Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1973/01/10 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday January 10, 1973 An adjourned regular meeting was held by the City Council of Chula Vista, California, on the above date, beginning at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, lIyde, Egdahl Absent: None Also present: City Manager Thomson, Assistant City Manager Bourcier, Adminis- trative Assistant Ratelle, City Attorney Lindberg FILM SHOWING: "OPERATION Mr. Tom Huntington, member of the Parking FORESIGHT" - CITY OF Place Commission, discussed the redevelop- GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO ment plan incorporated by the City of Grand Junction approximately ten years ago. This has been 100% successful, and the Parking Place Commission feels that a similar plan could be made of the Downtown Third Avenue Business District. They feel the plan would be supported by the merchants, and would like to have the reaction of the City Council. Film showing A narrated film was then presented showing the plan and construction of that business area in the City of Grand Junction. Santa Cruz redevelopment Councilman Hyde commented that he had an occasion to visit the City of Santa Cruz recently, and observed the redevelopment of their business district in which one-way streets were inaugurated. He suggested a member of the Parking Place Commission visit the city and take a look at that city's plan. Support of merchants Mr. Huntington remarked that the Chairman of the Improvement District, Tomy Couch, viewed the film along with approximately thirty other merchants, and spoke favorably about it. Mr. Huntington added that most of the merchants are interested in the plan, and this could be one chance to "get everyone on the team." Appraisals of parking lots In answer to the Council's questions, Mr. Huntington stated that the money recently appropriated by the City Council for appraisal fees for additional parking lots in the District should be held up for the time being. Task force Councilman Hyde suggested a task force be appointed, made up by the business commu- nity and the staff to initiate work on the plan. The Council agreed, with the Mayor commenting that the committee should begin work to get the plan recognized. City Manager Thomson stated that he would recommend having a consultant hired to go over the design features and the financing of such a plan. Motion to support plan It was moved by Mayor Hamilton, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that the Council go on record as being strongly in favor of the redevelopment of the Third Avenue Business District, and encourage the property owners to make an expression to the City Council as to how they feel about it, so that the Council can proceed either for or against it. SENATE BILL 325 FUNDS Councilman Hobel reviewed the proposals made to the Comprehensive Planning Organi- zation at a public hearing on Friday, January 5, 1973, by the San Diego Transit Corporation and the City of Oceanside. At the present time, the allocation of SB 325 funds for San Diego County is between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000. San Diego Transit is requesting $5,300,000 of this allocation. Agreement with cities Councilman Hobel commented that the Transit's proposal to CPO covered the various cities served by the bus company; however, it should be pointed out that there is no contractual agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Transit Corporation, or with a number of other cities. Present costs of bus It was noted that presently the City spends operations $3,600 a year for San Diego Transit and approximately $68,000 for Aztec Bus Lines. City Manager Thomson noted that the SB 325 share of funds for Chula Vista this next year, based on a population basis, weuld be one-third of a million dollars; next year it will be approxiamtely $500,000. Councilman Hobel noted that the proposal from San Diego Transit did not include any "grandiose" plan for improving the present services or expanding the service in Chula Vista. Richard Silberman Mr. Silberman explained that they based San Diego Transit Corporation their porposal on $8.3 million, commenting on the "cash" versus the "accrual" basis of the funds. San Diego County's share of SB 325 is approximately $4.25 million, and out of this San Diego Transit is re- questing $4.436 million, which is over the allocated funds. Chula Vista's share this year, based on $8.3 million, is $415,000 and out of this, gan Diego Transit is requesting $258,000. Mr. Silberman noted that this would be just for providing the existing services. The difference in the allocation, or $160. million can be used for additional services, mutually agreed upon. Aztec Bus services Mr. Silberman conunented~ that this City could not be reimbursed for the $68,000 presently being spent on Aztec, but should the services increase or improve, SB 325 funds could be used for that. City Manager Thomson remarked that under AB 958, the City would be reimbursed. Application deadline Mr. Silberman stated that the deadline date for filing for this year's fund was December 31, 1972. Councilman Hobel noted that the final filing date was April 1, 1973. Rapid transit ~un~ilman Scott stated he was concerned over the great deal of money being requested by gan Diego Transit. He noted that the original purpose of SB 325 was for rapid transit. Councilman Egdahl referred to the study undertaken by the Comprehensive Planning Organization on rapid transit which has been in the process now for four or five years. He felt it would be wise to see this study through. Councilman Hobel discussed the recommenda- tion of the Board of Directors of CPO that the entire allocation of SB 325 be "frozen" for rapid transit. Mr. Richard Silberman Mr. Silberman romarked that his company would not have instituted any new programs, if SB 325 was not forthcoming. Their ridership has increased 45%; however, revenues are down 10% to 15%. Mr. Silberman discussed the Aztec Bus service, declaring that there would be no way in which San Diego Transit can provide this intro-bus service to Chula Vista cheaper than Aztec now does. In answer to Councilman Hobel's inquiry, Mr. Silberman stated that the Transit Company will be requesting this same sub- stantial amount of funds for the next four or five years. Motion for Council position It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded by Councilman Scott that the Council take the position of recommending that 70% of the funds be retained (toward rapid transit); and 30% be released. Secondly, that the Council take no action regarding the San Diego Transit proposal. Discussion Councilman Hyde questioned the ratio used -- he felt there should be a more logical way of determining what this percentage should be, and referred to the CPO study. Motion rescinded Councilman Egdahl stated he is rescinding his motion in order to make ~other motion. Motion to support CPO position It was moved by Councilman Egdahl that the Council stand in favor of the present CPO position - 100% of the funds in re- No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Second not withdrawn on Councilman Scott stated he did not with- first motion draw his second to the motion made by Councilman Egdahl for the 70-30 percentage. Mayor Hamilton stated that the motion stands ready for the question. Motion to support It was moved by Councilman Hyde that the Council support a plan for release of 30% of the funds for support of the San Diego Transit operations, unless the CPO staff would come up with a different ratio based upon information they have. No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Motion to support rapid It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded transit allocation by Councilman Scott that the Council support having 100% retained for rapid transit. Discussion A discussion ensued as to whether or not this would be realistic. Mayor Hamilton commented that the problems with the 70-30 percentage was the fact that there is a bus system in operation now, and there is a question as to how long in the future the 70% of the funds will be with- held. Motion withdrawn Councilman Egdahl withdrew his motion and Councilman Scott withdrew his second. Motion for 50% ratio It was moved by Mayor Hamilton~and seconded by Councilman Hyde that the Council recom- mend a 50%-50% ratio. Motion fails on 70%-30% ratio The motion to support a 70%-30% ratio failed by the following vote, to-wit: Ayes: Councilmen Scott, Hobel NOES: Mayer'Hamilton, Councilmen Hyde, Egdahl Absent: None Motion carries on 50% ratio The motion to support a 50%-50% ratio carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen tlyde, Scott Noes: Councilmen Hobel, Egdahl Absent: None Mayor Hamilton explained that this motion would be applicable only if the CPO recommendation "comes off the shelf." Oceanside request Councilman Egdahl noted that oceanside'e proposal meets SB 325 requirements whereby San Diego Transit's does not. Motion not to support It was moved by Councilman Scott that proposals the Council not support either one. No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Motion to support Oceanside It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded by Councilman Hobel that the Council support the Oceanside request and not support San Diego Transit's re- quest because one does meet SB 325 require- ments and the other does not. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Egdahl, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde Noes: Councilman Scott Absent: None COASTAL BOARD REPRESENTATION Councilman Scott commented on coastline pro- tection and that Supervisor Jack Walsh, who represented Chula Vista on the San Diego Coastal Regional Commission, has resigned. He felt the Council should look into litiga- tion of the one-man, one-vote principle -- ,~ disenfran~isq" because of South Bay having no representation at this time. City Attorney directed to look It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded into possibility of litigation by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that the City Attorney be directed to look into the possibility of it. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for ~:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 16, 1973. City ~lerk j~ 1/10/73 - 5 -