HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/05/09MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 9, 1995 Council Chambers
6:08 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vicki C.
Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 1995, April 25, 1995 (Adjourned Special Meeting), and May
2, 1995.
MSC (Moot/Alevy) to approve the minutes of April 25, 1995 (Adjourned Special), April 25, 1995, and May
2, 1995 as presented. Approved unanimously with Horton abstaining on the minutes of May 2, 1995.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Housing Advisory Conunission - Barbara A. Worth; Resource Conservation Commission
- Kevin B. Clark. Oath of office was given to Barbara A. Worth and Keyin B. Clark by Deputy City Clerk
Soderquist.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item pulled: 6)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously, with Councilmember Rindone abstaining on Item 8.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that as a result of deliberations that occurred in Closed Session
on 5/2/95, the City Council authorized settlement of the Daley Rock Quarry litigation and the agreement will
be available in draft form in the City Clerk's office prior to the 5/9/95 Council meeting. Except for the
foregoing, there was no other observed reportable action taken by the City Council in Closed Session. It is
recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6. RESOLUTION 17887 DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO TRANSFER SEWER
BILLING FROM THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY TO IN-HOUSE BILLING, APPROPRIATING
$29,940 FROM THE SEWER SERVICE REVENUE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL START-UP COSTS FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN BILLING SERVICE, AND AMENDING THE BUDGET TO ADD
ONE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ASSISTANT IIl TO THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING SEWER
SECTION - The City currently contracts with Sweetwater Authority to bill sewer service jointly with their water
service. This is to ~nalize the steps necessary for the City to take over the billing of the sewer customers directly.
Staff recontmends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance, Director of Public Works, and Director of
Management and Intbrmation Services) 4/5th's vote required. Pulled frum the Consent Calendar.
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 2
Councilmember Moot questioned what the enforcement mechanism would be for delinquent accounts. He further
questioned if there was a joint agreement with Sweetwater that would allow the shut off of water for unpaid sewer
bills.
Susan Cole, Assistant Finance Director, stated there were two viable options: 1) normal collection process, and 2)
to put the collection on the tax bill, i.e. a lien on the property. The second option was being utilized by the cities
of El Cajon and La Mesa. Staff had not addressed that issue because they wanted to asses the problem and then
return with alternatives. Water shutoffs would not be an option available to the City unless the Authority agreed
to it. They had indicated to stall' that they were not interested in that option.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, in formed Council that if the customer separated the current bill out and only
paid the water portion and not the sewer it was up to the City to collect the delinquency.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the other cities encountered a problem when the bills were separated.
Ms. Cole replied that both El Cajon and La Mesa found that their non-collectibles increased quite a bit when
separated from the water bill. Both cities found that when it was put on the property tax bill their non-collectibles
went below what they were when they were combined.
Councilmember Rindone stated when the item had been previously presented Council had been adamant about not
including it on the property tax bills. The report delineated four additional services that would be contracted out,
i.e. the bill printing, stuffing, mailing services, and lock-box services. He questioned the estimated costs for those
services.
Ms. Cole replied the biggest cost of the mailing service was postage which the City would have whether doing it
in-house or contracted out. By using a lock-box service it would reduce the bank service costs. The actual costs
excluding postage would be approximately $40,000/year. There would be additional staff costs of doing it in-house
and equipment costs.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the cost lbr contracting the billing service rather than doing it in-house.
Ms. Cole stated it was estimated at 11/2 times the cost of doing it in-house.
Councilmember Rindone stated the City Attorney had addressed the issue of a legal nexus and he requested
clarification on his position.
Mr. Boogaard replied that in December 1994, the Fourth Appellate District ruled in a Utility User Fee case that
a city had the power to order a utility to collect its Utility User Tax. While it was not a tax, but a utility charge,
it was essentially the same case. It was a slight extension of that case, but could be a basis for strong negotiations
or perhaps a court case to require them to do it. Staff had not played that card with the Authority, but had
negotiated in trying to get them to do it voluntarily. An alternative discussed in the report was to direct staff to take
a stronger negotiating stance on the basis or threat of that case and similar law.
Councilmember Rindone stated it would seem the ultimate goal of all elected officials would be to promote the most
cost effective system in the long term public interest. Ways needed to be found that were more cost effective in
providing the services and collecting the costs for both services. He was not confident that had occurred and would
not support the resolution. The enforcement mechanism between the sewer system and the water system was highly
desirable.
MS (Rindone/Padilla) to direct staff to reconvene the meetings with the Sweetwater Water Authority to seek
the best and most cost effective system for billing and providing both services to the constituents.
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 3
Councilmember Padilia referred to the fee currently paid to Sweetwater of $1.50/bill and questioned the
methodology and comparisons used regarding manpower and logistics in processing the City's portion of the billing
versus the costs to the City in-house.
Ms. Cole replied the current contract with Sweetwater stated the City would pay them $1.50/bill so it was a fixed
cost. The cost estimated for in-house was based more on the experiences of the cities of La Mesa and El Cajon
than on what Sweetwater was currently doing for the cities of Chula Vista and National City.
Councilmember Padilla questioned if the $1.50/bill was over and above Sweetwater's costs.
Ms. Cole stated it was her understanding it was based on sharing costs.
Mr. Lippitt stated there was some cost sharing because Sweetwater did meter reading tbr their customers, etc. The
$1.50/bill figure was developed by Sweetwater several years ago.
Mr. Goss stated Sweetwater wanted to get rid of the City's sewer billing becanse of the complaints received and
their concern that because the size of the sewer bills, due to the Clean Water Program, they would have to go from
bi-monthly to monthly billing which would result in an increased cost. They felt they could avoid that increase for
awhile if they did not do the City's sewer billing.
Councilmember Padilia questioned what things were looked at for comparisons, i.e. percentage of manpower time,
capital, personnel costs that Sweetwater would be relieved of if they did not do the City's sewer billing. He felt
that was how the City could arrive at what the savings would be to the City. The City did not know if they took
over the billing if there would be more people complaining to Chula Vista than Sweetwater and what those impacts
would be or what personnel would be needed in the fixture that was not presently anticipated.
Ms. Cole replied the cost of the billing was a very slnall part of the sewer charge to the customer. The Sweetwater
Board felt that the aggravation costs, problems with collections, and the fact that they were having to put in a lot
more effort in collections (some of the bills were going over $100) was ti~rcing them to go to a monthly billing.
Sweetwater estimated they would have to add six staff members to go to monthly billing. For them to absorb the
loss of revenue from the cities of National City and Chula Vista was much less costly than having to go to monthly
meter reading. They were also talking about the need to expand the size of their building to accommodate additional
staff. When they looked at the cost estimate of doing only water billing versus doing sewer billing they were adding
in the cost of having to go to a monthly billing. XVhen they did that then the City doing separate billing was cheaper
to the customer overall.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if staff was comfortable with the estimate that the City could do the billing at
the same cost or less than what Sweetwater could.
Ms. Cole replied that if it could be done with the one additional staff member proposed the City could do it for the
same or less. The one unknown that would not be known until the City was into the program was whether the
program was understaffed. Staff had estimated on the side of under staffing versus over staffing because by doing
some shifting of staff it could be covered until they had the proper staffing level.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if there was anything that could be done in working with the Authority staff
regarding specifics to find out more specifically what would be required to cover all the potentials. He did not want
to put the City in a position of doing the in-house billing and then deciding that there was a cost that was
unforeseen. He felt it prudent to find that out ahead of time or address how it would be dealt with when the cost
question arose.
Ms. Cole stated the particular area staff was concerned about was the customer that walked in and paid at the
counter. The City of El Cajon received very few walk in payments, the City of La Mesa received a large number
of walk in payments but they were located right next to the Helix Water District. Sweetwater Authority did receive
a large number of walk in payments but they t~lt most of those came from National City. They also had a different
Minutes
May 9. 1995
Page 4
way of processing the drop-by payments. Staff proposed to send the payments in the drop-box to the lock-box
service rather than City staff processing them. That wotdd cut down on the number of minutes per customer at the
counter. Staff would process any customer that walked np to the counter with a payment.
Councilmember Padilia questioned if staff f~lt there was room for further negotiations with the Authority in terms
of future arrangements.
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager. replied that staff at all levels, including the City Manager and previous
Councilmembers, had talked with the Sweetwater officials and he did not have any reason to believe they would
change their mind on the issue. If Council t~lt an effort should be made, he strongly suggested that it be one or
two Members of the Council. He f~lt staff had done everything in their power to try to convince the Authority to
not separate the billings. The Authority f~lt they had gone the extra mile by allowing the City to stay with them
longer than they wanted the City to.
Mayor Hotton questioned the impact of a continnance.
Ms. Cole stated if the item was delayed it would probably push back the September 30th date. She did not feel a
continuance of a couple of weeks would delay the program.
Mayor Horton stated if Councilmember Rindone agreed she would support the motion if the item would be brought
back in a 2-3 week period.
Councilmember Rindone agreed. He then ret~rred to page 6-5 where it stated that contractual costs were still being
negotiated. He felt until the Council was fully convinced that they were looking at the best long term cost for both
services, and he did not feel staff had arrived at that yet, he was not convinced that was the way the City had to
go. Maybe there was an adjustment in the services in the costs the City was responsible for. He felt there were
a lot of hidden costs that were not identified.
Councilmember Moot suggested an RFP be issued to see what an outside provider would charge the City for doing
the billing. He questioned if that was feasible.
Ms. Cole replied that an RFP had not been done. Staff had contacted several different companies and received
estimates. The problem was that City staff still had to be involved. There was a lot to sewer billing other than
billing and receiving payments. Staff felt comfortable that they were as competitive with those costs as any billing
agency. There were also advantages to the City's General Fund tbr doing some of the work in-house. There was
an overhead factor that went into the billing that would come back to the General Fund and if done by an outside
agency, their overhead factor would also figure into it, but that would go back to the company and not the City or
benefit the citizens. She ti~lt timing would be a problem because an RFP would take several months.
Mr. Goss stated if there were further negotiations with Sweetwater staff could see if they could get morn time to
do that. If not an RFP process, staff could do a more formal proposal from those already contacted so them would
be something more detailed for comparison. The motion was for staff to meet with Sweetwater and he questioned
if there was to be a Council representative or Council subcommittee to meet with the elected officials on the
Sweetwater Board.
Councilmember Rindone felt Council was asking if creating two systems would be cheaper than having one system.
It was difficult to understand that creating two separate systems that had so many conunonalities could be cheaper
than one single system. If one or two elected officials from the City needed to meet with one or two elected
officials from the Authority that was fine, but that wonld not be the only step. The primary step was to try and
verify that two system could not be as cost effective as one system and any other problems. He volunteered to
meet with the elected officials of the Authority.
Councilmember Moot stated he would also meet with the elected officials with Councilmember Rindone.
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 5
Mayor Hotton stated she would be meeting with the Authority personally, outside of the meeting of the
subcommittee.
Councilmember Padilia stated a joint meeting could be held or the Interagency Water Task Force could be used to
pursue the issue. He felt Councilmember Moot was corr~t in wanting to look at private alternatives.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
7. RESOLUTION 17888 AMENDING SCHEDULE II, SECTION 10.52.030 FOR SPECIAL STOP
REQUIRED - THROUGH STREETS AND STOPPED INTERSECTIONS -CORRAL CANYON ROAD AND
PORT RENWICK/THORTON ROAD - A trial traffic regulation was established in August 1994 to install an all-
way stop at the intersection of Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road for the promotion of public
safety and to reduce traffic hazards and congestion. The stop signs have been in effect for eight months and is
before Council to make the all-way stop permanent. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 17889 READOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-95-09) FOR THE "CIVIC
CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION (GG-148)" AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
THEREFOR - On 4/12/95, sealed bids were received ~br "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion (GG-148)." The
work to be done includes excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, curb and
gutter, planter curbs, construction of concrete curb outlet and drainage channel, landscape planting, irrigation and
maintenance, parking lot lighting, striping and signing, traffic control, and other miscellaneous work shown on the
plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Councilmember Rindone declared a conflict and abstained fi'om participation due to the proximity of his home to
the project.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
9. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-16; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON THE SITE OF THE OTAY WATER
DISTRICT WATER TANK, LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET -
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - AirTouch Cellular is requesting permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility at the southwest comer of the water tank parcel located at the easterly terminus of Gotham
Street. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of
3/14/95.
RESOLUTION 17890 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-16, TO AIRTOUCH
CELLULAR TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE
EASTERLY TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, gave a slide presentation of the proposed location at Gotham Street and the
aRemate sites: EastLake High School site; Costa Avenue water tank site; Fenton Street site; and the Boswell Street
site.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the monopole also had the base facility.
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 6
Mr. Miller stated a base facility was always required. In the case of the Gotham Street site the structure at the top
of the monopole would be located on the base facility, therefore, a monopole would not be required. The height
of the facility, including the whip antennas, would be 33 ft.
Mayor Horton questioned why the Gotham Street site had more distance capacity than the other sites. She further
questioned how it would address the problem of getting Baja Cellular when in the eastern portion of the City.
Mr. Miller replied that it was more centrally located and would cover more households. The other locations were
further to the east and would not cover as many homes to the west. It was his understanding from AirTouch that
it was the most poorly served area in San Diego County. That was why staff concluded there was a n~.~d for a
facility in the EastLake area.
Councilmember Padilia stated it was his understanding that AirTouch would be willing to establish a facility at any
one of the alternate sites, except for alternate five. He further questioned if there was a comparative cost
consideration for AirTouch in terms of the different facility sites.
· Susan Lay, 3615 Kearny Villa Road. Suite 201, San Diego, SB&O Engineering representing AirTouch
Cellular, stated there was a difference in cost considerations lbr the alternate sites but they did not look at that.
Monopoles were more expensive, but all facilities required an equipment building. They were more concerned
about providing service in the EastLake area as it was an important service area.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the Gotham Street site provided superior service as compared to the alternate
sites.
Ms. Lay replied that they could provide adequate service from any of the proposed sites.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those expressing their concerns regarding the location of the facility in a residential area due to noise pollution,
visual blight, loss of view, health and safety concerns were:
· Jeanne Wheeler, 2005 Gotham Street. Chula Vista, CA 91913
· Jerry Hirsch, 817 Lehigh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he did not have a problem with cellular service
in his area or in EastLake. He did have a problem with service in the Fenton area.
· David Hirsch, 817 Lehigh Avenne, Chula Vista, CA
· Suzanne Matthews, 816 Lehigh Avenue. Chula Vista. CA, stated 30 residents had been present at the last
public hearing expressing their opposition to the site.
Those expressing their concerns with the lack of service in the area, problems with the addition of cellular in
Mexico, lost business opportunities, and lack of ability to contact police and fire were:
· Gilee Larsen, 692 Port Chelse, Chula Vista, CA
· Neil Haas, 786A Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, owner of Jiffy Rooter/RSC Company
· Sylvia Pacheco was not present when called to the dais.
· Eric Gibson was not present when called to the dais.
· Tim O'Grady, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, stated at the
previous meeting they had requested that alternative sites be looked at and AirTouch had worked with the Baldwin
Company in doing that. They were opposed to the proposed monopole at the EastLake Business Park because the
Salt Creek development was directly behind the pole locations and they did not feel they could be mitigated by any
type of landscaping. Therefore, with the assurances given to them by AirTouch they were more comfortable with
the site in the CUP application, i.e. Gotham Street.
· Susan Lay stated they had other sites within Chula Vista and one in particular that had just been approved
that was a border protector further south and west by I-5 that they hoped would take care of the problem with Baja
Cellular. She felt the Gotham Street site was too li~r north to have border protection capabilities. She reviewed:
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 7
1) the site selection procedure; 2) safety of the sites; and 3) why EastLake was the best alternative. She noted that
EastLake was one of the largest areas in the County for customer complaints and that was why they were expanding
their service in the area. The Gotham Street site was the only site in the EastLake area that could utilize roof-
mounted antennas. They had an agreement with the Otay Water District and the County Water Authority regarding
landscaping they were required to do on the perimeter and also about additional landscaping AirTouch would be
allowed to do on the CWA right-of-way. They had reached agreement with the Baldwin Company to assist in
landscaping on some of their surrounding property and they could meet all the City's noise requirements for the air
conditioners. If the site was not approved they would return with another application that they did not feel would
be in a location that the other neighbors would like any better and could affect the aesthetics in the EastLake area
in a more comprehensive way.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if there was any documentation regarding health risks from cellular facilities.
Ms. Lay stated there were no current health studies that provided any correlation of health risks to cellular facilities.
It was found that occasionally a pacemaker could skip a beat if the cellular phone was held very very close to the
pacemaker. If held an appropriate distance from the ear that did not happen. The cellular facilities generated about
50 watts per channel so at a cell site it was approximately 2,000 - 3,000 watts which would be equivalent to several
hair dryers. It was a very controversial issue and they monitored it very carefillly. One of the reasons the facilities
were located as they were and up from the ground was to ally fear however irrational it might be.
Councilmember Alevy questioned if staff had a preference of sites.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, replied that the water tank site on the EastLake Greens golf course was the
least preferred because it raised the same issues regarding neighborhood proximity. With that exception he did not
see a strong differentiation among them.
· Lisa Ackerman, 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, San Diego, CA, representing AirTouch Cellular, Public
Relations Manager, AirTouch Cellular, stated she received a lot of complaints regarding the service in the South
Bay and in particular in EastLake. The installation of the site would immediately affect over 100 cellular users and
1,000's that were served by the police and fire departments.
· Kevin McGee, 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, San Diego, CA, representing AirTouch Cellular, stated there
was no doubt there was a need for service in the area. The Gotham Street site was chosen due to its high elevation
and, therefore, the signal could be disbursed to cover a large area. The site was also in the center of the service
area they were trying to cover. The proposed facility could be screened and landscaped where a monopole could
not. All the property owners of the all the proposed sites had been contacted but negotiations had not been started
with anyone except for the self-storage site which would require the highest monopole, i.e. 125 ft. The whip
antennas were rigid antennas and there would be no associated noise. The Gotham Street site was felt to be the best
alternative as it would have the least visual impact on the co~mnunity.
Councilmember Moot questioned if the noise thresholds were exceeded if the permit could be revoked and if they
had agreed to that condition.
Mr. McGee replied that was correct. They did not believe they would have any problem in complying with the
standards.
Councilmember Moot stated there had been concern regarding safety expressed and noted two of the alternate sites
were located at schools. He questioned if AirTouch Cellular could assure Council that those facilities would not
pose any type of safety risk.
Mr. McGee replied that no one would assure the Council that without absolttte doubt there were no long term
harmful effects. However, most of the scientific community concloded there was very low power and a very low
chance that there would be negative harmful effects. The American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 8
listed the amount of energy that each site could emit and on a worse case scenario they operated at about 5 % of that
standard.
Councilmember Moot stated there was also a condition that if they did not meet those standards, or for some reason
subsequent scientific studies changed those standards, the permit could be revoked.
Mr. McGee replied that was correct.
Mayor Horton questioned which of the live sites that had been analyzed would they choose.
Mr. McGee stated he could answer that only based upon the landowner they had already spoken with, i.e. the self-
storage (Boswell site) that would allow them to place a site on his property. That would be his first alternative but
he did not feel it was the best fbr the community.
Councilmember Alevy questioned how secure the monopoles were in situations of natural disasters.
Mr. McGee replied that they complied with the building codes. For wind safety they had to withstand up to 75 mph
winds.
Ms. Ackerman informed Council that in both the San Francisco and Los Angeles earthquakes the monopoles stood-
up and cellular service was utilized because the land lines were down.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Padilia qnestioned if the alternatives presented were the only options available. I"'
Mr. McGee replied that they were the sites that had been looked at up to the present time. The area was primarily
residential and there were not a lot of opportunities for commercial/industrial placement. He felt sites further to
the east would require a monopole. He f~lt the decision was whether Council wanted a monopole in the EastLake
community versus the proposed facility.
Mr. Miller stated that Christian Covenant School was located on the Fenton site. The area behind the Boswell site
was planned for residential development, Salt Creek.
Councilmember Padilia felt the most appropriate location for such a facility was in an industrial area if at all
possible. He was uncomfortable siting it in a residential area. He felt there was more flexibility in the undeveloped
areas. It was clear that the area would be served from any of the proposed sites and, therefore, the aesthetics came
into play. Council needed to give credence to the existing property owners and he was not prepared to vote for the
resolution as presented. He felt they needed to see if they could not make some other industrial location work.
Councilmember Rindone stated he agreed with Councilmember Padilia. His hesitancy with the Fenton site was due
to the school and questioned if it was a conditional use permit.
Mr. Leiter replied that was correct and the CUP expired at the end of the 1996 school year. They had requested
an extension of that permit and it had been denied by the Planning Commission and the appeal would be coming
before Council.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the Council could approve the Fenton Street site but not permit construction
of the monopole until the current CUP expired. He questioned what impact that would have on AirTouch.
Mayor Hotton felt the impact was greater f~r the users than AirTouch.
Mr. McGee stated the users would be impacted. They had tentative agreements with each of the landowners and
only the Boswell site was definite. They tried not to locate at school sites due to the perceived health issue and
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 9
opposition expressed. They had not entered into lease negotiations with the property owner on Fenton Street.
Technically, the site would work.
Councilmember Moot questioned if AirTouch would preti~r to have the Council not identify a particular site so it
would not interfere with AirTouch's negotiations.
Mr. McGee replied that they would not be comfortable with Council assigning one particular site. Their preference
was the Boswell Street site because they had advanced their negotiations with the property owner.
Councilmember Alevy stated he was concerned with the questions that had not been answered about cellular service
but did not want to hold back AirTouch from providing service as there was a real need. He felt Council needed
to pay deference to the lifestyle in Chula Vista when choosing a site. He was not comfortable with the Gotham
Street site and preferred to see AirTouch talk to some of the other property owners and return with something more
concrete.
MS (Alevy/Horton) to direct AirTouch to talk to the property owners of the alternative sites and return with
one or two options for Council consideration.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Moot, Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Mntion) to remove the
EastLake High School site from consideration.
Mr. Martin stated if new sites were chosen it would require a new application and, theretbre, it would have to go
to the Planning Commission and then to Council.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved uuaninmusly.
10. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-26: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH
THE MOOSE LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET - LOYAL ORDER OF THE MOOSE CHULA VISTA
LODGE NUMBER 1927 - The project consists of redeveloping a 2.25 acre site to establish the Moose Lodge at
25/33 Naples Street in the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial zone district. The Moose Lodge is an appropriate
alternative use of the property and should represent a welcome addition to the neighborhood in terms of upgrading
the appearance and security of the site. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17891 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET WITHIN THE C-N ZONE
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 17891 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading uf the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
11. PUBLIC HEARING INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01 PURSUANT TO
THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 - On 3/28/95, Council approved the boundary map tbr Assessment District
93-01. Council also approved the Resolution of Intention ordering the installation of alley improvements from "J"
Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 and
setting public hearings for 5/9/95 and 5/16/95. Staff recommends Council: (1) open the public hearing; (2) receive
testimony; (3) close the public hearing; and (4) notify the public that a second public hearing will be held on 5/16/95
at 6:00 p.m. (Director of Public Works)
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the assessment district was originally
proposed by the residents in a petition to the City. It was the first of two public hearings. As of the meeting date
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 10
staff had received one written protest fi'om Mrs. Susie Huggins, 717 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, expressing
her concerns regarding access to the alley if it should be improved. the cost being critical on her fixed income, and
that she would like to live out the rest of her lit~ in her home and that the creation of the back alley would cause
her anxiety. Staff would report back regarding her concerns at the next public hearing. He then asked if the City
Clerk had received any other written protests.
Deputy City Clerk Soderquist replied that she had not.
Mr. Swanson stated because it was not an assessment district where there would be bonds sold as it was being
financed by the City, the City had the option to take a lien on the property that would be paid off when the property
changed hands so that Mrs. Huggins would not have to make annual payments. That would require a special
agreement but it had been done betbre. Her assessment total was $3,652 based on the estimated $72,000 contract
cost. After bids were received that figure could change slightly. The estimated annual payment would be $400 over
the ten year period if other arrangements were not made with Mrs. Huggins.
This being the time and place as advertised. the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking in support of the assessment district were:
® David Marrufo, 184 "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA and property owner of 188 "J" Street
· Jane Unger, 714 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
· Sean Murphy, 718 Elm Avenue. Chula Vista. CA
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone stated he could approve the staff recommendation with the understanding that any of the
17 homeowners be given an opportunity to participate in financing options so there would be no immediate costs,
which had been done in other assessment districts.
MS (Rindone/Moot) to approve the staff recummendatiun with the understanding that at the second public
hearing staff would return with financing options that would be available to the 17 property owners.
Mr. Swanson stated the information requested may have to be provided to Council at a later date than the agenda
statement or on the dais at the meeting.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Robert J. Hoffman, 4218 471h Street #11, San Diego, CA. representing Rideway, expressed his opposition
to the Mission Valley extension of the MTDB trolley. He felt there were more cost effective ways of solving the
transportation problem.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
12. RESOLUTION 17892 APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, DALEY CORPORATION, AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAME - The City Council in Closed Session on 5/2/95 authorized the settlement of the Daley Rock
Quarry litigation and directed that the Agreement be ratified at the Council meeting of 5/9/95. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (City Attorney)
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 11
RESOLUTION 17892 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
13. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council the Metro Sewer Billing would be discussed in Closed
Session.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 6. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated that Wednesday, May 24th had been set ibr a bodget workshop
and it was his understanding that there were some scheduling conflicts. He felt it may be best to cancel that
workshop because there were a lot of issues, both in terms of minor revenue proposals as well as expenditure
reductions, and it would allow him time to talk to representatives of employee organizations, Chamber of
Commerce, and other interested parties before the budget had its first briefing. The other scheduled budget dates
were 5/30/95, 5/31/95, 6/7/95, and 6/14/95 from 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Goss stated he had been apprised that the recreation fees which were included in the Parks & Recreation
brochure had to go to print on 5/19/95. Therefore, he had instructed staff on a couple of the fees related to
recreation programs to bring those items to Council at the next meeting in order to meet that time frame.
Mr. Goss stated the first public hearing on the Community Development Block Grants would be on 5/16/95.
b. Mr. Goss stated that there were no problems regarding the cancelled car show last weekend.
c. Mr. Goss stated the South Chula Vista Library had been in operation t~-,r one month and circulation was
35,593 compared to the Main Library circulation of 81,881. That reflected a reduction of 19,000 at the Main
Library. The net result of the overall circulation of the system was an increase of 10,000. He felt several goals
were achieved if the trend continued, i.e. more use of the City's libraries and that it was taking some of the pressure
off the Main Library.
d. Mr. Goss stated the California Fish & Game Commission would be requesting that the California
Gnatcatcher be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the State Endangered Species Act. It was listed
as a threatened species rather than endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The City was involved along
with other agencies in preparing plans to implement an Interim 4D Rule for the Gnatcatcher. Staff was concerned
regarding the action by the State as it could create conflicting regulations and .jeopardize existing and pending
permits under the 4D Rule. Council could take action on the item if it was determined that the issue arose after
the posting of the agenda and declare it an urgency item.
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to declare the item arose after the posting of the agenda and due to the time urgency
be placed on the agenda.
MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) to approve the staff recommendation te send a letter over the Mayor's signature
expressing the City's concern regarding the proposed action by the California Fish & Game Commission.
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 12
15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S~
a. Appointment of Council representative to varioos Council committees. Continued from the meeting of
4/18/95.
Mayor Horton stated that the Metro Sewer Task Force was not meeting and she did not feel that a representative
needed to be appointed.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to appoint Councilmember Alevy as the representative on the LAFCO Cities
Advisory Committee and board/commission liaison to the GMOC, Interagency Water Task Force, Southwest
PAC, Human Relations Commission, Civil Service Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and
Castle Park Revitalization Committee.
MSUC (Horton/Rindone} to appoint Councilmember Moot ms the alternate on ICLEI
b. Council designees for Multiple Species Conservation Program Committee. Continued from the meeting
of 5/2/95.
MSUC (Padilla/Rindone) to appoint Mayor Hotton as the representative on the Multiple Species Conservation
Program Committee and Councilmember Alevy as the Alternate.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Padilia:
· Councilmember Padilia requested that the meeting on 5/11/95 to interview for the GMOC and Planning
Commission vacancies be postponed because Councilmember Rindone had a time conflict the Mayor/Council
secretary had not been in the office. He was concerned that it would be a rush to set up those interviews.
Councilmember Moot recommended that Council only interview fbr the GMOC vacancy.
Councilmember Rindone recormnended that the Mayor/Council secretary poll the Council regarding a date for
interviews for the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Rindone:
® Councilmember Rindone stated as Vice Chair of MTDB he felt he needed to respond to the comments by
Mr. Hoffman. The numbers Mr. Hoffman had quoted were in reference to the construction of a dedicated trolley
line in comparison to the cost of building a dedicated freeway line for a similar distance. He felt once those
numbers were accurately represented there would be a cost comparison that was very sound. MTDB was also
working on ensuring that there was a transportation system that linked all of San Diego County. He requested that
staff send Mr. Hoffman's name and address to the General Manager of MTDB so he could provide information.
Councilmember Moot:
· Councilmember Moot stated he had added a name to the list of people to be considered for the Planning
Commission vacancy. He would have the Mayor/Council secretary route the resume to all Councilmembers.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting recessed at 9:12 p.m., reconvened in Closed Session at 9:18 p.m., re. convened at 10:48 p.m., and
adjourned at 10:49 p.m. the Regular City Council Meeting on May 16, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. ~"
Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 13
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency convened at 9:13 p.m., recessed at 9:15 p.m., and met in Closed
Session at 9:18 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
Mr. Boogaard stated Council would discuss Metro Sewer Billing, Fieldstone, Otay Valley Industrial Partners, and
labor negotiations.
17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash
litigation).
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Guvernment Code Section 54956.9 · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
· Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit.
· City of Chula Vista vs. Fieldstone.
· City of Chula Vista (Otay Valley Road Assessment District) vs. Otay Valley Industrial Partners.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee fbr CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed
Session.
Respectfillly snbmitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by: '-f k.t.A~ ik,\, x~ ~"
Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC~eputy City Clerk
· T'