Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/06/15MINlrlT~ OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CFFY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 15, 1993 Council Chambers 6:04 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Hotton (arrived at 6:08 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. PLEDGE OF ,~IJ.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 25, 1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council), May 26, 1993 (Special Worksession/Meeting of the City Council), May 27, 1993 (Regular Worksession/Meeting of the City Council), and June 8, 1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council) Councilmember Rindone referred to the minutes of May 27, 1993 and requested they be revised to show the time Councilmember Horton left the meeting. He further requested that the Roll Call section of all minutes reflect the times Councilmembers arrive and leave meetings. MSC (Moore/Fox) to approve the minutes of May 25, 1993, as mended, May 26, 1993, May 27, 1993 and June 8, 1993 as presented. Approved 44)- 1 with Horton absent and Councilmember Rindone abstaining on the minutes of June 8, 1993. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of office: Earl Biggers and Bert Epsten - Ex-Officio members of the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission. Mr. Biggets and Mr. Epsten were not present. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 5a, 7, and 10) BALANCE OF CONSENT ~AR O~-FERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITFEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter requesting the Otay Ranch Project be placed on the next election ballot to determine whether or not it shotrid be annexed - Thomas A. Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff for review and report back to the City Council. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. · Thomas A. Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he had made the same recommendation at previous Otay Ranch meetings and no action had been taken. He wanted to bring to Council's attention that the public had not been involved fully enough in the process. Therefore, before a decision was made by Council, he felt there should be a concerted effort to poll the public to determine their feelings. He did not feel the social aspects of the project had been addressed and there was a responsibility on the part of Council to establish precedent in such a major decision making process. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 2 Councilmember Rindone stated it was the same problem as with the proposed bi-national airport, i.e. the City did not have the final jurisdictional authority. Regarding the issue of annexation, he felt Chula Vista should have direct authority due to the direct impact upon the City. Annexation did not mean the project would or would not be built but would give the City the authority to make that determination. Mayor Nader questioned whether Mr. Davis was calling for a vote on the Otay Ranch annexation or the Otay Ranch project. Mr. Davis responded he was requesting a vote on annexation as that was the key issue. MS (FoX/Horton) to approve the staff recommendation. Mayor Nader was against the motion. Earlier he had proposed cutbacks in Administration because he felt those services were not as crucial as public safety, libraries, etc. He had not heard any support from Council to hold a referendum on annexing Otay Ranch. He did not feel it was a good use of budget dollars for staff to do a report on the item. He had discussed the issue with voters during the campaign and found there were a lot of misconceptions. Very few people understood that the project would take place within thirty to fifty years upon approval. Annexation was needed for the City to control its own destiny. There was an established procedure for voters to place a referendum on the ballot which did not require Council action. VOTE ON MOTION: failed 0-5 with Fox, Hotton, Moore, Rindone, and Nader opposed. 6. ORDINANCE 2S59 AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY SECTIONS 192,2.160, 19.24,180 AND 19.26.180 IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY D~-t J .INGS ON LOTS OF tJLe, S THAN 7,0OO SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR PATIO COVERS AND PORCHES OF 300 SQUARE FEET OR LESS (second readin~ and adoption) - On 3/9/93, Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the FAR in single-family zones in order to provide smaller lots in the older, established portions of the City with a greater opportunity to expand their dwellings in a manner more consistent with that in the newer planned communities to the east. The recommended amendments increase the FAR for lots of less than 7,000 square feet and provide an exemption for patio covers and porches of 300 square feet or less in single-family zones. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 7. RESOLUTION 17139 APPROVING FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN FOR THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR 1992-93 - The Assistant City Manager's Flexible Benefits Plan amount was not adjusted for 1992-93. Staffrecommends approval ofthe resolution. (Administration) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. 8, RESOLUTION 17140 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1993 AND ENTERING INTO INDEMNIFICATION AG~ WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT - The City is in the process of finalizing plans for the annual Fourth of July fireworks display to be held on the Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been finalized. The City has been asked to enter into Indemnification Agreements with Rohr Industries and the San Diego Unified Port District. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 9. RF_SOLU'I~ON 17141 REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THEREBY DENYING THE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-10 FOR BEER AND WINE SALES AT 1498 IV[El.ROSE AVENUE - On 6/1/93, Council held and closed the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10, an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator approving a request by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to sell beer and wine at a proposed mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue in Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 3 the C-N zone. Council directed staff to prepare candidate findings for denial of PCC-93-10. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) 10. RESOLUTION 17142 APPROVING AN AGBEEMENT WITH RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PREPARE TOPO GRAPHIC M~,PS ALONG INTERSTATE 805 NORTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO SOUTH OF OTAY VAI_I.I~Y ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE S/L~IE - On 4/13/93, staff recommended that Rick Engineering Company be awarded a contract to provide topographic mapping for Caltran's project study report on four Interstate 80S interchanges. Since Rick Engineering was not the lowest proposer, Council rejected staffs recommendation and directed staff to negotiate and obtain an agreement from the low proposer, Aithome Systems. Staff requested Airborne Systems provide the City with a new cost for a reduced scope of work, however, they submitted a higher cost in response and indicated they had underestimated the cost in their original proposal and that it was an error. Additionally, Airborne Systems does not carry the errors and omissions insurance that the City requires and for them to obtain it, they indicated there would be an additional cost to the City of approximately one-half of the $17,000 premium. Staff also re-negotiated with Rick Engineering who agreed to lower their proposal to $86,000. Since Rick Engineering is now the lowest bidder, staff recommends that they be retained for a cost not-to- exceed $86,000, which is $6,005 less than their previous submittal of $92,005. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Jazz Arnold, 5620 Friars Road, San Diego, CA, representing Rick Engineering, stated the item had been retumed to Council for approval and hoped action would be taken. Councilmember Rindone stated it was important that staff had taken it upon themselves to approach Rick Engineering, after the other qualified bidder raised their price and lowered the work requirement. Rick Engineering had been very responsive and the difference between the original bid and the renegotiated bid was a 16% reduction which would pay for the after school workers for the fiscal year. RESOLUTION 17142 OFI.'I~.RED BY COUNCILMEIVIBER RIDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 11. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94 - Council has held several worksessions to consider and discuss the proposed FY 1993-94 budget. The public hearing is to receive additional citizen input and adopt the budget. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration and Director of Finance) RESOLUTION 17143 APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE Grit OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994 Councilmember Fox referred to the budget report and questioned if recommendation #3 on page 11-6 was chosen along with authorization for staff to continue to obtain outside sources of funds, and if outside sources of funds were obtained, would staff revert back to the current use of time. City Manager Goss responded that would be a decision the Council needed to make. There were two possibilities: 1) to revert back, and 2) retain the additional revenue and use it in connection with possible cuts from the State. Councilmember Rindone questioned why the $889,600 equipment replacement was under the Council general fund category. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 4 City Manager Goss responded the equipment replacement fund was recommended at $889,600 in Supplemental Budget Memo #6. What Council actually did, in terms of adding to the general fund, was the subtotal of $15,460 which was for Bonitafest, dual staffing of four after school sites, and restoring $150 reductions to the Youth Commission. Councilmember Rindone stated it looked like $1,000,000 in supplementals which was incorrect. He questioned whether there was any change in the proposed support of the City for Bonitafest as compared to the previous year. It was his understanding there would be an assessment on the booths with the revenues being paid to the City. City Manager Goss replied that Supplemental Budget Memo #3 addressed Bonitafest. Gerald Young, Administrative Analyst I, stated two requests had been received from Bonitafest. One related to City services provided and those were recommended to be the same as last year. The second request related to waiver of business license taxes. Staff recommended the business license tax for the event itself be waived but for purposes of fairness, all businesses would have to comply with the City regulation requiring a business license tax. Councilmember Rindone felt if the City was not consistent with all activities within the same year it would appear there was a specialized assessment or tax and that the City was not supporting activities equally. Mayor Nader referred to pages 11-5 and 11-6 of the staff report and stated it was his understanding that the staff recommendation was that staff would attempt to pursue private funding. If private funding had not been obtained there would be a combination of proposed cuts and reallocation of planning staff in order to fund the Youth Action program. City Manager Goss recommended #2, to seek outside funding sources, and if that did not work he would recommend #3, reallocation of planning staff. If Council did not agree would then recommend #4, various expenditure reductions in genera/fund department budgets. Mayor Nader had a problem with the reallocation of planning staff to reimbursable projects and questioned whether an analysis had been done of what projects staff would be reallocated from and to. He read recommendation #3 as not cutting the Planning Depa~ unent budget but rather as saying that Planning staff would be taken from projects the General Fund paid for and moved to projects the City would get additional reimbursement for. City Manager Goss responded the Mayor was correct. Robert heiter, Director of Planning, stated the majority of the projects that were identified for the advanced planning program were projects that had not been initiated. Therefore, staff would use the criteria regarding cost recovery as a way of priortizing new projects. Staff would return to Council with a specific work program. He did not believe it would result in cancelling, slowing down or delaying any projects. MS (FoX/Moore) to accept in concept, staff recommendation #3 - establishment of a minimum percentage of Planning staff time to be devoted to reimbursable prnjects from current 42% to 64% which would genente an additional $75,000 in revenue to the Genera] Fund - with the $75,000 to be used to fund the Youth Action program. The City Manager is to continue to seek outside sources of funding to fund the prop and if successful, the City Manager is to rertLrn to Counc~ for further discussion and possible revision of Planning staff allocation. Councilmember Rindone could not support the motion. If the motion could be modified to include recommendation #2, he could support it. He felt an attempt should be made to obtain an outside vendor and if that did not materialize then adjustments could be made to the Planning staff. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 5 Councilmember Fox stated the intent was to give the item utmost priority in the City and he wanted to make sure the Youth Action program was done. Mayor Nader referred to his memorandum and proposed cuts totaling $160,000 in the departments of Administration, Management Services, Planning, and Public Works/Engineering. He also proposed a freeze on reclassifications of positions to higher salary levels. Additional spending of $160,000 would be made to Police, Parks and Recreation, and Economic Development if the revenues were not needed to balance the budget after the State cuts. Included in that would be the concept of funding the Youth Action program. The difficulty he had with recommendation #3 was that it appeared the City would be finding new projects for staff to do that were reimbursable in order to divert General Fund revenues. He was not certain that priorities in the Planning Department should be allocated that way. He felt Council should take a look at what services meant the most to the quality of life to the public and allocate resources accordingly. It was his understanding that the Youth Action program proposal was that the $70,000+ provided would be a City contribution which needed to be matched with additional non-City contributions in order to put the entire program together. VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 w/th Hotton, Rindone, and Nader opposed. Supplemental Budget Memo #13 - Consultant/Service Provider Use During FY 1992-93. No discussion. Supplemental Budget Memo #14 - Workload and General Fund Support in the City's Development Related Departments. No discussion. Supplemental Budget Memo # 15 - Advertis ing on CVT Buses and Passenger Benches. Councilmember Moore stated the City needed more funds for the youth programs. He was not delighted with advertising on the outside of buses but could tolerate it if the money went to a specific project. Councilmember Rindone equated the setting aside of monies for a specific project with the establishment of the lottery and felt that after a period of time the intent was lost. The aesthetics and the feeling of not having ugly signs on the buses was the heart of the discussion. If there was a commitment to the youth programs, there needed to be a commitment from Council to make sure the money was there but there were alternatives to putting signs on buses. The advertising of City events on the interior of the buses was a good compromise. He was comfortable with the current policy. Mayor Nader agreed with authorization of advertising and earmarklug the monies for youth programs. City Manager Goss stated the revenues from the bench ads and bus shelters would produce approximately $2,000 for the General Fund. Additional revenues of $45,000 to $55,000 for exterior bus ads would have to go for transit programs. Councilmember Moore stated the City could use the money for special passes which could be given to youth organizations, etc. He envisioned a donation of land for a teen club, the City building a teen club economically with donations, and a modified bus route with an increased cost. Council needed to decide if they wanted signs on all sides or on the sidewalk side only. MS (Nader/Fox) direct staff to devdop a program of exterior bus signs and report back to Council regarding the poss~le earmarking of the revenues. Councilmember Moore requested that three phases of signs be included, i.e. one, two, or three exterior signs. Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate the recommendation into the motion. The motion conceptually approved some level of bus advertising depending on the number of signs, revenue estimates, and ways to earmark funds. Staff would not be authorized to spend any revenues until approved by Council. Minutes June 1S, 1993 Page 6 VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed. Supplemental Budget Memo #16 - Library Names for Main Library and South Chula Vista Branch. No discussion. Supplemental Budget Memo #17 - 1994 Business License Tax Increase and Abatement Options. City Manager Goss recommended Council hold the annual public hearing in October for the Business License rates. At that time he would recommend they be maintained at the current rate unless there was a dramatic improvement in the economy. MSC (Fox/Moore) to hold the public hearing to set Business License rates in October. Approved 4-Od with Nader absent. Supplemental Budget Memo #18 - Proposal to Commit PAD Funds to the YMCA. City Manager Goss recommended an amount of $20,000 from the Park Acquisition and Development funds, staff negotiate a contract with a YMCA pursuant to the conditions ou~ined in the report and prepared by the City Attorney, and direct staff to pursue conceptual funding for the next four fiscal years. The benefit to the City would be that the City would not need to build a swim center if the YMCA facility were open to the public. MSIJC (Pdndone/Nader) to conceptually approve the staff recommendation for Supplemental Budget Memo #18. Supplemental Budget Memo #19 - Proposed Recreation Trust Fund Budget for 1993-94. City Manager Goss recommended that the list on page 4, total of $23,200, also be utilized since the acquisition would benefit the trust fund activities, i.e. the variety of classes run by the department. MS (Moore/Fox) to approve the staff recommendation for Supplemental Budget Memo # 19. Mayor Nader supported the third part of the recommendation for equipment but was concerned whether the computer network system and graphic artist was the most effective use of funds versus other equipment purchases for recreation programs. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the computer network was part of the departments customer service approach over the next several years. Computers would be at each of the community centers and the public would be able to register for classes or rent facilities. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Supplemental Budget Memo #20 - Chula Vista Utility Underground Conversion Program. Councilmember Moore stated he had requested the information and felt it was time for Council to sit down and review the priorities. Councilmember Hotton questioned if the conversion of 'E" Street would be a complete project from 1-805 to 1-5. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that was correct. Orange Avenue, by the Library, had been moved up on the list and was not included in the report. Mayor Nader stated that if the "E" Street district was to be discussed, he would abstain from participation due to ownership of property in the area. Councilmember Rindone stated he also owned property in the area and would abstain from participation. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 7 MSC CI~Ioore/Horton) to direct staff to bring the Chula Vista Utility Underground Conversion Program back to Council within six months in a workshop/meeting setting for review and repriortization_ Staff is to bring back recommendations for additional streets, if necessary, for indnsion to the program. Approved 3-0-0-2 with Nader and Rindone abstaining. Supplemental Budget Memo #21 - CIP Project ST-961, Main Street, Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue. No discussion. Supplemental Budget Memo #22 - Fees Paid to Outside Attorneys. Councilmember Rindone stated Council had requested the information to get an idea on outside legal costs. He was interested to see if there were more cost effective ways in the long term, i.e. firms used consistently. If there was a pattern with those firms he felt Council may want to review legal procedures and expenditures in order to get the costs down. MSUC (Rindone/Fox) to direct the City Attorney to review the information and provide a report and recommendarions, short and long term, for Council review. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA stated Council had recently opposed SB 36 which was an amendment to the Brown Act. After reviewing the amendment, he felt Council should have approved it as it would have required Council to be more open in all aspects of their meetings with the public which he felt was necessary. He did not see a need for the legislative consultants hired by the City. He requested Council look into his concerns and give him a justification for the hiring of legislative consultants. · Mareuerite Maniscalco, 4095 Bonita Road, Bonita, Cash representing the Bonita Business and Professional Association, requested a $5.00 waiver for the participants of Bonitafest for business licenses. All booth applications had been mailed and the imposing of the $5.O0 fee would create a nightmare and possibly an end to the way they had run Bonitafest for twenty-two years. If it was not possible to waive the $5.00, she requested the fee be lowered to $2.50. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. MS (FoX/Horton) adopt the staff recommendation #2, Page 11-5, Youth Action Program - to approach an outside source to obtain necessary fun& to fund the Youth Action Program, if that did not succeed staff was to go to Recommendation #3 - to relocate planning staff time so more lime would be spent on reimbursable projects which would produce approximatdy $75,000 which would fund the Youth AL'tion Councilmember Fox recommended that the churches of the community be involved in the programs as they needed to be part of the solution. Mayor Nader stated his concern dealt with bringing back information to Council on the specific impacts of the changes in the allocation of Planning Department time. He felt cuts in other parts of the City budget would be a more appropriate way to generate funds. He preferred the City Manager's recommendation of a combination of cuts and other cost savings Council had already approved but had not been incorporated into the budget. He did not want to have a smaller Youth Action Program because the Council stated the first choice was to be funded by outside funds; both recommendations need to be done simultaneously. Councilmember Fox stated the intent of the motion was to go to Recommendation #2 first and then Recommendation #3, realizing there would be a partnership of participation with other agencies. If that were to change, he expected it to be brought back to Council. VOTE. ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Minutes June 1S, 1993 Page 8 MS CNader/Horton) to waive the $5.00 business license fee for Bonitafest participants. Councilmember Moore suggested that staff bring back a policy regarding the waiver of business license fees for major functions within the City, i.e. Bonitafest, Harbor Days, etc. not including "door to door" activities. ~MENT: (Nader/Horton) to direct staff to bring back a proposed policy for the waiver of fees for non- profit organizations for major and established cornnn,lnity functions. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. Mayor Nader he had broad concerns with the City Manager's budget. He suggested Council make the following cuts: 1) $60,000 in Administration; 2) $50,000 each in Planning, Management Services, and Engineering; and 3) reallocate funds to Youth Services, Economic Development programs, and Police. He felt the reallocation of funds should be discussed once the City became aware of what the impact of the State cuts would be to the City. The proposed cuts were not more than 5% in any budget and cuts of that magnitude were being prepared to address the potential State cuts. MS (Nader/Fox) to cut the following budgets: 1} $60,000 from A~lrnlnislration; 2) $50,000 each in Planning, Management Services, and Engineering;, 3) place a freeze on redassi~cations of positions to new designations with higher salaries. Mayor Nader stated the motion did not eliminate Management Services. The memo distributed to Council suggested it would be one way to achieve efficiencies. The intent of the motion would be that staff would make the decision as to how to achieve those cuts. His recommendation to eliminate Management Services was not to eliminate all the services and personnel in the department but that the services be reallocated and administered differen~y. The specific way of achieving the cuts was not mandated in the motion. Staff would return to Council with a report on how they would implement the cuts. Councilmember Horton agreed that the Economic Development Coordinator was overworked as well as the department and, therefore, could support Item C of the Mayor's memo. Under Item A, regarding the reallocation of funds to the Police Department, it was her understanding that the computer dispatch system was being done as expeditiously as possible. She did not see there was any way the equipment could be obtained within the next fiscal year and that funding at this point was not a problem. Item B, regarding the Youth Action program, was covered by previous Council action. Mayor Nader stated the motion did not deal with the reallocation of funds. He agreed that Item B, Youth Action program, may not be as pressing a need in light of Council's action. There was a need for other youth programs that would not be taken care of in the Youth Action program. Assuming the City could not acquire the computer dispatch system during the fiscal year, there were other equipment needs and overtime needs within the Police Department. He was concerned that the proposed budget relied on 'one time" revenue sources to fund some level of services that would be annual expenditures. Part of his recommendation would be a reallocation of funds away from annual expenditures that would be built into the budget year after year and towards specific programs and equipment allocation that would not necessarily be built into base budgets in future years. Councilmember Moore stated the budget had been prepared by professionals. He could support a motion directing the City Manager to address the concerns raised in the Mayor's memo with a report brought back during the second phase of the budget which would address the 2%, 5%, and 10% budget cuts. He could not support last minute changes. Mayor Nader stated his intent was that if the motion passed, once the situation in Sacramento was clarified, it would come back to Council. If Sacramento did not steal the funds from the City, he would then propose the allocation of funds back into other City departments and services. It was his hope that if the motion Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 9 passed, it would reduce the overall amount of cuts that would have to be made. It would assure that the cuts would begin where the citizens of Chula Vista would feel them the least. Councilmember Rindone did not feel Council had time to thoroughly analyze the Mayor's recommendations. He would like to get information from staff regarding the impacts. He requested the motion be bifurcated to remove the freeze on reclassi~cation of employees. Mayor Nader stated he would bifurcate the motion regarding the redassification of employees. Councilmember Rindone stated there was currently a balanced budget and he did not want to "piecemeal* the cuts. He felt Council should wait until the impact from the State was known, at which time Council could also review the proposed 2%, 5%, and 10% cuts and their impacts. He supported what the Mayor was trying to do, but he did not support the process. Councilmember Moore had a hunch that the City could do better. There appeared to be more administration and supervision than necessary but he could not prove that. The onerous should be on the City Manager. He could support a motion directing the City Manager to review those concerns along with the 2%, 5%, and 10% cuts. City Manager Goss stated the 2%, 5%, and 10% cuts had been submitted and he had done a preliminary review with the Budget Officer. They were addressing the following scenarios: 1) $750,000 cut; 2) $1,000,000 cut; and 3) $1,500,000. AMENDMENT TO MOllON: (Horton/Fox) to approve in concept the Mayor's recommendations with a repor~ back from staff on the Mayor's recommendations and any recommendations staff may have. Mayor Nader understood Council's concem regarding time to thoroughly review his recommendations and additional staff input. He felt the approval in concept was important because Council was conceptually saying they would be tieing decisions on cuts and potential reallocation of money on how it would affect the public and not necessarily on how easily the City could facilitate business as usual in government which he felt was the important part. Council needed to do zero based budgeting. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the motion was conceptual approval of cuts of $210,000 but not specifically the cuts and departments in the Mayor's memo. Councilwoman Hotton wanted staff to look at the recommended cuts and respond to them, but also have staff provide any additional information. If staff disagreed with it, that was fine, but she wanted their recommendations also. Mayor Nader stated the motion was conceptually approving the particular cuts in his memo, subject to further information being developed by staff. Councilmember Rindone stated the motion referred the Mayor's recommendation to staff to focus on the areas but as to whether the Council made cuts in those areas, depended upon the report that would be brought back by staff. Mayor Nader stated the key word was "focus" on those areas. He felt, as a policy maker, it was his fight and duty to suggest that administration and supervisory personnel be looked at before services to the public. VOTE ON MOIlON AS AMENDED; approved 4-1 with Moore opposed. City Manager Goss stated staff would respond to the proposed cuts but felt it would be worthwhile for Council to see the overall proposed cut list. Staff was conscious that Council wanted to maintain service levels to the general public. He did not believe there would be much opportunity to reallocate monies but Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 10 a matter of downsizing which he would support. He felt it would be easier to downsize a little at a time, year after year, rather than arbitrarily relying on a lot of one time revenues. In the area of economic development, only $15,000 of the funds would come from the General Fund and the rest would come from Redevelopment. In terms of the Economic Development Coordinator being overworked, he would agree with that. There was a vacant position that supported the Coordinator and staff was in the process of filling that position. The budget proposal included a transfer of a .4 full-time equivalent position to Economic Development from Administration and Management Services. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the intent of the motion to place a freeze on reclassifications would include the positions recommended in the proposed budget. Mayor Nader stated that was correct and noted the reclassifications might well be justified in better economic times. It was a far less drastic measure than Council took the previous year with a total hiring freeze. Council could exempt the freeze on a case-by-case basis. VOTE ON MOTION REGARDING A FREg7:R ON RECLASSIFICATIONS: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed. Councilmember Moore felt Council should direct the City Manager to strive for the present level or service, avoid lay-offs, and protect the reserves. MSUC (Rindone/"Nader) to direct the City Manager strive to maintain current levels of service, avoid layoffs, and protect the reserves. RESOLUTION 17143 OFFF, RF~ BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. **** Council recessed at 8:31 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. **** 12. PUBLIC HEARING ENACTING PCA 92-03 TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FACILITIES IN THE C-N ZONE - CITY INITIATED - On 4/20/93, Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance Number 2552) to require a conditional use permit for any proposal to expand or modify alcohol sales in the C-N Zone. Staff was directed to return with a permanent amendment to the Code, which would ensure that the operation of all alcoholic beverage sales facilities within the C-N Zone is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone to provide for convenient access to goods and services while preserving and complementing the character of the surrounding residential area. The recommended amendment requires the issuance of a conditional use permit for any new facility and any facilities which expand the area devoted to alcohol sales or which require the issuance of a type of alcoholic beverage license by the State Alcohol Beverage Control different from the license previously held. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning) ORI)INANCE 2560 AB/IEIqDINGSECTION19.34.030OFTHE1VIUl',ilCIPALCODEBRIATINGTO REQUIREMEN'I] FOR THE EXPANSION OR MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SAT.~-*;; FACILITIES (first reading) 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. ORDINANC~ 2560 pLACRD ON FIRST READING BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 11 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Israel Acosta, 103 E1 Capitan Drive, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the dias. · Carolyn Buffer, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, complained to Council regarding the treatment she had received when attending a meeting of the Human Relations Commission. Mayor Nader requested that Mrs. Butler submit a letter to his office outlining her specific concerns. BOARD AND COM/v!ISSION RECO1VIIVIENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 13. REPORT STATUS ON THE SOLID WASTE PARTICIPATION AGJIF. RMF. NT AND ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS - On S/27/93, Council discussed the proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement even though it required unanimous approval by all cities and it had, at that point, been rejected by four cities. Council action at the meeting conceptually approved the Agreement, to include committing fifty percent of the Citys wastestream to the County and bringing three specific items of concern to the negotiation table of the Interim Commission. Subsequently, the County Board of Supervisors approved a revised Agreement being forwarded to Council for action which does not require unanimous approval. The report also includes additional information regarding disposal options which could be considered as alternatives to the Agreement. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Administration) RESOLUTION 17144 APPROVING AGReeMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, AND COMMrFI-ING FIFTY PERCENT OF THE CITY'S WAS'L'P.S'IREAM TO THE COUNTY City Manager Goss was disappointed with what had happened since June 1st. It was his impression there would be an opportunity for discussion of the conditions approved by Council with the County staff but it had not happened. The Board of Supervisors had taken a position where they deleted the requirement that all the cities needed to approve the agreement and limit it to just those that approved the agreement. He was also concerned regarding the 6/22/93 deadline imposed for the new agreement. His recommendation was to take testimony, hold Council discussion, and then continue for one week. He felt there was a need to transmit additional information to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Fox had grave concerns over the twenty year commitment to the County. He perceived the recommendation regarding Laidlaw as inconsistent. He felt it was a very frustrating and embarrassing situation. City Manager Goss did not feel the staff position had changed. His basic position had been that the City was part of the system and there were parts of the system the City had responsibility for, therefore, there was a rationale for providing S0% of the City's trash flow. He had a real problem in committing the other 50% within six months. There should be an opportunity to look at other options and have flexibility. Regarding the alternatives, it would not be a job of the City if Council went along with the recommendation presented by the cities, but by the commission that would be established. · Jim Weaver, representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, stated a meeting was scheduled with staff on 6/21/93. They needed to understand what some of the options were and the interests of the City. Minutes June 1S, 1993 Page 12 Councilmember Fox stated it would help if Council had hard facts and figures for review regarding their proposal. Mr. Weaver did not know if that would be possible before 6/22/93 without the opportunity to have discussions with staff. Councilmember Horton stated the north county cities hired a consultant that would be making a presentation on short and long term strategies pertaining to the County landfill system on 7/1/93. She questioned whether the City should wait until after 7/1/93. City Manager Goss looked at the 6/22/93 date as an arbitrary deadline. He felt it would be of benefit for the City to hear the results of the report. The City did need to consider whether there would be surcharges imposed, an adverse impact upon the discussion of landfill facility fees, etc. Councilmember Hotton felt it was Council's job to wait until they had received all the information possible before making a decision or commitment. She questioned what the penalty would be if the agreement was not signed by 6/22/93. City Manager Goss stated the agreement was silent regarding host fees. When he raised the question as to when there would be discussion regarding the host fee as it related to the Conditional Use Permit condition, the comment was made that it should start after 6/22/93. The City did have some control in connection with the approval of the CUP. Councilmember Hotton expressed concern that if the other cities did not participate, the fixed costs would remain the same and questioned what the financial impact would be on the City if they participated in the agreement. Mayor Nader wanted the City staff and City Attorney to answer the questions. Councilmember Moore stated it was a major decision as to what to do with an agency that took the Citys trash for a great number of years and all of a sudden they were in difficulty. The County could not afford to take trash at the current fee. If they bonded, they could collect at a lower fee, if they did not bond, they could collect at a high fee. He did not feel the cities could abandon their partner completely. He was agreeable to the 50% commitment of waste flow which allowed the City to hold back 50% allowing flexibility. Councilmember Rindone stated Council did not know if any of the five possible options in the report were viable but there were two options that were not listed, i.e. south county JPA and the Campo Indian Reservation. Council needed to ensure they obtained the best rates for the rate payers in the City. He felt staff should be directed to look at alternatives. He referred to the chart regarding the tipping fees and noted the rates would go up whether or not the City signed the agreement. He questioned whether it would be legal to charge non-signatory cities a higher rate. Many alternatives had not been researched and he was not ready to make a commitment. Councilmember Fox wanted to give Laidlaw an opportunity to make a proposal and direct staff to negotiate for more time and look at alternatives. He felt that would take longer than the established 6/22/93 deadline. Mayor Nader stated a letter had been received from the City of Del Mar expressing their concerns regarding the changes made by the County which had not been negotiated by the cities. The League of California Cities, San Diego County Division, had their monthly meeting and of the cities present, Coronado was the only city that spoke in support of the agreement submitted by the County. The opinion of the other cities was split between those that felt there should be further negotiation and those who were "fed up". He felt the City's representative on the Board should be given the opportunity to buy time for the cities and County Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 13 to look at the implications and where to go from here. It was his understanding that the establishment of the commission was the same in the new agreement as in the old, which was that the full extent and authority of that commission was still to be determined. Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, responded there was no change to the commission's authority. It was advisory to the Board of Supervisors during the period of time it was in existence. Mayor Nader stated he was also concerned regarding whether or not a non-signatory could be charged a higher fee than the signatories. An additional concern was that if the City signed the agreement and the courts threw out the Counn/s plan to charge different rates, he questioned whether there was an escape valve for the City. He felt staff had been given direction to look at alternatives and did not feel Council had been given a complete analysis of what alternatives existed. · John Woodard, Chief of Staff to Supervisor Bflbray, stated the City Manager had received a letter from David Jansen which clearly stated the Board's intent that the cities sign on by 6/22/93 or they would be considered a non-signatory city. With the cities that had signed the Board felt there was a commission and they expected the commission to be up and running and making decisions on the issues, i.e. would the non-signatory cities receive a host fee. From Supervisor Bilbray's perspective he could not imagine Chula Vista not wanting to be part of a commission, as the City had a landfill on which the commission would be making decisions on. Mayor Nader questioned whether the commission would be advisory or if it had authority. Mr. Woodard stated legally the commission was advisory but the Board fully intended to abide by the decisions of the commission unless they put the County into some type of financial problem. Mayor Nader felt the City should have the ability, as they did with the sewer district, to have that same time period to decide whether the City would make that twenty year commitment. If the Board intended to abide by the commission's decisions, he felt it would be better if it was spelled out up-front in the agreement. Lari Sheehan, Deputy CAO for the County of San Diego, stated the initial agreement drafted by the City Manager's group did provide that the commission would have specific responsibilities. It was the decision of the Elected Officials Negotiating group to put a permanent governance system in place and that they would take a year to do that with the commission being advisory to the Board during that year. In order to become a member of that commission a city would have to commit 50% of their waste flow by 6/22/93. The idea was that when the permanent governance was put in place the flow control would go to that governing body whatever that happened to be. The Board of Supervisors had stated they would be taking all major issues dealing with the solid waste system to the commission. The host fees were specified in the agreement. Councilmember Moore stated the Elected Officials group did not specify the commission's authority. The original concept staff and County agreed upon was a commission that had deciding authority on everything but budget and tipping fees. Mayor Nader stated the new agreement did not reflect discussions between the County and the cities regarding the deadline of 6/22/93 or the elimination of the requirement that all cities had to sign on to make the agreement effective. The reason he had voted for the previous agreement was the security that all cities needed to sign the agreement and, therefore, there would be sufficient flow in the system which would make it more likely that the City's rates would be held to a reasonable level. He questioned the 6/22/93 deadline. Ms. Sheehan responded that the Board decided to change the agreement because several cities had decided to vote against the agreement. They then extended the deadline and gave the cities the opportunity to vote Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 14 as to whether they wanted ro participate on a basis other than all or nothing. The 6/22/93 date was chosen because the Board took the issue up on 6/1/93 and felr three weeks was sufficient. Mr. Woodward stated the County was asking the cities to sign a new agreement with a revision that it was no longer 'all or nothing~. He stated the new commission would be looking ar the concerns raised. The County did not have a plan to go in any particular direction, they would allow the commission to make those decisions. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether there was a provision in the new agreement that prohibited cities from joining late. Mr. Woodward responded there was no provision in the agreement. The determination would be made by the new commission as to what the buy-in fee would be for a city choosing to sign-in later. Ir was his understanding that the meeting of 7/1/93 was to issue an I{FP and not present solutions. A previous study by the North County JPA recommended they stay with the County. City Manager Goss stated a continuance would allow time for staff to develop more information. The disadvantage would be that the commission could be formed and a surcharge imposed. It could also limit the City's ability to have input on the operation of the landfill within the City limits and host fees. He felt the issue should be revisited ar the next Council meeting. Mr. Woodward requested that Council continue the item for one week and stared County staff would work with City staff to review all the alternatives. · Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, felt the difference between life and death was 50%. · Phil Kleas, 18662 MacArthur Boulevard #456, Irvine, CA, representing AKEMCOM, was not present when called to the dias. MS {Nader/Fox) continue the item one week with direction to staff to develop more specific information on the alternatives that had been raised in the staff report and Council discussion and to express Council's concerns to the County regarding the up front authority of the commission, accountability of decision makes under the agreement, recyd/ng issues previously raised, and the short deadline imposed. Councilmember Moore felt the following issues should be addressed: 1) the life of the Otay Landfill within Chula Vista and possible expansion, horizontal or vertical; 2) the County solid waste enterprise fund versus present commitments with or without expansion of landfills; 3) funds obligated to old landfills and how it would affect the income and reserves; 4) could the County charge different rates; 5) various alternatives and costs involved; and 6) number of tons capability of landfills. Mrs. Snyder stated the agreement was silent on the issue of host fees. She had been present at the Board of Supervisors' meeting when it was specifically asked and the response by County staff was to point out that the agreement was silent and it would be an issue to be dealt with by the commission with a recommendation to the Board for final action. Councilmember Rindone questioned whether there was any legal way a non-elected jurisdictional body, such as the proposed commission, could prohibit the City from taking its trash to a landfill within its own boundaries. City Attorney Boogaard stated that in the absence of signing an agreement that would commit the flow elsewhere, he did not feel any commission or the County could prevent the City from taking its trash anywhere they wanted. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 15 Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that, with or without the agreement, the City was entitled to take its trash to a County landfill or anywhere else. The question was, how much could the County charge the City ff they failed to sign the agreement. The downside of not signing the agreement would be the charging of a much higher premium for being a non-signatory city. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. MSF (Moore/Rindone) to finish the agenda. Motion failed 2-3 with Fox, Hotton, and Nader oppose& Action taken as per Council policy to vote on the completion of the agenda after 10:30 p.m. · Jazz Arnold representing Rick Engineering requested that Council hear Item 10. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to hear Item 10 before meeting in Closed Session. ITEMS pUIJ.F.I~ FROM THE CONSENT CAI.F.I~IDAR Items pulled: Sa, 7, and 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. O~ BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. Continued to the 6/22/93 meeting. 15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Selling business ads. Continued to the 6/21/93 meeting. b. Appointment of representative to LAFCO's Cities Advisory Committee. Continued to the 6/22/93 meeting. 16. COUNCIL COMMEJqTS Councilman Rindone · Inconsistencies with Council approval of the allocation of Community Development Block Grant monies. Continued from the meeting of 6/1/93. Continued to the meeting of 6/22/93. · Reconsideration of revised Yard Waste Recycling Service Proposal by Laidlaw Waste System. Continued to the 6/22/93 meeting. · South County Joint Powers Agreement for solid waste management with or without Lemon Grove. Continued to the 6/22/93 meeting. Councilman Fox · Review of Police Department policy regarding minor narcotic law violations on school campuses. Continued to the 6/22/93 meeting. Minutes June 15, 1993 Page 16 AD~'OURNMENT The City Council recessed at 10:53 p.m. and met in a closed session at 10:55 p.m. to discuss: Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters 0AFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 6/1/93. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego, Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Institution of litigation against County of San Diego regarding Daley Rock Quarry CUP. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Igou vs. the City of Chula Vista. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - County of San Diego vs. the City of Chula Vista (San Miguel Ranch) ADJOURNMENT AT 11:35 P.M. to a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, ~Iune 16, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 22, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, / BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. SodeT~Uist, Dep~'~ Clerk