HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/08/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, August 17, 1993 Council Chambers
6:03 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROlL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader.
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, CityAttorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PI.RFR3E OF AI.I.I~GIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 2, 1993 and August 10, 1993.
MSUC (Fox/Moore) to approve the minutes as submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Recognition of foreign exchange sPadents (Lions Youth Exchange).
b. Proclaiming Saturday, October 9, 1993 as *SWEATER SATURDAY' - The Proclamation
declaring Saturday, 10/9/93 as "SWEATER SATURDAY in the City was presented to a representative from
the San Diego Gas & Electtic Company.
CONSENT CAl.~NDAR
(Item pulled: 9)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR Olq,'~JhF, D BY COUNCILWOMAN HORTON, reading of the text wa~
waived, passed, and approved unanimously.
5. WRI 1 11~I COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted.
6. ORDINANCE 2564 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5~54.090 0NSURANCE REQUIRED)
OF CHAPTER 5.54 (TAXICABS) TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE FROM $500,000 TO $300,000
AND TO A1VIEND THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF TAXICAB INSURERS (~econd
reading and adoption) - The ordinance will reduce insurance requirements for taxicab operators from
$500,000 to $300,000. Staff will begin reviewing selected insurance policies to ensure compliance with the
Code. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of
Personnel)
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 2
7. RESOLUTION 17219 GRANTING AN EASEMENT TO THE SWF_~TWATER AUTHORITY FOR
RI.Rt;IRICAL ~ TRI.RMETRY CONDUIT TI-~OUGH CITY OPEN SPACE IN TERRA NOVA, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY - In 1990, the
Sweetwater Authority submitted a request to obtain an easement through an open space lot to install a
conduit in which to connect electrical and telemetry wires between its reservoirs and telemet~ facility
adjacent to the water tank in Tenca Nova. After beginning to process the easement dedication, the Authority
advised that the project was put "on hold". Overlooking the fact that the City never followed through with
the easement, Sweetwater Authority completed its project and only recently discovered there was no
easement. The City has again been asked to grant an easement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks & Recreation)
8. RESOLL1TION 17220 AFFIRMINGTHETRIALTRAFFICREGL1LATIONS-SCHEDIJI.EIII-PARKING
PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS - On 4/21/92, a Trial Traffic Regulation establishing
a parking prohibition in the Point Robinhood Subdivision was implemented pursuant to the provisions of
Section 10.12.030 of the Municipal Code. Signs indicating the prohibition were installed on 9/25/92. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
9. REPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPItAF2Cr OF AN INTERMODAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT 0STEA) GRANT PROPOSAL FOR AN RIJ~.CTRIC OR STEAM TRAIN
ALONG THE BAYFRONT - Mr. Sam Judd presented an offer to Council to assist the City in the preparation
of an ISTEA grant proposal for a railroad along the Bayfront. Council referred the issue to staff with a
direction to spend up to ten hours work on it. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of
Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader expressed concern about the Boards and Commissions' recommendation on the report that due
to the limitation of ten hours to expend on this project, the issue had not been submitted to any Board or
Commission for consideration. Mayor Nader stated that the limitation on hours was on staff hours, not on
Board and Commission hours since they were volunteer, they should operate with a minimum of staff
support. He did not want staff taking time to prepare a special report for the Commission. He felt that since
it was on the Council agenda, the Chairs would be aware of that without any special action by staff.
Sam Judd, attorney representing the San Diego Electric Railway Association as their ISTEA Grants
Acquisition Committee Chairman, 2646 Balboa Vista Drive, San Diego. He stated he had come to Council
two months ago and offered his assistance in preparing an ISTEA grant. That assistance was still available,
but that grant application needed to be submitted by September 15. The time constraints were too limited
to go into developing an electric railway line. Part of that grant application was to rehabilitate existing
track. They have received a rough estimate of $200,000 to replace one of the bridges, to rehabilitate the
other two bridges, and to restore all the line including weeding from 24th Street in National City to "j"
Street in Chula Vista. That part of the grant could be completed by September lOth.
Councilman Rindone stated we don't even know if we want to do this. He asked what was the cost for us
to participate. Would it be greater than the $7,500.
Mr. Swanson stated it is greater than the $7,500. The $7,500 was just to prepare the grant application.
It would cost $200,000 to rehabilitate the railway. The local agency matching costs would be 12% of the
$200,000 or $24,000. This would be in addition to the $7,500. When staff looked at this, they looked at
the combination of all three options, the involvement with MTDB, and the fact that this was not the last
ISTEA cycle to come through. There would be another opportunity to apply for those same funds.
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 3
Councilman Moore stated to get something like this through the Coastal Commission, Fish and Wildlife, and
Fish and Game on staff time alone was not a simple matter.
MS (Fox/Moore) to accept the report and direct staff to discontinue work on this grant proposal.
Councilman Rindone stated he would support the staffs recommendation at this time. What the
subcommittee of MTDB needed to do was to look at the three options and come up with a strategy that was
amenable between the cities, a sharing of the costs, and a procedure. Hopefully, before the next ISTEA
cycle, we will be able to participate with a project that was more encompassing for at least the three South
Bay cities.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
Mayor Nader suggested an amendment to accept staffs recommendation and defer further city involvement
on this issue indefinitely, but that we authorize our representative to convey to MTDB that we are supportive
of their efforts for further study on this issue, and if it is their recommendation, he would be amenable at
a future time to reconsider an ISTEA application in conjunction with MTDB.
Amendment was acceptable to both Councilman Fox and Councilman Moore.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Approved unanimously S-O.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ ~TFi) RESOLLFHONS ~ ORDINANCES
10. PUBLIC HFAPdNG AMENDING THE CITY'S 1992/93 HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION - South
Bay Community Services (SBCS) is a local, non-profit, public benefit corporation providing a variety of
services to youth and families in the South Bay with emphasis in Chula Vista. SBCS is in escrow to purchase
a 14-unit apartment building at 31 Fourth Avenue which they plan to develop into a short-term housing
facility for homeless families. SBCS has requested a grant/loan of $610,146 of HOME federal housing funds
for acquisition and rehabilitation of the apartment building. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Community Developmen0 4/Sth's vote required for Item C only.
****
Councilman Rindone announced that because he owned property in this area, there was the potential for
a conflict of interest; therefore, he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting on this item.
Councilman Rindone left the dias and Chambers at 6:42 p.m.
David Gustafson, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He stated that on
March 23, 1993, Council conceptually approved the funding for this 14 unit, short-term housing
development in the amount of $618,000 from the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund and from
Community Development Block Grant funds. On July 13, 1993, Council approved the Conditional Use
Permit for the development. At that time, Council requested that the sales price be further negotiated. The
sales price has been renegotiated to $712,500 with the savings directly deducted from the City's contribution.
HUD has confirmed that the City can use its HOME program funds for this project rather than Community
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 4
Development Block Grant or low and moderate income housing funds. A housing cooperation agreement
has been negotiated with South Bay Community Services. Staff recommends that Council: conduct the
public hearing on amending the HOME program, approve the housing cooperation agreement, and
appropriate $610,146 for the loan funding.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that last minute negotiations resulted in an amendment to the agreement
which will better protect the City. The unpaid balance on the City's loan will accumulate over the next 30
years without any significant payment toward debt service. At the end of the time, the loan proceeds will
be available to the City at the rate of about $3.6 million. Seventy percent of that loan, when it is repaid,
the City will have full control over without any decision by South Bay Community Services. At thirty
percent, if South Bay Community Services is still in existence, they will be able to have a significant amount
of input over that thirty percent portion. If there is an impasse after two years of negotiating, the City will
be able to exclude SBCS' control over that thirty percent, and by the amendment, will be able to exercise
full control over one hundred percent of the loan proceeds without regard to SBCS' input. However, the
amendment will require the City to meet and confer in good faith and negotiate with SBCS for the use of
the proceeds within the confines of the HOME program guidelines. The amendment has met the
concurrence of the Executive Officer of SBCS. The amendment amends section 2.3 of the contract which
was approved by Resolution 17223.
Councilman Fox questioned if this occurred only at the thirty year period or in the event of sale in ten years?
City Attorney Boogaard responded that if it was sooner than thirty years, the note would be called due and
payable. When it is paid, the City has one hundred percent control any time during the thirty years. .
Councilman Fox asked what was the time period of the impasse when the City would regain that 30%?
City Attorney Boogaard responded it would be a two year period. The loan would become due at the end
of thin'Z/years, the property would have to be sold to pay off the loan. Thirty percent would be subject to
negotiation with SBCS.
Councilman Fox asked if this would be put into escrow while we battle it out for two years?
City Attorney Boogaard stated it would be held by the City in trust. We would have control over it, but it
would be subject to our obligation not to use it until we reach concurrence with SBCS. If there exits during
any subsequent time of two years of impasse as to how to use those funds, then the City would be able to
exclude SBCS' control over that 30% and exercise complete control over that 30%.
Counc~woman Horton asked what was the total amount that would be set aside for rehabilitation of the
property?
Mr. Gustafson responded that the total amount for rehabilitation would be $37,607. They will also receive
some in-kind contribution from Fieldstone Corp.
Councilwoman Horton asked what justified a developer fee of $55,877?
Mr. Gustafson replied that they tested the developer fee against the whole project from its inception. A
number of non-profit housing developers and funders stated that this was the typical way that such projects
were evaluated. The Local Initiative Support Corporation, which was an equity funder throughout the nation
for affordable housing projects, suggested that $7-$10,000 a unit was not unreasonable developer fee for )
a project like this.
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 5
Councilman Fox asked that in the event the project does not succeed, the terms of the agreement seemed
to provide that they could change the use to low income housing for very low income families which would
be more long-term in nature. Could they do that without coming back to Council?
City Attorney Boogaard stated that the contract provides that before they convert, they have to come to
Council to disclose the justification for conversion which they can do after the first year. We have the
assurances that they will have the first year of operations as a homeless facility. At any time during the 30
year period that they become re-empowered to operate as a homeless facility by the supplemental additional
funding from any source, they are obligated to reconvert back to a homeless operation. The City Council
cannot unreasonably deny conversion if they lack funding. At that point in time, Council will have the
option, if sufficient other funding is available, to supplement their funding and continue to require a
homeless operation.
Councilwoman Hotton stated that at the last meeting, Council was concerned with the cost of the project.
A member of the community had brought forth a property he felt was as desirable and less expensive as a
substitute for this property. She asked for an explanation as to why it would be too late to actually
substitute a different property and how that may hurt getting other State and Federal funds.
Mr. Gustarson stated that the funds which were lined up for this project would be lost because they were
site specific in nature. In particular, there was a $10S,000 State ESP loan that was actually a two year
forgivable note. If we switched to another site at this time, we would lose that $105,000. If that happened,
SBCS would have to come to the City and National City and ask us to make up the additional costs.
City Attorney Boogaard presented Resolution 17225 for Council's adoption which re-announced the fact that
the Council had previously approved a mitigated negative declaration in regard to this project, cited the basis
for the mitigated negative declaration, acknowledged the previous filing of a notice of determination, and
that the actions taken by the Council were merely an implementation of the prior discretionary action in
granting the conditional use permit. Also, the Council finds that the purchase price of the property was at
or below its fair market value.
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Nader declared the public hearing open.
City Attorney Boogaard advised Council that he had been contacted by attorneys for a neighboring property
who have announced their intention to institute litigation on this matter on the theory of waste of public
funds. Mr. Boogaard stated that there has been some question in this transaction as to whether or not the
price of the property being acquired represents a fair market value. As a result of these concerns, he
presented Council the following information to be incorporated into the Record:
"south Bay Community Services (SBCS) proposes to acquire the Property from the owners for $712,S00. Owners'
general partners, Park Vista Apartments, acquired the property in November 1989 for approximately $680,000 from
the prev/ous owners. SBCS originally attempted to acquire the property and its property to the nonh, 17 Fourth
Avenue, in March 30, 1992, two years and four months after the owners acquired same, and at a time when the
owners had no prior contract or relationship to SBCS. SBCS's pun~ose was to develop the property to house very
low and low income families pursuant to their general community services mission statement.
"First contact with the owners by SBCS was made through a broker retained by SBCS, Jeff Newman of Suncoast
Commercial Real Estate, who will be paid a S percent commission, less $2,S00 when the property eventually closes
escrow, if at all. Prior to such fist contact, no officer, agent or employee of SBCS had any prior contact with the
owners, their agents, officers, directors, or employees. SBCS commissioned the Broker to probe for seller's interest
on sites meeting certain specified criteria. Neither the Property or 17 Fourth Avenue was listed by the Owners for
sale at that time.
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 6
"Owners originally wanted $850,000 for the property. SBCS countered with $700,000. Owners reduced the price
to $800,000. SBCS held firm for a while, then settled for a purchase price of $750,000 for each of the t"wo parcels,
17 Fourth Avenue and 31 Fourth Avenue. Negotiations occurred over a three week period.
"SBCS's efforts to fine and negotiate for the acquisition of the Property and 17 Fourth Avenue was aided, in pan
by their Housing Advisory Committee, a board advisory to the SBCS Board of Directors, and consisting of developers,
bankers, lawyers, who concurred in the decision to make the offer to the owners aRer reviewing forty-five sites.
They recommended proceeding with the acquisition of the Property and 17 Fourth Avenue at $750,000. (A second
opinion that the value was proper).
"In addition to the advice of their Housing Advisory Committee, SBCS had on retainer, a consultant, Community
Economics, Inc., at a price of $65 per hour. They work with non-profits such as SBCS and cities statewide to advise
them in regards to financial matters such as the analysis, negotiations, and acquisition of different sites. Community
Economics, Inc. reviewed this transaction, assisted SBCS in negotiating the price down to $750,000, and
recommended to SBCS, as their consultant, that SBCS make the final offer at the price of $750,000. (A third
opinion that the value was proper).
"In addition to the foregoing, other consultants aided SBCS in the analysis and approval of the transaction such as
California Housing Partnership Corporation, Sue Reynolds, the Program Manager; Local Initiative Support
Conpotatlon, a national-wide non-profit lender in affordable housing, Anne Wilson, San Diego Program Director;
and a number of other local real estate experts. A Board Commitlee also helped make decisions with staff and
involved Ty Compton, a local real estate broker, and Rietta Morrell, a local person with significant real estate
holdings. SBCS offer of $750,000 was conditioned on: (a) an appraisal, (b) full Board approval, and (c) approval
of all funding sources.
"Although SBCS was able to keep "the deal" together on 17 Fourth Avenue with the prospect of a HUD McKinney
grant, which property is still in escrow for purchase, as a long-term (nvo years) transitional housing project, the
purchase of 31 Fourth Avenue collapsed at a point when the City Council rejected conceptual approval of the very
low income project originally proposed for the property.
'Tne deal for 31 Fourth Avenue was thereafter revitalized after a new Mayor held a housing summit which
identified emergency housing for homeless people as a significant unmet community need. At that time, such
project was proposed to be administered by Lutheran Social Services but later picked up by SBCS.
"In order to fund the purchase of the property as originally proposed for a very low and low income housing project,
SBCS applied to the State of California for a grant, and the application process required opinions of value. The
State further tL-quired additional outside leverage from ptivate lenders, and the private outside lenders required as
a condition of funding that they obtain an appraisal of the properly. In late April, 1992, SAMCO, a consortium of
banks, retained an appraiser, Richard Fuller, with the Appraisal Group of San Diego, to determine the value of the
property. This appraisal cost SAMCO, and subsequently SBCS, between $1,500 and $2,000. That appraised value
was $750,000 and was issue on May 7, 1992, approximately one year, three months, and ten days ago. It was done
at the request of a party (SAMCO and the State) who had an economic interest in making sure that their loan had
adequate security and would not be inflated. That funding prospect, after the appraisal was obtained, dissipated
for reasons unrelated to the valuation issue. Meanwhile, SBCS paid $5,000 to extend the escrow.
"At the time of trying to obtain conceptual approval of the transaction for a short term housing project near the
end of 1992 or beginning of 1993, the Council raised objections to the purchase price and made it a condition of
the funding that the price be reduced. SBCS thereafter confronted the Owners in a meeting in the office of SBCS
sometime in 1993 (date has not been confirmed) that the price must be nxiuced further or there would be "no deal."
Owners were very angry at the proposal to reduce the price and left the meeting with the transaction in a "no deal"
status. They came back two days later with a reduced sales price offer of $720,000 and an agreement to extend
the escrow, which was accepted by SBCS on the same contingencies.
"SBCS, in an effort to obtain the concurcence of the City Council that the Property was exchanging hands at a
current fair market value, decided to get an updated appraisal which cost SBCS $500 and it came in again on
February 24, 1993 at $750,000. Based on this new information, the City Council gave conceptual approval to the
project on March 23, 1993. At the CUP hearing on July 13, 1993, opponents to the Project submitted comparable
sales information from an appraiser, Truman Brooks. It was not a certified appraisal; it was a worksheet. The
information formed a basis upon which Mr. Brooks concluded as evidence that the Proparty should be valued at
about $620,000, or $44,300 per unit, rather than the $750,000 or $53,000 per unit, established by the appraisal
and appraisal update.
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 7
"Mr. Brooks' information did not constitute an appraisal, but rather a survey of apartment sales in the South Bay
over fifteen months, with only basic information about the listed properties and no analyses or adjustments.
Notably some support can be drawn for the accuracy of the $750,000 formal appraisal figure by analyzing the very
basic information on sales price and project size presented by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks sales data fairly nearly divides
between small and large apartment properties, with four properties at eighteen units or less and four properties at
seventy-five units or larger. When the average cost-per-unit for the two obvious categories is calculated, the
purchase cost of 31 Fourth Avenue looks quite favorable:
1. The large project average per unit cost is $44,400.
2. The small project average per unit cost is $60,882.
3. The sales price cost per unit for 31 Fourth Avenue is $50,892.
"At the CUP hearing, the Council further directed SBCS to attempt even further downward negotiations of the price.
SBCS was unsuccessful afxer two attempts, and invited one of the City Councilpersons, Shirley Hotton, also a noted
local real estate broker, to help with the negotiations. As a result of Ms. Horton's efforts, the Owners reluctantly
reduced the price by $7,500 to $712,500.
Councilman Fox stated he spoke with a representative from G. F. Hanson and Associates, who has a nation-
wide reputation in reviewing appraisals. In this case, the appraiser who did the actual inspection in
February 1992 of the property currently works for G. H. Hanson and Associates. However, he was still able
to justify value and found it to be in an acceptable range.
Mayor Nader stated the following documents were to be incorporated into the Record (which have been
placed on [fie in the City Clerk's Office):
(1) A letter from Truman Brooks suggesting that we buy a property on "G" Street for
approximately $1.S million.
(2) A petition consisting of 33 pages received in support of the project.
The following people addressed the City Council in support of the project:
Maggie Helton, representing the Housing Commission, 162 Mankato Court, Chula Vista, 91910
Harvey Mandel, representing St Vincent de Paul, 1501 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, 92101
Diane Nissen, representing Lutheran Social Services, 1405 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, 91911
Frances Brill, representing H.A~B.I.T.A, 551 4th Avenue, San Diego, 92101
Emerald Randolph, representing South Bay Community Services, P. O. Box 17, Jamul, presented the
following Requests to Speak to indicate how many were present in support of the project
although they would not actually speak:
Jonathan Barber, 778 Elder, Chula Vista, 91911
Joseph Barrett, 667 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Lautine Baxter, 2467 E. Street, San Diego
deronimo Blanco, 566 Naples Street #116, Chula Vista, 91911
Perla Bransburg, 4561 Kensington Dr., San Diego, 92116
Pablo Bransburg, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Wayne Brund, 430 Montgomery St., Chula Vista, 91911
Tim Bubnack, 6512 Tryan, La Jolla, 92037
Cesar Canizales, 568 Jefferson Ave., Chula Vista, 91910
Marcela Castano, 1941 Kent St., Chula Vista, 91910
Sharon Cavazos, 566 Park Way, Chula Vista, 91910
Lalie Condron, 1515 Hilltop, Chula Vista, 91910
W. Eugene Corbin, 2365 Beryl Street, San Diego, 92109
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 8
Cheryl Cox, 84 "E" Street, Chula Vista, 91910
Betty Davis, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91910
Ray Davis, 1419 Tobia Drive #16, Chula Vista, 91911
Dan Dennison, 459 Jefferson Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Esther Doyle, 4322 Mt. Putman Avenue, San Diego, 92117
J. a. Dormevil, 648 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Gall Edwards, 571 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Amy Fanning, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Marguerite Ferronte, 2607 Congress Street, San Diego, 92110
Miguel Gonzalez, 163 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista 91910
James Gravelie, 90 Connoley Circle, Chula Vista, 91911
Mary Graveile, 90 Connoley Circle, Chula Vista, 91911
Tamra Heaps, 152 Sierra Way, Chula Vista, 91911
Raymond Herman, 1066 Las Bancas Court, Chula Vista, 91911
Ranie Hunter, 1910 Rue Michelle, Chula Vista, 91913
Elizabeth Inguez, 489 D Street, Chula Vista, 91910
Kathy Jamison, 333 F Street #C, Chula Vista, 91910
Bonnie Jerome-Edmonds, 580 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91910
Cindy Lee Johns, 345 First Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Judith Johnson, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Jackie Jones, 9600 Petite Lane, Lakeside
Norman Knight, 1773 Broadway, Chula Vista, 91911
Estela Lemos, 76 Oaklawn, Chula Vista, 91910
Maria Martinez, 1225 Broadway #412, Chula Vista, 91911
Raul Martinez, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Sylvia Martinez, 304 Camino Elevado, Bonita, 91902
Char McConney, 1250 Fifth Avenue #706, Chula Vista, 91910
Rob Miller, 501 "H" Street, Chula Vista, 91910
Virginia Minor, 636 Third Avenue #410, Chula Vista, 91910
Elizabeth Mora, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Reed Morgan, 101 W. Broadway #1120, San Diego, 92101
Victor Moreno, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista 91910
W. Scott Mosher, 909 Loma View, Chula Vista, 91910
Fay Needle, 445 Orange Avenue Sp 32, Chula Vista, 91911
Rick Newmyer, 350 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Myrna Pascual-Pena, 11050 Euclid Avenue, San Diego 92114
Francisco Pinego, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Charles Pugsley, 3702 Wild Oats Lane, Bonita, 91902
Astor Reeves, 940 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Paul Reeves, 1955 Gotham, Chula Vista, 91913
Zeriesus Ries, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Sky Soleil, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Pare Smith, 380 Third Avenue Ste B, Chula Vista, 92113
Rhoda Taylor, 470 Moss Street, Chula Vista, 91911
Jeri Vanderpool, 229 "F' Street, Ste J, Chula Vista, 91910
Lena Wallace, 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, 91911
Carol Marie Walters, 2232 Tina Street, E1 Cajon
Amy Wavra, 5866 Whirlybird Way, Bonita, 91902
Stevea Wavra, 5866 Whirlybird Way, Bonita 91902
Sheila Zamora, 4844 Casa Bonita Court, Bonita, 91902
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 9
The following people addressed the City Council in opposition to the project:
Richard Schuman, attorney representing various residents and property owners, 600 W. Broadway,
8th Floor, San Diego 92101
Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Robert Sipan, 5425 La Jolla Hermosa, La Jolla
Terry Keith, 67 Fourth Avenue Ste. H, Chula Vista, 91910
Barbara Orsa, 21 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Regina Hickey, 21 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910
Mary Troy-Lynn, 751 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, 91910
Kathy Lembo, Executive Director of South Bay Community Services, 315 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910.
She presented a Map (which has been placed on file in the City Clerk's Office) indicating where there were
facilities in Chula Vista that provide services to people. She stated that South Bay Community Services was
requesting the City of Chula Vista to appropriate $610,000 of Federal HOME funds to use to house and
provide services to homeless families. The cost to the City in Year One would be $2300, and in Year Two
to Five that cost will be reduced to $450 per person. Currently, there were over 1,000 homeless people
nightly in the South Bay with the majority of them being families. There were only eight beds available in
the South Bay which were for youth only. A coalition of agencies have come together to provide services
and to insure that this project continues. City funds will not be used for operating costs which will be about
$160,000.
Councilwoman Horton asked if there would be a resident manager living on the facility and if there would
be one on the other property?
Ms. Lembo responded that they had not decided whether they will have two. The resident manager will be
employed by South Bay Community Services, be paid a salary, given a flee unit, and not be allowed to have
an outside job.
Councilwoman Horton asked what were some of the specific qualifications they would be looking for in a
resident manager?
Ms. Lembo responded that they would be looking for a resident manager who had some skills, knowledge,
and ability to at least speak with the people, actively listen to them, and hook them up with a case manager
as needed.
Councilwoman Hotton questioned the rule about no drug and alcohol use and how they would screen for
this.
Ms. Lembo replied that you can't have drugs in any apaL[ment. They will not be able to have any alcohol
such as beer and wine in their units. It will be an alcohol free living environment. Lutheran Social Services
wfil be one of the agencies that will be doing the screening. The pre-screening will be done by qualified
social workers. They will do the initial screening where they will be asked the questions regarding drug and
alcohol use. If any case worker feels there is any doubt that there is an active drug or alcohol user, they
wfil be required to take an alcohol screening test before entering the program.
Councilman Fox stated that one of the fears was that this project will attract a line of homeless people
pounding at the door to get in which may disturb the neighborhood. How will this be prevented?
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Lembo stated that you cannot come into this program at the facility site. You have to come through
one of the intake sites which includes all the agencies in the consortium. There will be no flee meals given
to people who are not in the facility.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would like some evidence on the Record regarding the 6th and 'G" Street
site. He asked when was the information about the 610 "G" Street site made available to SBCS.
Ms. Lembo stated they were informed on late Friday afternoon when they had one of the property owners
who was opposed to the project, show up, and tell the SBCS staff during a visit from the Community
Foundation that he had found an alternative site. He refused to tell the staff the price of the alternative site,
the number of units available, or where it was located. They did not know the address of the site until this
evening when the City Attorney informed them.
City Attorney Boogaard asked Ms. Lembo if they had previously evaluated the 610 "G" Street site?
Ms. Lembo responded that they had in early 1993. It was rejected because: (1) It had a swimming pool
and their liability insurance would be extremely high. (2) The size of the project; it had thirty-three units.
They wanted a size where it would be manageable enough for them to raise operating costs and not have
to come to the cities of Chula Vista and National City to ask for operating monies.
Dan Marcus, of South Bay Community Services, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, stated some of the
other reasons that 610 "G" Street were rejected were: (3) It had high rehabilitation costs. (4) The price
was $1.7 million when it was put on the market; they were not willing to budge from that price. (5) The
property was further from National City which was a concern for their funding. (6) It was not across the
street from a five acre park or the YMCA which will provide some of the child care. (7) Not as close to the
other social services which will be provided.
Others addressing the City Council who had not submitted a "Request to Speak Form" were:
Margarite Frante, Coastal Trailer Villa Mobilehome Park, 1579 Morena Blvd, San Diego. She spoke
in support of the project.
Violeta Ochoa, 207 Sandstone, Chula Vista, 91910, spoke in support of the project.
Marcella Gomez, 135 Guava, Chula Vista, 91910, spoke in opposition of the project.
Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, 91910, spoke in support of the project.
Miguel Gonzales, 163 Guava, Chula Vista, 91910, spoke in support of the project.
Reed Morgan, Program Director of San Diego Community Foundation, 101 W. Broadway, San Diego,
spoke in support of the project.
An unnamed man, 3123 Casa Bonita Drive, Bonita, spoke in support of the project.
Mary Kitter, 31 Fourth Avenue #2, Chula Vista, 91910, a tenant who did not want to move.
Dan Marcus, of South Bay Community Services, stated they will be relocating all current residents according
to the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. It provides for moving benefits and finding of an equitable apartment
within the area. He has met with each tenant at least once to speak about the relocation process and how
they will work to help them relocate. They were prepared to hire moving companies and fully insure their
personal items.
Mayor Nader asked what would happen if some tenant had a relocation difficulty that caused the relocation
process to take longer than they expect.
Mr. Marcus stated they had researched a number of apartments in the neighborhood and taken into account
each tenaries personal situation. They have found apartments available to meet each person's needs. They
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 11
were required to give each tenant a ninety-day notice and provide a list with at least three equitable
apartments. HUD has informed them that they should not give that notice until they close escrow. It was
their intent to allow anyone to stay beyond the ninety days should someone be unable to move.
Ms. Lembo asked if there was any provision in the development agreement that would prevent them from
leaving a tenant in their apartment while they also moved in residents under the program.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that there were time frames in the agreement which required SBCS to obtain
certain milestones, such as acquisition, four months for relocation, etc. Within those time frames there was
nothing which required them to have full occupancy.
Councilman Moore asked what happened if they found an apartment which was 50% higher in cost.
Mr. Marcus stated that they were required to find an equitable unit in terms of space, amenities, etc. If the
rent was higher, they were required to make up the difference for a forty-eight month period. However, the
average rent in the area was about the same.
Ron Chavez, 3176 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, 91910, spoke in support of the project.
There being no further public testimony, Mayor Nader declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Moore expressed that the size of the project was about right to start with.
Councilman Fox stated this was not the perfect solution, but if we waited for it, there would be more
homeless people. He felt it was the best thing to happen in the South Bay to help solve the problem. South
Bay Community Services had a proven record in the community that they can do the job.
Councilwoman Horton stated the two main concerns of opposition were: (1) fear of what this project may
do to their neighborhood, and (2) the amount of tax money being spent on the project. She felt very
comfortable in saying this project would make a good neighbor because it will be properly managed, and
there will be no alcohol and drugs on the premises.
RESOLUTIONS 17221, 17223, 17224, AND 17225 WERE OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text
was waived, passed, and approved ~ 1 (Rindone abstaining).
A. RESOLUTION 17221 AMENDINGTHECITY'SHOMEPROGRAMDESCRIPTIONTOREALIXEATE
FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF SUBSIDIzF. n RENTAL PROPERTY
B. RESOLUTION 17223 APPROVINGAHOUSINGCOOPERATIONAGI~RRMENTWITHSOUTHBAy
COMMUNFFY SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHORT-TERM HOUSING FACILITY FOR
HO1V~I.F-e~S FAMILIES AND/OR VERY LOW INCOME FAMILIES AT 31 FOURTH AVENUE AND
AtrFHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AG!RRRMENT AND ASSOCIATED LOAN DOCUIVIF_.a'~
C. RESOLUTION 17224 APPROPRIATINGFUNDSNOTTOEXCR~n$610,146FORALOANTOSBCS
FOR ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF A 14-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 31 FOURTH AVENUE
D. RESOLUTION 17225 DECLARING THE ADOPTION OF CERTAIN RF_S~LUTIONS CONb-rrrirl'E
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIOR DISCRE'I] ONARY ACTS DONE AFI-EJ~. THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND FINDING THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE REPRESENTS THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 12
)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, 91910, stated that on July 14, she sent a let~er to the Council
requesting the reinstatement of the Senior and Disabled Commission. She felt they had lost representation.
For example: the bus schedules in the lobby and elsewhere in city hall were incorrect and have not been
replaced. Yesterday at the comer of Palomar and Broadway, a man in a wheel chair was left on the curb
because the wheelchair lift did not work on Bus No. 22. The wheelchair lifts were not working on the
trolleys either. She further stated that Bill Gustafson told her that she must go back through the Human
Relations Commission for her request to reinstate the Senior and Disabled Commission. She stated they do
not listen to her.
Councilman Rindone stated that if Ms. Butler has information of the nature just shared, she should feel
comfortable to share directly with stuff. If staff was not responsive, then she could check with the Council.
The indications of equipment realfunction should not wait to be reported at a City Council meeting.
Ronnie Chavez, Pastor of Praise Chapel Christian Center, introduced himself and stated that they were
willing to assist the City in any way they could.
* * * Mayor Nader called a recess at 9:08 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. * * *
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
11. RESOLUTION 179~ GMNG NOTICE OF INTENT TO GRANT A FRANCHISE TO LAIDLAW
W/k~'l'~. SYSTEMS, INC. FOR RESIDENTIAL YARD WASTE RECYCLING COIJ.RGTION SERVICES, ~
SE'HllqG A PUBhIC HEARING THEREON - At the 6/22/93 meeting, Council approved in concept a Yard
Waste Recycling Program and directed staff to negotiate with Laidlaw to develop a collection senrice
franchise. The report describes the Yard Waste Recycling Program and with Council approval of the
resolution, staff will begin the Charter required process of giving the notice of intention to grant the
franchise and set fees for yard waste recycling collection services, followed by a public hearing on the first
reading of the proposed franchise ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and setting a
public hearing for 9/14/93 at 6:00 p.m. to consider granting said franchise and setting fees therefore.
(Administration)
Councilman Rindone asked how was a "bundle" defined?
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, responded it was approximately two to three feet in length and
approximately eighteen inches in diameter.
Councilman Pindone stated that staff did not recommend the amortizing of the containers which Council
had directed. In lieu of that, staff offered to have full purchase and have that amortized over one or two
payments. He felt the price of $55 or $60 was rather high. He asked if any of the recycling programs in )
the County provided an option of amortizing the container?
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 13
Ms. Bradley stated that only Oceanside required carts for their yard waste program which were rented for
$1.00 per month. Staff was looking at the options program so that residents don't have to buy the cart, they
could provide their own containers.
Councilman Rindone stated that prohibiting paper or plastic bags would require an educational program.
How have other cities dealt with this concern?
Ms. Bradley stated to her knowledge, it hasn't been a concern in other cities. It was well noticed that only
containers were accepted.
Councilman Rindone asked about the procedure regarding the sticker program and what would prohibit
someone from stealing stickers.
Ms. Bradley responded that we could devise a system to reduce or prohibit stealing of stickers. She will look
into it and report back at the public heating.
Councilman Rindone stated the term was until the year 2002. Was it January 2002? He felt it was too
generic.
Ms. Bradley stated it was in accordance with the other agreements. She would check and get back to
Council.
Councilman Rindone asked what was the percentage cap on raising the franchise fee for the yard waste
collection?
Ms. Bradley responded that the total cap was ten percent similar to the other franchise agreements.
Councilman Rindone stated you are proposing 8% with an increase of 1/2 percent. He stated he had always
opposed that. He felt there should be a flat 8%. He asked why start this since there is no resale for the
market of the yard waste at this time.
Ms. Bradley stated there were no mixed waste processing facilities servicing the region currently. If Organic
Recycling West was permitted to run their composting facility, that would bring value to the compost
material. They have a very good reputation for being able to sell their products. That facility was scheduled
to open in the Fall. [t will be a number of years before there was a mixed waste processing facility for use
by the South Bay. She felt there will be a market once the materials actually turn into compost which
Organic Recycling West will do. Currently, the County's mulching program does sell the mulch as bio fuel;
there was a market for that. The rest of it is used as landfill cover.
Councilman Rindone asked what was the advantage of capturing the yard waste component.
Ms. Bradley stated that under the County's mandatory recycling ordinance, we were required to separate our
yard waste stream for diversion and that would be composting and mulching. Additionally, to meet the AB-
939 goals, we would need to capture our yard waste component because it was 17% of our waste stream.
Additionally, it was similar to recyclables. The market has fluctuated, but we still recycle. She felt
composting would be the same. There needs to be market development for the product.
Councilman Moore stated that yard waste was to be recycled. What if he collects from the residents and
recycles it by turning it into mulch. Can he then dump the mulch into the landfill for flee? Was this
considered when arriving at a rate?
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 14
Ms. Bradley stated that the costs involved are collection, overhead, promotional materials, and the
processing.
Councilman Rindone asked if consideration had been given to where composting on private property was
located. It could be a health and safety issue especially in zero lot line homes. He felt an ordinance should
be drafted to address this.
Mayor Nader agreed with Councilman Rindone's concern regarding escalation of the franchise fee portion
of the proposed ordinance. If the majority of Council feels that way, then staff should be prepared to put
a period at the end of the clause that establishes the initial franchise fee.
Councilman Moore stated that anytime you have a contract that puts wear on the City streets, in this case
heavy trucks, and you put a fee on it, it is to offset potential damage and clean up. We should not make
a profit, but we should have a sufficient franchise fee to make sure we take care of the potential damage
of streets.
Mayor Nader stated he assumed that staff was proposing that we set the initial fee of 8% because they felt
that was the fee necessary to offset the cost. He was objecting not to the initial level of the fee, but rather
to the promsion in the draft ordinance that says after we set it at 8%, it will automatically come back
periodically for 1/2 percent increase. He suggested that it be left at 8%. It would be possible that if staff
or Council observed an increase in cost that justified an increase, that on an "as needed basis," it could be
brought back.
RESOLUTION 17~? OI.'P'IY/hF~D BY M_AYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived.
MS CNader/Rindone) to bring the Ordinance back to delete the provision that authorizes automatic
increases. If an increase in the percentage is deemed justified that it be brought back separately on a case-
Alan Pervis, representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, pointed out that there have been amendments to the
original ordinance for recycling services and multi-family recycling. This one is also an amendment to the
original ordinance. They have no problem setting and collecting the franchise fee at the Councfl's direction.
He suggested that this be structured so that there would be one franchise fee for all services. He felt the
8% was only for the yard waste portion. It increases the administrative cost when there is a different fee
for each program.
VOTE ON MOTION TO AIVIEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WHEN IT CO1VIFS BACK FOR HEARING:
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION: Resolution was approved unanimously 5-0 as amended,
Mayor Nader asked staff to look at the issue Mr. Pen-is raised to administratively blend this into one
franchise fee and include some comment on this when it comes back in September 7.
12.A. REPORT SOLID WASTE ISSL~_r~S - An oral update report will be given by staff.
B. REPORT ALTERNATIVE WA~'IP~ MANAGEMENT - At the 8/10/93 meeting, Council
requested staff look at alternative trash solutions. Staff recommends Council continue the item to 8/24/93 ~
to allow staff time to gather additional information. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) ..
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 15
George Krempl, Deputy Manager, reported that the North County JPA has now issued their request for
proposals; we received a copy of it late today. In addition, the North County Solid Waste Management
Agency had a meeting last Thursday. They talked regarding the priority of list and issues which should be
addressed by the Interim Commission. Their number one priority with the Interim Commission was to
determine governance, to determine rate for pay-as-you-go system during the interim agreement, and to look
at existing system operations including a review of the NCRRA project. As of last Thursday, Council was
provided a copy of a letter drafted by the Mayor and Councilmember of Escondido going into some detail
about the inadequacies and concerns with regard to the NCRRA facility. Escondido and Oceanside Councils
will be considering whether or not to join the interim commission and under what terms. E1 Cajon may be
reconsidering a decision to participate in the interim commission based upon a proposal submitted by Waste
Management Inc.
John Goss, City Manager, stated they had been given direction to try to set up a meeting with a Council
Subcommittee with two members of the Council and two members of the Board of Supervisors. It has been
a problem t~ying to set up a meeting with the County elected officials.
Councilman Moore stated that Supervisor Slater was in Canada and would not be back until August 25.
Supervisor Bilbray won't be back until early September. Two other Supervisors were taking leave or on
leave. He felt that the meeting was appropriate, but we may have to meet with just one Supervisor. He
stated that if it was the consensus of Council, then he and Councilman Rindone would pursue looking for
at least two elected officials: one could be the Vice Chair of the interim commission and at least one or more
Supervisors.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that both he and Dwight Worden were in Department 32 in front of Judge
Johnson this morning on an application for a temporary restraining order and an ordering for shortening
time within which to hear a preliminary injunction. While the judge did not grant the temporary restraining
order, he did grant the order for shortening time within which to hear the preliminary injunction. He
requested the Council set a special meeting of the City Council for noon on August 27th to discuss which
direction to take. This would allow enough time so they could pass an adjoiner resolution before the close
of business on August 27 which was the deadline set by the County.
MSUC (RindonefNader) to set Friday, August 27 at 12:00 noon in the Council ChambeB for the p~
of discussing any and all matters involving solid waste including but not limited to discussion of whether
or not to join the Interim Commission and/or sign the interim flow control agreement and/or continue
litigation among other things.
ITEMS pLIIJ.RI3 FROM THE CONSENT C~I.R~IDAR
Item pulled: 9. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
MSC (NaderAMoore) that the hour ~ing p~t 10:30 p.m., the Counc~ comple~ the b~ance of the Agenda.
Motion ca~ied 4-1 (Rindone no).
OTHER BUSINESS
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 16
)
13. CITY I~a~IAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. On Thursday, August 26, from 5-6:30 p.m. at City Hall in the
Courtyard will be a reception for Robert Rau, Rohr's new CEO. There has been an overlap of times with a
Chamber of Commerce mixer. Staff has tried to mitigate the conflict by staking and ending earlier. Staff
will try to avoid such conflicts in the future.
There will be a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on the Otay Ranch on Thursday, August 25, from
3 to 7 p.m. at the County.
14. MAYORS REPORT(S)
Mayor Nader stated that the meeting date for the City Manager's evaluation on August 30 at 6:00 p.m. has
been changed to sometime in September. The Council's secretary will poll the Council for a date. There
was a need for a special meeting to interview and select Growth Management Oversight Commissioners.
We may also need to do Civil Service which can be added to the Agenda if Personnel has had its employee
election. He felt that the August 30th date could be used for that purpose. The time will be 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room. No objection was expressed by the Council.
Mayor Nader requested that discussion and potential direction to the Wastewater Management District
delegates be added to his comments on August 24.
15. CODNCIL COMMEIqTS
Councilman Moore stated that the Economic Development Commission had vacancies. We should be looking
for candidates. He thought they were also short some ex-officios.
Councilman Rindone stated he had been selected to chair the MTDB Finance Committee for long-term
financing of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
Councilman Fox had no comments.
Councilwoman Horton had no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 10:53 p.m. to a joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
The City Council reconvened and adjourned at 11:19 p.m. to meet in closed session to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers ONCE), Police Officers Association (POA),
International Association of Fire Fighters CIAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 8/10/93.
Pending or imminently pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of
Chula Vista vs. County of San Diego relating to trash surcharge.
Minutes
August 17, 1993
Page 17
Pending or imminently pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of
Chula Vista vs. various insurance companies regarding collection of clean-up costs on the paint pit.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. County
of San Diego regarding booking fees.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - Evaluation of performance of personnel.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. Aptec.
The Closed Session adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to the next regular City Council meeting on August 24, 1993
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly A. A~(helet, CMC, City Clerk