HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/10/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR IVlF~TING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 6, 1992 Council Chambers
4:10 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Malcolm (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), Moore, Rindone,
and Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PKEDGE OF AYJ.RGIANCE TO THE FIAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 1992, September 21, 1992 (Special Meeting), and
September 22, 1992.
MS(] (Rindone/Moore) to approve the minutes of September 15, September 21, and September 21, 1992 as
presented. Approved 4-O-1 with Malcolm absent
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Economic Development Commission - Ex-Officio Members. Oath of Office was
administered by City Clerk Authelet to Kenneth M. Clark, Brene Pattick, and Charles E. Sutherland.
b. Presentation of Recognition: A plaque and a hand carved seal of the City of Irapuato, Mexico will
was presented by International Friendship Commissioner Nancy Taboada to Mayor Nader.
CO~ CAI.RNDAR
(Items pulled: Sd, 7, 9, & 10)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALF..NDAR OFFILRED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absent Item 14 was continued at the request of the
applicant
5. WRIt t~ COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter urging Council to consider the continued need to support and facilitate future industrial
development within Chula Vista - Penny Allen, Chair, Economic Development Commission. It is
recommended that the Council direct staff to communicate Council's continued support and intent to
vigorously facilitate future industrial development within Chula Vista as it has done in the past to the
Economic Development Commission.
b. Letter appealing to Council to authorize payment of funds witid'xeld from them by Hale Consll'uction
contractor for the Marina VIew Park project - A.B. Hoffart, General Manager, Quick Crete Products Corp.,
P.O. Box 639, Norco, CA 91760. It is recommended that staff be instructed to advise Quick Crete Products
Corp. of the process that we can not pay them directly at this time and keep them informed as the situation
continues. It is recommended that staff be instructed to advise Quick Crete Products of the process, that the
City cannot pay them directly at this time and that they will be kept informed as the situation continues.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 2
c. Letter protesting decision by the City's Perks & Recreation Department to levy a $150 fee against
the Comm,mity Hospital of Chula Vista (CHCV} for use of the Norman Park Senior Center for a 15 week
bridge marathon to raise funds for a scholarship - William and Elena Pierson, Co-Presidents, CHCV Auxiliary,
751 Medical Center Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that this letter be filed.
d. Letter requesting endorsement of Proposition A - 1/2 cent sales tax to build and operate criminal
justice facilities in San Diego County - George Bailey, Supervisor, County of San Diego. It is recommended
that this item be referred to staff for evaluation and report back to Council after a more complete evaluation
of the impacts and benefits of the proposition. Pulled from the Consent Calender.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the Council was restricted from endorsing a County proposition.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that Council was not restricted.
Mayor Nader stated it was an important item and would reinstate the 1/2 cent sales tax for jails, courts and
criminal justice facilities that had been approved several years ago. People had the right to decide if they
wanted to tax themselves for public safety and felt that the County was doing it fight.
MSC (NaderAVloore) to endorse Proposition A, Approved 4-1 with MalcoLm opposed.
6. ORDINANCE 2531 AMENDING SECTION 2.30.060 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO STAGGER THE TERMS OF EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(first reading) - At the meeting of 9/22/92, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ~
amendments to that section of the ordinance creating and structuring the Economic Development -/
Commission to provide that General Ex-officio Members have staggered terms. Staff recommends Council
place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney)
7.A. RESOLLrrlON 16824 APPROVING CONTINUATION OF PUBHC OLrrREACH CAMPAIGN IN
SUPPORT OF THE MANDATORY RECYCLING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - Last
Spring, staff hired a temporary, part-time intern to assist in the initial implementation of the mandatory
enforcement program. Although participation in the residential curbside recycling program has increased
significantly, over 450 enforcement tags have been left on residential trash receptacles. To assist with
continued outreach on recycling as well as to assist with promotion and enforcement for additional phases
of mandatory recycling, staff requests continued funding of an intern for twelve hours a week through June
1993 and additional promotional material development funding. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Administration) 4/Sth's vote required. Pulled from the Consent Calender.
B. RESOLUTION 16825 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BDDGET TO ADD A TEMPORAKY
POSITION IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING UNIT AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - 4/Sth's vote required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Councilman Rindone questioned from what funding source the one permanent staff member was paid and
who set the priorities and direction of the Conservation Coordinator.
Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, responded that 50% of the Conservation Coordinator's
salary was paid by the General Fund and the additional 50% was Redevelopment Agency funding. The City
Manager set the priorities and direction following the Councfl's direction.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 3
Councilman Rindone stated that if the. funds from the San Diego Tonnage Grant Program were used, at least
on an interim basis, for permanent staffing then approximately 50% of that salary would be saved.
Mrs. Snyder responded that was correct and that the City could supplant that 50% from the General Fund
with the Tonnage Grant monies currently available and still afford to fund the $4,600 being requested for
the temporary position.
Councilman Rindone stated that when the item came before Council previously there was concern because
of budget cuts, etc. He was disappointed in the justification used by staff which stated that those funds
could not be used for the salary of the Conservation Coordinator. Now, according to staff it could be done
legally. In the future, he would not like to see those conclusions made, Council should be provided
appropriate information and alternatives.
Mrs. 5nyder stated that staff was targeting what they thought were Council's questions on workload and
duties. The suggestion made by Councilman Rindone had not occurred to staff and it was an excellent
suggestion. She would recommend that the Council definitely, at least for the present year, supplant the
General Fund contribution.
Councilman Rindone felt Council and staff shared the same interests, i.e. utilizing funds creatively. He urged
staff to be creative in using other funding sources particularly to supplement permanent staff even if on an
interim basis. The recycling efforts in the City were critical and there was another advantage by placing it
within the permanent staff and that was to show that it was something that the Council wanted to be well
understood throughout the City. If the priorities needed to be changed to provide interns to do other things
and supplement that was fine.
MS (Kindone/Malcolm) table the item, send back to staff to incorporate as a priority of Ehe permanent staff,
see what other type of funding is available for the interim assistance.
City Manager Goss stated the recommendation of supplanting the Conservation Coordinator money and
finding funding for the intern from the recycling funds would be the way to go. The work did need to get
done in terms of the duties involved.
Mayor Nader stated he was concerned with the delay and questioned why Council couldn't just d/rect staff
to move forward with Councirs direction.
MINUTE ACTION: Tonnage Grant funds ($3,905 appropriated from Fund 270 and appropriates $3.712 to
Account 270-2701-5105 end $193 to Account 270-2701-5143; $695 appropriated from Fund 270 and
appropriates $295 to Account 270-2701-5225, $200 to Account 270-2701-5201, and $200 to Account 270-
2701-5212) are to be utilized in funding the Conservation Coordinator position this year end utilize ollher
funding for the intern position. Staff is to do a reassessment ff they need to have part-time assistance in
other areas. The permanent position would regulate the Public Outreach Campaign. Approved 443-1 wilh
Horton absent.
City Manager Goss questioned whether either of the Resolutions needed to be approved by Council in order
to proceed as directed.
Mayor Nader stated that the City Attorney had indicated that the Resolutions did nor need to be approved.
8. RESOLUTION 16826 ADOPTING THE URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TASK FORCI~
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT- The Agreement provides for the participation of trained personnel from
the Fire Department in the Urban Search and Rescue Program in the event a disaster may arise requiring
heaW rescue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief)
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 4
9. RESOLUTION 16827 AMENDING RESOLLrFION 16625 OF THE CITY OF CHUIA VISTA TO
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCI~.RB $250,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE OR REFINANCE COSTS OF
CERTAIN GAS AND RI.RL-I-RIC FACILITIES FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND RT.RL-I-RIC COMPANY AND
ALVI'HORIZING AND APPROVING I~RIATED MATt-EllS - On 5/19/92, Council authorized the issuance and
sale of $1 00,000,O00 principal amount of revenue bonds on behalf of SDG&E. The purpose of this resolution
is to increase the authorized amount to $250,000,000 and make minor adjustments to the previously
approved IndentUre of Trust and Loan Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Finance) Pulled from file Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader questioned what benefit was being produced to the rate payers.
Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, stated the benefit derived to the rate payers would come from the
fact that SDG&E had a very ambitious capital improvement program for the next several years. If they
borrowed in the private economy at market rates they would pay a much higher interest rate than they
would by borrowing at tax-exempt rates. That reduction in the interest paid was reflected in the rates to
the customers.
Charles McMonagle, Chief Financial Office, SDG&E, stated the capital improvements did not have to be part
of the rate base but the savings did go directly through. An allocation of the dollars would go to the rate
base.
Mayor Nader asked if any of the bonds would go for projects that were outside of their rate base and
whether the City's ability to issue bonds to another company in the City would be impacted.
Mr. McMonagle responded that they would not.
Mr. Christopher responded that it would not affect the City as they had the flexibility to issue revenue bonds
up to an unlimited amount.
Mayor Nader stated that a controversial augmentation and expansion of the power plant in Chula Vista had
been proposed several years ago and questioned if that type of project would be what the bonds would be
used for or if that plan was on the shell
Mr. McMonagle responded that the tax law would allow the financing of most of their construction projects,
of which could be the transmission distribution and generation. The specific projects that could be financed
would primarily come from projects that had already been constructed since the time of the Council's actions
some months ago.
Councilman Malcolm stated that the goal was to lower the rate payers base on the issuance of the bonds.
The City would receive $625,000 and he felt it was a great opportunity to save the rate payers money and
generate revenues for the City, it was a win/win sitUation.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted to make sure that ~wo things were clear: 1) the projects being financed were
in the rate base, therefore, would be of benefit to the rate payer; and 2) augmentation or expansion of the
Chula Vista power plant, at least in terms of oil burning, was not on the table right now.
Mr. McMonagle responded that Mayor Nader was correct with his first statement. In response to his second
remark, SDG&E was not undertaking an oil burning project at this time. If the Mayor was referring to what
they called their repowering project at the Southbay Power Plant, that was in their planning process. It was
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 5
an important project relative to bringing lower pollution and more energy to the community; potentially in
combination with the alesalting project. That may or may not be financed with the bonds.
RESOLtFrlON 16827 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
10. RESOLUTION 16828 ADOPTING GOALS AND OBJEt;I1V'F.S FOR SOUTH COUNTY ISLANDS'
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT - The South County Islands have not been incorporated into the
existing Chula Vista certified LCP. As a result, the City does not have Coastal Development Permit
jurisdiction over the properties. The Coastal Commission issues permits for those land areas based on the
County and City of San Diego certified LCPs. To obtain permit authority, the City will need to process an
LCP amendment to include the Islands into the existing certified LCP. As the first step toward gaining
permit authority over the Islands, the City hired a consultant to develop goals and objectives for the planning
process and identify planning issues on each site. The goals, objectives and issues were completed and are
being presented for Council approval. In addition, an outline of work to develop a Land Use Plan for the
South County Islands is submitted for Council consideration. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
MSUC (Nader/Rindone} to amend the Goals and Objectives to include: 1) Goal 2, add 'generate well paying
jobs for the citizens of the region'; and 2} Goal 4, add 'creation of affordable housing'.
RESOLUTION 16828 OM,;~D BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and appreved
unanimously.
11. RESOLUTION 16829 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BUDGET, PROVIDING FOR AN
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND APPROPRIATION TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
ACCOUNT - Unemployment insurance bills are due and payable at the end of each quarter. The
Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund is specifically earmarked to pay for unemployment claims. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) 4/bth's vote required.
12. RESOLUT[ON 16830 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT W1TH
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES FOR ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING SERVI C~_q RENDERED FOR OTAYV~t .t_~y ROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 90-2 AND OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE 1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NUMBER 89-3, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT - On 5/22/90, Council
approved an agreement with Willdan Associates for consulting services as Assessment Engineer for Otay
Valley Road Assessment District Number 90-2 and Otay Rio Business Park Assessment District Number 89-3.
This item is to consider approval of the second amendment to the agreement for an increased scope of work
and an increase in the amount of compensation, a portion to be contingent upon successful sale of bonds
for Assessment District Number 90-2. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works and Director of Community Development)
13. RESOLUTION 16831 DIRECTING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN ACQUISITION AG]~F-F-MF. NT
PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT ORIGINAT[ON CHARGE FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER 92-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PAY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN
FOUR INSTALLMENTS - An origination charge of one percent is applicable for use of assessment district
financing. However, EastLake Development Company has requested accelerated progress payments on
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 6
Assessment District 92-1 and agreed to pay an origination charge of one and one-half percent in exchange
for those additional payments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
14- RESOLLrrION 16832 APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR THE RESUBDMSION OF LOTS 2, 5, AND 12
OF MAP 12757, CHULAVISTA TRACT 89-14, SANIBEI-t-R - On 12/4/90~ Council approved a final map (Map
12757) and associated improvement agreement for Sanibelle. The developer has processed a new final map
resubdividing lots 2, 5 and 12 of that map under Tentative Map 89-14. This new map will create three
additional lots for financing purposes but no additional condominium units. The final map is now before
Council for approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15. RESOLUTION 16833 ADOPTING 1992 REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS AND STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS - Council adopted the 1988 San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and Standard
Specifications on 3/13/90. These documents are revised every three years by the Regional Standards
Committee. The 1992 Regional Standard Drawings and Standard Specifications are now available and it
is appropriate for the City to adopt them. Staff has also revised the Civ/s documents which accompany the
Regional Standard Drawings and Standard Specifications. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
16. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-92-02: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP FOR SALT
RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02, THE BALDWIN COMPANY - The tentative subdivision map known as
Salt Creek Ranch, Tract 92-02, to subdivide 1197.4 acres into residential lots accommodating approximately
2,100 single family dwelling units and 509 multiple family dwelling units, two elementary school sites, two
park sites, a fire station site and approximately 432 acres of open space. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 16834 RE{2~RTI~qlSIG FINAL SUPPLEIViENTAL ENVIROBRVlENrAL Ii~!PACr REPORT
(FSRIR) 91-03 (SCH #89092721), APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDM SION MAP FOR SALT
RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS, AND REAl)OPTING THE
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
THE FSEIR
Paul Manganelli, Project Manager, presented a slide presentation regarding the site and project. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions in the resolution. Staff
had two proposed changes in the conditions included in the resolution. Staff would recommend: 1)
Condition #71 be amended to delete the Greenbelt and add equesudan crossing and delete the minimum
dimension and add "include staging areas"; 2) add Condition 120A which would provide permanent City
bench marks tied to the City system .....; and 3) add Condition 120B which would require that the applicant
provide the City with a copy of the disclosure to homeowners of costs associated with Mello-Roos,
Assessments, and Open Space Disu'icts prior to approval of each final map.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, addressed conditions in the tentative map pertaining to traffic capacities
regarding the project and other approved projects east of 1-805.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 7
Mr. Manganelli stated that Council was being asked to recertify the supplemental EIR and there was an item
in the EIR that stated that the level of senrice C was the recommended level of service in Chula Vista and
it was not accurate. The level of Service C was the adopted threshold standard for the City.
Mr. Leiter stated that the basic concern was that in looking at the projects that had already received
tentative map approval east of 1-805 and considering the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative map along with other
projects being reviewed by the City, there was a potential that the overall capacity of the roadway system
prior to the consreaction of SR125 could be exceeded. In response to that potential concern the Cormeft had
previously authorized a study to design a financing program for an interim SR125 facility and to address
the phasing of development prior to construction of the facility. In order for that condition to be applied
staff recommended that a condition be placed on all projects that would be affected by the study, which
would say that the results of that study would be taken in account in setting the actual phasing of the
development of the project. Staff expected the HNTB study to be completed with the next three to four
months.
Councilman Moore felt most of the information was available and the study should be able to be completed
with undue delays. People were being kept in limbo waiting for the completion of the study. It was one
thing to delay a project for good logical reasons but he could not see why a study of that type was being
drug out so long. He requested a copy of the work done, a copy of the contract, tasks, and charges per hour.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, responded that staff would give Council a full report on what had
been done to date. The project was still within the original scope of services and the completion of the
project would be expedited. A good part of the delay was the alignment chosen and the associated costs
which were greater than the debt that could be spread amongst the properties affected and the areas
benefiting. Staff was now working on alternatives which they felt would be a win/win situation. The thrust
was to put the City in a position where they could control their own destiny, i.e. fund, finance, and consmatt
an interim roadway if for some reason the toll road and/or fleeway could not be constructed to meet the
City's needs.
Mayor Nader referred to the report which stated that significant grading was required in the tentative map
versus the SPA plan because of a requirement to reduce the height of manufactured slopes and questioned
why that was being done.
Mr. Manganelli responded that mass grading would not be done where there were open spaces. In lowering
the manufactured slopes it would give a better visual impact.
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director, stated it was the difference between the PAD elevations between two
different areas where there was a manufactured slope that could result in a different PAD elevation. The
construction of the homes in that area would do a lot to screen off the slope areas along with landscaping
so there wouldn't be such a disparity between the slopes and PAD areas.
Councilman Moore stated the developer would be constructing the streets in phases and questioned whether
the City was bonded so the major arteries would be built, i.e. Proctor Valley, Hunt Parkway, etc.
Mr. Lee responded it was not unusual to have a phased development in such a large project. The bonding
would be with the recordation with the various final maps. All public improvements would be bonded with
the final maps.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 8
Claudia Troisi, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, representing FN Projects, spoke on behalf of the staff
recommendation and gave a slide presentation of the proposed project.
Mayor Nader questioned why the amount of grading was being increased to reduce manufactured slopes.
Ms. Troisi stated there were two answers: 1) the total amount of grading that was increased was actually
because of the detention basins being built to detain the water from the canyon; and 2) regarding the
manufactured slopes, the intent was that people would not feel that they were overshadowed by slopes that
could have been 45-50 feet high. In order to do that, the entire sight had to be brought down which
resulted in more grading.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the developer had any problem with the deletion of the pedestrian
crossing.
Ms. Troisi stated that condition that was presented to her at the meeting was acceptable.
Mr. Leiter stated it would be the amended condition on the Z10/6/92 memo.
Michael McDade, 94S 4th Avenue, San Diego, CA, representing Mr. & Mrs. Waddle Deddeh, spoke against
the staff recommendation. He had previously expressed concern that the no~ern properties were in danger
of being landlocked. They had worked with staff and Baldwin to consider various options and had not been
able to reach a definitive solution to the problem. Since they did not have certainty that access would be
permitted they had persisted on a prescriptive rights suit against the Baldwin Company that would be going
to trial in January. If they were successful in their pursuit neighborhood twelve would be substantially
dislocated. Their request was to have Council delay approval of the tentative map until that matter was
resolved in January. If Council did not delay action they encouraged Council to approve Condition 110 of
the rentalive map. They would like to see conditions attached so that no one would be confused or would
feel that they were mislead that access would not occur.
Mayor Nader stated that Condition 110 did require notification to future property owners and asked if the
condition was acceptable.
Mr. McDade stated that if it had been revised since ir was Condition 110 he had not seen it.
Mr. Leiter stated that the condition had not been revised but had been renumbered.
Mr. Lee stated there were two conditions: 1) Condition 110 became Condition 22 which related ro access;
and 2) Condition 119 became Condition 109 was unchanged and included notification.
Mr. McDade stated he was unaware of the additional language and felt ir was more helpful.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Leiter stated the overall grading concept was intended to focus in on preserving the existing natural
slopes where ever possible. The only area being changed, in terms of natural areas, would be the detention
basins in neighborhood three. The overall grading plan had not substantially changed from the SPA Plan
to the Tentative Map. The intent was to maximize the visual quality of the area without disturbing new
natural areas.
Mayor Nader stated that he planned on voting for the resolution but did not feel that condition was
necessary.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 9
RESO LI. r~ON 16834 OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN HORTON, reading of the text was waived.
Mr. Lee asked if the motion included the modified conditions presented to Council.
Counc~woman Horton responded that the motion did include the modified conditions.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
® Jay I. Hilton, 10595 Jamacha Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA, President of the Otay Water District
Board, stated he had forwarded a tentative agreement to Council last month and requested direction from
Council to his Board.
City Attorney Boogaard requested that the Council take up the matter of the pending litigation in closed
session as an off agenda item and make the necessary findings to do so in order to respond to the Otay
Water District Board tomorrow.
MSC (Nader/Moore) to find that the matter of the proposed agreement with the Otay Water District was
a matter of urgency;, the urgency arose after the posting of the agenda as Council was informed during their
meeting that Mr. Hilton needed a response for his meeting tomorrow; to be heard as a dosed session
Approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absent.
Carolyn F. Buffer, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of a Dial-A-Ride program as
she did not feel the HandyTrans program was working.
Councilwoman Horton stated she had read the reports from staff and talked to the Chair of the Senior and
Disabled Transportation Committee and suggested that Ms. Butler talk to the commission members before
Council took any action.
Mayor Nader stated if it was not resolved Council may want to schedule a joint meeting with the committee.
Council had been receiving different information as to what the respective services provided and what
Council's options were.
City Manager Goss felt the approach was correct and staff would supply Council with an informational
memorandum providing background information.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
17. REPORT DRAFT PERMIT STRFAMLINING WORKPLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDUI~ - In August 1991, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) established a subcommittee
to develop recommendations to streamline the Cinfs development review process in order to create a user
friendly environment for business development. The subcommittee met for seven months and identified 25
specific recommendations which were approved by the EDC and submitted to Council on 6/9/92. Council
provided direction on certain recommendations and instructed the EDC to work with staff to bring back an
implementation program. Staff recommends Council: (1) consider the EDC's "Draft Workplan and
Implementation Schedule' pertaining to their permit streamlining recommendations; (2) provide feedback
to the EDC; and (3) direct staff and the EDC to return with a resolution approving a final (detailed)
workplan and schedule. (Director of Community Development)
Patty Davis, Chair of Streamline the Permit Process, Subcommittee of the Economic Development
Commission, stated they were available for questions.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 10
Mayor Nader stated one of his concerns was regarding the committees/commissions and felt Council had
expressed interest in leaving the project area committees in existence with the possible exception of
Southwest PAC because it overlapped Montgomery. In other respects, other than the Design Review
Committee, most of the complaints received were due to processing by staff. In recent months he had
received compliments regarding the more pro business attitude by staff. He had been looking for more
emphasis and specificity on where Council could merge functions, require that the City Manager designate
a lead department that could resolve differences between departments, etc. He questioned where Council
would go regarding the duplication of efforts amongst staff departments.
Ms. Davis responded that the subcommittee had looked at duplicating efforts on behalf of the applicant.
They wanted to move forward with those efforts and bring them to fruition and then look at other areas.
Couneilman Moore stated he would like to see a group formed to review all the PAC's with land use
authority, not including the Planning Commission, which would include one or two commission/committee
members, one or two EDC members, staff representative, and Deputy City Manager, meeting three times
maximum and coming forth with specific recommendations. Omen the duties and responsibilities for the
commissions/committee were vague and should be reviewed to see why they were formed and what they
were supposed to do.
Penny Allen, Chair, Economic Development Commission, stated it was their concern that the PAC's had been
formed as per the State regulations but over time had become far broader in their powers but if disbanded
there would be a loss of public input. The PAC's may not be the appropriate mechanism for that input as
they were no longer filling their requirements. She felt the Subcommittee could review that and bring
forward recommendations in a timely manner, i.e. four months.
Mayor Nader stated that if the intent was to clarify what the roles of the commissions/committees were he
agreed with that. He did not see that going so far as to abolish a committee.
Ms. Allen stated they would recommend that it be abolished as a PAC but reconstituted as a committee set
by Council.
Mayor Nader felt the biggest issue in the past was the duplication among departments and questioned how
that would be addressed.
Ms. Allen responded that the EDC would welcome looking at that and would come back with
implementation time lines.
Councilman Moore stated that would evolve into another review and he did not feel they needed another
review. He felt there was sufficient input from the EDC and if representatives of the PAG's were brought
in that issue could be taken care of. Otherwise, the EDC was itself going into expansions they shouldn't be
going into.
Mayor Nader stated he liked the recommendation as far as it went but felt the Commission might want to
look at what might be done in the future to insure that business people wouldn't face a sttucture that would
catch them between conflicting departments or require that one deparn-nent needed to make a decision
before they could begin processing with another department. He questioned whether it was their intent
regarding the DRC as to explicit criteria the DRC should be using and perhaps time lines to be mandated.
Ms. Davis stated they were looking at the appeal of the DRC as a high priority. The proposed plan would
speed it up by two to three weeks with intentions of moving it up even further in the future.
Mayor Nader stated a DRC committee member had stated that their primary objective was aesthetics and
that they had not viewed it as their job to consider economic feasibility although it could come into
consideration. In reviewing what the functions of that committee was would they look at outlining the
October 6, 1992
Page 11
possibility that aesthetics, although important, were not to be considered with complete disregard for
whether a project could actually be done.
Ms. Davis agreed and stated they would be evaluating their processes and making recommendations.
Mayor Nader stated the topic of administtative CUP's had been discussed previously and Council's direction
was that there needed to be more specific direction as to which CUP's could be handled administratively.
He questioned whether there had been any progress on defining what CUP applications would fall into what
category.
Ms. Davis referred to Items 1-3 and stated that staff would be working with the advisory group and bring
forth recommendations.
Councilman Rindone requested more detail focusing in on 24A as it was a major emphasis.
Mayor Nader agreed and added 24B to the list.
Councilman Moore stated that the EDC had done all that he, as an individual member of the Council,
wanted them to do. It was up to the Council to take the lead as to what would be done with the lend use
commissions. He did not want another group to say what their intents were in dealing with the PAC's. It
should be removed from the EDC and turned over to the Council.
Councilwomen Horton stated the commission could come back to Council with recommendations including
new job description, tide, etc.
MS (Moore/Horton) Council accept the responsib~ity of reviewing the duties, forming ordinances, et~. of
all the project area committees end the Montgomery Planning Corrlrnlttee and form a reviewing group
regardlng their responsibilities end roles in the future. Thereviewinggroupwouldcontainmembersofthe
EDC. each of the PAC's, one or two members of the Counc~, management, end department head.
Councilwomen Horton felt the PAC's may not conform to what the state guidelines were but in order to
maintain the integrity of the older parts of the community those areas still needed community input.
Mayor Nader stated he would support the motion with the understanding that the goal of what the Council
was doing was not to necessarily abolish or strip the committees but to review their functions and determine
whether any chenges should be made to better implement the Council's intent.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 40-1 with Malcolm absent.
MS (P, indonefNader) to accept the report end provide the feedback as communicated by Counc~ to the EDC
and staff in preparation to return to Council with a final detailed workplan and schedule for Council
approval.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the maker of the motion would agree that Council would be accepting the
workplen minus the two previous motions; and priortize 24B from medium to high priority.
Counc~man Rindone, as the maker of the motion, agreed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Malcolm absent.
Councilman Moore stated the motion included the Design Review Commission and the Resource
Conservation Commission.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 12
Mayor Nader stated he had not intended to include the DRC or RCC. He did not have a problem in
reviewing any commission's tasks and responsibilities but he felt they were each in a separate category from
each other and the PAC's.
MS (Moore/Horton) to have the Mayor assemble a Council subcommittee to review all
commissions/committees not included under the flint motion.
Councilwoman Horton stated she would nominate Councilman Rindone.
Mayor Nader clarified that the motion stated he and Councilman Rindone would work with staff and
commissioners to review the functions of the various City commissions excluding the PAC's and Montgomery
Planning. He did not have any objection as long as it was not expected that all twenty-five or so
commissions would be reviewed at the same time. One of the first steps taken would be to communicate
to each of the commissions a reminder that their responsibilities were defined by ordinance which could only
be amended by Council.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Rindone/Horton) to appoint Councilman Moore to serve with the Mayor on the
Subcommittee. Approved 4--0-1 with Malcolm absent.
ACTION ITEMS
18. RESOLUTION 16835 AMENDING THE ENVIRONIfr, aNTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES OF THE (2'IY
OF CHULA VISTA TO PERM1T THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND TO
CONDUCT, AT MR OPTION, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DRAFT MRS - At the Joint Meeting of the Council
and the Board of Supervisors on 9/24/92, the Board of Supervisors recognized the authority of the City of
Chula Vista to set the public review period for the Draft EIR on the Otay Ranch Project and deferred to
Council to set said period. Thereupon, Council directed staff to prepare changes to the City's local
environmental review guidelines ('Local Guidelines') that would allow Council the right to set public review
periods and to place a resolution approving said changes on the Council's agenda. Staff recommends: (1)
approval of the resolution; (2) defer exercising either power until the Joint Meeting with the Planning
Commission is held on 10/12/92; and (3) continue to the meeting of 10/12/92 at 6:00 p.m. (City Attorney)
City Attorney Boogaard stated staff was requesting that Council defer exercising any power under the
resolution, if adopted, and continue the meeting to the 10/12/92 meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that at the joint meeting the Council would attempt to come
to some consensus with the Planning Commission as to the review period on the Otay Ranch project.
Presumably in future projects it would be a Council decision.
Councilman Moore hoped the item would be referfed to the joint meeting. The Council did not give the
Planning Commission the authority to establish a review period and no where did he read it was within the
Planning Commission's authority. He questioned who set the date.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the Environmental Review Coordinator issued the draft EIR that
started the public review period and they did not set the closure hearing until at least 30-45 days. It was
ended by the closing of the public hearing by the Planning Commission. The Environmental Review
Coordinator could not tell the Planning Commission to dose the hearing. The Planning Commission at that
point had the power to delay the public review.
Councilman Moore stated that the Environmental Review Coordinator could overrule the Planning
Commission and extend the date.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that was in the guidelines.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 13
MS (Moore/Malcolm) trail the item and bring back at the joint meeting of the Council and p]snnin~
Commission on 10/12/92 at 6:00 p.m.
Councilman Malcolm stated that no Councilmember wanted to, unless there was an urgency or problem,
take control over any environmental impact report. It was not the Council's aim or intent. He questioned
whether the Council could at the joint meeting, if deemed that the resolution was necessary, adopt it on
Monday.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended that Councfi adopt the resolution so Council would have jurisdiction
to hear evidence on the EIR on the 12th in the joint meeting setting. He was not asking Council to exercise
those powers.
Councilman Rindone stated it was not a hostile takeover, it was a procedural effort in which the members
of the Council would receive additional information and input. He felt it needed to be put in perspective.
Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that Counc~ had adopted guidelines which delegated certain
authority to the Planning Commission and the Environmental Review Coordinator. However it was done,
most or all were unaware that it had been done and were caught by surprise when the issue arose. He
understood the motion on floor would trail the resolution until the joint meeting of the Council and Planning
Commission on 10/12/92 at 6:00 p.m. at which time there would be mutual discussion.
Councilman Rindone asked if the resolution was adopted if there would still be over riding authority by the
Resource Conservation Coordinator.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the authority was abated, it could be over ridden by the Council.
Adoption of the language would put in a lower rank or priority the authority of the Environmental Review
Coordinator to continue the public hearing in contrast to the direction of the Planning Commission or the
Council. All the authority was optional, it gave the Council the right to step in at any time in the future and
exercise that which CEQA in its guidelines strongly urged Council not to delegate in the first place. The
approving body should be the one to set the public review period and hear the input on the EIR.
Councilman Moore asked what was wrong with letting the policy makers set the review period and continue
the way it had been done all along.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that was one of the two powers Council would be given by the changes, i.e.
date setting authority and hearing body authority. He was recommending that Council assume hearing body
authority because it would be a difficult administrative record to overcome if the Planning Commission, as
the hearing body, said they needed more time for public review and the Counc~ had shut it off by assuming
the date establishing authority. There should be an administrative record that stated the Council felt they
had enough time to take all public input. Not have a record where the Planning Commission, who's hearing
body authority, said they had not had time for public input but the Council shut them off by setting the date.
Mayor Nader stated that the motion on the floor was to trail the item to the joint meeting on 10/12/92 and
suggested that those able to appear on Monday defer comment until that time. If anyone passed on speaking
and the motion was voted down he would give the public the opportunity to take back their pass and speak
on the item.
Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Loma Drive, Bonita, CA, Vice-President of Crossroads, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendation. Crossroads was on record asking for a sixty day review period on the EIR. The process
had been in place since 1982 and had worked and they did not feel that the proeass should be changed on
the largest project to come before Council.
James Mayberry, 987 Loma View, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. He did
not see how anyone could interpret the Council's actions as anything but a hostile take over of the Planning
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 14
Commission's functions. The question of how long the review period should be was part of the planning
process and the length of the comment period had been addressed at length. It did not make sense that the
Planning Commission would review the report with the Council hearing the comments. He questioned what
the problem was, what process or concern brought it before the Council, and what was the hurry.
Daniel Tart, 11S24 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, CA, representing the Valle de Oro Planning Group, passed.
Eugene Sprofera, 8:311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa, CA, Legislative Analyst #S80, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendation. He questioned why the Attorney was forcing the Council into an obligation that did not
have to be. The Planning Director should set the review period depending upon the complexities of the
project. He hoped that the vote would be in favor of the public.
Susan Wolfe-Fleming, 11S24 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendation and questioned why the proposal was originally made. It was her opinion that it was
because Council wanted to see the public review period extended. If the Commissioners had already shown
that they were going to extend the review period by sixty days then it didn't make sense that Council would
want to take over that decision. The other issue that came up was indemnification as a motive for taking
over the decision. She wanted to see that what was done was also in the best interest of east county as well
as South County.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would advise that Council take action on the resolution, not because he
wanted Council to exercise the authority, but so Council would have the power to exercise the authority on
Monday and the jurisdiction to hear testimony on the public review of the EIR on the Otay Ranch. That was
the way he had prepared the notice. It stated that it was anticipated that Council would exercise the right,
pass the resolution, and if they did so, would hear the public testimony on October 12th.
Councilman Malcolm stated that what had been voted on during the first hearing was that there would be
a sixty day review period. Everyone thought the Council had that authority at the time because they were
the decision making body responsible to the people. If it wasn't for the Baldwin project, no one would care
about the actions being taken by Council regarding the issue. Because of the timing there was controversy.
He did not believe that it was the Council's intention on Monday to take back anything. It was their
intention to sit down with the Planning Commission and try to reach a consensus of what that date should
be. He felt the power should be with the Council and recommended that the motion be withdrawn or voted
down.
Mayor Nader stated he agreed with most of Councilman Malcolm's comments. He felt the motion on the
floor would facilitate the consensus building between the Council and the Planning Commission and would
send a signal to the Planning Commission and the community that the Council was not prejudging the issue
and going in with an open mind to discuss the issues with the Planning Commission and try to reach a
Consensus.
Counc~man Malcolm stated he agreed and that was why he had seconded the motion. If the City Attorney
would state that there wouldn't be any type of problem he would agree.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that if the Planning Commission and Council could not reach a consensus the
Council, in order to meet the deadline they had indicated at their last meeting with the Board of Supervisors,
would have to assume the hearing function on the public review period. The only way they could do that
would be fithey had the authority. Staff had noticed that Council would meet on the 12th and act that way
if they had adopted the authority. If Council could not reach a consensus on Monday they could not meet
the eighty day public review period they had previously indicated they wanted to achieve. If Council wanted
to exercise that authority they would have to pass the resolution now, try to reach a consensus on Monday,
if unable to do that, they would have to start hearing the EIR comments on Monday, October 22th.
Councilman Nader questioned whether an item noticed for the meeting could not be trailed to another night.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 15
City Attorney Boogaard stated it would weaken the administrative record.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 with Horton, Malcolm, and Rindone opposed.
Daniel Tarr, 11524 Fuerte Farms Road, E1 Cajon, representing the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group,
spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. They had previously requested that there be a sixty day
extension in order to allow time for a comprehensive analysis. They were confused as to when the closing
date was.
RESOLLrFION 16835 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived.
Councilman Moore stated his intentions on Monday were to try to encourage the Planning Commission to
agree to a date that would be acceptable to the majority of the Council. He had problems with the
resolution but the setting of the date by staff and the ability to override the Planning Commission needed
to be changed.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he had not addressed that issue further because over the last ten years it had
been in operation, the Environmental Review Coordinator had never exercised that authority. Therefore,
he didn't feel at this stage it was necessary to totally revoke that authority.
Mayor Nader stated that if Council had the authority to vote on what the public review period should be,
the October 20th date did not strike him as inherently unreasonable. An eighty day period was more that
two and one-half times longer than the typical EIK review period in the City, The problem he had with the
motion and the resolution on the floor was not necessarily the date the Council could ultimately adopt it,
but the perception that was created. He felt that Council should strive to reach a consensus with the
Planning Commission.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Mayor Nader urged that Council consider sending the resolution to the Planning Commission and Resource
Conservation Commission for review. It would be better if everyone involved in the process, commissions,
Council, public, and staff had a common understanding of what the process was at the beginning.
ITEMS PLBJ.F.D FROM THE CONSENT CAI.RNDAR
Items pulled: 5d, 7, 9 and 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. talY MANAGERS REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. City Manager Goss reminded Council that they had a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission on 10/12/92 and a regular meeting on 10/13/92. The main item for the
10/13/92 meeting would be the Bayfront.
Chr/s Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the critical economic analysis that was
forthcoming from Williams-Kubelbeck had not yet arrived. While the public hearing was noticed, it could
be continued from that meeting to the following week.
Councilman Malcolm stated he was ready to take action Tuesday on the Bayfront plan. He had seen the
economic analysis before and had never liked their assumptions and what they had done so he didn't know
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 16
how much that would help him in deciding what the proper land use was. He expected certain things in
the plan regardless of what they said. He questioned what the chances were of having everything ready by
Tuesday.
Mr. Salomone responded that the Local Coastal Plan Amendment was ready and there was a fairly extensive
economic analysis. Wflliams-Kubelbeck was verifying the analysis done by Price Waterhouse that the
developer did and updating their own analysis of which they had only done about 70%. An Executive
Summary would be available by the end of the week.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the LCP Amendment reflected all the actions taken by Council in January.
Mr. Salomone responded that it did to the best of the staffs ability.
b. The meeting on the transit station at Southwestern College had been held and one option was
explored that would save the front lawn and sign area and not impinge on the College's parking lot. There
was an agreement at the end of the meeting that the interested parties would get together and discuss the
options and introduce additional options before returning to the Council and College Board with
recommendations.
c. Cox Cable had a special show entitled Wideo Hook-Ups" and would be showing a program on Chula
Vista on Channel 4 on 10/9 at 5:00 p.m. and 10/10 at 10:00 p.m.
d. City Manager Goss commended Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing for being named
!
Rotairian of the Year for 1991/92 by the Bonita Sunrise Rotary. He also acknowledged the Community .,
Development staff, particularly the Housing Staff, for the letter received from the Department of Housing
and Kedevelopment, indicating that the adopted Housing Element complied with the State Housing law and
particularly that the City's Draft Amendment dealing with the preservation of subsidized housing at risk of
conversion was also approved by the State.
20. MAYOR'S REPORTf S)
· DisU-ibution of Port District reserves. Mayor Nader stated there was no new information for
deliberation. Meetings with the other Southbay mayors were on-going. The Port had deferred action on
the proposal by the City of San Diego for two weeks. His position continued to be that the Port District
resources should be invested in our region, for the benefit of our region, for long term job creation and use
and enjoyment of the bay resources rather than to subsidize the operating budgets of individual cities.
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Moore
· Councilman Moore stated he appreciated the Mayor's comments at the Otay Regional Park in which
he stated that if there was development that the process should not be unduly delayed. He had also touched
on the difference between the focus area and the park area. He felt that something should be brought back
to Council regarding process. It was time now to say what was going to be focused on as to passive and
active recreation, trails, etc. mixed in with open space and potential development.
Minutes
October 6, 1992
Page 17
Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that City/County staff, after the policy committee meeting,
would be preparing something to bring to the policy making bodies. He requested that staff provide a copy
of the draft report to the Council as an information item.
Councilman Rindone:
a. Councilman Rindone requested a summary report on cable legislation recently enacted. The report
should include the impacts upon the cable industry in Chula Vista.
b. Councilman Rindone felt it was appropriate that all candidates for all offices be apprised of the City's
sign regulations. The City should be proactive in insuring that the proper regulations regarding placement
were enforced.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 6:25 p.m. to closed session and reconvened at 7:03 p.m., recessed at 8:51 p.m.
and met in a closed session at 9:06 p.m. to discuss:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - Disposition of Property: Rancho del Rey Business
Center located on north side of East "H" Street between Ridgeback Road and Tierra Del Rey, Rancho
del Rey Partnership and RDR Business Center Limited (Owners).
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Settlement of Otay Valley
Lawsuit - Siroonian vs. City of Chula Vista.
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:00 P.M. to a Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on October
12, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on
October 13, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency convened at 8:51 p.m. and adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
Vicki C. Soderquist, Depu/~/'CZ~ity Clerk ' 2