Item 1.3 - Approval of Meeting MinutesOF POW�y
TyF INO THE9nC�Ja���
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BV:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
City of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORA
June 3, 2014
APPROVED
APPROVED AS AMENDED
(SEE MINUTES)
DENIED
REMOVED
CONTINUED
Resolution No.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Daniel Singer, City Manager.'"O
Sheila R. Cobian, City Clerk
Approval of Minutes
The May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes are attached for approval.
The Poway City Council sits as the Poway Planning Commission, the.Poway Housing Authority,
the Public Financing Authority, and the Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment
Agency.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council approve the May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes as
submitted.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Environmental Review:
Environmental review is not required according to CEQA guidelines.
Public Notification:
None.
Attachment:
A. May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes
1 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # I t
NOTE. These draft meeting minutes are not official until approved by the City Council at the next scheduled meeting.
CITY OF POWAY
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 6, 2014
City Council Chambers
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California
(Per Government Code 54953)
(Meeting Called to Order as City Council /City of Poway Planning Commissior
Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Rede
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Higginson called the Regular Meeting
Cunningham, Vaus, Mullin,
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Tina White, Interim
City Clerk; Robin
Development Sery
Director of Adminisi
iiaj
Jeff Maxin, Sheriffs
Deputy Mayor G
PRESENTATIONS
Authority /Public Financing
r at 7:02 p.m.
nson
%F'o1e' %City Attorney; Sheila R. Cobian,
unity Services; Bob Manis, Director of
ctor of Public Works; Scott Edwards,
hez, Director of Safety Services; Captain
Iuty'Mayo�rl'Councilmember, City Manager, Assistant City
id Director of Administrative Services shall be used to
Mayor/Vice Chair, Councilmember /Director, City
,nt City Manager /Assistant Executive Director, City
,and Director of Administrative Services/Finance Officer.)
uced Emily Gallego to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
Monica Emanuele provided an overview of the events scheduled for the San Diego
County Fair.
9901
2 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # l ej
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
Council concurred to present Agenda Item 8.1 — "Hike, Bike and Ride across Poway" at
this time.
Councilmember Cunningham provided a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the Green
Valley and Pomerado Trail segments.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Joe St. Lucas spoke about the symptoms of Fibromyalgia and Fibromyalgia Awareness
Day on May 12, 2014.
Kim Rearick and Joni Michael encouraged residents �ofPoway to volunteer at the
Community ood Connection and also invited an one in neeof food to contact the
Y Y /ii cr / //%
g
organization at tcfconnection mail.
Frank Hollingshead encouraged the Councilifio consider adoption ,o k. an ordinance
/i %ii
prohibiting the sale of any marijuana related 1, ucts in Poway.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR (Approved by Roll-
Motion by Councilmember Cunnrn {gbam, seconde�tl by Councilmember Vaus to
approve Consent Calendar Items %1; throa�gh.,1.4 Motion carried by the following
///
roll -call vote:
Ayes: j - u�nn'nghame j us, Mullin,�Grosch, Higginson
Noes: None%
ant• None. /j
� �i,
1.1 Approval of Reading,bylei on j
lyian�d�Waiver of Reading in full of Ordinances on
1.2 %Ratification /Appro of Wa jant Registers for the periods March 17 through March
14, March 24;/,// hrough �llarch 28, 2014, and March 31 through April 4, 2014.
1.3 Approvaof the April 15-, 2014 Regular City Council Minutes.
%f the' %Sheriff, Station Emergency Generator Project, Bid No. 14 -004,
1.4 Acceptance,, of,
from Industrial�ower & Automation, as complete; Authorize the City Clerk to file
and record the Notice of Completion; Authorize the release of the retention in the
amount of $2,350.00, if unencumbered, 45 days after City Council acceptance;
Release the Bond for Material and Labor in the amount of $47,000.00 and retain
the Bond for Faithful Performance for a period of one year.
2. ORDINANCE (Ordinance(s) that do not require a Public Hearing)
2.1 None.
9902
3 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # o
City of Poway – Minutes – May 6, 2014
3. PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Mullin was disqualified from discussion on item 3.1 due to a conflict of
interest and left the room at 7:29 p.m.
3.1 First Reading of an Ordinance approving Specific Plan Amendment 13 -005; Tech
Business Center Ventures LP, Property Owner /Applicant: A request to change the
Land Use Designation on 16 properties from Industrial Park (IP) to Light Industrial
(LI).
Senior Planner Jason Martin reviewed the
PowerPoint presentation.
and provided a
In response to an inquiry from Councilrne nber Cunn "ingbam, Development
iii /� / //% //i
Services Director Manis explained that th - /designation atlas office use and
An
° /,
less intense industrial type uses while the LI designation hasfa more intense
industrial type use and does not allow 6601,11i-tenant offices.
Councilmember Cunningham confirmed Aftaff that properties with the IP
designation would typically ha more emplo", than those properties with the LI
designation.
Applicant Ted Tchang came forward
that the core businesses in the rnGL
company would beRbetter ed nowt
Councilmem us askedlif there is
and LI zoning "IN nations
to adeffess Coun 1. Mr. Tchang explained
istnala�rk /are light industrial and that his
/�, !ice / /1 //r
4�fjylm the future under the LI zoning.
nificant noise difference between the IP
ApplicantTchj�j /stated that he was not aware of a significant noise difference.
In response to C y ncilmembper Vaus, Director Manis explained that creating a new
�iyb,id IP /LI zone would require an amendment to the Specific Plan and a new
e nmental assessment.
Motion `f >y Counc j��ember Cunningham, seconded by Councilmember Vaus
to close the p blic1hearing and introduce Ordinance fro. 770 for first reading
by title onfy /M aiving further reading, and schedule adoption of the
Ordinance for�May 20, 2014. Motion carried by unanimous vote of those
present, Councilmember Mullin disqualified due to potential conflict of
interest.
Councilmember Mullin returned to the dais at 7:41 p.m.
9903
4 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item #—L-3–
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
4. STAFF REPORTS
4.1 Approval of the City's Revised Statement of Investment Policy.
Director of Administrative Services Scott Edwards gave a brief overview of the
agenda report and introduced the City's Investment Advisor Dave Whithone of
Cutwater Asset Management.
Mr. Whithone spoke about the current condition of the City,'s investments and the
ii /ice,
recent recommendations by the State relating to government entity investment
policies.
In response to Councilmember Cunningham, M075iWhitho j confirmed that the
City's fixed income return rate is approximatelyrp,98 percent.
Director Edwards commented that the interest earnings on the C:1;s investments
started to increase throughout the at�iscal year and is currently %jarning just
under $105,000 per month. p///%�,,
No speakers.
Motion by Councilmember Miffllin, se'conded by C'bouncilmember Cunningham
to rescind Resolution No. 13-0/0.7 and adopt Reso ution No. 14 -021 entitled,
Iz
"A Resolution of the% ity Councal %of the2City o j /noway, California, Amending
i/j ai /, y,
Investment Policyyfor Plic Funds�ar�d Rescand�ing Resolution No. 13- 007."
Motion carriedu,nanimously.
%�
4.2 Acceptance of %tom Inve
Directo1 of,�'Ad� s trati
N :o speakers.] //
JI
AI.
nit-il ilconcurred ac
5. WORKSI-IOP�///�i�,.. /
�Irvices Scot
March 31, 2014.
and file report.
s presented this report.
5.1 Discussion onAateur Radio Antenna Regulations.
Director of Development Services Bob Manis presented the report.
Speakers in Support: Chuck Cross; Charles Ristorcelli; Bob Barrie; Glen Peterson;
Ted Medin; Stephen M. Early, Howard Groveman; Steven A. Hucik; John Rotondi;
Dr. Henry Richter; Mark Schlesinger; Assi Friedman; Brian C. Tagg; David
Haessig; Felix Tinkov; Ronald Rosson; Kevin Walsh; John Vissat; Marty Woll;
Bruce Kripton.
9904
5of12 June 3, 2014, Item #Ll 11 5
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
Speakers in Opposition: Arthur Lilien; Jack Tripp; Cathe Gigstad; Steven Beaver,
Steven Stone, Maureen Hansen, Jim Hansen.
Speakers with Neutral Position: Anita Edmondson.
Submitted a Speaker Slip in Support but Did Not Speak: Candy Young; Gary
Riddle; Darlynn Barrie, David Schreck; Roy Parkhurst; Teri Blom; David Carson;
Richard Thompson; Jo Ashley, Melia Kripton; Dave Kaltenborn; Aaron Cooley, Don
Martin; Allen Kliskey; Mike Zuccaro; Marcie DeRuntz��odger Stuart; Glenn
iii
Rattmann; Gary Kent; Tom Ellett; Dan Severance; Steve Richards; Jerry Carter;
Harry Hodges; Martin Leblang; Douglas Hughbanks ate: Koepke; Bruce Koepke;
/�O / / ' ,
John Murphy; Robert Freeburn; Sharon Freeburn%ames!%Gordon; Alan Stewart;
Ben Pyfer, Alex Grosch; Scott Carroll, Joe Gardesni; Pa't %Bunsold; Donald W.
Clugston; Dr. Howard S. White; Mery Mac `.edan; Claire LePage, i Angelo Boccia;
ft Elinor Robert E. Todd; Roger Hort; John Tyso�, /irk Reschly; Elinor Ristoelli; Danny J.
Smith; Jeff Babb; Lee Haviland; Claudia�!Adams; DanPhillips; Patrick ,;;'Herndon.
Submitted a Speaker Slip in Opposition but' id I06MI'Speak: Inge Tripp.
Mayor Higginson declared a receW�t 10:01 p:rn /The meeting was called back to
iii
order at 10 :08 p.m. with all Councilmembers present] /,,,,
In response to an in airy, from Councilrnem °ber%Mullin, City Attorney Foley explained
p � / ,/q,.. /' poi
that the City's current Ordinance relating /Vto amateur radio operations is dubious and
/ °�/// iii 1 /0
would be difficult %to defen O He further. explained that PRB 1 requires that the City
provide a reasonable acciMmodatiob/1 with minimal, practicable regulations for
amateur radio op j� tors. %Pull
Coun m
611meber Mullin asked if case law exists to guide cities in determining the
OEM
E%q ppropriate height for antennas.
�O///�i�,. / ///// /��,,,
n ey Foley state that the city must determine what height is going to provide the
/ / /oi, %%r
reasonable accommodation. Although antenna height is currently unlimited in Poway,
the C ty /�equires a Min, r Development Review Application (MDRA) for antennas up to
35 feet and,a Variance5for anything higher than 35 feet. He stated that those are the
types of thus t would look at and most likely determine that the reasonable
accommodations %have not been satisfied.
In response to Mayor Higginson, Attorney Foley explained that based on testimony
and the reports provided, he could defend in court allowing antennas up to 65 feet with
the requirement of a building permit. That would take away the minimal, practicable
regulations issue.
In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Vaus, Director Manis explained that a
building permit is the tool used to ensure the safety of an antenna structure.
9905
6 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # o�
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
Councilmember Vaus spoke in favor of the following:
• Antennas permitted up to 65 feet with a building permit
• Any antenna in excess of 65 feet would require a special application process
such as an MDRA, Minor Antenna Permit (MAP), Minor Conditional Use Permit
(MCUP) or Antenna Permit (AP)
• Neighbor notification of antenna installation
Councilmember Cunningham spoke in favor of the following:
• An Ordinance presented for Council consideratio jin %30 days if possible
• Administrative approval of antennas up to 35 feet
• MAP application for antennas 35 feet up to 6.5feet and neighbor notification
AP application for antennas exceeding 65ee %and full notification of any
PP 9 �% /ice,
property within a 500 foot radius of the ppJfcant's pro perty
the/
,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,
ouncilmember Mullin stated that some components of the new new di such as
allowable width of the antennas dWd be addressed throug��h the setback
requirements. He commented that the, /�tmayedto establish a %courtesy notice
that would be used to inform surroundinFOperty� %wners of an antenna application
so that the impression is not given that there J� f upcoming hearing where the item
will be considered by Counci 11/m/co�nclusion, hejs ated that the evidence states that
the acceptable height for an antenna, ss up to 65�f t and that he could support that
p g
height. % / / / / %i
In response to Deputy Mayor Groscl � /ifector Man'r's %explained that the MAP would be
ii � .
a discretionary permit approved at stagff /level and includes notification to the adjacent
/Ai// //iii
property own /� In additioj, the MAPj� lows an applicant the right to appeal staff's
decision to tf a /� Council
%rr,
Deputy��,Mayor Grosc „hspoke m fiavf the AP process for antenna applications in
/ uncilmember 'M,11in asked if allowing one 65 foot antenna would satisfy the
govnment regulation for reasonable accommodations.
�� % %i,� j
City Attorney Foley s /ted that he believed providing for the installation of one 65 foot
antenna would sat%s'fythe regulations.
Deputy Mayor`G ch asked at what level an antenna requires a building permit.
Director Manis responded that any free standing antenna over 20 feet would require a
permit.
Mayor Higginson stated that he would like to recommend that a MAP be required for
any antenna application in excess of 65 feet and that notification of the application be
sent to all residents within 500 feet of the property. He also commented that he would
9906
7 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item #—L113—
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
like the discretionary approval to rest with staff, however, the decision would be
appealable to the City Council.
Councilmember Cunningham reviewed the following areas where he felt Council had
reached consensus:
• Antennas up to 35 feet
• Approved with ministerial review provided criteria are met
• Building permit required only when applicable
• No notice to contiguous property owners required
• Staff's decision is not appealable
• Antennas 65 feet and over
• AP application required
• Notification to property owners within; `00 feet % /applicant's property
• One antenna permitted with �bjtto apply fora additional antenna if
applicant can provide docarnentation that add, nal antennas are
necessary
He explained that he would be in favor of%ap�plitfjnsfor antennas 35 feet to 65 feet
in height be approved with ministerial revrew para ded criteria are met, notification
provided to property owners w ,ith.in 500 feet f licant s property and that staff's
J �/ ' app
decision would be appealable tothe, iy Council.
Councilmember Cunningham also�poke T jfftor of K ing language included in the
Ordinance that wou;ld1add:ress the mainntte%nance and �movaI of antenna structures.
o, f%j
Councilmember /Mullin started that he�did not see a need to distinguish between
/ / //% r%
antennas that; re 35 to 65� et. He spG.Ke in favor of ministerial approval of antennas
up to 65 feet He also sp 1ce i ; support;, / /o: requiring that antennas be placed in rear
% jD % / / / ///i/��if
yards in conformance �wi se �ckks% and a courtesy notice provided to property
own,
erson hesametreet.
/ uty Mayor GIN o h spy j�' pport of requiring a MAP application for antennas 35
tQ65 feet in height.
j
Councember Vaus -asked if there is a difference between the use of a roof mounted
and a gro "UN mounted/antenna.
/ %ice
Charles Ristorcel fi me forward to explain that the primary antenna for most amateur
radio operators is their tower antenna which provides the high frequency, multi -band
antenna. A roof mounted antenna is dedicated to VHF and UHF channels.
Councilmember Mullin requested that staff explain what the MAP application process
would be for a 45 foot antenna.
Director Manis explained that the MAP is a discretionary permit and is basically the
same permit currently used now for a Minor Development Review Application
9907
8 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item #_1e3_
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
(MDRA). However, the MAP would have lower submittal requirements, allowing staff
to process the application more quickly than an MDRA. The applicant will submit
plans, staff will review those plans, notices will be sent to adjacent property owners
and the decision will be made at the staff level. The decision will be appealable to City
Council.
In response to Councilmember Mullin, Director Manis confirmed that if the application
were appealed to Council, an appeal fee would apply. However, since the MAP does
not yet exist, Council could determine if the appeal ff ould be different than a
standard appeal.
Councilmember Cunningham proposed that the M �4%01,ication process be used for
/iii// /i�,
35 to 65 foot antennas and fees adjusted so that -an,�appea� uld not be prevented by
fi „,
the nature of the expense. Notification to p /party ownerUithin 500 feet of the
applicant would also be included as part ofapplication proce,
In conclusion, he requested that staff id"Mify the types ;of exempt an fen' as that would
be included as part of the Ordinance. %/
Councilmember Mullin commectted that reducrng; he fee for the MAP would possibly
result in the City subsidizing th:ePn tb -ing expens offthe applicant.
%;.. ,,
theee are City also hard coWhite ts such as �ostaae ands � /,mete the�staff time involved in noticing,
Councilmemb SMullin staf °ed that if 96ffieone has the ability to appeal staff's decision,
/% //
there should be. a fee.
�/,i/,,,. , j % ,,,,,,,,,.
Councilmember ��un.nangham �sugge that the appeal fee be 50% of the permit
�
%'
ouncilmember %Mullin stated that the City is compelled to approve the antenna
applications up to 6�feet. He explained he would be in support of approval at the
stg"Ievel and no' tion to property owners within 500 feet of an applicant's
reside "g, However, �e decision would not be appealable to the City Council.
Interim CityjManager White confirmed with Councilmember Mullin that he was
referring to app,,lcations for antennas 35 to 65 feet.
Councilmember Cunningham suggested that staff return with two possible Ordinances
for consideration to address the 35 to 65 feet antenna applications.
Councilmember Vaus stated that one of the Ordinances should be written so that all
applications for antennas 35 to 65 feet in height would be handled by staff and should
include noticing to properties within 500 feet of the applicant. The second possible
9908
9 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item #_L12?-
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
Ordinance should include a provision for appealing staff's decision to the City Council
with the same 500 feet public notification.
City Attorney Foley commented that the Municipal Code may need additional
modifications because when the Council gives staff discretionary approval of an
application process, the applicant currently has the right to appeal to the City Council.
Councilmember Mullin stated that one Ordinance for Council's consideration should
include antenna applications up to 65 feet are processed administratively and includes
'fopernoticin to properties within 500 feet of the a pp licants E � t . The second p ossible I
Ordinance would require a MAP for all antenna applications 35 to 65 feet and would
also include noticing to properties within 500 feet ofafthe,5p�icant's property.
Councilmember Vaus confirmed with staff that %all heights' ussed were for above
ground level. /
Council directed staff to return with twd�ocdinances providing .the optic; s discussed at
the workshop. %%jam ��%
6. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
7. CITY ATTORNEY ITE
Attorney Foley an
City Council- Initia.-
into Closed Session following Mayor and
COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
:)n pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
X56.9.
(d) of
The City of %Powa j V, participating agency in the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater SSylem (the Metro System) along with a number of other agencies,
including Padre %Dam Municipal Water District. In 2010, Padre Dam performed a
review of its billings as a participating agency in the Metro System and discovered
that it had been overcharged by the City of San Diego since fiscal year ending
June 30, 1998, which necessarily means that Poway and the other participating
agencies were likely undercharged during that time. By a joint letter dated
February 5, 2013, Padre Dam and the City of San Diego have presented their
recommendation for resolving the overbillings by the City of San Diego, the
overpayments by Padre Dam, and their contentions that the City of Poway along
9909
10 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # �o�
City of Poway — Minutes —Flay 6, 2014
with all other participating agencies should contribute toward a resolution of Padre
Dam's claims. Following the receipt of the joint letter, the City of San Diego
informed the participating agencies, including the City of Poway, that there is
another area where San Diego has committed errors in calculating charges related
to the Metro System, specifically in charges for San Diego's operation of its North
City Water Recycling facility. The parties have undertaken negotiations in an effort
to resolve these claims.
8. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL- INITIATED ITEMS
Councilmember Cunningham
8.1 "Hike, Bike and Ride across Poway"
item at the beginning of the meeting.
Councilmember Vaus — No Report.
Councilmember Mullin — No Report.
Deputy Mayor Grosch — No
Mayor Higginson — No Report.
As requested by Attorney Foley,
discuss the following: ///111r��,,.
7.1
— Councilmember�rr %unningham presented this
Session at 11:30 p.m. to
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
The- City of PowayNO, '°
/a partacpating agency in the City of San Diego Metropolitan
%%" . «
Wastewater System the Metro System) along with a number of other agencies,
including Padre Dam�Municipal Water District. In 2010, Padre Dam performed a
'%, / /r>
%D
review ofd. billing ,gp'a participating -agency in the Metro System and discovered
that it had U/ibeen overcharged by the City of San Diego since fiscal year ending
June 30, 1998 %which necessarily means that Poway and the other participating
agencies were %likely undercharged during that time. By a joint letter dated
February 5, 2013, Padre Dam and the City of San Diego have presented their
recommendation for resolving the overbillings by the City of San Diego, the
overpayments by Padre Dam, and their contentions that the City of Poway along
with all other participating agencies should contribute toward a resolution of Padre
Dam's claims. Following the receipt of the joint letter, the City of San Diego
informed the participating agencies, including the City of Poway, that there is
another area where San Diego has committed errors in calculating charges related
9910
11 of 12 June 3, 2014, Item # 1.3
City of Poway — Minutes — May 6, 2014
to the Metro System, specifically in charges for San Diego's operation of its North
City Water Recycling facility. The parties have undertaken negotiations in an effort
to resolve these claims.
The Closed Session convened at 11:32 p.m. and concluded at 11:44 p.m. Attorney
Foley announced that there was no reportable action at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
ThE
9911
12 of 12 June 3, 2014, Items #Lb