Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/06/02 MINUTF. S OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 2, 1992 Council Chamber~ 4:16 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROIL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Hotton (arrived at 4:20 p.m.), 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 ,~.T,LF.G[ANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 21, 1992 (Regular Worksession/Meeting) MSC (Rindone/Moore) to approve the May 21, 1992 (Regular Worksession/Meeling3 minutes as pte~e!ll~L Approved 4-0-1 with Councilwoman Grasser Horton absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. The Certificate of Recognition was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Malcolm to Joyce BeardsIcy in appreciation and recognition of her leadership and commitment to excellence during the Norman Park Center renovation. Mrs. Beardsley stated that not too many people have an opportunity to do a job they love, to work with people that were caring, wonderful and who would give more than asked of them. She congratulated Council for appointing the Commission on Aging and stated that over the years that Commission had become a working body, sensitive to all the issues that involved seniors in the Chula Vista community and their input had been monumental. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 7) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text passed and approved unanimously. 5, ~['l'l'ld~q COMMUNICATIONS: None. 6. ORDINANCE 2516 ADOPTINGTHEUNIFORMFIRECODE, 1991EDITIONANDTHEAPPENDIX AND STANDARDS THERETO (second readin~ and adoption) - The 1991 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code shows improvement over the 1988 Edition. Language and clarification have been stressed. Three major amendments have been added. They deal with overspill containment on flammable liquid tanks, permitting certain above ground flammable liquid tanks and regulating storage of empty wooden or plastic pallets. Other proposed amendments are those that have been approved by Council over the past seven years. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Fire Chief) Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 2 7. RESOLL1T[ON 16645 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECLrFION OF THE FIRST AMENDMEIVr OF THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH JORI.EN ENTERPRISES FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROPOSED GOLF RESORT HOTEL -On 4/23/91, Council directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Joelen Enterprises for development of a golf resort hotel. Council also requested Joelen Enterprises to prepare a market feasibility study to submit with the proposed ENA. The original deadline of 120 days for these two items was extended by Council to November 1991. On 11/26/91, a Preliminary Market Feasibility Study was accepted by Council and an ENA was approve& The ENA was for a period of 120 days (through 4/8/92) with the City Manager authorized to extend by 60 days. If a longer extension was found to be necessary, staff was directed to return to Council within 60 days of the ENA's expiration. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Pulled from Consant Calendar. Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that one of her concerns was that the project kept being postponed. It was being delayed to provide time for Rick Engineering to conduct a topographical survey to identify flood elevations. She asked staff why they waited three months before taking it to Council and why they waited until now to start getting the survey done. Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, responded that the original agreement provided for the initial environmental study to begin by 4/8/92 and that had occurred. The initial study responses showed that there were some environmental concerns, specifically traffic, flooding and noise. As a result, those studies were ongoing. Joelen Enterprises had authorized both of those studies at their cost. It was staffs recommendation that it be extended so that those results could come forward and be factored into the proforma analysis which had been required during the initial ENA. Councilwoman Grasser Horton thought Joelen Enterprises would give the City a quality product but was concemed about the economic viability of the project. RESOLUTION 16645 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-2 with Councilwoman Grasser Horton and Mayor Nader opposed, 8. RESOLLrrION 16646 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR OXFORD STREET STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FROM SECOND AVENUE TO DEL MAR AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - The Director of Public works received sealed bids on 5/6/92. The project is intended to provide flooding relief and to extend and improve the storm drain system on Oxford Street east of Second Avenue to Del Mar Avenue by the installation of enforced concrete pipes and street inlets. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development) 9. RESOLUTION 16647 APPROVING FIRST AMENDMFIqT TO AGRF. I~MEaNT WITH THE ~RNIA DEPARTMF2qT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC SIGNALS IMPROVEMENT AT INTERSTATE ROUTE 5 AND PALOMAR STRF~T AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECLrYE SAID AGRRRMENT - On 7/17/90, Council approved a cooperative agreement with the State Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to install traffic signals at the I-5 and Palomar Street interchange. The improvements will also include ramp widening and resttiping. The cooperative agreement is to terminate upon completion of the project or on 6/30/92, whichever is earlier. Construction of the interchange signals and road work is scheduled for early July 1992. CalTrans is requesting to extend the expiration date of the cooperative agreement to 6/30/93 or to the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 3 10. REPORT RATIFICATION OF NATURE INTERPKETIVE CENTER VOLUNTEER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BAYFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUST - At their meeting on 3/24/92, the Board of Directors of the Chula Vista Bayfront Conservancy Trust created a new Board seat for a volunteer from the Nature Center. Following Council recommendation, that member is elected by the volunteers and raid by the Council. At their regular meeting on 5/16/92, the Nature Interpretive Center Volunteers elected Docent, Susan Fuller, as their representative by a clear majority. Staff recommends that the Counc~ ratify the elected Docent, Susan Fuller, m serve as the Representative of the Volunteers of the Nature Center on the Board of Directors of the Bayfront Conservancy Trust. (Executive Director, Bayfront Conservancy Trust) 11. REPORT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2685 TO TRANSFER EXCESS STATE ROUTE 54 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE COUNCIL OF PlLIPINO-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, INC. On 5/12/92, Council considered a resolution from the Counc~ of Pilipino* American Organizations of San Diego County, Inc. (COPAO) requesting Council support for Assembly Bffi (AB) 2685. Sponsored by Assemblyman Peter Chacon, this bill would transfer ti~e to approximately 20,000 square feet of excess State Route 54 fight-of-way to COPAO for the development of a Pilipino-American multi-cultural community center. The Council referred the request to staff for review and report. Staff recommends that Counc~ support AB 2685, provided the Bill is amended to allow the site to be used as an administrative facility for this organization. (Director of Planning) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCP-~ 12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.20 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE CARDROOM ORDINANCE - At the meeting of 4/28/92, Council received a staff report and heard public testimony related to several proposed changes on the Cardroom Ordinance. The subject proposal was submitted by representatives of Chula Vista's cardroom operators. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to prepare draft revisions of the Cardroom Ordinance for Council review and public comment. In order to complete the report on this subject, staff recommend~ that the public hearing be con~lued to 6/23/92. (Police Chie0 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. MOTION: (Nader) to continue the public hearing to 6/23/92. Councilman Malcolm suggested that since neither the Mayor nor he would be at that meeting, the hearing be continued to July. Councilman Rindone reminded Council that there was a meeting scheduled for 6/30/92 to replace the meeting the second week in July. MSUC 0Malcolm/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to 6/30/92. 13. PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PEILMIT FOR A HEAD START CHH.D DEVELOPMFANT PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AT 345 FIFTH AVENUE IN THE R-3 ZONE - Episcopal Community Services is requesting the Conditional Use Permit in order to operate the preschool program for 124 children (62 in the a.m., 62 in the p.m.) in the existing church facility. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. (Director of Planning) Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 4 RESOLUTION 16648 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AT 345 FIFFH AVENUE IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Gene Me~ino 1470 Seacoast Dr., No. B, Imperial Beach, CA 91932, Director of Youth Services for Episcopal Community Services, South Bay Head Start, spoke in favor of staff recommendation. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 16648 OP'~F~D BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously, 14. PUBLIC HEARING DRC-92-O4; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A FREESTANDING SIGN DESIGN FOR THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT AT 830 BROADWAY, PACIFIC SIGN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY- The Design Review Committee and Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a freestanding sign design to identify the business establishment located at 830 Broadway. However, both the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission approved a scale down version of the same sign design to ensure proper addition of the proposed freestanding sign with other signs within the immediate commercial neighborhood. The Council considered the matter and voted unanimously to deny the appeal and endorse the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee action. However, the applicant did not receive proper notification of the hearing. Consequently, the item has been resubmitted for reconsideration. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 16649 RESCINDING RESOLLrFION NO. 16607 AND DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING THE F~F-F_qTANDING SIGN HEIGHT AND COPY AREA RECOIVIIVIENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHIMENT LOCATED AT 830 BROADWAY 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. Mayor Nader asked if the applicant had been notified. Bob Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that notification had again been mailed to the sign applicant, as well as the company. He was surprised that the applicant was not present because they had requested the reconsideration. He suggested continuation of the item so that staff could find out what happened. Councilman Moore asked if the sign presently in place was a fairly new one. Mr. Leiter responded no, the existing sign was being abated under the Ci~s sign abatement program so it was at least seventeen years old. He stated that the applicant had arrived. The public hearing was declared reopened. Terry Dilgard, with Pacific Sign Construction and representing Firestone, spoke in opposition to staff recommendation. He stated that his competitors were getting bigger signs. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 5 Councilman Moore asked staff for the rationale of signs recently being approved. He understood that there were three things looked at: size of lot, the frontage of the lot, and the footprint on the bu~ding. He asked if that was a truism. Mr. Leiter answered yes those were all factors in deciding what the maximum enti~ement was under the zoning ordinance. In addition, staff looked at other signs in the area and looked at any specific constraints on that site, deciding on the actual size of signage that was permitted through the design review process. Councilman Moore said that the speaker said his competitors were getting bigger signs and asked what the rationale of their size lots, frontage and footprints of the buildings were in that area. He stated that staff needed to let people know that by saying "maximum" did not always mean they would get the maximum height. Mr. Leiter did not have the details of the other cases but did know that they would have all been entitled up to 35 feet in height and the specifics would have been looked at in each individual case. He thought the primary difference was looking at signs in the surrounding area. Staff was currently working on a revision of the sign ordinance to clarify maximum height and also to give examples of acceptable sign approvals in certain circumstances. Staff wanted to get it to the point where the standards were more objective and based on formulas rather than based on doing surveys in each individual case. Councilman Rindone said that on page 14-2, the first paragraph of the analysis, staff presented the argument '...not consistent with prior Design Review Committee actions in promoting lower profile and less obtrusive signage along Broadway and other major commercial corridors..." which provided a basis of support for staffs recommendation. He asked when Mr. Dilgard's competitors signs were approve& Mr. Leiter answered one was in 1990 and the other in 1991. Councilman Rindone thought there would be more credence if approval of the signs were not so recent. MS (Malcolm/Nader) to refer back to Design Review to see if an acceptable sign can be designed that would meet their approval. SUBSIITtJTE MOTION: (Moore/Rindone) to approve staff recommendation contingent upon the fact that the review of competitors signs and rationale for difference in size and height are appropriate and if their are appropriate then the condition stands and ff they can not agree then it would come back to Council Approved 3-2 with Councilman Malcolm and Mayor Nader opposed. 1S. PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY CENTER AT 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE IN THE R-3 ZONE - Victory Outreach wishes to operate a drug and alcohol rehabilitation and recovery center for a maximum of 60 adult men. The center must be licensed by the State of California. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. (Director of Planning) RESOLLrrION 16650 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY HOME AT 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT Councilwoman Grasser Holton asked if staff had contacted the police departments where there were other existing facilities. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 6 Martin Miller, Staff Planner, answered staff had attempted to get information from police departments in other cities. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the subject matter, the police departments were not always willing to give the information. Staff did discuss it with the City's police department and had a memo from them addressing that particular issue. Mayor Nader asked that the memo from the police department be made available m Council right away. Mr. Leiter said it was an internal memo to Captain Bourgeois from Barbara Brookover, Crime Analyst, indicating that they reviewed the proposal and to obtain a general idea of crime in the area surrounding the proposed site a 0.2 mile radius search was conducted from the location for the period of 11/1/91 through 5/1/92. There were not many incidents within the radius searched and their conclusion was that the crime statistics did not show a problem in the area that might be accelerated by the placement of the Victory Outreach Center. He said no other data was available from other police departments. Councilwoman Grasser Horton asked how Victory Outreach received some of their referrals from the court system. Mr. Miller responded that there were a few referrals from the court system. Given the circumstance of a particular case, a judge may determine that a person should be referred to Victory Outreach. He stated that the applicant was present and could go into more detail on that particular subject. Councilwoman Grasser Hotton said that on page 15-17 it described the types of persons not accepted into the rehab program and it named four aspects but left out persons with police records. Mr. Miller referred that to the applicant. Councilwoman Grasser Horton asked how Victory Outreach advertised their program to the community or outside the community and why Victory Outreach was unable to get a permit from the state on some of their other locations. Mr. Miller said that staff was unaware as to how they would advertise. The information staff received was that the reasons Victory Outreach could not get licensing from the state dealt directly with the type of facility. It did not have anything to do with the program itself. If the facility did not get clearance from the police department it could not be licensed. Councilwoman Grasser Horton asked what the percentage was of Chula Vista residents versus non-residents that would be occupying the facility. Mr. Miller said the facilities were set up for men and women but they were separated, there were no coed facilities. Of the total residents, approximately 80 at present, approximately 8 were from Chula Vista with a little over half being men. He guessed 10% of the total number were from Chula Vista with maybe five or six of those being men. That was information supplied to staff just prior to the meeting. Councilwoman Grasser Horton asked why staff did not feel an EIR would be significant given that it may bring about neighborhood deterioration or a high crime level. Mr. Leiter responded that staff did an environmental review of the project and based on their review of the application itself and the location of the facility, did not see any direct evidence that those kinds of impacts would occur and made a determination that there would be no significant environmental affects. That was a determination that staff made that was subject to review by the decision makers. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 7 Councilman Malcolm stated that an EIR should be done when there was controversy. He did not think that the project, at that point, had the proper information before Council. It should be sent back to staff to do an EIR and to get letters from the police departments so Council and the public could make an informed decision. There were a lot of questions that needed to be answered. Mayor Nader stated that it had been indicated that the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) made no recommendation although they did have a quorum. One of the members had a conflict of interest and could not participate. The Council's advice had always been that when those situations arose that the person be relieved of the conflict and allowed or required to participate. He asked why that procedure was not followed at the RCC. Mr. Leiter responded that he did not know if that was a decision the Commission had made or if they had received staff advice. Mayor Nader suggested that a one paragraph memo on the rule of necessity be sent to the commissionere so that does not occur. He had been told by staff that day that approximately 300 letters had been received on that item. He noted that copies had not been provided to Council. He asked staff if a large number of letters had been received. Mr. Miller responded that at last count there were approximately 261 letters in support of the application. Of those, approximately 80 were form letters that were individually signed. There were also a total of 66 pages of petitions with approximately 480 signatures. Counting all letters and petitions together there were approximately 745 signatures in support. In opposition, there was a petition with 26 signatures and 6 letters for a total of approximately 32 signatures in opposition. He said there had been mention of the letters in the staff report. Mayor Nader stated that when citizens were trying to communicate with the Council he wanted access to that communication. He said there were a few letters in their packet but did not know why those had been selected from that quantity. Knowing how many wrote letters on each side was somewhat helpful but what was more helpful was to know the quality of the points and facts presented by the citizens in that material. He expected more to be done to make sure that Council had those letters. He asked if there had been any police department recommendation. Mr. Leiter answered that staff did not have any other written recommendation other than the memo to Captain Bourgeois which staff interpreted as stating the departmenCs position. Mayor Nader asked if in the conditions proposed by staff there were any conditions regarding security. Mr. Leiter responded there were on page 15-35, condition number 2, which basically stated that all residents with the facility shall be under 24 hour supervision both on and off site. Mayor Nader asked if there was any regulation as to the amount of security or the quality of security. Mr. Leiter stated it operated in conjunction with regulations that the staff imposed which does set specific staffing requirements. He said that the screening process was not covered in the staffs conditions, it was covered in the conditions set by the state. Mr. Miller said it was his understanding from conversations with Ron Beavers of the State Drug and Alcohol Program that the state evaluated each program application. The application was presently in Sacramento and, as yet, the state had not imposed any conditions. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 8 Mr, Leiter said the rules set forth for the project were conditions of the conditional use permit and those included descriptions of the screening process. In addition, the state regulated that through their own operation and that was basically the approach staff took to the condition applicability. Attachment 'A' established the rules for the men's home and those were incorporated as conditions. Mayor Nader said that the conditions should have been carefully constructed with an eye toward public safety and answers should have been ready and in the staff report. Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that in one of the letters received there was a reference made to a sign already on site advertising Victory Outteach and asked if that were true. She also stated there was also a comment that during the time that Victory Outreach had been in the area, and it may have been a coincidence, there had been two grand thefts and one petty theft, totaling approximately $3,100, and nine burglaries totaling $11,600. She asked if staff was aware of that. Mr. Miller said there had been a sign placed on site a number of months ago before Victory Outreach applied for the conditional use permit. Staff heard about the sign, called them and requested that the sign be removed immediately which they did. Staff informed them that the sign was a violation of the zoning ordinance. Staff had not noticed any other signs on the numerous site visits made. If there had been a sign posted in the last day or so staff was not aware of that. Staff was not aware of the burglaries. Mr. Leiter stated that staff could ask the police department to give Council a follow-up report on the burglaries. Councilman Malcolm asked the City Attorney if it was his legal opinion that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not needed. Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, stated that the public controversy rule was set forth in the guidelines. If there was a strong public controversy about an environmental impact, not just in general, but about an affect on the physical environment that then tipped the scales in favor of doing an EIR instead of a negative declaration. If Council wished to consider the public controversy around the item they then should focus on what aspect of environment they felt that staff was incorrect about. Many issues that evening had been brought up about crime, the nature of the operation affecting the health of the participants, the transportation program and possible neighborhood deterioration were all things that the Council had evidence about that they may feel sufficed to constitute what may be a significant environmental impact. Enough, at least, with the public controversy to justify requiring the study which staff readily admitted was inconsistent with their conclusion, but never the less within the power of the Council to conclude. He also pointed out that there were zoning code imposed findings, in addition to the CEQA findings, that Council had to conclude on in order to grant the conditional use permit CCUP). This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. The following people spoke in opposition to staff recommendation: Gerald Robbins, 20 Second Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing neighbors of north Chula Vista. Harriet Action, 265 Nixon Pl., Chula Vista, CA 91910. Herman and Bertie PeacheL 202 Nixon Pl., Chula Vista, CA 91910, did not speak but wanted their opposition noted. Lowell Batterton, 209 Nixon PI., Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing neighbors of north Chula Vista. Jerilyn Nol~ Brown, 250 Shirley, Chula Vista, CA 91910, did not speak but wanted her opposition noted. Carolyn Cruse, 156 "D" St., Chula Vista, CA 91910. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 9 Marlain Robbins, 20 Second Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910, did not speak but wanted her opposition noted. Tad Yano, 211 Bayview Way, Chula Vista, CA 91910, did not speak but wanted his opposition noted. Charles Bradley, 29 Second Ave,, Chula Vista, CA 91910, representing residents of the neighborhood, Ted Bell, 111 N. Second Ave., Chula Vista, CA, representing KOA. James Schroeder, 227 "D" Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910. Zeno Ghougassian, 74 Las Flores Dr., Chula Vista, CA, did not speak and may have left because there was an announcement that there was going to be a recess. Leticia Bradley, 29 Second Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910. Donald Stell, 210 Sea Vale St., Chula Vista, CA 91912. The following people spoke in favor of staff recommendation: Tony Guzman, 590 Fir St., San Diego, CA 92104, representing Victory Outreach Church. Joe Blanco, 590 Fir St., San Diego, CA 92104, representing Victory Outreach Church. Tomas Rodriguez, 590 Fir St., San Diego, CA 92104, representing Victory Outreach Church, did not speak but wanted his support noted. Diane Messier, 12732 Castle Ct., Lakeside, CA, representing Victory Outreach Church, did not speak but wanted her support noted. Ernesto Valdiebieso, 548 Palomar St., Apt. 14, Chula Vista, CA, representing Victory Outreach Church, did not speak but wanted his support noted. Eva Vargos, 5104 1/2 Voltaire St., San Diego, CA 92107, representing Victory Outreach Church, did not speak but wanted her support noted. Lucy Dion, 4646 Zion Ave., No. D1, San Diego, CA 92126, did not speak but wanted her support noted. Jeff Cota, representing the owner of the property. J. R. Chantengco, Chantengco Realty, 376 Canyon Ridge Dr., Bonita, CA 91902. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Moore stated they were talking about a drug and alcohol recovery program that included 60 residents with law enforcement referrals. The majority of the 21 member staff would be former residents of that program. Residents averaged 6 to 12 months on site but it also called for revisitations, weekly in the beginning and then spread out over a year until they graduated from the program. There was another small recovery program that shared the site. With dropouts there were vacancies and with vacancies there would be others coming on the site. That would bring a large number of strangers with records of some sort to that single family neighborhood. The director stated that this would be the largest or one of the largest within San Diego County and were reviewing the management of such an establishment. MOTION: (Nader) to refer this matter back to staff with specific directions: (1) to redraft or add conditions that would address concerns that had been expressed; (2) to take a serious look at whether the size of this facility is compatible with the neighborhood it is proposed for, (3) look into other potential siting options within the City and bring those options before Council, including the east portion of the City;, and, (4) get a complete evaluation, report and recommendation from the Chula Vista Police DeparlmenL Motion died for lack of second. Councilman Rindone thought they owned it to the citizens to finalize the item that evening. MS (Kindone/Grasser Horton) to reject the conditional use permit and hope that Victory Outreach will have an opportunity to site somewhere else out of Chula Vista since the number did not warrant that in our neighborhoods. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 10 \ AMF2qDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Malcolm) m deny the CUP, but direct staff to work with Victory Outreach and it~ representative~ to find a more appropriate site for an appropriately scaled project. Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that she would have a hard time supporting the amendment, but would support the motion. She did not think the burden should be put on staff to find a facility for Victory Outreach, that was up to their organization and their real estate representatives. She felt that staff understood what the Council was leaning toward. VOTE ON AMF2qDMENT: failed 2-3, with Councilwoman Grasser Horton, Coune~man Moore and Coun~,'lman Rindone opposed. Councilman Moore stated that staff was always available to assist anyone that went to a department, but to what depth was not for the Council to dictate in most cases. He thought staff would do what staff should do when people asked for assistance. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS a. Jerry Forbes, 325 Oxford, No. 4, Chula Vista, CA 91911, stated that a year prior, Council had directed that a study be conducted and the feasibility looked into on an extension of Banner Avenue into the Orange Avenue intersection and connecting with Second Avenue. He received a copy of the report that was sent to Council dated 5/12/92. He said the report was really not the result of a study but more of a regurgitation of studies that were conducted anywhere from twelve years ago to the last three or four years. The reason that it was not feasible was because someone in the Engineering Department allowed the land that was once the connection between Banner Avenue and Orange Avenue to be declared vacant properBr and it was claimed, fenced off and made into a parking lot. Now it was not cost effective to reacquire the land to put the street back in where it belonged. One of the things the report did say was that they did believe there was a necessity for an adequate pedestrian throughway and one that met required specifications. He asked that it still be looked into. He stated it was a safety issue. Mayor Nader asked staff if they had evaluated the cost in the last year of some signalization or a left turn pocket at the Orange Avenue intersection. Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, answered that staff had not. Mayor Nader asked if staff needed direction from Council to provide an information report to the Council along that line. Mr. Swanson answered no and confirmed that it would be done administratively. b. William Claycomb, 457 Delaware St., Imperial Beach, CA. 91932, representing uSave Our Bay, Inc.', which was just forming, stated that the proposed Chula Vista Nautical Activity Center would have a very serious environmental impact. He read a paper titled "Time Is About To Run Out For San Diego Bay.' Minute~ June 2, 1992 Page 11 ACTION ITEMS 16. RESOLUTION 16598 AMENDING THE COUNCIL POLICY ON SEWER SEMVICE TO PROPERTY NOT WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY - Council Policy 570-02 was created to allow County residents near existing City sewers who were not contiguous to the City boundary, and thus not able to annex, to connect to City sewers. The policy states that any County resident wishing sewer service from a City sewer main must enter into an agreement with the City to not sign a written protest petition, or otherwise file a formal written or oral protest of annexation at any annexation proceedings. In a previous action, a resident of El Rancho Vista had requested annexation and sewer service was denied that service because the area opposed annexation. Staff has received several requests for sewer service from County residents and, in light of the policy and past actions, believe that the poiicy needs to be reviewed. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 5/19/92. Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that due to a possible conflict of interest, she would be abstaining. Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, presented the staff report. Mayor Nader asked staff to comment on the proposed alternative in Mr. Roark's letter and ff it was factually accurate that an eight inch sewer could be run up Proctor Valley Road from the undisputed County sewer south of Jonel Way. Mr. Swanson responded that it was feasible but much more costly to the County Water Authority. The City's line was in the road and it would cause a parallel line for some distance to be installed. The County Water Authority did not control the sewers and he had not discussed it with their attorney. The County Water Authority was attempting to purchase right-of-way and get an easement from Mr. Roark. City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be at the County's expense that the sewer line would have to be connected to the Spring Valley connection, even though they did not provide the sewer service they would have to pay for reconnecting. Mr. Swanson said that the problem was that the County Water Authority's line was severing Mr. Roark's and Mr. Jensen's leach fields. Mayor Nader was unclear as to whether incurring that expense was an administerial duty on the part of the County or whether it was a discretionary choice. City Attorney Boogaard had not evaluated the County Water Authority's legal case, but it seemed that they could either connect to the County's section of the sewer, take the entire property, or provide a new leach field. Mr. Swanson said a new leach field was not physically possible according to the County Health Department City Attorney Boogaard stated, it seemed to him, they would pursue the least expensive alternative. He asked how many feet of parallel line would be required for the solution identified in Mr. Roark's letter. Mr. Swanson did not know because he had just received the letter. RESOLUTION 16598 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Councilwoman Grasser Hotton abstaining. Minutes June 2, 1992 Page 12 BOARD ANDCOMIMISSIONRECOM1VIENDATIONS None ITEMS pULI.ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 7. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 17. tlrr~' MANAGERS REPORTfS) a. John Goss, City Manager, reminded Council that there would be a CIP tour on Saturday, 6/6/92, at 8:00 a.m. and Council was to meet at the Central Fire Station. On Tuesday, 6/9/92, at 4:00 p.m. would be Council's last budget workshop. 18. MAYOR'S REPORTfS) - None. 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. to a CIP Tour on Saturday, June 6, 1992 at 8:00 a.m., then to a City Council Meeting/Budget Worksession on Tuesday, June 9, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, and then to a Regular City Council Meeting on June 9, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, with a Budget Session scheduled for 7:00 p.m. A joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 8:28 p.m. and adjourned 8:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Ca etary