Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/09/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Council Chambers 6:09 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox (left the meeting at 11: 14 p.m.), Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES: September 6, 1994 MSUC (Foxatorton) to approve the minutes of September 6, 1994 as presented. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of office: Charter Review Commission - Linda Brown; International Friendship Commission - Paul Catanzaro; Human Relations Commission - Mary P. Slovinsky; Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - Andrew Delgado; and Parks and Recreation Commission - Margaret J. Helton. The Oath of Office was administered by City Clerk Authelet. Mayor Nader informed the public that no reportable actions had been taken by Council in Closed Session at the September 6, 1994 Council Meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 9 and 12) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OI0}ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter requesting ten minutes to make a presentation on a business plan for a waste transfer station. Jorge Holland, President, Pacific Disposal, Inc., 199 1/2 Mace St., Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that Pacific Disposal be allotted ten minutes to make their presentation. · Mark Watton, 199 1/2 Mace Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing Pacific Disposal, Inc., stated they controlled the 4 3/4 acre parcel at 187 Mace Street which could be a potential site for a transfer station. The facility would be approximately 40,000 sq. ft. and would allow for a MURF in the future. The preliminary study stated the facility could handle 300,000/tons per year. Using preliminary numbers they felt they could achieve a tipping fee, all inclusive, of about $42.50\ton. The fee was based on their contract with Mid-America and their current experience with Southwest in Arizona. They also felt they could have a permit in eighteen months. He requested that 187 Mace Street be considered and Council keep an open mind to alternatives. Councilmember Rindone questioned if Mr. Watton believed that even El Cajon would come to the realization that a transfer station would be needed in the East County. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Watton responded that was correct, he felt it was in their long term plan. He would not be surprised to see the El Cajon trash go to Mid-America as soon as they were open. Councilmember Rindone questioned what the minimum acreage would be for a transfer station. G~orge Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated that had not been fully determined. It was estimated that a site of 5 - 10 acres would be needed. Councilmember Horton questioned if Pacific Disposal had responded to the City's RFP. Mr. Watton responded that they had not. At that time they felt it was premature for their firm, but due to new developments with Mid-America and the financing issues it made it viable for them. Councilmember Moore expressed concern over the amount of time given to the request for a ten minute presentation and the restrictive questions to the presenter. He felt the information presented under those circumstances could be misleading. * * * Councilmember Horton left the dins at 6:38 p.m. * * * Councilmember Fox stated there was no supporting documentation for the $42.50/ton quote. Therefore, he had to be skeptical until that information was received. He questioned if the figure included disposal to the Arizona site if Campo was not available. Mr. Watton responded that it was all inclusive. Mayor Nader questioned if the proposal was tied into the Campo land fill. Mr. Watton responded that the only relationship with Mid-America was contractual for their waste stream. Mayor Nader questioned whether they envisioned provisions being made to facilitate, as part of the transfer station, the removal of reusable materials from the waste stream before going to the landfill. He further questioned if Mr. Watton agreed in concept with the design that had been presented by Council by Lynn FreshIey. Mr. Watton responded that he did not want to comment on the proposal without time to give it further study. MSUC (Nader/Moore) to add the issue of eminent domain in the Otay Valley Road Project area to the Closed Session agenda as the issue arose after the posting of the agenda. Approved 4-0-1 with Hotton absent. Council met in Closed Session at 6:44 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. with Hotton absent. 6. ORDINANCE 2603 AMENDING SECTION 19.14.582 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DESIGN REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS fsecond reading and adoorion) - In October 1992, Council approved the Permit Streamlining Workplan and Implementation Schedule which, among other measures, called for revising the City Design Manual to include more concise and objective design guidelines with additional illustrations, and providing the administrative (staff) approval of a broader range of projects subject to design review. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 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 II Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 3 DISCHARGES AND TO WASTING WATER (second readin~ and adoorion) - 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 addition, on 6/11/91 the Storm Drain Fee and Fund were established to fund implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. Council directed staff to include, as pan 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) Continued from the meeting of 7/26194. 8. RESOLUTION 17650 APPROVING FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES - When the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego approved the final version of the Otay Ranch Project, part of the approval was an indemnification agreement by Otay Vista Associates, indemnifying the City and the County in the event of an attack on the project approval. Chaparral Greens thereafter sued, alleging inadequacies in the final program EIR and/or violations of CEQA. On 1/4/94, Council ratified a Three-Party Agreement whereby Remy and Thomas (Tina Thomas, Esq.) would represent the City pursuant to that indenmification agreement, at Otay Vista's expense. On 3/29/94, Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement, increasing the maximum compensation from $75,000 to $160,000. On 5/10/94, Council approved the Second Amendment to the Agreement, increasing the maximum compensation from $160,000 to $295,000. On 7/19/94, Council approved the Third Amendment to the Agreement, increasing the maximum compensation from $295,000 to $395,000. Approval of the resolution and agreement will authorize Tina Thomas, of Remy and Thomas, to continue to represent the City in that litigation at Otay Vista's expense, and further increase the maximum compensation from $395,000 to $495,000. The matter is now set for trial on 9/19/94. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) Councilmember Horton questioned if the money was being set aside in a fund or if it was a bill that was accumulating. Mr. Boogsard responded that it was the estimated litigation expenses to complete the Otay Ranch litigation. There was no cash being retained by the City except for a minimal deposit, Baldwin would pay Remy and Thomas direc~y. 9. RESOLUTION 17651 APPROVING THE BUSINESS EXPANSION INCENTIVE POLICY - On 6/7/94, Council approved a City policy to provide an incentive for business expansion by targeting businesses "likely" to grow and making persenal contact to inform them of potential City assistance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. 10. RESOLUTION 17652 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WI'IIt THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT FOR RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - In May 1994, the City submitted financial assistance requests to the San Diego Unified Port District for partial funding for four City-sponsored special events. The Board of Port Commissioners appreved all four requests at their meeting un 6/21/94, and the Port is now requiring the City to enter into formal agreements which stipulate conditions and City requirements for receipt of the approved funding. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Mr. Boogaard informed Council that one of the items in the application to the Port was a $30,000 request to supplement the $12,000 the City was contributing to the Harbor Days Festival. Therefore, the contract with the Chamber needed to be amended to allow the pass-through of the $30,000 to the Chamber. Mayor Nader stated the amendment would be included on the Consent Agenda. · I Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 4 11. RESOLUTION 17653 ACCEPTING DONATION AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO CIP PROJECT PR-194 - NORMAN PARK GAME FACILITY - The Parks and Recreation Department has recently reeaived a $6,250 donation from the Chula Vista Senior Citizen's Club at Norman Park Senior Center. The donation is designated for the Game Facility Master Plan, as described in the approved Fiscal Year 1994/95 Capital Improvement Project (CIP). Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 4/Sth's vote required. 12. RESOLUTION 17654 EXTENDING AND AMENDING THE SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH THE YMCA; AND EXTENDING THE SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, TO PROVIDE YOUTH PROGRAMMING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 - When Council adopted the Fiscal Year 1994/95 budget, it included provisions to fund the Youth ACTION Program at a level of $75,820 through the General Fund. Of the total, $19,010 is designated for the Junior High Outreach component, coordinated by the YMCA of San Diego County South Bay Branch, and $14,287 is designated for the Late Night component, coordinated by the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista. The remaining funds are utilized by the Department to administer the High School Happenings Program, special events, and transportation. The original Service Provider Agreements approved by Council on 9/14/93 with the South Bay Family YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista were for a 12-month period beginning 9/15/93 and ending 9/14/94. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation). Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. 13. RESOLUTION 17638 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AN INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT AT INTERSTATE ROUTE 805 AND EAST ORANGE AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT - The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed a project report for the subject interchange traffic signal improvement. Caltrans is now prepared to enter into a cooperative agreement with the City ~ share the cost for the design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed signal project. The construction of the project is scheduled to commence in August of 1995. The project report is the basis for the cooperative agreement in determining work to be done, design specifications, and construction and associated project costs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 9/6/94. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 14. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF BONITA COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL FOR A REDUCTION AND/OR DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN FEES - At the 9/6/94 Council Meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a policy for the deferral of Transportation DIF and other capital-type fees for interira uses where the life of the capital facility is expected to be substantially longer than the enjoyment of that facility would allow by the natural life expectancy of the payor. The resolution proposes such a policy end approves a deferral agreement with Bonita Country Day School pursuant to said policy. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works) A. ORDINANCE 2604 AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2251, AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION AND/OR DEFERRAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION DIF FOR SHORT TERM, INTERIM FACILITY USERS (first reading) B. RESOLUTION 17655 AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO PERMIT REDUCTION AND/OR DEFERRAL OF CAPITAL-FACILITIES FEES FOR INTERIM FACILITY USERS John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, advised the Council of the follow'mg corrections: 1) first paragraph, page 14-3, the yearly payment did not reflect the interest that would be added; and 2) same paragraph, regarding the contribution of the Trans DIF upon termination should be changed as per the agreement which provided that if the · I Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 5 uses continued within a year afar leaving the site, within the same Trans DIF area, they could transfer the credit paid on the principal. Mayor Nader questioned whether a public school would be required to pay the same fees. Mr. Lippitt responded the City did not control public schools and, therefore, they would not have to pay the Trans DIF, but would be required to pay the sewer fees. This be'rag the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Paul Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Day School, stated it was his understanding that previous action by Council was to defer the fees based on future action taken by Council on a policy for non-profit organizations. He did not feel the staff recommendafion was fair and equitable because DIF fees were one time fees based on developing a property and beth the school and the church would be paying fees on the same property. Traffic to schools were trips that currently existed and not generated by any particular school. He requested waiver of the fees and that they be treated like all other public service/non-profit organizations in the community. Mr. Lippitt stated if Bonita Country Day School moved and established within one year in another area within the same Trans DIF, the fees would go with them. If they did not, the fees would stay with the land. It was not staff's intent that the church would have to pay those fees again. · Suzanne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Country Day School, stated children in the State were required to attend school. She did not feel Bonita Country Day should be treated any differently than any public school as they were offering the same service in meeting the State requirements. There befrag no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Moore stated the more that was subtracted from the Trans DIF the more someone else would have to kick back in. If they could be planned in advance it could be addressed, but if exemptions were made later the City would end up subsidizing it through the General Fund. Mr. Boogeard stated the City did not charge public schools because the State did not permit the City to charge them. The City did not exempt from the Trans DIF other non-profit organizations. A private organization, even though a non-profit, had the power to adjust the tuition in order to recover the cost of operation that a public school did not have the freedom to do. There had not been a showing that Bonita Country Day School needed a discount or break in the operation of their business. The Trans DIF was based on traffic generation only and that was why churches and non-profits paid based on traffic generation. The City could not be biased by the type of use it was. Mayor Nader suggested Council defer the issue until Council had taken action on a policy for community serving non-profit organizations. * * * Councilmember Herton returned to the dias at 8:55 p.m. * * * MS (Nader/Fox) approve staff recommendation regarding sewer fees and that other fees be deferred to await the outcome of the Council policy decision on fees to be charged to community serving non-profit organizations. Councilmember Rindone felt Council needed to be responsive so the applicant would not be faced with a financial hardship in the future regarding the fees. He questioned whether a hardship had been presented by Bonita Country Day School and alse questioned thejusti~cation for the payment of 50% of the fees. The recommendation for Item 17 was to refund 90% of the Trans DIF and hold in abeyance 10% until the policy decision was made by Council regarding non-profit organizations. He questioned why staff had not made a similar recommendation for Bonita Country Day School. Mr. Lippitt responded that $2,478 was 10% of the total fee for Bonita Country Day School. The church was a permanent facility and staff was recommending that those types of facilities be allowed to pay their fees over a Minu~,s September 13, 1994 Page 6 period of tim rother than up front. Bonita Country Day School was an interim use that may not be there in five years so staff chose 50% based on past practice with the driving range. Mr. Boogaard stated there was only one resolution for Council action which incorpora~d the staff recommendation. Mayor Nader stated the intent of the motion would be to amend the ordinance and/or resolution to approve the staff recommendation on the sewer fees and defer the other fees until Council had taken action on a policy for deferral for community service/non-profit organizations which staff would bring back in October. Councilmember Moore questioned if staff had a problem in allowing the opening of Bonita Country Day School without a DIF fee in place. Mr. Lippitt responded if Council did not adopt the resolution the school would be required to pay the sewer fee anyway. If council wanted to defer their DIF fees until October it would be staffs recommendation that Bonita Country Day School enter into an agreement or letter of understanding that they would pay whatever fee was adopted by Council. Mr. Catanzaro informed Council that he had signed an agreement last week indicating that he would abide by whatever Council decided. He did not have a problem with it and only wanted equality with the rest of the other non-profits. Councilm~mber Fox stated he was also under the impression that previous action by Council was to defer the fees until a policy was adopted by Council. Councilmember Rindone felt staff's recommendation was consistent with how they were proceeding with their review of Item 17. If Council then decided on a zero Trans DIF it would then result in a refund of the first year payment. If the DIF was deferred and Council then took action in the future which called for a payment by the community service/non-profit organizations it could create a financial hardship on those organizations. Mayor Nader stated the report recommended that Bonita Country Day School not pay the traffic signal fee and the agreement required that they pay it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Moore) to approve Resolution 17655 and place Ordinance 2604 on first reading with a "Whereas" to be add, as appropriate, to include, that the DIF affecting the property was being reviewed and would apply at a later stage. Mayor Nader questioned if the motion would defer a final decision until Council took action on a policy in the future. Councilmember Moore stated it would approve the resolution and ordinance as presented with a modification which would include the fact that the DIF may be modified by future Council review. Mr. Boogaard recommended that they get credit for any subsequent fee waiver, reductions or discounts offered to groups which they would other wise belong. He would put the verbiage in the agreement. SECOND TO MOTION: (Rindone) Mr. Catanzaro stated he had not talked to staff regarding the parameters the school was working under, etc. He felt the 50% was asbitmrily chosen. Mayor Nader statecl there were two points regarding the project: 1) its community non-profit nature; and 2) it was an interim and not a permanent use. He questioned if it could be addressed with a further refinement of a generel policy which could be brought back and applied specifically to the project before Council. Mr. Boogsard responded that was correct. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Catanzaro informed Council that there were very few 501(c)3 organizations and they were very rigidly controlled by State law. VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ® Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista, Chamber of Commerce, updated Council on the Harbor Days activities. · J. Brad Lanier, 366 Quintard Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the South Library residents, presented Council with a petition in opposition to the color scheme of the library and requesting: 1) appointment of a citizens library color review board; 2) direct staff to meet with the citizens library color review board with the architect invited to attend to present alternate color schemes to the board; 3) Council hear recommendations from the board at a regularly scheduled meeting and select a color scheme appropriate for the neighborhood; and 4) Council direct the new color scheme be immediately applied, prior to the grand opening date. MOTION: (Fox) to refer Mr. Lanier's requests to staff for report back to Council in 1-2 weeks, included in the report should be staff's recommendation on the request. Motion died for lack of second. Mayor Nader stated he was interested in public input if there was something feasible that could be done, but he wanted staffs reaction to Mr. Lanier's suggestion in terms of practicality. He was hesitant to refer the issue to staff due to the delay. Councilmember Fox requested that the item be agendized under his comments on the 9/20/94 agenda. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 15. RESOLUTION 17657 AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW GREEN FEES AT CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - American Golf Corporation, the golf course lessee, is requesting a green fee adjustment as per the existing agreemeat approved November 1984. The Agreement allows the lessee to adjust the fees to comparable golf courses at least once per year. On 5/11/93, Council approved the current fee schedule which took effect 7/1/93. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Councilmember Horton questioned why Torrey Pines Golf course was used as a comparison. She further questioned if they compared in quality. Jerry Foncerada, Parks Superintendent, responded staff felt the rate at Torrey Pines was the same as Chula Vista's. He did not feel they were comparable in quality. Councilmember Rindone stated American Golf had requested language be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule regarding approved holidays, i.e. if a holiday was on a Saturday they would have holiday rates on a Friday and if the holiday was on a Sunday they would have holiday rates on a Monday. He questioned if that would significantly increase the number of days in which holiday rates could be charged. Mr. Foneerada responded during the course of the year there were six holidays that could fall on other dates than a set Monday. They were allowed twelve days for the holiday rates which was the same as the weekend rates. The request was to clarify a misunderstanding that had occurred during the year. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 8 Councilmember Moore statexi he did not see it included in the staff recommendation. Jess Valenzuala, Director of Parks & Recreation, responded that staff would return with a recommendation regarding formal approval of American Golf's request. The Parks & Recreation Commission had not taken action on that request. · Raymond Cayla, 112 "H" Street, Chula Vista, CA, felt American Golf was attempting to deprive the seniors of their prime times and discriminated against them. He expressed concern with the preferential treatment given to American Golf members. He requested Council sat a precedent and deny American Golf anything. · Ricke Crochet, 1072 Ocean Lane, Imperial Beach, CA, General Manager of the Chula Vista Golf Course, stated he objected to some of the statements made by Mr. Cayla. American Golf members had the same tee time reservation privileges as the Men's Club and Lady's Club. American Golf Club members, if the proposal was approved, there would receive no preference. They felt their request was fair and would keep them in a competitive position in the market place. ® Scott Alevy, 901 Avenida Ysidora, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was a member of the Parks & Recreation Commission, but was not represanting the Commission. He had a minor consultant relationship with American Golf. He utilized the golf course often and felt it was a high value for the golfing dollar. He supported the Commission recommendations and hoped Council would support the request. Councilmember Rindone stated conearn had been expressed that tee times had been delayed or cancelled due to tournaments and that people were not notified ahead of time. Mr. Crochet responded there had been several instances last year where there had been scheduling errors. He had since made changes in his tournament booking schedule and would make every effort to see that it did not happen again. Coaneilmember Rindone requested that when the report was brought back to Council in a year that the totel amount collected for the surcharge be included and what capital expenditures had been made during the period from the last approval rate. He was familiar with the issues and felt the proposed rate adjustment was the smallest ever recommended by staff. RESOLUTION 17657 OFla~RED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived. Counc'dmember Moore stated the increase did not apply to non-residents and questioned the rationale. Mr. Valenzuela responded there was a substantial increase last year for non-residents and staff felt it was still within the range of what other municipal golf courses charged. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 17657: approved unanimously. Councilmember Moore felt if the Chula Vista Golf Course was going to be compared to another golf course it should not be another course under contract with American Golf. There should be two or three golf courses comparable with Chula Vista and a senior staff member and another good golfer should visit the courses. 16. REPORT RETAINING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.10.100 LANGUAGE TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF REQUIRED PARK FEES 60 DAYS AFFER FINAL MAP APPROVAL - On 5/24/94, Council appreved an amendment to Municipal Cede Section 17.10.100 of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance to allow Park Acquisition and Development Fees (PAD) to be paid within 60 days of appreving the final subdivision map provided that appropriate security was provided. The ordinance amendment was in response to problems the development community was experiencing in securing monies from lenders until certain legislative approvals were completed. The interim ordinance amendment was designed to assist developors in securing financing from lenders; thereby facilitating residential construction. The report evaluates additional options to pay PAD fees at a point other than Final Map and recommends the ordinance's recently amended language be retained. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 9 MSUC (Horton/Fox) Council approve the retention of the current language in the Park Plan Dedication Ordinance which would allow park acquisition and devdopment fees (PAD fees) to be paid within sixty days of approving the final map. 17. REPORT WAIVING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR RELIGIOUS AND NON- PROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS, SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 24, 1994, AUTHORIZING REBATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF POLICY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE REBATE - In past actions, Council has waived fees for religious institutions for the Public Facilities DIF but has not waived fees for the Street DIF or other development rela~l infrastructure fees. Council requested that staff prepare a report of waiving fees for not only religious organizations, but also non-profit public service organizations. In order to lessen the impact of commuter trips on the streets and highways of the region and to improve air quality, Chula Vista is exploring ways to provide Park and Ride facilities. The report will also address the combination of TransDIF fees and providing for Park and Ride lots in church and other non-profit properties. Staff recommends Council review the report, schedule a public hearing for 10/25/94 on the issue, authorize a rebate of 90% of Trams DIF fees until a final decision is made on fee policy for religious and non-prnfit public service organizations. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed the history of the project. Staff proposed to review the issues in detail at the 10/25/94 meeting. Staff recommended Council authorize the refund of 90% of the Trans DIF paid by the United Methodist Church and that those types of organizations, i.e. community service organizations, be allowed to pay their fees over time. Councilmember Moore questioned if the recommendation was for all non-profit organizations. Mr. Lippitt responded that it was for churches, community service type organizations, etc. Staff had not fully identified what a non-profit would be. Councilmember Moore felt service organizations also included the Moose, Retired Officers, Fleet Reserves, VFW, American Legion, etc. Council should have a list of the 501(c) organizations and then decide whether it should be expanded. Mr. Lippitt stated In the eastern area 90+ 95 of all development were in an assessment district and already paying their fees through that process. He felt a 501(c) designation would be those that would be able to pay their fees over time. Mayor Nader questioned if the Trans DIF fees were covered by the individual assessment districts. Mr. Lippitt responded that was correct with over 90+ % of the cases in the eastern area of the City. The DIF fee was used as the basis for the assessment. Mr. Boogaard stated the money for the DIF was collected by the sale of bonds and the bonds were paid off by assessments against the individual homes. The assessments raised the revenue to pay the DIF fees and the DIF fees were paid in one lump sum at the time of the building permit. The homeowners were actually paying them off over time. With 90% of the church sites the church would be paying for the DIF through the financed assessment district over time. Ten percent of the church sites may pay cash at the building permit stage because they were not in an assessment district that paid the DIF that way. Those speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation felt it was a misperception to identify churches as traffic generators or facility users; that the assessment was an anti-church stance on the part of the City; their only source of income was free will donations; the burden of development should not be placed on the backs of the churches; and parishioners currently paid property taxes through their homes and businesses · Father John proctor, 450 Corral Canyon Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Corpus Christi Catholic Parish. n Reverend Allen Rudow, 1398 Nacion, Chula Vista, CA, representing Church of Joy - Lutheran. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 10 · Reverend John L. Giffin, 874 Entrada Place, Chula Vista, CA, representing First United Methodist Church of Chula Vista. · Rodney H. Hansen, 860 Hazy Glen Ct., Chula Vista, CA, representing Victory Lutheran Church. Councilmember Rindone requested clarification regarding the separation of churches from other non-profit organizations. Mr. Boogaard responded it was based on the principal in the constitution that the church and state should be separated. Mayor Nader felt the establishment clause would prohibit separating churches out for preferential treatment because they were a church so a breeder standard needed to be applied for community benefit/non-profit organizations which would include churches. Councilmember Fox stated he had a phiinsophieal problem with the staff recommendation. He believed the interpretation by the Supreme Court was incorrect and that the forefathers intended that government should not favor one religion over another. Public schools were exempted from the fees and due to the uniqueness of churches he felt they should be exempted due to the spiritual, social, and public service benefits to the community. He felt the City and the churches should build a partnership. Therefore, he could not support the staff recommendation. Mayor Neder stated he concurred with Councilmember Fox's comments except that he felt the exemption did not require any impingement on any constitutional law, i.e. it was quite possible to craft an exemption that did not discriminate for or ag~Cmst religion, but did include all churches. That would be an exemption that would apply to community service/non-profit organizations, such as the 501(c)3 designation by the Internal Revenue Service which would be the most sensible solution. He would support direction to staff to bring back an exemption ordinance. Councilmember Moore stated he would make his decision on fairness. No matter what Council would do someone would oppose their action. The question was whether there should be a different fee and why. The staff recommendaf~on for a Park & Ride facility in lieu of paying a fee was a win/win situation. Someone would have to fill the hole if money was taken out of the DIF. There were many small businesses that could also not afford to pay the fees. Councilmember Horton stated after reading the staff report she did not see how the City could allow a waiver from the Trans DIF fee due to the requirements of the State government code. Mayor Nader questioned whether the City Attorney had any case law to support his interpretation of Government Code Section 66000. He felt there was U.S. Supreme Court case law that stated a fee could not be charged that did not have a nexus between what was being charged for and the service b~mg collected for. He did not see why relief from a fee on other grounds could not be given. Mr. Boogaard responded two laws influenced staff recommendations: 1) the principal in the Constitution that churches and State had to be separated; and 2) AB 66000 and the principal of equal protection. He then reviewed the history of the establishment of the Trans DIF. Under the proposed program staff was trying to create a different, but legally justified basis, that churches and, anyone, could take advantage of. It would be helpful to churches as they had an off peak traffic load. Therefore, the City could not vary too far from the principal of horizontal equity. The City could not give complete waivers to some groups, especially based on religious status. There was definite case and statutory law supporting the principal of horizonal equity to the point that it required engineering studies to create a DIF. Mayor Nades stated it appeared the City Attorney drew the conclusion that therefore the City could not grant relief from the fee which the government code entitled the City to charge. He questioned if there was case law that supported that conclusion. Mr. Boogaard responded the City could grant fee discounts based on usage which was in the proposed program on mitigation of traffic generation by a Park & Ride lot. There was no basis for treating one group differently than another group similarly situated. It Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 11 Councilmember Fox stated the Council had agreed to off-set fees for the church in EastLake for the use of their facilities for daycare. He questioned if that would allow them to off-set all or part of the Trans DIF fees. Mr. Booguard responded that if the service that was being offered was a legitimate municipal purpose then the City could pay the church for the service. That money the church received could then be used to off-set their cost to the DIF fees. That could not be based on the City's desire to give breaks to churches. Councilmember Moore referred to recommendation #3 and felt it could be amended to read *and/or other services in-kind that are beneficial to the City as a whole'. MS (Nader/Fox) to approve the staff recommendations on page 17-1 except on recommendation #3 Council would consider exempting rather deferring the payment and encourage the provision of Park & Ride or in- kind services. Councilmember Rindone felt the word that best reflected the consensus of Council was 'off-set' which could be anything from a partial daferral to a full deferral. Staff was to look at the public benefit issues, 501(c)3, etc. which would allow flexibility. He also felt it was important to know the number of 501(c)3's they were dealing with. If there was a genuine nexus for the public benefit Council also needed to know what the impact would be to other organizations. He would support the addition of 'off-set" to the motion. Mayor Nader stated his intent was to "exempt'. Under his reading of the government code the City would have difficulty justifying the imposition of the fees on most of the churches unless the churches were located in an isolated part of the City which was attracting traffic that was not already existing. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (Moore, agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Motion) to add "defer and/or exempt". Councilmember Rindone questioned whether the motion included off-set, deferral, and/or exemption. Mayor Nader stated if there were payments to be made it could be done with an off-set of services. Even if there was an exemption staff should work with the organizations to encourage their use for other community purposes. CLARIFICATION OF MOTION: (Nader) Recommendation #3: At the public hearing on 10/25/94, consider exempting and/or deferring the payment of the Trans DIF fee and encourage the organization to enter into an agreement to provide Park & Ride or other in-kind services as an off-set of any fee. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. * * · Councilmember Fox left the dins at 11:14 p.m. * * * **** MSC (Naderltorton) to hear items #18,/t21c, 22c, and Closed Session. All other items to be continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. Approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. **** 18. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the Water Authority had identified what the range of the daily rate would be which was information staff needed in order to assess the best option and choice for the City. The rate was between $74/ton and $133/ton. The Authority staff was recommending that non-member entities that had already decided to withdraw from system, that any of their residual waste that would go to the Authority system, would pay the high rate. It was suggested that on 10/1/94 that the non-member, non-contract tip rate be at least $74/ton with the caveat that the NCRRA charges to a non-member city, as well as charges for inactive landfills and active landfill closures was yet to be determined. Staff had received a response to their letter regarding questions posed on a transfer station, a CAP of $55 or if it exceeded $55 it would be an automatic out for the City, and if Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 12 the City could join the Authority at any time if they chose one of the other contract options that had a time stipulation with it. A copy had been provided to Council for review. He then reviewed the status of other non- member cities. · Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, questioned if the $42.50 quoted by Pacific Disposal included the transfer fee. Mr. Krempl responded that it was his understanding that was an inclusive fee that covered the tip fee at the transfer station and transportation and disposal. The Pacific Disposal proposal had never been discussed before. The City had been engaged with Sexton in response to the RFP to site, design, and permit a transfer station. Mr. Garcia questioned if Council proposed to ask for any economic studies to justify what was being done. Mayor Nader stated he assumed so, similar to what was done for rate increase requests. Mr. Garcia questioned if there were closed containers that could be used so a transfer station would not be needed and save the ratepayers of the City. Mr. Krempl stated the Laidlaw proposal dealt with closed system and staff recommended that it be referred to them for further study. · Donna Tisdale, Box 1275, Boulevard, CA, representing B.A.D., felt it was prudent to verify everything said by Pacific Disposal and Mid-America as it had been her experience that they were not always forthcoming with the truth. It was also her opinion that Mid-America had cooked up the deal with Pacific Disposal to sneak in the backdoor al%r losing out on the RFP to Sexton. If Chula Vista chose the closed system proposed by Laidlaw it would trigger a CEQA review of the Campo Landfill which had not been done and would cost a lot of money. She felt Council should check into the location of the landfill in Yuma as she believed it was also on a reservation. Mayor Nader questioned what relevance it had if it was located on an indian reservation. Ms. Tisdale responded that all indian reservations had ground water resources. The tribe was not liable for contamination caused, the federal government who held the land in trust for the tribe was not liable, end therefore, it put the liability back on the cities. Mayor Nader stated if protections were adequate liability would be a moot issue. He had a problem with the Campo landfill due to potential environmental consequences and not because it was on indian land. Ms. Tisdale responded that was the key issue. In her experience there appeared to be more problems with landfills located on indian land. Councilmember Moore stat~xl tonnage was what would give the cities a reduced price, but because there was reduced tonnage everyone would pay higher rates. There were eleven cities that had not joined and if they did join they would be the majority on the Commission. Councilmember Rindone stated Councilmember Moore was correct, the City had always wanted to be a player in order to keep the rates lower. The City had been trying to find a solution. He felt the response to the City's latest request was absurd. The change in attitude of the seven cities in the Commission was not conducive to bringing the cities together. MS (Rindone/Horton) to accept the staff recommendation to take no action and send a letter requesting a delay of the deadline until 1/1195 to allow for proper review by all cities in antidpation of planning what was best. Mayor Nader questioned if under the staff recommendations all the options discussed would be considered included the proposal by Pacific Disposal. · I Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Booguard stated Council had directed staff m enter into an agreement with another provider based on an RFP process and while the execution of the contract had been held in abeyance for other reasons, he questioned if Council wanted staff to change that direction and not enter into that agreement. Mayor Nader stated that was the policy issue he was raising with his colleagues. Mr. Booguard felt there was legal exposure that should be considered if Council was going to change the direction of the contract. He questioned if Council wanted to discuss the issue in Closed Session. Mr. Krempl stated staffs intent would not have been to consider Pacific Disposal's proposal. When staff met with Pacific Disposal they apprised them of how the City was proceeding with Sexton and in staffs view the types of things they were suggesting were the types of things that were included in the proposal from Sexton which was a response to the RFP. Staff also apprised them of the option and ability to proceed independently and file for a conditional use permit and transfer station request. His understanding of the direction from Council was that staff should proceed with Sexton. Mayor Nader stated if Pacific Disposal came in with a more specific proposal that appeared to offer a serious option for offering reduced rates he wanted that presented. He did not want to foreclose viable options. He was not sure that the question about participation in the transfer station was correctly interpreted by the Authority. He had talked to Councilmember Morrison and he continued to think there was disparity of opinion of staff and board of the Authority. Mr. Morrison stated it was his understanding that directions given to their staff was that although the fiscal component of the proposed contracts could not be changed without Authority board concurrence, their staff was authorized to negotiate other elements of those agreements including potential participation in a transfer station. If the Authority's concern was that a transfer station should be located somewhere else, and they did not want to be tied to Chula Vista he would not necessarily be tied to the City either. He hoped they were not hung up on that issue. He requested that staff clarify that with the Chairman and initiate discussion with Authority boardmembers to see what could be developed regarding potential participation. He felt the Authority had a point regarding the extension of the deadlines. The process had dragged out a long time and the Authority did need to do some planning and, therefore, he was hesitant in asking for an extension until January. He wanted clarification as to whether the Authority had legally bound itself to take on the liability for NCRRA. If the City could not have something in place by October, i.e. a specific business plan that would tell them how they were going to achieve their objective of lowering the rates for the ratepayers, he may be in a position to say the only option open would be to seek with the other non-members to join and take over the Authority for the benefit of the region. Councilmember Rindone stated the purpose of the motion was in the best interest of the City. He felt the City needed to make every effort to continue to push and explore every option. That concern should be transmitted to the Solid Waste Commission with emphasis that it would also be in their best interest to look at the request. Mr. Goss stated it was a complex issue with a lot of different elements. He did not feel the issue had "jelled' and did not feel the arbitrary deadlines were doing anyone any good. There was a power play that was going un. The City needed to find out what the consequences were to the ratepayers. The arbitrary deadlines had not done anything other than split the cities. · Bud Chase, 3730 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, representing Sexton/CVSS, stated volume was everything in the business and the County should work together. Signing a twenty year commitment to accept all the liabilities and whatever they decided to charge was not in the City's best business. Sexton/CVSS had submitted a proposal and followed all the rules, provided all the flexibility requested by the City afier the proposal was submitted, and did everything the City had asked. They had been working with staff under the assumption that they had a contract. It was his contention that if the City did not move forward they would be sitting at the same place in 18 months. Mr. Boogaard stated the contract was for site selection and permitting of the site. If at any stage the City decided to go forward to the point of construction of a transfer station the City had a duty to negotiate with Sexton first, in good faith, to allow them to be the operator if terms could be agreed upon. Mayor Nader requested a separate vote on the provision requesting in a letter a deadline extension of 1/1/95. VOTE ON STAff RECOMMENDATION: approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 14 Mayor Nader stated he would prefer to defer action until next week. He would be cemfortable with a member of Council or staff representing that the City felt more time was desirable. Councilmember Hotton stated she was ready to support the motion on the floor. With the holidays coming up and the situation the City was in with the other non-member cities she felt they needed more time to see if something could be worked out. VOTE ON MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO 1/1/95: npproved 3-1-1 with Nader opposed and Fox absent. 19. REPORT UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. No report was given. ITEMS PULLED PROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 9 and 12. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTfS) a. Scheduling of meetings. No report was given. 21. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Site for Kids Biz Program - discussion and possible direction. Continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. b. Announcement of closed session decisions. Continued to the 9/20194 meeting. c. Ratification of appointment to the Resource Conservation Commission - Viviane Marquez. MSC (Nader/Horton) to ratify the appointment of Viviane Marquez to the Resotwce Conservation Commission. Approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. 22. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore a. Discussion and possible action regarding B/C/C members absenteeism excused/unexcused (reference page 12 of B/C/C handbook). Members with attendance of 75% and members with unexeused absences of over 25%. Continued from the meeting of 9/6/94. Continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. b. Consideration of in-house/staff training vs. conferences. Continued from the meeting of 9/6/94. Continued to the 9/20/94 meeting. c. Illegal/bootleg signs, etc. in residential areas; along side City streets, etc.; and enforcement action. Continued from the meeting of 9/6194. Councilmember Moore stated Council had adopted an ordinance in 1987 regarding the resale of homes. He was concerned that the signs were out to long and the ordinance was being violated. The signage was getting gross and some of it was resale. The second part was for new construction. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 15 Jeri Vanderpool, representing Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, stated when the sign ordinance was drafted several years ago the association worked closely with the City. They distributed the information on the sign law with a great deal of publicity and continued to remind members on an on-going basis. The sign rules and regulations were also published monthly in their newsletter. She pledged a new effort to get their members to obey the law. Councilmember Moore felt enough had been said about resale. The section he was concerned with was the bootleg signs for new constntction. MS (Moore/Horton) to direct staff to invite the senior staff members of new home builders and major developers to a meeting to negotiate a program that would be a win/win program similar to what the Board of Realtors had done in 1987. Councilmember Hotton had suggested to the Planning Commission, when she was a member, to develop a program similar to the program in the Carlsbad/La Costa area for kiosks which would eliminate all the directional type signage for new development. Councilmember Moore stated he would include Councilmember Horton's comments in the motion as part of the goal to get the devdopers and builders at a meeting. Mayor Nader stated he did not believe realtors were a major source of the problem. He felt the worse violators were the commercial and political signs that were put up by commercial firms. He brought that to staff's attention and nothing had been done. Nothing had been done in years to enforce the current laws. He would only vote for the motion if the City was going to enforce the sign ordinances and if that was not going to be done the laws should be removed from the books. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. MS (Moore/Rindone) to direct staff to review the present street side, bootleg, and other signage for real estate that were illegally placed, whether placed on private or public property, as to enforcement and fines and bring back a report with recommendations. Staff is to consider a warning for first offense, fine for second offense, and the fine should escalate for each offense thereafter. Mayor Nader stated he supported the motion which would bring back an ordinance for Council review. Councilmember Rindone stated one of the perpetrators of the sign ordinance was the City. There were still signs out for the 8/14/94 Arts & Crafts Fair along Third Avenue between 'J" and "L" Street. Mayor Nader stated they should be taken down, but a sign for a City sponsored event on City right-of-way did not offend him like the other signs did on City right-of-way. Commercial companies were being hired to break the law. He wanted the City Attorney to look into that in drafting the ordinance. He also hoped it was understood that if it was adopted there would be enforcement. * * * Councilmember Horton left the dias at 12:33 p.m. * * * Councilmember Moore stated the potential of using Kidz Biz to take photos of signs was a lot more economical than sending out a staff member on Saturday and Sundays. Mayor Nader stated if there was no objection he would incorporate Kidz Biz into the motion. VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent. Councilmember Horton d. RESOLUTION 17658 OPPOSING PROPOSITION 187 - SAVE OUR STATE Continued to the 9//20194 meeting. Minutes September 13, 1994 Page 16 CLOSED SESSION City Manager Goss informed Council staff was not requesting that Conference with Labor Negotiator be discussed in Closed Session. Council met in Closed Session at 12:24 a.m. and reconvened at 12:58 a.m. 23. CONFERENCE I¥1TH LEGAL COUNSEL - Existing litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · Veltman vs. the City of Chula Vista (Port Litigation). 24. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unreprescnted. 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. .25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision Co) of Section 54956.9: 1. · City vs. Solid Waste Management JPA (differential rate structure and transfer station legal issues). · Chaparral Greens - Endangered Species Act. · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing. · Redevelopment Agency Disposition and Development Agreement with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 · Title: City Attorney 26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ~ No final actions were taken in Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 12:59 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on September 20, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, -BEV~RLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk · ·· I--,,~ '· Vieki C. Soderquist, Deputy ci~erk 1' · I