Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/05/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CllULA VISTA Tuesday, May 16, 1995 Council Chambers 6:12 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councihnembers 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 22, 1995 (Special Meeting), May 2, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council), and May 9, 1995. MSUC (Padilla/Rindone) to approve the minntes uf April 22, 1995, May 2, 1995, and May 9, 1995 as presented. Mayor Hotton abstained un the rainhies nf 5/02/95 and Councilmember Alevy abstained on the minutes of 4/22/95. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY: None submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading uf the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. VVRITTEN CO/~IMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actinns taken from the Closed Session of 5/9/95. It is recommended that the letter he received and liled. b. Letter of resignation frum the Cultural Arts Commission - Amira Walker, P.O. Box 121965, Chula Vista, CA 91912. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clcrk's Office and the Pnhfic Library. 6. RESOLUTION 17893 APPROVING TIlE MARlSOL PARK MASTER PLAN - The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with Rancho del Rey Partnership have developed the Marisol Park Master Plan. The location and the size of the park was established at the SPA Plan stage in fiscal year 1988/89. A conceptual plan was initially prepared in Jannary 1990. The park site is located on Rancho del Rey Parkway in the northwest area of the Rancho del Rey Development. The park size is 5.0 acres of useable area, with an additional 1.0 acre of open space slope area. Staff recommends approx, al of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Councilmember Rindone questioned the projected construction date and if there was a need for additional parking. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, replied that staff anticil,atcd that the park would be completed when the subdivision was completed, i.e. onc and one-halt'years. It was a small neighborhood park and it was t~lt that there was sufficient street parking. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 7. PUBLIC HEARING INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01 PURSUANT TO THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 - On 3/28/95, Cormoil approved the boundary map for 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 fi~r 5/9/95 and 5/16/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meetiog, of RESOLUTION 17894 MAKING FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911" Cliftbrd Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the public hearing was the second of two required public hearings. At the previous public hearing one protest was filed by Mrs. Susie Huggins, 717 Second Avenue, Chula Vista. He questioned if the City Clerk had received any additional protests. Deputy City Clerk Soderquist responded the Clerk's office had not received any protests. Mr. Swanson stated staff had proposed a financing option fi~r individuals that needed a time extension due to financial hardships. He then reviewed the financing option and requirements. Staff recommended Council open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, approve the resolution making findings pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and direct staff to bring back a resolution allowing property owners to defer payment of the their assessment and establishing the criteria that property owners must meet to qualify for deferral. Councilmember Rindone extended his apl~reciation to staff fbr their responsiveness to Council's request for a program for those needing financial assistance. He questioned what the Engineer's Estimate was for the construction costs. Mr. Swanson replied the current Engineer's Estimate was $77,150 which was higher than the original cost estimate of $72,000 which was due to the addition of the speed humps requested by the property owners. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the resolution shinrid be amended to set it at the Engineer's Estimate thereby insuring that the work would be completed. If the bids came in less than the Engineer's Estimate everyone would benefit. It was his nnderstanding of the reslllution that anything that came in over $72,000 would halt the project. Mr. Boogaard replied the City could accept a deviation fi'mn the Engineer's Estimate even if it was higher. The Engineer's Estimate was a gauge by which the Council cotlld .judge the quality of the bids. Mr. Swanson stated the original estimate provided to the property owners was $72,000 and it was left at $72,000 in the report because staff did not feel the property owners would back-out of the project because the costs were due to their request for speed humps. Staff believed it was a generous estimate and that the bids would come in lower than the $77,150 and closer to $72.000. Because it was a recent estimate it was not discussed with the property owners. Councilmember Rindone stated the residents were supportive of the prqject, but he was trying to avoid any negative consequences. He felt it reasonable to go in with the Engineer's Estimate. He would support the resolution because it was supported by the residents and would clean-up the neighborhood. He hoped in the future staff would always try to include the most recent Engineer's Estimate so the expectations of the property owners would be fully realized. This being the time and place as advertised. the public hearing was declared open. · Mary G. Unger, 714 Ehn Avenue, Chnla Vista, CA, t~lt the m~/ority of property owners in the area were aware that the bids could come in higher due to their request tbr speed humps. She supported the staff recommendation. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 3 There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 17894 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, feuding uf the text was waived. Staff to provide notification through the Council lnfonnatim~ packet when the project went out to bid, bids received, and update. Approved unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW: (A) FiSCAL YEAR 1995-1999 DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PLAN; AND, (B) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR 1995-1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - The public hearing provides an opportunity for citizens and Council to comment on the draft Consolidated Plan document and how CDBG funds can be allocated tu meet the City's housing and community needs. The Consolidated Plan (formerly the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) is a document that identifies a .jurisdiction's overall housing and cormnunity development needs, outlines a five year strategy to address those needs, and describes a one year action plan for the expenditure of all Federal HUD rsources. Nu staff' recommendations am being made at this time and Council is not expected to take any acttim other than to give desired direction. After thorough consideration of public comment. staff will prepare an additional report presenting CDBG funding recommendations for Council deliberation and action at the 6/6/95 meeting. (Director of Community Development) Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, stated staff held three conummity meetings related to the Consolidated Plan and would return to Council with the final version fbr approval on 6/6/95. Staff was monitoring the legislative programs regarding CDBG funding and proposals tu reduce funding in the future. Mr. Goss stated one of the issues Council would have to address was the social service funding requests of which approximately 15 % of the total funds conld be utilized. Staft' xwts proposin~ that the local match for the Crime Bill Cops come frmn that source, i.e. $120,000. If reviewing th~ hislorical pattern of funding lbr the social service agencies it was approximately the same level fi>r the upcoming fiscal year even with the $120,000 being utilized for the Crime Bill Cops. * * * Councilmember Rindone left th~ dais at 6:43 p.m. * * * This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · David Samudio, 1224 Ehn Lane, Chula Vista, CA, City of Chula Vista Revitalization Program, Castle Park Neighborhood Improvement Committee * * * Councihnember Rindone returned to the dais at 6:50 p.m. * * * Mr. Boogaard stated Conncilmember Rindone worked lin the Sweetwater Union High School District. Income from a governmental entity did not constitute a conflict of interest, so it did not constitnte a source of income for legal purposes and, therefore, was not a conflict of interest tbr hm~ t{I participate. Cimncihnember Rindone approached him with the ethical issue of whether it would he appropriate to participate and it was his recommendation that if Council wanted his participation on the issues, nther than his matter, that Conncil deal with the application from his employer first, dispose of it while he was away tn,m the dais, and then he could participate in the other aspects of the hearing. Councilmember Rindone stated if thete was nu ol2iection he would abstain from participation even though there was no legal conflict but in order to avuid the appearant,_ ~lf' an ethical conflict. Hc d~en lell the dais. · Don Hunter, 1910 Rue Michelin, Chula Vista, CA, Police Sergeant, Chula Vista Police Activities League · Andra E. Allen, 530 651h Street. #301, San Diego, CA, Developing Adolescent Dads for Success Teen Father Program · T Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 4 Mayor Horton questioned if there was anyone in the audience wanting to speak on behalf of the Sweetwater Union High School District proposal. No responses were received. Mayor Horton stated it did not appear that the Councilmembers had a problem with Councihnember Rindone participating. Mr. Boogaard stated the argument in tile legal conflict area would be that anything Councilmember Rindone said or did on one project would make mlmey available tier his project. It was his understanding that Councilmember Rindone abstained from participation in tbllse hearings m which the High School had a proposal. He recommended that Councilmember Rindone remain out of tile proceedings. · Marilyn Stewart, 6950 Levant, San Diego, CA, Department of Social Services/Childrens Services, Developing Adolescent Dads fur Snccess Teen Father Program · W.C. Elliott, 7065 Broadway, Lemon Grove, CA, Developing Adolescent Dads for Success Teen Father Program · Laurine Baxter, 2467 E Street, San Diego, CA, Center fbr Women's Studies and Services, Project Safehouse · Alberta Peaches Hartung, 1545 Malta. Chula Vista, CA. South Bay Family YMCA, Sunshine Company Child Care · Raymond Fellers, 3101 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA. Lutheran Social Services, Project Hand/Caring Neighbors · Sergio C. Gonzales, Ehn Avenile. Chula Vista. CA, Lauderbach Literacy Council/San Diego County Inc., Chula Vista Literacy Team · Kitty Neary, Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista. CA, Lauderbach Literacy Council/San Diego County Inc., Chula Vista Literacy Team · Raymond Zambo, 1295 University Avenue. San Diego, CA, The Access Center of San Diego, Chula Vista Employment Services, expressed his concern that the disabled community was not represented on the ad hoc committee making recommendations filr CDBG funding. · Dominick Lee. 1295 University Avenne. San Diego. CA. The Access Center, Chula Vista Employment Services · Coralee Anderson. 78 King Street, Chula Vista. CA. Southbay Community Services, Thursday's Meal · Nancy Hitchock. 654 Moss Street, Chula Vista, CA, Adnlt Protective Services, Inc., South Bay Adult Day Health Care Center · Gail Edwards, 571 Third Avenue. Chula Vista, CA. YMCA Family Stress Center, Psychotherapy Services Program · Gilbert Gil, 1561 Larkhaven Drive. Chnla Vista, CA. MAAC Prqject, Lead Base Paint Abatement Program · Jim Richards, 2437 Morena Boulevard, Chula Vista. CA, Senior Adult Services. Inc., Meals-On-Wheels · Dick Watkins, 11545 West Bernardo Court #206, San Diego, CA, The Heath Group, Affrdable Housing Division, Church Street Affordable Housing Project · Stan Cole, 140 Arbor Avenue, San Diego, CA. AIDS Foundation San Diego, Social Services and Case Management Expansion · Lisa Sarmiento, 280 Taylor Drive, Chula Vista. CA~ George G. Glenner Alzheimer's Family Centers, Inc., Funding for Day Care and Transportation · Dr. Lori Riggio, 1012 C Street. San Diego, CA, YWCA of San Diego County, Division of Domestic Violence Prevention, lntervention & Treatment · Sylvia Nelson, 1301 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Funshine Day Camp · Mary Scott Knoll, 1744 Euclid Avenue. San Diego. CA, The Fair Housing Council of San Diego, Chula Vista Fair Housing Program · Gloria Hicks, 1671 Albany Avenue. Chola Vista, CA, MAAC Project, Otay Community Activities Partnership Program · Cathi Jamison, 1097 Oleander Avenne. Chnla Vista. CA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Fine Arts Program · Scott Mosher. 909 Loma View. Chula Vista. CA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Field Renovation - Oleander Center · Mary Otero, 3859 El Cajon Boulevard San Diego, CA, San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service, Chula Vista Community Homebuyer's Program Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 5 · Tina Williams, 335 G Street, Chula Vista, CA, YMCA of San Diego County - South Bay Branch, Youth Action Program, Funshine Day Camp. Sunshine Company Child Care · Bobby Lopez, 1671 Albany, Chula Vista, CA, MAAC Project, Otay Community Activities Partnership Program · Mark Reed, 3585 Grove Street #138, Lemon Grove, CA, Chula Vista Connection Neighbors Helping Neighbors, Chula Vista Connection Daycare Center · Judith A. Henderson, 776 Glover Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Connection Neighbors Helping Neighbors, Chula Vista Connection Daycare Center · Clemente Casillas, 395 H Street, Suite D, Chula Vista, CA, Real Estate Association of Latinos, Vivienda Y Auxiliar · Woody Grindie, 600 Anita Street #22, Chula Vista, CA, Laudbach Literacy Council/San Diego County Inc., Chula Vista Literacy Center · Denise Sardina, 330 Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Connection Neighbors Helping Neighbors, Chula Vista Connection Daycare Center * * * Council recessed at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. * * * Councilmember Moot stated the hearing was difficult to lbllow in the current [i~rnlat. It was his understanding that the committee made a recommendation tbr total funding of $324,300, however, staff had recmnmended utilizing $120,000 for the Cops program. He questioned the amount that would be available tier social service requests if the $120,000 was removed and how the remaining fimds wtmld be reallocated to the 32 programs. Mr. Goss replied that there would be $204,000 remaining. One solution would be to take all the recommendations and proportionally reduce them if Council was in agreement with the committee recommendations. Another alternative would be to reallocate the monies. In the past, staff' would return with their recommendation for program funding. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated in the proportional reduction staff would look to see if the reduction would render a request to a level where it would m>t be effective and possibly make other recommendations. Mayor Hotton questioned if the Police Department would be requesting an additional four officers if the Crime Bill monies were not available. Rick Emerson, Chief of Police, responded that the additilmal officers were needed. Councilmember Moot stated all the organizations appearing bcfure Council did so based on the committee recommendation. He was concerned that the agencies were not aware of the changes that could occur. He felt it was a cruel process. Mr. Goss stated he had prefaced his comments with that inl~mnation s, those in attendance would know that it was an issue under consideration by Council. Mayor Hotton liked the idea of reducing the amount by a percentage across the board. However, she felt there were projects that could not afli>rd that reduction. Regarding the real estate associations that had appeared before Council she did not feel she could support their requests betarise the ;~_r,,'ices were available locally through the Board of Realtors. An area of concetTl was the Chnla Vista Connection. That type of service was extremely important to the community. It was her understanding that they were looking to merge or partner with another social service agency, i.e. Southbay Commnnity Services o~ tl~e Boys & Girls Club. She requested that staff review that very carefully. She wanted to see some funding contingent upon restructuring. Councilmember Padilia stated there were questions among some regardin.~ Chula Vista Connections status, non- profit status, board of directors, and colnpliance with the rules of licensing. He felt Conncil could ask a lot of questions about each of the organizations, including other proriders in the same area. He had not seen the same concern expressed in other areas and 1~11 the City needed to he honest, reasonable, and lair. They were trying hard to do something good. The concerns outlined in the recommcndatilm liar no fitnding could have been answered. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 6 In the absence of some crisis or overriding incompetence that could be proven and not alleged he felt their funding should be reconsidered. Mayor Horton stated it was very important to not to reduce the funding tbr Adult Protective Services and some of the other senior programs, i.e. Thursday Meal, Meals-On-Wheels, etc. She recommended that Council go forward and fund the $120,000 to take advantage of the opportunity of the Crime Bill. Public safuty was the number one concern of the citizens. Councilmember Moot agreed. Councilmember Alevy stated there was proposed federal legislation which could drastically cut the amount of funds available for the CDBG program. Mr. Salomone stated Congress had taken action on the recession bill and staff did not want to validate that without better information. The worse case, prior to Congress' action today, was an 8% cut in the funding Council was dealing with. The intbrmation presented to Council was that the money would remain intact at the full amount. Staff would notif~ Council when they could verif~ that infbrmation. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMiXlENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 9. RESOLUTION 17895 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATING TO TIlE PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME - The current contract with Lettieri-Mclntyre & Associates specified a maximum limit of $99,494 to perform the environmental services on the City's Sphere of Influence Study. The recommended amendment reqnires similar environmental services tier a grand total not-to-exceed figure to $123,702. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Pr{qects Manager. Otay Ranch Project) · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, stated they were the party responsible to pay the total cost of the contract and supported the staff recommendation to increase the cost of the contract. · Bruce Mclntyre, 1551 Fourth Avenue, Snite 430. San Diego, CA, representing Lettieri-Mclntyre, stated he would answer any questions by Council. Councilmember Rindone questioned if it was the final request/amendment. Mr. Kilkenny responded that it was his understanding that it was. RESOLUTION 17895 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 7 10. RESOLUTION 17896 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE THREE PARTY AGREEMENT WITH OTAY RANCH, L.P. AND REMY & THOMAS TO AUTHORIZE $25,000 IN ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT AND AUTtlORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT - To retain the legal finn of Remy & Thomas to review environmental documents for the Sphere of Influence, SPA Plans and supporting studies required by the General Development Plan, to provide guidance to assure compliance with CEQA and awfid litigation predicated upon alleged deficiencies in environmental documents or improper processing of the documents. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project) · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing the Baldwin Company, supported the contract amendment as the party responsible to pay the added cost. They did not anticipate another contract amendment on the task, but becanse it was potential legal expenses it was hard to anticipate whether the costs would be exceeded at some future date. RESOLUTION 17896 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 11. REPORT STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) Ill TENTATIVE MAP CONDITION FOR FIRE STATION RELOCATION - Rancho del Rey Investors (Developer) is in the process of submitting its first final map for the Rancho del Rey SPA IIl project. Befi~re the map can be considered by Council, the Developer must meet a condition related to the City and Developer entering into a development agreement fi~r the relocation of Fire Station 4 to Rancho del Rey from its current location on Otay Lakes Road. Staff recommeuds Conncil accept the report. (Deputy City Manager Krempl, Fire Chief, and Director of Planning) Councilmember Moot stated he would abstain from participation due to a conflict of interest as his firm represented McMillin Company. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, gave a summary of issue and points of disagreement: 1) funds to be advanced; 2) non-reimbursable financial consideration: and 3) form of reimbursement. McMillin had stated they did not feel they needed a development agreement, that the processing and expediting of processing that occurred with the 4D Permit was a separate issue, and that the consideration thereti~re should be minimal which had not been specified. Staff felt development agreements provided a certainty of entitlement, protection for the project, and additional benefits. Staff had suggested a number of different areas with the developer to make the development agreement even more valuable. Staff t~lt the 4D process that the City entered into, which resulted in the issuance of the permit to McMillin, created a certainty of entitlement and saved them as much as a year in allowing them to proceed with grading and ultimate fruition of the final map and development. Mr. Boogaard stated Councilmember Alevy had intilrmed Inin that his house was in the territory of Fire Station No. 4 and he needed to determine its distance from the proposed fire station site. If it was over 2,500 ft. from the subject matter of the decision he was very saf~; if it was between 300 ft. and 2,500 ft. it had to affect his value greater than $10,000; and, if it was nnder 300 ft. it could not afl~ct his value by anything. If there was an affect on the public generally that was the same as the affect on Councihnemher Alevy's property interest there would not be a problem. * * * Councihnen~ber Alevy left the dais at 9:00 p.m. * * * Mayor Horton stated Council would suspend discusstim iff the item until staff could determine the distance of Councilmember Alevy's home from the proposed fire station site. Mayor Horton stated Council would return to Item 11 fi~r discusstim. Cimncihnember Moot left the dais due to a conflict of interest. · T' Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 8 Councilmember Alevy stated after discussion with the City Attorney and staff it was determined that his home was 1,600 - 1,700 ft. from the prnposed fire stature location. It was roughly mid-way between the two fire station locations and it was his l~eling that it wonld hilt one af'l~ct the vafue of his home. Mr. Krempl felt there was a vahie, $240,000, throngh the development agreement through the 4D processing that had to do with certainty of entitlements. Staff had started negotiating at about $500,000, dropped to $300,000 and then to $240,000. At one point the developer was suggesting a $200~000 value which was part of a total package proposal, other parts of which were not acceptable to staff. McMillin had wanted to be reimbursed quickly as the permits were pulled against the Public Utilities DIF aml the staff position had been that reimbursement would be over a slower period and ti-mn the Fire DIF only. Staff would consider placing Fire DIF money collected from other projects into the reimbursement consideration. The down side of allowing the Public Facilities DIF credit was that the City needed that cash flow to c{mstruct other needed Public Facility DIF projects and did not want to establish precedent tbr other developers. McMillin had suggested the City contribute about $430,000 and the difference between the $319,000 aud the $430,000 would have to be made up from the General Fund or other funding sources of the City to keep the total lundmg ill $1,028,000. Councilmember Rindone quesfumed if McM illin had agreed to pay $598,000 from the Fire DIF credit and $3 19,000 ti'om the City. Mr. Krempl replied that the $319,000 would come l'ron~ the City so that was not an issue. McMillin was willing to put up $598,000 for the fire station. They were not willing to advance money for the training classroom or the fire engine. That got into the issue of whether or not there was a non-reimbursable amount. For the $598,000 advanced they wanted to be reimbursed fi'om the Public Facilities DIF in total as opposed to just the tim component of the Public Facilities DIF. Councilmember Padilia qn~stioncd if tile assessment was on the entire DIF if any of it could be used to purchase the fire engine. Mr. Krempl replied that the fire engine was nl~t DIF eligible at all. ® Ken Baumgartner, 2727 Hoover Avenue. Natilmal City, CA, representing McMillin Company, stated there were 78 conditions of approval on the tentative map and they had met 76 of the conditions. McMillin fundamentally disagreed with staff's analysis that their pr{~iect shlmld advance the totality of the $598,000 for the fire station. They did not believe there had been an adeqnate demonstrated need fi~r the fire station. They had a public facilities financing plan that was part of the original approval of their prqject and in that plan it clearly stated that their requirement was to pay at building permit time a pro-rata share fi~r the fire station construction. The General Plan Oversight Committee had recently cmnpleted a review of the fire response times and the adequacy of the existing facilities in terms of meeting all the required thresholds. All the thresholds in terms of response time were being met by the existing fire station at its present location. They had given 12 acres to the City for a park which was reclassified to be a fire station and library, so they had already contribnted the land where the proposed fire station was to be located. The supplemental development impact fue was $2,150 and the fire station component of the fee was $141. To date they had paid, with SPA I and SPA II, in excess of $3 million in development impact fees to the City. If the $141 component was taken out of it. they had paid to date at Rancho del Rey, $211,O00 toward the Fire Station DIF. The balance of money they owed as they completed the prqject was in excess of $4 million. They would pay another $198,000 toward the Fire Station DIF with those monies. There was an issue that went far beyond the fire station, i.e. the degree of additional exactions that the City was asking developers to contribute. Their company had continued to step up to the line regarding advancing monies for improvements when they felt there was a clearly identified public need. They did not t~el there was a clearly identified public need requiting them to advance the money fi3r the fire station. The $598,000 was a commitment that McMillin had made and of that $598,000 they would owe approximatcly$I98,000 fi~r SPA III at Rancho del Rey. He requested that Council look at the issue with fairness and equity and they w{luld abide by whatever Council decided. Conncilmember Padilia requested a clariticati{ln of the $598,000 commitment and what was McMillin's understanding of what they were committing to at the time in terms of specific funding commitments for certain items. · 1 Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Baumgartner replied that he had made that commitment. It was his onderstanding that the first time they had heard that the advance was going to be asked of them was the night of the Council meeting. It was not a Planning Commission recommendation or in their financing plan. The request was made to advance the money and after meeting with Council the City Attorney brought up the nexus issue, i.e. was there a logical reason to advance the money. There was also discussion of a development agreement and with the development agreement McMillin agreed they had received benefit, and, theret~,~re, paid the nmney and waived the nexus issue. It was his belief that evening that it was Council's intent that by advancing the money, $598,000 with a reimbursement provision, that McMillin would enter into a development agreement which would not suspend t~e increases, would not exempt them from the threshold conditions, but give them their land use which was a consideration tbr the advancing of the money. Councilmember Padilia questioned when Mr. Baumgartner ret~rred to the advancing of the money if he meant specifically in regard to the estimated cost of the transl~r of th~ station. Mr. Baumgartner replied that was correct, the estimated cost of solely the transfer of the station, not a fire engine, training room, or consideration for a 4D Permit. Councilmember Padilia questioned if there was any c{mversation or communication that specifically delineated additional costs above the cost of the transfer of the station. Mr. Baumgartner responded that he had some concern when he read the cc}ndition at the second hearing, but it was his understanding that there would be an advance that wonld be, the consideration filr a development agreement and there would be a reimbursement provision. His attorney had advis~d him to only agree on something they were going to specifically agree upon and not something that could be misumlerstood. He t~lt if there was an error, maybe that was it, that there was not an agreement coming out of that meeting. He l~lt that became more evident when discussing the issue with staff. Mr. Goss stated agreements were sometimes done in anticipation of other things happening and, therefore, were difficult to make specific. In reviewing the minutes of th~ Council meetin~ he l~lt it was clear that staff had put something in the CIP budget in connection with McMillin advancing the monies. Staff t~lt that was in the CIP budget in error and that was the purpose of his bringing it up to Council at the 7/7/91 meeting. The Council agreed at that time that there should be some condition added. An m|in'matitm memorandum had been sent by the Assistant Planning Director to Council transmitting the langna,ge of Condition 53.5 which stated the new language was agreeable to the applicant. The condition referred to the reimbursement t~lr the front funding of the fire station costs being granted for entitlemerits and did not address any reimbursement. It also indicated that it should not be limited to that factor alone. At that time staff was not talking about the $598,000 value fire station but at a larger facility. The fire station at that time, based on the construction cost estimate iff a three bay station, was actually $972,000. Dan Bientema, Principal Management Assistant, stated at that time the estimate was fi~r a three bay station, i.e. 6.000 sq. ft. It was brought to the developers attention that it would be approximately $973,000. Councilmember Padilia stated in the transcript Mr. Baumgartner had hi>ted that the l~tcility proposed in 1991 had capabilities well beyond a typical city fire station. As a noneparticipant {ff that meeting aud in reviewing the transcript the mutual understanding of what the terms were did not appear to be clear. Mr. Baumgartner stated they had a disagreement on how the r~imbnrsemcnt should be handled. It was their interpretation that the reimbursement was a tidl reimbnrsemcnt per their proposal and not limited to just the fire station portion, i.e. $141/unit, but greater than that. The $141/unit could not be reimbursed in their prc~ject because they did not have enough units. Councihnember Alevy stated it appeared that the City and McMillin were approximately $100,000 apart. He wanted to see negotiations continue so there was a concret~ solutit~n t{i th~ problem so the Council could address a specific agreement rather than trying to liftgate it during a Connell meeting. MOTION: (Alevy) to direct staff tu cnnlinue negotiatitms 'Mth McMillin Company. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 10 Councilmember Padilla limit there should be policy direction from the Council. It seemed reasonable that there was no clear understanding and that McMillin's understanding of what happened at the meeting was a reasonable interpretation. tn reviewing the actions that had transpired during negotiations he limit there had been assent by the applicant that there was value in the agrecmeut. He f~lt it reasonable that the applicant believed they were only fronting the costs of relocating the station as there was not specific mention of value being assigned to the agreement or the take permits and consideration tier that. He did believe there was value to that, but he had to agree that it was not entirely clear in the discussilm or language. He wlmld look to considering keeping the discussion focused on the estimate of the cost of the transferring of the fire station and the froriling of those costs by the applicant and an assessment of what value may be in the agreement itself. If the motion was to direct staff to try to come to an agreement along those lines he could support the motion. MOTION SECONDED: (Padilia) Mayor Hotton requested clarification iff Councihneml~er Padilla's comments. Councilmember Padilia stated he would request that the discnssions take place along the lines of limiting the discussion to the estimated cost of the transfer ahme and the value in terms of the agreement itself and the consideration paid tbr that value. Councilmember Rindone stated he was not certain why Council was jumping fbrward with a motion. He felt Council needed to try and find resohltion. He did not l~el that could be accomplished by sending it back to staff without clear guidelines and direction. Hequestionedifitwascorrectthattherewasonlyapproximatelya$100,000 difference between McMillin and the City. Mr. Baumgartner replied that was correct but there was also the consideration of the method of reimbursement that was critical to the term as well. If it was reiml~ursed at $14 1/unit the pruject would be done before they ever saw the money. It should be related to the remaminL2 units m the pr¢~ject. That would change the figure from $141/unit to $300/unit - $350/unit. Mr. Boogaard stated the reimbursement obligation of the contemplated agreement was not illusionary. As units came on-line in the development the City would be c,llectmg the $141/unit. It may not be from McMillin's project, but when the City collected it, and if the City had a contractual obligation with McMillin for reimbursement, the City would be doing that out of that fhnd. The Rancho del Rey development may be over but the City would still have that obligation when the fimds were collected to pay. The other side of the equation would be that the City would be taking monies from other public facilities the Council had authorized to build, not build those facilities, but advance monies from those components to the fire fund and then pay out of the that. It was contemplated in 1991 that McMillin would be making that Ioau fi~r the constrnction of the fire facility. Councilmember Rindone stated there was a liu~dam~mtal issue of when the fire station was needed and he did not feel there was clarity to that issue. If the City required payment of the fee and then the facility was not built until well into the fi~ture, then there was a cost to the inlmey that was tied up ahead of time. He questioned when the facility was needed. James Hardiman, Fire Chief, responded that the applicant was correct when he stated that the specific threshold guidelines for the project, in relationship to the response in the area, could be met by the current Station No. 4. The City was currently not in compliance with the Fire Threshold Standard which was seven minutes 85 % of the time city-wide. The last reporting and the previous reporting period it was at 80% city-wide. To look at it specifically in terms of the Threshold Standard wlmld be overlooking the importance of relocating that station. The siting of the fire station at a training facility was very crucial to the effectiveness of training for the department. They would not have the same efficiencies without a fire station and/or training classroom at the site. The plan was that the fire training tower would be built and quite soon afterwards the fire station would be sited. The fire training tower was built in 1992. Councilmember Rindone stated there was no reason to charge any applicant or developer a fee or assessment that was premature. He fidly snpported the relocation of Fire Station No. 4 and felt it was essential, but the question was when it was planned. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Goss stated the Fire Chief would like to see it relocated in 1996, bnt as an accommodation in trying to resolve the issue he was reconunending that it be pushed back tu January 1998. The City did have an older station that was only going to get older each year and the City needed tl~ ml~ve into a more usable facility and apparatus. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the January 1998 target date wunld debilitate the City's ability to provide service or fire safety to the residents. Mr. Hardiman stated it was a complicated question. The City c~lnld currently prnvide response within the guidelines outlined in the Fire Station Threshold to the entire SPA Ill area. By a more balanced relocation of fire stations the entire network would be more effective. He would not su.~gest that by not moving the fire station in any specified time, and staff would continue to reevaluate the threshold standards, that there was going to be any .jeopardy to the life safety of the citizens. Theretbre, he f~'lt there was some flexibility in the timing and staff was willing to work with the applicant on the issue. Mr. Goss recommended that Council g~ im to other issues becanse it was the overall package that would bring it to resolution. It was his sense that the Jannary 1998 date could be part tff that overall package that would lead to agreement. Mr. Boogaard stated one of the things staff wanted to see in ~ developnlcnt agreement if pert~.~rmance was deterred or delayed was security to make sure that the obligatitm was finally pert~rn~ed. The City had that with the up front requirement that they build now by virtue of the City's autllority to withhold final maps. If deferred tbr three years and SPA llI was built-out the obligation to build had to he secured. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the advancement of the entire cost of the relocation of Fire Station No. 4 was in the motion and that it did not include the cost of the fire truck t~r lbe training classroom. Councilmember Padilia stated he was trying not to g~t into specifics bnt acknowledge that there was disparity of understanding on that issue. He l~lt it was reasonably clear to him that it may not have been the understanding at the time and the original cost estimate and the relucation had been h,'t~ught duwn from $900,000 to $598,000. The question had to be fair to both parties, i.e. was it reasonable that ,in~ elf the parties did not understand, agr~ to, or believe that they would up-front the costs ti~r anything except the transfer of the station. He felt it was reasonable to conclude that and there needed tu be clarilicatilln in thai area in whatever discussions continued. He felt there should be as free. of a discossion as possible. Mayor Hortou stated in reviewing the minntes of the 1991 meeting M r. Baumgartner had supported the development agreement and quebtioned if there was not a valne t~l the agreement in 1991. Mr. Baumgartner replied that there was a value to a devlopment agreement dependent npon what was assured. In their assessment of the development agreement it had a uu~ch lower valne becanse the City had been unwilling to provide some of the other guarantees, i.e. fees frozen, land use guarantees, exemption of thresholds, etc. It was also a vehicle for the City to benefit because McMillin was ad~'ancing the money. There was always value when the land use was fixed but the qnestion was what wa~ the vahle and what McMillin conld affbrd to pay tbr that. Mr. Boogaard stated in 1991 when the risks uf nncertainty llf the market existed the guarantee of land use rights had a lot more value between fi~e tinge the entitlements were granted and tile first honse was built. Under the law of the State of California the City Council could reverse zoning rights and land use rights at any time until a substantial investment was made into the prt~ject. When on tile threshold of ctmstrncting the foundations and building the pro. ject there was little risk of change. Wb~q~ tilere xvlis five years between the two. fixing land use rights in 1991 had a high value. Cormoil n~_.ed~d to direct statl on ',~hat point and time they wanted staff to value the development agreement. For example. without a 4D Permit the prl~it'ct wuuld not get off the ground. Mr. Krempl requested clarification as t,i whether Council l~.lt th~. xvas a non-reimbursable component to the issue. Staff also wanted direction regarding the t~ril~ uf reimbt~rscmcn~. Staff recomnlended the reimbursement through th~ Fire DIF from Rancho del Rey and other pro. iects and mlt thrlmgh tile Public Facilities DIF. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 12 Mayor Hotton f~elt staff should return to Council with a recomn~endation after working it out with McMillin utilizing the guidelines outlined by Council and moving the relocation date to Janoary 1998. Councilmember Padilia l~elt there was :'alue in the development agreement. A policy should be established where the issues were discussed al the beginning of the process with the applicant and not in the middle or towards the end of the process. He acknowledged the need ill the thcility in the Master Plan bnt the question was whether there was a meeting of the minds at the roecling m 1991. In all lhirness to the applicant the City could not hold them to something they could have reasonably misnnderstood or had a dit't~erent idea about. Issues such as the value of the development agreement ,'~r the 4D Permit shlmld have been discussed at the beginning so they could be factored into a financing agreement. There needed tll he agrcen~ent as to the value of what the development agreement itself was, what the City wanted them to fired, and how it wonld be reimbursed. He did not feel that was clearly articulated early in the prqject. Mayor Horton qoestioned if Conncihnember Padilia was addressing the non-reimbursables. Councilmember Padilia t~elt there was an element apprllpriatc fi~r non-reimbursables, but the value needed flirther clarification whether by Council policy tier a set fimunhl. In the absence of that. the City needed to be fair to both sides. Mr. Goss stated the language of the agreement, while it did not specity that the development agreement would be worth X amount of money, made it very clear that there was a requiren~ent to advance the entire cost to build or relocate Fire Station No. 4, bet it was not just limited to that. Staff had transmitted a memorandum to Council in 1991 which stated "the new language is agreeable to the applicant". The condition stated "but not limited to". It did not specit~' what the cost would be of th~ deve[{Ipnlent agreement but there was an indication that there would be more than just the building and relocation of the fire station. Councilmember Padilia agreed that within the language there was possibility of further agreements, but they were ["' unspecified. He did not feeel anyone timid reasln~ably elmelude, based on that language alone, that there was a requirement above and beyond the transfer costs the developer agreed to pay. Mr. Boogaard stated the "or else" was that the maps wlmld not get recorded until agreement was reached. It was not that the City could i~brce theln to pay fbr any amuunt liar a fire station, but they accepted and knew that the risk of the failure of the condition was that tmtil the agreement was eventually reached there would be no housing. Councilmember Rindone felt it was vague. The key phrases m Condition 53.5 were "advance" and "entire cost of relocating Fire Station No. 4" so anything that wits added to that, unless there was agreement reached, was coqjecture at best on either side. The credit would apply to the diff~erence between the cost of the units. Mr. Krempl stated if they were advancing the money ti~r the transfer of the station only and if they were getting Fire DIF credit at $141/unit the dil'/~erence between the total amottnt advanced and their fire credit would be the amount that would be up tbr discussion as to how it was reimbnrsed or whether it was all reimbursed. There were other projects in similar situations with file conditions so they would have to h>ok at which ones were paying Fire DIF and which ones were getting credit. A subset of the $400,000 reimbursement issue was whether or not the entire $400,000 was reimbursed or just a p~rtilm. Councilmember Rindone l~elt it was in the best interest ol the City to have it come from the Fire DIF. He felt there had been clarification that there was no advancement Ii>r the fire truck or training facility and the date for the relocation of the fire station had been extended. Councilmember Padilla stated he wanted to see what the funding impacts would be and if there was maneuverability in the budget to make priority changes. Mr. Boogaard stated the City modified tla~ Public Facilities DIF ordinance two years ago to allow interest free advances from different components based on the Council's direction. Prior to that it wotdd have been prohibited ~ to borrow from one component to another clmlponent. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 13 Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted to make sore that if it was from the Fire DIF that there was not a debilitating impact on the applicant. Mayor Hotton questioned if staff needed clarification on what had been discassed. Mr. Krempl replied that he t~lt staff had enough infimnation to go filrward. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Munt abstaining.. * * * Council recessed at 10:30 p.m. and reconvened at 10:39 p.m. * * * 12. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, infbrmed Council that the City submitted the total amount of the billing to the City of San Diego under the conditions drafted by the City Attorney, i.e. that the amount was just an advance on future maintenance and operation costs unl~:-;s such time that they were clmsidered valid. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE EONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the pnhlished agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Schedtding of meetings. b. Mr. Goss distribnted a memo with an update regarding tl~c sewer billing issue with the Sweetwater Water Authority. The Authority Board subcommittee was trying to '4therule meetings on 5/24/95 or 5/26/95. Attached was a memorandum which committed the City to a July I, 1~)5 deadline to take i,ver sewer payments. c. Mr. Goss stated the latest population estimate trom the State Department of Finance was 153,400 as of 1/1/95. d. Mr. Goss stated Council wonld be receiving the proposed CIP budget by Wednesday. 14. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. RESOLUTION 17897 SUPPORTING AB 230 AND AB 1436, AND OPPOSING S 754, WHICH ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN TIlE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND REQUIRE DIRECT COUNCIL ACTION - On 2/7/95, Council adopted the 1995/96 Legislative Program. Although the program was intended to provide comprehensive direction to the Legislative Committee City's legislative priorities there are certain issues which are reserved tbr direct action by Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Legislative Committee) MSUC (Horton/Padilla) to approve Resolution 17897. M inures May 16, 1995 Page 14 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. Commtmity Hotline. Withdrawn frllm th~ agenda. b. Councihnember Rindone stated that in Special Assessment District No. 10 there had been a car accident which destroyed part of the fence im Paseo dcl Rey just east nf East "J" Street. He requested an informational report on when that woold be repaired. He t~lt it was a tremendlms eye-sore as well as destructive for the open space area. c. Councilmember Rindone stated the City in con. itmction with the Chula Vista Elementary School District had a Folk Dance Festival last week. He requested that a letter be sent to the District complimenting them on their partnership and participation. Councilmember Padilla a. Councilmember Padilia stated he was always available to listen tn concerns expressed by citizens but he was disappointed that a letter regarding the Chula Vista Connection was not signed. He urged those writing to sign their letters and if not he would discard all anl>nymlms letters. b. Councilmember Padilia stated he sttppiirtcd the action taken by fbrmer President George Bush in his resignation from the National Rifle Association. As a veteran of law enfbrcement of almost ten years he took serious and strong offense to any group suggesting that the men/women in law enforcement who carded out the enforcement of laws, in a country of laws and not of men and emotions, were somehow jack-booted nazi's. He did not quarrel with advocacy of an issue, but he did quarrel with people trying tojnstify individuals firing weapons at law enforcement ofricers in the law'lid execution of their duties or making suggestions that it was all right to open fire on law enforcement officers. He t~lt there was a grlntp of "middle of the road" people in the country that were getting tired of the extremes cm either end of the plllitical spectrum. He l~lt those people needed to speak up louder. * * * Councihncmber Alcvy returned to the dais at 9:08 p.m. * * * Mayor Horton stated she had directed the Mayol/Cimncil staff' to send letters to all of the representatives asking them not to support bringing back the assault weapon tilt the g~neral public. ADJOURNMENT Council recessed at 10:40 p.m., recon,,'ened in Closed Session at 10:47 p.m., reconvened at 11:53 p.m. and adjourned at 11:53 p.m. to the Regular City Cimncil Meeting im May 23, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Meeting of the Redeveloprecur Agency convened at 10:40 p.m. and adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 16. CONFERENCE WITil LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuunt tn Govermneut Code Sectinn 54956.9 · Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash litigation). 2. Anticipated litigution pursnunt In Government Code Section 54956.9 · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit. Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 15 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant tn Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or dcsignec lilt CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid- Management, and Unrcpresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Emphlyces Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 17. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Resl~t~ctthlly submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist. CMC, Delmty City Clerk