Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/11/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, November 9, 1993 Council Chambers 6:05 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager; Bruce M. Booguard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PI.PnGE OF AI J.I~GIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 26, 1993. Councilmember Rindone requested that page four, paragraph two, line four be changed to read "and voted on by the band directors and voted against participation on Sundays .....". In the same paragraph, next to the last line it should read "that needed to be made by the DBA". MSUC (FoX/Nader) to approve the minutes of October 26, 1993 as corrected. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Certificates of Appreciation to be presented to three teachers from Odawara, Japan - Mayor Pro Tern Rindone presented the Certificates of Appreciation in recognition of civic and meritorious service rendered in the public interest to Yoshihisa Oishi, Masato Nakayama, and Minoru Yamagnchi. b. The California Healthy Cities Projects' Special A~:hievement Commemorative Award will be presented for CHULA VISTA'S PROJECT CARE - Gregory Schaffer, Local Program Development Specialist with the California State Department of Health Services, presented the 1993 California Healthy Cities Projects' Special Achievement Commemorative Award for CHULA VISTA'S PROJECT CARE to the Mayor and Council. The Senior Safety Net program was recently selected as one of five award recipients in the State. c. Proclamations commending Chula Vista City employees for their commitment ill supporting 'AIDS Walk San Diego '93" - Mayor Pro Tem Rindone presented the proclamations to Berlin Bosworth and Alice Espinoza. CONSEI',,rI' C~T.ENDAR (Items pulled: 5a) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT C~LRNDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the te~ was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Mayor Nader and Councilmember Fox voted no on Items 7 and 9. 5. WRI 1 iPAq COM1VfUNICATIONS: a. LetKer seeking to have the Council ask its San Diego Area Governments (SANDAG) representative to request that a study be done on the feasibility of FLOATPORT as an option for San Diego's new airport - Joseph E. Leary, President, FLOATPORT, 1660 Hotel Circle North, Ste. 723, San Diego, CA 92108, It is recommended that this letter be received and fonvarded to the Port District. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 2 Mayor Nader suggested the request be forwarded to the Port District and to SANDAG which was the regional siting authority and that a presentation SHOULD be made to the Gity staff, SANDAG, and the Port District. · Donald k Innis, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Diego CA, Co-Chak of Float Inc., stated they were anxious to make a presentation in a speedy manner to coordinate with the City of Vista as they were bringing a resolution to SANDAG requesting that they perform a feasibility study for FLOATPORT. They would like to make the presentation so the Council would be well informed. Mayor Nader questioned if the action being requested of Council was to encourage SANDAG or the Port District to give further study to the FLOATPORT concept. The Chula Vista City Council could not unilaterally make a decision on FLOATPORT. Mr. Innis stated the Mayor was correct. He had drafted a short letter that he would like the City Manager to send to SANDAG. They had proposed a study to ARPA, an advanced research agency of the Federal Government, and the request was for $450,000 which was an economic and sociological study. They would like SANDAG to go in with their own staff, or utilize outside consultants, and do a study that would be deeper than the study made of the alternate airport sites two years ago. MS (Nader/Fox) to forward the request to SANDAG and the Port District for their consideratiork Staff is to discuss the proposal with FLOATPORT representatives and, if appropriate, docket a maximum fifteen minute presentation for Council at a later date. Councilmember Moore stated he did not have a problem in referring the item to the City of San Diego and the Port District, but he could not support a full review. He could support one staff member, but it was a major project that was far reaching and he did not want staff, Council, or SANDAG involved. A referral was appropriate. Mayor Nader stated the intent of the motion was not to endorse it, but to refer it to SANDAG and the Port District. AMENDMF2CF TO MOTION: (Nader) to direct staff to contact Mr. Innis or FLOATPORT representatives to schedule a staff presentation and to advise the Mayor/Council as to when it would be schedded. If more than two Councilmemben indicated their desire to attend the presentation it would be posted. AMENDbENT WITHDRAWN: (Nader) Mayor Nader requested that staff monitor the agendas of SANDAG and the Port District and advise the Mayor/Council as to when the presentations would be made. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Hot-ton opposed. b. Letter of resignation from the IA~nan] Board of Trustees effective December 31, 1993 - Linda C. Wilson, 426 Naples St., Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. 6. ORDINANCE 257S AMENDING SECTION 19.14.0SOA OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW APpI.I~ FOR PLANNING PERMITS TO BYPASS ZONING AD1VIINIb-mRATO R HEARING TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION (second reading and adoption} - In February, Council requested staff pursue several permit streamlining actions which had been referred for evaluation. One of the items was to prepare a draft ordinance which would provide an applicant with the option to bypass the Zoning Administrator and take applications directly to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 3 7. ORDINANCE 2576 REPEALING SECTION 2.48.200 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THEREBY DISSOLVING THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMI-FI-F.R (second reading and adoption) - On 8/17/93, Council directed staff to proceed with the proposal to dissolve the Montgomery Planning Committee (MPLD and determine an appropriate process to seat the remaining MPC members on the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC). Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (The Redevelopmerit Agency has already directed the Southwest PAC to consider remaining MPC member Platt for membership on the PAC.) (Director of Planning and Director of Community Development) Mayor Nader and Councilmember Fox voted no on Ordinance 2576. 8. ORDINANCE 2577 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18,010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING THE 5.8 ACRE pARCF. L LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND ',P STREET FROM C-O, OFFICE COMMER(3uaJ~ AND R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO C-C-P, (//qTRAL COMMERCIAL PRECISE PLAN (second readin~ and adontion) - The applicant, American Stores Properties, Inc., parent company of the Lucky Stores, has submitted applications to amend the General Plan and rezone 5.8 acres located at the southwest comer of Third Avenue and "J" Street. The proposal is to redesignate the site from Professional and Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial, and to rezone the site from C-O (Commercial Office) and R-l, (Single Family Residential) to C-C, (Central Commercial) in order to accommodate the relocation of the Lucky Store. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 9. ORDINANCE 2578 CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PPEIR 90-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT; PREZONING MOST OF THE OTAY RANCH TO THE PC (PLANNED COMMUNrlI') ZONE; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (second reading and adoption) - Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors held a joint public hearing on 10/28/93 to consider final actions on the Otay Ranch Project, including a General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan, and Pre-zoning. The Ordinance: (a) Approves Pre-zoning of 22,509 acres of the unincorporated Otay Ranch property to the PC (Planned Community) Zone; (b) Certifies the FPEIR (90-01) including the Technical Addendum; and (c) Adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Otay Ranch Project. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) Mayor Nader stated Council had bifurcated votes on the first reading of the ordinance and questioned whether that could be done again. City Attorney Boogaard stated the ordinance was now being presented in a singular format and had to be passed in a single motion or not passed at all. Mayor Nader stated he would vote against the item on the advice of the City Attorney. It was only the two portions of the ordinance, the Infeasibility of Alternatives Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, that he had voted no against at the first reading. Councilmember Fox stated he had also voted no on the Statement of Overriding Considerations and would therefore vote no on the motion. If the item could have been bifurcated his vote would have been different. Mayor Nader and Councilmember Fox voted no on Ordinance 2578. 10. RESOLUTION 17300 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993/94 BUDGET TO UPGRADE 1.0 POLICE PEACE OFFICER TO POLICE SERGEANT TO SUPERVISE THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS STREET Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 4 TEAM AND APPROPRIATING AND TRANSFERRING FUNDS THEREFOR - As part of the FY 1993/94 budget process, the Police Deparauent requested a five member "Street Team" to provide the Chief of Police more flexibility to address the increasing number of robberies. The concept approved during the budget process provided for S .0 Peace Officer positions to be added to the Police Department's budget of supervisory services to be provided by existing staff in the Crime Suppression Unit. The proposed resolution would add a 1.0 Police Sergeant position to the Police Department Uniform Patrol Division to ensure the Street Team's efforts are more appropriately interpreted with those of on-duty patrol officers. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/Sth's vote required. 11. RESOLUTION 17301 BOUNDARY LOT ADJUSTMENT FOR SANIRRIJ.R PARTNERSHIP AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN BOUNDARY ADJU~ MAP AND GRANT DRRFJS - In the course of construction of the Sanibelle Development along Hidden Vista Drive in the Tenca Nova area, the developer expressed concern that the property line was at the bottom of the slope. Staff reviewed the situation and agreed from the Departments perspective, it would be most advantageous to shift the property line to the top of the slope. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation and Director of Public Works) 12. RESOLUTION 17302 APPROVING A SEWER CONNECTION AND ANNEXATION AGI~RF-MENT WITH FRANCISCO J. MARES AND MAI T. IX), AT 4017 PALM DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO FIECUTE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE u'rY - In accordance with Council Policy 570-02, Francisco Javier Mares and Mai Tuyet Do have executed the required agreement in order to connect their property (in the unincorporated area of the County) to City sewer. The agreement is now ready for execution. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Rindone questioned if the applicant sold the property before annexation if the covenants would apply to the new owner. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, stated they would apply to a new owner. 13. RESOLUTION 17303 APPROVING AGI~RF-MENT WITH GCF LAUNDRY OF CHULA VISTA AND COLRK]-I INVESTMENTS, LTD. FOR THE DEFERRAL OF PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF APPROPRIATE SEWER CAPACITY FEES - On 4/20/93, Council received a letter from the National Properties Group in which it was requested that they be allowed to pay sewer capacity fees of approximately $60,000 for a proposed laundromat over a period of ten years. Council referred the issue to staff to work with the developer in an effort to allow the project to proceed. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM PRE-SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION OF THE EIb'I'ING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE - On 8/20/91, Council approved a contract with Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB) for professional services in preparing a report which would analyze future transportation needs in Chula Vista and help staff develop contingency plans in the event that SR-125 is not constructed in a timely fashion, HNTB has completed the report which contains a recommended roadway system, and a recommended financing plan. It also provides background and discussion of issues considered in developing the proposal. Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 10/26/93. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page S A. ORDINANC~ 2579 ADOPTINGANINTERIMPRE-SR-125 TRANSPORTATIONFACIIJ'TYFEETO BE EFFE~-ixVE JANUARY 1, 1995 (first reading) B. ORDINANCE 2580 AMENDING ORDINANCE ~51 RELATING TO A TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY EA~I~F,N TERRITORIES (first readinE) C. RESOLUTION 17304 ACCEPTINGAREPORTPREPAREDBYHOWARDNEED~.K~TAMMENAND BERGENDOFF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF CON~'I'ItUL'I'ING AN INTERIM FACH.~TY TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY IN (]-IULA VISTA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF SR-12S (INTERIM PRE-SR-12S FACIIJ]'~ This resolution does not retmire a nublk hearin~r but is a related item. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated there were significant changes in the staff recommendation from the original proposal of 7/27/93. The major change was to bifurcate the SR 125 project, the section south of EastLake Parkway was taken out of the SR 125 program and put into the Development Impact Fee Program which was similar to other streets in the area. The portion north of EastLake Parkway, which was partly in the proposed right-of-way and some of the roads that would be necessary to widen if SANDAG did not build their section in time, would be part of the SR 125 fee. That had the affect of reducing the SR 125 fee from about $1,400/EDU to $800/EDU. The Development Impact Fee was increased from $3,400/EDU to $3,800/EDU. Staff had received letters from some of the developers on the philosophy of the issue, but he felt they were closer than they were in July. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that staff discarded the notion of splitting the fee depending on the proximity of the property to the SR 125 facility. He questioned if staff could comment on any rationale, other than obtaining agreement from the property owners, why those that had developments that would create a greater need for SR 125 would not pay proportionately more than those that created a lesser demand. Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct. The staff reasoning was that the Development Impact Fee Program, which was started in 1987 was always based on a street system. SR 125 was broken out from the DIF to come up with a way to spread the cost and develop a funding mechanism. It was still considered a part of the whole street network. Staff felt the program had worked well and that a split fee would not work well. Councilmember Fox questioned the treatment of commercial fees and the staff analysis. Mr. Lippitt responded the problem generated with the commercial property issue was the fact that the trip generation factor was changing from forty down to twenty-five EDU's per acre. Everyone felt that was reasonable and the proper thing to do. What it created was that under the lower fee, some developments were paying significantly more than the new developments. Council had directed that commercial development should be supported and the extra fee could be something that would hit them hard and kill potential deals. There was a slightly higher fee on residential properly but it was less than a 1% increase. Mayor Nader questioned if there was a 1% increase in the residential fee to off-set the reduction in the commercial fee. Mr. Lippitt stated it was the mechanism that staff used to try to correct the inequity brought up at the last hearing for the commercial properties that had already paid their fees. Mayor Nader stated property tax alone did not cover the cost of services and residential development generated a proportionately greater need for services. Commercial/business development tended to generate sales tax, higher property taxes, and a lesser demand for services. He questioned if included in the calculation of fees for commercial/business development there was any consideration for the surplus those types of developments generated in terms of revenues compared to cost of service. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Lippitt stated an analysis was not done to determine that. There were passerby credits given to some commercial but no credits for tax revenue to pay for City services. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue #100, Chula Vista, CA, Project Manager for EastLake Development Company, thanked staff for their dedicated efforts. They supported the staff recommendation and would be available to answer any questions. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, stated they were speaking on behalf of Otay Ranch, Salt Creek I, Salt Creek Ranch, and Telegraph Canyon Estates. Their interest was in a program that worked now and decades from now. The Baldwin Company was anxious to have the issue resolved in a timely fashion. They were frustrated at the recommendation that the fees be adopted, but not imposed for another calendar year. They still had not reached a consensus, but felt with the help of staff they had come much closer together. They had changed their position in two ways: 1) they agreed that a facility credit should be given to certain facilities; and 2) and agreed with the idea of moving certain SR 125 fac~ities into the TDIF program thereby relieving builders from substantial financial burden. There were two recommendations they could not endorse: 1) the proposal that a fee be adopted for SR 125 and that the implementation be delayed one year; and 2) allowing commercial property that had already paid fees through an assessment mechanism to receive the benefit of the new fee methodology. Councilmember Fox noted staff had stated one of the reasons for lowering commercial fees was because they produced less ADTs and requested his response. Mr. Kilkenny stated they agreed with the methodology that in the future, once the fee mechanism changed, the new ADT count should apply to commercial properties in the future. For properties that had prepaid fees, they should pay the amount they were obligated to under the assessment. It was suggested that commercial properties receive a free break because they tended to generate more tax revenues, which was a truism and Council may want to consider earmarking surplus revenues for public facilities such as roads and reduce the fees for commercial properties. They felt they had already hit the compromise position because they wanted the fees imposed a year ago and agreed to an industry request to not increase the fees until 1/1/94. Councilmember Rindone stated he was disappointed that all the issues were not resolved. He questioned whether Mr. Kilkeuny felt all the properties would equally benefit with the SR 125 facility. Mr. Kilkenny stated that according to the MTDB report, it concluded that all properties would benefit from SR 125. In his opinion they would all equally benefit from the facility as he agreed with the analysis of staff that what was needed was the creation of a circulation system in the eastern territories that worked for all properties. If the system was going to work everyone would benefit equally and pay equally. Councilmember Rindone questioned what his estimate would be of the proposed units that would not be affected by the delay of one year. He also questioned who was responsible for the funding costs of the Trans DIF. Mr. rdlkenny felt the major property owners in the eastern area pulling fees, over the next twelve months, would probably be equal. The cost of financing for the TDIF program was generally not incorporated, if the property owners chose to build facilities and did so through public financing then those property owners were obligated to pay the f'mancing costs according to the Council ordinance. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the financing costs were in the SR 125 fee. Mr. Kilkenny responded that was correct. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 7 Councilmember Rindone questioned if it was fair that a property owner would continue to bear the costs and not have them distributed. Mr. Kilkenny responded he was not certain as to whether it was fair or not, but it was a policy decision by the Council in 1987 and reinstituted in 1990 and 1991 that financing costs were not an appropriate part of the fee program. Those had been the rules all property owners had followed. · Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover, National City, CA, representing Rancho Del Rey Partnership, commended staff on their perseverance, patience, and creativity and they were sony they were not before Council with a unified position in terms of a fee proposal. They supported the staff recommendation as it related to retaining consultants to provide and seek outside sources of funding, but did have two points of disagreement with the staff recommendation. They suggested that any fee collection or increase in collection of fees, either the Trans DIF or SR 125 DIF, be postponed until 1/1/95. The second disagreement was the use of two fees as opposed to one singular fee. The single fee allowed the City greater flexibility in using the fees that were collected where the greatest need occurred. They felt it was improper and unjust to create a separate fee in an attempt to try to apply fees to units that had previously fullfiled their obligations. They requested the City concur in the postponement of fees until 1/1/95 and continue utilizing a single Trans DIF for funding eastern territory road improvements. Councilmember Horton questioned how many permits they anticipated pulling in 1994. Mr. Fukuyama responded approximately four hundred which would include some commercial. Councilmember Rindone questioned what his estimate would be in the relationship of the number of building permits pulled by the three major property owners in 1994. Mr. Fukuyama stated all the land was pretty much in the same state regarding preparedness for development and felt they would probably be equal. · John Seymour, 6336 Greenwich Drive, San Diego, CA, representing the Construction Industry Federation, thanked staff for a Iremendous job. The vast majority of property owners in the City, San Diego County Building Association, and Construction Industry Federation supported the following: 1) postponement of the SR 125 fees; 2) postponement of the increase to the existing Transportation DIF; 3) establishment of the oversight committee for annual review of the fees; and 4) hiring a consultant to look at non-local state and federal funding sources. Their justification for a delay was that they were being consistent throughout San Diego County in requesting delays in fees due to the economy. Every permit pulled was a job generator and if the fees put pressure to not build there would be a loss of jobs. Councilmember Moore stated if the fee was not raised, there would be a shortfall in the project. If SR 125 was not bu~t there was the potential of a moratorium on development. It was hoped that some of the facilities would not have to be consu-ucted until 1999 or 2000 depending on growth. It was also hoped that other sources of funding would come through to build a major facility or the toll road would be in place. Councilmember Rindone questioned the CIF position on single or dual fees. Mr. Seymour responded they would not take a position, except to say that they were supportive of the staff recommendation. They wanted Council to adopt the ordinance and delay collection of the fees. Councilmember Rindone asked Mr. Sloan what his projection would be on the number of permits pulled by the three major property owners in 1994. Mr. Sloan felt it would be equivalent between the three property owners. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 8 MS CRindone/Horton) to accept staff recommendation with the following exception - both the Interim SR 125 DIF and Trans DIF would be effective 1/1/95. Councilmember Rindone stated it would provide recognition of the impact of the economy and jobs and an effort to be fair and equitable in accounting for the financing costs which had not been included. All three developers had stated the number of permits pulled would be equal and in the short run it would be equal. The financing costs, not recognized in the formula, needed to be addressed for the long run. Mayor Nader stated there was a difference between business/industrial property and residential property. .The business/industrial property paid its own way with extra fees and assessments and a permanent increase m the regional job base. If fees were not collected and there was not a way to pay for the fac~ities, there would be a point where development would have to shut down due to the City's thresholds. The City had adopted a defacto "first come, first serve" policy for development which was not fair. SUB3'fITOYE MOTION: (Nader/Fox) to impose a moratorium on the collection of fees on non-residential development property and Counc~ review the moratorium in one year in light of the economic situation. Mayor Nader stated there would be a benefit to commercial land. Commercial development was needed to produce jobs in the community and would generate enough in tax revenues to cover the costs of service. If the amendment passed it would make the suspension of fees applicable only to non-residential propen',/ and would require that the suspension come back to Councfi in one year for review. City Attorney Boogaard requested clarification of the motion, was the intent to suspend the imposition of the commercial fees or if just the old charge would apply until 1995. Mayor Nader stated k would be only the old charge, there would be no new charges for at least the next year. Councilmember Rindone stated he would vote against the substitute motion as he did not feel it should be restricted to commercial. Residential needed support due to the economy. He felt if financing was obtained it would be on residential and not commercial and, therefore, would not give the City the jump start needed. City Attorney Boogaard stated a suspension of the ordinance as it applied to commercial development for one year would have the effect of keeping a higher commercial rate because it would not have the 40/20 conversion ratio. Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct. The old fee was higher per acre because the trip generation factor went down with the new fee. The new fee was a little lower. Mayor Nader questioned if there was a component of the new fee that was allocated to SR 125. Mr. Lippitt responded that the way to make it equitable for those prior, was to institute the trip reduction and the new SR 125 fee at the same time. City Attorney Boogaard stated the new fee for commercial, when combining the Trans DIF and SR 125 DIF, would still be lower than the old fee. Mayor Nader stated his motion did not affect the conversion of ADT's. It only affected the imposition of the SR 125 fee. His motion would make the suspension of the SR 125 fee applicable only to non-residential property. Councilmember Moore stated he was disappointed that the developers had not come back with a program the Counc~ could support and was uncertain whether the proposed action was correct. He felt action should have been taken so one major property owner could not be played against the other. There should be some Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 9 type of check end balance, i.e. during the one year period of inaction regarding the SR 125 DIF that the number of permits pulled by the major property owners east of 1-805 would be equal to each other within 5% of the equivalent dwelling units (commercial/indusu'ial/residential). He also felt it should be brought back in ten months so action could be taken prior to the one year moratorium. Mayor Nader stated he would amend his motion to have the suspension brought hack to Courteft in ten months for review. Agreed to by the Second of the Motion. Councilmember Moore stated he had a problem with the waiver of fees due to the shortfall. He did not see a demand for commercial/industrial properly, if there was going to be development he felt residential would come first. Councilmember Hotton shared the concern regarding the increase in fees in 1995 for residential end commercial development. Part of the proposal was to create an oversight committee end hire a new consultant that would look into funding alternatives to decrease the amount of fees imposed at that time. She concurred with the Maker of the main motion that residential should also be included. The current interest rates would probably go up after another year end fewer people would qualify for loens, she wanted to give everyone in the community an opportunity to buy a home. VOTE ON SIJBb'H'I'LJTE MOTION: failed 2-3 with Hotton, Moore, end Rindone opposed. SUBS"ITI'LITE MOTION: (Nader) refex to staff to devdop a fee s~-ucture based on proximity to the facility being paid for, namely SR 125. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Councilmember Fox questioned if the main motion contained the creation of the committee and the hiring of a consultant. He felt there should be a review of the SR 125 fees in six months to see if adjustments needed to be made. Councilmember Kindone stated the main motion was identical to the staff recommendation with the one exception. It did provide for the committee and the hiring of a consultant. If during the twelve months there was a resolution, he felt Council would welcome it back before the year. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Fox} to defer the fees to 1/1/95 with a review period at the half way point to determine whether Council wanted to continue the deferrat. Councilm~lber Rindone felt there should not be en artificial barrier set. As the Maker of the motion he would not support the amendment. MOTION SECONDED BY NADER. Councilmember Moore questioned if an update in nine months would be acceptable. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Fox/Nader) to have staff submit en update to Council in nine months. VOTE ON AMENDlVlENT: approved unanimously. MS (1Vloore/Horton) during the period of inaction, the permits pulled during 1994 for development east of 1-805 would be of equal amount of equivalent dwelling uniB within 5%. Mayor Nader questioned if the motion meant that if one property owner was more than 5% ahead if the others on the additional increment, the fee would be charged and they would not be told they could not pull the permit. He further questioned if it would apply to all land uses. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 10 Councilmember Moore stated they would have a choice. He did not want any one developer pulling all the permits. The motion did cover all land uses. Mayor Nader stated he supported the concept but was concerned regarding the different impacts on the public and the economy of residential versus commercial/industrial development. He did not want to tell a developer they could not do commercial/industrial because they were 5% ahead of someone doing residential development. If the motion could be limited to residential development he could support it. · Mr. Kilkenney stated none of the property owners preferred to have the pennits tied to each other. The ability to pull permits should be tied to the financing. No property owner would secure speculative permits. Mayor Nader questioned if financing had to be in place before a permit was pulled. It was his understanding of the motion in that it did not say a property could not pull permits in excess of 5%, but that if it was done the property owner would begin to pay the fee so they would not get a flee ride on someone elses coattails. Mr. Kilkenney responded he had not heard that clarification of the motion, that was more in tune with what they had advocated. As a matter of public policy, regardless of the impact on the Baldwin Company, he felt it was a problematic precedent tieing permits of one builder to another builder and placing conditions if one builder. · Mr. Fukuyama stated he shared Mr. Kilkenney's concerns. Tethering one project to another was a terrible precedent to set. He did not feel that speculative permits would happen. Without the necessary financing and other fees associated with pulling a building permit it was just not feasible. Everyone was developing on equal footing, but if one was more successful they should not be punished as they were in a competitive business. Councilmember Moore questioned what could be done so the developer would not be rewarded. If 1,000 permits were issued the debt would be doubled for the future SR 125. Mr. Fukuyama stated the developers understood that whatever burden not shared by that unit would be carried proportionately to the remaining units. Everyone agreed it would be their responsibility to share the burden at the end of the year. If they were able to be successful and pull that many permits next year he would assume that it was a turn in the economy in the housing industry, but he did not know what number of permits meant that the economy returned. The trend would begin to show and the one year waiting period would be good to evaluate that. · Mr. Seymour stated there was the twelve month window of opportunity, the oversight committee would be in place, and everyone had a vested interest. If the CIF saw the limits were being reached and staff agreed they would come back to Council to review the moratorium. If the oversight committee was successful there would be no subsidies to be passed on to future buyers. Mayor Nader questioned what would happen if what was lost during the 9-10 months exceeded the 7% the committee raised. Mr. Seymour responded that they would bring it back immediately to Council. Mayor Nader felt there should be a rough idea of how many units it would be and stated that it would be brought back to Council when that number was reached. Mr. Seymour stated he could not give a particular number as it was too speculative. Councilmember Moore questioned whether a consultant was really needed. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Seymour responded that individuals were needed that could knock on the doors of Congress and the Legislature. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. Councilmember Rindone stated that any major property owner would be foolish to enter into speculative permits. The action taken by Council was quite significant as they were providing a new fee for possible funding ffalternatives were not available for SR 125. The difference between the potential cost of the EDLPs by one year would change the total fee illsignificantly. He called for the question on the main toolion. Mayor Nader stated he objected as it would take a two/third's vote to end discussion. VOTE ON MOTION TO CUT OFF DEBATE: motion passed 3-2 with Fox and Nader opposed. Councilmember Rindone stated he was unaware that the Mayor wanted to offer a substitute motion and requested that he proceed. MS (Nader/Fox) if staff determined that the waived fees, under the fee deferment, accumulated to 7% of the program, at that point it would come back immediately to Counc~ for review. Mr. Lippitt stated both fees were being waived, the total program was $112 million and SR 125 was about $16 million. Mayor Nader stated he was talking about SR 125 only which would be approximately $L1 million. VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 with Horton, Moore, and Rindone opposed. Councilmember Fox stated he would vote in favor of the motion even though he tried to water it down to a six month review period. The nine month period did allow the Council to be a watch dog. He hoped that staff would come back to Council with the reports well before the ninth month so Council could take action ff needed. He also hoped Mr. Seymou~s guarantee would not only come true, but that they would exceed it. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: (Riudone/Horton) approved unanimously. ORDINANCES 2579 AND 2580, AS AMENDED, pLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 17304 OP-p-F_,RED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. MSUC CMoore/Rindone) direct staff to take appropriate action regarding the update in 9 months, formulate recommefldations for the creation of the oversight COmm lttee, and pursue the RFP for the consultant immediately. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to refer to staff to come back with a report on potential fee suspensions on commercia]/induslrial development for job creation, to include pro's and con's, 15. PUBHC HEARING CONSIDERING FORMATION OF A FEE RECOVERY DISTRICT FOR OTAY VAIJ.R'~Y ROAD - ASSESSMENT DIb-rRICT NUMBER 90-2 - On 9/23/93, Counc~ approved accepting the Engineer's Report declaring the City's intent to form a fee recovery dislrict for Otay Valley Road. Assessment District Number 90-2 and set 11/9/93 as the date for the public hearing+ Staff recommends Council continue the public hearing to the meeting of 11/16/93. (Director of Public Works) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. MSUC (Nader//Moore) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of Noveinber 16, 1993. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 12 ORAL CO1VIMUNICATIONS None BOARD AND COMIVIISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 16. REPORT A TWO-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) - In August 1991, Council adopted the City's first Economic Development Man - a blueprint of City-wide goals and objectives related to business development and assistance. The EDC requested staff prepare a two-year update of the status of the goals and objectives, and will be presenting the status report to Council. It is recommended that Council: (1) Review and accept the two-year Economic Development Plan update; and (2) Provide any feedback to the EDC and staff as Council deems appropriate. (Economic Development Commission) William Tuchscher, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, made a presentation on the Two-Year Economic Development Plan Update. The report was the first of quarterly reports to the Council regarding EDC activities. He reviewed past goals and how they had been addressed, future, and short term goals. The short term goals the Commission felt were achievable within one year were: 1) establishment of a high teclVbio tech zone, 23 endorsement and establishment of the Border Environmental Commerce Zone, 3) a City economic development public relations plan, 4) establish specific fmancial incentive programs for Chula Vista businesses, and 5) continue to streamline planning, permitting, and processing. Mayor Nader thanked Mr. Tuchscher and the Commission for the work they had done, there were very few issues that were of greater importance to the City. One area of the report concemed him and that dealt with permitting for small businesses. Item 24C, page A-35, Minor Permits, addressed many of his concerns, but he felt the ability of Building and Housing to sign off on permits, without the need to process through other deparnnents, was a procedural change that was critical to improving the small business climate in the City. He questioned how close they were to full implementation of the cross training program and shared resources. Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, informed Council that staff would submit an info item to Council regarding implementation. Mayor Nader stated another concern, page A-36, Item 2, regarding the Inter-Department Dispute Resolution Procedure. He hoped such disputes were becoming rarer, but there was still the fact that different departments gave conflicting advice to applicants. Council took action last January stating they wanted a resolution process put into place that would make sure the burden of resolving those disputes quicldy and efficiently fell on staff and not the applicant. He hoped the City Manager would do the following to implement the policy: 1) provide direction to all departments that where it appeared to any employee that their deparnnent and another depa~huent had different views on how to handle a project application it would immediately be submitted to higher authority for resolution; and 2) the City Manager would designate who that higher authority was and that every employee dealing with small business applications would know who that was and what their responsibility was. Mr. Morris stated the Assistant City Manager and the Deputy Managers were very involved in inter- department disputes. The departments did recognize when there were conflicts and brought them forward and they were resolved. The Mayor's request was not in conflict of what was being done. MS (Nader/l-lorton) to accept the recommendation of the Economic Development Commission, Le. accept the Two Year Economic Development Progress Report Councilmember Moore felt the goals and objectives were excellent. He noted that the one person assigned to economic development was doing it all and that when her energies were focused on one area she was Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 13 not able to address other areas. One person could not do it all and management should look at that and a policy should come from Council as a whole. The legislative space could be utilized as an Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. Council needed to direct management to come forward with a proposal on how the City could staff a division and what was expected from the economic development staff. Mayor Nader stated Mr. Tuchscher's comments pointed to the need for zero based budgeting regarding staffing, resources, and all expenditures of the City. He hoped that at budget time, if nothing else, Council would take a look at that. Mr. Morris stated Council had made a referral to staff to look at staffing in the Community Development Department, specifically economic development. Staff anticipated the report would be to Council for review within the next thirty days. In addition, a Community Development Specialist I1 had been hired that was dedicated to economic development. Staff out of the Manager's Office and Management Services were working part-time in economic development. It was his understanding that Community Development had also dedicated additional staff for assistance. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ACTION ITEMS 17. RESOLUTION 17305 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO REVIEW RATE SE'rFING PROCK~;S FOR LAIDLAW WASTE SYb-rEMS - During the refuse and recycling rate review hearings for the past two years (Fiscal Year 1991/92 and 1992/93), Council has requested that relevant financial and statistical information be provided regarding Laidlaw Waste System's operations. Staff encountered a significant hurdle to obtaining information which the company deemed proprietary and for which the City was unable to guarantee confidentiality. In order to approach the rate review process with confidence and to obtain relevant financial and statistical information, staff proposes to use an independent firm to assist in selecting relevant financial indicators and establish guidelines as to how these indicators will be used in the rate setting process. Laidlaw has agreed to pay the cost of hiring an outside firm. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) RESOLUTION 17305 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Rindone referred to page 17-8 and stated he did not see a requirement set forth to determine a rate of return. That had been the major problem and he questioned how it would be addressed. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, stated staff anticipated that the rate of return would be one of the financial indicators the consultant would recommend to the City. Staff had in mind their own ratios and indicators, but they wanted ro hire someone that was familiar with the indusffy to give other recommendations. AMENDMENT: {Rindone4qqader) to apply ~nandal indicators to historical data including, but not limited to, rate-of-return. Mr. Christopher stated the amendment could be incorporated into the Request for Proposal. Councilmember Moore did not feel it was appropriate in the Resolution and should be a separate motion. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved unanimously. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17305: approved unanimously. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 14 18. REPORT UPDATEONSOLIDWASTEDISPOSALISSUES-Anoralreportwillbegiven by staff. No report given. ITEMS pLB.I.F.n FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 5a. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINF~S 19. CITY MANAGERS REPORT(S} - None 20. MAYORS REPORT(S) a. Ratification of appointment: Lee Wheeland - Cultural Arts Commission. MSC CNader/Fox) to ratify the appoinlment of Lee Wheeland to the Cultural Arts Commission. Approved 4-1 with Moore opposed. b. Industrial Water Policy. Mayor Nader stated he had addressed the Industrial Water Policy in his State of the City speech. The Interagency Water Task Force had questions and it was staffs feelings, and he concurred, that although some of the questions raised were already answered, there were other issues in terms of what was the most appropriate way to guarantee water for industrial employers to locate, expand, or remain which would require staff time for research. He recommended that staff be directed to do some research and develop a policy in conjunction with the staffs of the water districts and to bring the report back to Council for consideration. William Tuchscher, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, stated the Commission had not formally reviewed the policy, but it was consistent with their ongoing efforts to form a high teclVbio tech zone. He encouraged Council to vote affirmatively upon the motion that was going to be offered. MS (Nader/Fox) direct staff to pursue devdopment of a policy to provide priority water allocation for qualifying industries during times of drought in order to ensure the least possible interruption of water supplies to those industries that would be most impacted or targeted as recruiunent prospects. AMENDIVIF_.NT TO MOTION: (Moore) staff shall include the regional water authority and major property owners within the Cit~fs sphere and planning area in the devdopment of the water policy. Mayor Nader stated he could accept that as consistent with the motion as he wanted staff to work with those antities, but he also wanted them to work with industry representatives, the Economic Development Commi~v, sion, and the CONNECT Program at UCSD. Amendment agreeable to the Second of the motion. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously. c. Mayor Nader stated several special meetings had been scheduled with one of the meeting set to interview applicants for several of the boards/commissions. Councilmember Moore stated there was a vacancy on the Growth Management Oversight Committee and requested it also be agendized. Mayor Nader stated he was agreeable to adding the GMOC to the agenda. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 15 d. Mayor Nader informed Council the San Diego City Council had lifted the Otay Mesa moratorium and if all went as he had been told, there would be about 3,000 housing units within the moratorium area up for approval. Councilmember Vargas' motion to put an end to an Otay Mesa airport failed on a 4-4 vote. There were only a few realistic options, i.e. expand and realign Lindberg Field, which he would be asking the Port to look at; Miramar; or a long term option such as studying FLOATPORT. 21. COb'N{~L COI~V~NTS Councilmember Rindone a. Assembly Bill 1332 - Authorizing cities to adopt an ordinance establishing a five-year pilot program which implements procedures for declaring any motor vehicle a public nuisance when the vehicle is used in the commission of an act of prostitution. MS {Rindone/Fox) to refer to staff to look at the option and bring back a n~port for Council consideration, Mayor Nader questioned whether the referral was to bring back a report or an ordinance. He would prefer to direct staff to bring back the ordinance for Counc~ consideration. Councilmember Rindone stated the point was well made, if the recommendation was positive staff could bring back an ordinance when the report was brought to Council. Mayor Nader stated the motion was to come back with a report and ff the report was favorable staff should include an implementing ordinance. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. b. Councilmember Rindone stated he had artended the Otay Community Fair and commended the community on the activity. Councilmember Fox · Councilmember Fox stated he and the President of the Sweetwater School Board were organizing as many local churches as possible to aggressively attack the at-risk youth in the community. He had also made the proposal that a major street music festival be created in Chula Vista to attract people from all over Southern California and beyond. He would keep the Council updated on the project. Mayor Nader stated he had discussions with some of the major concert promoters in the County and with staff about the possibility of bringing major entertainment events to Chnla Vista, particularly musical events. He had advised the Community Development Department and Cultural Arts staff of those discussions and hoped they would do the appropriate follow-up. The hotel and motel industries had talked about putting together concert packages which would include discounts on local hotels and dinner packages in order to help boost local businesses. He encouraged Councilmember Fox to include the local hotel/motel owners. ADJOURNMENT The City Council recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened and met in a closed session at 12:07 a.m. to discuss: Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters GAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 11/2/93. Minutes November 9, 1993 Page 16 Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. San Diego Palm Plaza Project. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego, Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. ADJOURNMENT AT 12:40 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on November 16, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 10:14 p.m. and adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk