HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/08/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, August 16, 1994 Council Chambers
6:13 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (arrived at 6:24 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Neder
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Brace M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 9, 1994.
Councilmember Rindone requested that the minutes be correc~:l to show the meeting started at 6:09 p.m. and that
Councilmember Hotton left the meeting at 7:49 p.m. and returned at 8:18 p.m.
MSC (Moore/Fox) to approve the minutes of August 9, 1994 as amended. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton
absent.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Jennifer Ayer - Youth Commission; and, Robert Fisher - Resource Conservation
Commission. The Oath of Office was administered by City Clerk Authelet to Robert Fisher - Resource
Conservation Commission.
b. Proclaiming Thursday, August 25, 1994, as Chula Vista Neighborhood Telecenter Day - The
proclamation was presented by Acting Mayor Pro Tem Fox to Rod Davis, Executive Director of the Chamber of
Commerce.
c. "HEALTHY KIDS FAIR," Saturday, August 27, 1994, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Vista Square
Elementary School, 540 "G" St., Chula Vista. An announcement of the fair will be made by Frank Long,
American Red Cross, San Diego/Imperial Counties Chapter, South Bay Service Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item pulled: 10)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OI~'I~'ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of
the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter of resignation from the Youth Commission - Jocelyn Castillo, 1345 Oriole Pl., Chula Vista, CA
91911. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post jmmP~liately
according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6. RESOLUTION 17613 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A TELESQURT FIRE APPARATUS
THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID, AWARDING CONTRACT TO WESTATES TRUCK EQUIPMENT
CORPORATION, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - The 1994/95 Equipment Replacement Fund
Minut~
August 16, 1994
Page 2
provides for the purchase of a 1500 gpm rear-mounted elevated master stream fire engine (Telesqurt) to replace the
existing fire apparatus. Resolution 6132 authorizes the City to pafiicipate in cooperative bids with other
governmental agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City has been invited to pa~icipate
in a current Orange County Telesqurt bid from Westates Truck Equipment Corporation which provides for
substantial savings from current mid-1994 quotes. Staffrecommendsapprovaloftheresolution. (DirectorofPublic
Works, Fire Chief and Director of Finance) 4/5th's vote required.
7. RESOLUTION 17614 EXTENDING CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE CITY'S ANNUAL
REQUIREMENT OF LIBRARY BOOKS - Resolution 17235 adopted on 9/7/93 approved the cooperative bid
with the City of San Diego for requirements for library books. The contract was awarded to Baker & Taylor
Company, a national library book broker. The contract contains an option to renew for additional one-year periods
through 6/30/97. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
8. RESOLUTION 17615 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE ANNUAL SYMPHONY POPS
CONCERT AND A FIREWORKS FINALE, AND ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT - The City, in conjunction with the San Diego Unified Port District, is
planning to host the San Diego Symphony Pops Orchestra for a concert at Marina View Park on Sunday, 8/21/94.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
9. RESOLUTION 17616 AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN FISCAL YEAR 1994/95
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CO-PERMITTEE JOINT WET WEATHER MONITORING AGREEMENT - The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), through its Executive Officer, has specified a wet
weather storm water monitoring program to be implemented by the San Diego County Municipal Storm Water
Discharge Co-Permittees during Fiscal Year 1994/95 storm season. The Sen Diego Co-Permittees have agreed to
pafiieipate, for the second year, in a cooperative program to accomplish the required wet weather monitoring and
to share the costs of said monitoring. The Co-Permittees find it necessary to retain a consultant to conduct the
required wet weather monitoring. The City of San Diego, as principal permittee and leader in the implementation
will retain a consultant and administer a contract with said consultant on behalf of the San Diego County Co-
Permittees. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17617 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD-CLYDE
CONSULTANTS FOR DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENING AND ILLEGAL DISCHARGE
DETECTION SERVICES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations specify a
number of tasks that must be undertaken by local agencies. One task requires all agencies to annually conduct dry
weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at
major outfalls at least twice per dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal
discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of said illegal discharges.
Staff has determined that it is necessary to retain the services of a consultant in order to satisfy the dry weather
discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection requirements. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
· Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated it was his understanding that when the GIS
system was adopted the public works department would be able to do what the consultant was being hired to do.
He handed out information he had obtained from a company he had picked at random who charged on a per item
basis.
Councilmember Moore stated it was a task that had to be performed that was supported by fees and fines.
Therefore, he urged Council to review the program each year to keep the costs down.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a possibility that staffing in the department, through retirements,
etc., could be trained to handle such work.
It
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 3
Mr. Goss stated staff could look at doing that, but there was also equipment that had to be acquired that was fairly
expensive.
Mayor Nader questioned if Woodward-Clyde had laboratory facilities in the region.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded they did.
RESOLUTION 17617 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
unanimously.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
11. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.64
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CONDOMINIUMS
WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO DENSITY - CITY INITIATED - Recently, potential
buyers of an individual condominium unit could not obtain finanicing because the project within which the unit is
located is nonconforming with respect to present density limitations. Therefore, the same number of units could
not be rebuilt if the project was more than 60% destroyed per Section 19.64.150 of the Municipal Code. Staff
believes this is a problem unique to condomlnlums which should be addressed by amending the code to allow
replacement in such cases. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning)
ORDINANCE 2599 AMENDING SECTION 19.64.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING SECTION 19.64.155 TO MODIFY THE NONCONFORMING USES REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS (first reading)
Mayor Nader stated he owned and lived in a condominium and had been advised by the City Attorney that he should
abstain from participation.
Councilmember Rindone stated he owned apartments and felt he should also abstain from participation.
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, stated it was a matter of caution. The exception was whether or not the matter
affected the public generally or if the affect was distinguishable on the Councilmember from the public generally.
Mayor Nader stated he would trail the item until Councilmember Herton arrived.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tem Herton. Mayor
Nader and Councilmember Rindone left the dins. There being no public testimony, the public heating was closed.
ORDINANCE 2599 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved 3-0-0-2 with Nader and Rindone abstaining.
12. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-94D/PCM-94-24/PCM-94-27/PCM-93-6/PCS-88-3A; CONSIDERATION
OF PREZONING AND INCORPORATING APPROXIMATELY 22.7 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN
EASTLAKE GREENS AND AMENDING THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS SPA PLAN, EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION)
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, EASTLAKE GREENS AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, AND EASTLAKE
GREENS MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (TRACT 88-3) - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The
EastLake Development Company has requested amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan, EastLake
Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA), EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations, EastLake Greens Air
Quality and Water Conservation Plan, EastLake Greens Master Tentative Map, and a prezone and addition of
approximately 22.7 acres of unincorporated land to the existing EastLake Greens SPA area. The purpose for the
request is to: (1) Incorporate into the planning and regulatory framework of the EastLake Greens SPA Plan those
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 4
parcels of the EastLake Greens General Plan Amendment which take access from the internal circulation of the
EastLake Greens Planned Community (northeast of the SDG&E transmission lines); (2) Improve the spatial and
functional relationship of residential density/product distribution within the EastLake Greens Planned Community
area; and (3) Update the EastLake Greens SPA Plan and supplementary documents to reflect current statistics and
technical refinements based on site plan approvals and market considerations. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinances on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Planning)
A. ORDINANCE 2600 APPROVINGTHE PREZONING OF 22.7 ACRES OFUNINCORPORATED
LAND TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ON IS-94-19 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO (first readin~l
B. ORDINANCE 2601 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I
EXPANSION) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (LAND USE DISTRICT MAP ONLY)
AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-94-19 AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO (first readin~
C. RESOLUTION 17618 APPROVING AND IMPOSING AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONS ON
THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE
GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND EASTLAKE GREENS MASTER
TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF IS-94-
19 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, sommarized the issues involved with the project. Condition 8C of the
ordinance referred to the north side of parcel R27 (trail system) and should be corrected to read the north side of
Clubhouse Drive.
* * * Councilmember Horton arrived at 6:26 p.m. * * *
Mayor Nades stated the Resource Conservation Commission minutes should have been included in the packet. He
had read the minutes which reflected a 5-0 vote for the mitigated negative declaration.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Brace Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue, #100, Chula ~rista, CA, representing EastLake Development Company,
concurred with the staff recommendations.
There being no further public testimony, the public heanng was closed.
ORDINANCES 2600 AND 2601 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 17618 OFFERED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously.
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM CHANGES OF RESIDENTIAL YARD
WASTE RECYCLING SERVICES PROM AN OPTIONS PROGRAM TO A UNIVERSAL MANDATORY
RATE STRUCTURE - The City's residential yard waste collection program began 1/1/94 as a unique *options"
program which allows single-family residents the choice of how they will participate, based on their own assessment
of their yard waste needs. A review of the participation, costs, and revenue of the first six months of the voluntary
"options" program show that costs are far exceeding revenue and continuation of the program is dependent upon
a rate adjustment to cover collection and processing costs. Letters were received from Laidlaw requesting
consideration of an amendment to the yard wsste fee structure effective 9/1/94 which would involve a change to
a universal mandatory rate structure to be spread to all single-family residents. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
RESOLUTION 17619 APPROVING A UNIVERSAL RESIDENTIAL YARD WASTE
COLLECTION RATE CHANGE TO $1.48 PER SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 5
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the $1.48 for the single family dwelling was the correct figure, i.e.
why it would not be the $.77 rate.
® Dan Higgins, Controller for Laidlaw Waste Systems, 180 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated the
41,000 was the original unit count proposed last fall. The assumption in the 41,000 units was that 6,500 units
would use the sticker program on a weekly basis. Experience had shown that a lot of the units were using one
sticker per month. The actual count of residential units in the City was 26,000 units.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, informed Council the 41,000 was representative of the usage during a
month. There were 26,000 households and if 6,500 of those households were projecl~d to use one sticker one time
per week that would be four utilizations in the month and then there was the 13,000 that was estimated that would
take advantage of the subscription program.
Councilmember Fox stated he was concerned over the timing of the program and the short two week notice to the
users. He questioned whether credit would be given to those with carts. He further questioned over what period
the $18,000 loss occurred.
Michel Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, responded that Laidlaw had been requested to place an advertisement
in a local newspaper, ads in a local hispanic medium, send out a letter in the billing cycle scheduled for next week,
go door to door prior to September 1st, and provide the stickers to the residents prior to their first pickup date.
They would also put a statement on the bill itself. Laidlaw had been preparing the material for the campaign and
was prepared to move forward immediately. Thirty day notice would fall in the middle of the billing cycle and
create a financial hardship.
Mayor Nader questioned why the increase could not be phased in over a longer period of time, i.e. take the
additional increment, plus what the cost would be over the coming year, and divide that by twelve and make that
the billing. That would prevent the users from being hit with a large one time billing. He was concerned that the
City was looking at three separate increases and questioned whether it would be better to defer the item until the
solid waste issue regionally clarified itself and Council knew what the increase for coming year would be.
Councilmember Rindone questioned the operational costs for the six months.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankate, Chula Vista, CA, felt the program should be a city-wide operation with a
delay of two months before initiating. He further recommended the billings be itemized as to greens, recyclables,
trash, etc.
· Jim Weaver, 881 Energy Way, Chula Vista, CA, representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, stated the $17,000
loss was for a six month period strictly at the net revenue line. The net operating loss for the six month period
when introducing labor, wages, benefits, fuel, oil, operating costs, etc. was $147,000 for the six months. It was
a significant financial burden to their company. There was concern as to not knowing when the next official rate
change for landfill adjustments or increases would occur. The repetition of increases was not driven by the City
or Laidlaw, they were passing though an increase of an operating cost imposed by the County of San Diego. The
yard waste program was having a financial impact on their profitability and financial ability to continue to provide
the service.
Mr. Meacham informed Council that Laidlaw had made a commitment to refund on the yard waste containers within
120 days.
Mr. Weaver stated the same refund program would apply to the users that had purchased stickers.
Councilmember Horton questioned why the "pay as you throw" program in Santee was economically feasible for
that company and what the difference was between the two programs.
I Di'
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 6
Mr. Meacham responded the *pay as you throw* program applied not only to yard waste but also refuse. One of
the primary reasons the program was effective was because the users had a choice of different size refuse cans and
paid a variable rate on the size of the can.
Coaneilmember Hotton questioned why there would only be a 50% credit for the composting bins.
Mr. Weaver responded they could continue to use the yard waste carts in their service. The composting bins were
used for a backyard service the users did on their own. It was not part of a monthly service fee, but an offering
to provide the composing bins at their cost.
® Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated the ticket program had been a failure. He
preferred a standardize program.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 17619 OFI~ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was prepared to vote for a universal rate system, but not at the present time.
He wanted verification of the $1.48. Council would have to make a major decision regarding the proposed option
of a transfer station and whether the City would accept or reject the proposed rates by the Solid Waste Commission
and look at the alternatives. He suspected the rate would go down as the City had soma viable alternatives. The
change to a universal system, along with a potential reduction and the proposed reduction in recycling were three
significant changes that would occur within four weeks of each other. All the changes should be made at once.
Councilmember Fox stated staff had indicated that Laidlaw would withdraw from the entire program due to the
program losses. He questioned if the program would be placed in jeopardy if not approved. 7
Mr. Weaver stated they needed economic relief as it was a significant financial burden. An option could be that
Council could make the change effective 9/1 with implementation on 11/1 with the next billing cycle. That would
be acceptable to Laidlaw as it would spread the cost for a twelve month period over a ten month period. The rate
would be $1.85 over ten months.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader/Fox) to approve the universal rate structure for yard waste which would
take effect with the November billing and that the cost of the next two months would be spread out over the
remaining ten months so Laidlaw would have cost recovery; staff is to obtain further information on the
Santee program and report bach to Council within two weeks for consideration. (A uulversal rate structure
would take effect 911 unless Council took other action regarding the Santee proposal.)
Councilmember Moore questioned how the City would tell the ratepayer that the fee was $1.48 and they would be
charged $1.85. Afar the ten month period the rate should then be $1.48.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed.
B. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF RATE CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
RECYCLING SERVICES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS - The rates for single-family households'
curbside recycling services have not been reviewed in two years since the only change to the overall refuse and
recycling rate during that time has been to pass through the increased cost of landfill tip fees. Municipal Code
8.23.210 provides for specific rate review procedures for the program which allow for certain estimated revenues
to be applied to the program costs, with adjustments for comparisons of estimated to actual costs to be made
periodically. In accordance with the procedures, the successful participation of residents and the increasing avoided
landfill costs now result in a recommended reduction to the single-family rate from $1.10 to $.50 per month and
corresponding reductions for senior citizens from $.75 to $.35 per month. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
RESOLUTION 17620 APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE 7
RECYCLING SERVICES
It
Minutes
August !6, 1994
Page 7
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There be'mg no public testimony,
the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION 17620 OFFERED BY C OUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FILED BY
SUNLAND RANCHO DEL REY AND RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P. FOR 16.9 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AND DEL REY
BOULEVARD WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY: (A) PCM-94-26 -
AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN; AND (B)
PCS-94-02 - TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SUNLAND RANCHO DEL REY, TRACT PCS-94-02 -
The applicants, Sunland Rancho del Rey and Rancho del Rey Partnership L.P., have submifl~l applications for an
amendment to the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan, and a Tentative Subdivision Map known
as Sunland Rancho del Rey, Tract Number PCS-94-02, in order to subdivide and develop 16.9 acres located at the
southwest comer of Rancho Del Rey Parkway and Del Rey Boulevard within the Rancho del Rey Planned
Community. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17621 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN AND A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 16.9
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AND DEL REY
BOULEVARD
Mayor Nader questioned where the density was be;rag transferred from and if there was an agreement that if they
did not reach the density in the other areas they would be able to transfer it to any other area of the project. His
concern was that the area under consideration was adjacent to a permanent open space area in Rice Canyon. Even
without a density transfer a change of product type of that nature resulted in the consumption of more land. Density
was also being added which increased the amount of land utilized unless the size of the units was decreased. He
questioned whether the project had been before the Resource Conservation Commission for consideration.
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, responded it was being transferred from a number of areas where the
density was not utilized. The transfer was twenty units into the area over a seventeen acre site. That ability was
set forth in the SPA subject to Council approval. Additional property would not be utilized. The particular plan
was an addendum which did not go back through the Resource Conservation Commission.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated the Environmental Review Coordinator had indicated that the final EIR
in 1987 for SPA I was reviewed by the RCC. At the SPA plan level it was related to a determination that the
transfer resulted in a spacially or functionally superior plan and there was discussion in the report regarding staff's
evaluation of the design of the revised project, as well as a reference to the site plan review that occurred. It was
staffs determination the plan was a superior plan and met a current market need. The site plan met or exceeded
the City's design standards as well as the fact that it more clearly met the market demand than a townhouse
development would in the same location.
Mr. Bcogaard stated he had been assured by Mr. Rudolph, before he left the City, that he had reviewed it and it
met all the City's standards.
Councilmember Horton stated the project met the developers target market and was a very popular housing type.
In her opinion, it was a substantial improvement of the spacial arrangement and functional relationship of the
involved site plan. Therefore, it fit within the parameters of having a transfer within the SPA area.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Ure Kretowicz, 5095 Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego, CA, Chairman of the Board, Sunland
Communities, gave a brief slide presentation of the project. After the utilization of the density transfers for the site
there was still excess densities that were unused in the overall SPA.
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 8
Councilmember Moore questioned if it was a gated community with private streets.
Mr. Kretowicz responded that was correct. The loop street would be asphalt with colored concrete accents at
pedestrian crossings. The courts were all concrete.
Mayor Nader questioned how the project fit into the surrounding area, i.e. Rice Canyon.
Mr. Kretowicz stated the site had already been graded and they would stay within the boundaries of the existing
grades. There was a canyon between the project and Home Depot and on the other side of Del Rey Boulevard.
Remedial grading would be done within the site, but the boundary outside of the project would not be affected.
· Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA, representing the Rancho del Rey Partnership,
stated the overall SPA plan had a total density allocation of 2,200 units. The cumulative of unused units included
at total of approximately 100 unused units in SPA I. The majority of the units came from the residential area
immediately abutting the Discovery Elementary School. Because the project was in essence completely built out,
or mapped, there was not an opportunity for any more density increases anywhere else. The 180 units were in the
neighborhood of 10 units per acre and, with the additional 20 units being transferred in, it was now approaching
11.6 DU's per acre which was in the density range of the SPA plan.
There being no fu~her public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION 17621 OFkERED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived.
Mr. Leiter stated the project had been approved in accordance with an approved site plan and the site plan dearly
delineat~M the boundaries of the grading. The tentative map also limited the grading to the area described in the
public hearing.
Mayor Nader stated based on that representation he would suppert the motion on the floor. The proposed changes
could have environmental consequences and he was surprised the CEQA did not go before the Resource
Conservation Commission. He hoped the RCC would be given the opportunity to review those types of findings
before coming to Council.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17621: approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
15. ORDINANCE 2602 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A VOLUNTARY
TAKE PERMIT PROCESS SANCTIONED UNDER SECTION 4(d) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROCESS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 10(a) OF SAID ACT (urgency
ordinance) In March 1993, the Federal Department of the Interior listed the California Gnatcatcher as st threatened
species, and adop~l a special rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act which establishes specific
regulations regarding the taking of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), the habitat of the Gnatcatcher. The Special Rule
allows local jurisdictions to grant CSS "take" permits if certain findings can be made. The 4(d) Rule is intended
to provide an alternative for applicants who choose not to go directly through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for a Section 10(a) permit. During the past several months City staff has been working with staff of the resource
agencies and other local jurisdictions, as well as local property owners, to implement the local 'take' permit
It
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 9
process. The emergency ordinance will implement a 4(d) Take Permit Process for the City, thus allowing the City
to issue CSS take permits at the local level. Staff recommends Council adopt the urgency ordinance. (Director of
Planning) 4/Sth's vote required.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, informed Council that staff had received comments from Fish & Game and
upon review staff recommended two changes to the draft ordinance: 1) to change the references in the ordinance
from a "take" permit to a "loss" permit; and 2) clarify that the ordinance only applied to 'losses* within the City
of Chula Vista (Section 17.30.010). The remaining comments from Fish & Game were points of clarification and
staff felt they were valid, but had been addressed in the draft ordinance. Therefore, staff was not proposing any
further changes in response to their written comments. A letter was also received from the Sierra Club regarding
the report on the ordinance. The most significant comment was regarding the emergency status of the ordinance.
There were unremlved issues staff would continue to work on regarding the overall process. As staff clarified
points in the ordinance or the process they would return to Cormell with revisions.
Councilmember Fox questioned who designated the region.
Mr. Leiter stated staff felt ultimately the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would need to make a determination on how
the 5% rule was applied within the region. The applicability of the ordinance adopted was to projects in the City
of Chula Vista. It was understood the City could only issue permits within its jurisdiction. What the area was that
the 5 % was calculated on and if it was regional or jurisdictional was an issue that was still subject to debate. It was
staff's position that it ultimately had to be viewed regionally.
Mayor Nader stated the pipeline projects already accounted for more than 5 % of the habitat in question. It was his
understanding that under the existing regulations the City could not take someone elses share of the 'take'.
Mr. Leiter responded that they accounted for more than 5% of the existing habitat within the corporate limits, but
not within the region. The Fish & Wildlife Service had not established any sort of a share arrangement within the
region for the 'take'. Letters to them by the City raised those issues and how the share should be established. That
discussion was continuing, but it was not clear to staff that it ought to be based strictly on jurisdictional boundaries.
Mr. Boogaard stated the "take" was not distributed to any city, but to the region. The County's allocation may
never be used. It was the City's position, in the resolution, that it was on a first come/first serve basis.
Mayor Nader questioned how the City would react to it, under the ordinance, if they responded the City was using
up someone elses share.
Mr. Boogaard stated Fish & Wildlife did not have the authority under their current regulations to say that. The
reasonable way to deal with it would be to take the window of development, over the next five to ten years or
however long it would take to form a permanent rule, and allocate it on the expectation of development that would
occur in that window. That development would occur a lot more within the City of Chula Vista than in remote
areas of the County that may never need it.
Mayor Nader questioned what would happen if the City was not notified and had used up the percentage the City
was entitled to. He felt there should be some assessment of the relative public benefit of potential development and
a prioritization based upon that so if there were restrictions on what could be approve. d, those projects with the most
public benefit such as schools, etc. were not gutted for projects with less public benefit. He did not see a basis for
doing that in the ordinance.
Mr. Leiter stated the ordinance did not establish anything except a first come/first serve process.
Mr. Boogaard stated that page 15-4 gave the Director the discretion not to issue any permit applied for under the
procedure.
Mayor Nader questioned if there was an appeal process from the Directors decision.
Mr. Boogaard responded there was not.
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 10
Councilmember Moore stated Fish & Wildlife was usually very up front regarding their rights and privileges and
he felt they were g~mg slow to make sure they knew what they were doing. It was tirst come/first serve and Fish
& Wildlife knew it. If there were no firm rules the cities could not follow them.
Mr. Boopard stated it was more than just vague. He felt Fish & Wildlife intentionally said the cities and counties
would be the ones to decide on how to allocate the percentage. All they cared about was habitat preservation and
5 % loss would not do much damage in the interim period until there was a permanent role. It was, in his
judgemerit, unfair and unreasonable and could cause the City to cede land use authority to neighboring cities and
the County.
Mayor Nader stated he had serious problems with the implementation of the ordinance, i.e. first come/first serve.
He was concerned that in the future someone would say the City had taken enough and if everything had been done
on a first come/first serve basis the City could be in the situation where a development with a higher public benefit
would not be built. He also felt there should be notice and appeal rights so there was a process with accountability.
He understood the urgent nature of getting the school project underway, but did not feel all of the other items
covered by the ordinance were of an urgency basis, i.e. east "J" Street, etc. The urgency ordinance should be
restricted to public benefit projects and give staff time to refine some of the other provisions, consult with Fish &
Wildlife Service, and return with an ordinance that would not cause the City, in the future, to regret they had not
proceeded more cautiously. He questioned when staff anticipated that a permanent ordinance would be brought
back.
Mr. Leiter responded that it would be 11/2 - 2 years in total.
MS (Nader/Fox) an appeal process, notice to the Council and appeal, similar to the CUP process, in which
discretion was vested with administration, be incorporated into the ordinance.
Councilmember Fox questioned if an appeal process had been discussed. 7
Mr. L~tter responded that it had not been discussed, nor had it been included in ordinances prepared by other
jurisdictions or in the State guidelines.
Mr. Boogaard stated the entire project would have to go before Council for approval. One of the conditions of such
a large project would be that the developer would have to process a "loss' permit pursuant to the City ordinance.
The loss of habitat could be evaluated at that time. If Council felt it appropriate, he would recommend specific
appeal language other then modeling it after the CUP process as it had three different layers of appeal in the CUP
process.
Mayor Nader stated his motion only dealt with the appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Boogeard stated the ordinance grant~l the final authority to issue to a department head and unless the Council
created the appeal right, Council would not have the right to change the decision of the Director. He recommended
the following amendment to the ordinance, new subsection J, page 15-4, section outlining the Procedures for
Granting, antitied Appeal to Council, 'The decision of the Director to grant or deny a loss permit may be appealed
by any party to the City Council if written appeal is filed within ten days from notice of the Directors decision to
the applicant and City Council '.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Agreeable to the Maker and Second of the Motion) amendment to the
ordinance, new subsection J, page 15-4, section outlining the Procedures for Granting, entitled "Appeal to
Coundl", "The decision of the Direaor to grant or deny a loss permit may he appealed by any party to the
City Council if written appeal is filed within ten days from notice of the Directors decision to the applicant
and City Council".
· Jim Moxham, 2801 Albatross Street, San Diego, CA, representing the Chula Vista Congregation of Jehovah
Wimesses, stated the adoption of the 4(d) Program was critical to them as they were anxious to proceed as quickly
as possible as they were held up by the lack of local ordinance to allow them to process through the City rather then 7
the more cumbersume State process,
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 11
Councilmember Horton stated she had a problem with the delay the appeal process would create. She questioned
if there was a process in which Council could share their concerns regarding a project so the issue could then go
before Council without an appeal process.
Mr. Boogaard responded that in a new project the Council would have the opportunity, when approving general plan
amendments, GDP, SPA's, etc., to express whether or not Council felt the mitigation required in the EIR was
adequate. Council could then condition the project to protect the habitat in a reconfiguration of the habitat. The
Director was required to draft a 'loss" permit before issuing it, i.e. 60 days, and submit it to the resource agencies.
That would be an opportunity for it to be presented as an information item or consent item to Council. Therefore,
there would not be an appeal process, but the Director would have the benefit of the Couneil's input as part of the
public review process.
Mayor Nader stated he was not comfortable leaving the final, unappeulable decision in the hands of an appointed
staff person.
Mr. Boogaard stated Council could be the issuing authority instead of the Director. The Director would dmf~ the
terms and conditions and send them out. The ordinance could be amended, page 15-14, sobsection I, 'The City
Council may issue the draft "loss" permit in the form as modified by the requirements by Fish & Wildlife and
subject to such terms and conditions as the City Council thereafter deems appropriate ...... ". He was concerned
that any "loss" permit of any size, large or small, would have to go before Council.
Mayor Nader stated that was why he preferred the appeal process.
Mr. Boogeard recommended the following amendment to the ordinance: page 15-13, third line, ".... has been
distributed to the City Council, SANDAG, Fish & Wildlife, and Fish & Game". Council could then have it placed
under their comments for discussion and then give their concerns to the Director.
Councilmember Hm'ton stated she did not want issuing authority, but did want the Council to have the ability to
share their thoughts with the Director.
Mr. Bungaard stated it would then be sufficient to add, page 15-13, third line, "... City Council ..." for notice.
Council could schedule it for after the end of the review period or within five days of the expiration of the review
period.
Mayor Nader stated he would want to know the comments of the other agencies before offering comments. He also
did not see how Council could take action prior to the expiration of a mandatory review period.
Councilmember Moore stated it could be an information item at the beginning of the thirty day review period and
if there was conearn regarding the permit it could then be agendized for Council comments or concerns. He felt
staff would heed the advice and concerns expressed by Council in their consideration to issue a "loss" permit.
Mayor Nader wanted the elected officials to have the final say on which projects would receive the allocation of
"loss" permits.
Mr. Boogaard statecl if that was the consensus, the ordinance should be amended to state: "The notice of availability
of the draft "loss" permit and the "loss" permit shall also be given to the City Council on the first regular meeting
of the City Council, after the expiration of the appropriate review period, and the City Council's comments and
directions with regard thereto shall be incorporated into the draft 'loss" permit by the Director".
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: failed 1-4 with Fox, Horton, Moore, and Rindone opposed.
* * * Councilmember Horton left the dias at 9:38 p.m. * * *
Mr. Boogaard stated the "loss" permit could be given to the Council at the same time it was distributed to the
resource agencies. Page 15-14 would then be amended to read: 'The Director may issue the draft 'loss' permit
in the form as modified by Fish & Wildlife and the City Council ". Therefore, if after reviewing the draft permit
at the beginning of the thirty day review period it could be agendized under Council Comments where it could be
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 12
directed, by consensus of the Council with a majority vote, a change in terms and conditions of the grant of the
*loss* permit and the Director would have to follow that direction if he decided to issue the permit at all.
MSC (Pox/Moore) to amend the ordinance as follows: page 15-14 would be amended to read: "The Director
may issue the draft "loss" permit in the form as modified by Fish & Wildlife and the City Council".
Therefore, if after reviewing the draft permit at the beginning of the thirty day review period it could be
agendized under Council Comments where it could be directed, by consensus of the Coundl with a majority
vote, a change in terms and conditions of the grant of the "loss" permit and the Director would have to follow
that direction if be decided to issue the permit at all. Approved 40-1 with Horton absent.
ORDINANCE 2602, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX AS AN URGENCY
ORDINANCE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-1 with Nader opposed. (Mayor Nader
stated Councilmember Horton indicated a "yes" vote.)
16. RESOLUTION 17622 APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ACE
VIDEO PRODUCTION FOR VIDEOTAPING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR TELEVISING - After
a formal RFP process for video production of Council meetings for televising, Council approved an agreement with
Ace Video Productions in July 1991. That contract was for an initial three-year term with an option for the City
to extend the agreement for an additional two-year term. Staff has negotiated a contraet amcodment that allows for
the installation of a remote camera system and extending the term to three years. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Administration)
RESOLUTION 17622 O/~II~IERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
17. REPORT AUTHORIZATION TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOTHAM STREET AND OTAY LAKES ROAD - On 5/24/94,
Council adopted Resolution 17482 accepting bids and awarding contract to Southwest Signal Service for the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road "contingent upon City
approval of a location of the Transit Center within the territory of Southwestern College." Since the time period
to go forward with the signal contract is over 8/17/94, a decision is needed on whether that project should go
forward at this time. Staff recommends Council: (1) Determine that the Transit Center will not be constructed in
the parking lot north of Elmhurst Street or in the grass area between Elmhurst Street and Gotham Street (original
site); and (2) Remove the contingency from Resolution Number 17482 and authorize the contract for the traffic
signal at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road to commence construction. (Director of Public Works)
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated the traffic signal had been justified on the priority list since 1990.
He then gave a brief review of the history of the project.
Mr. Goss stated a letter had also been received from the President of Southwestern College indicating the College
Boards position in connection with the location of the transit center, i.e. reaffirming their position as to where the
transit center should be located. It had been determined there was a need for a signal. A decision had been made
by Council to hold up the award of bid until there was clarification as to the location of the transit canter.
Technically, that clarification had not been resolved other than the College Board was not changing its mind.
Mayor Nader stated as things currently stood there was no transit center project because the College Board had
made a final decision that the location the City wanted was unacceptable and the City did not find the location they
wanted as acceptable. Unless the City reconsidered their decision there would not be a new transit center there.
If that was the case, the City needed to proceed with the project on the assumption that there was no different need
created by a transit center.
Councilmember Rindone stat~l the letter indicated that the College was not responsive to discussing the merits of
a transit center at Southwestern College so that option had been clarified. While the City many not agree with their
decision that was their prerogative. However, that did not mean there was not a need for a transit center. Two
options were stillopen: l) no center anywhere; or2) a transit center placed inthe eastem pertionofthecommunity
II
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 13
that could provide services to transit riders and Southwestem students. That was a decision the Council needed to
examine. He hoped staff would come back with a review of the options remaining. If the decision was made that
there would not be a transit center that would release the $720,000 back to the County for projects anywhere, not
just the Southbay.
MS (Rindone/Fox) to refer to staff to return with a recommendation to Council, as soon as feasible, on: 1)
no transit center; or 2) a siting of a transit center that would not be placed at Southwestern College to serve
the transportation needs of the eastern section of Chula Vista.
Mayor Nader hoped staff would look at the referral in terms of the future extension of the trolley and other mass
transit services and how any transit center might compliment those long range plans.
Mr. Goss stated there were three or four major options: 1) keep the system as it was, no project; 2) run all the
bus stops along the street in from of the College on Otay Lakes Road; 3) create a transit center in the right-of-way
along the street in front of the College; and 4) a transit center on Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road.
* * * Councilmember Horton returned to the dlas at 9:58 p.m. * * *
Mr. Lippitt stated staffs proposal was to continue operating as they had been, but the main stops would be south
of Gotham in front of the commercial areas due to the concems of the residential areas. He did not foresee any
alternatives that would make it unwise to move forward with the signalization at Gotham Street.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
MSUC (MoorefNader) to accept the staff report and recommendations: 1) determine that the transit center
will not be constructed in the parking lot north of EImhurst Street or in grass area between Elmhurst Street
and Gotham Street (original site); and 2) remove the contingency from Resolution No. 17482 and authorize
the contract for the traffic signal at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes Road to commence construction.
18. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be
given by staff.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, updated Council on the meeting of the Solid Waste Authority on Thursday.
They indicated three contract rate options for non-members, i.e. a 3, 5, and 10 year rate. There was concem that
there was no real assurance as to where the rate would go once a city had committed to the ten year extension.
Contracts were not distributed for review and no other options were offered. They indicated that a daily rote might
be subject to negotiations. The assumptions made were also open to question. Staff was in the process of analyzing
the information and would docket the item for Council discussion at the 8/23/94 meeting inehding discussion of
possible legal options the City may have. Staff was also exploring every possible option that may be available in
the interim including discussions with Laidlaw, Sexton, and other entities, as well as sister jurisdictions to see what
was available as to other alternatives.
* * * Councilmember Horton left the dias at 10:18 p.m. * * *
Mayor Nader felt the City should explore, as an altemative, to see if they could negotiate the three year contract
with the Authority, but simultaneously have a side agreement with the Authority in which the City would commit
that as a condition of the City's observance of the automatic renewal provision, if they brought the rates down to
$48.00/ton, the City would work jointly on developing transfer station facilities in the Southbay region. They would
invest in the facility in a fair share basis and the City would have the right, if required at the end of three years to
continue using the Authority, to make use of that facility on a fair share basis. If the City decided to join the
Authority at that time it would become an Authority asset. If the Authority failed to meet its targeted rate reduction
within the three years the City would be free to go out on its own and at that point have rights for use of the
transfer station in whatever configuration they could agree on to pursue a completely independent system. It would
also help to ensure that needed facilities would be built with minimal risk to the ratepayers in the event the
Authority's projections of its ability to reduce rates was overly optimistic. It would also assure the Authority that
they were not being asked to take a risk without a retum.
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 14
* * * Councilmember Horton returned to the dias at 10:27 p.m. * * *
Mayor Nader felt it was imperative that staff bring back an outline of alternatives and recommendation no later than
the tirst meeting in September as the Authority was expecting the contracts to be done by the middle of September.
He questioned if staff felt they were comfortable in negotiating along the lines he had suggested or if staff felt they
needed Council direction to explore that possibility.
Mr. Krempl responded that it was an option staff could bring back information on. He did not feel staff was in a
pestare to negotiate at the current time as the Authority had not even submitted draft contract language.
Mayor Nader did not feel staff had to walt for draft contract language. If they waited for that language the City
would oaly have the choice of saying yes or no to that language.
Mr. Krempl stated it would be beneficial to have a Closed Session on the item as intended to be brought forward
next Tuesday before getting into negotiations. It was also his understanding that the Authority, when they took
action, did not authorize any negotiations.
MSUC CNader/Moore) direct staff, not at the exclusion of any other possible alternative, to broach with the
members of the Solid Waste Commission the concept of accepting the three year contract, but simultaneously
eotexlng into some arrangement whereby the trash transfer and disposal facilities in the South County could
be jointly planned and jointly invested in with the City of Chula Vista and the Authority, with the
understanding that if whether they ultimately became part of the same system or went their separate ways
each entity, would have fights proportional to its investment in the use of those facilities.
19. REPORT UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES - An oral report will 7
be given by staff.
Mayor Nader stated he had attended the meeting of the Sewer Board on Thursday and there was no new information
forthcoming.
***
MSC CNader/More) to complete the balance of the City Council agenda. Approved 3-2 with Fox and Rindone
opposed.
,**
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings. No report given.
b. Assistant to Mayor and Council. Mr. Goss stated the Council subcommittee concurred with the job
specifications and it was being passed on to Council for review and approval. It also included the intent to fill the
position temporarily by Mayor Nader until the end of his tarre. During that period of time there would be a
recruitment to fill it permanently when Mayor Elect Horton took office.
Councilmember Rindone stated the job description referred to Mayor/Council direction and he felt it was important
that a member of Council be able to provide direction to the person without the concurrence of the Mayor or his/her
I I
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 15
Mayor Nader stated that was his understanding, that the position would work for the Mayor and Council individually
as well as collectively.
Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel, stated that could be more clearly defined in the job description.
Mayor Nader felt the term 'mayor and any councilmember" should be added.
MS CRindone/Nader) to accept the staff report.
Councilmember Moore stat~l his main conearn was having a staff member represent the Mayor or Council. He
felt another elected official should have the opportunity to represent the City, if that opportunity had been turned
down by the elected officials, then a member of the staff would represent the Council. Then there was the question
as to whether that staff person should be the City Manager or his representative. When a meeting was for elected
officials it should be attended by alect~t officials. He was also concemed about the position making presentations
in Councils absence. He questioned if all five Councilmembers would review the top candidates and provide input
or help to make the selection in any way.
Mayor Nader felt it meant "in councils absence" and not that someone was just unavailable. He had reviewed the
hiring/interview with the Personnel Department and it was his understanding that for a permanent position there
were certain requirements imposed under City Charter and ordinances that unless and until they were changed would
have to be observed. They did leave considerable leeway for the Mayor or some of the elected officials to be
involved in the process to ensure that the Mayor/Council needs were considered in the process.
Councilmember Moore stated he had a problem with the Mayor making the decision without input from the Council.
Councilmember Horton felt it was important that the Mayor had the authority to select the person, but it was also
important to get input from all Councilmembers. Therefore, they should be included in the interview process.
Councilmember Rindone recommended that there be a recommendation from the Mayor with Council approval.
Mayor Nader stated he concurred with Councilmember Horton's comments and Councilmember Rindone's
recommendation. It was always his position that the Mayor should have someone be/she could work with. The
persen he would be working with would be temporary, un-benefited, under the existing personnel rules with the
understanding that the person would leave when Mayor Horton took office. Under the existing rules, the person
would be permanent and receive benefits. He did not feel that type of protection should apply to the position as
the new Mayor should have the opportunity to bring in someone they could work with. He suggested that those
Councilmembers that would be around for the next term take a look at changing the rules regarding the position.
Councilmember Moore stated Council had been advised by the City Attorney that in order to be hired by the
Council and to serve at the pleasure of the Council there would have to be a Charter change.
Mayor Nader stated that was probably correct and recommended Council look at a mid-term Charter change. The
individual should serve at the pleasure of the Mayor or Mayor/Council.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if the position could be posted and interviewed with a specific ending date of
four years.
Ms. Boshell responded that could not be done. It could be stated that it was a four year position but the actual
technical mechanism to terminate that employee, unless they willingly resigned, was a lay-off or termination.
MS (Rindone/Horton) to refer to staff for a report back to Council on how a four year position could be hired
for the Mayor/Council office.
Councilmember Moore stated the issue should go to the Charter Review Commission to be placed on an upcoming
ballot.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 16
Mayor Nades questioned if it was Council's wish that the person being hired on an interim basis be brought back
to Council for a formal vote or that they be introduced to the Council.
Councilmember Moore stated he was interested in information such as salary, etc.
Mayor Nader stated if it was the consensus of the Council he would supply an information memo to Council with
an opportunity to interview.
Mr. Boogaard advised Council that he would be forthcoming with an ordinance establishing the office of the Mayor
and Council for the hiring and firing authority.
Mayor Nades requested that Mr. Boogaard meet with him regarding the issue and then, if he felt such an ordinance
was necessary, it could be brought forward.
21. MAYOR'S REPORT(S}
a. Ratification of appointments: Child Care Commission - Dr. Judith Pidgeon (ex-offieio); Economic
Development Commission - Edward Martija; Youth Commission - Stephen R. Noble; and, Veterans Advisory
Commission - Nick Aguilar, Joe A. Berlanga, Carmen A. Fedje, Agusfive A. Hermes, Jr., I. Joseph Matacia,
Robelt L. McCauley, and Edmund R. Scharff.
MSUC (Nader/Rindone) to ratify the appointments of: Child Care Commission - Dr. Judith Pidgeon (ex-
officio); Economic Devdopment Commission - Edward Martija; Youth Commission - Stephen R. Noble; and,
Veterans Advisory Commission - Nick Aguilar, Joe A. Berlanga, Carmen A. Fedje, Agustive A. Hermes, Jr.,
I. Joseph Matacia, Robert L. McCauley, and Edmund R. Scharff.
22. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moore
a. Ratification of reappointment to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - Carl Grieve.
MSIJC (Moore/Horton) to ratify the reappointment of Carl Grieve to the Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission.
Councilmember Horton
b. Response to the Southwestern College Transit Center joint meeting with the City Council. No discussion
held.
c. Councilmember Hotton stated she had been notified that Handytrans would not be operating on Sunday and
there were several seniors that wanted to attend the symphony.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) to find a matter of urgency that required action prior to the next Council meeting as
it arose after the posting of the ngenda.
MS (Nader/Horton) to direct staff to explore any available means, i.e. operation of Handytrans, Parks &
Recreation vehicles, private or non-profit, or any other solution staff could develop, to facilitate the transport
of the seniors and disabled to the Pops on Sunday.
Councilmember Horton felt staff should contact the various senior housing developments and notify them that
transportation would be available.
Councilmember Moore stated more would be involved than transportation, i.e. how would they get to their seats,
where would they have seats, how would they get back, etc.
I 1
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 17
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader, agreed to the by Second of the Motion) direct staff to make
arrangements at the concert available.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
CLOSED SESSION
MSUC (Nader/Horton) to add personnel matters to the Closed Session agenda as a matter of urgency.
Council recessed at 11:18 p.m., met in Closed Session at 11:21 p.m., and reconvened at 11:57 p.m.
23. 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.
24. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No final actions were taken in Closed
Session.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:58 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 2:3, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
A Meeting of the Re. development Agency convened at 11:19 p.m. and adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: V/ok;6. Sode;quist, Deput~;Clerk