HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/06/22 MINLYFF. S OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE ca'fY' OF CI-IULA VISTA
Tuesday, June 22, 1993 Council Chambers
6:04 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), and
Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. Pt.F.r~GE OF .AIJ.RGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MI~: June 1, 1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council) and June 5,
1993 (Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission)
MSC (Moore/Fox) to approve the minutes of June 1, 1993 and June 5, 1993 as presented. Approved 4-O-1
with Rindone absent,
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted.
CONSENT CAI.F. hlDAR
(Items pulled: 5c, 9, 1S, and 19)
Mayor Nader stated since the agenda had been posted, the State had taken action on the budget and he felt
the City Manager should present an update with possible action by Council. The reason for the urgency was
due to the two week recess before the next regularly scheduled meeting.
MSC (Nader/Fox) to find there was an urgent matter, discussion of the implications of the State budget with
possible action by Council, which arose after the posting of the agenda. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone
absent.
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT C~LENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the te~ was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Councilmember Rindone absent and Councilmember Fox abstaining
on Item #13. Item #7 was removed from the agenda.
5. WRI-i-i'EASl COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter of resignation from Human Relations Commission - Gloria Hicks, Center Director,
MAAC Project, 1671 Albany St., Chula Vista, CA 92011. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted
and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the
Public Library.
b. Letter requesting enforcement of handicapped parking spaces - Helen Madden, 677 "G" St.,
Sp. 1, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that a letter be sent to Ms. Madden informing her of the
Civfs efforts to enforce the handicapped parking laws.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 2
c. Letter supporting the INDWE. LIJiR Resource Recovery Park on Main Street - Teresa Aland,
Executive Director, INDWELLER, 1433 Nacion Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911-5513. It is recommended that
the item be noted and filed. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Executive Director, representing INDWELLER,
stated she was specifically requesting support from Council for a private system, i.e. much the same as the
County was requesting Council commit to a flow control covenant. Her request was for a commitment by
Council, in the form of an ordinance, that would retain the right of the public to control the secondary
resource stream, reserve the right to redirect any collected material to a specific market for the purpose of
market development or any other purpose including, but limited to, achieving the highest and best material
and meeting AB 939 requirements, and encouraging economic growth of industries in and related to
resource recovery and recycling.
MSC (Fox/Moore) to accept staff recommendation. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
6. ORDINANCE 2560 AMENDING SECTION 19.34.030 OF THE MUNI(~PAL CODE l~ RI ATING TO
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXPANSION OR MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SAI .l~_q FACILITIES
(second readinE and adoption) 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 second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
7. RESOLDTION 17139 APPROVING FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN FOR THE ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER FOR 1992-93 - The Assistant City Managers Flexible Benefits Plan amount was not adjusted for
1992-93. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) Continued from the meeting of
6/15/93.
City Manager Goss informed Council that staff requested the item be pulled from the agenda. He would
bring the item back where it would be based on merit rather than internal comparisons.
8. RESOLUTION 17145 APPROVING TRIP DEFERRAL AGREEMENT FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA
III NEIGHBORHOODS R-6 AND R-7 - Recent conditions in conjunction with the Rancho Del Rey Commercial
Center required that a Trip Deferral Agreement be entered into. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
City Attorney Boogaard stated a new contract had been distributed and agreed upon by the RDR Parmership.
RTC approval could not be obtained in time for their schedule for pulling building permits but DR had
given the City a letter where they agreed to use good faith and best efforts to secure the signature of RTC
within thirty days. He requested Council approve the resolution and direct that if the RTC did sign the
revised agreement, the Mayor would be authorized to execute the revised agreement. If RTC did not sign
the revised agreement, the original agreement would be permanent.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the resu'ictions placed on the building rights carried over on a transfer of
property. He also questioned whether the right to withhold permits would end upon approval of a financing
plan for SR125.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 3
City Attorney Booguard responded the changes would run with the land and be binding on subsequent
purchasers. The right to withhold permits would end upon approval and implementation of a financing
plan. The contemplation was that there would be an interim SR125 fee and when that was in place the City
would be assured of having the necessary facilities to relieve level of service problems by the accumulation
of monies from that fee.
9. RESOLUTION 17146 GMNG NOTICE OF INTENT TO GRANT A FRANCHISE TO LAIDLAW
WA:>'fll SYSTEMS, INC. FOR MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING COl J.F-CTION SERVICES AND SETHNG A PUBLIC
HEARING THEREON - On 4/13/93, Council approved, in concept, a proposed multi-family recycling program
with collection services to be provided by Laidlaw Waste Systems. Staff has drafted the proposed franchise.
With Council approval of the resolution, the program will begin the Charter-required process of giving the
notice of intention to grant the franchise for multi-family recycling collection services. This will be followed
by a public hearing on the first reading of the proposed franchise ordinance. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution and setring a public hearing for 7/13/93 at 6:00 p.m. (Administration) Pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
· Don Lindberg, 345 "I" Street #11, Chula Vista, CA, representing Bay Cities, questioned how there
had been a reconciliation with the approach of an exclusive franchise for the recyclables with the waste
management of the Desert Case.
City Attorney Booguard responded the reconciling was that under the franchise, the collectable had to be
tendered to the curbside which was exactly what the Desert Waste Management Case said was the
requirement for collectability. The franchise was structured to state it was the recyclable of the generator
until the generator tendered it to the curbside or whatever the bin collection site was.
Mr. Lindberg stated that would mean that an apartment owner could go to anyone to handle the recyclable
items and not ever take them to the curbside if they did not want to.
City Attorney Booguard stated if the recyclable was not taken to the bin for collection at that particular
multi-family unit then it was not part of the franchise agreement.
MS (Rindone/Moore) to approve the resolution end CAP the franchise fee at 8% with no escalation clause.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader/Fox) having a provision under which the implamentation of the es~alatiun
clause would be revisited before the escalafion would go into affect to allow Council to either allow it to go
forward or to suspend it so it would not be automatic.
VOTE ON SUBSTITLrFE MOTION: approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 17146 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
10. RESOLUTION 17147 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1992-93 BUDGET, PROVIDING FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND APPROPRIATION TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - The City pays
for its Unemployment Insurance Claim by reimbursement. It was agreed beginning in 1991-92 not to
request the normal budget requirement but rather to appropriate each quarter from the Unemployment
Insurance Account Fund. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) 4/Sth's vote
required.
ll. RESOLUTION 17148 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHA[TIC
CONCRETE - Bids were opened on 6/4/93 for furnishing the Citys requirement for asphaltic concrete for
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 4
street maintenance. The estimated usage for Fiscal Year 1993-94 is 5,000 tons. The material will be picked
up at the vendor's plant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
12. RESOLUTION 17149 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVlt'~5;
AGRRRMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER AND HAMPTON FOR PAYMF2qT
OF VARIOUS LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED FOR IHE RANClIO DEL REY COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT
PER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGI~RI~MENT - Marcia Scully, Esq., of Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter and Hampton prepared the various agreements necessary to develop a portion of the Rancho del Key
Business Center as a commercial "power center.' The resolution covers the Legal Services Agreement
associated with the costs to be paid by the McMillin Company including: the Development Agreement with
McMillin Company, the three implementing Agreements, and related escrow matters. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
13. RESOLUTION 17150 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTS FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 1, S, 9, AND 10 - Staff is submitting two separate reports -- one
for Open Space District 10 and the second including all other Open Space and Landscape Maintenance
Districts. Since Councilman Fox lives in District 10, the item has been bifurcated in order to avoid conflict
of interest and to maximize his participation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Parks and Recreation)
Councilmember Fox abstained from participation due to the inclusion of his home in Open Space District
#10.
14. RESOLUTION17151 ACCEFrlNG BIDS AND AWARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
CO~CTS FOR OPEN SPACE Dlb-[RICTS 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, AND EASTLAKE
lANDSCAPE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 -Request for bids to provide landscape maintenance services for Open
Space Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, and EastLake District Number I were let out
on 5/5/93 and received on 5/28/93. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and
Recreation)
15. RESOLUTION 17152 AMENDING CONTRACTS FOR SEWER CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH
DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, DELOI'I'[E AND TOUCHE, AND DWIGHT WORDEN - Agreements were approved
with three rinns for legal, engineering, and finance services to provide consulting service to City staff and
Council on a time and material basis with a "not to exceed" clause for costs without prior Council approval.
Two of the consultants are near their "not to exceed" amounts, and the City is still in need of their services.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he pulled the item so the Council would
discuss it. The change proposed was an additional $90,000 and he requested justification for the increase.
Mayor Nader stated the item involved three contracts for a total of $90,000. The contracts related to services
being provided to the City to explore alternatives for the provision of sewer services in the future. One
alternative was participation in the Special Act District for the entire City and there were other alternatives
or variations of that alternative being explored by the City.
RESOLUTION 17152 OFP'P. RED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent,
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 5
16. RESOLUTION 17153 APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF NINE APPLICATIONS FOR FIFrH CY(I,E
FUNDS OF THE STATE/LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SLTPP) - Senate Bill 300
created the SLTPP to identify and construct locally supported projects with a minimum of State planning
and review. Staff has prepared nine applications for fifth cycle funding under the program. In order that
the application for SLTPP funding may be considered, a resolution approving the submittal of the application
to the Calttans Local Sweets and Roads Engineer is required. Calttans is the agency administering the
program. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. RESOLUTION 17154 AUTHORIZING CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS WHI(2-I
I~F-I.EASE SUBDM SION IMPROVEMENT AG~ AND TO HAVE SAID pI~.I.I~.ASES RECORDED -
Recently the City has been requiring the recordation of Subdivision Improvement Agreements in conjunction
with Final Maps. As a result, said agreements are now being listed in title reports. The approval of the
resolution will provide a mechanism for the release of Subdivision Improvement Agreements when fullfiled
or superseded by a new agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
18. RESOLUTION 17155 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOC~TION FUNDS TO
SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSIONS SERVING NON-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE "F* STREET UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DIb-rF, ICT BETWEEN (]]URCH
AVENUE AND SECOND AVENUE - On 12/15/92, Council amended Policy Number 585-1 by expanding the
use of utility funds to reimburse all properties for the cost of undergrounding of private senrice laterals.
Prior to the amendment, the policy allowed reimbursement to single family residential properties only. The
amendment is applicable to all future districts and to all the utility undergrounding districts that were
formed in calendar year 1992. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
19. REPORT ADMINISIRATIVE PROCEDURF~ FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ~
CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AS A THREATENED SPECIES - On 3/25/93, the California Gnatcatcher was
listed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as "threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Until
an interim conservation process is adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Deparunent of Fish and Game in the next several months, no "take" (harm, harassment or disturbance) of
the species or occupied coastal sage scrub habitat is permitted unless the applicant obtains the necessary
Federal permits or approvals. The administrative procedures will provide consistent review of projects within
the City. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting
of 6/1/92. Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated staff recommended implementation as an Administrative
Procedure. The primary focus was on procedures that staff would follow in handling various levels of
permits and any discretionary actions would be forwarded to Council for policy action. Therefore, it had
been designed as Administrative Procedures.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether there had been a recommendation from the Resource Conservation
Commission.
Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated the item had been presented to the RCC and they
chose to take no action.
MS (Fox/Horton) to accept the staff report.
Councilmember Moore questioned the difference between the way the issue was being handled by the
County and the proposal before Council.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 6
ML Leiter responded that it was nearly identical to the County~s approach which was to advise applicants
on discretionary actions of the federal listing and to disclose that they needed to pursue permits but not to
make it a requirement of the County. The City of San Diego was applying a specific condition to
discretionary action which required they obtain a federal permit prior to final city action.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the Fish and Wildlife Service had seen the proposed revision for comments.
Mr. Leiter stated it had been sent to them but staff had not received specific comments. Because it was an
administrative procedure, if additional comments were received, staff would respond accordingly and keep
Council aware of any concerns.
Mayor Nader stated he had expressed concern in the past with anything that appeared to be a "first
come/first serve" policy for what would end up as limited land use approvals. The issue could be looked
at in two ways, i.e. the whole picture or piecemealed. He was more comfortable with staffs original
recommendation because by requiring that the Fish and Wildlife Service sign-off on a project before it was
built, the City was getting a paper trail from the Fish and Wildlife Service that stated they had looked at the
entire picture, He was uncomfortable that staff changed its recommendation solely on the response of a
special interest group.
Mr. Leiter stated the reason the recommendation had changed was because the proposed condition was to
be applied across the board. Staff would expect that the condition would be applied in a number of
situations but felt there could be a situation where the impact was relatively minor or could be resolved
easily. Staff felt Council would have the ability to look at the cases and with staffs input decide whether
the requirement was warranted. They felt it met the same basic intent of the original recommendation in
cases it was warranted but provided greater flexibility.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-1-1 with Nader opposed and Rindone absent.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCI~_~
20. PUBUC HEARING FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 92-2 (AUTOPARK) -
On 3/23/93, Council adopted the resolution of intention to order the acquisition and financing of certain
infrastructure serving the Autopark development pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. On
5/4/93, Council gave preliminary approval to the Engineer's Report for Assessment District Number 92-2
(Autopark) and set public hearings for 6/8/93 and 6/22/93. All owners of property within the proposed
assessment district have been mailed a notice of the public hearings including the proposed assessment to
their land. Staff recommends Council give direction to bring back resolutions ordering acquisition of the
improvements, confn-mation of the assessments, and issuance of bonds for Assessment District Number 92-2
following recordation of the Autopark Parcel Map. (Director of Public Works) Continued from time meeting
of 6/8/93.
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.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether the value of the property had decreased which would change the
value to lien ratios required.
· Warren Diven, representing Brown, Diven,& Hentschke, Bond Counsel, stated at the time they were
prepared to issue the bonds they would look at the value. They would not issue bonds in an amount that
would exceed the 3:1 value ratio.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 7
MSC (Nader/Fox) to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to bring back resolution~ ordering
acquisition of the improvements, confirmation of the assessments, and issuance of bonds for Assessment
District Number 92-2 following recordation of the Autopark Parcel Map. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone
absenL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, did not feel there was enough information
supplied or public input during budget hearings. He questioned the difference between last years budget
and the proposed budget. He felt the fiscal impact of items should be included on th~ agenda.
City Manager Goss responded the increase was $2.3 million and could be slightly different when fmally
adopted.
· Israel Acosta, 102 El Capitan, Chula Vista, CA, informed Council that the tights of the students at
Southwestern College were being violated.
BOARD AND COIVllVlISSION RECOMlVlFJqDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEIVIS
21. REPORT STATUSONTHESOLIDWASTEPARTICIPATIONAGRF-F-MENTANDALTERNA'IIVE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS - On 5/27/93, 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 City's 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) Continued ~-om the meeting of 6/15/93.
RESOLUTION 17144 APPROVING AGR~F-MFdqT BY, BETWFtN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN I~M SOLID WAb-I~. COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WAb-iI~, AND COMMITtING FIFTY PFICENT OF ~
CITY'S WAS'FES'IllEA~! TO THE COUNTY
City Manger Goss informed Council he had transmitted a letter to Supervisor Bilbray and the Board of
Supervisors expressing the three concerns of Council and requesting delay of the deadline for approval of
the interim agreement until July 15, 1993. If Council agreed to the new form of governance the review of
the alternatives would be done by the commission in more detail. One concern was the risk taken if the City
did not approve the agreement and whether the City would be cut out of the process. If the deadline was
not extended, staff had consistently recommended that S0% of the flow be committed to the agreement but
the remainder not be committed and conditions attached if eventually committed. He felt that was what
many cities were attempting to do. Some of the north county cities felt there should be no debt issued and
they should go immediately to the $67/ton tipping fee so that 100% of the flow could be preserved. He
advised Council that if the 50% commitment was to high, perhaps 10% or 2S% may be needed to stay in
the process assuming that the deadline was not extended and that there would be enough cities appreving
the agreement so the commission could be established.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 8
Mayor Nader questioned what the affect would be if the understanding, that was not a condition, was
violated on the approval by those cities.
Stephanie Snyder, Prncipal Management Assistant, stated it was staffs understanding that the contract had
been approved and the understanding was not part of the contract.
Brian Bilbray, Supervisor, County of San Diego, stated it was agreed unanimously by all the representatives
of the cities and County that the commission was the proper vehicle for working out disagreements or
concerns regarding the original document. The intent was to raise the major concerns of the cities that
signed and address them at the first meeting of the commission.
Mayor Nader questioned what would happen if the commission addressed the issues but the County Board
ignored the commission.
Supervisor Bilbray responded there would be a choice during the interim year before a permanent agreement
would be formed. There was a concern by some cities about being part of a permanent JPA and liability
exposure. The biggest issue was that the present process was the best way of building a regional consensus.
The agreement would be an embryonic stage of what was hoped to be the permanent arrangement.
Councilmember Fox questioned ff the City would be entering into a twenty year commitment if Council
approved the agreement but reviewed it after one year.
Supervisor Bilbray stated the biggest issue was bonding, i.e. do they go out to bond and did the twenty year
agreement commit to that. The attitude the cities and County had was if they did not go out to bond on
the trash flow and if a commitment was not made to a long term answer to the trash problem in the region
then there was no reason for the agreement. Cities were committing based on certain assumptions that were
based on the capacity being provided to the cities, certain vehicles used to finance that capacity, and that
the City of Chula Vista would participate.
Counc~member Fox questioned whether the cities could "break off' if less expensive alternatives could be
found. He also questioned why it would not be wise to make a decision after hearing the information to
be presented at the 7/1/93 meeting in Oceanside.
Supervisor B~bray responded the agreement was to work together to have a regional system. The system
could go to alternatives if they were found to be more cost effective. The question was whether it would
be done on a regional approach or by the cities individually. The battle over solid waste had been going
on for decades.
Councilmember Fox stated there were certain fixed costs in the tipping fees that were being presented that
were not involved elsewhere, i.e. County overhead, recycling program, and NRA facility. He questioned
whether it would automatically lower if those costs were not involved.
Supervisor B~bray stated there would not be a regional recycling strategy, i.e. major advertising, public
awareness, and education programs. That was something the commission could eliminate or encourage.
The other issue was the hazardous waste programs. The City was being held harmless for trash liability
while with the system. Part of the surcharge was paying for the old waste still in the ground and there was
no way the City could ever walk away from that liability. He felt that was the number one reason for the
cities to remain in the system. The overhead issue was one to be decided by the commission or JPA. The
liability issue was that the County took, as part of the tipping fee, the liability for old landfills for mitigating
the environmental impacts, etc. There was a hold harmless connection between those paying the trash fee
and the liability. The County was a government agency that stood between the cities and the liability.
Councilwoman Horton questioned the amount in the liability account and whether the intent of the proposed
action was to pay for the $40,000,000 clean-up.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 9
Lari Sheehan, Deputy CAO, County of San Diego, responded $40,000,000 was estimated for costs next year
for remediation of closed facilities. $1.95/ton was set aside for closure and post closure costs which was
a State requirement. It was estimated that $40,000,000 would be spend on remediation for the closed
landfills. That estimate or how to finance those costs had not been taken to the Board of Supervisors
because they were waiting to see if the commission would be formed.
Mayor Nader stated he had misunderstood and felt the agreement had been submitted by the County rather
than by the other cities. He questioned whether it was the City Attomey's understanding that the County
was turning over their authority to the commission.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the commission was advisory only to the County under the proposed
agreement. The cornmission had no authority at all except to advise the County.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the City Attorney could draft an amendment to reflect what Supervisor
Bilbray had stated was the intent which was to give the commission authority.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he could draft an amendment but Council was not to construe his response
that he had changed his advise or recommendation regarding the agreement.
Mayor Nader felt it was an important point as one of his concerns had been that the proposed commission,
under the proposed agreement, had no authority. Council was hearing that the intent was there would be
authority granted to the commission.
Supervisor Bilbray responded that the granting of authority to the commission had been taken out by the
attorneys to the cities because of the exposure to the general fund.
Mayor Nader questioned if under the agreement before Council the County would be able to make unilateral
decisions without the approval of the commission that could affect the rates the member cities would be
required to pay.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that was correct.
Supervisor Bilbray stated it was their intent to take the advice from the cities and build a consensus. The
County would have a final say, because a vehicle agreeable to eighteen cities could not be found. Every
representative attending the last meeting voted to request that their cities approve the agreement as the first
step.
Councilmember Moore stated no matter where the trash was taken a contract would be needed. Any
contractor utilized would probably require a tipping fee, host fee, hauling fee, and include a transfer station
fee. He felt the City would lose the umbrella of protection from liability. He questioned whether an outside
contractor would take part of their tipping fee to cover the City's liability. He felt the County would also
take action against the City for a charge on the closure of landfills. Those were issues he felt should be
addressed.
City Attorney Boogaard suggested the alternative to not signing did not mean the City had to take their trash
elsewhere immediately. The presumption that the trash would have to be taken from the County was not
necessarily the consequence, even the County recognized they would surcharge the cities that did not sign
the agreement. For that additional percentage increase the City could take the trash to a County facility.
The statement there was a hold harmless or indemnification provision in the agreement was incorrect. The
City did not have indemnity. What had been referred to was the tipping fee and the continued system would
charge to pay for clean-up as clean-up costs were incurred. That was not an indemnity or the same as an
indemnity because if the County did not do the clean-up or went bankrupt then the participants would be
assessed, in his opinion, based on the contribution of waste to the facility or the contribution and the
egregiousness of the waste. He felt the City could be protected for clean-up costs aside from the system that
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 10
)
the County used, i.e. to add $1.95/ton to the tipping fee. The City could set the rates to require that a
contribution be made to a clean-up fund and be assured of the certainty of a clean-up fund when and if the
City had to pay its contributive share when the landfill closed. It would eventually all be paid for the by
the user it was just the cost collection mechanism that would vary. The City had been paying a reserve in
the tipping fee each year, for many years, for clean-up and he felt the City would have a right to claim credit
for the amounts of money contributed in the past.
Councilmember Rindone stated there had been a fund set aside but it was his understanding there was
$5,000,000 set aside and of the that $5,000,000 the County had borrowed against that. If the pledge was
to pay approximately $40,000,000 next year for clean-up it was eight times the amount set aside to date.
He questioned whether that information was correct.
Supervisor Bilbray stated a State reserve was required for existing operating landfills. There had never been
a reserve for the closed landtills.
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether cities that had included "understandings" when signing their
agreement could back out of the agreement if those "understandings" were not met.
Supervisor Bilbray responded it would be a signed contract.
Councilmember Rindone felt all cities were interested in solving the regional issue of solid waste. He was
concemed that if there was an agreement for twenty years and in six months or twelve months a viable
alternative was available, the City would not be able to access the alternative but would be required to
participate in a program with a higher rate. Council had voted to ask for an opportunity to explore the
alternatives, without making the commitment, in order to insure that the rate payers would get the best
option in the long run. He questioned whether Supervisor Bilbray was willing to represent the City in their -'
request to insure there would be no penalties for a tipping fee until 7/15/93 so the City would have an
opportunity to explore some of the alternatives.
Supervisory Bilbray stated he could not change the deadline as it would have to be agreed upon by
COnSenSUS.
City Manager Goss stated a extension regarding the deadline had been requested in his letter, He agreed
the City needed to keep flexibility on as much of the waste stream as possible but he was disturbed when
the other cities stated a decision had to be made on the second 50% in six months. His original
recommendation had been to keep that flexibility on the 50%, but upon reflection he felt that percentage
should increase with the amount being committed being decreased significantly. That would allow the City
to stay in the Ngame". He would not recommend approving an agreement which required the City to make
a decision on the remainder of the flow in six months.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the commitment was to a system which he felt was inappropriately cost
loaded. The problem was that if the City committed anything and they had the right to set the fee, the City
would have to pay for the cost of that system.
· Gaye Soroka, 639 Port Dunbar, Chula Vista, CA, appearing as a concerned citizen but also worked
for Waste Management of San Diego, stated the County had been acting in three roles for the City: 1) policy
maker, 2) service provider, and 3) local enforcement agency. The County system was in dire need of
increased revenue and that was driving the tinancing issue as a service prorider not as a policy maker. The
Enterprise Fund for the County was almost at a zero balance due to the decisions made in the past. The
County was now in the position of being under funded and did not have enough revenues to support their
active landfills. Waste Management did indemnify their customers from super fund liability when hauling
to a landtill they owned and operated. She felt it was reasonable for the City to be asked to be treated as
a customer the same way the private sector would treat the City. She recommended the City get an
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 11
extension from the County and work with them to develop a more equitable approach so the City would be
treated as a customer and not a captive.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, Executive Director, INDWELLER, stated she
supported the City's desire to review alternatives to the County system.
· Alan Purvis, 180 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, Market Development Manager, Laidlaw Waste
Systems, stated he had attended the Imperial Beach meeting last week and it was his clear understanding
that they would join the system with two conditions, no bonds would be approved without the majority vote
of the new commission and that the City of Imperial Beach did not accept the tonnage allocated to them by
the County to commit to the system. He would like to say that Laidlaw had a system waiting but
unfortunately they did not. They did have a belief that at $50 or $60/ton there were very viable options
for the City. Laidlaw operated over forty landfills across North America with one of them north of Los
Angeles which met all state and federal requirements as they understood them. Their gate rate at the site
was about $25 which was a negotiated fee. Out of that $25 they paid the operating cost of the system,
compliance costs, and set aside closure and post closure reserves for the site. He was not suggesting that
answer to the City's problems was hauling waste to Los Angeles but it was an example of the costs involved
in running a landfill that was in full compliance with federal regulations. He felt the Council was being
asked to sign a blank check because there were fixed costs and the number of tons committed was unknown.
He felt Council's request for additional time to study the alternatives was valid.
· Bud Chase, 3730 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, reviewed the following: 1) Ventura County Report;
2) rate comparison of surrounding counties; 3) statement by San Diego Taxpayers Association asking the
Council to hold the item in abeyance; 4) letter from the Deputy Mayor of E1 Cajon addressing the proposal
of an East County JPA withdrawing from the County system; and S) the North County JPA. He
recommended Council join the commission to talk about the issues but not commit the trash flow until all
the concerns were addressed. He was aware of five or six companies that were prepared to respond to the
North County JPA. He felt that in ninety to one hundred-twenty days there would be hard facts and figures
available.
· Supervisor Bilbray stated he had sent a letter to Mayor Shoemaker stating it was very frustrating
that many cities could not or would not understand that forming a county/city parmership to plan and run
the system did not prejudice what alternatives for solid waste processing and disposal would be used. In
fact, it opened up options. He could not continue the battle without the participation of the major south
county city. It was a decision only the City could make. He had worked with the Ciry's appointed
representative to form the consensus. The City Manager had also worked on the proposal and had been
actively involved. He was not saying it was a perfect proposal but it was the best one the City could expect
in the environment and available to the City. He requested the City not form a coalition with the cities they
had been fighting for the last ten years.
Mayor Nader stated if the County did end up splitting into separate JPA's, it would be his position that the
South County JPA would require the North County JPA to pay a very high price for dumping their trash.
He had concerns with the agreement as presented regarding the exposure to various types of liability. He
questioned whether the following conditions would adequately protect the City from potential liability or
from having hidden costs added on without accountability to the City: 1) there would be a CAP on how
rapidly the fees charged for disposal for the trash committed could be increased and if the CAP was exceeded
the City would have the option to withdraw, the CAP could be tied to other alternatives in the market; 2)
the City would receive host fees for the Otay landfill; 3) credit would be given for waste removed from the
waste stream due to recycling efforts - the City could not be penalized for having a lower tonnage
contributed to the County waste stream because of recycling, it would be a percentage commitment post
recycling; 4) costs of facilities the City did not approve of, or use, could not be passed on to the City or
ratepayers; 5) costs for liability for facilities for which the City was not otherwise liable would not be passed
on to the City through the agreement; and 6) there would be no financial obligations incurred prior to
agreement on a governing structure of which would have authority to incur such obligations.
Minutes
dune 22, 1993
Page 12
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would need time to rev/ew the recommendations but felt the major risks
the agreement held for the City was the escalating tipping fee charge. The recommendations would go a
long way to control that. The second risk was the legality of the flow control agreement, i.e. the duty to
commit flow to the system. The theory was that the City could require an operator to take the trash to a
County fae~ity, but if that was held illegal, in violation of the Commerce Clause, the agreement stated the
City would pick it up themselves and bring it to the County facility. When at the County facility, the City
would be required to pay the tipping fee with the costs being passed through to the residents. The next
legal argent would be, if you didn't have authority to enter into the agreement, you could only charge
the fair market rate. The difference in the fee would be a risk to the City's general fund.
Mayor Nader stated if that scenario evolved and the City took over hauling the trash to the County facility,
where would that leave the relationship of the City to the ffanchisee.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the City would probably be in breech of that contract which was good until
2003. The elimination of the sentence drafted by the bond counsel would eliminate the risk to the City's
general fund. He did not believe the bond counsel would bond against it without that clause.
Councilmember Moore did not feel the free market rate could be compared with what was going on in
government. He felt there was more to it than the law.
City Attorney Boogaard stated his recommendation was not to decide that under the threat of a contract as
proposed but to enter into a table to table negotiation where the City would say to the County that the City
would pay their fair share of clean-up costs, ff they had to they would pay for the NCRA facility, but not
$12.00/ton.
Counc~member Moore referred to the comment earlier that a contractor would indemnify the City and
questioned whether that was realistic.
City Attorney Boogaard responded the indemnity provision would work where Waste Management would
step up to the City's liability for closure costs. The City could be sued but ff indemnified, Waste
Management would pay for the liability held against the City. He stated additional protection could be
added to provide that if the agreement was held illegal, without that direct municipal collection clause in
it, the City would have the right to terminate without cost or risk. He felt all the conditions would frustrate
the bondability. The County was bound by "rate covenance" in their bond documents. To protect the bond
holders the County was obligated by a covenant in the bond agreement to set the tipping fee at whatever
it took to keep the fund solvent. An outside control on the tipping fee would frustrate that bond covenant
and therefore he did not believe the County could agree to it. He also did not believe the County would
agree to the removal of the Municipal Collection clause.
Mayor Nader stated one of the concerns he was hearing was that the County could be in a position to add
on to what they would charge the cities, i.e. fees not just for the operation of the landfill or the system used
to dispose of the trash but for clean-up of landfills the City had never used and were othenaise not liable,
for administrative costs, and for other costs unrelated to the operation of the landfill. If the funds were
separate, a condition removing the Citys liability for those costs should not necessarily interfere with the
ability to bond for the landfill as a commitment was made.
Supervisor B~bray stated Sere was a closure fund for the existing operating facilities. There was not a
reserve for the operation of the infrastructure to dispose of the waste. The rate would be at $65 rather than
$43 because if the money was going to be set aside they might as well "pay as you go" and not go to bond.
The whole idea was to save the rate payeva from the hit and work together for long term mitigation. The
$65 was an initial estimate, the projections showed $80 or $90 for "pay as you go" short term. He felt the
issue was whether the City voted to go with $43 or $65. It appeared that they could operate through the
commission at $43. What the commission and the new JPA did was up to them.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 13
Mayor Nader stated he was willing to vote to commit 50% of the City's trash, not to exceed $43, but did not
feel that was the agreement before Council.
Councilmember Rindone suggested Council vote to participate on the commission without a commitment
of flow in order to show that Chula Vista was interested and wanted to solve regional issues. He felt the
City's best effort would be in trying to work together and utilize the joint resources to come to a joint
resolution.
MS (Rindone/Nader) offer m participate on the commission but not commit arly flow at this time until the
regional issues have been addressed.
Mayor Nader felt the City should not reject the agreement but approve it in concept and offer to meet with
the other potentially participating agencies and indicate the City's issues and concerns that needed to be
resolved before making a long term commitment. He felt that would offer a positive statement.
FRIENDLY~IVIENT: 0slader) sperifyconditionsorconcernstheCitywantedaddressedpriortom31clng
a flow commitment and to communicate to the other jurisdictions in the region the City's desire to sit down,
in a commition setting, to discuss and come to some agreement on those concerns so the City could proceed
with making a commitment. Not accepted by the Maker of the Motion.
Councilmember Rindone stated his motion served notice that the City wanted to continue to be a regional
player in solving a regional issue but would not be backed into a legal constraint or agreement until those
concerns were addressed.
Councilmember Fox stated he wanted to participate in the commission and be part of the solution but he
hoped that those cities showing the same spirit and approving the agreement with conditions would be
brought in to be part of the solution also.
Mayor Nader stated the motion rejected the assumption that if a city did not sign the agreement they would
not be on the commission. He was uncomfortable with the motion as he felt it was more negative than he
referred. It was his intent, with a follow-up motion, that the City move toward a regional approach to the
situation.
Councilmember Moore stated he did not question the comments presented by Council but noted the
agreement had been worked on for two years by a technical staff and one year by elected officials. The
County had no contract with the City for trash or hazardous waste. The County needed money to continue
what they were doing and had been doing for decades. Whatever action taken, the cities needed to find a
money source for the County. The problem had to be solved.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was the intent that if the motion passed the City would be implicitly
saying to the County and other c/ties that Chula Vista would make a commitment of flow once the Cit3es
concerns were addressed.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was correct, the City would be obligated to delineate what those
concerns were. It was a commitment to participate, solve a regional issue, and not to commit flow. The
only time the Council would make a determination regarding flow would be upon the resolution of the City's
concerns by the commission and/or if an alternative was found.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed.
MS (Nader/Fox) communicate to the County and to fellow jurisdictions in the County the following concerns
and the City's desire to sit down with all antities to discuss and resolve the concerns so a flow commillllellt
could be made and ascertain the seriousness of the other jurisdictions that had advanced various coneerus
of their own: 1) some type of CAP on how high rates could go while maintaining the flow commitment;
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 14
2) host fees for jurisdictions that had landfills; 3) the amount of waste kept out of the waste sueam through
recycling not be counted against the City;, 4) facilities that were not approved of by the participating
jurisdictions would not result in a cost liability;, 5) there would be no new liab~ities assumed for facilities
Itmt had not bean used by the participating jurisdictions and for which the jurisdictions were not prev/ously
liable; and 6) there be some agreemants on governance and authority prior to the issuance of debt
obligation.
Councilmember Fox stated he would second the motion with the understanding that the general fund
liability issue that the City Attorney previously addressed would be covered under the first item.
City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be limited by Item 1 but he felt that as another standard Council
should state 'the general fund of the City should not be exposed in whatever agreement is approved". The
agreement would have to be structured sO the City would be satisfied the general fund would not be
exposed. The agreement would state 'if it was determined that the flow control agreement was illegal, the
City would be allowed to terminate it without cost or risk to the Cit3/'.
Councilmember Rindone requested that a willingness of the commission to explore alternatives be added
to the list.
Mayor Nader stated whether it was viewed as another condition or not, the communication expressing the
City's position to other jurisdictions should expect the commission to have the authority to look at all
alternatives. Councilmember Rindone's request was included into the motion with the understanding that
ff a decision was mutually arrived at to go to bonding, use the County facility, etc. there may needed to be
some commitments to make that happen.
VOTE ON MOTION, AS/LMEIqDED: approved unanimously.
MS (Fox/Rindone) to negotiate for a provision in the agreement that there be no ganeral fund liability for
the City.
Councilmember Fox stated the motion was to negotiate. He felt it needed to be discussed and ff it could
not be negotiated he wanted it brought back to Council for discussion. It was not his intent that the City
withdraw if the condition was not met.
Councilmember Rindone recommended that the word "explore" be used instead of "negotiate".
Mayor Nader stated that based on the comments presented by the City Attorney he did not see how there
could be any type of flow control or commitment without some potential liability to the general fund. The
purpose of Item 1 in the previous motion was to limit what the potential liability would be.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended there be ~no exposure" or "minimize the amount of exposure to the
general fund" as a condition.
AMFJqDMF.2~ TO MOTION: agreed to by the Maker and Second of Motion, to change the wording from
'no or minimal' liability.
VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved ,t-1 with Nader opposed.
Councilmember Moore questioned whether the Council wanted him to represent the City on SANDAG and
other committees.
Mayor Nader stated a motion would not be necessary because Council had previously taken and that action
stood. He felt it incumbent that staff review all the alternatives in the future and not just listen to one point
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 15
of view and present reasonable cost estimates as to what the best expectations were of how the alternatives
would compare.
****
Mayor Nader stated the existing Council policy required Council, after 10:30 p.m., to take action as to
whether they would hear the balance of the Consent Calendar.
MSUC (NaderAVIoore) to hear the balance of the Consent Calendar.
****
22. REPORT RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO TIE GENERAL AND SEXUAL ~
POLICY - On 2/9/93, Council amended Policy Number 662-05 resulting in the "General and Sexual
Harassment Policy." It was done as a result of enactment of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 and amendments to the California State Labor Code 1102.1. Since then several significant issues have
been raised with regard to that policy. Staff recommends Council provide instructions to negotiators to meet
and confer with bargaining units over changes to the General and Sexual Harassment Policy. (Director of
Personnel)
City Manager Goss stated the policy was being presented for Council review and direction. Staff was not
recommending that Council adopt the policy. Staff would also "meet and confer" with the employee
organizations in order to get input and hopefully their concurrence. The policy would then be brought back
to Council for review and adoption.
Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel, reviewed the intent of the policy.
Councilmember Fox felt that certain conduct by a supervisor should have tougher language than 'expect"
and should be replaced with "would result% Employees should know that their actions 'would" result in
demotion or termination.
Ms. Boshell responded there had been a great deal of discussion on that issue. The most egregious acts
clearly defined those types of consequences. Some of the categories listed under Supervisory Conduct were
gray areas that could carry with it lengthy suspensions, not necessarily termination or demotion. Regarding
retaliation, it was not as clearly defined or identified as it appeared. There were many examples of
retaliation that were more subtle and less harmful in nature which warranted discipline but not necessarily
termination. Another issue that was similar was touching. They wanted to make it very clear that a
supervisor could expect action but also wanted to leave room for a "totality of circumstances'.
Mayor Nader felt there needed to be a policy that very clearly stated that certain types of conduct would
automatically, absent exU'aordinary circumstances, result in removal from a supervisory position. He did
not see a need for any area to remain gray. He recommended the conduct be more specifically defined, i.e.
#2, page A-3, Subjecting a Subordinate to Offensive and Unwelcome Touching, could be a gray area but if
it was not touching of a blatant sexual nature and the employee had told the supervisor they did not want
to be touched and it was known to the supervisor, it would not be a gray area. He felt some of the gray
areas should be made automatic with some speci~city that it would involve some warning or knowledge on
the part of the supervisor that the conduct involved was unwelcome. He was also concerned that 'stalking'
was not included in the policy. He did not agree with the staff recommendation against fixing a timetable
for the resolution of complaints. He preferred the City set a timetable by which a panel would report back
and include a provision that the panel could extend the timetable but would have to notify the City Manager
and City Attorney of the extension with an explanation. He felt it would enhance employee confidence in
the procedure if any member of the committee were able to initially receive a complaint from an employee
and then take it through appropriate channels through the managex% office. The process for selecting the
investigation panel was excellent but he felt that panel should be used as the universe from which an
employee and someone accused of misconduct could select the fact finders rather than having the
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 16
intermediatory process where the City Manager narrowed it down before they got to that selection. It was
imperative that there was confidence in the review process to make the system work.
Ms. Boshell stated staffs intent in not establishing deadlines was to take into consideration in each case, i.e.
discrimination or sexual harassment, the complexity of the case, number of wimesses, schedule of the
investigators and witnesses of the accused and accuser. Experience had been that all cases were very
different which led staff to believe that some degree of independence of setting the timetables was more
efficient, would meet everyones needs, and create a more expeditious process.
MS (FoX/Horton) direct the negotiators to 'meet and confer' with the employee associations regarding the
potential changes to the General and Sexual Harassment Policy with the changes discussed by Council except
for the provision to extend the timetable. The provisions were to include: 1) page A-3, first paragraph,
'Discipline', include those activities and # 1 under 'Supervisory Conduct' as conduct that would result in
'Demotion or Term/nation'; 2) the other items, #2 - #6, would not change; and 3) #6 would be a provision
Mayor Nader stated the motion was to adopt staff recommendation with the exception that #1 under
"Supervisory Conduct" would be moved into the paragraph above which would result in "termination".
Councilmember Fox stated he did not mean to include it in the paragraph but take those activities out along
with #1 and state they would result in "demotion or termination".
Councilwoman Horton, as second to the motion, stated that was her understanding of the motion.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader, agreeable to the maker and second of the motion) 1) direct staff to
solicit the employee groups input as to the advisability of set timetables with a means for extension
provided; and 2) to add to the list an employee could submit a complaint mereben of the Oversight Panel.
Ms. Boshell stated the reason staff had omitted the panel was due to the significance of confidentiality. The
further into the organization or the more people involved in the complaint, the less confidentiality could be
insured. When it was opened up to areas outside of management there was less control over insuring that
the complaint was then filed with the individual that would begin the process. They did not want someone
filing a complaint with a peer that was on the panel and then somehow that person did not get the
complaint to the appropriate individual to start the process. She felt there was less control over the
complaint and insuring the confidenfiality which was a valid issue in harassment and discrimination
complaints.
Councilmember Fox stated he was not comfortable with the second portion of the amendment regarding the
addition of a member from the Oversight Panel.
.AMENDMENT TO MOTION: tNader/Fox) 1) direct staff to solicit the employee groups input as to who
would be appropriate to accept employee complaints. Approved 3-1-1 with Horton opposed and Rindone
absent.
VOTE ON MOTION AS ~ED: approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
23. REPORT LEFT TURNS FROM TRI ~GRAPH CANYON ROAD AT APACHE DRIVE - On
6/23/93, Council directed stuff to install a temporary sign prohibiting vehicles traveling eastbound on
Telegraph Canyon Road from turning left to northbound Apache Drive during the weekday hours of 7:00
a.m. m 9:00 a.m. The prohibition was intended to eliminate Southwestern College students from using
Apache Drive as a shortcut during construction of Otay Lakes Road. On 9/8/92, Council approved
installation of a raised median on Telegraph Canyon Road. The design was intended to remove the risk of
left-turn accidents across high speed two-way traffic. Council further directed staff to return, upon
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 17
completion of construction, with a report on the effectiveness of the median and the need to retain or
remove the a.m. left-rum prohibition. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Public
Works)
Councilwoman Horton stated there were no representatives from Charter Point at the meeting but she had
been notified there was still a problem with speeding in the early moming hours. She questioned whether
there was still increased patrol in the area.
Clifford Swanson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director, stated the Assistant City Manager had
indicated there was still increased patrols.
MS (Fox/Horton) to approve the staff recommendation. Approved 443-1 with Rindone absent.
ITEMS pUI J.RI~ FROM THE CONSENT CAI.F. NDAR
Items pulled: 5c, 9, 15, and 19. The minutes will follow the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
24. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTf S}
a. Scheduling of meetings. City Manager Goss stated there would be no Council meetings for the next
two weeks. He anticipated bringing forth the budget revisions for Council review at the 7/13/93 meeting.
The ribbon cutting for Fire Station #6 would be on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. A joint Council/Board of
Supervisors meeting would be held regarding Otay Ranch on 6/30/93 at 3:00 p.m. in Chula Vista.
Mayor Nader stated he would be unable to attend the ribbon cutting because he would be in Sacramento
for meetings on the Environmental Border Commerce Zone and a League meeting. Councilmember Hotton
would be representing the Council at the ribbon cutting.
b. Urgency Item - State Budget - City Manager Goss stated the Governor and budget leadership had
arrived at a budget compromise that was adopted by the Assembly. It would take $288 million in property
tax revenues from the cities and another $65 million from redevelopment agencies. Staff had been unable
to discover how the Agency would be specifically impacted. As far as the impact to the general fund, it
would appear that the negative impact on the City would be a loss of $809,000 in property tax revenues.
It would be an initial loss of $1,176,000 that would be replaced by $367,000 from TP&D Rightabout. With
the anticipation there would be a State budget soon, he would be bringing forth a report and modifications
to the budget to Council by 7/13/93. In the mean time he would administratively not fill any positions until
7/13/93 other than in the police department.
MS (Nader/Rindone) implament an emergency hiring freeze until 7/13/93 exempting only public safety
personnel.
Councilmember Moore questioned whether it was the intent of the motion to include only uniformed public
safety personnel.
AMF2qD~ TO MOTION: (Nader/Rindone) personnel necessary for public safety.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Approved unanimously.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 18
25. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Outreach program on contracts for disadvantage businesses. Mayor Nader felt a policy should be
developed for advertising in certain publications, as consistent with budgetary constraints, most likely to
reach disadvantaged business enterprises to maximize their awareness of the availability of projects.
MS (Naderfrlorton) direct staff to develop a list of publications targeted to disadvantaged business
enterprises that would be used whenever possible, within existing budgetary guidelines.
City Manager Goss felt it was being done on an informal basis and that formalizing a policy would be
advantageous. He cautioned that the policy not be so inflexible that the City would be locked into certain
publications if their purpose changed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
b. Selling business ads. Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93. Mayor Nader stated the item had
been dealt with by virtue of Council's direction to staff to come back with a policy for selling business
advertisements on CVT buses.
c. Appointment of representative to LAFCO's Cities Advisory Committee. Continued f~om the meeting
of 6/15/93.
MSC fftor~on/Nader) to appoint Councilmember Fox as the Council representative to LAFCO's Cities Advisory
Committee. Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent,
d. Ratification of appointment to the Human Relations Commission: Ricardo Jimenez.
MSC C/~lader/Moore) to ratify the appointment of Ricardo Jimenez to the Human Relations Commission.
Approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
26. COUNCIL COlVlMF2~F~
Councilman Rindone
· Inconsistencies with Council approval of the allocation of Community Development Block Grant
monies. Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93. No action taken.
· Reconsideration of revised Yard Waste Recycling Service Proposal by Laidlaw Waste System.
Continued fTom the meeting of 6/15/93. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the pay-as-you-go
proposal. He requested reconsideration of Alternative C which allowed the opportunity to rent a sixty gallon
container on wheels for a monthly fee of $3.00 and would not negate Alternative B. He questioned whether
Alternative C could be adopted with the provision that the full cost would be amortized and once that had
been met the charge would not continue.
Alan Purvis representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, stated they would have no objections to the
recommendation as long as it was with the understanding that the $3.00 charged was the $2.00 universal
charge plus $1.00 additional for the container.
Mayor Nader stated there was no universal charge listed in Alternative C.
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, stated the $3.00 included the collection fee and would allow for
pay-as-you-go.
Minutes
June 22, 1993
Page 19
Mr. Purvis stated it was a universal charge to those electing to take the container. It was expected that the
containers would last approximately five years.
MS (lqader/Rindone) to authorize staff to negotiate with Laidlaw regarding Alternative C.
Councilmember Rindone stated the intent of his motion was to keep Alternative B but negotiate the option
to add the sixty gallon container with the $3,00 monthly fee.
· South County Joint Powers Agreement for solid waste management with or without Lemon Grove.
Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93. No action taken.
Councilman Fox
· Review of Police Department policy regarding minor narcotic law violations on school campuses.
Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93. Councilmember Fox requested the item be continued to the
7/13/93 agenda.
· Councilmember Fox questioned whether there would be an impact on the opening of the Price Club
due to the merger of Price Club and Costco.
City Manager Goss stated Price Club would be proceeding as previously planned. It would be considered
an existing store as the merger would not take affect until after the store was completed and opened.
· * * Councilmember Rindone anived at 7:40 p.m., Council recessed at 7:42 p.m. and reconvened at
7:57 p.m. * * *
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 11:23 p.m. and reconvened at 11:42 p.m. City Attorney Boogaard informed
Council there was no need to meet in Closed Session.
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (3NCE), Police Officers Association (POA),
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego,
Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. Continued from the meeting of
6/15/93.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section S49S6.9 - Igou vs. the City of Chula Vista.
(For update reporc, if any.) Continued from the meeting of 6/15/93.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:43 P.M. to a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County Board of Supervisors on
Wednesday, June 30, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, thence to a Joint Meeting of the City
Council/County Board of Supervisors on Monday, July 12, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on July 13, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 11:23 p.m. and adjourned
at 11:42 p.m.
Kespectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk