Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/09/15 MINLrYF~ OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, September 15, 1992 Council Chambers 6:05 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT; Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF AI .LF. GIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 25, 1992 MSUC (Moore/Rindone) to approve the minutes of August 25, 1992 as presented. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office; Oath of office administered by City Clerk Authelet to Robert Quisenberty - International Friendship Commission and Arthur Triplette - Board of Appeals. b. ProdairningtheweeksofSeptemberlgthroughOctoberl2, 1992 as 'COASTWEEKS* and Saturday, Septamber 19, 1992 as 'ADOPT-A-BEACH CO/~.%"TAL CLR~FL/P DAY'. Proclamation presented by Councilman Rindone to Dr. Stephen Neudecker of the Nature Interpretive Center. Dr. Neudecker presented a plaque acknowledging Councilman Rindone as a past member of the Board of Directors for the Bayfront Conservancy Trust from 1986 to 1991. CONSENT CAI.F..NDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CAI.I~NDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text wa~ waived, pa.~ed and approved Imanimously. 5. VVRI'F[EN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter regarding the Open Space and Landscape Maintenance District assess~ants and the pess~ility of splitting the large district into two parts - Mr. and Mrs. Harold Hoffman, 1651 Azusa Court, Bonita, CA 91902. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff for review. b. Letter regarding the 'Downtowner' bus service at the KOA eampground/RV park - Mike Bell, Manager, San Diego Metro, KOA Kampground, 111 North Second Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910-1198. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff for review. Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 2 6. ORDINANCE 2529 AMENDING 'ITrKE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 19.04.235 DEFINING RIJ~.C-tKONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS AND AMENDING SECTION 19.60 TO ESTABL[SH PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING OF SIGN PERMITS AND TO ALLOW FOR I~I.RCTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS (second readins[ and adoprion) - Council requested establishment of procedures to expedite processing of sign permits, and to allow electronic message board signs in certain limited redevelopment areas and certain zones. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 7. ORDINANCE 2530 AIMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PREZONING 3.59 ACRES NORTH OF OTAY LAKES ROAD, EAST OF LEHIGH A~ TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AND FINDING THAT SUCH ZONING Ar~-i-iI/FI'Y IS ~ FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (second readini and adontion) - The proposed rezoning and subsequent annexation of the property is a result of a requirement by LAFCO that the parcel be annexed in conjunction with the annexation of the adjacent property curren~y being processed under the project name of Telegraph Canyon Estates. The annexation of the 3.59 acre parcel in conjunction with the project will preclude the creation of a County island. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 8. RESOLUTION 16807 APPROVING AGRRRMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VARIOUS COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS GROUPS FOR EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS - During the 1992-93 budget session, Council approved funding of various community promotion groups. Agreements have been prepared setting out terms and conditions for receiving funding. Community groups are: Chula Vista Jaycees, Gretchen Evans (Library Chamber Concer~s), UN Day Committee, and Human Services Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) 9. RESOLUTION 16808 APPROVINGENCROACHMENTPERMITNUMBERPE-262FORCHAINLINK GATE ACROSS *G* STREET AT ROHR, INC. - Rohr, Inc. has requested that the City issue a temporary encroachment permit to allow installation of a chain link gate across 'G' Street just west of Bay Boulevard. Even though it is to be a temporary situation, staff felt that it should be considered by Council since it is dosing off a portion of public right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilman Malcolm requested that staff check to see if a Coastal Development Permit was required. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLLrrIONS AND ORDINANCES 10. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY REQUEST TO REDUCE REAR YARD SET BACK FROM TWENTY FEET TO SIX FEET -Request to reduce required rear yard at 671 Creseent Drive from twenty feet to six feet in order to legalize an already construeted sunroom. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared dosed. ~LLrFION 16809 OFFERED BY COUNCII.MAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived. The public hearing was reopened to allow the Appellant to speak. Corazon C. Van Hecke, 671 Crescent Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91911, stated she had been fooled by the contractor. It was her understanding that everything had been taken care of in the agreement. She needed an enclosed patio due to her allergies. Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 3 There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Mayor Nader questioned whether it made any difference, in terms of City regulations or Planning Commission recommendations, that the patio was enclosed. Robert Miter, Director of Planning, responded that it did. When the patio was enclosed it was treated as a portion of the structure and the set back requirement was twenty feet. The regulations allowed an open patio structure to encroach within five feet of the rear yard set back. Mayor Nader questioned whether there was any record of dealings with the speaker's contractor and staff and whether a permit had been issued. Mr. Leiter stated staff had not dealt with the contractor and a permit had not been issued. Mayor Nader questioned whether staff knew who the contractor was and whether the contractor had a license. Mr. Leiter responded that information had been received from the applicant. Staff had also been informed that the contractor was no longer in business. Staff had not checked on the license and had considered the information provided by the applicant as correct. Mayor Nader stated that the business was Imperial Patio Builders, El Cajon, CA, Robert Plesser, Vice- President and requested that staff follow-up. There were remedies that the applicant should have whether or not the business entity existed any longer. He questioned what staffs intentions were regarding informing the applicant what her legal rights would be. Mr. Leiter stated that staff would discuss that with her and perhaps the City Attorney's Office could meet with her for additional input from a legal standpoint as to what the remedies would be. Mayor Nader questioned what the next steps were ff the motion was approve& Mr. Leiter stated that after approximately 60 days staff would turn it over to the City Attorney's Office and they would file legal action to require the removal of the structure. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that a contractor failed to get a license and went ahead with the construction that later turned out to be a violation of code. A hardship was being imposed on the property owner, he did not want to violate the code but he also did not want to put the entire burden on the property owner either. He questioned whether the City should file legal action against the contractor to make her whole. Councilman Malcolm felt that was a different issue. MOTION: (Nader) direct staff to take legal action against the conu'actor. Motion died for lack of second. VOTE ON ~LIfrlON 16809: apprnved 4-1 with Nader opposed. Councilman Moore questioned whether the structure could be revised so that the entire room would not have to be removed. Mr. Leiter stated that was a possibility and staff would be willing to work with the applicant as to how the structure could be modified to meet the requirements. He further stated that Sunbow also had architectural guidelines that needed to be met. Councilman Moore felt there should be something vivid that showed that the City did not condone contractors that violated the law. In some cities names of violators were being published. Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 4 MS (Malcolm/Hotton} to direct staff to: 1 ) send a letter to the State Licensing Board, when staff fin& what Sta~e contracting license the person was operating under, and 2) send a leRer to the property owner explaining what her options are as well as who to get in touch with at the Homeowners Associatiorh Councilman Rindone questioned whether there were any provisions or regulations, in the City Code or State regulations, regarding operax~ng without a license and how it might be pursued. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the State Contractors Licensing Board could revoke his license if he had one and prosecute him if he was operating without a license. There would also be civil remedies the proper~ owner would have against the conttactor, especially if she suffered the damage of being required to remove the s~rucB. tre. Ken Larsen, Direcwr of Building and Housing, stated it was dearly a civil action bet~veen a consumer and a cona'acwr. The actions the Department would take would not be inconsistent with actions taken frequently. They would notify the Contractors Licensing Board, and that particular contracting firm already had a complaint filed against them by the Department. The actions that the departAnent would take were against the consumer, who would be advised w remove ~he cover within a reasonable time period. The reasonable amount of time was discretionary based on the imposed hazard and the fire loading, and subjected hazard to the adjacent property. The Deparm~ent received three to four complaints a week and they Wok quick action on those. MOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. RESOLUTION 16809 DENYING THE APPEAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK AT 671 CRESCENT DRIVE 11. PUBLIC HEARING FORMATION OF CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBFI :23, OTAY RIO BUSINE. SS PARK - On 8/18/92, Council approved the Engineer's Report on the proposed Open Space District Number 23, Otay Rio Business Park, and set 9/15/92 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed formation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks & Recreation) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Their being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 16810 OFM~RED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION 16810 ORDERINGTHEIMPROVFAMFJqTSANDTHEFORMATIONOFOPENSpACE MAINTF2qANCE DIb'fKICT NUMBER 2.3, OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. Minutes September 115, 1992 Page 15 ACTION I~ 12. REPORT REQ~ OF MARK LANCAb-I-ER REGARDING IMPROVEMENT OF FIIrI'H AVFJq'UE - Mark Lancaster, 1287 Fifth Avenue, addressed Council on 9/8/92 under Oral Communications regarding his concerns on staffs request that he pay his share of the cost of the improvements at his residence as required by the Declaration of Covenants recorded against his property. The City curren~y has a project on Fifth Avenue from Naples Street to Orange Avenue, which encompasses Mr. Lancaster's property and sent Mr. Lancaster a letter advising him that the City would be willing to consider a reasonable payment schedule to allow him to pay off the cost of improvements over a period of time. Mr. Lancaster has indicated that he does not think he should be required to pay the cost of the improvements. Staff recommends Council accept the report and authorize staff to collect the amount of the cost of the Fifth Avenue improvements allocated to the Lancaster parcel in the amount of $20,381 and authorize the City Manager to approve a reasonable payment schedule to accommodate said collection effort. (Director of Public Works) Clifford Swanson, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, stated one of the other properties impacted was Mr. and Mrs. John Pollorena who had paid the entire amount of the deferral in the amount of $8,265.84. A letter had been received from the other property owner, Mr. Torab Bakhtiari, requesting a waiver. Mark Lancaster, 490 Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke against the staff recommendation. He reviewed the past history of the project and stated that he had been charged $20,380 for the street improvements. It was his understanding that if he waited until the completion of the Fifth Avenue improvements, before splitting his lot, he would not incur any costs. He was fxusttated that he or any other citizen cotrid be told the same story for four years and then due to a legal technicality found late in the game be charged an amount that would set him back four years. He felt it would be fair to the City and himself if it continued as planned for the past four years, at the City's cost, and he would begin improvements on Palomar by March 1, 1993. Councilman Malcolm felt Mr. Lancaster was very sincere about his beliefs but he did not believe there was any question as to what the City was requiring of Mr. Lancaster. He felt if money was given to Mr. Lancaster, all taxpayers would then be paying it. He did not feel he could make those extra ordinary findings because Mr. Lancaster had enough documentation from the City to indicate to him that he would have to pay for those improvements. The City was guilty in not notifying him earlier and he felt staff should sit down and work out a payment schedule. He hoped the schedule, because there was some blame on the Cit-y's part, would be low interest or no interest payment. Councilman Moore agreed with Councilman Malcolm and didn't feel the City treasury should pay the bill. He questioned whether the $742 for the easement was a fair price or negotiated price. If the fair price was higher staff should look at that difference. There was also a policy regarding sidewalk replacement, when a properly ffonted two streets, where the City would cover 50% of the second sidewalk. He questioned whether that should be part of the consideration. Councilman Rindone stated he was disturbed over the confusion and was pleased to see that staff had addressed that issue in the staff report. He wanted to ensure that it did not happen again in the future. MS (Malcolm/Moore) to accept the staff report. Mr. Lancaster informed Council that a land split had not been done nor additional developments since the project had begun. He did not appreciate the accusations in the letter from staff and felt it discredited him. If the City had planned on charging him all along, why did they wait so long to notify him? Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 6 Mayor Nader questioned whether the charge was for widening of Fifth Avenue to accommodate more traffic. Mr. Swanson responded that it did not provide for additional widening, although the pavement would be somewhat wider. The right-of-way was dedicated with the original parcel map where the deferral came about. Mayor Nader noted that Mr. Lancaster had stated he had not applied for a lot split. Mr. Swanson responded that Mr. Lancaster had not applied for a lot split. However, Mr. Lancaster owned one lot of a previously bigger lot that was subdivided into three parcels. It was at that time the deferral was placed. Mayor Nader felt Mr. Lancaster was sincere and it was unfortunate that there was correspondence erroneously suggesting that the properly owner was not liable when that was not the case. He expected, at the very least, to have staff make sure that any payment schedule was one that the property owner could reasonably bear. If there was any dispute, he expected it to be brought to Council's attention to be resolved. Councilman Malcolm requested that staff provide, as an information item, a copy of the payment schedule. If it was made out the way he felt, it would probably equal about half the amount in present value dollars versus extending it over a number of years. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. MSUC (MoorefNader) direct staff to provide Counc~ with the procedures utilized when planning to approve sidewalks, gu~ers, drainage, etc. to private property. Mayor Nader stated the City had a requirement for assessment districts and improvements that there be specific notice on transfer of the property signed by the buyer with red letters, etc. and questioned whether the requirement applied to situations such as Mr. Lancaster's. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it did not. The obligation was from the original covenant. Mayor Nader questioned whether the City should extend the provision of that disclosure ordinance to cover that type of situation so that it would not happen again. City Attorney Boogaard responded that in that particular situation, the title reporting system worked the way it was planned. The title report showed the covenant. Mayor Nader stated he understood that but in the situation that Council had originally adopted the ordinance to cover, the documents in question also showed the Mello Roos District, assessment district, etc. The problem was that someone that was not a real estate professional could easily miss it or not understand its importance. Mr. Swanson clarified that the ordinance was primarily on the subdivider when he had an assessment district. The subdivider notified all purchasers of the property. Once it was down to the secondary purchaser level it no longer applied. Mayor Nader stated it needed to come back to Council because that was not his intent. The intent was that anyone buying within a Mello Roos District be clearly notified. Minutes September 1S, 1992 Page 7 Councilman Moore stated he had concern when it was approved as to what would happen to the secondary buyer. He noted that the Otay Water District had assessments that were not listed. They should all be incorporated so that the buyer was fully aware of what he would be charged. Mayor Nader stated the City had enacted requirements that went beyond the original legal requirements to ensure that no one could state that they did not know. He felt the item should be placed on a future agenda if the current ordinance did not cover everyahing Council had intended. City Attorney Boogaard stated the City policy was changed to require the recording of the deferral agreements within the last two years. They did show up on title reports as matters of record. Perhaps staff could include in the agreement a covenant of an express warning to the buyer from the seller. He was not sure how it would be enforced any greater than the notice of the deferral agreement but if it were referred back to the Engineering Department the City Attorney's Office would work with them. MS (Nader/Moore) to refer to staff the matter of required notice of assessments and funding of public improvements to buyers and bring back a report, either an information item or a docketed item as they deem appropriate. Councilman Moore stated the Board of Realtors should be notified and allowed to give input. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ITEMS pUIJ.F.D FROM TIIE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. b. Elected official representation at California Integrated Waste Management Board Meeting in Fresno on September 23, 1992. Deputy City Manager Thomson stated that staff learned that the California Integrated Waste Management Board scheduled a special meeting on Wednesday, September 30th in Foisom. The County requested that an elected official attend the meeting at the County's expense. The County also suggested that Council may want to send a member to the subcommittee meeting of that Board on September 21st. Staff would be able to attend that meeting and would suggest that the main meeting on September 30th was more important in terms of Council attendance. There was a conflict, both for the Board of Supervisors and Council, with the Otay Ranch meeting scheduled for that morning. Therefore, staff felt it would not be reasonable to hold the joint meeting on the Otay Ranch on that day. Mr. Lattieri recommended that the meeting be rescheduled. MS (Malcolm/Moore) to designate the Mayor to attend the meeting of the California Integrated Waste Management Board meeting on September 30th. If unable to attend, the Mayor is to designate another CouDeilmember. Minutes September 15, 1992 Councilman Moore stated that the Otay Ranch meeting should be a negotiated item before stating that the City would represent them on the 30th. Councilman Malcolm stated he would make it part of the motion to reschedule the Otay Ranch meeting. Councilman Rindone felt the City should show good faith by attending the meeting and the County would also show good faith by initiating a prompt rescheduling of the Otay Ranch meeting. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Mayor Nader suggested that if there was another member of the Council that wanted to attend the subcommittee meeting on 9/21/92 they should contact the City Manager's Office. Councilman Rindone stated the 9/30/92 meeting was scheduled to be in Chula Vista and felt the replacement meeting should also be held in Chula Vista. 14. I~YOR'S REPORTf S) a. Actions to appoint a Councilmember to the Escondido-Chula Vista Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors. Mayor Nader stated it would be necessary to have a meeting to consider a refmancing of bonds in order to obtain the advantage of a lower interest rate. Before that could be done, Council needed to appoint one additional member to the Housing Finance Agency. He stated he would be willing to represent the Council on that agency. MSUC (Rindone/Moore) to appoint Mayor Nader as the representative to the Escondido-Chula Vista Housing Finance Agency. b. Mayor Nader requested that "Distribution of Port Revenues" be placed on the agenda under his item every week until such time the matter was resolved. He had a meeting with most of the other mayors involved and held a preliminary discussion of the different positions of the cities. It continued to be, to his knowledge, the official position of Council that they would be opposed to a distribution of Port reserves. In his opinion, the formula advanced by the City of San Diego was patently unreasonable for a number of reasons and he certainly couldn't imagine the circumstances under which the City would support that. He felt additional discussion and direction from the Council on what their negotiating position should be would be in order. He asked the City Attorney to determine whether it involved anything that would require a closed session in terms of potential litigation or negotiations. The request by the City of San Diego was clearly out of proportion to the fact that they had already received a huge benefit and were receiving a huge benefit in the form of Transit Occupancy Taxes, Possessory Interest Taxes, and sales taxes derived from existing Port projects. Just at a time when Imperial Beach, National City, and Chula Vista were hoping to gain the benefit of Port investments, the City of San Diego was saying, ours is ours and what's yours is also ours. The other issue he felt the City needed to address and confront was the question of an indirect subsidy from the Port for a project that Port said that they did not want to pay a dime for and that was the TwinPorts proposal. The Port Commission made a decision that said yes we will let you use our name on the application to the FAA for grants provided the City of San Diego pays the local match but we don't want a dime of Port money, which belongs to all five cities in the region, into that TwinPorts study. Now the City of San Diego appeared to be making an endrun around that condition and instead of coming back to the Port and directly asking for the funds for TwinPorts, they were saying they were in terrible budgetary crisis, looking at potential layoffs but were going ahead and allocating tens of thousands, ultimately hundreds of Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 9 thousands of dollars for more studies of TwinPorts. That indirec~y constituted a Port subsidy of TwinPorts and was not acceptable and a violation of good faith based on the discussion held at the time the Port Commission agreed to be a co-sponsor of the TwinPorts study. If there was going to be some type of distribution, it should be done in a manner that assured that the monies would be used on a regional basis to a. ddress regional problems and that the Southbay cities were given their share and the opportunity to have projects done by the Port that would produce the kind of revenue that the City of San Diego already enjoyed and had for some time. He welcomed Council feedback. City Attorney Boogaard stated the topic was not an identified agenda item and requested that Counc~ defer discussion until the next meeting. Deputy City Manager Thomson stated the City Manager wanted to put the item on the agenda for next Counc~ meeting to provide input as well. Mayor Nader questioned whether any member of the Council had input they wanted to offer as there was going to be another meeting of the mayors and managers prior to the next Council meeting. MS (NaderAMoore) find that an emergency exists which Counc~ was not aware of at the time the agenda for the meeting was posted and to allow ddiberation on the item. Councilman Malcolm stated that Council certainly knew about the issue last week and if the Mayor needed to have input, Council was clearly against the Port giving up the money at that particular time. He did not see why it couldn't have been placed on the agenda on Friday. Mayor Nader responded that he did not think anyone knew that the other mayors would request an additional meeting to discuss the subject. Council's position was a firm 'no" to any distribution of Port revenues. He felt that at least a couple of people had discussed the possibility that there may need to be some negotiating from that position. Councilman Rindone questioned whether the Mayor was anticipating that there would be another meeting scheduled for the mayors of the five cities prior to next Tuesday. Mayor Nader responded yes, that was the basis for finding that Council needed to take the matter up that evening. Councilman Malcolm stated he found it strange that Council would want to tell their negotiating position on television. He felt it was more appropriate to meet with all the mayors to see if a reasonable solution and compromise could be worked out. Mayor Nader stated it involved both potential negotiation with the cities and potential litigation as there had been lawsuits threatened in connection with whether the Port could do a distribution at all, and questioned if it was something that Council could discuss in closed session. City Attorney Boogaard responded that the negotiation exemption dealt with the sale or acquisition of lend and the litigation exception required some seriously threatened litigation either by the City or against the City. Councilman Rindone felt the fundamental point was that Assemblyman Peace had included in the b~l a provision that it must be unanimous. As a result there had to be total concurrence of the Council, and all city councils of the five cities, and that gave the City the leverage to ensure that if there was a distribution plan it would be done appropriately and all parties agreed. Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 10 MOTION I~rI'I'HDRAWN: (NaderAVloore) Assemblyman Steve Peace stated that the San Diego Port District was the only Port District in the State of California that was not under credit watch by Standard and Poors. The reason for that was because the language, as it affected other ports in the Sate, gave cities unfiateral authority, both to determine the size of the appropriate surplus and then to unilaterally order its distribution. The language with respect to the San Diego Port District not only required the unanimous approval of all of the city councils but also the approval of the Port District itself. The reason behind that, was the recognition that the Port had a whole series of obligations with respect to debt service to which it's reserve capacity was direcfiy related to the cost of exercising it's responsibility in respect to that debt. He hoped that in those discussions, each of the representatives of all the cities, as well as their respective appointees to the Port Commission would be cognizant to the need to leave a sufficient amount of revenue base within the Port in order to meet those already outstanding debt obligations and maintain the sort of favorable bond rating which the San Diego Port had enjoyed. The community and all of them as leaders in the community made a mistake over the past decade in acting in a manner in which endured their never ending friendship with their colleagues in political leadership in the City of San Diego. As a result of the good neighbor policy of accommodating the desires of the political leadership in San Diego they continued to study the never ending story of TwinPorts. Hundreds of thousands, indeed in excess of raftlions of dollars had been expended on studying a proposition that would never come to pass. They had the opportunity to fill the void which apparenfiy their colleagues in the City of San Diego were unwilling to do and that was to exercise the political will to bring to an end the angst which the community had suffered. It needed to end because the cities could not afford, in an era of declining public revenues and resources, to continue to fritter away money on bureaucrats studying the same thing over and over again. Until someone in the County of San Diego stood up and said enough was enough, it would go on forever. Council had an opportunity to do a service, not just for the constituency in the City, which had expressed itself virtually unanimously, but to the entire people of the county to bring it to an end. He hoped that Council wouldn't fail to do so. Councfiman Moore stated that in 1990, a member of each city councfi and at least the city managers of each of the Port cities plus the Port and Commissioners, were pursuing efforts to prioritize capital improvement projects. He was uncertain as to where that stood currenfiy. He believed that was the best way to spend the Port funds, on major projects, with priorities set by those representing the five Port cities. Cities should not take a quick fix on a budget by taking the Port money over the next two years. He was a fua-n believer that the major projects and joint priority of those capital improvement projects on an annual basis was the way it should proceed. Then it would be beneficial for decades instead of one or two years. Mayor Nader responded that the subcommittee was limited to discussions with the Port on bayfront acquisition which was the entire scope of the subcommittee. He stated he would be a little more sympathetic to claims of fiscal emergency and potential layoffs if the actions of the City of San Diego reflected any validity to those claims. The actions of appropriating another $50,000 for more studies of TwinPorts, that didn't count travel budgets or staff time, was simply not consistent with the claim they were about to cut essential city services past the bone because of the budget cutbacks. Those were not the actions a councfi would take if they were in that situation. City Attorney Boogaard asked the Mayor and Council if they would like to reconsider the original motion to deliberate on the item. Mayor Nader responded that he did not feel Council was deliberating but just stating facts, not taking any action. City Attorney Boogaard responded that deliberation was where there was an inter-play of ideas and that Council did not have to take action to be in violation of that provision of the Brown Act. Minutes September 15, 1992 Page 11 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Rindone: · Councilman Rindone stated he had received a letter that he wanted to refer to staff for a report back to Council. The subject was a concern about the FAR (floor area ratio) used by the Planning Department. What he wanted was specific information on: 1) was it the best method, and ff so, why; and 2) what were the alternatives. He wanted staff to provide an analysis and an information summary. Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not so concerned that the FAR was not reasonable. What she felt was unreasonable was that in the older parts of the City there was a different FAR venus the areas with the P-modifier. Councilman Rindone stated he would include that in his referral. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 7:45 p.m. to a Special City Council Meeting on September 21, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on September 22, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:46 P.M. and adjourned at 8:28 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu,t~C~ty Clerk ..;