HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/07/21 MI~ OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHUIA VISTA
Tuesday, July 21, 1992 Council Chambers
6:08 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor
Nader
ALSO PRESENT: Sial W. Morris, Assistant City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney;
and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF AI J .F. GIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINLrrES: June 9, 1992 (Adjourned Meeting/Workshop), July 23, 1992, and
June 30, 1992.
MSUC (Moore/Nader) to approve the minutes of June 9, 1992, Jil[y 23, 1992 and Julle 30, 1992 ~ ~
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Introduction of students from our S/ster City, Irnpuato, Mexico, who are here on the Kellogg Grant
working at the Nature Interpretlye Center - Commissioner Nancy Taboada, Coordinator of Sister Cities
International Youth Exchange, introduced the students. Certificates were presented by Mayor Pro Temp
Malcolm to Jose Luis Cones, Maria Catalina Mata, Victor Garcia, Victor Molina, and Maria Eugenia Ortiz.
Victor Molina thanked the City, the International Friendship Commission, and the host families.
b. prod~irnlng the month of July as 'Parks & Recreation Month". The proclamation was presented by
Mayor Pro Temp Malcolm to Bob Lind, Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Lind thanked the
Council on behalf of the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Depa~hnent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 9A & B)
BALANCE OF CONSENT CAI .ENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text wa~ waived,
passed and approved unanimously. Item IOA and B was continued to the meeting of 7/28/92.
5. wPa'rll~a'q COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letrer requesting $3,000 to assist in paying for Shuttle Bu~ services throughout Bonltafe~t Day,
9/26/92, as well as sexvices provided by the Chula Vista Police Deparmaent - Marguerite Maniscalco,
Bonitafest Chairwoman, Bonita Business & Professional Association, P. O. Box 284, Bonlta, CA 92002. It is
recommended that the request be referred to staff for further evaluation.
b. Letter requesting waiver of any license requirements for Burton C. Tiffany Elementary School PTA
Craft Fair on 11/21/92 - Marilee Castenholz McKelvey, Craft Fair Chair, 1615 Gotham St., Chula Vista, CA
91913. It is recommended that the waiver of fees be granted as is consistent with past practice by the
Council.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 2
6.A. RESOLUTI ON 16710 ACCEPTING A STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS W/k~-t h
GRANT TO ESTABLISH A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EDUCATION PROJECT - Last February,
Council authorized staff to submit a grant application to the State of California Integrated Waste
Management Board. The City has been notified of an award of $25,050. Under the grant, the City will
establish a Household Hazardous Waste Reduction, Alternatives, and Disposal Educational Awareness Project.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Administration)
B. RESOLUTION 16711 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 B~ TO ADD A TEMPORARY, PART-
TIME POSITION IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE IN THE WA~'I/ff. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SUCH PROGRAM AND POSITION - 4/Sth's vote required.
7. RESOLUTION 16712 RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL RI.F-CTION l-~l.n ON
JUNE 2, 1992, DE(IARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MA-I-I-F,P,S AS PROVIDED BY LAW - Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk)
8. RESOLUTION 16713 APPROVING A 'NATIONAL NIGHT OUT' 5K FUN RUN/2 MILE WALK TO
BE FW.I .n AT BAYSIDE PARK ON AUGUST 4, 1992 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A HOLD
HARMI-~-e-S INDEMNIFICATION AGRF. I~MENT WITH THE PORT DISTRICT FOR THIS ~'qF. NT - The event
represents the ninth annual "National Night Out" which is a nationwide effort ro heighten crime prevention
awareness, strengthen neighborhood spirit and palice-community relations, generate support and
participation for local crime prevention programs and sending a message ro criminals that our communities
are organized and fighting back! All neighborhoods across the country are encouraged to tum on their
outside lights from 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. and spend the evening outdoors. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Chief of Police)
9.A. RESOLUTION 16714 /LoPROVING THE INITIATION OF PROCF-~r~INGS AND DESCRIBING THE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 26 (PARK BONITA) - In order to initiate the
proceedings for the formation of open space disttiets, the City Engineer must prepare and f~e a report in
accordance with the Streets and Highways Code. The resolution will begin the process for the formation
of the open space district for Park Bonita. Staff recommends: (1) Approve the resolution and the Engineers
report; (2) Council declare intention to form the proposed district in accordance with Section 17.07 of the
Municipal Gode and Section 22S87 of the Streets and Highways Code; (3) Direct the City Clerk to notice
the public hearing in accordance with Sections 22SS6 and 22S88 of the Streets and Highways Code; and,
(4) Set 8/18/92, at 6:00 p.m., as the date and time for public hearing, (Director of Public Works and
Director of Parks & Recreation) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Rindone stated his concern was that the wall would attraet graffiti and he did not see
immediate graffiti removal listed in the maintenance items.
Clifford Swanson, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded that a non-grafflti eoating was
normally required and the City ordinance was in place for grafflti removal. He would provide that
information prior to the Council hearing.
RESOLUTION 16714 AND 16715 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text was waived,
passed and approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absenL
B. RESOLUTION 16715 FILING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND DECLARING THE ta'tY~j
INTENTION TO ESTABLISH CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 26 (PARK BONITA) AND
SETtING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING THEREON
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 3
10.A. RESOLUTION 16716 ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN PROC~-Rr~INGS AND
ASSESSMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-1 (SALT CRF. F.K I) - On 10/22/91, Cotmc~
established Assessment District Number 90-1 (Salt Creek I) and levied assessments for the acquisition and
financing of certain infrastructure improvements serving the Salt Creek I development pursuant to the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The improvements have now been completed and it is necessary that
the proceedings be finalized and the 1915 Act bonds be sold to provide the funds for the improvement
acquisition. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 16717 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS TO BE SOLD AT
A PUBLIC SALE AND DIRECTING A CALL FOR SEAI.Rr~ BIDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-1
(SALT CR~RK I)
Item 10A and 10B continued to the meeting of 7/28/92, voted upon as part of the Consant Calendar.
11. RESOLUTION 16718 WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCKqS AND APPROVING THE
FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 SERVICE AGB R~MENT WITH AMERICAN DIGITAL SYSTEMS (ADS) SERVIC3F. S FOR
THE MAINTFJqANCE OF EIGHT SEWAGE FLOW METERS AND APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF $8,104 - American Digital Systems (ADS) Services and the City had two service agreements for Fiscal
Year (FY) 1991-92 for the repair and preventive maintenance services for six sewage flow metering stations.
The cost of the service agreement for the six existing sewage flow metering stations will increase from
$17,220 in FY 1991-92 to $23,772 in FY 1992-93. With the inclusion of two new metering stations which
will begin operation during this fiscal year, the maximum service cost for FY 1992-93 w~l increase to
$30,724. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
12. PUBLIC ~NG CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO CHAFFER 5.20 OF THE MUNI(]PAL
CODE, THE CARDROOM ORDINANCE - On 4/28/92, Council received a staff report and heard public
testimony upon a proposal to change Section 5.20 of the Municipal Code known as the Cardroom Ordinance.
As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to prepare a report and schedule a public hearing on the
subject proposal. Six specific Cardroom Ordinance revision issues were identified by Council. Staff met
informally with cardroom operators, other members of the community and experts in California gaming law.
Staff recommends Council place ordinance on first reading. (Chief of Police) Continued from the meeting
of 6/30/92.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking on behalf of changing the ordinance to allow all legal games within the State of California
(except paigow), jackpots, extended hours, and operating on Sundays were:
Harvey Souza, 3810 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, representing Village Club Cardroom
Dee Donahue, 693 "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Vegas Club
Lee Varon, 515 Park Way #7, Chula Vista, CA
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Malcolm stated he was not a proponent of the cardrooms but felt it was ludicrous that the
Council would try to arbitrate what games could be played within the City. The State Attorney General
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 4
should be the one to decide what was legal within the State. He did not feel that anyone was being served
by limiting the number of games. If it was decided that it was bad then all gambling should be outlawed,
including bingo. He recommended that the issue be reviewed on an issue by issue basis.
MS CMalcolm/Grasser Horton) to amend the ordinance to all games legal within the State of California.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton expressed concern that if the games were expanded it would generate higher
profits and questioned whether that would bring in undesirable investors. In order to eliminate that concern
she wanted to include in the motion language to be drafted by the City Attorney preventing further
consolidation of cardroom licenses.
Councilman Malcolm stated he was unwilling to accept the friendly amendment. He felt that issue could
be discussed separately as there were pro's and con's.
CounciLmembers Malcolm/Grasser Horton agreed to add 'as determined by the State Attorney General' to
the motion.
Councilman Rindone felt there were two issues: 1) were cardrooms desirable in Chula Vista, and 2) fithey
were allowed, under what conditions. Other cities were currently more competitive and he felt there should
be a reasonable compromise. There were also legal concerns regarding vested rights and he referred to
Solution A of the memorandum which he felt would address the two concerns simultaneously. It would
allow the existing four licenses but establish classes of licenses. Therefore, he would vote no for the motion
on the floor.
Councilman Malcolm stated that the owners of the licenses should be justly compensated. Upon their death,
the families would then have nothing. If the City did not want cardrooms they should buy out the current
City Attorney Boogaard stated that Council could make the licenses inheritable but not transferTable if they
chose.
Councilman Malcolm stated that the Council should read the original Police Department's report prior to
being edited by the City Manager's office. He felt it would give everyone a different view point.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Councilman Malcolm had seen an unedited report that was offered to
Council through the City Manager.
Councilman Moore called for a point of order. Chula Vista was a City Council/Manager type of city and he
did not know of any type of report that did not go to the City Manager's office that might not be changed.
He felt it was inappropriate to put the department head on the spot. There was a chain of command and
everyone expected their boss to "massage" the report to some degree.
Councilman Malcolm agreed with Councilman Moore's comments.
Mayor Nader stated there had been Council direction to the Manager last year to put Council on notice if
his report substantially altered a recommendation from the department that it originated from. He felt that
was what Councilman Malcolm was referring to and agreed that it was unfair to put the department head
on the spot. If a member of the Council was personally aware of that direction not being followed, or had
information that the rest of the Council did not have that was pertinent to the discussion, he was interested
in hearing that information.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 5
Councilman Rindone sated he was quoting directly from the report in front of Council. If there was another
report Councilman Malcolm had seen, he had not had access to that report.
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, sated the original draft report was sent to the Manager for comment
and when they responded there were certain items in the report that did not have a recommendation, for
example, all of the games. It was sent back with other recommendations asking that certain issues be
clarified, those issues were clarified and he would venture to say that there was nothing in the report that
the Police Chief did not agree with. It was the Police Deparunent's recommended report and they would
verify that.
Councilman Moore sated that he had a personal dislike of gambling and his primary concern was the
consolidation of the cardrooms. He felt it was bad for the City for anyone to own all four cardroom licenses
and therefore he would vote against any motion until that particular item was solved. He did not have a
problem with the two existing cardrooms in the City.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: by MalcolngGrasser Horton.
MS (Moore4tGrasser Horton) to disallow consolidation of two or more licenses, under one ownership, at the
same location or a contiguous location (City Attorneys Recommendation B, footnote 5)
City Attorney Boogaard stated the memorandum was submitted as a possible example of language and before
it was specifically adopted he requested that he be given direction to come back with language coordinated
with all the other sections into the cardroom ordinance and bring it back for first reading at Councfi's next
meeting.
Counc/lmembers Moore/Grasser Horton agreed to incorporate the City Attorne~'s request into the motion.
Councilman Malcolm felt the existing consolidation ordinance was good and would therefore vote against
the motion. By having one cardroom location it would allow the Police greater access and regulatory
control.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 with Malcohn/Nader opposed.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was any additional authority to review either license transfers or the
ownership of licenses, parmerships of licenses, etc. that would be desirable to give to staff.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that transfers were subject to the Chief of Police and ratification by the
Council. The ordinance was silent regarding the transfer of a license for a business partnership or
corporation. He could bring forward a clarifying ordinance if so directed by Council.
MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) to direct the City Attorney to bring back a datifying ordinance suggesting that a
change in the corporate entity might constitute a transfer under certain criteria.
MSC (Nader/Malcolm) to allow games determined by the State Attorney General to be legal in the State of
California with the exception of paigow. Approved 40-1 with Gra.sser Horton absent.
MS CRindone/Nader) to approve the staff recommendation regarding the extension of hours (9:00 am. to
1:00 a.m.)
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 6
Chief Emerson stated that the staff recommendation of 1:00 a.m. was based on the social values of the
community and also because the cardroom owners had stated that they did not want their customers driving
home at 2:00 a.m. when the bars closed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Grasser Horton absent.
Councfiman Rindone felt that if a maximum fee of $.50 per hand per player was set it would eliminate the
concern of "skimming" if jackpots were allowed. The incentive then would be for the owners to establish
the jackpots.
MS (Rindone/Moore) to permit jackpots with a maximum of $.50 per hand per player.
Councilman Rindone stated the intent of the motion was: 1) jackpots would be allowed, and 2) the method
of collection would not be based on hours or seat time but would be a maximum collection of $.50 per
player per hand. He stated that it would also be appropriate to adjust the fee schedule for the operation
of the cardrooms so that all aspects would be covered under the $.50 per player per hand charge.
Councilman Moore stated that the motion set a different method of collecting their operational overhead and
withdrew his second, motion died for lack of second.
MOTION: (Rindone) the method of charge would be a maximum of $.50 per player per hand and it would
also cover the franchise fees with an adjusted schedule of taxes due to the City.
Councilman Malcolm seconded the motion and stated he would like to see a dear delineation of what the
fee would be.
Mayor Nader questioned ff it was the intent of the motion that if the owner chose not to charge $.50 per
hand maximum they would retain the option of charging the $4.00 per hour maximum charge.
Councilman Rindone stated the motion would include the option of either seat llme or maximum of $.50
per hand.
City Attorney Boogaard stated it was his understanding that the ordinance to be brought back would
include: 1) $.50 per hand option with the increased fee schedule (pg 12-15 staff alternative}, and 2) if the
owner kept the $4.00 per hour fee structure they would maintain the existing fee structure.
VOTE ON MOTION: appreved 3-2 with Moore/Grasser Horton opposed.
Councilman Moore stated the reason he voted against the motion was because it had not been decided what
type of hold-era would be allowed, whether jackpots were allowed, etc.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that Council had approved all legal games as determined by the State Attorney
General, except paigow.
MS (Rindone/Malcolm) to allow jackpots ff the owners utilize the maxirnttnl of the $.50 per hand charge,
the jackpot is to come from the per hand charge.
Councilman Nader stated he had a problem with encouraging the owners to go to the per hand charge and
was unsure of how he would vote on the item when it was brought back.
VOTE ON MOTION: appreved 3-2 with Nader/Grasser Horton opposed.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 7
ORDINANCE 2523 AMENDING SECTIONS 5.20.020 AND 5.20.035 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
(first reading)
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF RATE LNCRF. ASE FOR COl J ~CTION AND DISPOSAL
OF REFUSE - Since 1986, Laidlaw Waste Systems, in accordance with the Franchise Ordinance, has been
entitled to request an annual rate increase for the collection and disposal of refuse. The staff report
recommends approval of a proposed rate increase and discusses related issues. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Finance) Continued from the meeting of 6/30/92.
Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, gave a brief review of the report.
Mayor Nader asked why the rates were being raised twice rather than having one adjustment.
Mr. Christopher responded that the rates were effective July 1st of last year and included in that was a
settlement adjustment based on a twelve month period of revenue. In order to meet the goals of the tint
year settlement adjustment it was necessary to make a subsequent adjustment on July 1st of this year. In
terms of increasing the landfill costs, it was not effective until September 1st by the Count~ of San Diego.
The fees could be recalculated so they would be effective for the twelve months.
Councilman Rindone stated that the current franchise only permitted one adoption in a calendar year. He
questioned whether the current staff proposal violated the franchise.
Councilwoman Grasser Hotton questioned whether the consumer price index increase was strictly based on
a contractual agreement between Laidlaw and the City. She asked ir the 3.1% increase included operating
costs and if a breakdown was available.
Mr. Christopher responded that the CPI was from the Department of Labor and in accordance with the
agreement. The total rate was broken down for landrill, operating costs, and franchise fees. The section
regarding the operating costs was the one that could be changed by the CPL Staff had not received
information in terms of what their actual costs were as staff had not reviewed or audited Laidlaw's books.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated it was her understanding that the contract with Laidlaw had never
been signed.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that there was no written contract, within his knowledge, other than the
issuance of the franchise. It was a unilateral exercise of a governmental authority.
Councilman Malcolm stated that it was extremely difficult to prove a rate of return. Laidlaw kept their
equipment in good operating order, the City had requested that they build a major facility, headquarter their
company here, collect recycled paper, etc. He felt they had been good members of the community. The
county was raising their dumping fees to balance their budget, therefore the problem was not Laidlaw but
the county. He was not proud to vote for an increase but did not see any reason listed in the staff report
warranting a denial.
Councilman Rindone felt that the City was at fault and that there was a hidden tax in the franchise fee. He
objected to what the county had done but it was beyond the Council's control, therefore the tipping fees
were a legitimate pass-through but the other was not. The franchise fee should not automatically be raised,
therefore he could not suppor~ any action of that type.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 8
City Attorney Boogaard stated it was his interpretation that this was a single request being implemented in
stages. Therefore, it was Council's choice as to whether it was returned to staff for a recalculation for one
increase.
Councilman Moore questioned what Laidlaw provided that other cities did not receive.
Mr. Christopher responded that Laidlaw provided considerable discounts for multi-family units, trailer parks,
condominiums, and senior citizens. All other cities surveyed did not have the discounts to the extent that
existed in Chula Vista. Therefore, a weighted average rate was established for comparison purposes.
Mayor Nader stated that the franchise fee was a very small component of the overall structure. The increase
proposed in the franchise fee would be $.06 out of a rate over $12.00. He had voted against the business
license tax increase, the sewer rate increases, and several others during bad times when he felt it was not
justified, unduly steep, or would hurt the people of Chula Vista. He did not feel it was good policy to forego
that portion of the increase but did have concerns regarding the larger portion of the increase. He referred
to page 13-6 of the staff report which indicated that an estimated rate of return on investment submitted
by Laidlaw was 5.8% and indicated that information providing details of that calculation were claimed by
Laidlaw to be proprietary and could not be provided without a confidentiality agreement of which he had
advised would be inappropriate for the City.
City Attorney Boogaard stated there was a recent case that suggested that if the Council was to use a
confidential document in ies decision to set a rate, that document would then be a public record, therefore
no confidentiality could be attached to it as against public policy. An agreement in that particular case to
the conlncary would be held invalid. He did not feel comfortable in putting the Council in the position or
receiving confidential information that they could not explain to the public why they were making a decision
on rates.
Mayor Nader questioned whether any utility or franchisee in the City had the right to demand that type of
agreement from the City.
City Attorney Boogaard felt that the burden of proof of justifying a rate increase was on the ffanchisee since
the information sufficient to satisfy the Council was in their hands. Demand for justification was legitimate
and the franchisee's duty to provide it to the Council's satisfaction if so demanded.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Jim Weaver representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, stated it was not the method of calculation but the
information contained in the calculation because Laidlaw provided services outside of the franchise area.
Because of the competitive nature they felt that information should be confidential and proprietary. It was
not an issue of resistance, but they needed reassurance of some con~dentiality.
Councilman Rindone stated the City had granted a monopoly to a particular ffanchisee. It was an
unregulated monopoly if the City was unable to ascertain whether there was an appropriate rate of return
on their investment. The Council had the right to reserve and reexamine annual requested rate increases
for the purpose of determining if the franchisee was making a reasonable return on their investment. If they
were not, their request before Council was most appropriate.
Mayor Nader stated his concern was with the reasonableness of rates within the franchise within the City.
If Laidlaw felt they could provide some backup material on ies estimate on the rate of return within the City,
without compromising their position on jobs outside of the City, it would be appreciated. He felt that when
Council had rate authority it was incumbent upon them to try to ascertain the reasonableness of the request.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 9
Mr. Weaver stated that he hoped through the rate surveys that were done and what was clearly
demonstrated in the comparison to other ffanchised cities, that the reasonableness of the rates were
reflected.
Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, stated that in the survey there was only one other city
which actually completed an audit of their hauler and therefore asked for information that could have been
comparable. She did not have any information regarding any other city requesting information on rate of
return.
Mayor Nader questioned if the existing franchise ordinance required that Council grant a cost of living
increase unless they found it to be unreasonable.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the ordnance provided a mechanism of giving increases on various
components of the rate which operated in lieu of a request for examination by the Council. If the Council
wished to examine or scrutinize more specifically any particular rate request they could then pull it out of
the automatic CPI increase process and scrutinize it as was currently being done.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLLrrlON 16719 OI, I, MIED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived.
SUBSTITLrfE MOTION: (Nader/GrasserHorton) directstaffto calculate on an annualized basis the increase
set under the resolution to go into effect September 1 to spread that cost over twelve months and return in
one week with a single rate adjusmaant for the coming year.
Councilman Moore questioned whether there would be a legal problem in charging the residents a fee prior
to it being charged by the county.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the City had been notified of what the rate increase would be and
therefore he felt it was an acceptable practice. It would be spread out evenly through the twelve months.
Councilman Rindone stated that if the county dropped the fee Council could amend the resolution so that
the funds could be rebated to the City which could help to abate any potential increase in successive years.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
MS (Nader/B/loore) to direct staff to draft a policy requiring franchisee requesting rate increase to provide
all information reasonably requested on rate of return on investment.
Councilman Moore felt that sometimes issues such as that should be negotiated between the two staffs and
that Council should be careful and see what could be negotiated versus forced.
Mayor Nader stated that the intent of the motion was that such information as requested in any given rate
adjustment would have to be provided but not that Council had to request that information every year. That
would be up to the discretion of the City each time.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 16719 APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF
REFUGE EFFE~jflVE JULY 1, 1992 AND SEIxI'EMBER 1, 1992
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 10
14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 59 FOR
THE CONSrKUCT[ON OF TWO STORAGE SHEDS AND A COVERED WORK AREA AT THE SAN DIEGO GAS
AND F.I~-C'TRIC (SDG&E) SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT - SDG&E has submitted an application to construct
two storage sheds and a covered work area within an existing warehouse area at the South Bay Power Plant
site. The project site is south of "L" Street and west of Interstate 5 which is within the Southwest
Redevelopment Project, however, no special redevelopment actions are required. The proposal is a Class 3
exemption from environmental review. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 6/23/92.
Mayor Nader left the dias at 8:52 p.m. and returned at 9:00 p.m.
Councilman Malcolm stated Council had issued a permit several years ago that had a condition that if the
trees did not grow up to block certain buildings by this time, SDG&E would need to plant additional
plantings. He requested that staff report back on the deadline.
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.
RESOLUTION 16682 OP'I'I~ED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the ten was waived, passed and
approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent.
RESOLUTION 16682 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 59 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORAGE SHEDS AND A COVERED WORK AREA AT THE SDGS~E SOUTH BAY
POWER PLANT
15. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-40: APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT INTERIM FIRE STATION NLrMBER 6 AT THE
SO~ CORNER OF LANE AVENUE AND FENTON b-I-I~,ET; APPI~JJANT - CALIFORNIA LAND
ASSOCIATES - Appeal of Planning Commission approval of PCC-92-40. Staff recommends continuation to
the meeting of 7/28/92. (Director of Planning)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
MSC (Malcolm/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 7/28/92. Approved 4-O-1 with
Nader absent.
16. PUBHC HEARING (TrY OPEN SPAf~ MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 11 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
AND ANNEXATION OF LYNNDALE Hl|J_q SUBDIVISION - In accordance with the City Municipal Code
Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the open space districts.
The reports were accepted and the required public hearing was set by Council at its meeting of 6/23/92.
Staffrecommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and Director of parks & Recreation)
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated that Items 16 and 17 were on the same report but Item 16 was
bifurcated so that Councilman Malcolm could abstain on District 11 as his home was located in that district.
Councilman Malcolm stated he would abstain from participation and voting and left the dias.
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.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 11
RESOLUTIONS 16720 AND 16721 OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN GRASSER HORTON, reading of the ten
was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1-1 with Moore absent and Malcolm absrnlnlng.
A. RESOLUTION 16720 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO
BE MAINTAINED AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
NUMBER 11
B. RESOLUTION 16721 APPROVING ANNEXATION OF LAND KNOWN AS LYNNDALE l-mJ_~
SUBDIVISION (CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-6) TO OPEN SPACE DlS tIilCT NUMBER 11
17. PUBLIC HEARING CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1; BAY BOULEVARD AND TOWN CENTRE FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1992-93 - In accordance with the City Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared
reports on the spread of assessments for the open space districts. The reports were accepted and the
required public hearing was set by Councfi at its meeting of 6/23/92. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks & Recreation)
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated that all districts included in the public hearing were reducing
their rates from last year except for the Rancho Del Rey District which was reduced last year due to a high
reserve. It was now being increased to a similar amount of the year before.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Lloyd Height, 660 East 'J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, Maintenance District #5, stated the fees and assessments,
etc. were "eating him alive". He had not seen any improvements or enhancements and did not feel there
was validity for such a high fee. He requested that Councfi take a second look at possibly reducing it
further.
Councilman Moore questioned the number of people on staff carried on open space districts.
Mr. Valenzuela responded that there were two inspectors and a coordinator.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Councfi could receive the detailed information on District S in order to
analyze the assessment justification more completely.
Councilman Moore referred to Contractual Services for Open Space District 14 and questioned whether the
$32,900 was an error.
Mayor Nader stated that with quick review of all the open space districts included in the hearing, the
Contractual Services were over $186,000.
RESOLUTION 16722 Oi.-I.'I~P, ED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the ten was waived.
Mr. Lippitt stated that staff would recheck and verify the figures. The costs were based on an apportioned
dollar value, considered as an overhead, over the whole open space program.
Mayor Nader stated it would appear that the assessments being levied were higher than needed. If that was
the case he wanted to come back and look at the issue with possible revised figures.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 12
)
Councilman Moore questioned whether full cost recovery was being utilized for staff or actual costs.
Clifford Swanson, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded that full cost recovery was
utilized for three people in the Parks Department and a small portion of the engineer's time that had to
prepare the reports. For that number of positions, the price did not appear to be too far out of line for full
cost recovery.
Councilman Moore felt that Cormell should review the policy. Maybe in such a case the City should not be
charging full cost recovery as there was a benefit to the entire City.
The public hearing was reopened by Mayor Nader.
Don Swanson, 187 Murray Sweet, Chula Vista, CA, recommended that Council take District 14 and break
it out. What they were liable to find was that the contract services went to a City employee.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
MS evtalcolm/Rindone) to direct staff to bring back a report regarding the line item of City staff services,
what they entail, breakdown, what they represent (how they were recovered).
Mayor Nader questioned whether the motion included any material that would explain or justify those costs
in relation to the costs given to Contract Services.
CouncilRtan Malcokn agreed to add Contract Services.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 16722 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FACIliTIES TO
BE MAINTAINED AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR OPEN SPACE DIb'rKICT
NUMBERS 1-10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20; EASTLAEE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1; TOWN CENTRE I
LANDSCAPING DISTRICT, AND BAY BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING DIb'IKICT
18. PUBLIC HEAIRING FORMATION OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DIb'I'RICT
NUMBER 24, CANYON VIEWS - On 6/30/92, Council approved the Engineer's Report on the proposed Open
Space District Number 24, Canyon Views, and set 7/21/92 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed
formation. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) 4/Sth's vote required.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, gave a brief review of the project.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking in opposition to the fee set and requesting that Council review the possibility of being
annexed to another district were:
Javier Casillas, 1829 Carolyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA
Hazel B. Collins, 1837 Caralyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA
Ray Ford, 1857 Carolyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA .)
Mark Kelton, 5109 Waring Road, Dan Diego, CA, representing Canyon View Homes, spoke in support of the
staff recommendation. He stated there were two issues with one being the type of ground cover.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 13
Councilwoman Grasser Horton questioned whether the ground cover was a requirement from the City.
Mr. Kelton responded that it was a requirement from the City. He did not feel that the experiment had
worked well on their property. They would defer to the homeowners, i.e. weed like natural terrain versus
the ice plant and would bear the cost to replace with ice plant. The second issue was the formation of the
district. The developer had agreed last year to maintain the area one more year at their cost while staff tried
to pursue other alternatives that would reduce the assessment. They requested that Council form the district
and adopt the fee but give a high priority to looking at ways to bring it into line with existing open space
districts throughout the City.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Malcolm wanted to refer it back to staff last year because he felt it was a scenic corridor that
He personally supported annexation with Bonita Long Canyon which would result in an additional
SIS/month. It was the Council's decision to make it a scenic corridor and to protect the slopes and to
burden those homeowners with a City-wide benefit was wrong. Bonita Long Canyon also benefited from
the area and should help to pay a portion. Council had ordered drought tolerant native species in the
dislxict and he understood that Mr. Kelton would like the condition of "native' removed.
Mr. Kelton responded that they proposed to replace the basic ground covering with hydraseed mixture and
Disneyland Ice Plant which was the predominant landscaping seen throughout Bonita Long Canyon. They
would resist having to replace any of the trees or bushes.
Mayor Nader stated he had not had an opportunity to review the area and would like to continue the item
for one week to review and talk to homeowners. He also felt the assessments were excessive. He requested
that staff provide information regarding the plants that were required by the City landscape architect.
Councilwoman Grasser Hotton stated that if Item 4 was approved it would be inconsistent with what was
being done in EastLake. She agreed with Councilman Malcolm regarding the annexation to Bonita Long
Canyon.
Mr. Lippitt stated the procedure would be to establish the district, set the assessment at $339, work with
the developer, and have a public hearing for Bonita Long Canyon regarding annexation. He informed
Council that the assessments had to be at the Assessor's Office by 8/10/92. The latest he felt the current
hearing could be held would be 7/28/92.
Assistant City Manager Morris questioned whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to establish the district
at the $680, knowing that was what the assessment was, have the hearing and make the adjustment. It was
his understanding that the staff had to work with the Assessor's Office.
RESOLUTIONS 16723 AND 16724 OFFERED BY COLINCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived.
Mayor Nader stated that a continuation would allow him time to see the site first hand and talk to
homeowners. He felt he might be interested in exploring Option 3 which would turn the maintenance over
to the homeowners association.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that the homeowners had stated that the costs would be similar as to
whether an assessment district was formed or if it was turned over to the homeowners association.
Mayor Nader stated he was supportive of exploring Option 4 but questioned whether Council could commit
themselves without holding a public hearing. Therefore, he was hesitant on voting for the motion on the
floor.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 14
Councilman Moore felt that Council shotrid approve the resolutions, work with the Bonita Long Canyon
district and the scenic corridor item simultaneously. It could always be changed at a later date.
VOTE ON RESOLUTIONS 16723 AND 16724: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
MSUC (Malcolm/Grasser Hotton) to direct staff to set for hearing Option 4, page 3 of the staff report, on
annexing the district to the larger Bonita Long Canyon District.
MS CMa]colm/Grasser Horton) to direct staff to work with the developer of the project regarding the
replanting, at the developer's expense, of drought tolerant plants.
Mayor Nader asked for a friendly amendment requesting a report from staff explaining the developer's
statement that staff required him to put in non-drought tolerant trees along with the drought tolerant ones
thereby negating the water conservation hoped to be achieved with the original motion.
Councilmembers Malcolm/Grasser Horton agreed to include the friendly amendment into the motion,
Mr. Kelton informed Council that he had not been present at all the discussions between their landscape
architect and the City's landscape architect. There was some jurisdictional confusion as to whether the
landscape architects from Parks & Recreation were going to be responsible. He did not want to point
fingers.
Mayor Nader felt the motion was clear that the developer had to work with staff regarding the replantings.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
A. RESOLUTION 16723 ORDERINGTHEIMPROVEMENTSANDTHEFORMATIONOFOPENSPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 24° CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
B. RESOLUTION 16724 ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR OPEN SPACE DI:sfK[CT NUMBER 24
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Helen Cassel, 658 Dennis Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, 91910, referred to a letter to the editor she had written
regarding the Civfs vehicle policy and the support she had received. She felt the taxpayers were unhappy
with the situation and that the Council had a duty to work out a contract with employees that was the best
deal for the taxpayers.
Mayor Nader, Assistant City Manager Morris, and City Attorney Boogaard left the dias at 10:26 p.m. and
returned at 10:30 p.m.
Councilman Malcolm stated the item had been referred to staff for a report back to Council which would
deal with every car in the City. The City Clerk's Department would notify Ms. Cassel when the report would
be heard by Council.
Assistant City Manager Morris felt the report would be brought back in approximately two weeks.
ACTION ITEMS
19. ORDINANCE 2524 AMENDING SECTION 2.30.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
IVlEIMBERSHIP ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (first readinE) - Ordinance 2380 creating
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 15
the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC) was approved by Council on 7/17/90. On 10/9/90,
Council amended Sections 2.30.020 and 2.30.060 to expand EDC membership from seven to nine
commissioners. The recommended ordinance is being proposed by the Economic Development Commission
and provides language outlining specific areas of expertise which should be drawn from in Council's
selection of appointees. The purpose is to encourage a well balanced membership representing expertise
vital to the EDC's role in developing, recommending and implementing economic development strategies.
Staff recommends Council place ordinance on furst reading. (Director of Community Development)
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager, stated fiere were two corrections on the ordinance, 1) Item
B.3 should say 'five ex-officio members"; and 2) Item 4 was a new paragraph and the last line should refer
to Subsection B.1.
ORDINANCE 2524, AS AMENDED, PLACED ON FIRST READING BY MAYOR NADER, reading of ~ text was
waived.
Councfiman Rindone felt that Council was sometimes to prescriptive on commissions and over regulated.
The goal of the recommendation was commendable but if the present structure was amended to have two
members appointed by the South Bay City Board of Realtors and one appointee by each member of the
Council it would result in good diversity and would follow the pattern set in the past.
VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2524: approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed.
Mayor Nader informed the public that the City had an ordinance which required the Council to adjourn at
10:30 p.m. unless there was a motion to continue the meeting.
MSUC (NaderAMalcolm) to continue the meeting for the balance of the agenda.
20. RESOLUTION 16725 AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CERTAIN
ASSE..e~MENTS IMPOSED N CONNECTION WITH THE OTAY VAIJ-EY ROAD WIDENING ~
DISTRICT - On 6/23/92, Council confirmed the assessments for Assessment District Number 90-2, Otay
Valley Road. At that meeting, Council directed staff to reconsider certain property owner requests for
additional credit for slopes and constructed improvements. Staff recommends Council: (1) approve an
additional contribution of $20,973 to Ms. Gregory's assessment for improvements constructed; (2) deny
Teyssier's, Mr. Barber's and Mr. Brady's requests for additional contributions to their assessments; and, (3)
approve an additional contribution to Mr. Cushman's assessment for slopes. (Director of Public Works and
Director of Community Developmen0
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, gave a brief review of the project.
William A. Steen, 8580 La Mesa Boulevard #10, La Mesa, CA, Consulting Civil Engineer representing Mr.
Cushman, spoke in opposition to the staff report.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton questioned whether they had included the slopes in the set-back areas.
Mr. Steen responded that they had included all the slopes in the entire property because there was a
sensitive impact area on 200 feet on the west and 200 feet on the north. The one slope that was not
included was on the east side adjacent to the existing industrial park because they felt it bore no relation
to the massive adjustment they had to do.
Larry Cushman, 2901 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA, spoke in opposition m the staff report.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 16
Councilman Malcolm stated that Council had asked Mr. Cushman to start over. A several hundred foot set-
back area had been established to protect the residents. If the City was n~ting to preserve 28% slopes and
the set-backs, it would seem inappropriate to asses him for those sensitive impact areas. He did not feel the
staff recommendation regarding the acreage coincided with the Couneil's dlreetion. Regarding Shinohara
Lane, the eul-de-sae was a cost that Mr. Cushman should bear and the cost for the street should be credited
against Mr. Custunan as was done with jT Racing.
Mr. Steen stated the cost of the crib-wall would be approximately $200,000 to adjust the site to the Council's
request. The difference was that the City did not want them to have the parking close to the residential
area, in exchange for that the parking lot had to be placed in the frontal area closer to the buildings. It was
their opinion that since that was another accommodation for the sensitive impacts, they should be given the
credit for the equal exchange.
Mr. Lippitt stated that there was no disagreement on the credits in the sensitive areas on the slopes. The
difference was due to the need to encroach into sensitive area for parking which would have been given
credit. The difference was 7/10th's of an acre or approximately $14,000.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether the issue of sensitive impact areas was applicable to other
properties and if so, had they received credits.
Mr. Lippitt stated that Omar Rendering did receive credits for sensitive areas that were slopes. Other
property owners that had 2S% slopes or more that were not in set-back areas did receive credits.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that while there might be an equity issue that
the developer raised, staff felt that Shinohara Lane was germane to the assessment district. It was a result
of zoning and development conditions on the project and should not be equated with a'T Racing
reimbursement. JT Racing did improvements that were directly involved with the widening of Otay Valley
Road. The agreement to construct Shinohara Lane was with CDBG money from the City and half of that
would be reimbursed by the developer, Mr. Cushman. It was stafl's feeling that it was not germane to the
Otay Valley Road widening and if it was an equity issue it should be handled by separate action. Staff also
felt the cul-de-sac was a zoning development requirement and not related to Otay Valley Road widening.
MS (Malcolm/Moore) to give credit for Shinohara Lane, in the amount of the signed deed of Irast securing
the debt (erase the deed of trust}.
Mayor Nader felt that the problems of the disn-/ct should be addressed by looking at the overall project to
see where cuts could be made.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 with Rindone/Nader opposed.
IESOLUTION 16725 OFF~;RED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and
appreved unanimously.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ITEMS pLIIJ.ED FROM THE CONSENT CAI~e2CDAR
Item pulled: 9. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 17
OTHER BUSINESS
21. CITY' MANAGER'S REPORTf S)
Assistant City Manager Morris stated he had been informed by staff that two weeks would be to soon to
report back to Council on the use of City vehicles. A memorandum would be sent to Council indicating
when that item would return for consideration. The speaker would also be notified of the date.
Councilman Rindone requested that a full Council be present when the item was brought back for review,
Mayor Nader stated that he had been leaving the dins when the subject was discussed and questioned
whether there was a conflict.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he left the dias to avoid the appearance of impropriety and intended to
continue to do so.
22. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
a. Ratification of aVVointrnents to Boards/Commissions/Committees -
Commission on Aging: Anne H. Fabrick;
Charter Review Commission: Jack Blakely, and C.R. Campbell;
Child Care Commission: Nancy Cavanaugh and Cindy Johns;
Cultural Arts Commission: Dency Souval and Lori Chan Luna;
Design Review Committee: John C. Rodriguez;
Economic Development Commission: Chuck Peter;
Parks & Recreation Commission: Clifford Roland;
Otay Valley Project Area Committee: A,Y. Casillas and Don Palumbo;
Youth Commission: Julia Wubenhorst, Tara Willjams, Allyson Borders, and Joe Page.
MSUC (Nader/Rindone) to approve the ratification of appointments to Boards/Corarni~sionS/Commi~ees.
b. Procedure for Reappointment - Board of Ethics
Mayor Nader requested that it~rn~ b. and c. be continued to the meeting of 7/28/92.
c. Routine notice and opportunity for assessed properly owners to review proposed contracts
for work related to Otay Valley Road widening before they are let.
23. COUNCIL COMMFANTS
Councilman Moore
a. Discussion and/or action regarding renaming of Otay Lakes Road (east/west section) due to near
future increase in patients, visitors, golfers and educators to new facilities being consmlcted in the east.
The main access is 'L' Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, and Otay Lakes Road, which are one and the same.
It is most appropriate to review this subject before new street signs are installed and major advertising is
printed.
Councilman Moore requested that item a. be continued to the meeting of 7/28/92.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 18
b. Correspondence to Legislature leadership regarding State budget. He expressed his concern that
the League had not offered anything to the State regarding the budget crisis. He would like Council's
approval, in concept, of a letter to state leaders.
Councilman Malcolm stated he would like to drop the portion regarding the cigarette tax and offer AB 8
property tax funds and the uncommitted 20% set-aside. The things that should be offered were those things
that offered more to the state and affected the cities less.
Mayor Nader felt the way to proceed would be to direct that the letter be prepared for the Mayors signature.
The Council needed to be realistic and agreed that the AB 8 funds would hit the City less hard.
Assistant City Manager Morris stated that if the City offered 100% of the AB 8 funds it would mount to
ap roximatel $3 million if spread over three years. He recommended in lieu of 100% of the AB 8 monies,
it ~: adjuste~by the amount offered now in the 20o/~ set-aside that more was not being offered than they
believed was already on the table with the state.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) devdop a letter acknowledging the smte's situation, offer a combination of AB 8 and
20% set-aide funds as a potential position.
Mayor Nader stated he had talked to former Mayor Cox who shared the idea of asking for a constitutional
amendment to be placed on the ballot which would protect the sales tax set-aside for the cities and actually
reserve and additional $.01 of the existing sales tax for cities as a replacement and long term revenue source
for some of funds the cities were losing. It would change the method of allocating the sales tax to per capita
rather than point of generation. The City of Chula Vista would benefit and provide stability to city funding.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) direct staff to pursue and options for long range stability including an additional $.01
of the salas tax to be reserved for cities and be allocated on a per capita basis.
Councilman Rindone
c. Update report by Rodriquez Airport Administrator regarding Mexico's Airport Expansion Plans.
Councilman Rindone requested that item c. be continued to the 7/28/92 meeting.
d. South Bay Transportation Coalition Subcommittee Report regarding location of Transit Center at
vicinity of Southwestern Community College. There was a current City policy that prohibited the use of the
City logo except for City business. The third graders in all the schools in Chula Vista were planning a unit
called "Celebrate Chula Vista" for next year to study the City's history. They would be participating in the
Starlight Yule Parade and wanted to wear T-shirts with the City logo. He requested that staff review a
possible exception to the policy which would allow the use of the City logo for the one time project of
"Celebrate Chula Vista~ and bring back to Council for approval.
e. He and the Mayor had attended the Southbay Transportation Coalition Subcommittee meeting last
week and had suggested that all agencies become involved in the discussion of possible siting of the transit
center. If there were no objections by Council, he would serve on that subcommittee as the City's MTDB
representative.
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 19
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council met in a closed session at 11:40 p.m. to discuss:
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City vs. County regarding
Appropriate Technologies IL
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. EDCO
and Bay Cities.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. Otay
Valley Water District.
Acquisition of Shinohara property - Auto Park - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8.
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:20 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on July 28, 1992 at 6:0O p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
\
Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu~t~ty Clerk