Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/06/09 MINUTF~ OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 9, 1992 Counc~ Chambers 6:14 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Hot'ton, 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. pI.RF',GE OF AIJ.RGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 19, May 28, and June 1, 1992 MSUC (Moore/Nader) to approve the minutes of May 19, May 28, and June 1, 1992 a~ pre~te~L 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 5a, 8 and 9) BALANCE OF THE CONSKNT ~AR OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRI'FI-Id~I COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter requesting Council consideration of converting the Royal V'mta Hotel to a low cost senior citizen homing project. Dick Kau, Dick Kau Land Company, 3404 Bonita Road, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that Mr. Kau's request be referred to staff to analyze the elements indicated. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of June 16, 1992. b. Lettar of resignation from the International Friendship Cowmission - John D. Rittenhouse. It is recommended that Mr. Rittenhouse's resignation be accepted with regret and a letter of appreciation be sent. c. Letter requesting change to proposed plan for the improvements of Broadway between 'F' to Streets -Tom Davies, Broadway Business Association, 4501 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff to address in the report that will be coming back to the Council on the potential use of the Senior Information and Referral Center as a site for a City museum or alternative purposes. 6. RESOLUTION 16652 AUTHORIZING CONDITIONAL TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF RANCliO DEL REY PARKWAY ON SEPTEMBER 19-20 FOR AN ORANGE CRATE DERBY -The Bonita Orange Crate Derby Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 2 Committee is requesting Council to authorize a temporary street closure and grant permission to conduct an Orange Crate Derby on Rancho Del Rey Parkway on Saturday and Sunday, September 19 and 20, ].992. Staff recommends approval of the resolution subject to staff conditions. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 7.A. RESOLUTION 166S3 AMENDING THE UTILITY UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROGRAM AND BF-F-e;TABLISHING THE PRIORITY LISTING OF PROPOSED UTILITY UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECTS - On 11/12/91, Counc~ accepted a report on the City's Utility Underground Conversion Program and approved a revised list of proposed utility underground conversion projects. Action will advance the priority of Otay Valley Road between Oleander Avenue and Brandywine Avenue and extend its limits from Oleander Avenue to Nirvana Avenue, Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) B. RESOLUTION 16654 CAIJJNG A PUBHC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHEI'HF_~ PUBLIC NECESSITY, HFALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF A UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT ALONG OTAY VAIJ.R'Y ROAD FROM OLFANDER AVENUE TO NIRVANA AVENUE - On 6/3/92, the Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) meeting was held to consider the proposed boundary of an Underground Utility District for conversion of existing overhead utilities along Otay Valley Road from Oleander Avenue to Nirvana Avenue. The District is recommending this in conjunction with the Otay Valley Road Street Improvement Project between 1-805 and Nirvana Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 8. RESOLUTION 16655 APPROVING AGPF-RMENT TO PURCHASE LAND FROM OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK FOR A NEW CITY CORPORATION YARD AND APPROPRIATING FDNDS - One of the approved projects in the Public Facilities DIF is the building of a new Corporation/Transit Yard. The original plan was to site the Yard in Sunbow II. Recently, an alternate site became available in the Otay Rio Business Park. Council approved the purchase of this site, and staff has negotiated a purchase agreement with the owner. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/Sth's vote required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of June 30, 1992. 9. RESOLUTION 16656 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OVIOU) WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO TO ESTABLISH A JOINT PLANNING PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF THE FF2~ON WESTERN PROPERTIES PROJECT - The purpose of the MOU is to provide a process whereby both jurisdictions agree to create and process a single master plan for the Fenton Western properties in the Otay River Valley acceptable to both jurisdictions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of June 30, 1992. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None scheduled. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS a. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, requested that the Planning Commission and staff study a bike lane for Palomar Street on the northbound shoulder of the road. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 3 Mayor Nader informed Ms. Butler that there was currently a Council referral regarding bike lanes in the City and referred Ms. Butler's comments to staff for review. City Manager Goss stated that staff was currently studying the entire community regarding bike lanes, signs, etc. He was uncertain as to whether they were studying that specific area at the time. b. Genevieve Volland and John Volland were not present when called to speak. ACTION ITEMS 10. REPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PEILM1T STKEAMLINING RECOMMENDATIONS - In August 1991, the Chula Vista Economic Development Commission (EDC) established a subcommittee to develop recommendations to sU'eamline the City's development review process in order to create a user-friendly environment for business development. The goal was to minimize costs and delays for business applicants, thereby offering a positive incentive for job- creating and revenue-generating commercial and industrial development in Chula Vista. The EDC subcommittee met for seven months, and the report identifies twenty-five recommendations which the EDC is requesting Council adopt. The EDC recommends: 1) Council accept the report; 2) Council consider staff comments relating to each EDC recommendation; and 3) Council direct staff to return with an implementation program and schedule based upon recommendations which Council wishes to pursue. (Director of Community Development, Director of Planning, Director of Building and Housing) Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a review of the establishment of the Subcommittee and the process followed. Staff was now requesting direction from Council on the work program and the implementation schedule. Patty Davis, Chair of the Subcommittee, reviewed: 1) the history and goals of the Subcommittee, 2) design and sign review, and 3) customer service. Penny Allen, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, reviewed the following: 1) the goals of the EDC in the review process and discretionary land use permit approvals, 2) boards/commissions/committees dealing with land use, and 3) operating impacts of the EDC recommendations. She requested that Council adopt all recommendations and therefore send a message that Chula Vista was a good place to do business. Mayor Nader felt the bulk of the report was outstanding and the EDC and Subcommittee had done a service to the City. He expressed concern that the granting of conditional use permits without the approval of the Council could have detrimental effects upon the community. He questioned whether there was a delineation as to when a CUP would receive administrative approval, go to the Planning Commission, or when it would come to Council. Ms. Allen responded that non-controversial items would be granted by right if they met all requirements, less controversial would require administrative review, and if an item was brought before the Planning Commission, Council would be automatically notified in order to have an opportunity to request review. All CUP's would require public notification and if a protest was received it would automatically require administrative review. The EDC was providing broad guidelines and preferred that their recommendations be referred to staff for further delineation and then back to the EDC for review. Councilman Malcolm felt the document was broad in its coverage and did not address specific uses. He recommended that Council approve the report conceptually and refer the document to staff to develop recommendations for those uses and then have it brought back to Council for approval. He questioned Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 4 whether Council wanted to turn over some of their authority to the boards/commissions/committees and/or staff. Mayor Nader questioned whether the EDC had specific criteria in mind. He felt staff needed specific direction by Council. He questioned whether the Subcommittee discussed the economic pro's and con's on Otay Valley and Town Centre PAC's. He hoped there would be a specific recommendation regarding streamlining staff as well as board/commission/committee review of the permitting process. Ms. Allen responded that public comments were received but were anonymous. Councilman Moore felt the report was somewhat controversial and questioned whether the establishment of a committee including one member of Council, several members of the EDC, staff, and representatives of the business community to work on the implementation schedule would be beneficial. Ms. Allen stated that this was one step in the process and the EDC would welcome a referral from Council. They felt there were a lot of areas that needed to be looked a critically. Councilman Rindone congratulated the Commission and Subcommittee on their diligence and tenacity and expressed his appreciation. He stated that recommendation #10 regarding the streamlining of the appeal process for design review and sign review bothered him. If the recommendation was adopted it would eliminate a major function of the Planning Commission. He questioned whether it could be solved by having the Planning Commission as the final authority rather than the Council for appeal of signs and questioned why there was a 5-6 week delay. He suggested that when the report was referred back to staff and the EDC that they focus on why there was a delay regarding item #10. He felt the lowest level was where the decision should be made. Ms. Davis responded that the EDC felt that the citizens wanted to appeal to their elected officials venus an appointed body. They did not know why there was a delay but felt the new Design Review Manual may help to process the requests faster. Lee Wheeland, 1630 Walnut Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91911, representing the Montgomery Planning Commission spoke in opposition to the recommendations, She stated that the Montgomery PAC had not seen the final report and felt they should have had the opportunity to do so. Councilman Rindone stated it was his understanding that the Montgomery PAC had received all information related to them but had not been forwarded the entire report. Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, responded that the EDC report and the 25 recommendations were provided to the Montgomery PAC. She felt Ms. Wheeland was referring to the staff report presented to Council. Mayor Nader noted that Ms. Davis was in agreement with Ms. Dye. Ms. Wheeland felt there had been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes and that there were flaws in the report. The report had already been approved by the EDC on May 5th before input had been received from the Montgomery PAC. She agreed there were problems and delays but questioned the statistics presented and she did not feel it was a legitimate sample. She did not feel it was the various boards/commissions/committees clogging the process but the reports required and extensive use of consultants. She recommended opposition to the report as she did not feel the Montgomery PAC had received a 'fair shake'. Their opposition was only to those recommendations pertaining to the Montgomery PAC. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 5 Mayor Nader questioned whether there was opposition to the phasing out of the Southwest Project Area Committee and the Montgomery PAC take over their duties. Ms. Wheeland responded that it was her understanding that the two PAC's were to be merged. If the Southwest PAC was phased out the Montgomery PAC would assume their duties. She stated all members of the PAC felt they were upholding their charge and could not agree to any lessening of that charge. Mayor Nader felt the Montgomery PAC was doing a good job on the whole but felt they should be careful in assuming that any change in a commission or department was raising a question of the propriety of the commission or departments actions. In that review, Council should avoid being offensive or defensive. The two recommendations he would like removed for discussion would be items #4 and #15. Councfiman Rindone stated he had already expressed his concerns on item #10 and felt comfortable with the other 24 recommendations. Councilmembers Malcolm and Moore stated they did not have any specifics to address. Counefiwoman Grasser Horton stated she shared the same concerns Councilman Rindone expressed on item #10 and had other concerns regarding item #19. MSUC (lqader/Rindone) to approve the report and refer to staff, the Economic Development Comrni~sion~ and any other specifically impacted board/commission/committee the entire report, except items #4, #10, #18, and #19. Councilman Moore referred to item #14, and felt the roles and responsibilities should be clarified byformal action. They should not only be reviewed for land use boards/commissions/committees but for all boards/commissions/committees. MS CMalcoLm/Nader) to delete item Councilman Malcolm stated the reason was because a development such as EastLake utilized ranges of development where extra effort was required to reach the highest ranges. He felt those decisions should be by Council authority. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Counc~woman Grasser Hotton referred to the work load staff and Council received and felt the Planning Commission was aware of the public needs regarding item #10. She preferred to see it resolved at the Planning Commission rather than Council. Councilman Malcolm stated if a decision was made by the Design Review Committee it could be heard the next week by the Planning Commission. The report given to the Design Review Committee could also be utilized for the Planning Commission. He felt rules needed to be established regarding the process to eliminate the delay. Mr. Leiter informed Council that the ordinance required that an appeal of a DRC action by the Planning Commission had a ten day mailing notice prior to the hearing. MSUC (Nader/blalcohn) refer item #10 to the Economic Development Cowrni~sion, Planning Commition, and staff, with the request that they look toward leaving the Planning Commission in the process but Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 6 deleting the delay between the Design Review Committee and the Planning Comrn~sion hearing of an appeal. Mayor Nader felt a lot of the problem in dealing with the Design Keview Committee was that the applicant was shooting in the dark. He encouraged the staff and commission to look at requiring that when anything was denied, at any level of review, that specific direction be given to the applicant in order to obtain approval. MSUC CMoore/Nader) refer to staff to review the state requirement for PAC's as they pertain to the present ordinance, If they are not required under state law, or ever required, that reference should be pllrninatecL Staff rahould then bring forward an ordinance for revision deleting the word 'required'. Mayor Nader questioned what restrictions the EDC had in mind regarding item #18. Authority was delegated to the Resource Conservation Commission years ago when CEQA was established as it was felt desirable to have a commission with specific focus and expertise. If it was found that the RCC was causing undue delay he recommended: 1) restrict time, except for good cause, for review; and 2) eliminate the requirement that the review be conducted prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Allen responded that the recommendation was made due to time but also that it was their understanding that the RCC was contemplating doing a full EIF( public hearing which they felt was inappropriate. They have now been informed that the P, CC is no longer contemplating that requirement. MSUC {Nader/ldoore) to refer item #18 to the Economic Development Commission, Resource Conseivation Commission, and staff with the understanding that it is not a referral to restrict the RCC's ability to comment on Ellis other than look at reasonable lime regulations. MSUC 0Malcolm/Nader) to refer item #19 to staff, the Economic Development Commission, and other impacted cornminions. Councilman Malcolm noted that every board/commission/committee wanted their own power and authority. He questioned why Council did not force the departments into making decisions. Council should turn over the authority for the easy things and develop rules. There needed to be someone with authority that could cut through the bureaucracy in order to start solving some of the problems. Mayor Nader agreed with Councilman Malcolm and stated that many of the complaints received were not regarding the boards/commissions/committees but with staff review. MSC {Nader/Rindone) to refer to staff, the Economic Development Commission, and other impacted boards/commi-~sions/comm itrees to bring back recommendations: 1) how to consolidate deparlanents and/or better coordinate the processes between departments, i.e. functions merged and personnel cost savings; 2} provide more objective guidelines for staff actions on permits; and 3) reasonable time lines on ministerial staff actions. Approved 4-0-1 with Councilwoman Grasser Horton absent. Mayor Nader stated he agreed with the recommendation in item #14 regarding the Southwest Project Area Committee but disagreed with the recommendation for the Town Centre PAC and the Otay Valley PAC. He would like to get input from the PAC's, residents, and business people before the recommendations are brought back to Council for review. ll.A. ORDINANCE 2517 AMENDING SECTION 2.56 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PURCHASES OF SLIPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT (first readinfl:) - On 7/23/91, Council requested a report on the City's use of consultants and service conLTacts. The report was discussed by Council on Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 7 10/18/91 at which time a City Council subcommittee was established to address the issue of consultants and service agreements. The subcommittee has met with staff and is proposing the approval of revisions to the Municipal Code, establishment of a new Council policy, and some modifications in City procedures for determining the need for consultants and consultant monitoring and hiring practices. Staff recommends Councfi place ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Budget Manager) B. RESOLUTION 16657 ADOPTING PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY ON CONSULTANT AND ~ $FAVICBS Dawn Herring, Budget Manager, gave a brief overview of the report. Joseph W. Garcia, 484 5th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was glad to see Council address the issue of consultants. He had been appearing before Council for the past 4 1/2 years regarding the issue. He noted that the second harbor entrance had never been discussed in public although revenues were expended for consulting services. He then reviewed several items included in previous budgets regarding consulting services. He did not feel there was accountability regarding the administrative approval of contracts up to $20,000. Councilman Moore stated the City Manager was authorized to sign contracts up to $25,000. City Manager Goss stated there were accounting and auditing procedures in place to review expenditures. There was no provision, nor would it be proper, to take an original contract and add more to exceed the total of $25,000. Councfiman Rindone stated he had an item of concem and referred to pages 11-6 and 11-7 of the report. Item # 1, regarding the hiring of former employees as consukants, he hoped that in addition they would look at more than just the first year after they were employees of the City. He did not feel they should be hired in excess of their salaries as an employee and he would like to see it extended past the FIrst year. Item #2 regarding notification of consultants receiving payments in excess of $100,000 to any one provider, he felt the limit was to high and that a more reasonable level should be determined. It should also be on an annual basis venus a fiscal basis. Item #5, regarding the threshold list of service providers, he felt that $10,000 was more appropriate. Item #6, regarding the increased use and increase in training, he did not feal it would be inappropriate for a confidential update to the Council in regards to training. He was comfortable with five of the eight recommendations and felt the progress made was substantial. He thanked his colleagues for their efforts. Mayor Nader congratulated the Subcommittee (Councilmembers Grasser Hotton and More) for stepping forward to help in regulating consultants and recommending important changes in the procurement policy. He was however concerned regarding the lack of WBE and MBE programs. He questioned whether the Port was under a federal court order. Ms, Herring responded that they were not under federal court order. Mayor Nader felt that staff may want to review that issue, i.e. where the qualifications were equal it would be desirous to give a break. He stated there should be no confusion that there had been Council direction to develop a policy regarding local preference. Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager, responded that the recommendation in the policy was to encourage a form of affirmative action in soliciting bids and proposals. It was not oriented towards giving strong consideration in the actual selection process. He stated there were legal questions that needed to be addressed. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 8 City Attorney Boogaard stated that with regard to local preference and minority preference that the situation existed that the City would be bound to prove that the City had previously discriminated in the past in order to grant such preferences. Mayor Nader requested that the City Attorney take a closer look at the WBE and MBE issue in the context of the Port program and the local preference in the context of not an out and out discrimination on the part of the City but a due consideration of the impact on the community of choosing one contractor as opposed to another. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the closest he thought they could come was to have a local solicitation of the projects, which was what the policy adopted, but he would review the Port program. Councilwoman Grasser Hotton stated the City of San Diego had a specific MBE and WBE program and questioned how it was be allowed. Ms. Herring stated that the City of San Diego program was not mandatory but advisory and encouraging. Staff assisted in recruiting and assisting firms in applying. Councilman Rindone felt it was a policy issue which could look at the fiscal benefits of selecting firms locally when awarding the contracts. He questioned whether the inclusion of a simple statement in the staff report regarding the local implications would achieve the same goal without mandatory requirements. MSUC {Rindone/Malcolm) to amend the policy as follows: 1) Item #1 - hiring former employees would be based on annual year of previous 12 months (not fiscal year), 2) Item #2 - revise notification limit from $100,000 to $25°000, and 3) Item #5 - annual list of service providers reported to Counc~ from $25,000 to $10,000. Mayor Nader referred to page 11-6, item #3 regarding local preference and felt it should be amended to look at the overall impact on Chula Vista economy in terms of where the procuremerit would occur, where employees would be drawn from, as well as location of the business, Ms. Herring responded that was the intent. ORDINANCE 2517 pLACF~ ON FIRST READING AND RI~SOLUTION 16657 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. The ordinance is to be amended to reflect action taken regarding the policy amendment if necessary. MS (hlader/Grasser Horton) to refer the question of a program which would allow the Council to consider as a factor a WBE or MBE program and to specifically look at the Port District and City of San Diego programs and report back to Council. Councilman Malcolm felt that the City should have a City of Chula Vista policy first, City of San Diego second, State of California third, and the United States fourth. He believed that all citizens in Chula Vista should be notified in order to have an opportunity to bid. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Councilman Malcolm abstaining. Councilman Rindone called for a point of order and questioned whether a member could abstain if there was not a conflict of interest present. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 9 City Attorney Boogaard responded it was opinion that any Councilmember could abstain from participation without having aconflict of interest. Ifthey have a conflict ofinterest they must state so, but are not legally required to participate. Councilman Malcolm stated he did not want to vote against the motion but felt it was time to focus on all people. Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43 p.m, MSUC (Moore/Nader) to reconsider Item 11. Councilman Rindone stated that the item discussed was under item #1 in which the current proposed amendment to the Council policy did not address any employees limited compensation subsequent to the first year upon retirement or termination from the City. MS (P, dndone/Moore) to sn4.ke the words "first year" from Item #1. Councilman Malcolm stated that would mean that anyone that previously worked for the City, that the City wanted to rehire, the maximum they could be paid would be the maximum wage received. He felt that a problem existed for those that acquired additional expertise after they left the City. The overhead assigned would also have to be figured in. He did not feel it could be that simple. He felt that Council should be notified of anyone hired over that amount but there should not be a limitation. Councilman Rindone felt a policy should be set for the City, which Council could override ffnecessary. He would offer three years as a compromise rather than one year. Councilman Malcolm recommended that it state that any former employee of the City that had a contract pending before Council, the report include his wages, hourly rate to be paid in the contract and hourly rate he was paid as a City employee. He wanted the best person hired for the job no matter what the time period SUBSTITLrrE MOTION: (NaderAVlalcolm) after one year elapsed from the time of City employment tint any contract proposing to hire any former City employee, at a rate higher than he/she had been paid in City employment, would have to come before the Council with a report that would include the wage that had been earned while in City employment, the proposed wages or compensation to be paid under the conlract, and the justification for any increase over the City wages, i.e. new sldlls or inflation in the market. Approvea unanimously. 12. RESOLUTION 16658 APPROVING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH LPA INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY TO BE CONb'lROt.'i~O AT THE CORNER OF FOURTH AND ORANGE AVENUES - The Library requests approval of the negotiated agreement with LPA Inc. for the necessary architectural services for the new 35,000 sq. ft. South Chula Vista Library. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director) Mayor Nader requested that items 12 and 17a be heard simultaneously. Councilman Malcolm stated he owned a piece of property one block away and after discussing the item with the City Attorney had been advised that he should abstain on the item. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 10 .) Councilman Kindone requested that Council reconsider Item 11 as he had been informed by staff of an omission that was not included in the motion. Councilman Malcolm left the dias at 8:54 p.m. City Manager Goss gave a brief review of the report. Members of the Library Board and Montgomery Planning Committee were also in attendance to answer Council questions. Councilman Moore questioned what each of the applicants provided to the committee to base their judgement on and whether renderings were submitted. Rosemary Lane, Library Director, responded that a packet was submitted which included their qualifications, responses to specific questions, and information regarding subcontractors. Interest was received from 64 fwrns, packets were received from 34 firms, which were reviewed and rated independen~y. Eight fkrms were chosen for interviews. The process was to select an architect to perform that work for the City. Councilman Moore stated he was concerned that this was not the level the Council should become involved. There was nothing to be decided, other than whether this particular firm had more talent because there was no design to review. Mayor Nader stated he would like to see a Council subcommittee look at concept plans and cost estimates. He was concerned that there wasn't more information given as to what an architect proposed to do. He would prefer to see a process where Council got a look at a specific concept and then make a decision on an architect. Councilwoman Grasser Hotton stated she had reviewed every page of the document presented and had a better understanding of the selection process and felt they were very thorough. She was now comfortable in supporting the staff recommendation. RESOLLrI'ION 16658 OFI. PAhKD BY COUNCILWOMAN GRASSER HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Those speaking in support of the staff recommendation were: William Alexander, 773 Brookstone Road, #304, Chula Vista, CA, Vice-Chair, Library Board of Trustees Joe Beflanga, 1286 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Montgomery Planning Committee Jose T. Viesca, 1642 Mills Street, Chula Vista, CA, Library Board of Trustees Ward Thompson, 701 Ketmer, San Diego, CA 92101, Principal, Tucker Saddler and Associates Architects Greg Sandoval, 3625 Audobon Ct., Bonita, CA 91902, was not present when called to speak. Nick Aguilar, 936 Redbud Road, Chula Vista, CA 91910, requested reconsideration of staff recommendation due to a significant change in the economic environment. Due to the downturn in the economy he felt that every dollar in every City contract should stay in the local economy. It was his understanding that 20% of the contract would be awarded to a foreign national. Councilwoman Grasser Horton responded that with the company being recommended, many of the subcontractors would be hired from the local area. Michael McDade, 945 4th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, representing Martinez, Cutti & McArdle, one of the eight finalists in the process, requested that Council reconsider a contract that they did not believe was in the best interest of the citizens of Chula Vista. He did not feel the hi-cultural criteria had been seriously considered by staff. The City of Chula Vista had never chosen a minority contractor for a major public works Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 11 project. None of the references their client had submitted were contacted by the City. Mr. Martinez was a long time resident, a minority community leader, who put together a bi-cu/tural minority firm who were superb architects and should be given every consideration. He felt the contract as negotiated was a 'give- away~ of taxpayers funds. Councilman Rindone questioned what defects Mr. McDade had referred to in the contract. Mr. McDade responded that the defects were in the criteria, page 4 and S. No where was there any indication of preference, weighting, or bonus points for minority contracting. There was nothing that dealt with the economic impact on the City, nothing that said that the City must get a good deal. There was no competitive bidding or consideration of getting the job done by a respected firm at a lower price. In effect it was a sole source contract. There also was no design competition for the project. The decision was based solely on a listing of credentials and everything else was subjective. Councilman Rindone clarified that the entire contract was not sole source. Council was only selecting an architect at this time. Mayor Nader stated his concerns were not necessarily with the architect but the process utilized on a project of such magnitude. The project wouId be one of the most significant regarding the lasting impacts on the City. There should have been meaningful participation by elected officials ea~ier in the process. He felt the Council policy should be reviewed for possible updating. The project was on a tight timeline and staff should not have waited until so late to bring it before Council because it did not allow them the flexibility of policy decision making. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader) to establish a Council subcommittee to review the eight fmalists regardln~ concepts and costs within the next two weeks and invite three of the eight ~nalists, including the one recommended by staff tonight, to come before Council at their meeting on 6/30/92 to make pref, entations. Final selection would be made by Council at that time. Motion died for lack of second. Councilman Rindone stated under the proposal, the contract would include an internationally recognized architect. He questioned what accessibility staff would have and what assurance was given that the project would not be handled by a staffer. John Maddox, 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite I30, San Diego, Principal, LPA, stated that with respect to Ricardo and his past experience they had worked on projects with him throughout the US. On every project, he participated on all aspects of the design including walking the site during the construction phase. He would be active throughout the project. Councilman Rindone felt the information provided was quite informative and stated that Council could have requested design competition and may choose to do it in the future. He agreed with Mayor Nader's concerns, but due to the time limitations and the expertise of the firm recommended, he felt that action should be taken. Mayor Nader felt that there was still time for further review. He did not want his vote to be perceived as a vote against LPA or a vote of no confidence as to the staff or selection committee, but a vote to say that on a project of that size the policy makers should be more directly involved in determining the criteria in which a final architect was chosen. Councilman Rindone stated that he did not feel Mayor Nader's comments were correct. A vote for the motion did not mean that he was not interested in keeping the tax dollars locally. He felt it was a quality search and a quality project and he was comfortable with it. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 12 Councilman Moore stated one of the criteria included bi-cultural aspects. In reviewing the team it included two Mexican Nationals, eight other Hispanics, one Black, six of those listed were females, for Asiaus, and one Other. Councilwoman Grasser l-Io~con agreed with many of Mayor Nader's concerns and stated it was an extremely hard decision to make. She was very impressed with the list of architects but due to the time frame and funding, she felt that the City would be receiving a beautifully designed project that they could be very proud of. She felt that if Council reviewed the top eight candidates it would be very comprehensive and time consuming and she did not feel the time was available for such a review. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-1-0-1 with Nader opposed and Malcolm abstaining. Mayor Nader requested that the City Clerk docket, under Mayo~'s Comments, for 7/21/92, amending the Council policy for the selection of architects. Councilman Malcolm returned to the dias at 9:43 p.m. 13. RESOLUTION 16611 APPROVING AGI~I~RMF2qT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SOUTHWESTERN COMMUN I'IY COl J .RGE DISTRICT, AND THE CITY FOR CONSTRUCTI ON, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SOLrrHWESTERN COIJ.RGE TRANSIT CENTER - Council considered this item at its 5/5/92 meeting and requested additional information on the project. Staff recommends Council approve: 1) the resolution, and 2) the Conceptual Site Plan Alternative I as shown in the Feasibility Study. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the S/5/92 meeting. William Gustafson, Transit Coordinator, summarized the project. Councilman Rindone requested clarification of the differences of the plan, specifically regarding the exit from the college on Elmhurst Street and the flow from the college exits. Mr. Gustafson stated the primary change was the island being extended to the west. It would segregate the traffic coming out of the college on Elmhurst extension from the bus traffic that would either merge into the Elmburst area or to circle around an exit on Otay Lakes Road for the buses heading south. Councilman Moore questioned whether there was landscaping on the island and the number of routes to the college in the fall. Mr. Gustarson presented a conceptual drawing of the island and landscaping. He stated that there would be four routes which was one less route, but they would be adding all day service on Route 709. It would be less routes but more frequent service. Councilman Malcolm questioned whether there would be additional bus trips once the transit center was completed. He also questioned whether buses would be allowed to idle in the bays. Mr. Gustarson responded that there would not be additional bus trips next fiscal year but the fact that the center was there would enable them to expand service over the years if needed. He stated there would be a layover for some of the routes, i.e. between five to seven minutes. Mayor Nader questioned what new traffic signalization would be included. Mr. Gustafson responded that a new signal would be placed at the intersection at Elmhurst and Otay Lakes Road. Minute~ June 9, 1992 Page 13 The following people spoke in opposition to the transit center due to concerns of air pollution, noi~ pollution, removal of open space, costs involved, limited parking, and aesthetic value: Eugene Dershem, 1618 Elmhurst Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Dawn Dershem, 1618 Elmhurst Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Donald C. Bodie, 1654 Ithaca, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Kathy Hibbard, 1651 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913 John F. Markham Jr., 1663 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Katherine Belo, 875 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Cecilia Vasquez, 871 Otay Lakes Road, Chum Vista, CA 91913 Samuel R. Longanecker, 1689 Ithaca Street, Chula Vista, CA Robert E. Chaffee, 1641 Gotham Suceet, Chula Vista, CA Veronica E. Jones, 891 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Urbon Jones, 891 Otay Lakes Road, Chum Vista, CA 91913 Mario Failla, 879 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA 91913 Margarete Failla, 879 Otay Lakes Road, Chum Vista, CA 91913 Barbara Longanecker, 1689 Ithaca, Chula Vista, CA 91913, was not present when called to speak. Tom Davis spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and presented petitions in opposition with 165 signatures. He also referred to his request regarding the installation of a traffic signal on Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road. He felt the information regarding survey numbers given to Council were incorrect. Steve Harris, 713 Brookstone Road, #204, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Councilman Moore informed the public that there was a state mandate to improve the air quality by increasing the number or riders per car. If the City did not improve ridership the Air Quality Control Board would set mandatory fees and fines. Therefore, the City was caught in the middle. The number of buses would not be increased due to the transit center, the turn around would allow safer movement for the buses, but it would also move the pollution closer to the homes. The question was whether it was the right location and he felt Council should direct staff to come back with a recommendation for the second best place. Councilman Malcolm stated he was committed to public transit but wanted to make it clear that the County of San Diego could move forward with the project without the approval of the City of Chula Vista. The oily reason it was before the Council was because they were requesting $250,000 towards the project. He wanted to have a transit center there but did not want the grass taken out. The faculty parking lot in front of the College could be utilized as a transit center which would utilize existing paved areas. He did not feel that public input had been included early enough in the project. He would like to send it back to staff to see what could be done to encourage public participation, public availability, and to be able to save the expanse of the grassy area. Councilman Rindone stated he served on the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and felt a transit center was needed. He also referred to the state mandates and regulations and stated he was very much transit oriented. This was an occasion where citizens came forth and the time had come were there needed to be a balance. Most speakers had acknowledged the need for a transit center and he felt it should be referred to staff to look for the next best location. MS (P,.indone/Grasser Horton) refer to staff to find another appropriate location for the transit center but not to place it where it would destroy the aesthetic beauty of the College. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 14 Councilman Moore questioned whether the City would have to be a salesman and sell the County on the fact that the City Council did not want it there, that they would have to contribute more money wward redosign, and may have to support some infrastructure costs also. Mr. Gustafson responded that the County wanted to do what the City wanted to do and the City wanted to do what the public wanted. They did need to talk to the College as some of the issues discussed had been previously discussed and dismissed. Councilman Rindone felt there were other options to be considered, i.e. main parking lot, southeast portion of main lot, Otay Lakes Road at the base with shuttle service to the College, etc. He felt that Southwestern College wanted to be a good neighbor and would work with the Council and the neighbors. Mayor Nader stated that the neighborhood was brought into the process rather late and felt a lot of time could have been saved if there was a process early on where the public had been notified. He encouraged neighborhoods to establish community planning councils. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Mayor Nader informed the public of the existing ordinance regarding the adjournment of a Counc~ meeting at 10:30 p.m. unless there was a motion to continue. Due to several members of the public waiting to address items on the agenda he would prefer to see the meeting continued. MS (Nader, tMalcolm) to continue the meeting to hear items 5a, 14, 15, Council Comments, arid Closed Session. AH other itprnn to be continued to the meeting of June 16, 1992. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911, stated she had requested that 5a be pulled from the Consent Calendar and now requested that it be continued to the meeting of June 16, 1992. Mayor Sader stated he would amend his motion to continue item 5a to the June 16, 1992 meeting. City Manager Goss informed Council that item # 8 required a 4/Sth's vote and requested that Council address that item. Councilman Malcolm requested that item 8 be docketed for the meeting of June 30, 1992. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 14. REPORT REGARDING THE REQUEST BY ROBERTO GRATIANNE, M.D., FOR A LIEN AGliI~.I~MENT IN LIEU OF POSTING A CASH BOND FOR THE DEFERRAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT 360 *IT' STREET - The owner of the property at 360 "H" Street is converting an existing single family dwelling on the site to a medical office. The City has required widening and installing public improvements along the frontage of 'H" Street. The owner has applied for and was granted a deferral of this requirement with a condition a cash bond be posted in the amount of $9,700. The owner has requested that the City accept a lien on the property instead of posting the cash bond. As directed by Council at the 5/12/92 meeting, staff is currently revising the policy regarding the handling and approval of lien agreements. However, because this request was already in process before the Council Referral, staff is submitting the request to Council for consideration. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny the applicants request. (Director of Public Works) Mayor Nader stated that Council would consider items 14 and 15 simultaneously. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 15 Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, clarified that cash bond would be more appropriately read as cash deposit. Mr. Turullols distributed a letter to Council outlining his reasons for requesting a lien on his property. Dr. Gfl Turullols, M.D., 401 "H" Street, Suite 3, Chula Vista, CA 91910, felt it was a lot of money to pay out at this time for something that no one knew when it would be built. Councilman Malcolm stated that no one knew when "H" Street would be widened. He would like m devise a note and deed with escalating costs. MSUC (Malcolm/Grasser Hotton) to conceptually approve a lien agreement for items 14 and 15 and direct stuff to bring back a lien agreement whereby they feel comfortable. 15. REPORT REGARDING THE REQUEST BY V/CTOR URANGA, M.D., AND GIL TURULLOLS, M.D., FOR A HEN AGI~REMENT IN LIEU OF POSTING A CASH BOND FOR THE DF. FERRAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVF2ClF2qTS AT 374 'H' STREET - The owners of the property at 374 'H' Sn'eet are demolishing an existing building on the site and constructing a new medical office bu~ding. The City has required widening and installing public improvements along the frontage of 'H' Street. The owners have applied for and were granted a deferral of this requirement with a condition a cash bond be posted in the amount of $20,500. The owners have requested that the City accept a lien on the property instead of posting the cash bond. As directed by Council at the 5/12/92 meeting, staff is curren~y revising the policy regarding the handling and approval of lien agreements. However, because this request was already in process before the Council Referral, staff is submitting the request to Council for consideration. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny the applicants request. (Director of Public Works) Heard simultaneously with item 14. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The City Council meeting recessed at 7:30 p.m. and the Council Budget Meeting~Worksession reconvened at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the Boards/Commission/Committee Budget review and Community Promotions. Suzanne Ramirez, 139 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, spoke on behalf of the International Friendship Commission. She informed Council that they had not had an opportunity to review the staff recommendations. The IFC was now doing more than in the years past and had recently reestablished contact with the City's sister city in Argentina. She urged Council not to think of the IFC as a 'frill' commission but one capable of working in the economic sector and with the Economic Development Commission in the future. Terry Thomas, 1339 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, Chair of the International Friendship Commission, stated they supported the staff recommendations and realized that everyone had to 'bite the bullet' even though they felt they needed additional funding. Sam Signorelli, 4345 Velasco Ct., La Mesa, CA 91941, representing Pacific Sound Drum & Bugle Corps, reviewed their history and presented a short video presentation of the groups activities. He request $1,S00 to help fuel fund raising abilities. MS (Nader/Moore) to approve the Board/Commission/Committee and Community Promotions budge~ as presented. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 16 . Mayor Nader stated he was not taking away the merits of the other proposals but it was a matter of priorities due to budget limitations. He hoped that whether or not a line item was included in the budget that the Parks and Recreation Department would work with those agencies. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. The Budget Meeting/Worksesison adjourned at 7:52 p.m. and the City Council Meeting reconvened at 7:53 p.m. ITEMS pUIJ.F.I~ FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 5a, 8, and 9. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 16. U'~.Y MANAGERS REPORT(S) - None 17. MAYORS REPORT(S) a. Selection process of architect for South Library. Heard with item 12 on the Agenda. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Rindone: a. Keferred to the memorandum distributed by the Deputy City Manager regarding the consultant senrice agreement for the Mayor's trip on June 17-18 and requested further information as to the background of the consultant being hired to accompany the Mayor. He did not question that he was the most qualified but was just requesting information. City Manager Goss stated it was within his authority, on a small contract, to hire the person to support the City's effort in Mexico City. Councilman Moore questioned whether the funding was coming from the City Manger's budget or the Council budget. City Manager Goss responded that it would be approximately $2,600 for direct services and $1,000 appropriated by Council for the Mayor's trip. Mayor Nader stated that the consultant was arranging meetings with cabinet ministers, providing guidance on protocol, helping to organize the trip, etc. He had been extremely helpful in his dealing with him. Councilman Malcolm felt that when Council had approved the $1,000 they had been told that was what the cost would be and now it had gone from $1,000 to $5,000. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that the funding for the consultant was not coming out of the Council budget b. Appointment of Susan Herney to the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. Councilman Rindone referred to a fax received during the meeting indicating that Supervisor Bilbray had made a Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 17 recommendation to appoint Robert Tugenberg as a member for an indefinite term to the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. He was disappointed in the failure of Supervisor Bilbray in honoring the unanimous request of the Council to appoint Susan Herhey to the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. Upon research of the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego in regards to the planning of the Otay Ranch project, on page 3, it described the two-tiered task force which described the composition of the committee. Supervisor Bilbray did not have the authority to make a recommendation. He would request that the Council provide a leadership role. He would like Counc~ to address the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, who had the authority as provided in the agreement, to forward the Counc~'s recommendation of Susan Herney. MS (Rindone/Malcolm) to direct the Mayor to send a letter and personally follow-up with Chairman Bailey in submitling the Council's request for the appoinlTnent of Susan Herney to the Olay llaneh Interjurisdictional Task Force. Councilman Malcolm felt it was academic but technically they did not follow the rules. The rules required that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors nominate that member. Since Mr. Bilbray was not the Chairman, technically it was not done properly and should be corrected by the Board one way or the other. He did not feel that the City would get a different appointment even though the impacts would be upon the City of Chula Vista. Mayor Nader stated that Chairman Bailey voted for Supervisor Bilbray's recommendation and he did not believe that he would change his vote. He shared his colleagues feelings that Supervisor Bilbray should have gone along with the Council's recommendation. He felt it was a drafting error, not intent, in the agreement that left that seat to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors rather than by the Council. There would be a lot of issues coming up on the project over the next year on which there needed to be a cooperative relationship with the Board and in particular our supervisor and he was not sure that this was an issue on which to go to an all out war. Councilman Rindone stated it was nor an all out war but the issue was the fact that the Council was elected to represent the citizens of the City and it was a unanimous decision. This would be the largest single project to impact the City in its history. If the City did not get their attention now then they were being remiss in their duties. Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated she would not support the motion. She felt at this point the Supervisors had made their decision and may have already notified Mr. Tugenberg. She also felt the whole situation was getting out of hand. VOTE ON MOTION: motion failed 2-3 with Nader, Moore, Grasser Horton opposed. Councilman Malcolm: Requested that Councilman Rindone continue the issue of the use of city vehicles to the June 30, 1992 meeting for a full Council. He would not be at the meeting of June 23, 1992 and would like to be in attendance during that discussion. Councilman Moore: Stated Council had received notification of the first term vacancies on the boards/commissions/committees. Rather than stating those were vacancies he felt that if one or more members of the Council did not want to reappoint someone, those names should be pulled our and advertised as vacancies. The rest would be automatic ratification. Minutes June 9, 1992 Page 18 .j Councilman Malcolm agreed with Councilman Moore's concerns and requested that the issue be doeketed for the Jurte 30, 1992 meeting. Councilwoman Grasser Hotton: Questioned whether the date had been set for Planning Commission interviews. Councilman Malcolm stated it would be a date in July. ADJOURNMENT Closed Session was continued to the meeting of June 16, 1992. Acquisition of property - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Assessor's Number Address Owner 622-030-16, 26, 27, and 735 Second Avenue Iwashita, Kaoru & Lilly 622-O41-17 622-030-09 1364 Broadway Hernandez, Mary &Raymond 622-030-22 76 Prospect Street Vasquez, Alfredo 622-082-08,13, and P.O. Box 1831, San Diego SDG&E 622-041-04 622-041-22, 23 1330 Broadway Wflliams, James & Sandra 622-030-10, 23 1366 Broadway Nicolas, Mora 622-030-15 3414 Menard, Natl. City Uribe, Daniel 622-041-20, 21, 22 P.O. Box 2548, San Diego Japanese Am. Citizen League 622-030-11 2001 Clearwater Place Green, Curtis 622-030-25 P,O. Box 2365 Jehovah's Witnesses Instructions to negotiators regarding personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:23 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 16, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu~!ty Clerk