HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/01/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, January 26, 1993 Council Chambers
6:05 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton (arrived 6:08 p.m.), Moore, Rindone (arrived
6:07 p.m.), and Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Brace M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF AtJ-RGIANCE TO THE FIAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINLrrES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted.
CONSENT C~T .~NDAR
(Items pulled: 6 and 10)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CAT.~NDAR OFP'~I) BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
5. WRiTrE, N COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted.
6. ORDINANCE 2540 AMENDING SECTION 2.05.0I0 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
THE POSITION OF SPECIAL PLANNING PROJECTS MANAGER IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE (second
read'm~ and adoption) - The Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget included a position of Deputy Director of Planning
to head the department's proposed Community Planning Group/Otay Ranch project. After review of the
revised implementation schedule of the City's takeover of the Otay Ranch project, it is recommended that
the position title be changed and a benefitted position be approved. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Administration) 4/Sth's vote required. Pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader wanted assurance that the position would not become a permanent civil service position so
it could be terminated when no longer needed.
City Manager Goss stated the person offered the position was aware of that understanding. Staff anticipated
that when Villages 3 and 4 were processed the job could then be done by a principal planner.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether the position had been hired.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, responded that the position had been hired.
City Manager Goss stated the selection had been made but the person had not started work. In anticipation
of Council's action an understanding had been reached.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was an executed contract.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 2
City Manager Goss responded that he had sent a letter which had been executed and a copy was in the
Councfl's info packets.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether the letter dated 1/21/93 was a letter of job offer.
City Manager Goss responded that Councilman Rindone was correct.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was binding upon the City prior to Council's action.
Deputy City Manager Kremp1 stated that monies had been appropriated in last years budget and the funds
were sufficient. Council passed a resolution establishing a salary and fringe benefits and staff was
proceeding by bringing in the individual, due to the need to proceed, in essence as a under-filling of the
position. The ordinance creating the special project manager classification in the unclassifed position would
not take effect until after Council's second reading and the effective date of the ordinance.
Councilman Rindone stated the responsibility of staff was to manage and the responsibility of the Council
was to establish policy which included the establishment of another position. He was surprised when he
read the memo of 1/21/93 of the appointment if a special projects manager when the position did not have
a second reading. In reading the terms of the letter it appeared there was no disclaimer pending the
approval of the position by the Council. He questioned whether the letter was legally binding.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the second reading was for the ordinance which placed the position
in an unclassified position. The consequence of not approving the second reading would put the persons
classification status at question. He felt authority had been properly granted to the administrative
department to retain the individual based on Council's actions at the last meeting.
Councilman Rindone felt good management principles would be not to hire any position until after the
second reading. No one was questioning the need of the position or the individual but the procedure in
which it had been done. He hoped staff would not, in the future, take it upon themselves to place
individuals in positions for which the second reading had not been done unless it had been taken to Council
specifically due to special circumstances or that a disclaimer be added to any letters of intent to hire.
Councilman Fox stated he concurred with Councilman Rindone but did not feel that a disclaimer was
appropriate. Staff should wait until the second reading had been passed.
City Manager Goss stated he agreed with Council's comments regarding a disclaimer or better way of
handling the process.
Councilman Rindone questioned what would happen to the position if the project did not materialize as
anticipated or terminated prior to the two years.
City Manager Goss responded that one to two years had been added because it was not a position that would
last forever. There was a basic understanding with any employee that if the project or program was
defunded the position would be terminated.
Councilman Rindone questioned whether there could be a follow-up memorandum that specified that if for
some reason, within thirty days after it was determined by staff that the project would not be carried forth,
the position would also be terminated.
City Manager Goss stated that was appropriate and felt staff should indicate that the City was taking certain
steps with Baldwin to make sure certain funding was advanced to the City, to cover the cost on a monthly
basis, as well as a guarantee to make sure the funds were provided to the City.
ORDINANCE 2540 pL~CR.n ON SECOND READING BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 3
7. RESOLUTION 16969 APPROVING FIFTH THREE PARTY AGRRRMENT FOR OTAY RANCH
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING BETWEEN THE CITY, ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES AND
BALDWIN VISTA ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECtJTE SAID AGREEMENT -
The City is the agency designated in an agreement between Chula Vista and the County of San Diego to
approve consulting contracts for the Otay Ranch. The budgeted amount of $248,000 proposed in the latest
Agreement needs to be revised by increasing the amount by $94,000. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
Councilman Rindone noted the staff report and resolution stated $69,000 and the agenda $94,000 and
questioned which was correct.
Deputy City Manager Krempl responded that $69,000 was the correct figure.
8. RESOLUTION 16970 ESTABLISHING ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR THE GAYLE MCCANDLISS
MEMORIAL FUND - A memorial fund honoring the late Mayor Gayle McCandliss was established in the early
part of 1991. The fund was initially started with money that had been raised during her campaign, and was
subsequently supplemented with numerous private donations. Consistent with her wishes, the fund was
formed in order to establish a perpetual fund to recognize individuals or groups who make a substantial
contribution toward the arts in the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks
and Recreation)
9. RESOLUTION 16971 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT FOR PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS AT THREE SCHOOL SITES AND JOINT USE THEREOF -
In May 1992, Council allocated $50,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the Chula
Vista Elementary School District for playground improvements, with the provision that the facilities would
be open for public use during all non-school hours. The Agreement contains a scope of work, project
schedule, budget, and joint use agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Community Development)
10. REPORT MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR DALEY QUARRY PROJECT,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - APPEAL TO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The report was provided to
Council in November 1992 requesting authorization for staff to attend the County Planning Commission
hearing on the proposed Daley rock quarry and to request a continuation on the major use permit item in
order to provide staff sufficient time to meet with County staff members, as well as the applicant, to resolve
certain issues. Staff appeared before the County Planning Commission on 11/20/92 and the requested
extension was granted. However, the County Planning Commission voted on 12/4/92 to deny the applieant's
request, and at the same time rejected the overriding consideration which has caused the applicant to appeal
the County Planning Commission decision, which is now set for consideration by the Board of Supervisors
on 2/3/93. Staff recommends Council provide direction on specific issues to be directed to the County Board
of Supervisors. (Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Brenda Maldonado, 862 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the modification of the
Daley Quarry project. She stated safety, noise, air pollution, traffic, and wildlife preservation as major
negative impacts of the project. She further expressed her concern of the impacts on the Olympic Training
Center.
Bob Trettin, 12785 Amaranth Street, San Diego, CA, representing Daley Corporation, stated they had a
problem with Item 2 of the City's draft letter as they would not know where their product would go in the
future, They did not have a problem in not going beyond 805 on Chula Vista surface streets for projects that
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 4
would not be in Chula Vista. As far as accessing through Telegraph Canyon Road or East "H" Street, they
had done a draft EIR and they were regulated not to have dust, stay within the City's noise standards, and
traffic. It was his understanding, on the wildlife issue, that the recommendations for the wildlife corridors
or as the corridor approached a roadway and crossed it was included in the study. Regarding Item 4, the
Quarry was a twenty year permit and had received conditions that had to be executed either prior to start-up
or during the first year. They did not have a concern regarding Item 5. They had voluntarily stated they
would not expand the aggregate facility beyond the site without undertaking a specific plan. He did not
believe what the City was asking for in Item 6 was possible as they had also asked. They realized they
would have an impact on Chula Vista but were bringing a product that would be on the streets anyway in
certain development areas, jobs, and purchasing of materials from local areas.
Councilman Rindone questioned the reality of expending the quarry in 10-12 years versus 20 as reported
by staff.
Mr. Trettin stated it could not happen because there were not enough projects. They also had a problem
in assessing traffic impacts and were told by the County that they had to pick a maximum number. That
number was then utilized for every day of the year to figure the potential impacts for the required
mitigation. In order to meet the commitments made to the community and planning group they determined
they would have a maximum, for the majority of the year, of 700 trucks (350 round trips) and on fifty dates
during the year they would be allowed to go up to 900.
Mayor Nader questioned whether staff had reviewed the EIR and the range of area that noise would be
overheard and the amount of particulate matter to be emitted.
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, responded that he had not gone into the details of those issues.
Staff had reviewed the impacts that were affecting Chula Vista directly.
Councilman Fox questioned what the basis was of the County Planning Commission rejection.
Mr. Trettin responded that the project's unmitigable impacts were visual and community character which
he believed any quarry project would have at any location. It did not mean that they were not mitigated,
but could not be completely mitigated. The only other impact was noise onto the Baldwin property and
Baldwin had accepted that impact. The County Planning Commission certified the EIR but declined the
project on the basis of not accepting the Overriding Considerations.
Councilwoman Hotton questioned the noise impacts on the Olympic Training Center.
Mr. Trettin responded there were no off-site noise impacts identified in the EIR except for noise immediately
behind the project within 1,600 feet going up the hill on Otay Ranch property. Blasting would occur on a
bi-weekly basis and the noise would not be the impact.
Mr. Lee then reviewed an overhead showing the wildlife corridor. He stated that planning staff had serious
doubts in terms of the long term affects of the narrow corridor and suggested to the County that ff they
proceeded with the project they needed to ask for a wider dedication. If the quanys life was twenty years
there should be consistency in the wildlife corridor for the long range, upon closure of the quarry.
Councilman Fox questioned who would certify the monitoring of the trucks.
Mr. Lee responded that staff had suggested that a certified log be presented to the City or County monthly
verifying the trips.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 5
MS (Naderfrlorton) to revise the draft to include: 1) Item #6, should be made stronger and not say 'to
consider whether not until such time as the quarry operation is complete '. If the EIR is premised on the idea
that it would preclude the need for devdopment on the balance of the site, it should be a condition. 2)
Modify the letter to state "the Counc~ was not making a recommendation as to whether the County Planning
Comrni~sion should be overturned, but rather submit these as specific City of Chula VLsta concerns the
Council would want to see addressed/f the project were to be approved*.
Mayor Nader clarified his motion to change the draf'c to include: 1) change Item #6 to state flatly that other
development of the approximately 450 acre ownership should be held in abeyance in order to be consistent
with representations made that the project was necessary to avoid other development; and 2) state explicitly
that the City of Chula Vista was not taking a position on overtuming the recommendation of the County
Planning Commission but rather submit the specific concerns as issues the City of Chula Vista had with the
project that the City would ask be addressed if the Planning Commission decision was revisited.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
MSUC (Nader/Moore) to approve the staff recommendation as amended.
Councilman Moore felt staff should review the speeds for safety rather than just wear and tear on the City
streets due to the size of the trucks.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that staff would come back with a repott.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAK * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
None submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concern that she had not been notified
of a hearing by the Design Review Committee regarding the Villa Del Rey condominium project on Fifth
Avenue. She had previously submitted a petition against the original development containing thirty-six
names. She recommended there be a change in the present notification procedures and that the pipeline
ordinance be more restrictive regarding length and time and that a project should be cancelled if the
property was sold.
Mayor Nader questioned whether the notice had been confined to 300 feet.
Kobert Leiter, Director of Planning, stated he had been unaware there was a problem with the project or
notification and would have to review the specific case.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he was uncertain whether the pipeline ordinance contained a section
regarding the sale of the property.
MSUC (Nader/rdoore) to refer Mrs. Everitfs concerns to staff for a report back to Council.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 6
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION H'EIVlS
11. REPORT PROPOSED COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND YARDWASTE
RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN THE CITY - State law (AB 939) requires all cities and counties to divert
of the "waste stream' from landfills by January, 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The County's mandatory
recycling ordinance is more restrictive and prohibits certain designated recyelables from being disposed at
County owned landfills under a phased implementation timeline (March 1992 through July 1993). The City
has already partially complied with these laws and ordinances. Staff believes that the City needs to move
toward compliance with the State and County laws regarding recycling, and seeks Councirs conceptual
approval to institute a yard waste recycling program, and a commercial and multi-family recycling program
development. Staff recommends Council areept the report. CAdministration)
Councilman Fox questioned why Laidlaw could not handle a pricing variation for the commercial collection
when they were able to handle the variation in the yard waste collection.
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, responded that the stickers would be a set price for yard waste
which would be utilized by the owner as per their need. Commercial went beyond the billing and included
the services staff felt the businesses would need regarding frequency of pick-up, design and space, etc. There
were currently haulers in the City that were doing commercial hauling for free or for a very low rate. She
felt that Laidlaw or any single hauler could haul from all commercial establishments in the City but was
uncertain that it would be cost effective. Single family dwellings could have a landscape senrlce that would
serve the same purpose. For a City-wide program of yard waste it was a matter of economies of scale. Yard
waste had no marketability currently whereas commercial recyclables did.
Councilman Rindone felt the structure of the bid was an effort to force the single family resident to seek a
different alternative than to utilize the prescribed the franchise hauler or haul it yourself. He expressed
concern that it would add more vehicles to the streets. He could not agree with the staff conclusion and
would not support the highest rate in San Diego County. He then reviewed the options listed in the staff
report and felt competition was the City's best option. He also felt there should be further discussion on
geographically breaking up the City into quadrants for competition for the commercial and industrial
recyclables.
Councilman Moore questioned what the maximum number of containers allowed on one sticker.
Ms. Bradley responded that it had not been discussed but believed that it would be one sticker for all the
containers utilized.
Alan Purves, 180 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Laidlaw, informed Council that for trash
collection it was unlimited service. The original proposal to the City was approximately eight months old
and Laidlaw had not received any response or feedback in that time frame. The original proposal was a pay
as you use system for yard waste and one sticker would apply to one container or one measured bundle of
tree limbs.
Councilman Moore felt that a sticker should be more than one container and less than unlimited. He also
felt there should be a back-up system if the City was divided up in quadrants to ensure that all areas of the
City were being serviced.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 7
Councilman Fox questioned how the number of quadrants was decided and the economic feasibility of
getting four haulers that could make a profit.
Ms. Bradley responded that four would allow for economies of scale to entice a hauler to collect from the
City. She felt that through her recommendation of a request for an RFQ it could be determined whether
there was interest in the proposal to collect recyclables from multi-family dwellings. In terms of whether
a hauler would not be able to fulfill their obligation, that risk would be with any project. Through the RFP
staff would look at the financial stability of a company and past performance.
Mr. Purvis stated they had raised objections to the staff report and recommendations. All of the materials
included in the staff report were already in an exclusive franchise granted to Laidlaw and they did not
believe the Council had any ability to put the services out to bid. Staff had been directed to obtain
information on the alternate recycling measures being imposed by the state and county and to meet and
confer with Laidlaw. They felt staff had not met that requirement. Their yard waste proposal had been
submitted on 12/10/91 and other than clarifying questions shortly after the submittal there had been no
further conference and nothing that was close to meeting the definitions of negotiations with Laidlaw which
was a prerequirement before putting the services out to bid. Another objection they had was that ff Council
did proceed, Laidlaw would be in the position of competing with other haulers while their proposal was laid
out in the staff report including their prices. They did not feel that would foster free and open competition
as it was a disadvantage to Laidlaw.
Councilwoman Hotton questioned whether the proposal included a universal rate charge.
Mr. Purvis stated they had responded to what they felt was staff direction which was the pay as you go
system. They had informed staff that they had looked at the option of providing a monthly fee where
everyone paid.
Mayor Nader requested a staff response to Mr. Purvis' allegation that there had not been an adequate meet
and confer prior to the meeting.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that Section 21(1) of the franchise gave the Council the right to go out
for competitive bidding on recycling after the City had met and conferred with the grantee with regard to
their intent to do so. Part of what was being done at the meeting was to see if the Council felt they wanted
to go out for competitive bid. Part of the recommendation was that the City had met and conferred to the
extent of getting the proposal. If the Council felt they wanted to go out to bid now they would have to
direct the staff by saying they wanted to go out to bid and meet and confer with Laidlaw, finishing up the
process staff had started, regarding the intent of the City to go out to bid.
Mayor Nader questioned why, if the City allowed individual business owners to make their own
arrangements with individual haulers, was a permitting system required. He also questioned why a system,
with or without, permits result in an increase in traffic on City streets.
Ms. Bradley responded that a permit would allow the City to charge a permit application fee that would
potentially help to cover staff costs for monitoring the program or additional materials for commercial
recycling or a franchise fee. Through the permit process, staff could track the businesses that were being
served in order to get tonnages from the haulers and whether all the businesses required to recycle were in
compliance. Additionally, staff could assess the impact if there were too many haulers servicing a particular
area.
Mr. Purvis stated a permitting system would allow more haulers, as each business would be making their
own arrangements, so the efficiency of one hauler would be lost. Before the advent of AB939 and recycling
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 8
Laidlaw was already doing it for the City and had proven they could pick up all the material generated in
the City.
Ms. Bradley stated that Laidlaw could potentially service the City but whether that would be the best service
for businesses was her concern. She did not feel it would be as cost effective for the businesses if the City
awarded it to any single hauler
Councilwoman Hotton felt the City should go out to competitive bids and also looking at a universal rate
charge.
Councilman Rindone suggested that the City go out to bid two ways: 1) single hauler with an exclusive
franchise for all the City but would also provide the option for self-hauling, cornposting, etc.; 2) a universal
rate charge that would not allow the flexabilities but a greatly reduced charge to all residents. Council
would then have solid information on which to base their judgements.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted to make clear that included in the RFP would be a specification for an
appropriate rate differential for low-income.
Councilman Fox stated Council also wanted assurance that the City would not be fined by the County.
Mayor Nader stated he hoped, on a universal charge, there would be some way of voiding the charge to low-
income seniors altogether. He requested that a letter be obtained from the County regarding the charging
of penalties.
Councilman Moore stated he could not support a City-wide rate charge and expressed concern regarding the
sticker process.
City Attorney Boogaard requested that the maker of a motion incorporate into it the proposal to finish up
the duty under the franchise agreement, which in Section I states the City had to meet and confer with
Laidlaw with regards to their intent to do so. The motion should be structured around yard waste which
was staff recommendation on page 11-1. The City would go out to bid and the concept of exclusivity would
be Councfl's intent City-wide but after going out to bid.
Mayor Nader stated that was consistent with his understanding of current Council direction but he did not
feel the City should be bound 100% by low bid.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended that it be a negotiated bid. The City would solicit bids and the City
would have the tight to negotiate with the various bidders after that.
Councilman Rindone stated Council had not discussed the viable life of the franchise. He was not
comfortable with five years with an option for an additional five years.
Mayor Nader stated the RFP could request a response on a franchise of a five to ten year period and the
length of the franchise would be one of the factors staff and Council would take into account in evaluating
the responses. He felt a factor to consider when evaluating responses would be the extent of traffic and
expected wear and tear on the City. The RFP should be designed to evaluate those responses.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended Council consider: 1) On the condition the county wffi, in writing,
waive the fines for not recycling yard waste on or after 4/1/93, the City Council will adopt a policy that the
recyclable known as yard waste, which is tendered at curb side throughout the City should be franchised
to a singte hauler selected by an RFP process subject to subsequent negotiation as to terms and conditions.
I' !
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 9
2) As a result of adopting the policy, Council direct staff to meet and confer with Laidlaw with regard to its
intent to go to bid, thereby satisfying ltle condition of the franchise. 3) Indicate an interest in receiving
RFPs regarding the following terms and conditions: a) a term of five years, or such other period that
rninirniTes the rates charged to either the City or its resideIlls and include such options as the proposer
wishes to have the City consider,, b) rates, both on a universal rate basis and a pay as you use basis; and
c) consider such discounts as may be made available to low income seniors. 4) Direct staff to solicit such
RFP's and ff the County does not otherwise submit in writing to waive the fines for failing to recycle yard
waste, report back to the Counc~ as soon as poss~le but not later than two weeks.
MS (Nader/Rindone) to approve the recommendation presented by City Attorney BoogaarcL
Ms. Bradley questioned whether the alternative fees option that allowed back yard composting and the other
options proposed would be included in the RFP.
Mayor Nader stated that would be allowed under one of the options in the RFP but not under the second.
He felt the sticker system proposed by staff would be included in Option 1. He questioned whether the bid
would allow consideration of any and all other items pertinent to the bid.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that was correct.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Mayor Nader requested that a copy of the RFP be given to Council in their information packets.
Councilman Moore questioned whether it was staffs intent to clarify in the RFP what a sticker covered, i.e.
single container or a CAP.
Ms. Bradley responded that Councilman Moore was correct.
Councilman Rindone questioned what guarantee there was that there would be weekly pick-ups.
Ms. Bradley responded she did not foresee a problem as the haulers were in the business to offer a service.
If a problem did arise staff would return to Council with a possible recommendation of a single hauler. She
stated the RCC had expressed concern over the number of permits that would be issued. There were
currently a number of haulers servicing the City and they had not negatively impacted the City.
MS O~,lader/1Vloore) to accept staff recommendation regarding commercial recycling.
Councilman Rindone questioned what the staff recommendation would be to curb the unlimited number of
potential haulers. He also questioned how the City would ensure that all areas of the City would receive
service.
Ms. Bradley responded that a range of limitations could be placed on the permits, i.e. ten to fifteen small
hatden and five large haulers. The City could build into the permit process, if there was a charge for the
permits, a reduced fee for haulers that wotdd collect from the smaller establishments or areas of the City
that did not have as much commercial development. She did not perceive a problem.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Olindone/Fox) to set a CAP of twenty on the number of permits issued.
Mayor Nader expressed concern that a CAP would dose competition. It was his inclination to go with the
staff recommendation and ff it did not work it cotdd be brought back to Council for review.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Bradley responded that a CAP did place a limit on some of the competition as staff did not know
everyone in the business. The City could start with twenty haulers and request at a later date an increase
in permits if there were other haulers that wished to serve the City.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Mayor Nader stated he had not seen the proposed commercial rates by Laidlaw included in the report.
Ms. Bradley responded that they had not been included in the summary.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a way the rate information could be provided confidentially.
He felt that if it developed that the system the Council was about to vote for was costing more than on the
average of what Laidlaw proposed, Council may want to reconsider.
City Attorney Boogaard stated if the Council was advised through a confidential memo there would be a
serious question as to whether the confidential memo constituted a public record of the City.
Mayor Nader questioned whether staff could take it upon themselves to monitor the rates being charged for
commercial hauling if the system was implemented and to advise the Council, ff it would appear to be
prudent to reconsider the issue.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would have to research the Civy's ability to cancel prior to five years if a
recyclable permit was issued. There was a state law incorporated into the Waste Management Act which
required five year notice of cancellation of solid waste handling enterprises. There was a risk that if the City
wanted to extricate from the permit system it could take time. He would research the issue and report back
to Council.
Councilman Rindone felt it advisable, if the motion passed, that staff return and address annual permits and
fee structure.
Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate Councilman Rindone's request for a report on an annual permit
and fee s~ucture into the motion as a friendly amendmenL
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
MS Cblader/Fox) to approve the staff recommendation for multi-family recycling.
Councilman Rindone questioned how the competitive sub-areas would be determined.
Ms. Bradley responded that staff would work with the Planning Department to ensure the sub-areas were
equitable. The proposed sub-areas were somewhat arbitrary and based on population and economies of
scale.
Councilwoman Horton questioned the rationale of four companies and why it would be more competitive
than going out to bid for one hauler,
Ms. Bradley responded there would be four different rates with four different haulers. The alternative option
from staff was to go out to bid for a single hauler.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 11
Mayor Nader questioned whether the bidding process could contain two different alternatives: 1) a sub-
quadrant of the City; and 2) City-wide. He did not feel the sub-areas would be competitive as they were not
competing with three other haulers because they had a monopoly within their sub-area of the City.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Moore) the process be bid alternatively:. 1) the staff recommendation;
and 2} City-wide. The bids are to be brought back to Council for evaluation.
Councilman Rindone stated he did not accept the staff recommendation of rejecting Laidlaw as he felt it
should be accepted. He questioned staffs reasoning for the rejection.
Ms. Bradley responded there were two issues: 1) staff was working to meet with Councfl's direction to go
out to bid for additional recycling programs; and 2) staff had concern with the issues of Laidlaw's service
in the way of promotional material development and expertise in program design. If Council directed staff
to negotiate with Laidlaw on those issues staff was willing to do that.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: CRindone4zNader) direct staff to negotiate on the area of all multi-family service
areas to resolve the outstanding issues. If during negotiations staff feds it is not clarified, they are to bring
the issue back to Council.
Councilman Rindone stated the motion was made to negotiate with Laidlaw regarding the servicing of all
the multi-family units City-wide and clarify the areas of concern, which had served as the basis of staffs
rejection of the proposal. If, after negotiating those concerns staff was unsatisfied, staff could bring back
a recommendation to reconsider.
Mayor Nader felt staff had made a good effort to implement previous Council direction to encourage
competition and made a recommendation consistent with the previous policy direction. There was a wide
range in the Laidlaw proposal and the City did not know what the charge would be. It was his intent that
Laidlaw be able to bid under the previous motion. He felt the real issue was assurance that the City receive
the best deal for the rate payers.
VOTE ON SUBSlITLFFE MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to direct staff to meet with Laidlaw immediately and report back to Counc~ no
later than three weeks.
12. REPORT REQUEST FOR AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST
NAPLES STREET AND FOXBORO AVENUE - Staff received a request from Mrs. Norma Erhardt of 657 East
Naples Street requesting the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of East Naples Street and
Foxboro Avenue. Staff recommends Council concur with previous Safety Commission recommendations and
deny the request. (Director of Public Works)
Norma Erhardt, 657 E. Naples, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podium.
MS (Moorefrlorton) to accept the staff report.
Mayor Nader questioned whether any comments had been received from the school district.
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director, responded there had been no comments
received.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 12
13. REPORT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR OPERATION OF CHULA VISTA
TRANSIT (CVT) AND MAINTENANCE OF CVT BUS FLEET - The term of the current CVT contract operator,
ATC/Vancom, expires on 6/30/93. Transit staff has prepared an RFP to solicit proposals to operate and
maintain CVT buses beginning 7/1/93. This report summarizes significant requirements of the RFP. Staff
recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works)
MS ~Ioore/Nader) amend the RFP, Item C, 'Maintenance and Repair', Item 1, page 19, last sentence, 'Paint
and body work, or wood and varnish work. shall be completed within seven working days*.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated it would be appropriate as long as the bus was in service.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Councilman Moore stated it was his understanding that the City had a lube/oil analysis program and
questioned whether that program was included in the RFP.
William Gustarson, Transit Coordinator, responded that it was part of the normal program but was not
specifically listed in the RFP.
MSUC CMoore/Nader} to include in the RFP, 'Maintenance and Repair' the lube/oil analysis would be part
of the progrmn and a copy of the analysis would be furnished to staff.
Bruce Darby, 2840 Adams Avenue, #202, San Diego, CA, representing Teamsters Local 481, Cut Drivers,
stated they appreciated the City's involvement in past issues. The Teamsters fully endorsed the RFP,
especially in the area of providing an increase in the minimum wages provided for the potential contractors.
MSUC (MooreJNader) to accept the staff report.
ITEMS pUH.F.n FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 6 and 10. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. crrY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
· City Manager Goss informed Council there was a Council Meetingfi4orksession scheduled on
Thursday, January 28 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
· The Chula Vista Heritage Museum, located at 360 Third Avenue, would be having its Grand Opening
on Saturday from 1-3 p.m.
15. MAYOR~j REPORTfS) 7
· Mayor Nader gave a summary of the Conference of Mayor's held in Washington D.C. He had
artended a task force meeting on homelesshess and a reunion of the Design Institute for Mayors. He also
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 13
had the opportunity to meet with congressional staff and the Mexican Embassy regarding TwinPorts. The
Embassy was open in relating that the press release by their airport department was the definitive position
of the Mexican Government on TwinPorts, i.e. they were no longer interested in discussing it. He had meet
with Federico Pena, the new Transportation Secretary, regarding TwinPorts and it was obvious that the other
side had gotten to him first. He understood that Congressman Filner's office had already had a subsequent
meeting to brief him on the Southbay's position.
16. COUNCIL COMIVIENTS
Councilman Rindone
a. Need to eliminate duplication and conflict of responsibilities between 'Business Response Team'
(BRT), the "Employment Development Team" (EDT), and the "New Partnership Council' (NPC).
Curt Stephenson, 900 Lane Avenue, #100, Chula Vista, CA, representing EastLake, stated he was a member
of all three committees. From the private industry side he felt it was exciting and encouraging that Council
had taken action on so many fronts. He was not present to speak on whether or not there was duplication
but noted there was commonality between all the groups and that was job creation and retention.
Councilman Rindone stated the purpose for placing the item on the agenda was to be proactive rather than
reactire. While no one would disagree that it was not a top priority, Council needed to ensure that they
understood the responsibilities of various committees, particularly in relationship to the Economic
Development Commission and what their charges were. The committees shouldn't be going in different
directions trying to achieve the same objective. He requested a staff referral to ensure that not only the EDC
but BRT, EDT, and NPC would have a clarity as to their goals and objectives and how they interfaced with
each other.
Mayor Nader stated staff had submitted a memo which addressed two of the three committees, the two that
were set up by City staff. It did spell out the functions of the BRT and EDT. The third group, NPC, was
rounded by the Mayor for two purposes: 1) serve as a forum for people from diverse segments of labor,
business, government, and education to inform each other periodically on what they were doing and how
they could coordinate their efforts; and 2) to provide input and advice to the Mayor on activities he should
be undertaking or bringing forward to Council. He was not aware of any group that was confused as to
what their functions were.
Councilman Rindone stated he would review the memorandum for clarification but his request did include
the EDC. He requested that staff review the BRT, EDT, and NPC in relation to the EDC.
Mayor Nader stated the BRT and EDT had been formed at either the request of the EDC or with liaison to
the EDC from staff. He had kept the EDC appraised of the NPC activities. He agreed that the groups should
work as a team and each fulfill a different specialty.
Councilman Rindone stated he appreciated the Mayor's support and felt the report would assist the Council
and the members on the respective committees/boards.
Councilman Moore
· Councilman Moore informed Council there would be a meeting at SANDAG on 2/5/93 regarding
ground transportation for TwinPorts. The study would include the current zoning and a change in zoning
if/when the airport failed. He would be chairing the meeting.
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 14
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council recessed at 9:53 p.m. and reconvened in Closed Session at 9:58 p.m to discuss:
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - [GOU vs. the City of Chula Vista.
ADJOURNMENT AT 20:12 P.M. to a Special Council MeetingfvVorksession on Thursday, January 28, 1993
at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference P~oom and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on February
2, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 9:53 p.m. recessed at 9:54
p.m., reconvened at 10:13 p.m. and adjourned at 10:15 p.m. A Special Meeting of the Industrial
Development Authority convened at 9:54 p.m. and adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: Vicki C. Soderq~st, Deputy~erk