Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/11/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, November 8, 1994 Council Chambers 6:08 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authalet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 25, 1994. MSC (MoorefRindone) to approve the minutes of October 25, 1994 as presented. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 5b) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR O~'ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. Item 9 Wailed for two weeks. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken from the Closed Session of 11/1194. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter regarding administrative policy on use of sewer funds - Joseph W. Garcia, The People's Lobby, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. The City Attorney has prepared an opinion for discussion. Continued from the meeting of 11/1/94. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing The Peoples Lobby, read from his letter dated 11/8/94 (a copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) to the Council regarding points and answers to the City Attomey's letter of 11/1/94 in response to his letter of 10/5/94. Mayor Nader stated he was satisfied that the City Attomey's memorandum fully and accurately set forth the law. He was also satisfied, after reading the memo, that the sewer rate payers were well served by the loans in that they were getting interest back into the sewer fund which would help to defray future sewer costs and help keep rates down. He was concerned that in certain cases some of the loans from the sewer fund did not entirely meet the standards set forth in the City Attomey's memo, particularly regarding a legal requirement or fiscal desirability that any loans would have a certain assurance of being paid back. Some of the loans appeared to depend on the income of DIF or development related fees to the City which had not yet been received to pay for certain projects. He was concerned that if the fees did not materialize due to a policy decision, economic, or other reasons, there would not Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 2 be the reassurance of repayment that was required. He questioned if under those circumstances the loans should be made from the General Fund or there should be a policy that indicated the City would not borrow from sewer fees relying on sources that were somewhat speculative for repayment. Mr. Goss stated as the items went before Council and were approved staff felt comfortable with the ability of the various funds to pay back the loans. If it appeared that a loan was not being paid back, it would be his recommendation to have it repaid by another fund so there would be a certainty that the sewer fund would be repaid. The interest paid to the sewer account did help to keep the rates down. Mayor Neder stated it appeared to him from information presented that some projects that were to be paid for by development generated fees were borrowed on from the sewer fund because those fees had not yet been received. He questioned what assurance the City had that those fees would be received. Mr. Goss stated that was correct. It was based on a historical pattern for income. If for some reason those fees were not received he felt it prudent to recommended that it be diverted from another fund, possibly the General Fund. Mayor Nader stated that when Council authorized such a loan that staff also indicate what funds might be utilized as backup if the expected fees did not materialize. Councilmember Moore stated the sewer fee was not just based on the City's operation and maintenance of the system. It was the Metro System that was owned by the City of San Diego which included the Point Loma plant, piping, two pump stations, etc. The City had been under that contract since 1964 and had approximately 20 more years to run. There were a lot of anticipat~uJ costs and unanticipated costs that would come to the City that were legal. Mayor Nader questioned whether his suggestion could be done administratively. Mr. Goss responded that it would be done administratively. MSC (Fox/Moore) 1o receive and file 1he letter. Approved 4-0-1 with Horlon absent. 6.A. ORDINANCE 2608 ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (second reading and adoorion) - The purpose of the ordinances is to amend all of the City's Redevelopment Plans to incorporate certain time limits mandated by AB 1290 (and further refined in SB 732). The time limits pertain to the establishment of indebtedness, effective of Redevelopment Plans, and repayment of indebtedness. The legislation requires that a Redevelopment Plan which either lacks the required time limits or which contains time limits in excess of the maximums established by AB 1290 must be amended by ordinance before the end of the calendar year to bring the plan into conformity with the requirements. Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on second reading and adoption. (Director of Community Development) B. ORDINANCE 2609 ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (second reading and adoption) C. ORDINANCE 2610 ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (second readin~ and adoption) D. ORDINANCE 2611 ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (second reading and adoorion) Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 3 E. ORDINANCE 2612 ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (second reading and adoption) 7. ORDINANCE 2615 AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION 10.48.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS ON DEL REY BOULEVARD AND RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY (first reading) - The City Engineer has determined the need to establish speed limits on Del Rey Boulevard and Rancho del Rey Parkway in the Rancho del Rey development. The streets have recently been opened to traffic and serve as the major collector streets for a large residential community located north of East "H " Street and west of Otay Lakes Road. Staff recommends Council place the o~.'linance on first reading. (Director of Public Works) 8. RESOLUTION 17709 APPROVING FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - After the Council and Board of Supervisors approved the Otay Ranch Project, Chaparral Greens sued on CEQA theories. The City retained Remy and Thomas at Baldwin' s expense. The trial is now complete and we are awaiting the Judge's decision. Baldwin has brought Ms. Thomas' bill current as billed, a total of $495,000. She now estimates $62,000 of additional pest trial expenses and experts costs incurred but not yet billed. Baldwin concurs with the increase, and of course, is solely liable. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 9. RESOLUTION 17710 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WIIH THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST, INC. AND BONITA LONG CANYON PARTNERSHIP FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AS WETLANDS MITIGATION FOR TWO CITY PROJECTS AND AT&T'S PROJECT AT 865 THIRD AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY - The winter storms of 1993 eaused damage to a number of locations within the City. Restoration work was accomplished for two City projects and one private project. As a result of work done by the City and proposed work by American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) at 865 Third Avenue, the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) required wetlands mitigation. The City has been working towards obtaining land to mitigate the two City projects. The DF&G suggest~xt that the City and AT&T combine mitigation so as to provide a larger area rather than three smaller sites. The agrecraent is the result of negotiations for both City projects and the AT&T site. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) City Manager Goss informed Council that staff had planned on reporting the Resource Conservation Commission actions taken regarding the item, but the Commission had not reviewed the item. Therefore, staff requested the item be pulled for two weeks. Mayor Nader stated it was the consensus of the Council that the item would be trailed as part of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Rindone requested that staff address his concerns when the item returned in two weeks. in the second paragraph on page 9-2 it described the enhancement costs which were anticipated, he wanted to know what those enhancements were and their costs. 10. RESOLUTION 17711 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY FOR 1994/95 OVERLAY PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY (STL-221) - Bids were received on 9/14/94 for "Placement of Asphalt Concrete Overlay for 1994/95 Overlay Program and Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on various streets in the City (STL-221)." The work includes placement of one and one-half inch to two inch thick asphalt concrete overlay on top of non-woven pavement reinforcing fabric, removal of alligatored pavement areas III Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 4 and replacement with asphalt concrete pavement, cold milling of street pavement in certain areas, AC leveling courses, signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of sewer manholes, adjustment of storm drain clean outs, adjustment of survey well monuments, construction of sidewalk ramps, and other miscellaneous work as shown on the plans. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution awarding the contract to Daley Corporation in the amount of $1,026,674. (Director of Public Works) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR *" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Reverend Allen Rudow, 1398 Nacion, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Church of Joy, stated he was disappointed and saddened by the cavalier way in which the City had dealt with them. They had tried to amicably negotiate the TransDIF fees with the City and had acted in good faith. Without notification and before they could present information to the Council, Council took action on the fees. The Council's actions had effectively shut down their building program by tabling the issue and assessing them a percentage of the TransDIF fees. He asked that Council instruct the staff, City Attorney, and City Manager to meet with them and their attorneys and reach seine agreement during the interim while the fee structure and constitutional questions were being resolved. He requested that all TransDIF fees to churches be set aside until the issue was resolved. Councilmember Fox requested clarification of what Reverend Rudow was requesting. Reverend Rudow stated that no one on the City staff knew the basis of what the 10% charge was based on. They had met with staff regarding the assessment and staff had agreed with two other formulas and would have presented them at the public hearing. He assumed that it meant 10% of the original $98,000 that they were being assessed for acreage. Mr. Goss stated staff would meet with Reverend Rudow. Councilmember Moore stated Council very seldom allowed a project to fail due to lack of action on their Certain things could be done with contingencies. His motion was to protect the City's treasury. Council had been advised by the City Attorney that litigation could take place and the General Fund would be at risk. Mr. Boogaard responded that was correct in terms of the potential for litigation. · Lynn Servatius, 1372 Don Carlos Court, Chula Vista, CA, representing Church of Joy, thanked staff for working with them and listening to their concerns. She stated they were ready to pull their building permits and requested that they not be assessed any TransDIF fees until the matter was settled. If that was not possible they wanted to work with staff to look at the alternatives that never reached the Council level, i.e. based on the sqtmre footage of the worship area or the squnre footage of the building. Mayor Nader stated if the meeting did not result in resolution that any suggested altematives be placed on the Council agenda for action. Mr. Goss responded that staff would report back regarding the results of the meetings and Council could then direct staff as what to do next. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 5 Mayor Nader stated the only direction given by Council was to not agendize the item until there was resolution by the City of San Diego. Specific direction as to what fees to charge would have been a violation of the Brown Act and was not done by Council. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated Council had agree~l in the past on charging the fees over a period of time and/or charge in phases which he felt would help staff in working out an acceptable solution. Mayor Nader questionexl whether the City of San Diego had agendized the item. Mr. Goss stat~l that it had not been agendized. Councilmember Rindone felt it needed to be made clear that the Council and staff had not taken a cavalier attitude toward the issue. Staff had worked diligently in looking at many proposals and had suggested to Council on many occasions that the examination of those issues had to be completed prior to making a recommendation. No Councilmember had indicated that they were in support of a TransDIF fee for churches. · Rick Johnson, 391 BaylenfDrive, Chula Vista, CA, Pastor, Risen Savior Church, expressed disappo'mtment on Council's decision to defer making a decision on whether to charge churches TransDIF fees. He felt there was an appearance that when a decision was made to defer, and none of the pastors were notified, that there was no input wanted and that the decision to defer was to take away one of the strongest allies the churches had on Council because Mayor Nader's tarm would expire. He requested that one of the Councilmembers that voted to defer the item placo it beck on the agenda, discuss it, and make a decision. To defer the decision put a sword over the head of every church and non-profit organization that built in eastern Chula Vista. Sometime that decision would be made and when it was the churches would be liable for large fees. The idea that churches and non-profits were already covered in the impact fees paid by developers when they did a master planned community had never been addressed. If that was true the City was double dipping on churches and non-profit organizations. Councilmember Fox stated the utmost concern was the City's treasury and Council did not want to spend millions of dollars to litigate. It was his understanding that Council was not subject to litigation if tho subject was agendized end discussed. That was the reason he had not gone with the majority as he felt the churches should have their "day in COUrts. Reverend Johnson stated there could be litigation on the other side as well. There were non-profit legal foundations studying the matter also. Mr. Boogaard responded that there was a low likelihood that the City would be subjected to litigation expense from placing the item on the agenda for discussion puq0oses. There would be liability when and if a waiver was granted that could not be supported legally. The City would be beating the brunt of litigating for the benefit of the county and state the provisions of the California and Federal Constitutions. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 11. REPORT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION REGARDING RUSSIAN SISTER CITY Mayor Nader stated Vice-Mayor Hotton requested the item be continued to 11/15/94 in order to be heard by the toll Council and he supported her request. Councilmember Fox noted the minutes of the International Friendship Commission were not included in the packet and requested that they be in the packet for the 11/15/94 meeting if the item was continued. MSC (Nader/Fox) to continue the item to the meeting of 11/15/94 as requested by Vice-Mayor Horton. Approved 40-1 with Horton absent. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 6 Kitty Rasso, Chula Vista, CA, stated them were already three sister cities that had not been taken care of, especially Argentina. She felt the City should take care of what it had and also take care of the City itself. She questioned whether the City really needed a trip to Russia. She also questioned if one of the other sister cities would be dropped if a sister city in Russia was added. Mayor Nader stated the City would not drop an existing sister city if they added a sister city in Russia. He suggested that citizens interested in Argentina, as those interested in Russia were already doing, organize their support. ACTION ITEMS 12. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff.. REPORT CONSIDERATION OF SITE SELECTION FOR SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY - At two previous meetings (9/6/94 and 10/4/94), Council discussed end approved a methodical approach for selection of an appropriate site for a transfer station with capacity for a future materials recovery facility (MRF). At the 10/4/94 meeting, staff was directed to continue a detailed evaluation of the top three sites by factoring in results of a public forum to be held on 10/20/94. The report describes the input from that meeting with the Chula Vista community and presents further recommendations. Staff recommends Council accept the report, concluding that the two final sites under consideration are located at 855 Maxwell Road and 894 Energy Way, and direct staff to enter into negotiations with both property owners and report back with a single site recommendation. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the City had received a letter from the Campo Band of Mission Indians regarding a tour of the Campo facility on Wednesday, November 16th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The November billing from Laidlaw was ready to go out and it was staff' s intent to include on that billing the yard waste increase and the curbside pickup adjustment which Council approved in September. Notification would be provided in the billing regarding those changes. Staff had hoped to be able to consider other rate impacts with the November billing, but it was their judgemerit that there were a lot of unknowns which would not be decided for several months. Staff was looking for direction from Council. Mayor Neder stated to implement the staff recommendation it would not require further action from Council. Mr. Krempl stated that was correct. Councilmember Rindone was pleased that staff addressed the critical issue in reducing the number of sites from three to two, i.e. the rail access issue. He questioned if some time in the fumm if it was determined that rail haul was cheaper what options would be available. Mr. Krempl responded that one of the complicating factors at in looking at the rail service was that there was a transfer required from the Arizona Eastern Railroad to the Santa Fe line which included a cost. Sexton was of the opinion that if rail became feasible in the future they could easily transport the transfer station container to the rail site with little expense and inconvenience which would be more competitive than incurring the transfer situation between the two rail lines. They felt rail was still an option in the future and the distance of the two final sites being recommended was not a major barrier to doing rail as well. Councilmember Rindone stated the only other concern he had was the time line they were dealing with. It was in everyone's best interest to have a siting of a transfer station as soon as feasible. Most experts agreed that with the prospect of not siting new lendfills a transfer station Would eventually be needed. He would support the staff recommendation, but felt the Bay Boulevard site should be brought back for consideration if negotiations for either of the two sites recommended stalled. That would allow the City to move forward as there was a willing seller for ~'~ that property rather than having to go through the lengthy process of eminent domain. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 7 MS (Rindone/Nader) to accept the staff recommendation and begin negotiations. Staff to bring back the Bay Boulevard site for Council consideration if the negotiations on either of the two sites stalled. · Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson Street, Chula Vista, Ca, stated she was opposed to a trash and recycling plant at 900 Bay Boulevard. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent on beautifying the bay area and there were plans by the City and Port District for further improvements. There was already a pollution giant in the area, i.e. the SDG&E power plant. She expressed concern regarding pyramids of trash and garbage that would be at the proposed site and routes that would be utilized by the trash trucks. She complimented staff for the outstanding job they had done on informing the public. Mayor Nader stated the staff recommendation was to remove the Bay Boulevard site from consideration. It was his understanding of the motion that the site would only be considered if the owners of the other two sites tried to hold the City "hostage" regarding negotiations. He questioned if under eminent domain the City would take immediate possession of the property with the courts then deciding the fee the City would have to pay the landowner to take possession. Mr. Boogaard stated that was how the procedure opera~;d in general. However, because of a case called Klopping he encourage Council not to discuss condemnation when the City was still involved in completely voluntary acquisition. Mayor Nades stated that Council was not contemplating condemnation but were trying to make sure that no one in the public or Council was proceeding under mis-impressions. Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was concerned that the City was making it a bigger issue that it really was. According to his figures there was not that much waste and he questioned why it could not be trucked to a landfill. He did not feel the City generated enough recycling material to make a recycling center cost effective. It would end up in the same place as the San Marcos station, i.e. in debt. If Sexton paid for the facility the citizens would have to pay for it or the City would have to bond which would result in additional public debt. He questioned whether the City was talking about rail only north of the border. Mayor Nader responded that no one could see into the infinite future and say whether rail wonld be only north of the border. There was no proposal to ship south of the border but the City could not make a commitment for the future° Councilmember Moore assumed the data presented by Mr. Garcia was on the Otay landfill. There was the potential that the landfill would not be expanded and would be closed in the near future. Therefore, the mileage, trips, type of vehicles, etc. would not be applicable if that happened. Councilmember Rindone questioned if Mr. Garcia's concern was solely with the recycling portion of the transfer station or the transfer station in general. Mr. Gareia responded that he was concerned with beth. He felt the City should negotiate an agreement with the landfill before talking about putting a transfer station in. There had been six or more landfills that had been discussed. Councilmember Rindone stat?_.d the control of the Otay landfill was not within the City's control. The Solid Waste Commission was looking at a proposal which would remove that option fi'om the City. Council felt that any options presented, at any time, that appeared to be more cost effective would be looked at. Mayor Nader stated by approval of the motion it was not an irrevocable commitment that the City would actually build, construct, and unilaterally operate a transfer station at one of the sites. The Council was entering into negotiations to acquire a site for a potential transfer station. If the City reached the point where a transfer station needed to built and a better alternative appeared the City would consider it. He felt it was prudent to have a contingency plan given the policy choices the City and County had made and with information available. I [1 Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 8 Councilmember Fox stated he was pleased that the Bay Boulevard site had been eliminated. He would be extremely reluctant to consider that site due to the detrimental effect it would have on traffic, tourism, economic development, etc. along the bayfront. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 40-1 with Herton absent. 13. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. No report given. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 5b. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT{S} - No report given. 15. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - No report given. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore a. Report from Subcommittee Member Moore on revisions to the B/C/C Attendance Policy. Councilmember Moore stat~l the Subcommitl~ was recommending that the policy, if adopted, be distribu~d to all board/commission members at their meetings end to new members when taking the oath of office. He then reviewed the major changes in the policy. MS (Rindone/Fox) to adopt the policy as presented. Mayor Nader stated one of the areas of concern he had was with the notice b(mg given to a commissioner that was approaching the number of unexcused absences that would result in removal. In his experience, it had been a consistent problem are~. In the proposed policy the failure to give notice did not result in retention of that n~mber. His policy had been that when the commission secretary had failed to notify the commissioner, they were technically removed, but because commissioners continued to serve until replaced a replacement would not be appointed unless they missed one more meeting. There had been a case where a secretary had stopped sending agenda information to a commissioner and the commissioner had not missed enough meetings to be removed nor had action been taken by the Mayor or Council to replace her. She had then been sent a notice saying she had been removed due to meetings missed that she had never been notified of. He questioned if there should be a requirement that if notification as required in the policy was not given that it would go to either the Mayor, Council subcommittee, or council prior to detennlnlng that the person should be removed. Mayor Nader felt line 17 on page 16a-8 should be changed to read *Failure to give such notice shall not void the operation of this policy, but shall be subject to review by the Council and its subcommittee prior to removal". He sew two categories of removal under the policy, i.e. one was automatic without subcommittee review if they had too many unexcused absences and if they had a combination of excused end unexcused, they could be removed at the discretion of the Council on recommendation of a Council subcommittee. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Boogsard stated it was under subcommittee review without Council review. Mayor Neder stated "by Council and its subcommittee" was included in the report under the removal power. Mr. Boogaard stated that was an anachronism from a hold over provision and should be corrected to be consistent with the authority of the subcommittee to remove. The removal provision on page 16a-4 was in the authority of the Council subcommittee without Council review. He recommended page 18a-8, line 19, be changed to remove "Council and its". That would make the policy internally consistent. Councilmember Moore stated in order to plug all the loopholes the policy should state that all removals would be reviewed by subcommittee. Mayor Neder felt that would address his concerns. Councilmember Rindone stated as a member of Council he wanted to be notified of all board/commission members that were removed due to absences. Mayor Nader agreed with that recommendation. Councilmember Rindone felt it could be added on page 16a-8, making it VI and moving VI to VII. Mr. Boogaard questioned if it was Council's intent to have direct notice of the automatic removals to Council. Mayor Nader stated under the amendment discussed between he and Councilmember Moore all removals would go through the Council subcommittee and there would be a safeguard that no one would be removed without having known that they were approaching removal. Mr. Bunguard stated the automatic removal provision on page 16a-3, line 20, would have to be mended to read %. shall be removed from membership on the B/C/C at the review and discretion of the Council subcommittee'. Councilmember Rindone felt it should be 'review and determination' and not 'discretion'. Mr. Bunguard stated the subcommittee did have the discretion to evaluate the reasons for absences. Mayor Nader stated that was not his understanding. He felt the subcommittee had discretion only where there was a combination of excused and unexcused absences adding up to more than 1/3 and not where they missed 1/4 of the meetings unexcused. If 1/4 of the meetings were missed unexcused the policy called for automatic removal and not at the discretion of the subcommittee. If that occurred and the notification requirement was not met then the subcommittee should have discretion. Mr. Booguard stated that for automatic removal for unexcused absences the only discretion the Council subcommittee would have was to evaluate whether notice was given to the absent member. Mayor Nader stated the subcommittee would evaluate removal when notice was not given and, per the policy, when there was a combination of excused and unexcused absences. Mayor Neder stated on page 16a-11, proposed revisions to the board/commission handbook, paragraph 2 under the indented portion of the second bullet, referred to 1/4 of the meetings and in the policy it required 1/3 of the meetings unless they were unexcused absences for 1/4 and if it was unexcused for 1/4 it was automatic removal. Mr. Booguard responded 1/4 excused absences was on the bottom of page 16a-3, line 42. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 10 Mayor Nader did not fe~l that it made sense to have beth 1/3 and 1/4 in the policy becaus~ if missing 1/4 with all excused triggered referral to the subcommittee.' why did there need to be the threshold of 1/3. Mr. Boogaard stated there could be 2 excused absences and 2 unexcused absences. In that case the member would not have violated the 25 % excused rule as he only had 2 and needed 3 excused absences. Mayor Nader stated if it was 25% of excused or unexcused absences he would have violated at three absences. Mr. Boogaard responded that he would not have violated either of the two individual standards, but violated the combination standard. Councilmember Moore stated he agreed with the Mayor. If three excused absences triggered review by the subcommittee why not trigger with 2 excused and 2 unexcused. Mayor Nader felt it would be as confusing to commissioners as it was during the discussion by Council. He generally agreed with the requirement of calling in absences prior to the meeting, page 16a- 11, seventh bullet under Attendance, but there were times when an excuse could not be called in prior to the meeting. He felt the commission should retain the discretion to determine whether it was an excused or unexcnsed absence and grant a retroactive excuse. He recommended that it be amended to read "... must be called in to the secretary or chair prior to the schedule meeting if at all practical ...". Mr. Boogaard stated page 16a-7, line 41, did grant the board/commission that discretion. Mayor Nader statasl because the handbook would be given to board/commissinn members and would be told that it was the policy it should be consistent. Councilmember Moore felt a new sentence should be added on page 16a-l l which would stated "Except in an emergency which would be decided at the next regularly scheduled meeting". MS (NaderFRindone) to amend the policy: 1) all removals would be subject to review by the subcommittee with discretion not to move a commissioner that had not been properly notified; 2) all ranovals would be reported to the Council; and, 3) there be an exception for emergencies to the prior notice requirement that would hove to be approved by the commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Councilmember Rindone recommended that the standing Council subcommittee be the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tan. Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate that into the motion. Councilmember Rindone expressed concern that the policy did not address the issue of members frequently arriving at meetings late or leaving meetings early. He felt that if there was a consistent problem with a member it should be reviewed by the Council subcommittee for possible removal from the board/commission. Mayor Nader questioned whether the subcommittee would have the discretion to remove those members with frequent late arrivals or early departures. He would agree if the removal was then approval by the full Council upon recommendation by the subcommittee. He wanted to be sure that removals from boards/commissions did not begin to look arbitrary because there was no real fixed standard on the issue of early departures or late arrivals. The most complete of attendance reports received by Council did include that information so rather than trying to include that in the policy Council could indicate that the Council subcommittee could review all attendanco records and forward to Council the record of any commissioner who's attendance record merited fuxther review. Councilmember Rindone felt the policy should state thot inclusive in thot review would he frequent late arrivals and/or early departures with recommendations to Council. Minutes November 8, 1994 Page 11 Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate that into the motion. VOTE ON AMENDMENTS TO POLICY: approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. VOTE ON POLICY, AS AMENDED: approved 4-0-1 with Hoston absent. Councilmember Fox b. Councilmember Fox requested that all agendas of special meetings planned one week or more in advance be included in the Council packets as well as the packets that were distributed. CLOSED SESSION Council met in Closed Session at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:19 p.m. 17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Ten cities vs. the County of San Diego (trash litigation). 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section $4956.9 · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1. · City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego (Daley Rock Quarry) regarding approval of a major use permit. · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (prospective arbitration). · City of Chula Vista vs. Solid Waste Management JPA (differential rate structure and transfer station legal issues). PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 · Title: City Attorney CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section $4957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management; Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:20 P.M. to a Special Meeting at 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 1944 and thence, to the Regular City Council Meeting on November 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk \ ~'~ Vicki C. Sederquist, Deput~ Clerk