1. CALL TO ORDER
Public Comments:
2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Public Comments:
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Public Comments:
4.1 Update from Chief Harry Muns on the Fire Prevention Week Open House, Hurricane Ian Deployment, and Christmas in October Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Item 4.1- Presentation.pdf
4.2 Presentation of a Proclamation to Senator Ben Hueso for His Service in the State Legislature Public Comments
Citizen
Learn from this guy and don’t drink and drive
5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.7)
Public Comments:
All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To approve t
he recommended actions
appearing below consent calendar Items 5.1 through 5.2, and 5.4 through 5.6. The headings were read, text waived
.
The motion carried by the following vote:
5.1 Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances Public Comments:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.
5.2 Consideration of Requests for Excused Absences
Public Comments:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consideration of requests for excused absence. No requests were received at that meeting.
5.4 Grant Award, Appropriation, and Purchase: Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds From Cal OES for a High-Frequency Communications Equipment Program and Authorize the Purchase of Radio Equipment Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report - High Frequency Communications Equipment Program - 22-0277.pdf
2. Resolution HIGH FREQUENCY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT PROGRAM.pdf
3. Attachment 1 - Cal OES Notification of Grant Sub-award Application Approval.pdf Report Number
:
22-0277
L
ocation
:
No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:
Fire
Environmental Notice
:
The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and
Section 15303 class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution accepting $55,764 in grant funds from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), appropriating the funds to the supplies and services category of the Fire Grants Section of the State Grants Fund for a high-frequency communications equipment program, and authorizing the purchase of radio equipment. (4/5 Vote Required)
5.5 Grant Award and Appropriation: Accept Grant Funds from UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine for Shelter Services Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report Shelter Grant - 22-0296.pdf
2. Resoloution UC Davis Grant Award.pdf
Report Number:
22-0296
Location:
130 Beyer Way
Department:
Animal Care
Environmental Notice
:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution accepting $53,000 from UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine on behalf of its Shelter Medicine Program and appropriating funds to the Supplies & Services and Other expense categories in the Other Grant Funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
5.6 Financial Report and Appropriation: Accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2022, and Appropriate Funds for that Purpose Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report - FY2022 Fourth Quarter Financial Report - 22-0275.pdf
2. Resolution - FY 2022 Fourth Quarter (10.24.2022).pdf
3. Attachment 1 - General Fund Budget Transfers.pdf
4. Attachment 2 - General Fund Budget Amendments.pdf
Report Number
:
22-0275
L
ocation
:
No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:
Finance
Environmental Notice
:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the quarterly financial report for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 and adopt a resolution making various amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget to adjust for variances and appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
5.3 Tenant Protections: Adopt an Ordinance Regarding Local Tenant Protections to Address No-Fault Just Cause Terminations of Tenancy and Harassment (Second Reading) Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Original Staff Report Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance - from 10_25_22.pdf
2. Ordinance - with dais approved amendments FINAL.pdf
3. Attachment 1 - LUTH Research Citywide LandlordTenant Survey.pdf
4. Attachment 2 - Stakeholder Meeting Notes from June 2, July 13, and August 22.pdf
5. Attachment 3 - Comparison of State Law and Proposed Local Protections.pdf
6. Attachment 4 - Summary of Collaborative Stakeholder Outreach Opportunities.pdf
7. 6.2 Written Communications Received 10_24_22.pdf
8. Written Communications 6.2 Received 10_25.pdf
9. Written Communications _ Received 10_26_22.pdf
Karen
This is an abomination to our justice system!
Carolyn Scofield
The stability that this ordinance provides for tenants in our community is essential to their's and our city's economic recovery.
Willow Lark
My name is Willow and I am a member of ACCE and PSL. I strongly support having tenant protections in the city of Chula Vista. The costs of rent are skyrocketing and Chula Vista is becoming unaffordable and gentrified beyond recognition from the community many of its longtime residents once knew. Landlords are aware that it's more profitable to evict tenants and raise the rental price of the unit than to maintain homes to a livable standard and keep their tenants housed. This is an eviction loophole we must close if we as a community want to solve the housing crisis in Chula Vista and San Diego County. Every politician talks about finding solutions to the homelessness problem in San Diego County, but they completely disregard that the best solution is to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place-- by (1) acknowledging housing as a human right rather than a commodity, and (2) passing laws which support and incentivize keeping people in their homes. It is not a personal failing of renters when they are evicted due to no fault of their own, but it is a serious failing of the system when landlords are able to get richer when homelessness and the cost of living are already out of control. Two months worth of relocation assistance and barring landlords from harassing their tenants in the process is the bare minimum we should be enforcing landlords to honor when they are physically uprooting families from their homes and claim it to be at no fault of their tenants.
Kathy Hardy
According to a new report discussed on the front page of today’s Union Tribune, the number of people falling into homelessness for the first time is outpacing the number of homeless who find housing in San Diego County each month. This is NOT acceptable! Chula Vista should be on the forefront and do what it can to help our most vulnerable. It is imperative that the City Council vote to protect tenants and prevent even more residents fro slipping into homelessness through no fault of their own.
Concerned Citizen
In reading over the fiscal impact, there is no breakdown that provides the estimated annual costs for this new service. What funding sources are being used to paying for this? Is it taking money away from developing housing or providing housing services to our community? Rosalia Ojeda
En mi opinión pienso que el costo de vivienda ya está demasiado excesivo hoy en día me siento angustiada por el incremento ya que soy mamá soltera y tengo que costear sola los gastos tanto de mi hijo como míos!! es preocupante porque ahora no solo es el aumento si no también exigen una aseguradora que coste cualquier cosa que suceda no solo adentro si no afuera d la vivienda … yo soy una persona que solo cuenta con un sueldo lo cual apenas alcanza y con estos incrementos empiezo a estresarme y a pensar cómo voy hacer para pagar tantos pagos ..
Quisiera que se pudiera poner un alto ya que está siendo esto demasiado excesivo más para mamás cómo yo que solo contamos con un sueldo es momento de que la gente(Dueños,Propetarios,)piense que es difícil para las personas d bajos recursos no puede costear una vivienda a estos altos precios mes a mes ..
Con toda la esperanza espero que haya un cambio para poder forjar un espacio tranquilo sin angustia para nuestras familias..
Gracias por su atención ..
Erika Jimenez
The benefits provided by this ordinance in comparison of what is already covered in State law is not enough to justify the bureaucracy created by this program and the economic burden that will be placed on both the residential providers and on tax payers who will have to pay for this program from the General Fund. There is a financial impact to the City that is not fully vetted. Let landlord tenant issues remain under the State's authority.
Victor
I greatly support the cause for tenants
America diaz
Actualmente vivo en el area de Chula Vista y quiero expresar mi inconformidad con el aumento de rentas excesivas y el aumento de ellas en tan poco tiempo una persona con un solo empleo no le alcanza para subsistir ni pagar lo básico en su hogar.
Carlos Hernandez
I support stronger tenant protections in Chula Vista.
It is a myth that rent prices are driven by a low supply of housing in California.
There are 1.2 million vacant units sitting empty across California that are too expensive for tenants to afford. Rents are too expensive because landlords want to continue increasing their profits and we are not regulating them in the same way that we regulate every other business.
What bad landlords are doing is that they are displacing families that have lived in Chula Vista for decades, some their whole lives, at no fault of their own. Hiking up the rent in the process.
They are making 2-3 times as much in rental income from the next tenant.
In the span of a couple of months, these families are now facing having to pay security deposits that can be as expensive as $10,000. No one has that kind of money lying around.
This policy will prevent homelessness, instead of sleeping in cars, motel rooms, or living in friends' living rooms, they will now be more capable to pay a new security deposit and rehome their family.
At the end of the day, life long Chula Vistians are still being uprooted from their communities and this protection only scratches the surface of what is necessary to tame the housing crisis we have allowed to go unchecked.
If these landlords wouldn't be doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have a problem with a policy designed to prevent harassment and homelessness.
Pedro Rios
This proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance is important, however, I encourage the City Council to strengthen it so that it protects as many people as possible. Since the City Council has not done nearly enough to support those at risk of being houseless, it must seek protection of those vulnerable to losing a home. Housing insecurity should not become synonymous with the City of Chula Vista. It now has the dubious distinction of having evicted many houseless people from a local park without offering a substantive plan to protect them. Our children and families should be treated with dignity and respect.
Margaret Baker
South Bay People Power supports a strong Tenant Protection Ordinance with permanent protections against no-fault evictions and protections against harassment. Cities throughout CA have enacted important protections to ensure renters are not displaced or harassed. Similar reasonable protections are long overdue in Chula Vista. The proposed ordinance is an essential step to ensure that renters are able to live in our community with respect.
Angeli Forster
cuz they welcome investors, so they can build & build & build= large supply = lower rents! So go ahead & push us & we will run away from hostile California big govt bullies ! Your renters are the losers. So sad. ' style='font-weight: normal; width:100%;' >Pls put yourself in the shoes of those mom & pops who want to invest & provide housing. With such unfriendly hostile regulations, who in their right mind would take the risk? Better to run away & go to friendlier states. That's why rents are lower in these states > cuz they welcome investors, so they can build & build & build= large supply = lower rents! So go ahead & push us & we will run away from hostile California big govt bullies ! Your renters are the losers. So sad. louis noriega
Based on the last meeting, the rationale to have an ordinance was because of a few and not the majority. We have been providing housing in Chula Vista for the the last 40 years. This ordinance will make us leave this industry in Chula Vista.
T. Matthews
As a resident of Chula Vista, I am very concerned about the Council adopting the newest version of the Tenant Protection Ordinance and what it will do to the concerted efforts of addressing our rental housing shortage and affordability.
Please stop trying to take away my rights as a property owner, business owner, and property manager.
This ordinance will scare off the creation of much-needed additional housing. With no supply and unprecedented demand, tenants will have a more challenging time finding a place to rent, let alone at an exuberant cost.
Rental property owners will decide they've had enough interference and remove their property from the rental market, creating displaced and homeless families.
Rental property owners will be deterred from undertaking needed renovations, which hurts the tenants who live in these properties and the neighborhood's livability.
How can an owner receive a monetary penalty without disclosing the cause or correction? How many lawsuits is the City willing to entertain? Provisions in the ordinance meant to prevent harassment of tenants would deter property owners from dealing with tenants who cause nuisances while penalizing neighbors who would have to live with unchecked issues.
I implore the City of Chula Vista Council Members and Mayor to find ways to address tenant issues by enforcing existing laws rather than enacting new ones. Please stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Thank you! Mobilehome Resident
This ordinance update does not protect mobilehome residents. The mobilehome community is required to pay an annual fee to receive rent protections. However, the City is establishing new protections free of charge regardless of income levels. It seems discriminatory to make some residents pay for a service and others do not have to pay.
Michael G.
Instead of creating more red tape programs, Housing staff needs to concentrate on not losing and applying for valuable monies to help the homeless.
James Marvel
I urge the Chula Vista City Council to support the ordinance to provide some greater protections to residential tenants in comparison to the State law. The State law left gaps which can allow tenants to suffer at the hands of some bad faith landlords. With an on-going housing crisis in the State since the 1980s, these reasonable protections are overdue. Please support and pass the ordinance. mark bennett
Hi there. I am an owner of a condo in Chula Vista and I am against the Tenant Protection Ordinance. This ordinance will add more Red Tape and Liability for Housing Providers. We already have laws protecting renters. Thank you, Mark Bennett Colleen Thompson
AGAINST Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
1. The relocation framework will discourage housing providers from keeping rents below market or not taking the max rent increase each year. The amount should be based on contract rent so it is not punitive to property owners who choose to keep rents low.
2. The limitations on substantial remodels ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the City. By requiring the work take at least 60 days, housing providers will have to do more work and keep a unit off the market longer than needed. This will hurt people looking for housing.
3. The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires housing providers send copies of all notices to the city.
4. Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers.
5. The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.
Don Eklund
We self-manage 79 units in 5 complexes in Chula Vista for over 20 years. The proposed ordinance will continue to increase rents for all Chula Vista renters. Please reconsider the “Substantial Remodel” language, it will discourage reinvestment into Chula Vista’s older housing.
Karen Washam
I am the property manager for 153 units in CV. I oppose this ordinance. Things are returning to normal after Covid and landlords should not face new restrictions to terminate a tenancy. Most landlords terminate tenancies when the resident is breaking rules and causing problems., Not to just do it. So other tenants suffer too - the good tenants. We have enough restrictions in place already and they have the right to be heard in a court of law. City needs to stay out of housing business.
Gabriel
I am in support of the ordinance, although the I am encouraging the City Council to improve the ordinance as it can be made stronger. The residents of Chula Vista should not have to struggle with Housing Insecurity our children and families should be treated with dignity and respect not as a number or a dollar sign.
Margaret Casserly
I am opposed to this ordinance. There are already sufficient protections for residents in place. These are private properties that you are trying to legislate, and if you keep being punitive towards property owners, we will all cease to be landlords, meaning properties will come off the rental market for good. The more government interferes with private business the worse things get...please stop.
Robert Stiehle
AGAINST Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
1. The relocation framework will discourage housing providers from keeping rents below market or not taking the max rent increase each year. The amount should be based on contract rent so it is not punitive to property owners who choose to keep rents low.
2. The limitations on substantial remodels ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the City. By requiring the work take at least 60 days, housing providers will have to do more work and keep a unit off the market longer than needed. This will hurt people looking for housing.
3. The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires housing providers send copies of all notices to the city.
4. Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers.
5. The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.
Patricia Nelson
AGAINST Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
1. The relocation framework will discourage housing providers from keeping rents below market or not taking the max rent increase each year. The amount should be based on contract rent so it is not punitive to property owners who choose to keep rents low.
2. The limitations on substantial remodels ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the City. By requiring the work take at least 60 days, housing providers will have to do more work and keep a unit off the market longer than needed. This will hurt people looking for housing.
3. The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires housing providers send copies of all notices to the city.
4. Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers.
5. The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.
David Nelson
AGAINST Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance
1. The relocation framework will discourage housing providers from keeping rents below market or not taking the max rent increase each year. The amount should be based on contract rent so it is not punitive to property owners who choose to keep rents low.
2. The limitations on substantial remodels ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the City. By requiring the work take at least 60 days, housing providers will have to do more work and keep a unit off the market longer than needed. This will hurt people looking for housing.
3. The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires housing providers send copies of all notices to the city.
4. Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers.
5. The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.
Sharon Fogg
The proposed rental ordinance is not fair to owners/landlords who risk money, and provide housing for others. This ordnance is a disincentive to own any property in Chula Vista, ever. Tenants and landlords should have equal opportunities and equal rights. Landlords offer properties for rent, and tenants PAY rent on time and uphold all parts of a rental agreement. Vote NO on this horrible Chula Vista Tenant Ordinance. I will never buy property in Chula Vista.
John Modlin
I am opposed to this ordinance. There are already sufficient protections for residents in place. These are private properties that you are trying to legislate, and if you keep being punitive towards property owners, we will all cease to be landlords, meaning properties will come off the rental market for good. I don't see you punsihing gas stations for high gas prices, or grocery stores for the high cost of foods. Legislation like this is why ccities like San Francisco and Los Angeles already have some of the highest prices in the country, WITH rent control. Quit pandering to one group over another and be leaders for everyone in your city.
Report Number
:
22-0185
L
ocation
:
No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:
Development Services
Environmental Notice
:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To adopt Ordinance No. 3527, heading read, text waived. The motion was carried by the following vote:
5.7 Annexation: Support a Property Owner Application to the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission for Annexation of Otay Ranch Village 13 from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report Resolution to support the annexation of Otay Ranch Village 13 to the City of Chula Vista - 22-0287.pdf
2. Resolution.pdf
3. Attachment 1 - Map of Village 13.pdf
4. Attachment 2 - Ordinance 2578.pdf
5. Attachment 3 - General Plan Policies.pdf
Report Number
:
22-0287
L
ocation
:
Otay Ranch Village 13
D
epartment
:
Development Services
Environmental Notice
:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution supporting an application submitted by the property owners, Lakeview 1 LLC and Lakeview 2 LLC, c/o Baldwin and Sons and Moller Otay Lakes Investments, LLC, to the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) requesting annexation of the 1,869-acre territory, known as Otay Ranch Village 13, from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Written Communications _ Rapp.pdf
2. Public Comment _ Aufmuth.pdf
3. Public Comment _ Ridley.pdf
The public may address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council but not on the agenda.
7. BOARD AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Public Comments:
The following item(s) have been brought forward by a City board, commission, or committee.
7.1 Christopher Columbus Statue and Discovery Park Task Force Presentation: Recommendations to City Council and Taking Certain Actions Regarding Columbus Statue, Discovery Park and Proposed Framework Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report- Christopher Columbus Statue and Discovery Park Task Force Recommendations to City Council.pdf
2. Attachment 1- Request for Statements of Interest for Columbus Statue.pdf
3. Attachment 2- Sons and Daughters of Italy Statement of Interest.pdf
4. Attachment 3- Public Comment- Vincent Ferrer, McMillin Companies.pdf
5. Attachment 4- Framework for Monument Installation and Naming and Renaming City Assets.pdf
6. Attachment 5- Draft- Christopher Columbus Statue and Discovery Park Task Force Oct. 20, 2022 Meeting Minutes.pdf
7. Written Communications- McMillin Companies.pdf
8. Item 7.1- Columbus Taskforce Presentation.pdf
Eve Mazzarella
I am a board member with the San Diego Sons & Daughters of Italy. I write to comment on the disposition of the Columbus Statue and oppose deferral or delay on behalf of our Lodge. There is no reason the objections to the proposal by submitted cannot be dealt with now. It is a waste of City resources, and a dishonor to the artist and the company that commissioned the statue for public display in the 1990s, to reject a viable proposal now. The task force has had a year to prepare RFIs, review responses, and complete the purpose of disposition. The proposed acquisition by Sons of Italy can satisfy the Task Force’s only concerns stated on the record.
The reasons stated at the last meeting of the Task Force for rejecting the Sons of Italy proposal are twofold. First, an objection to the “lack of permanence” related to the placement of the Statue in the proposed Italian American Club in Las Vegas. Second, concerns over “contextualization” and the lack of proposed language for a plaque to be on the statue.
The statue placement can be made permanent.
The Task Force requested written responses from Sons of Italy. Responses left open the language on the plaque with the intention of working with the City to finalize appropriate wording within the “context” determined acceptable. The Sons of Italy will accept the statue with language as agreed to by the City. This creates no need to reject the proposal or defer and reopen for new submissions in three years.
Location:
Discovery Park, 700 Buena Vista Way
Department:
Administration
Environmental Notice:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Christopher Columbus Statue and Discovery Park Task Force recommends that City Council develop a policy for the Installation, Removal, and Disposition of Monuments and Naming and Renaming City Assets; consider proposals to rename Discovery Park; and consider proposals for marker language to former site of Columbus Statue. City Council may take alternative action(s) as deemed appropriate.
8. ACTION ITEMS
Public Comments:
The following item(s) will be considered individually and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation.
8.1 Privacy and Technology: Citywide Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Staff Report - Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy - 22-0280.pdf
2. Resolution - Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy.pdf
3. Revision 2 _ Attachment 1 - 11_1_22.pdf
4. Attachment 2 - Privacy Advisory Taskforce Policy Recommendations.pdf
5. Attachment 3 - Privacy Advisory Taskforce Supplementary Documents for Policy Recommendations.pdf
6. Attachment 4 - Privacy Advisory Taskforce Meetings Public Comments.pdf
7. Attachment 5 - Public Opinion Survey Report.pdf
8. Attachment 6 - Focus groups Report.pdf
9. Item 8.1 Written Communications _ Received 11_1_22.pdf
10. Item 8.1- Privacy and Technology- Citywide Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy.pdf Nicholas Paúl
I am writing to express my support of the formation of a Privacy and Technology Advisory commission and the new requirements imposed on City Departments in section 6 of the policy. While these items are to be celebrated the policy includes some items that are concerning. Specifically I'm concerned about the power granted to the City Manager when it comes to Surveillance Tech Impact Reports. The impact reports should be presented to the Tech Commission .
In addition, the task force process was an opportunity to audit our city's current use of surveillance technology and determine if the use of these technologies reflect the needs and desires of the community. The public survey conducted that served as a basis of the Tech Task Forces work was incomplete and filled with biases.
Report Number
:
22-0280
L
ocation
:
No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:
City Manager
Environmental Notice
:
The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution approving a Citywide Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy.
9. CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
Public Comments:
10. MAYOR’S REPORTS
Public Comments:
11. COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
Public Comments:
11.1 Councilmember Galvez: Ratification of Appointment of Lea Cruz to the Measure A Citizens' Oversight Committee (District 2 Representative) Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. CM Galvez Memo.pdf
2. Cruz, Lea Application_Redacted.pdf
3. Cruz, Lea Resume_Redacted.pdf
12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
Public Comments:
13. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments:
to the regular City Council meeting on November 8, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Materials provided to the City Council related to an open session item on this agenda are available for public review, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at [email protected]
or (619) 691-5041.
Sign up at
www.chulavistaca.gov
to receive email notifications when City Council
agendas are published online.