Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1973/07/25 MINUTES OF A COUNCIL CONFERENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday July 25, 1973 A Council Conference was held by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the above date, beginning at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: Mayor Hamilton Also present: Acting City ~4anager Bourcier, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Public Works Cole, Director of Planning Peterson Mayor Pro Tempore Hobel presided over the meeting in the absence of Mayor Hamilton. LIBRARY FINANCING This item was placed on a Council Confer- ence agenda after a suggestion was made by a member of the Council for consideration of the possibility of submitting the library financing issue to the voters in a consoli- dated election on November 6, 1973. Councilman Egdahl stated he felt revenue sharing funds could be used for the major portion of financing the library and that citizens should have the opportunity to express their opinions on this. Councilman Scott indicated he would be against a bond proposition, but would be in favor of a question posed to the public as to whether or not they want the City to build a library with revenue sharing funds. Acting City Manager Bourcier stated revenue sharing money has to be accounted separately in a special fund, but could be used to displace general fund money. Councilman Egdahl indicated he would like the statement on the ballot to be such that it is "the Council's intention to use these monies to build a library. Do you concur?" During discussion, it was brought out that revenue sharing funds must be encumbered within two years from the date of receipt. Report on library Acting City Manager Bourcier commented that a report on the~cost of a new library as well as other aspects of the issue is forthcoming from the office of the City Manager. Councilman Hyde remarked that he would go along with a ballot proposition. He questioned the percentage of revenue sharing funds to be devoted for this project and added that he prefers a three-way split -- 10% for one-time, vital operational uses and the remaining 90% for capital improve- ments, say the library and acquisition of land. Speaking against ballot measure The following people spoke against placing the library issue on the ballot again: Ada Thomson, Herb Lathan, Jerry Griffith, Harry LaBore, and Esther Hagen. They objected to the measure being put before the voters because (1) it will con- fuse the issue, (2) people will not vote for a bond issue, (3) will tax people in the library support group, (4) not enough information was given to people last time and that may happen again. Councilman Egdahl remarked that if the vote on this were to be a negative one, the Council would be again faced with another way of expending revenue sharing funds. Mayor Pro Tempore Hobel suggested further thought be given this matter, based on com- ments made at this meeting, and that staff be encouraged to report back to the Council with their analysis as soon as possible -- this report to include methods of financing and suggested modifications of the basic plan the Council has now for the library. Recess A recess was called at 3:55 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m, ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES 1 City Attorney Lindberg explained the revi- AND 2 OF CHAPTER 34 OF THE sions to the Undergrounding Utilities CITY CODE RELATING TO THE Ordinance as being to (1) make a require- UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES ment for undergrounding of offsight dis- IN SUBDIVISIONS AND OF SERVICE tribution lines reaching to the nearest LINES IN NEW STRUCTURES OR power source, and (2) make a requirement CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS that in the undergrounding of utilities in new subdivisions as well as in certain circumstances of undergrounding of new structures that distribution lines adjacent to the subdivision or the property where a new structure is being built would also have to be undergrounded, assuming that the utility line was located in the path of the street right-of-way immediately contiguous to the property and in the case of new structures, where the linear frontage is 600 or more feet. He further discussed various deletions and definitions related to the Ordinance. Waiver v. deferral Discussion ensued on when a "waiver" would take place instead of a "deferral." Director of Public Works Cole cited instances involving deferrals versus those involving waivers, known to be rare. Mr. A1Strachan In answer to Councilman Hyde's query regarding San Diego Gas and leap-frog developing and the cost to the Electric Company property owner whose property is leaped across, Mr. Strachan remarked that this owner would escape the cost of the extension, to the extent that the line is in already. He explained the costs of making an extension -- that an estimate is made of what it would have cost had an overhead line been built - that amount is refundable to the customer or if he has enough load, he doesn't pay it at all. The balance, which is the additional cost of undergrounding, he (the customer) pays 75% and that is non-refundable. The other 25% is put in by the compm~y. 600-foot frontage Discussion ensued on reference made in the ordinance to 6oo-foot frontage,!~hether ~it~ m~n~thealrb~ possibly turnabout as well. SDG&E contribution for conversion Mssrs. Strachan, Goodrich and Pemberton of San Diego Gas and Electric Company explained to the Council the contribution by SDG&E for conversions. Refinement of ordinance City Attorney Lindberg stated that the two following points could be clarified with SDG&£ attorneys: 1. Provision for "waiver" or simply "deferral"; 2. Refinement of what exactly is meant by the 600-foot frontage. Mr. ~a~L~go~'ofl , San Diego Gas and Electric Company remarked that there were a couple of other changes he would suggest be made~tdlthe ordinances. They are merely word clarifica- tion changes on "nearest source" and, in Article 2, the deletion of "the exception for 60,000 volts or greater lines for transformers and other appurtenances." He feels the ordinance should specify "nearest usable source" and that the ~arti~n relation to "the exception for 60,000 volts ..... "should be included. Mr. Galen Goodrich, San Diego Gas and Electric Company commented on the definitions of "subdivision" and "apartment complex." City Attorney Lindberg remarked that the City's definition of "subdivision" is not limited to "five or more units." O~DINANCE Ab~NDING SECTION City Attorney Lindberg explained the intent (5~i~IXI!~OF:~ARTI'~II~ 9 OF of the new subsection (~7/~is to require a CHAPT~33i O~\~CITY CODE BY permit to be issued by the Planning hD~tNG:T~ERET~'I~SUBSECTION Department, thereby affording the opportunity 3~!~I~A~INGt~I~A~DMUA~ING AND of examining landscaping and parking on existing ~I~]~A~I~i~Nq~'~ORSJ structures and if it were to be feasible, to EONDOMI~tlIMr~ONVE~ONS~ ~'~ require an upgrading of landscaping require- ~ ~i;.~i ~ -, · ~" ments and compliance with the City's parking requirements if this can be reasonably barried out. He would also suggest that the City re- quire, at the time of conversion, a deposit of a reserve or dontingency fund in the amount of $200 per unit, which fund would be used for the purpose of covering any ma~or maintenance items on either the open space or the buildings themselves. Discussion Discussion ensued on the reserve fund and process to follow. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the deposit could ~e held for a six-month period, after which time the depositor could apply for a refund, if no need had arisen in that six-month period for utilization of that money for maintenance of that project. Maintenance Districts Councilman Scott suggested a maintenance district be set up for each of these ardas, have the City fix the fees and contract the service out. Councilman Egdahl remarked that this may add to the administrative load of the City. Real Estate Commissioner City Attorney Lindberg explained the Real Estate Commissioner's involvement in over- seeing all of these areas, including the approval or rejection of the proposed fee to be charged. He expressed concern in the City trying to step into this area which the State has, by legislation, placed in the hands of the Real Estate Commission. Discussion After further discussion of r-his item the Council agreed that no decisionbe made on it until such time that official action can be taken. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tempore Hobel adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. - 4 -