolm asked how many of the residents responding to the poll wanted Alternative Number Two and if it paved the bottom on the stream bed. Mr. Swanson answered that out of the eleven property owners who responded to the survey, none were in favor of Alternative Number Two. It diverted the water, it did not change the bottom of the stream bed so there would still be water at the bottom. He believed there would have to be some excavation of the bottom of the channel to make it flow and that the cost was in the estimate. Councilman Malcolm asked if staff felt that the rodent problem and ponding would be eliminated with Alternative Number Three. Mr. Swanson answered yes. In Alternative Number Three the concrete lined bottom would be taken down to an elevation so that all of the side channels would flow. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 18. REPORT APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL OF THE DEFERRAL OF INSTALLATION OP PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT 619 MOSS STREET - Last September, Frank Jimenez applied for a deferral of the requirement to install the public improvements along the frontage of the properly at 619 Moss SUreeL The ensuing investigation by staff revealed there was no basis for the granting of that deferral request, and it was denied. In accordance with Section 12.24.070, the applicant is provided the opportunity m appeal the decision to the Council. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny the request to defer the requirement to install public improvements. (Director of Public Works) John Lippitt, Director of Engineering, presented the staff report. Frank and Sandra Jimenez, 619 Moss Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, spoke in opposition to staff recommendation. He said the reason he was making the addition to his home was for his family. He had four children, ages four through twenty-two. He was doing the work on his own with the help of some friends in the trade and was unemployed. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 16 ) Mrs. Jimenez said they were a close family and that she did not want the children to move out unless they had to. They were trying to build the addition for their eldest son who worked late hours. Since they were building the addition themselves they could just barely pay the cost of the materials. At the beginning of the construction their financial situation was not that bad but it had gotten worse and the construction was now at a stop. They thought they could get a referral with the sidewalk because to the east of them there had been no public improvement. They would like their streets paved, but for each individual homeowner to do that was too hard at present. The City also requested that they use the same contractor that had paved the streets next to the apartments if they did the sidewalks and she did not understand what they meant by that. She asked if they would have to hire the same construction company to pour the concrete. She asked if they had to do the sidewalk if it could be delayed to give them more time, and if there was some way to get a lien or something, and if a lien, then they needed time to save for it. Councilwoman Grasser Horton asked if they had looked into the cost of getting a bond for the property. Mrs. Jimenez thought it would cost approximately $8,000. Warren Hubbard, 213 Landis Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition m staff recommendation, Mayor Nader said his understanding was that if the properly owners took a lien on the property they would not need to take out a loan because they would not have to pay the City until the property was sold. Mr. Lippitt said the lien would not require a cash deposit. As for collecting, the City would call up the lien when the City wanted improvements installed and then they would have to install the improvements. Mayor Nader asked when staff expected that would be. Mr. Lippitt answered that if the area and the neighborhood started developing and improvements were made then that would be an area that staff would trigger. If staff were doing a block act in that area then the lien would be called in. In most cases staff would probably not call it in unless the rest of the people in the neighborhood started developing, there was no expectation as to when that would occur. Councilman Moore said he would have no problem with accepting a lien if the couple agreed and the City had not only oral but written explanation given to the people. He said the family was probably eligible for the Community Housing Improvement Program Loan (CHIP) which also included the public improvements. Councilman Malcolm asked Mr. Jiminez if anyone from the City had referred them to the CHIP program. Mr. Jiminez answered no. MS (Malcolm/Moore) continue item and direct staff to look into eligibility for the CHIP loan program with special deferral on payments for a year. Mayor Nader said that on those types of cases staff should routinely explore the possibility of CHIP eligibility or a lien and present adequate information to the Council prior to consideration. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanixnously. Mayor lqader called a recess at 6:50 pan. Council reconvened at 6:51 p.m. Mayor Nader called a recess at 6:52 p.m. to meet in dosed session. Council reconvened at 7:22 p.m. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 17 BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 19. Letter requesting Council add the Child Care Cornmlnion to the li~t of those involvt~[ in t!~ evaluation process for the CDBG applications - Nancy Cavanagh, Chair, Child Care Commission. By unanimous consent of Council, this item was included with the Consent Calendar, ITKMS pUl.l.g.13 FROM THE CONSENY CAI.FNDAR Items pulled: 7 and 11. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 20. CITY MANAGERS REPORT(S) - None. 21, MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Mayor Nader said he had been contacted by someone in one of the veteren's organizations wanting to know if the City was going to move toward getting one of the veteran's homes that the state was seeking a site for. He had a memo from staff that indicated that in the absence of a Council position, staff was not inclined to pursue the matter any further. He thought Council had taken a position in support of attempting to obtain a state veteran's home in Chula Vista some time ago. He asked staff to commence the following day in carrying out that policy in regard to siting issues. Councilman Malcolm asked that the Council be kept informed on the progress. Bill Ayers, 44 East Mancato, Chula Vista, CA, stated that a decision should be made as soon as possible on the veteran's home. b. Mayor Nader said that in regard to the recent flooding, the staff policy was: (1) sandbags would be provided upon request; (2) City staff would assist those unable to do the sandbagging themselves; (3) emergency shelters would be provided if needed; and, (4) plans were being prepared as part of the CIP project to alleviate two current flood areas. When the public called there would be consistent answers provided. He suggested that the public be informed as to what kind of assistance they could expect from the City during a flooding situation. 22. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Rindone a. Councilman Rindone passed along thank you letters received from Scouts who had attended a Council Meeting which had been a good citizen requirement for the Scouts. b. Councilman Rindone read a rebuttal to a recent Star News editorial. He again confarmed the support of himself and the Council of the previous Council referral to the Charter Review Committee regarding the Mayors salary and fringe benefits. Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 18 \ ADJOURNMENT The City Council met in a closed session at 6:53 p.m. to discuss: Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Arciniaga v. City of Chula Vista Instructions to negotiators regarding personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Closed session adjourned at 7:07 p.m. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on March 10, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk A special joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency was convened at 8:41 p.m. and adjourned at 8:45 p.m.