HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/12/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, December 7, 1993 Council Chambers
4:04 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROIL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (arrived at 4:08 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PI.RF~GE OF AH.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: November 16, 1993 (Council), November 16, 1993 Uoint
Council/RDA), November 23, 1993 (Council), and November 23, 1993 (Joint Council/RDA)
Mayor Nader stated the word "would" in the second paragraph, page 4 of the 11/16/93 Council minutes
should be "could". He was trying to give staff an example of notice that could be given and was not
intended as specific direction.
MSC (Moore/Fox) to approve the minutes of November 16, 1993 (Council) as amended, November 16, 1993
(Joint Council/RDA), November 23, 1993 (Council), and November 23, 1993 (Joint Council/RE)A).
Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absenL
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Selection of Mayor Pro Tempore.
MSC CNader/Rindone) to appoint Shirley Horton as Mayor Pro Tempore. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton
absent.
Mayor Nader presented Jerry Rindone with a desk pen set on behalf of the Council for his service as Mayor
Pro Tempore.
b. Oath of Office:
Charter Review Committee - Janet Lawry; Child Care Commission - Angle Gish.
The Oath of Office was administered to Janet Lawry and Angie Gish by City Clerk Authelet, Certificates of
Appointment were presented by Councilmember Rindone.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: none)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CAIZNDAR OIq'F..RED BY COLINCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
S. WRITFEN COMMHNICATIONS: None submitted.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 2
6.A. ORDINANCE 2579 ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM PRE-SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO
PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES (first reading) - On
11/9/93, Council held a public hearing to amend the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets
(Trans-DIF) and establishment of an interim pre-SR-125 Development Impact Fee. Following the hearing,
Council approved both items with the condition that new fees or revised fees not be collected until 1/1/95.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on first reading. (Director of Public Works)
B, ORDINANCE 2580 AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2251, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES (first
reading)
Mayor Nader stated he had concerns regarding the increase of fees on industrial, religious, and non-profit
service institutions. Because the increase did not take effect until January 1995 and Council would be
reviewing the increases in the mean time he did not feel the item needed to be pulled. He stated his
recollection of action previously taken by Council was to direct staff to return with a report regarding the
economic climate and not actual growth. He hoped that staff understood the difference, economic climate
involved permanent job creation and he wanted to see what conditions, if any, had changed that would
,justify implementing the fees versus further suspension or reduction in order to encourage job creation. He
suggested that people familiar with the economic climate of the region, i.e. those involved in manufacturing,
economists, etc. be invited to participate on the panel. He requested that staff look at the minutes and if
that was not the motion, he wanted it brought back in a memo so Council could clarify their direction.
7. RESOLUTION 17321 APPROVING 1993 CHRISTMAS TREE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - Historically, the City has sponsored a community recycling program
for Christmas trees with donations of equipment and labor from Laidlaw Waste Systems and flee acceptance
of the trees in the Count3/s "Clean Green" program operated at the Otay Landfill. Due to elimination of
"charity passes" (allocations of flee services), the County will be only able to accept the trees at the "Clean
Green" rate of $25/ton. The report describes the program and appropriates funds from the Waste
Management Trust Fund to ensure that the program will continue this Holiday Season. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Administration) 4/Sth's vote required.
8. RESOLUTION 17322 DESIGNATING AND ALrFHORIZING REPRESENTATIVE AGENTS FOR THE
CITYS APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DISASTFA{ ASSISTANCE FUNDS - The resolution designates agents
authorized to act on behalf of the City to file an application for public disaster assistance funds for
emergency response to wildland fires in October 1993. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire
Chief)
9. RESOLUTION 17323 APPROVING INTER jURiSDICTiONAL PRETREATMENT AGBRRMENT
WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, AND ALrFHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - In 1987, the City of
San Diego began efforts to have Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreements executed with each of the
agencies whose sewage is handled through the Point Loma Waste Treatment Plan. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Quality Control Board must both be satisfied that San Diego has
the legal authorization to implement pretreatment standards required under Federal regulations. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17324 APPROVING THE AGRF. F. MENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBDMSION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMF/qT FOR OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAME - On 9/19/89, Council approved a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Otay Rio Business Park,
a joint venture, for the construction of public improvements associated with Tract 87-6, Otay Rio Business
Park. The improvements constructed pursuant to the agreement did not meet City standards and require
an implementation agreement for the maintenance and repair of said improvements in order to release the
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 3
bond for material and labor and the bond for survey monument installation. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
11. REPORT APPOINTMF2qT OF MEMBERS TO THE AD HOC ADVISORY COMMI'I'II~E
TO REVIEW THE CITInS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS - On 10/5/93, the Council directed staff to
contact specified organizations and individuals to serve on an ad hoc advisory committee, to work with staff
in a comprehensive review of the City's conditional use permit process. The Committee is to consist of
representatives of the Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission, Resource Conservation
Commission, Chamber of Commerce, and three at-large members. Staff recommends Council accept the
report and appoint the individuals listed in the staff report. (Director of Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC FIEARINGS AND RFJ~TED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
12. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-92-03 AND GPA-93-04: REQUEST TO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE 161 ACRE "EASTlAKE LAND SWAP' PORTION OF THE OTAY
RANCH PROJECT AND 74 ACRES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS
COMMUNITY - APPLICANT IS EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The applicant is proposing to amend
the General Plan as part of the Otay Ranch Project for 161 acres located south and west of EastLake Greens
from Low-Medium Residential Medium Residential, and Public/Quasi-Public to Low-Medium Residential,
Medium-High Residential, High Residential, Professional and Administrative, and Retail Commercial
designations. In addition, the applicant is also proposing as a separate but companion request, an
amendment of 74 acres within the existing EastLake Greens community from Low-Medium Residential and
Public/Quasi-Public designations. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Planning)
Cont/nued from the 11/16/93 meeting.
A. RESOLLFHON 17308 RECERT1FYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRO~AL IMPACT REPORT
(FPER 90-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT; AIVIENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY FOR THE
161 ACRE EASTLAKE LAND SWAP; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMF2,fFAL QUALITY ACT; READOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM; READOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
B. RESOLUTION 17309 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 74 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE
EASTLAKE GREENS COMMUNITY, SOUTH OF EAS~ HIGH SCHOOL AND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
EXTENSION OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY
Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner, gave a brief review of the project. It was staffs intent that an affordable
housing program be developed by the applicant that would clarify the status of EastLake's compliance with
the City's housing policies and that the program be submitted before finalizing any subdivision map or GDP
amendments for EastLake. The Planning Commission recommended that the staff recommendation be
approved with the exception of twenty acres located south of EastLake High School. They recommended
that the area be designated as medium density residential. That would result in 120 units less than the staff
recommendation. Staff and the applicant met with the residents regarding their concerns. EastLake
Development had submitted a compromise proposal which recommended: 1) that an ad hoc affordable
housing task force be established to deal with affordable housing issues on the land swap parcel, 2) the
parcel south of the high school be designated as medium density with a community purpose facility overlay,
and 3) that an overall general development plan be developed which would incorporate the affordable
housing implementation program recommended by staff and that it be prepared within a twelve month time
frame. Staff did not have any objections to the ad hoc task force, but felt consideration should not be just
limited to the EastLake land swap affordable housing, but rather the EastLake Greens and the land swap.
Staff felt they could support the approach of medium density with a CPF overlay, but would not support a
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 4
deletion of EastLake's requirement for affordable housing on the Greens. Staff supported the preparation
of an amended GDP for the entire EastLake project including the land swap which would also include the
housing implementation program, but felt a six month time period would be more appropriate.
Councilmember Fox questioned if there would be medium density residential and a community purpose
facility.
Mr. Bazzel responded the community purpose facility designation normally occurred at a general
development plan and SPA level. It was not a general plan designation. What EastLake was proposing was
that the underlying designation at the general plan level be medium density, but that at the next phase,
consideration be given to applying the community purpose facility designation. That would come through
the hearing process.
Councilmember Horton stated it was her understanding that to go above the baseline of the Housing
Element to get to mid-point that certain amenities had to be offered. She questioned what amenities had
been offered.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated that would be a consideration at the general development plan
level. Staff was currently recommending general plan ranges for the properties.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Katy Wright, 900 Lane Avenuel Chula Vista, CA, representing EastLake Development Company, stated
the staff recommendation allowed them to build affordable housing in an economically feasible way. If the
Council did not insist on the affordable housing requirement being met in EastLake Greens they had
developed a compromise plan. During the eighteen months the plan had been before the City they had met
with staff, community leaders, and the homeowners to develop a consensus plan on the affordable housing
question. From those meetings the compromise proposal had been developed. They were willing to support
either the staff alternative, or the compromise alternative but cautioned against a mix of each as they felt
it would be difficult to accomplish and could be financially infeasible.
Councilmember Moore questioned what density was required for low income dwelling units.
Mr. Leiter stated it was a market driven question. It had been staffs experience that in order to
accommodate low income housing there needed to be at least medium density. It was more typically
medium/high. The Housing Element required 5% low and 5% moderate income housing in every project;
if that were not provided in EastLake Greens the City would either not meet the targets in the Housing
Element or have to locate that housing elsewhere in the City. He felt the proposed location was one of the
best locations for multiple family housing in the EastLake planned community. The property was close to
transit and activity centers.
Ms. Wright stated the site proposed was ideally suited, it would allow the developer to place affordable units
in the area and buffer against the adjacent uses, roadways, etc. Low income units were not economically
feasible on a 'for sale" basis, they needed to be rental units.
Councilmember Fox stated he liked the compromise, but questioned what Ms. Wright envisioned as the
composition of the ad hoc committee.
Ms. Wright responded that as proposed it would specifically address the 74 affordable units that would arise
out of the land swap area. She envisioned the committee being comprised of members of the City staff,
Council, EastLake staff, and homeowners.
Mr. Bazzel stated EastLake was proposing the task force on just the land swap parcel. Staff recommended
that if a task force was formed it be for the entire EastLake Greens and land swap.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 5
Mr. heiter stated EastLake was requesting that the affordable housing requirement be removed entirely for
the rest of EastLake Greens except for the land swap. Staffs response was that it was worth evaluating, but
rather than having Council make a decision presently that the matter be referred to the task force for
consideration.
Mayor Nader questioned what should be done if Council imposed the affordable housing requirement, but
did not fee1 the twenty acres was the best place for high or medium/high density residential development.
Ms. Wright stated if the intensity of the land uses was not altered and left open the question of exactly
where it should go, she felt they could work with staff and Council to determine the best location. The
worse alternative would be to tie their hands by taking away the options, financial feasibility, and still
impose the requirements.
Councilmember Rindone wanted to be sure that if the proposal was approved the units would not be placed
somewhere else in the City.
Ms. Wright stated the intent was that it would be within EastLake and not other parts of the city. Mr.
Bazzel had indicated that there would be a moratorium on future maps in EastLake Greens until the issue
was resolved and she requested clarification that no maps would be held up and they could begin
immediately.
Mayor Nader stated the intent was not that there be a moratorium on processing or approving tentative
maps, but that as tentative maps were processed and approved a plan for achieving affordable housing
requirements would have to be incorporated into those maps.
Ms. Wright stated they would be concerned with the task force addressing the affordable housing
requirement with the Greens, but with the staff alternative the task force could encompass that area as well
if Council desired. The delays on maps would not be affected as long as they were progressing on that goal.
Mr. Leiter stated that conditions could be placed on the final map to ensure that they met the affordable
housing program finally adopted.
· Sharon B. Lillidge, 2344-F Green Briar Drive, Chula Vista, CA, resident of Fairway Villas, stated she
did not have an issue with affordable housing, but had concerns with the location next to the high school
in comparison to Fairways Village condos and townhouses which were almost across the street from the high
school. She was in support of the proposal for community use of the property and of the land swap.
· Marco Reyes, 2461 Eastridge Loop, Chula Vista, CA, resident of EastLake Greens, stated they chose
to live there due to the quality of life. The land swap was not known by many of the residents in Vintage
and he presented a petition with twenty-four signatures of residents in opposition. They opposed rental
units, increase in traffic, and loss of quality of life. He was unaware of the compromise and they wanted
more input in the decision making process. He requested that their investments be protected with low to
medium density zoning.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Moore did not feel there was a problem with the zoning, the question was whether to go
with medium/high or high. The site was between two major arteries, near schools, and recreation. EastLake
was providing a goodly number of low income units which he felt was special and questioned whether
Council should consider high density as EastLake had gone above and beyond the requirement.
Ms. Wright stated the original proposal was for high density and as a compromise they accepted the staff
alternative. They could do it on medium/high, but their preference would be high density.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 6
Mayor Nader stated he had more concern about the location. He was not sure that low density should be
placed in an area less desirable due to traffic conditions, power lines, etc. He preferred the compromise to
use the area for a community purpose facility and defer the exact location to a task force for
recommendations to Council.
RESOLUTIONS 17308 AND 17309 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Rindone stated he supported Mayor Nader's position for two reasons: 1) the initial planning
was done well, but when there was an opportunity to have an additional community facility provided in an
area with schools and parks it was an opportunity Council should explore; and 2) the community was
providing an interest in participating in the planning process and he felt that would lead to a better decision.
Therefore, he would vote against the motion.
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTIONS: (Fox/Horton) to accept the EastLake compromise proposal creating an
overlay zone of community purpose facility on the twenty acres and create a task force to come back to
Council in October 1994.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Nader, agreeable to the Maker and Second of the Motion) the task force would
include EastLake residents, EastLake Development Company representative, community members familiar
with the City's Affordable Housing SWategy and/or Housing Element, and the composition would be
approved by Council.
Councilmember Hotton requested that a member of the Planning Commission be included, agreed to by the
Maker of the Amendment.
Councilmember Moore requested that a member of City staff be included, agreed to by the Maker of the
Amendment. He questioned if Council would accept 'no later than October 9, 1994 with a goal of July, 14,
1994'. Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the amendment.
Mr. Leiter questioned whether Council action meant waiver of the Mfordable Housing requirement for
EastLake Greens project.
Councilmember Moore stated there was no way he would waiver low income housing in EastLake Greens
or the land swap property.
Mayor Nader stated Council could deal with it at any tentative map that was processed until the task force
report came back to Council. The task force could also report back on the feasibility and methods of
accomplishing that affordable housing requirement.
Councilmember Fox stated the intent of the motion was not to waive the requirement for EastLake Greens.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved unanimously.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader/IVloore) to direct staff to incorporate the amendments into the resolutions
and bring them back for approval at the 12/14/93 meeting.
* * * Council recessed at 5:16 p.m. and reconvened at 5:30 p.m. * * *
13. PUBLIC HEARING PCC-94-09: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09 - On 10/27/93, the Planning Commission voted 5-2
to approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-09 and allow the operation of a private day school (Covenant
Christian School), at 2400 Fenton Street for a period of five years. On 11/11/93, Bonita Country Day School
appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The appeal was based on claims that child welfare, security,
and safety issues had not been adequately addressed; that the Planning Commission made a facility use
decision based on accepted planning practice that did not address the unique circumstances of the project;
and that the basis for the approval of a five-year conditional use permit was the business agreement between
the building owner and the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 7
RESOLUTION 17325 DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ISSUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-09 TO USE 2400 FENTON STREET IN THE
EAS1Lad~ BUSINESS CENTER AS A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YF_dMRS
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA, representing Gordon Dunfee, stated they
were in agreement with the staff recommendation with one exception, i.e. the issuance of the CUP for only
two years. Curt Stephenson with the EastLake Business Center Owners Association, stated they had
approved a two year use agreement of Scobee Park and as far as he was concerned there was no problem
in getting an extension beyond the two years. Another concern was the loss of commercial space in the
Center. A school in that location had been acceptable before and they felt the addition of Covenant
Christian would not detract from the operation of either Bonita Country Day or the industrial space in the
Center. He requested consideration of a five year period. There was a desire and intent by Christian
Covenant to look at it as a long term move by possibly acquiring the building, purchase the space next door
for on-site recreation usage, and then applying though the City to get community facility zone on that
property which could be in-lieu of additional community facility zoning in the next phase of the EastLake
Business Center.
· Dan Malcolm, 660 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA, representing Covenant Christian, stated the
reason they needed a five year term was that Covenant Christian needed lower rent in the first several years
of the term and would make it up with more rent in the final years of the term. The other reason was
because Covenant Christian could not amortize the cost of a move of such magnitude over a period of two
years, it was not feasible. The building had originally been built as a specialty building for a school for
Laser Inc. Since that time Laser Inc. never occupied the building and as a result the building sat vacant for
3 1/2 years on the ground floor with Bolita Country Day on the upper floor. EastLake had no objection with
the five year term. They felt a precedent had been set to justify the five year term with the recent National
University lease, with no term, on Bay Boulevard. EduTek was currently negotiating on Bay Side Business
Park which was an industrial zone.
· Mark Dolan, 1398 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, representing Covenant Christian School,
stated Covenant Christian had been serving the Chula Vista and greater Southbay area since 1976 with
alternative education. They were also concerned with child welfare, security, and safety. They had met with
the Catanzaro's several times and felt they had resolved the issues, some still needed to be handled, but they
had agreed in good faith to work those out in the future. He requested Council uphold the Planning
Commission decision for a five year CUP and deny the appeal of Bolita Country Day School. They needed
the five year CUP due to the disruption of the move to a new facility and to recover costs for necessary
repairs to the building. The EastLake Development Company had no opposition to their use of the building
for a five year term. The Planning Commission did not believe there was a real conflict between the school
and industrial use at that site and felt the five year permit would be an advantage. He requested Council
deny the appeal and let them move forward.
· Paul Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Day School, stated
the situation was not as simple as had been presented. If it was not a landlord tenant issue, he questioned
what was. A landlord/tenant issue was what the Planning Commission had stated they would not use as
a resolution to the problem, yet they decided to go against the staff recommendation. Because of that he
felt the decision of the Planning Commission was flawed. They had been in the building for 2 1/2 years and
had safety and welfare concerns for their children and for the other school also. They had only been
contacted when Covenant Christian felt they had to do it to get to the next step in the planning process.
There had never been a serious conversation where they had been included or asked if it could work. They
had informed Mr. Dunfee, through lease negotiations, that they were going to build a lower school. He had
been trying to get the downstairs added to his lease for the past year. They were being pushed out and
disregarded and the emotional well being of the children was being disregarded. Their CUP had been for
one year with a review and a two year extension. Now the Planning Department offered another school two
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 8
years with a review which was better than they had received and he did not feel things were being applied
evenly. He felt there was a great potential to do damage to a lot of kids. He asked that if Council did not
approve the appeal and send it back to Planning, that they grant continuance to allow representatives of
both schools to sit down and do the hard work to get the assurances that the children would be protected
so there would not be any victims.
Councilmember Horron questioned who their lease agreement was with. She further questioned if they
would give Bonita Country Day School a longer lease than what was being given to Covenant Christian
School.
Mr. Catanzaro responded that it was with Dunfee and Associates. Covenant Christian School had a need
to expand and had the financial where-with-all and they were being pushed out of the building. They had
a three year lease term which did not have options at the end. When they entered into the lease they were
in a pretty good growth period and felt they would be able to either lease the whole building or be in a
position to buy a piece of property and build their own campus. He stated their moving costs would be
approximately $60,000.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if Mr. Catanzaro had been informed by the landlord that the lease
would not be renewed and when that had happened.
Mr. Catanzaro responded that he had been informed by the landlord the day of the Planning Commission
hearing, one month ago. He had actively been looking for alternatives since Mr. Dunfee made it clear the
lease would not be renewed. It would take until the end of the school year to get something and to make
it work.
· Suzanne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Day School, spoke )
on behalf of Dr. Linda Alms who was unable to be at the meeting, she felt there was a potential for both
psychological and emotional problems due to displacement, and loss of identity. Speaking on her own behalf
she stated the proposal had been based on many statements that were far less true and contained many
omissions. Bonita Country Day lower school had to be located on the lower floor and they had occupied
classrooms there since 1991. The two schools would share the same bathrooms, hallways, and common
areas. Their CUP had been for seventy students for an interim temporary school. Bonita Country Day had
been given a threat that unless they withdrew their list of objections before the Planning Commission
hearing the space on the lower level would no longer be available to Bonita Country Day School. Their
objections dealt with the safety and welfare of children and, therefore, they could not withdraw their
objections. Yesterday, Covenant Christian had shown them a floor plan that did not include first floor
classroom space for their school. Before the current meeting they had been handed a letter stating Bonita
Country Day would be allocated to a small space in the comer of the building. She felt Covenant Christian
was moving because they wanted a permanent location and that it should be taken into consideration. No
consideration had been given to noise intrusion or disruption of their current program.
Councilmember Horton questioned if the safety concerns expressed would not also apply to Bonita Country
Day School.
Ms. Catanzaro responded they had a safety problem with crossing at an uncontrolled intersection with a
blind grade. They crossed with a teacher and seven or eight students at that comer and it was still a
dangerous situation. With the additional students and traffic she felt there was a hazard.
Councilmember Moore stated one of the conditions presented was that there would be uniform crossing
guards. He questioned if Bonita Country Day had uniformed crossing guards every time students crossed
the street.
Ms. Catanzaro responded that when the students crossed as a group, most of the time a teacher held the )
hands of several students and then crossed the street. She stated they did have uniform crossing guards.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 9
Mayor Nader questioned if there was anything in writing from the owner of the property which indicated
their lease would be affected by potential action by Council
Ms. Catanzaro responded there was nothing in writing.
· Lili Lopez, 184 Marigold Court, Chula Vista, CA, student at Bonita Country Day School, spoke against
the approval of the CUP.
· William Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, Member of the Planning Commission,
stated he was available to answer any questions.
Councilmember Hotton stated the City was diligently trying to attract high tech/bio tech industries into the
area and questioned if Mr. Tuchscher felt it was a wise decision to allow a five year CUP.
Mr. Tuchscher stated as the application was presented to the Planning Commission it was not a choice of
years, but five years or none. They deliberated regarding having a school on-site with current uses in the
area and felt it was an appropriate use and seemed to be working welI. He was very aware of the bio tech
zone and it was the feeling of the Commission that a school was looked at as a favorable element of the
community and complimentary with those uses. Mr. Stephenson had represented to the Planning
Commission that the park was controlled by the users of the Business Park and that he would go back to
them and get approval for five years. He agreed it was an important element. It had also been presented
to the Commission that the existing lease would expire in a six month period and it would not be renewed.
Councilmember Horton questioned if it was being inconsistent in granting one school a CUP for a shorter
period of time and now the Commission was recommending a five year CUP.
Mr. Tuchscher responded that he was not on the Commission when the previous CUP had been granted.
In light of the economy the Commission felt it was the best thing to do.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, informed Council the CUP for Bonita Country Day School had been
granted administratively and did not go before the Planning Commission or Council.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the Planning Commission discussed any covenant for the use of
Scobee Park or physical education.
Mr. Tuchscher responded that it was not a condition of approval, but was represented strongly that it would
be eminent by the EastLake Development Company that it would be achieved. It was a land use issue only
and all issues regarding tenants in the building and lease hold versus ownership was irrelevant to the
discussion before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Leiter stated staff felt anything over two years would be moving toward a more permanent type of land
use and potential conflict with future industrial land uses in the vicinity. Staff felt that two years or less
would clearly be a temporary use and that the applicant would clearly understand that in the future the CUP
could not be extended if other industrial users came in that would be in conflict with the school. Staff had
recommended to the Planning Commission a two year CUP. While they did not bring that forward to
Council, staff continued to recommend a two year time limit.
· Susan Stroud, 1900 Granger Avenue, National City, CA, student at Bonita Country Day School,
questioned why it was being done in the middle of the school year.
· Cindy Resler, 1610 Palm Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, student at Southwestern College, felt the message
being sen[ ro the students was that ir was very important to bring bio tech industry to the City because it
would be financially beneficial. Unfortunately, she felt it was not right to put the bio tech industry before
educating the youth of the community. By educating the youth it would build a stronger community.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 10
Mayor Nader stated he agreed that the bio tech industry and education did not have to be in conflict with
each other, the City had to have both. The primary reason to develop the bio tech industry in the Southbay
was to provide job opportunities for young people. Education was important as was 3ob opportunities.
Mr. Cox stated Bonita Country Day had a lease that ran through June, 1994 and there was no effort to
displace them. The issue was brought to staff in August and the intent of Christian Covenant was to be in
operation the entire year, but their intent now was to be in session starting January. They would have
approximately one hundred students from K-6 on the lower floor only until the end of the school year. He
felt a plan could be worked out to accommodate both schools. They had met with the Catenzaros and
agreed upon the hours of operation, the drop-off point for students to avoid conflicts, shared use of the park
and parking spaces. There were other issues that needed to be dealt with, including the allocation of space.
In reference to the December 7th date, there was a letter given to the Catenzaros before the meeting
regarding their desire to have space downstairs, they currently did not have a lease downstairs. The offer
was made several weeks ago and Bonita Country Day needed to respond as Covenant Christian had
requested a response within five days.
· Gordon Dunfee, 6480 Weathers Place, San Diego, CA, stated that action by Council would not
displace anyone in their building. They were looking for a CUP for five years to assist Covenant Christian
School to enter the ground floor. They had made proposals to Bonita Country Day School on three
occasions, that they were prepared to stand behind, that would allow them to continue to use ground floor
space, which they had been using since 1991 without a lease or paying rent.
· Dan Wilkens, 3848 Avenida San Miguel, Bonita, CA, whose son artended Bonita Country Day, stated
the parents of students at the school had voiced their concerns to the Catenzaros. He did not want the
quality of education to be lost in all the rhetoric.
Mr. Catenzaro informed Council he had been given the offer by Mr. Cox only before the meeting and not
two weeks ago.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was dosed.
Councilmember Moore stated there were other industrial buildings being utilized for other uses and many
industrial buildings were sitting vacant. He felt what Council was doing was right in providing temporary
uses in those vacant buildings. He referred to page 13-9 and questioned if M.... review and reconsideration
of these circumstances within a two year time frame" and questioned if the two year reference was in error
and if the word "circumstances" should be "conditions".
Steve Griffin, Senior Planner, stated the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission only changed the
term of the permit, the conditions stayed the same. It was an oversight that the two year term was left in,
it should have been changed to five years.
Mr. Leiter stated there was a separate condition in the conditional use permit that required that recreational
facilities be maintained. If EastLake Business Owners Association wanted to terminate the ability to use
Scobee Park, the school would have to provide other facilities. If they did not do that, it would be a basis
for the City to bring up the conditional use permit for review.
MS CFox/Horton) to approve staff recommendation with a two year rather than five year term.
Councilmember Horton stated she would second the motion based on the information received at the
meeting. There was no guarantee the two year agreement for Scobee Park would be extended.
Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that if the lease on Scobee Park was not extended past two
years, the applicant would be out of compliance with the CUP and, therefore, the CUP would be revoked.
He did not understand why the length of the CUP would have to be shortened.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 11
City Attorney Boogaard stated that was correct.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: (Fox)
RESOLUTION 17325 OH'F. RF.D BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Rindone felt there were two other factors that needed to be examined: 1) #3 on page 13-10
to see if the commitment regarding physical education was available; and 2) co-existence and interfacing
of two educational institutions. He understood it was only the land use issue before Council, but there were
issues beyond that.
SUBSTITLrYE MOTION: (Rindone) to continue the public hearing for one week in order to resolve the
following two issues: 1) develop an operational plan between the two educational institutions; and 2) staff
and the potential tenant were to determine if they were able to obtain a five year lease from the owner of
the business park.
SUBSTITLrFE MOTION SECONDED: CHorton)
Councilmember Hotton questioned if after July 1994 Bonita Country Day School would be allowed to get
an extension of their lease.
Mr. Dunfee responded that they would not be allowed an extension on their lease.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: approved 3-2 with Moore and Nader opposed.
Councilmember Moore felt Council was forming a routine of continuing items after listening to two or three
hours of testimony. He questioned if the maker of the motion would have another motion that would
restrict duplication of testimony that had already been given.
Councilmember Rindone stated he had made it clear that he was in favor of the five year CUP but did not
feel there had been an answer as to whether the physical fitness component had been granted. He also
wanted to see the two schools work together to protect the students.
Councilmember Horton stated she had voted for the continuance because from a land use perspective she
was not sure that granting a five year CUP was in the best interest of the City. She had a problem in
displacing the students that were already there.
Mayor Nader stated he voted against the continuance because the lease was a private matter that Council
had no control over.
Mr. Cox stated it was his understanding that the two parties were to get together to resolve the outstanding
issues. He requested that City staff call the meetings and moderate.
14. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-94-06: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OLYMPIC
TRAINING CE4N'IER (OTC) SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING
PlAN (PFFP) - On 8/10/93, the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation filed an application
requesting consideration of amendments to the SPA Plan and PFFP texts as well as their original conditions
of approval. The recommended SPA and PFFP Amendments would allow the construction of Phase I priority
buildings and sports venues prior to completion of permanent off-site road and utility service infrastructure
to serve the project site. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning and Director
of Public Works)
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 12
RESOLUTION 17326 RECERT1FYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL MR FOR THE OLYMPIC TRAINING
CENTER SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, (SEIR 89-11), CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM THERETO,
AMENDING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND RE-ADOPTING THE CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING
REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ON SEIR-89-11
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Lonnie McKinley, 416 University Avenue, San Diego, CA, representing the San Diego National Sports
Training Foundation and USOC, requested that Council consider absorbing the total cost of repaving Wueste
Road as it was an unexpected and unbudgeted item for the Foundation. She then introduced Gloria
Chadwick, Director of the Olympic Training Center in Lake Placid and the future Director of the new facility.
· Ms. Chadwick stated they looked forward to serving the athletes, the community, and the public.
It was to be a training center not only for Olympic athletes but also for the community and San Diego
County.
Councilmember Fox questioned what affect their request would have on the CIP budged if Council voted to
absorb the last $42,500.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded that staff had recommended
eliminating "L" & "J" Streets to do Wueste Road. By paying the additional $42,500 it would mean they
would do that much less work on other streets.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Fox/Horton) to amend staff recommendation to include the full cost of resurfacing Wueste Road, City
is to absorb the full cost (no. 14 of the resolution, page 14-11 would be amended).
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone, agreed to by the Maker and Second of the motion) to include
sufficient expenditures for a sign at the enlrance of Otay Lakes Road onto Wueste Road.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved 4-O-0-1 with Moore abstaining.
RESOLUTION 17326, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER. reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
15. PUBLIC HEARING RECONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST BY AMERICAN STORES, INC. FOR
5.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND 'J' STREET - The item is
a reconsideration of the previously approved amendment to the General Plan and rezoning of 5.8 acres
located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street. The General Plan Amendment redesignates
the subject site from Professional and Administrative Office to Retail Commercial and rezones from C-O
(Commercial Office) and R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-C-P (Central Commercial Precise Plan). Staff
recommends Council open the public hearing and take testimony. (Director of Planning)
Mayor Nader stated Council had received a fax from an attorney representing the homeowners and that it
had been passed out to Council before the meeting.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated the staff report summarized the meeting that was held last week
with the Garrert Avenue residents. Staff had included further information in a memo to Council regarding
alternative site plans that were evaluated.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 13
Councilmember Fox stated there was a requirement for twenty feet of landscaping along the proposed wall
and questioned if there would be a problem if the landscaping was reversed and put on the homeowners
side.
Ken Lee, Deputy Director of Planning, responded that it had been offered to the residents at the forum last
week along with an easement. A couple of the neighbors questioned if that meant they would have
additional lawn to mow and take care of and did not seem to be in favor of having additional landscaping
on their property. There was no vote or consensus. If the wall was moved and Lucky owned the property,
technically they could still be responsible for the maintenance.
Mayor Nader questioned if Mr. Leiter had an opportunity to review the report to Keyin Johnson from Darnell
& Associates.
Mr. Leiter stated the City Traffic Engineer and Dan Manam from JHK & Assoc. had been reviewing it.
Mr. Mature stated the most appropriate response would be to take a step back and look at the information
being provided in the Darnell critique of the traffic study and then come back to Council. He felt that would
take two to three days. He could not address the issues in the Damell & Assoc. critique, but reviewed the
technical memorandum dated 12/6/93 from JHK & Assoc. addressing the issues raised at the community
meeting and other correspondence received.
Mayor Nader stated the chart showed a Service Level D during the p.m. peak hours at the intersection.
Mr. Marum responded that they had not conducted an analysis of off-peak conditions nor the a.m. peak due
to the type of project that was being proposed. The p.m. peak was the highest period of traffic.
Mayor Nader stated the problem was that the City's Threshold Standards stated it could only go to the Level
of Service D a total of three hours peak so if it was that poor during off-peak hours it was not in compliance
with the Threshold Standards. He questioned if they had identified what aspect of growth in the General
Plan build out would cause the additional 20% traffic increase in Scenario 5.
Mr. Marurn stated it had not been identified.
Mayor Nader questioned if it was staffs recommendation that future eastern territories growth would be
monitored in terms of its impact on the intersection and that it would be recommended to be scaled back
at the general plan levels if the Thresholds were not going to be met.
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer, responded that was correct.
Councilmember Rindone referred to the medical office trips and questioned where they came from. He
further questioned why it was assumed that 100% of the traffic would come via "3" Street.
Mr. Rosenberg stated it was the facility located between "L" Street and "K" Street.
Mr. Marum stated a separate traffic study was not done for that project and so for a worse case scenario they
ran 100% of that traffic north of the medical center. That particular site was not included in the original
calculations in the traffic study because they had assumed a 2% growth rate in traffic over the existing
conditions between 1992 and 1995 which was the projected opening of the Lucky Store. At the time they
started the traffic study there were no cumulative projects identified to add in specific trip generation levels,
therefore, they covered the worse case.
Hans Drew, representing Drew & Assoc., stated they had conducted additional analysis in response to the
concerns raised at the community workshop. It was their contention that the previous site plan met City
standards with respect with daytime and nighttime noise with certain required mitigation. They felt the
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 14
revised site plan with the loading activities relocated to the side of the store would be better than what they
had predicted before and, as a result, there would be an extra margin of safety with respect to noise impaets.
In order to address the concerns with respect to the use of a three decibel significance criterion in certain
instances versus using the City standard in other, they used decibels as the threshold level in which people
began to experience that the noise environment had become degraded. Therefore, they gathered additional
data from several grocery stores that had operation patterns similar to the proposed store in order to better
refine the level of the margin of safety that was likely to occur for the proposed facility. That data had just
been prepared and presented to Council. Their finding was that a grocery store that did not have rear
loading facilities and had a one-way traffic flow in the rear of the store, had a noise exposure of eight
decibels less than they had previously found. That did not take into account the proposed noise wall for
clear line of sight or a number of other measures that had been discussed for additional mitigation. There
had been a discussion of adding a wing-wall to the side of the store in the loading area in order to physically
screen the line of sight propagation from any home regarding loading or unloading activities. They had also
discussed the raising of the noise wall to eight feet which would be more effective in screening noise. Lucky
had agreed to the placement of a gate from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to prohibit traffic behind the store
during those hours and had also discussed one-way traffic and speed bumps through that area. The moving
of the sound wall had also been discussed in order to help mitigate the noise. They found that with the
mitigations already imposed and not those discussed in addition, they found a wide margin of safety in terms
of meeting the standard. Homeowners were concerned about single event noise peaks. There contention
was that the noise impact was well within City standards, but there would be single events that would be
intrusive to those residents.
Councilmember Rindone felt the sound shadow was a critical issue. The other suggestion that had not been
discussed yet was the removal of staff parking behind the facility.
Mr. Drew stated there was forty feet which allowed room for parking and traffic flow, particularly if the flow
was restricted to one way only. It did not make much difference whether the trucks went closer to the wall
or the facility. He felt it would be beneficial to have the driveway narrower and not have parking.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the proposed location was something other than Alternate B, and the
parking lot was in the rear, if Alternates A or C had greater impacts than B.
Mr. Drew stated that was their position. A parking lot with only the sound wall and not the structure of
the building itself would have a greater potential for noise impacts. He stated that so many of the
mitigations each individually provided a small noise benefit, but it was the cumulative sum of a number of
measures that ultimately further enhanced the margin of safety between a significant impact and what
actually would happen.
Councilmember Hotton questioned if the twenty foot easement had been discussed with the residents on
Garrett.
Mr. Drew stated it was briefly discussed and one of the concerns was who would be mowing the lawn. If
the wall was going to be raised to eight feet they felt the additional distance of moving the wall further away
from the homes would decrease the mass of the wall until the landscaping took hold.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking in support of the project due to the need for a larger upgraded grocery store in the area,
benefits to the City, job creation, and the need for the First United Methodist Church to relocate were:
· Mickie Pruitt, 745 Glover, Chula Vista, CA
· Robert Pruitt, 745 Glover, Chula Vista, CA
· Al Ashe, 543 Rivera Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chairman of Council of Ministries for the First United
Methodist Church and member of the Building Committee, stated they were going to move their church
location and the approval of the General Plan amendment was holding the Church back
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 15
· Judy Helton, 460 Quail Court, Chula Vista, CA, representing the First United Methodist Church
· Robert F. Kelley, 875 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, Trustee, First United Methodist Church
· Russ Hall, 235 "K" Street, Chula Vista, CA, Vice-Chair of Board of Trustees, First United Methodist
Church
· Pat Michaels, 303 Via Bissolotti, Chula Vista, CA, was concerned regarding the isolationism attitude
by the residents in the area
· James Hirsch, 8910 University Center Land, San Diego, CA, deferred his time
· Eric Swanson, 3070 Anemia Way, San Diego, CA, Member of First United Methodist Church
Councilmember Fox questioned if the noise level at the existing store could be compared to the proposed
store and if an analysis was done.
Mr. Drew stated they had not evaluated the existing store, but did evaluate two other stores that were
similar to the existing Lucky. Their finding was that the average noise level was 8 decibels higher and the
peaks were 20 decibels higher. The problem with the older store was that the mechanical equipment, i.e.
meat cooler, etc. was often behind the store and ran twenty-four hours per day. He felt that the noise
reduction from the existing store would be substantially more than the noise increase from the new facility.
· Pat Senn, 6595 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, CA, Real Estate Manager, American Stores, felt many of
the concerns expressed by the residents would be better address during the design review process. He then
diagramed the proposed wing-wall to shelter and mitigate noise and the view of the trucks servicing the
store.
Councilmember Rindone stated there was a possibility of a wing-wall on the southern side to mitigate noise
and visual blight.
Mr. Senn responded that it would be possible. He did not feel the store they were currently operating in
was representative of what they were currently doing and that they were losing customers. They wanted
to bring in a state-of-the-art facility to the residents and the City. He hoped Council would vote on the
project and reaffirm the approval received last November.
Mayor Nader stated he had heard from citizens in the City that they shopped elsewhere because the variety
of merchandise was somewhat limited, i.e. health and gourmet foods. He questioned if the new store would
allow them to broaden their merchandise to meet a wider variety of needs within the City.
Mr. Senn stated they could not possibly have the type, quantity, and choice of products in a 30,000 sq. ft.
store as in a 60,000 sq. ft. store. That would naturally come about, the selection would be second to none.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether American Foods had a position on reversing the landscaping on the
residents side of the sound wall.
Mr. Senn stated they had been working with the residents and would do anything that made any sense. If
it made more sense to the residents, and one of the issues they brought up was the possible loss of properly
values, by allowing them an extra twenty feet of landscaped area, they could grant them an easement for
as long as they continued to operate a store there. They would even go so far as to landscape for them,
however, there could be a problem with seven or eight residents wanting it their own way, they would just
let them take care of it.
Councilmember Fox questioned if they had talked about increasing the hours where trucks would not be
allowed to drive behind the facility or make deliveries.
Mr. Senn stated they had changed it considerably already. They serviced 200 stores out of Buena Park and
there could be scheduling problems. He felt 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. was more than adequate. It could
become a very difficult thing to manage.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 16
· Patty Davis, 653 Redlands Place, Bonita, CA, spoke in support of the project. As Chair of the
Streamline the Permit Process, cautioned Council about the City getting the reputation that if a project was
approved, several weeks after it may not be there. She understood Council was reacting to the concerns of
the citizens in the area, but she did have a concern. The City should be treasuring Lucky Stores as an
existing business that wanted to stay in the central city and expand. She encouraged Council's support of
the General Plan amendment and rezoning.
· Frank Tarantino, 1006 Paseo Del Paso, Chula Vista, CA, requested Council reaffirm their decision
on the General Plan amendment and rezone. As a member of the Planning Commission he had reviewed
the studies and listened to the concerns of the residents. He did not believe there was any evidence to
modify the analysis or reverse their action of 11/2/93. Site design alternatives and configurations were
discussed and resident concerns regarding noise, traffic, odor, and lighting were voiced and mitigated plans
were presented. It was clear that Lucky had demonstrated over the past eighteen months they were willing
to work and listen to the residents and do what they could to resolve the issues raised. The property
represented an opportunity to build a new state-of-the-art facility in western Chula Vista. Lucky was one
of only two supermarkets in the general area and one that residents could walk to and he did not feel that
Council could allow such an opportunity to pass.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the wing-wall had been discussed.
Mr. Tarantino responded that he did not remember if the possibility of a wing-wall was discussed. He felt
the configuration presented to Council was discussed, but did not think the term "wing-wall" had been used.
The Commission preferred a one-way driveway if the project was approve&
· John Edwards, Johnson, O'Connel, McCarthy, 550 West "C" Street, San Diego, CA, legal counsel for
the Garrett Street homeowners, stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration that Council based their approval
on was based on a traffic and noise study that left a lot to be desired. They had retained a consultant
regarding traffic problems that would be generated by the project and he had provided a copy of the Darnell
& Assoc. report to Council. He then highlighted areas of the report. He did not feel the diversion of traffic
to Garrett Avenue that would directly affect the residents there had been discussed in any report and needed
to be analyzed. Under CEQA guidelines G, Subsection P, it was required that it be compared to the current
ambient noise levels and stated that any time there was an increase of ambient noise levels of adjoining
areas caused by a project, a presumption was created that an EIR should be performed. The Darnell Study
and the internal noise study all raised questions and arguments that a significant increase could occur as
a result of the project. An EIR would provide an opportunity for all of the mitigation measures to be studied
and analyzed impartially.
Mayor Nader questioned if Mr. Edwards was asking for an EIR to be conducted on the project.
Mr. Edwards stated that was correct and in the mean time, it would be necessary to either suspend or revoke
the project.
Mayor Nader questioned how long it would take to do an EIR on noise.
Mr. Leiter responded that an EIR, which would look at noise, traffic, and the other State mandated elements
would take approximately four to six months.
Douglas Reid, Environment Review Coordinator, stated the document would not have to go through the
State Clearing House so it would only be thirty days for public review. In order to prepare the document
with the other mandated elements it would probably take in excess of one month, a thirty day review period,
and a minimum of thirty days for preparation of the final EIR and then take it to the Planning Commission
and Council.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 17
Mr. Edwards stated that in addition to noise, the Damell & Assoc. report stated traff c required further study
and should be studied in the context of the EIR.
Mayor Nader stated it was probably safe to say the project would not be built within three months and if
Council agreed to an EIR he did not feel a suspension would be necessary.
Mr. Edwards felt it was appropriate to suspend or revoke prior action because that decision was based on
a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because there was substantial evidence that there could be significant
impacts, that Mitigated Negative Declaration itself was improper and an improper basis for the prior
decision.
Mr. Reid felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was quite appropriate and the mitigation measures outlined
did drop the impacts to a level below significance.
Mayor Nader stated he had heard from staff that an impact that did not exceed the Citys legal noise
standard was considered insignificant and questioned if that was what the Mitigated Negative Declaration
had been based on. Or, was staff saying there would be no significant increase in ambient noise.
Mr. Reid responded that the guidelines stated that a substantial increase in noise level would trigger the
requirement for the EIR. A substantial increase in noise level would be one that violated the City's noise
ordinance. The noise ordinance was based on outside noise levels.
Mayor Nader questioned what the current ambient level was and if there would be an increase of more than
3 - 5 decibels.
Mr. Drew responded the predicted exterior noise exposure at the rear yard was S3 decibels CNEL without
a noise wall. With the noise wall they anticipated that the impact from the project alone would be 45
decibels CNEL. With the ambient level of 45 CNEL the combined effect of the two of them would go to 48.
In terms of the average noise level they did not anticipate any threshold of significance no matter how it was
defined, i.e. perceptibility or the City standard, to be violated. Single event noise would be detectable, they
would be 10 - 20 decibels above the level that was currently exceeded.
Mr. Edwards stated they had heard about the operation of a forklift dropping pallets outside the back of the
store.
Mr. Reid stated the skip loading would be inside the building and protected by the wing-wall.
Mayor Nader questioned if the consultant was saying there would be no significant change in existing
ambient conditions.
Mr. Drew stated that was their position.
Mayor Nader questioned if they turned out to be wrong, would they stand on it in terms of their professional
liability.
Mr. Drew stated to the best of their ability, based on the data gathered at a facility they felt was as
comparable as possible, they found there would be no significant impact.
Mayor Nader felt if there was negligence on the part of the consultant they would be liable for that
negligence. He questioned if he could rely on their professional opinion in voting to certify the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
City Attorney Boogaard stated Council was definitely allowed to rely on the opinion rendered. Whether or
not there was liability, there were different tort issues that complicated the matter. He stated that being
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 18
wrong was nor being negligent. They could, therefore, be wrong and not negligent. If they were wrong and
negligent then there would be liability, but there would be the question of what the damages were to the
City.
Mr. Edwards felt Council needed to consider not only the ambient noise, but the significant noise events that
would be occurring throughout the day. He was talking about activities including trucks traveling behind
the store and the noise generated.
· Ken Ham, 724 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated the trip difference between a 50,000 sq. ft.
store with 12,000 sq. ft. of retail was 90 trips per day, but in talking to Mr. Senn, he had indicated the store
would be all Lucky with maybe 500 ft. of additional retail which did not take into account 1,000 trips/day.
He requested clarification from the consultant.
Mr. Marum responded the issue involved the original site plan which had a detached building for
commercial shops in addition to the Lucky Store. The square footage measurements were S0,000 sq. ft. for
the grocery store and 12,900 sq. ft. for the commercial shops. The combined daily trip generation at the
project driveways was approximately 8,014 trips. The project had been redefined with approximately 60,000
sq. ft. If they used the grocery store trip generation rate for that building alone, they would get 9,000 daily
trips. a difference of 1,016 daily trips that had not been assessed at the driveway access points on Third
Avenue and "J" Street. The driveway access points were a particular concern in the Damell critique of the
traffic study. He felt that was another reason a review of the Darnell input was important to make sure they
could resolve the driveway access point operations and make sure those access points operated adequately.
In analyzing a grocery store, there was a calculation for passer-by trips, or the number of trips that were
already on the system that would not be new trips generated by the site. The calculation of the comparison
of the total cumulative trips, including the passer by trips of the original scenario in the traffic report, as )
compared to the scenario of 9,000 daily trips showed a negligible difference in the off-site trips on the
network itself. It was an issue that needed a technical forum to resolve in addition to the other issues raised
by the Darnell critique.
Mr. Ham stated he was expressing the concerns of the neighbors in the area. They simply wanted accurate
facts so they could address what the impacts would be to them. The medical facility that was factored in
at 17,000 sq. ft. and the owner had indicated that the build-out would be 56,000 sq. ft. Those trips were
not calculated. The report also stated there were no right turns on red from "J" Street to Third Avenue
which was incorrect. The congestion of that intersection was far greater than indicated in the traffic report.
He requested a targeted EIR with regards to the noise and traffic.
Mayor Nader asked Mr. Ham how long he had been involved in the process. He further questioned when
Mr. Ham received the noise and traffic studies from the City.
Mr. Ham stated he had artended the first meeting one year ago and had followed each step of the process
trying to get their concerns addressed. He had received the reports about 3-4 weeks ago.
Mayor Nader questioned if the project would be subject to the design review process. He further questioned
if that would be an appropriate forum in which to design further mitigation into the project.
Mr. Lee responded that was correct and it could be done at that level as it was a public hearing process.
Mr. Ham stated they wanted to review the impacts of turning an R-I property into a commercial property
and what those impacts would be. There were other permitred uses that could go into that area if Lucky
were to leave that would more significantly impact the neighborhood that would be allowed with the
General Plan Amendment.
)
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 19
Mayor Nader asked if the zoning before Council had a P-Modifier and how much control that would give
the Council if there was a change in user, i.e. a different land use with different impacts on the
neighborhood.
Mr. Lee responded that it did not control the land use itself. The land use was controlled by the uncleflying
zone. The P~Modifier was a precise plan requirement and allowed Council to address specific site plan issues
either by modifying City standards or increasing those standards. A development agreement could address
those concerns, he was unaware of any other mechanism.
Mr. Leiter stated a CUP couid be required for the uses of concern to Council which could be done by an
ordinance amendment. A code amendment could be done at any time. A development agreement could be
done in conjunction with the project.
City Attorney Boogaard did not believe the City could require a development agreement on the site. The
adverse land uses Council was concerned about were probably already protected in existing commercial
zoning. It could be reviewed for that zone and if there were certain sensitive uses Council found
objectionable, they could make those conditionally permitted uses. It was contrary to the City's streamlining
program.
Mayor Nader stated if Council acted quickly the code change could take effect prior to the zoning change.
Councilmember Fox asked for Mr. Ham's comments on the reversal of landscaping and further restricting
the delivery hours.
Mr. Ham responded that if Lucky could put an 8:00 p.m. curfew on deliveries it would help to mitigate some
of the noise. The addition of a 12 - 15 foot noise barrier between the store and the residences, located
twenty feet on Lucky's property would also help to mitigate the noise. An eight foot wall was now being
discussed and they did not feel it would be significant in mitigating the noise. He was under the impression
that the wing-wall would be the height of the store with a roof on it, an enclosure that would take the noise
and put it out on Third Avenue. His residence was on the west side of Garrett.
Mayor Nader questioned if a 12 - 15 foot wall would make a difference in noise mitigation and if it would,
was there any reason not to do that.
Mr. Drew responded that each foot of wall height decreased the noise by another decibel. The threshold
of perception was three decibels so if it was changed by more than three feet it would probably create a
perceptible improvement in noise. Any greater height than eight feet was desirable, eight feet was a
compromise because if it was too high and too close to the homes it would look like a prison.
Those speaking in opposition to the project due to noise impacts, loss of quality of life, vagrants, air
pollution, and traffic impacts were:
· Max Cricksman, 771 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, questioned if there was some type of sound
absorbing wall that could be built.
Mr. Drew responded it was one of the issues that had been discussed, the issue was the reflection of noise
off of the Lucky store and back toward the residents. The use of sound absorbing materials could reduce
the perfect reflection down to one or two decibels of reflected noise. The benefit of landscaping was almost
minimal in terms of the observed noise.
· Walter Neumann, 735 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, questioned what would be done regarding
water drainage on the property to avoid flooding. He further questioned who to call if a truck came in after
hours.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 20
Mr. Leiter stated if it was on a public street it would be the Police Department, if on private property it
would be the Building and Housing Department, Code Enforcement Office.
Mayor Nader stated he had read the memo from the Police Department regarding the trucks on "J" Street
and strongly encouraged staff to consider that there were numerous citizens in the area reporting trucks in
violation. He felt additional patrols would help alleviate the situation.
· Mae Neumann, 735 Garretr Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, felt there was property within the City properly
zoned for a supermarket that should be utilized.
· John V. Bisheimer, 352 "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concem regarding the drainage of
water from the property.
· Denise Cricksman, 709 Garreu: Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, also speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs.
Schultz, 730 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, requested denial of the rezone or that an EIR be done.
· Barbara Henderson, 715 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, questioned why the trucks could not come
in off Third Avenue and did not feel the trucks should be on "J" Street.
· Donald M. Volk, 729 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, did not speak.
· Gilbert O. Rosales, 729 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, did not speak.
· Howard Shultz, Marcine Shultz, 730 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated they lived on the west
side of the street and deferred to the residents on the east side of the street.
Councilmember Hotton questioned the number of parking spaces over and above the requirement.
Mr. Lee responded they had 350 parking spaces which was 45-50 spaces over the requirement.
Councilmember Hotton questioned why the building could not be moved back closer to the residents side
of the property and have the trucks come off Third Avenue.
Mr. Lee stated that had been discussed. It was physically possible to eliminate some parking at the south
end of the building and provide access either in the front of the building off "J" Street or Third Avenue
which was the way the applicant stated they would leave the building. The City's Traffic Consultant and
the applicant were concerned regarding the safety of having trucks going in front of the store.
Councilmember Hotton question why the loading dock was not moved to the north side of the building, that
way they could come off "J" Street and still eliminate the forty foot alley behind the building.
Mr. Lee responded that if the loading area was moved closer to "J" Street the loading area would start to
conflict with the access into the shopping area. Staff would have to review that with the project architect.
Mr. Senn stated the issue had been addressed and had been ruled out due to the ability of the big-rigs to
turn into the area and back up into the loading docks. There was a problem with the left turns. By moving
the building way down, half of it would be hidden by the Masonic Temple which was not an effective use
of the property because half of the shoppers would be parking away from the building. Customers liked to
pull up right in front of the doors.
Councilmember Hotton questioned if the front doors could be moved further to the north.
Mr. Senn responded that would be a redesign of a store they had spent millions of dollars on to
accommodate one project. He estimated it would cost an additional $100,000 to redesign a store that he
did not believe would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. If the store was redesigned it would
also affect the operations of the store.
· Pat Barajas, 375 "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA, requested Council address the violations by trucks using
"J" Street. He stated there was no enforcement by the City. He stated Lucky had been very cooperative in
sending their trucks up Third Avenue.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 21
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
MS (Fox/Nader) to reconsider previous Council action on the General Plan Amendment and rezonlng for
American Stores, Inc. for 5.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and ',I' Street.
Councilmember Rindone stated the resolution and ordinance had already been adopted and if Council
wanted it amended they could provide conditions and direction to staff. He felt the item did not have to
be reconsidered and the direction to Council was incorrect.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the proposed course of action Council decided upon was to reconsider
adoption of the resolution and ordinance which was an acceptable course of action. An alternative could
be to amend the existing ordinance and/or resolution.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed.
Councilmember Moore felt the potential of the increased height of the wall was to be discussed, but
information was not presented as to whether the residents would accept a nine foot wall. He felt another
condition could be added regarding one-way traffic to the alley. He recommended raising the sound wall
to nine feet, one way delivery from "j" Street south only, speed bumps to be considered after a period of time
for testing, relocation of the sound wall, and landscaping. He had expected some of those issues to have
been satisfied by the residents when the item had been held over.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was a difficult issue and the sensitivity of the Council was to look at all
of the concerns of the residents of the City, especially focusing on those with the greater impact, which he
felt Council had done. When the item was referred he was greatly concerned that Options A and C had not
been as adequately analyzed as could have been. The report to Council clearly indicated that Options A and
C would have had greater debilitating impacts than Alternative B which was before Council. It was evident
the community needed adequate shopping and a state-of-the-art facility. He felt Council had attempted to
mitigate the concerns, but Council had to look at the common good for the entire community. It was clear
to him, although a tough decision, that the store was critical.
MS OLindone/Fox) to approve the General Plan Amendment with the following mitigation steps: 1) there
would be a required addition of a wing-wall to shield all loading activities from view; 2) the neighbors on
Garrett who back up to the rear of the facility would have an option to determine the height of the wall,
up to ten feet; 3) the gating to the access drive be a requirement from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 4) the drive
would be one way entering from 'Y' Street proceeding south; S) another option to be considered would be
moving the sound wall closer to the rear of the bu~ding to increase reduce the noise; and 6) the landscaping
would be a determination by the majority of the residents abutting the Lucky property.
Councilmember Rindone stated he did not add the speed bumps because it could possibly create additional
noise. If speeding occurred it would be incumbent upon Lucky to notify their distributors as to the situation.
If speed bumps were found to be necessary, the issue could be brought back to Council for review.
Councilmember Fox questioned if the majority would make the decision regarding the relocation of the
sound wall.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was correct, only those residents on the east side of Garrett that had
property abutting the Lucky property. The installation of landscaping would be the requirement of Lucky
Stores, but it would be an easement and a requirement of the land owners to maintain. The landscaping
would be a mutual agreement of the individuals with Lucky Stores. The intention of the motion was that
it would be only the residents that would be physically affected, those on the east side of Garrett Avenue
that backed up to the rear of the Lucky Store, one vote per residence, and the majority would role. The
height would also be determined by the majority with the minimum height six feet and the maximum height
ten feet.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 22
Councilmember Fox stated he could support the motion as it addressed all of his concerns. He was
concerned with the comment regarding it being a practice of the Council to reverse their decision. It was
not a common practice of the Council to reverse their decisions. Council had gone above an beyond by
calling the hearing and those attending had stated they had received notice of the prior hearing. He felt a
good compromise had been reached with the proposed motion and the adjusted delivery hours.
Legal Counsel for American Stores questioned if Council revoted on the project if it would start the thirty
day cycle over again.
City Attorney Boogaard stated staff would have to put the proposed amendment into the new ordinance and
it would have to come back to Council for a first reading which would start a new thirty day cycle.
Councilmember Rindone felt Council could concur with their previous action and through an amendment
provide the additional mitigation steps.
CiW Attorney Boogaard stated the City would need the consent of Lucky to do it that way or they would have
the contention at the end of thirty days that they had some rights in the previous action before the
amendment. If they were willing to consent to the changes in writing, staff would bring it back as an
amendment and let the previous ordinance go into effect.
Mayor Nader stated staff could discuss that with Lucky before the next meeting and depending upon what
they agreed to staff would bring it back. He noted that if there had been a neighborhood planning group
in place Council would not have had to have the second meeting and the process would have gone faster
and much more to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. He hoped the Streamlining Committee would look
at that. The prospect of further mitigation during the design process had been discussed and he felt the
concern was whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate regarding noise and traffic issues.
He felt it was a close call.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader, agreed to by the Maker and Second of the motion) direct the Design
Review Committee that design mitigation of noise and lraffic was part of the project as approved by the
Council and was to be incorporated by them in the design review process.
Councilmember Moore questioned if that was the duty of the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Leiter responded the specific issues addressed by Council could be within their scope. They were not
normally looking at general traffic issues, however, they did look at noise mitigation in terms of the issues
described. With regard to noise it was within their scope, regarding traffic he felt there were some measures
they could look at that would further improve the project.
Councilmember Moore stated he had a problem with DRC being asked to look at traffic situations.
Mr. Lee stated the plans would be forwarded to the Engineering Department at that stage to get a direct
response from the City Traffic Engineer. He would be in consultation with the City's traffic consultant. The
matter could be referred to the Safety Commission and have them send any recommendation to the Design
Review Committee to be incorporated.
Mayor Nader stated he did not have a problem with the Safety Commission getting such a referral and the
Design Review Committee would have the benefit of the Safety Comm/ssion recommendation. Agreed to
by the Maker and Second of the Motion.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
Mr. Senn concurred with Council action and stated they would continue to work with the staff and residents.
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 23
MSUC 0Nlader/Fox) direct staff to return to Council with a zoning ordinance amendment that would provide
Council with greater authority to review changes in land use of commercial land. (His intent was that such
a revised zone would be applied to the property in question to give Council authority such Council would
have when a single family residence wanted to change to a multi-family residence.)
MSHC t/Cloore/Rindone) direct staff to initiate correspondence to those on the East side of Garrett, adjoining
the Lucky property, to get their input on the height of the wall, relocation of the wall, and the type of
landscaping to the west if the law was relocated.
16. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TRI,RGRAPH CANYON
SEWER PUMPED FLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) TO PAY FOR SEVVER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
TR. LRGRAPH CANYON SE~R. BASIN AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR
CONSTRUCTION IN THE T~I-RGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN - On 10/20/92, the City established the
Telegraph Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee. Based on the "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin
Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows" a fee of $560 per pumped EDU
should be established. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public
Works)
ORDINANCE 2582 ESTABLISHING THE TRI.~GRAPH CANYON SEIYER PUMPED
DEVELOPMFANT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TRI,RGRAPH CANYON
SLqVF~ BASIN AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE
TR, I,RGRAPH CANYON SEWER PUMPED FLOWS BASIN (fi~t reading)
City Manager Goss informed Council that the affected parties had recommended the public hearing be
continued to the first meeting in Januar3z of 1994.
MSUC (FoX/I-Iorton) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 1/4/94.
* * * Council recessed at S:31 p.m. and reconvened at 6:02 p.m. * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
17. RESOLUTION 17327 F2qq)ORSING THE CFIYS APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTI(I
(DO j) FOR A GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM THE POLICE HIRING SUPPLFaMFJM'T
PROGRAM TO FUND ONE- HALF THE COST OF THE CITYS COPPS PROGRAM FOR THREE YEARS - The
DOYs Police Hiring Supplement Program makes available a total of $150 million to underwrite innovative
strategies for preventing and controlling crime. The Police Department developed the proposed program
with the assistance of the Library, the Department of Building and Housing, the Human Services Council,
and South Bay Community Services. If the proposal is selected for funding, the Police Department will
develop a multi-disciplinary, community-oriented Policing and Problem Solving Team. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police)
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 24
RESOLLrlION 17327 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Horton questioned how the City would fund the program after the three year grant.
City Manager Goss responded there was a degree of risk involved. Part of the risk was that the economy
and revenues of the City would turn around by that time to pick up the additional costs. It had been his
experience that over a period of time it became a plus for the City as the City would be able to add
additional officers in advance of when the City would normally get them and obtain funds and resources
from the federal or state government.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17327: approved unanimously.
18. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
Councilmember Rindone stated the meeting regarding governance was scheduled for Friday and he would
be in attendance. They had requested that the alternate also be present at the meeting.
Mayor Nader informed Councilmember Rindone that neither he nor Councilmember Fox would be able to
attend the meeting. Councilmember Horton and Councilmember Moore stated they would not be able to
attend.
MS (Nader/Moore) to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to discuss Item 17, the Abtek lawsuit, the
Redevelopment Agency Agenda and to trail all other items to the meeting of 12/14/93.
City Attorney Boogaard requested permission to discuss the Surcharge litigation in Closed Session.
Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the motion. Approved unanimously.
ITEMS pU1J.ED FROM THE CONSENT ~AR
Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None
20. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
· Reconsideration of San Diego Walmart lawsuit settlement. Continued to the 12/14/93 meeting.
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
· Application by the City to the International Council of Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI) a
"Green Fleets" program. )
Minutes
December 7, 1993
Page 25
Mayor Nader stated he had been informed that the item was time sensitive and stated there was unauimot/~
consent to add the item back on the agenda.
MS (Rindone/Nader) contingent upon the City being invited into the International Council of Local
Environmental In/tiiative to: 1) direct staff to come back to Council within thirty days with a resolution
demonstrating conceptual support for Green Fleets project in accordance with the project's requirements;
2) direct staff to develop a project team with participation from appropriate depart~nents, i.e. Planning,
Public Works, Engineering, and the Environmental Resource Manager to serve as a technical advisory
committee for the Green Fleets project; and 3) authorize staff to apply on behalf of the City.
Councilmember Moore requested that the report include the pro's and con's and the fiscal impacts.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was correct, the motion also granted authority for the City to apply.
The report would only come back to Council if the City was accepted.
VOTE. ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 11:04 p.m. and reconvened in a closed session at 11:10 p.m. to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA),
International Association of Fire Fighters (IP/F), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 11/23/93.
Pending and potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista
vs. the County of San Diego and Aptec.
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 - Chaparral Greens vs. Baldwin,
the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 P.M. to a Special Meeting on Wednesday, December 8, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on December 14, 1993 at 6:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 5:16 p.m., recessed at 5:30
p.m. and adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
~ c'