HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/07/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEET1NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, July 26, 1994 Council Chambers
6:08 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers: Fox, Hotton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader.
ALSO PRESENT: Staff: City Manager, John D. Goss; Assistant City Manager, Sid Morris; City
Attorney, Bruce M. Boogaard; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
Oath of Office: Because Lawrence Breitfelder, newly appointed Commissioner to the International Friendship
Commission, was unable to attend the meeting, City Clerk Authelet had administered the Oath of Office to him
earlier in the day.
Presentation of $5,000 to the Chula Vista Youth Coalition by Elite Racing, Inc. Mark McMillin of McMillin
Companies, presented a check in the amount of $5,000 to the Chula Vista Youth Coalition. Sunny Shy, from the
City, and Scott Mosher, of the Boys and Girls Club, accepted the check on behalf of the Chula Vista Youth
Coalition. (Item had been continued from the meeting of 7/19/94)
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items Pulled: 6, 8, 15, 16, and 17)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text
was waived, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Claims against the City: Claimant Number I - Michael Anderson and Claimant Number 2 - Derrick O'Neal, c/o
Donald Wayne Russell, Attorney at Law, 209 Third Avenue, Suite 6, Chula Vista, CA 91910; Claimant Number
3 -Tamara Van Tuinen, c/o William J. Ward, Esq., Tanya R. Tice, Esq., Law Offices of William J. Ward, 4330
La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 230, San Diego, CA 92122. It is recommended that the claims be denied.
6. ORDINANCE 2596 AMENDING SECTIONS 13.14.100 AND 13.14.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO SEWAGE PUMP STATION CHARGES AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2461 AND
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 2
REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 2181, 2286, AND 2477 TO DISSOLVE SPECIAL SEWER SERVICE
RATE AREAS (second readin~ and adoption) - On 5/17/94, Council approved Policy Number 570-03, Sewage
Pump Station Financing Policy. The Policy provides that all existing Sewer Service Rate Areas, which provide for
the financing of maintenance and operation costs of public sewage pump stations by property owners, be modified
as of 7/1/94. Ordinances 2181, 2286, 2477, and Resolutions 6833 and 8028 must be repealed and Ordinance 2481,
all of which established Special Sewer Service Rate Areas, must be amended to comply with the Policy. The
Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code need to be updated to reflect the provisions stated in the Policy. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) (ITEM
CONTINUED TO 8/2/94).
7. ORDINANCE 2597 AMENDING SECTIONS 14.04.010, 14.06.010, 14.08.030, 14.08,090, 14.08.140,
14.08.170, 14.10.010, AND 14.14.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, REPEALING SECTION 14.06.030 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE, REPEALING CHAPTER 14.18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING
CHAPTER 14.20 "STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL" TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL RELATING TO REGULATION OF POLLUTANTS IN STORM WATER
DISCHARGES AND TO WASTING WATER (second readim~ and adnDtion) - The Federal Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987 and California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number 90-42 require the
enactment of codes, laws, and ordinances to ensure the implementation of Federally mandated storm water and
urban runoff pollution control programs. The proposed ordinance accomplishes that task by making it unlawful for
any person to discharge pollutants to the City's storm water conveyance system. In additinn, on 6/ll/91the Storm
Drain Fee and Fund were established to fund implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program. Council directed staff' to include, as part of its annual review of the Storm Drain Fee, options for levying
and collecting fines against individuals that violate discharge regulations in lieu of continual increases in the fees.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 17577 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF
A CITY-WIDE RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR BOTH THE ACTIVE AND INACTIVE
SYSTEMS, INCLUDING RETENTION SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS - In June 1991, Council approved a CIP Project for a City-wide
Records Management Program. Included in the project was the hiring of a consultant to assist in the design of a
records program. Since that time, the program has been developed with input from all departments. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) (ITEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94)
9. RESOLUTION 17578 ADOPTING NEW CITY INVESTMENT POLICY AND GUIDELINES - The
City's Investment Policy provides guidance for the prudent investment of temporarily idle cash. Amendment to the
existing policy is sought to allow investment in the County Treasury in accordance with California Government
Code 53684 and to eliminate the annual reporting requirement since monthly reports are regularly submitted. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
10. RESOLUTION 17579 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR FIVE VEHICLE
EXHAUST EXTRICATION SYSTEMS - Bids have been received for the purchase and installation of exhaust
extrication system at Fire Stations 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to the previously-approved Capital Improvement Program
projects. Due to current economic conditions, all bids received were lower than anticipated, generating some
significant savings. A portion of the savings is proposed to be applied to the exhaust extrication system at Fire
Station 1 which is in need of upgrade. Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting bids and awarding
the contract to Comfort Zone Air Conditioning & Heating Service, Inc. (Director of Finance and Fire Chief)
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 3
11. RESOLUTION 17580 AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE ON AUGUST 13,
1994 FOR A COMMUNITY FAIR SPONSORED BY THE OTAY COMMITTEE - The Otay Committee is
requesting the temporary street closure of a section of Albany Avenue on 8/13/94 to allow them to expand the scope
of their activities during their Annual Community Fair. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLUTION 17581 ALLOWING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" TO "G" STREETS
FOR THE 1994 THIRD AVENUE ARTS & CRAFTS FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 14, 1994, WAIVING
SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR THE DOWNTOWN
BUSlNESS ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT - The Downtown Business
Association (DBA) is requesting permission to close Third Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets in order to conduct
the 1994 Arts and Crafts Festival on Sunday, 8/14/94, from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. It will be the fourth annual
festival that the DBA successfully conducts in the downtown area. The festivities for the event will include live
entertainment along with approxim~ttely 100 arts and crafts and food booths. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
Councilman Rindone did not want the item pulled, but stated that previously when requested to close Third Avenue
by the Downtown Business Association, there was a great deal of concern expressed about the noise level,
particularly at the south end. He wanted to know what safeguards did staff have for monitoring of the noise so we
would not replicate those concents again.
Chris Salomone responded that there would be individual contracts with the individual performance groups assuring
that the decibel levels will be monitored, the stages will be placed strategically as far away from the residences as
possible and will be approved by city staff, and the Downtown Business Association is taking full responsibility for
the noise levels and monitoring of it.
13. RESOLUTION 17582 APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS On 5/24/94, Council approved
$271,800 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for 24 social service programs, $72,500 for four
community development programs and $58,000 for the Fair Housing Council, Human Services Council, and
Regional Task Force on Homeless programs. The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
requires a written agreement between the City and each sub-recipient of CDBG funds. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
14. RESOLUTION 17583 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXERCISE THE CITY'S
RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND UTILIZE A PORTION OF CAMINO BISCAY FROM RANCHO DEL REY
PARKWAY TO EAST OF DISCOVERY SCHOOL - McMillin Company, in the process of developing the
subdivision around the new Discovery Elementary School, have built roadways near the school that are essential
to the arrival and departure of school buses, private cars, deliveries, and emergency vehicles. The vehicles are
using streets which have not been accepted into the public system for maintenance and there is a concent over the
liability. The "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" provides a method for the City to take over
the use of the streets before their final acceptance. Staff reeontmends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
15. RESOLUTION 17584 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TRANSIT BUSES ON
COOPERATIVE BID - The Fiscal Year 1994/95 Transit Division budget provides for the purchase of two (2)
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 4
t"'
transit buses. The City is able to obtain the buses via a County of San Diego bid. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works) (1TEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94)
16. RESOLUTION 17585 APPROVING UNIFORM FARE STRUCTURE AGREEMENT FOR
TRANSIT SERVICES - The agreement incorporates three major cooperative functions among transit operators
under the Metropolitan Transit Development Board jurisdiction: cash fare structure; transfer procedures; and,
regional passes, including revenue distribution. The primary changes to the Fiscal Year 1994/95 agreement are
price increases for some regional passes. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
(ITEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94)
17. RESOLUTION 17586 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO
TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) - The amendment to the agreement for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/95 continues
Chula Vista Transit's participation in regional transit information service at a cost of $21,541, a 5.6 % decrease from
the FY 1993/94 cost of $22,766. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) (ITEM
CONTINUED TO 8/2/94)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
18. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE PAPER ADDRESSING RANGE OF LAND
USES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING OF 68 ACRES
IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY - On 2/15/94, Council directed staff to prepare a draft General Plan
Amendment addressing a range of alternative land uses that could be considered for a General Plan Amendment of
the 68 acre Lower Sweetwater Valley "Special Study Area." Staff recormmends Council: (1) accept the Lower
Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment Issue Paper, and direct staff to coordinate the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report analyzing the five alternatives contained therein, subject to any additions, deletions
or changes to the alternatives requested by Council; and, (2) direct staff to continue to work with area residents and
the City's consulting engineer to refine the open space assessment district concept described in the feasibility study.
(Director of Planning)
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, presented a portion of the staff report dealing with agency-
owned property. Mr. Salomone stated they were directed to look at the feasibility of an appraisal of the land and
do an engineer's analysis of an assessment district. There were two independent studies conducted: one by BSI
for the benefit assessment analysis and the other by Anderson and Verbant for the appraisals. The information
generated a range which they felt was a viable way to analyze the potential of an assessment district. It showed
that the purchase the 14 acre parcel at full market value would cost approximately $92.00 for eligible residents
identified. It might go up to $128 per year for each of the residential units if the total acreage were bought for open
space at over $1.9 million. A meeting was held with the residents. A second issue on how do we deal with the
Agency-owned parcel which was purchased with low-mod funds? The legal advice which they have been given is
that the $620,000, the appraised value of the property, would have to be used for low-mod income purposes since
that was the intent when the land was originally purchased. Therefore, if a different land use was used on that
parcel, the funds would have to be replenished. There were three different land uses proposed for the agency-owned
parcel: a veterans home, open space, and a family fun center.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 5
Robert Leiter, Planning Director, went over the Issue Paper and the recommendations contained in that report. The
Issue Paper discusses the history of the zoning and general plan for the study area as well as the annexation action
which was taken on the property. The study area contains five property ownerships which includes: Parcel A, the
Reichbart property, which is currently developed which has child care and adult counseling uses on it. Parcel B
is the KOA Campground property. Parcel C is vacant and owned by IPG Ltd. Parcel D, a vacant parcel, owned
by the Redevelopment Agency; and Parcel E, also vacant, is owned by the Mross family. Staff recommended a
general plan designation of mixed use.
Cotmcilman Fox stated that it was quite obvious when staff gave Council the map of who was notified that it did
not include all of the people who would ultimately be in the proposed assessment benefit district. He asked for a
clarification as to why people were not notified that might actually get an assessment.
Mr. Salomone responded that the decision was made because staff was charged not to set up an assessment district
but to examine the feasibility of it. If the residents requested it and Council so directed, then staff would proceed
with the implementation of an assessment district. Staff notified within 1,000 feet as they traditionally do in land
use issues which they did in this neighborhood which included over 800 residents. It was staffs feeling that it could
be that residents identified in that larger benefit district would not even be subject to an ultimate assessment district
and they would be alarmed unnecessarily should Council decided not to proceed with an assessment district. There
will be subsequent public hearings should we proceed with the assessment district.
Councilman Fox asked if we were sure that we qualify in every respect for a Veterans Home given the location of
this property. Do we meet the noise standard? Because of the freeway location would we be disqualified? How
could we proceed this far when a critical criteria is in violation of their standard.
Mr. Salomone responded that it was a possibility. The architect who had done the design for the Barstow Veterans
Home looked at the site. He felt the home could be designed with a certain type of screening, double pained
windows, and architectural features to mitigate that impact. It is a concern to staff, but we didn't go along far
enough to get to that analysis. The Director of the Veterans Affairs for the State of California, Colonel Vargas,
clearly identified the medical center site as his preference and the one he would reconunend.
Councilman Fox asked why Alternative 5 works only with a senior care facility?
Mr. Leiter responded that this was basically the proposal that was brought forth by the project applicant for the
Recreation and Fun Center and a proposal that IPG brought tbrward with that; this is not to say that other land uses
on the IPG parcel would not be compatible; this was the one that had been proposed and under consideration.
Councilman Fox asked that since we would be asked to contribute $750,000, how would this be funded and why
are we being asked.
Mr. Salomone replied that the proposed source for that is park acquisition and development funds although that
source is pretty slim. Other fund sources have not been identified.
Mayor Nader asked if the costs that are associated with the requirement for an open space assessment district if this
is what we paid for the parcel?
Mr. Salomone stated that the acquisition costs to the city was $165,000. This is the appraisal which was recently
done on that parcel plus some estimated interest costs.
Mayor Nader stated that this has gone up some 300 to 400 percent since it was acquired; he had not heard of much
real estate in this region going up by that percentage. He also asked if the appraisals on the other parcels done by
the same appraiser and in the same manner as the appraisal on this property.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 6
.~.
Mr. Salomone stated that basically it was bought at a very good price, and then the Sweetwater Flood Control
Channel was built adjacent to it, and the property enjoyed the appreciation which that facility brought to it by
upgrading its condition.
Gilbert Kunkel, from appraisal firm of Anderson and Brabant, Inc., responded that the same methodology was
applied to all three properties. The methodology used was the direct sales comparison approach. It is basically the
process of comparing the property under appraisal with other properties that are considered to be comparable. Other
comparable properties used were: Property in the San Isidero area on Byer Boulevard and some in
Oceanside/Carlsbad area.
Councilwoman Horton asked what type of zonings did these tomparables have.'?
Mr. Kunkel responded that the comparable properties had basically mixed zoning, some of them were only
residential, but several had mixed residential and commercial zoning, some had some open space land use
designation. In some of the instances, the properties did have freeway proximity and freeway visibility.
Mayor Nader asked if the alternative site for the Veterans Home there had been any recent development in
negotiations with the school district that would lead us to believe that alternative site is in fact available.
Mr. Salomone responded that there have been a number of meetings since the February meeting with the school
district with the various entities and supervisors at the school district. No definitive appraisal has been done yet,
and we're cumntly in a negotiating posture. Everything is under negotiations; we have a first right of refusal on
the site, because they are under law required to offer it to us. When we went to them for an option, it was our
determination that literally represents a "no cost" option to the city because it has to be offered to us prior to being
offered to anyone else. We have also secured the ability to have access to the site for environmental investigation.
Mayor Nader asked what kind of time line we were on in terms of getting some agreement negotiated for that site?
Mr. Salomone replied that he hesitated to commit to a time frame but at Council's direction, staff could get
something back to Council in a final nature in sixty days. The Veterans Affairs Committee had a meeting scheduled
a couple of weeks ago to have a discussion on that alternative site. That meeting was cancelled and is rescheduled
for Long Beach in August; staff will be attending that meeting.
Mayor Nader stated that he hesitated in taking the only site we definitely have available for the Veterans Home off
the table until those negotiations are concluded.
Mayor Nader asked Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Scott Alvey, if the Commission taken any position on this
issue.
Commissioner Alvey stated that they had not taken any firm position because they were told that the process did
not ask them to take a vote or firm position. They did look at the Issue Paper and had some discussion, heard from
the public, discussed it amongst themselves, and gave input to staff.
Maggie Helton, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, added that they did not take a position on the proposals or
on the land uses; they did take a position to support staffs recommendation which was to proceed with the
environmental review of all five alternatives.
Councilman Rindone asked if it was staffs believe that if we fervently pursue the option of the Veterans Home for
Parcel D that could ever become a reality?
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 7
Mr. Salomone responded that if it were the only option available to the city, he would not preclude it from
consideration. There are problems, but the Veterans, at Council's direction, saw the school district site and they
liked it and preferred it as a comnmtee, and the director infbrmed staff that if we could procure that site, he was
very optimistic that would be a Veterans Home. In the meantime, we have been negotiating with the School District
to get it.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Addressing Council were:
· Donald E. Stell, 210 Sea Vale Street, 91910. He had concerns because this neighborhood area of Chula
Vista has had a lot of social things going on such as the MAAC Project. The open space proposal with the
assessment attached to it, he did not feel it was fair. He would like to see more park space in the area and not the
type you have to pay for such as the Family Fun Center.
· Patrick Mandas, 699 "E" Street, 91910, representing the Chula Vista Motel Association. They were in
full support of the Family Fun Center; he felt it would benefit the City.
· Frances S. Jacobsen, 63 Third Avenue, 91910. As a retired person, she objected to paying $228 per year
extra taxes. She felt that people who want to look at open space should pay the taxes.
· Robert McCauley, 1987 Bucknell Street, 91919, representing the veterans. Stated that all the proposals
before Council and alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 represent the vested interests of some people who have something
to gain. He represented the veterans who had nothing to gain; they were looking for a Veterans Home to be built
in Chula Vista. The site was irrelevant; they would be please with the school district property if it could be
acquired.
· Charlie Bradley, 29 Second Avenue, 91910. He pointed out that one of the Planning Commissioners cited
an experience during the recent mayoral campaign when he made a circuit of his neighborhood to find out where
people stood on the use of the property in the lower Sweetwater Valley. It was clear that the overwhelming
majority of people in the area had an interest in keeping the area open space. They urged that the Council make
the decision to adhere to the General Plan and that the area in the lower Sweetwater Valley be dedicated to Open
Space.
· Bill Ayers, 44 E. Mankato Street, 91910, representing County Board of Supervisors Veterans Advisory
Committee. He wanted Council to proceed with the Veterans Home on the lower Sweetwater Valley property until
there was something better.
· Bobby Lopez, 442 Montgomery Street, 91910, representing the Otay Golden Hands Training Center. They
were present to support the Family Fun Center. They felt there was a need for recreational places for youth.
· Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, 91911, representing the Otay conm~unity. He favored the entire
Family Fun Center Project after studying what is possible in that location. He was particularly interested in the
Computer Learning Center. He felt this area was an eye sore, and it would serve no purpose to keep this as open
space.
· Ron McElliott, 1060 8th Avenue, San Diego, one of the general partners of lPG/South Bay Limited. He
encouraged Council to move forward with the proposal for the Family Fun Center concept and plan.
· Paul Kelpin, 3755 Putter Place, Bonita, 91902, President of the South County and Chula Vista Senior
Softball Teams. They supported the Family Fun Center, especially the softball complex since they needed these
fields. They felt it would benefit the entire community.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 8 ~.~
® A. Guillard, 138 Minot Avenue, 91910. Deferred his time to Dr. Mo Goomar.
® Dr. Mo Goomar, Chairman of the Lower Sweetwater Open Space Committee, representing Debbie
Valentine, 27 Las Flores Drive, 19190; Louis Valentine, 27 Las Flores Drive, 91910; and Frank Luzzaro, 95
Street, 91910; made an organized presentation. He spoke in favor of keeping this area as a properly maintained
open space. He expressed that they should pursue acquisition of the City owned land as open space and assess the
owners in the neighborhood $92.00 per year for maintenance; they would not accept the $228 per year assessment.
The Family Fun Center would increase the noise level already existing by the freeway.
® Elizabeth Stillwagon, 15 12 Melrose Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Chula Vista Connection Day
Care Center. She supported the Family Fun Center. She felt we needed to do something for our children.
· Maggie Helton, 162 Mankato Street, 91910, representing the Parks & Recreation Commission. She felt
the City of Chula Vista was well ahead of other cities in the County in taking care of their children. The only way
to get more money for parks and recreation is by raising taxes. As a private citizen, she had no problem with the
mixed use designation. However, she disagreed in the land use as it related to the senior care facility. Seniors need
to get out and walk around. All they would see in this location would be five sport parks, a cliff behind them, and
a freeway in front of them. She supported the staff recommendation for an amended EIR which must be done
before considering any land uses.
· Kathy Lembo, 315 Fourth Avenue, 91910, representing South Bay Community Services. She agreed that
the City had done a lot for kids, but she stated we always have to continue doing more. As we found out from the
Youth Summit last year, the kids want more recreational activities in this city.
· Scott Alevy, 901 Avenida Ysidora, 91910. He felt the Family Fun Center was a quality facility and urged
Council to take the steps necessary for staff to develop this plan.
* * * Mayor called a recess from 8:08 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. * * *
· Paul Lukefahr, 172 Noah Del Mar Avenue, 91910. He opposed the way the boundaries were drawn for
the assessment district; he was surprised when he discovered he was included. He felt that the people who were
going to gain the most, should pay the most. Since he could not even see the area, he could not understand why
he had to pay the same amount as those who wanted it.
· Bracken Ellis, 1557 Cavern Point Court, 91911, representing Sweetwater Union Senior High School
Associated Student Body Presidents. She had to leave early, but requested the following be incorporated into the
record. "I have spoken with most of the Senior High School ASB Presidents in the Sweetwater District, and by
their consent, I would like to voice their opinions through a short statement which will outline our reasons for
supporting the construction of a Family Fun Center. One advantage to the establishment of a Family Fun Center
is that it will provide an entertainment facility for the Chula Vista Community that is closer to home. We also
believe that it would be a safe place for teenagers provided that the security provisions we were told of are
implemented. Obviously, a Family Fun Center would provide employment opportunities for all; however, these
employment opportunities will, in tum allow more people to become contributing members of the community. At
a meeting with Warner Properties, we were presented with a plan that will include community fields and with
conununity fields included with the Family Fun Center, there would at least be USABLE land for the community,
and not just a dormant piece of property. It is for these reasons that we are in support of the construction of a
Family Fun Center."
· Les Warner, 3821 Mt. Aladin Avenue, San Diego, 92111, representing Warner Properties. He stated that
this will a combination of a family recreation center and a family fun center. The recreation center will have three
lighted, regulation softball fields and lighted soccer fields. The family fun center will have miniature golf, water
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 9
slide, go carts, bumper boats, batting cages, an arcade, a kiddie land, and inside the arcade will be a computer
learning center that will be free of charge to the residents of the City. He addressed the issue of the noise which
they felt that the noise from the freeway would drown out any of their noise. They were willing to talk with the
Parks and Recreation Department regarding the hours of operation in order to come to an amiable agreement on
this issue.
· Steve Warner, 4766 Redbrook Court, San Diego, 92117, representing Warner Properties. He pointed out
that in the conceptual of their Fun Center, they would be providing a road to Mr. and Mrs. Mross' property. He
presented slides of other recreational facilities similar to the one being proposed. He also submitted petitions with
over 100 signatures supporting the Family Fun Center.
· Barry Silverton, 12021 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Malibu
Development Corporation and the financial end of the project. He stated that technically they were no further along
than they were eighteen months ago when they went to the staff and said they wanted to build a Fun Center in Chula
Vista. In October 1993, they presented a two-page proposal. However, the resolutions were presented in a way
that the staff could not proceed in the way they wanted. Depending on who the accountant is, the City will have
about a $3 to $5 million dollar benefit over the fifteen year period of time. The City would be on the cutting edge
of the new way of doing things in keeping the taxes low and keeping the evaluation high. He further stated that
the noise would be a non-issue; they will not hear any noise from the Center. The traffic was not an issue; most
of the people will come in by the freeway. He felt the open space was not well designed because in order to have
open space which will replenish itself, you need at least 100 acres so the animals and plants can re-generate
themselves in an appropriate fashion. He urged that Council do a resolution directing staff to proceed and enter
into negotiations with them. It doesn't mean the Council is committed; it means that within the next sixty days,
it can be presented to Council with a recommendation.
Councilman Fox stated that we will have to conduct an EIR, perhaps a focused one; and we have to proceed with
a General Plan amendment. He asked if these could be handled within sixty days?
Mr. Leiter responded that a focused EIR would require five to six months period of time to be completed and taken
through the public hearing process. A draft General Plan amendment could be prepared within a 60 day period.
However, the fact that it cannot be adopted until the final EIR is completed and presented to the City Council.
Councilman Fox asked if a General Plan amendment, which includes a mixed use land use designation, would also
include the other alternatives and could be done concurrently while doing a DDA negotiation?
Mr. Salomone responded that the Development Agreement would be on a separate tract but a draft development
agreement could be prepared and brought back in sixty days. The DDA would be contingent upon the certification
of the EIR.
Mr. Silverton stated he had no problem with that. He felt that there were EIR reports done on this property before
and that it might not take as long to do the li~cused EIR as staff indicates. But if it did, they could live with it if
they knew we were really doing this. If they had an agreement, subject to, they could understand. If you do it this
way, they could live with it.
Councilman Fox asked him why he was not in thvor of the staff report which would direct staff to do an EIR on
all of the alternatives.
Mr. Silverton responded that them were five alternatives and you were cutting it too many ways and not focusing
what you want. If you have them go forward with a combination of Alternative 4 and 5, he would not object; it
would accomplish all of Council's purposes. If you directed staff to enter into negotiations and to get a definitive
agreement that they could bring to you that they either reconm~ended or didn't recommend that would be acceptable.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 10
Mayor Nader stated that he thought he heard Councilman Fox state that it was stafl~s recommendation to proceed
with a general plan amendment; he did not see that in staffs recommendation.
Councilman Fox replied that the Mayor was correct.
Councilman Rindone asked Mr. Silverton to address the proposed annual operating costs for operating the facility
as proposed.
Mr. Silverton responded that he could give a range. The most expensive part of a park is not the building of a
park, but the maintenance of the park. The way they evaluated it, there would be no maintenance from the city's
point of view on the park. That could be anywhere from $2-5 million, depending on what accountant you hire and
how you evaluate it. They were going to give the City all the revenue that would be made during three days. At
the end of the year, the City might have anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 in your pocket. On the other four
days, they would have to try to make enough money to support that park. He stated that they would have to
subsidize it from the Fun Center. They don't mind doing that; they felt it was their civic responsibility and part
of their contribution.
Councilman Rindone stated that the issue he was trying to focus on was the public-private partnership and the
proposed use of DIF fees of $750,000; the return from that could be any where from four to six times within that
period of time. It would be advantageous monetarily, if that was the decision the City makes.
® Oscar Castro, 180 Anita Street, 91911, representing Otay Golden Hands Training Center. Mr. Castro was
not present when called.
· Miriam Robbins, 20 Second Avenue, 91910. She supported the EIR but was against the project that was
being proposed. Her main concern was the traffic. She stated that usually when you enter a family fun center, you
exit from the freeway straight into the parking area. She felt that people going to this Center would be using Second
Avenue which already has a lot of traffic. She also wondered how the youngsters that we are trying to serve and
keep out of gangs will be able to afford a visit to the Fund Center when a hot dog sells for $1.75 and one four-
minute ride is about $3.00. She pointed out that there is a facility about 500 yards away in National City which
is empty most of the time, and there is another facility at I-5 and L Street which also sits empty most of the week;
it is only busy on Sundays.
· Nick Miller 307 Sea Vale, 91910. He favored the open space proposals. He did not look forward to
paying more, he would if it was necessary. He opposed the Fun Center because of the traffic which would be
created in the neighborhood. He has heard that this will benefit children, but he wanted Council to know that this
was not a free park; it will cost money.
· Sydnee Lahr Reyna, 64 Minot, 91910. She stated that we have seen development all around the area and
she was concerned with open space. She did not feel the appraisals were correct. Even if they were not, she felt
that if the area was canvasse~l and it was explained that it will cost between $7.00 to $18.00 per year to have that
area cleaned up, the people was back the open space.
· Francisco J. Gonzalez, 204 Montgomery Street, 91911, representing Otay Golden Hands Training Center.
Was not present when called.
· Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, 91910. He felt the Maintenance District was not a bad idea. Hestated
that one of the issues was where the boundaries were were drawn in the preliminary draft; what was included were
many properties that had no perceived benefit. If you do that, then the people will not support it. He stated that
there had been a lot of misunderstanding about the numbers per house. He felt that the numbers needed to be
weighted. Those who benefit the most should pay the most.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 11
· Sandra McHale-Renk, 45 Corte Maria, 91910. She stated that the I-805 noise was a background noise.
When someone is in that valley, you can hear them talk. It is very distinct. Her feeling was that if you have a Fun
Center in the valley, you will hear the bumper boats, go carts, and the crowds cheering. That noise would be
separate and distinct from the I-805 traffic noise which is aImost unbearable. She asked who would mitigate the
noise for the residents, put in the double-glass windows, and the dark curtains to protect from the lights? She asked
why the City couldn't use park acquisition and development funds to put fields there.
· Ted Bell, 111 North Second Avenue, 91910, representing KOA. He stated that KOA was one of the two
developed parcels in the lower Sweetwater Study Area. Any changes or development proposals advanced in the
rest of the Valley will have a large impact on them. They have generally supported and been sensitive to the wishes
of the neighborhood and residents. Regarding the open space, they recommended that the city property be
maintained as open space. Regarding the information on open space maintenance districts, there were several issues
to be resolved: the district should only encompass the redevelopment owned property at this time. Attempting to
purchase all the vacant property would be too expensive and would fail to get enough support from the
neighborhood. The appraisal used to establish the value for purchase was seriously flawed; the value was far too
high. They were opposed to the concept of an active or passive use park. It would be too costly to build and
maintain, and there was an active use park about one half mile away. Also a park could become a magnet for gang
activity, drug dealers, and the homeless. They did not feel that the Veterans Home and Retirement Home would
pose any problems for them. The Fund Center and playing fields could have some benefit to them by increasing
visits to their park. They did have some security concerns if the Center was not profitable or if it was not managed
properly. They would strongly object to the Fun Center and ball fields operating after 9:30 p.m. because the noise
would disturb their guests. They do support the staff in their report. If Council directed to have an EIR prepared,
they asked that a part of a request for proposal include instructions that the consultants and engineers meet with them
in the early stages of their investigation.
· George L. Hauk, 2001 Port Cardiff, 91913. He expressed that the establishment of this assessment district
will benefit the entire city. If Council imposes an assessment on these people, he felt it would be an inequity of
taxation.
· George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita, 91902. He 1~11 that if this was good for the health
in general for the people that lived around that 68 acres; then it should be the top priority. He felt the traffic was
a problem, but the air quality was the worst problem.
· Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, 91910, representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Broadway
Business Association. He stated that there has been a lot of talk about open space and about the appraisal. What
was paid for the property was a lot more than what the appraisal stated. If you did a best and highest instead of
comparable sales, you would triple the value of the property. X~aen it comes to an assessment district, he stated
you have to be careful of what you am asking for because you might get it. He recommended that Council set a
reasonable calendar, let the citizens decide if they want an assessment district, and at the same time do a draft
development agreement and a focused EIR.
· Roy Shepard, 28 Las Flores Drive, 91910. He felt the appraisal was high because it was a land-locked
property. When property is land-locked, it doesn't have much value. He also felt that the appraisal should be
weighted by those living closer to the area should pay more than those living further away.
· Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, rapresenting Warner Properties/Pacific Malibu Development
Corporation. He stated it was time for the Council to make a decision. If the Family Fun Center goes away
because there was no interest in it, the worst thing that could happen is to have the Council say that it was not an
alternative so we don't have to make a decision. In fairness to the residents in the neighborhood, there needs to
be a decision. He has been a strong advocate of the green belt around the City and felt that what was being
proposed with the Family Fun Center was consistent of what a green belt would include. It could include active
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 12
recreation both publicly owned and operated and privately owned and operated. He urged that the planning process
move forward on both items 4 and 5 and that Council move forward with the negotiations on the school property
for the Veterans Home.
® Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, 91910. She suggested that ifa Veterans Home was place on this site,
then they could oversee the property to make sure it is maintained. This would reduce maintenance costs.
· Wayne Kopp, 12 Casselmsn Court, 91910. He expressed concerns about: septic tanks which drain in that
area; that Council will open First Avenue because it goes past Rosebanks School; and if you have a Fun Center,
how will you keep the children out of the flood control.
· Leonard Aguilar, 138 Minot, 91910. He asked how the homeowner could combat the professionals. He
felt Council should listen to the homeowners.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
MS (Moore/Fox) to direct staff to pursue a General Plan amendment based on a mixed use !and use
designation; this would allow Alternatives 1, 4, and 5.
Councilman Moore stated that this motion will retain the Veterans use until we get a positive response from the
school district; it will also take care of senior care and family recreation center because the general plan amendment
is based on mixed use land use designation. Therefore, it will cover open space, and altematives 4 and 5.
Mayor Nader asked if there was any reason why we couldn't take some action to clean up the area to make sure
it was not being used as an illegal campground or dumping site.
Planning Director Leiter stated there was no reason. It was mentioned that the unzoned status of the property would
preclude us from doing code enforcement. He did not believe that was the case.
Councilman Rindone asked for staffs interpretation of how the proposed motion by Councilman Moore differs from
staffs recommendation.
Mr. Leiter responded that Mr. Moore is saying to both draft the general plan amendment and prepare the EIR. In
that respect, they are similar except that it eliminates alternatives 2 and 3 from further consideration.
MOTION CARRIED unanimously 5-0.
MS (Moore/Nader) to direct staff to contact the Sweetwater Union High School District to negotiate a no-cost,
six-month option on the 30 acre surplus school site located by Sharp Community Hospital and to evaluate it
as a preferred site for the Veterans Home with a 30 day deadline to report back to Council.
Mayor Nader stated that staff had already contacted the School District. We were talking about a thirty day deadline
for bringing this back. Would this be an acceptable part of the motion.
Councilman Moore stated he would certainly include this in the motion. If we don't have an agreement within thirty
days, then a report would be coming back.
Mayor Nader asked if it would be agreeable to say a minimum six-month option.
Councilman Moore replied that this would be no problem.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 13
MOTION CARRIED unanimously 5-0.
MS (Moore/Fox) to direct staff to enter into negotiations with PMG/Warner Properties and return to Council
with a draft general plan amendment and draft development agreement for the Family Recreation Center on
site requested within sixty days.
Councilman Fox asked that if we enter into a draft development agreement and if we still don't know from the
School District whether or not we can enter into an agreement to acquire this land, do we accept a draft
development agreement and does it become legally binding?
City Attomey Booguard stated that it is something that will be proposed by draft for Council's approval and it would
not be binding. Or if the Council would prefer, we could make it binding subject to the condition that we can
relocate the Veterans Home.
Mayor Nader stated that Council had received a letter from another firm operating an existing fun center in Chula
Vista expressing concern that other firms have an opportunity to look at this proposal. He wondered if it was within
the intent of this motion that staff could still entertain proposals from other private firms. He hoped staff would
not take this as direction, but maybe Council should be clear as to whether they should or not take this as direction
to exclude considerations of any other proposals that may come in. What the letter was asking for was a formal
RFP process; he felt this would be more time-consuming. He felt the competitive purpose sought by that letter
could be achieved by indicating to them that if they have another proposal that they would like to bring forward,
they are welcome to do so and staff could evaluate it.
Councilwoman Hotton stated that we need to keep the window of competition open. We are asking for sixty days
and if someone can come forward within that time frame, then it is something we would want to look at. However,
we can proceed with the motion and start negotiations with PMG.
Mayor Nader asked if we were talking about site specific agreement right away given that the EIR was still pending.
Or, are we talking about beginning immediately to negotiate a draft agreement that could be applicable to whatever
site in Chula Vista.
Councilman Moore stated that he tried not to show favoritism. But this particular group came to us eighteen months
ago. If we thought we should have gone out with an RFP, we should have thought about it months ago. He felt
that someone could always come in and do it a little better. That is why bids are sealed.
Mayor Nader stated that his question was not in reference to which firm makes the proposal or we negotiate with,
his question was in reference to can we begin negotiating some broad terms of the draft development agreement
without pinning ourselves down to only one site given at the same time we our conducting an EIR that looks at
alternative sites.
Mr. Booguard responded that the development agreement to be effective is going to have to be site specific.
Councilman Rindone stated that the client has proposed a very site specific proposal. If I was the client, I would
not be interested in entering negotiations if it wasn't site specific.
Mayor Nader stated he would vote against the motion since it is site specific.
Councilwoman Horton stated that it was important that we address public safety. The parties involved have
volunteered to have security personnel on site at all times during open hours. She also felt we needed to include
some type of graffiti eradication program, probably something stronger than the ordinance we already have so that
when some graffiti is found on site that it will be taken care of within twenty-four hours. Also, the noise factor
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 14
is the main concern the residents have living adjacent to the property. We need to examine the noise sources, hours
of operation, and consider the existing noise levels.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that the Council most not show any precommitment to the Family Fun Center. You
are directing staff to come hack to you with a plan that will incorporate this general plan amendment, draft
development agreement, and EIR.
MOTION CARRIED 4-14) (Nader voting no).
MSUC (Moore/Nader) to accept the lower Sweetwater Valley general plan issue paper as amended and direct
staff to coordinate the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report analyzing alternatives 1, 4, and 5.
MSUC (Nader/Horton) to direct staff to initiate code compliance and public safety measures on the parcels
which have been under discussion to assure whatever takes place and however long it takes that in the
meantime clean up and appropriate public safety measures occur.
Councilman Rindone asked if the second motion results in a negotiated agreement for the Sharp Community Hospital
property, would that action be commensurate and Alternative 4 would drop out of the EIR and would it only be
Alternatives 1 and 5 so that we would not have to proceed to analyze the other areas? In other words, if the
alternative for the Veterans Home is the hospital property, then he did not see the need to continue to spend the cost
for the EIR for that alternative.
City Attorney Boogaard stated that the CEQA process is such that before you could consummate the decision to put
the Veterans Home at the District site, you need an environmental evaluation one way or another. This could be
the alternative site to the EIR evaluation on the Veterans Home at the School District site or the alternative to
compare the Fun Center site in the existing EIR. Therefore, the CEQA process is such that we would not in the
logical pursuit of CEQA evaluations, drop it out. We would continue it and would need it for both this site and
for the District site because one or the other will be an alternative.
MSUC (Nader/Horton) that because of the lateness of the hour, Council consider item 19, oral
communications, and item 26a, Rindone and Borton Council Comments, and Closed Session and continue
the remainder of the Agenda for one week.
19. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE 8 IN
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 FOR RANCHO DEL REY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PERPETUAL
MAINTENANCE OF A DESILTING BASIN - A desilting basin was built by McMillin Development in City open
space off-site of Rancho del Rey land to trap silt which washed down form the upstream development. After
maintenance by McMillin for five years, the City will have to maintain the basin. Formation of Zone 8 within Open
Space District 20 will provide financing for the maintenance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94.
RESOLUTION 17587 ESTABLISHING ZONE 8 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 20,
CONFIRMING THE REPORT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVYING THE FIRST YEAR
ASSESSMENTS AT $0 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the hearing was declared closed.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 15
RESOLUTION NO 17587 OFFERED BY COUNClLMAN MOORE, reading oftextwaswaived, passed, and
approved 5-0.
20. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE E
WITHIN EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, FOR THE PERPETUAL
MAINTENANCE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL - On 5/24/94, Council declared the intention to
establish Zone E within EastLake Maintenance District Number One (ELMD1) to provide for the maintenance of
Telegraph Canyon channel. The public hearing will consider testimony for assessing bene~tting properties within
EastLake Maintenance District Number One for their pro rata share of the costs. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. lTEM CONTINUED TO
8/2/94.
RESOLUTION 17588 ESTABLISHING ZONE E WITHIN EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, CONFIRMING THE REPORT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND
LEVYING THE FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, 91910. She directed her statement to Mayor Nader stating that on July 12, he
made a request that a handicapped female have all her paperwork in line while at the same time the Mayor stated
that he hoped that the paperwork that she had done was being paid for. She stated that she paid almost $100 this
quarter to have her work printed and done by the staff.
Mayor Nader responded that what he said was that somebody had indicated to him who had a disability that they
had asked for Council minutes and had been told that they would have to pay for them. He did not think it was
right that any citizen with a disability who needed minutes mailed should have to pay for them. Council passed a
policy, as a result, that citizens can have access to the Council minutes, at the discretion of the Clerk, without
having to pay. No allegations was made that anybody had failed to pay their fair share.
Ms. Butler stated being a disabled person, she did not mind paying her fair share, especially if we asked someone
who is non-disabled to do a work for us. She wished in the future a little caution be used and that females who am
disabled resent the word "disabled female."
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
21. RESOLUTION 17589 AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT RECORDS - The Personnel Department is requesting authorization to destroy expired and
obsolete records. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel)
Mr. Boogaard stated that there was nothing controversial about this item; it should not have been placed under
Action Items.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 16
RESOLUTION 17589 OFFERED BY COUNCILWOMAN HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed,
and approved 5-0.
22. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES AND LEGAL REMEDIES TO
PROPOSED JPA RATE STRUCTURE. ITEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94
23. REPORT UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES. ITEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 6, 8, 15, 16, and 17. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order).
OTHER BUSINESS
24. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT{S)
Scheduling of meetings. Was not discussed.
25. MAYOR'S REPORTf S) .;
· Ratification of appointment: William Virchis - Cultural Arts Commission. ITEM CONTINUED TO
8/2/94.
· RESOLUTION 17590 OPPOSING ANY DELAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIMARY
TREATMENT PHASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATMENT PLANT AND DEMANDING THAT THE
LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB DROP ITS OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MECHANICAL PRIMARY TREATMENT PHASE AND ENTER INTO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION (IBWC) AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) FOR FUTURE STUDY OF ADVANCED INTEGRATED PONDING SYSTEMS
FOR SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENT PURPOSES -- ITEM CONTINUED TO 8/2/94.
26. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers Horton/Rindone: Consideration of "4-D" Rule for Chula Vista. Councilman Rindone stated that
he had a discussion with Councilwoman Hotton and they were reviewing the possibility that emergency action would
be necessary to adhere to a very specific biological time period with the respect to the impact to the California
gnatcatcher. Grading must be initiated during the non-breeding period or biological window as provided in the law
between the periods of September 1 through February 15. Failure to begin grading during the upcoming window
in the Rancho del Rey SPA III area will result in delays of approximately one year longer to the construction of
Rancho del Rey Junior High School and Middle School, adjoining community park, and other desired public
improvements. This Council had provided direction to staff to proceed and examine an urgency ordinance
implementing the 4-D Rule in consultation with the County. He requested that Council direct staff to bring back
an emergency ordinance implementing the 4-D Rule.
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 17
Councilwoman Horton stated that the City of San Diego has already adopted 4-D Take procedures and the County
has adopted an interim ordinance.
Mayor Nader asked if this could be an urgency interim ordinance that we could later modify. He was
uncomfortable with adopting a permanent 4-D Rule in less than one week with no Commission input.
Councilwoman Horton asked if this information had been channeled through any other commission?
Mr. Leiter responded that to his knowledge this has not been presented to any other commission. He had a
conversation with a representative from the McMillin Company regarding their specific concerns. Staff has been
working on a draft ordinance and would be prepared to bring it forward. As to the specific timing, it was his
understanding in discussing this with McMillin representatives that a two to three week time frame would be
adequate to meet the concerns that were brought up regarding the breeding season. He requested flexibility within
that time frame to bring back an urgency ordinance for Council's review.
A representative from McMillin Company was present and nodded her agreement. She suggested the date of August
16.
Mr. Leiter stated that would be three weeks. It would be either on the 9th or the 16th of August.
Councilman Rindone stated that would be acceptable and Councilwoman Horton indicated it was agreeable to her.
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to direct staff to bring back next week an urgency ordinance implementing the 4-D
Rule.
CLOSED SESSION
27. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Hummell vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego and Aptec.
· EPA vs. the City San Diego, Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys.
Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· City vs. Solid Waste Management JPA (discriminatory rate structure).
28. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers
(WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
I1'
Minutes
July 26, 1994
Page 18
29. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
The meeting reconvened at 12:15 p.m. with Councilmembers Fox and Moore and Mayor Nader present.
Mayor Nader announced that there was no action required to be taken following Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:16 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting on August 2, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Cit~ Cle~