Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1970/09/29 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Tuesday September 29, 1970 A special meetinglof the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was held in the Council Chamber on the above date at 7:30 P.M., with the following Council- men present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde Absent: Councilman Bgdahl Also present: City Attorney Lindberg, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Thomson, Director of Public Works Cole, Director of Planning Warren, Senior Civil Engineer Ira Cotton, Department of Sani- tation and Flood Control, San Diego County Mayor Hamilton opened the meeting by explaining the reason the Council adopted a resolution to be submitted to the Local Agency Formation Cormnission on October 5~ 1970, for adoption by LAFC of a policy requiring annexation to munici- palities for any areas which require urban services. The purpose of the meeting tonight was to explain the Council's position in this matter in wanting the Glen Abbey Boulevard area to annex to the City to obtain sewer service. Mr. Lane Cole, Director of Public Works, explained the three methods that can be proposed before the Local Agency Formation Con~nission: (1) Annex to Spring Valley Sanitation District for installation of sewer system which will be accomplished by the 1911 Act (as well as the other two options). (2) An option of a County Service Area. It will require approval of the LAFC for its forma- tion, along with approval of Board of Supervisors. There are several complicated requirements for the accomplishment of a County Service Area to make it possible for this area to acquire sewer service. (3) Annexation to Chula Vista. City Attorney Lindberg explained the election process for annexation to the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Cole indicated that the time schedule involved to get sewer service would be 12-13 months for the Spring Valley Sanitation District, 15 months for the County Service Area~ and 15 months for annexation to Chula Vista. Co~nents from those in the audience were as follows: Mr. Walt Selph, 3501 Glen Abbey Boulevard~ questioned the points of annex- ation to the City, the time element and percentages of assessed valuations needed. He remarked that if these people annex, it will then give the City of Chula Vista leverage they need to build a north/south road through this area. He said he talked to Supervisor Boney about the construction of this road, and was told that the County still favored the Willow Street extension~ and that they knew nothing about the proposed road through the Glen Abbey area. Mr. Selph further stated that the majority of the people in this area do not need sewer service, and com- mented that those that do perhaps have a comeback to the County, since it was the County that took the percolation tests and declared that their sewers would work. Mr. Don Frederick, 3456 Glen Abbey Boulevard, asked for a detailed explanation of the resolution to be submitted to LAFC, and commented on the time element to annex to Chula Vista (15 months). He, noted that if the election for annexation failed, then th~ p~ople in the ar~a were faced with the additional time to start proceedings for sewer hook-up to another agency. Mr. Joseph Janosik, 6645 Jonel Way, owning property at 3225 Glen Abbey Boulevard, declared the City would not get one hundred per cent consent for annexation and felt he would have to pay double costs for sewer since his prop- erty borders Bonita Road and Glen Abbey Boulevard. He questioned the purpose of the Council's action in trying to annex this area and cormmented on the five per cent utility tax recently imposed by the City, that these residents would be forced to pay. Mro Frank Williams, 3464 Glen Abbey Boulevard, spoke at length about the Council's proposal, cormnenting that the residents feel "a little let down" since, at the LAFC meeting of September 14, Actimg Chief Administrative Officer Thomson, representing the Council, asked for the delay in time in order to in- vestigate the possibility of the County Service Area, and now the Council is proposing annexation to the City. Mr. Williams con~nented further on the Harry B. Clements annexation to the Spring Valley Sanitation District, remarking that the cost to that District was $900, whereas the City of Chula Vista estimated a cost of $2,000. He asked if the City was prepared to discuss the individual costs to the residents of this area for this sewer and annexation process. He admitted that it was fair of the Council to hold this meeting and inform the residents of their intention, but felt the Council should stick to their original commitment and not pursue annexation to the City. Mr. Dan Pederson, 3448 Glen Abbey Boulevard, spoke of the time delay in the City's request for deferment of action by LAFC. He declared that this is taking too much time in view of the residents' immediate need for sewer service. Mr. S. D. Hoover, 3436 Glen Abbey Boulevard, questioned the types of services the residents would get from the City upon annexation. He also ques- tioned the possibility of the City putting in the north/south route from the Otay Land Company development through the eastern portion of this area. He added that by submitting this resolution to LAFC, the City is putting pressure on these residents to annex. Mr. Wayne Miller, 3496 Glen Abbey Boulevard, discussed the time aspect and the Clements annexation to Spring Valley Sanitation District. He declared that the Council had known about this proposal well in advance of the LAFC meeting. Mrs. Wayne Miller, 3496 Glen Abbey Boulevard, questioned how the area would be annexed, if a corridor were used, where would it be. She noted on the plat submitted that a portion of Randy Lane and Randy Court were omitted. (Mr. Cotten redrew the area lines including these properties). Mrs. Miller~ in answer to Councilman ScMtt~S inquiry~ stated the people in this area did not petition annexation to Chula Vista, because they were waiting to see what the majority of the residents in the Valley were going to do. If the majority favored annexation, they too would go along ~ith~zit. City Attorney Lindberg explained that thc County Service Area seemed to be a feasible approach at the time the City proposed it. However, upon study, it has to be worked out with other special service areas, and would be a con- tractual relationship between this area and the City of Chula Vista to provide sewer service. Permission from the City of San Diego will have to be obtained also. It would involve more staff people to achieve the same goal and would take more time. Attorney Lindberg spoke of the annexation laws in California and the number of special districts now established, approximately 4,000 in the State of California. Mr. John Thomson, Acting Chief Administrative Officer, discussed his pre- sentation at the LAFC meeting~ stating that it was made with the idea in mind that the City would seek a non-contiguous arrangement with the City of San Diego; however, after the staff made a complete study of this proposal, they found it quite cumbersome and complicated in view of the many steps that would have to be taken to achieve it. The Council~ upon reviewing it, felt it wasn't reasonable and decided they wouldn't pursue it. In answer to Mr. Williamsf question, Gouncilman Scott, stating he was speaking for himself, indicated that if LAFC rec~mnends that this area be annexed to Chula Vista~ and an election is held and fails~ then he~ personally, would not pursue the annexation any further, and would not oppose this area annexing to Spring Valley Sanitation District. Because of the health problem involved, he felt it just wouldn't be a reasonable thing to do. He cormnented that he could change his mind~ and then listed the many reasons why he fi~nly believes this area should annex to the City at this time: the area needs thc full range of urban services~ not just a service from a special district, and the residents would not be obtaining full value for their money if they had to submit to a proliferation of special districts. The City has reserved capacity rights with the Metropolitan S~wer System paying out over $1,500,000 over the years for this capacity right. -2- Mayor Hamilton further explained the City's position in wanting the residents to annex. The City owns hundreds of acres of land in the Valley with the Golf Course and the Rohr Park, and therefore, must be concerned as to what developments take place here. In discussing the Metropolitam Sewer System, he declared that this would never have become a reality if the cities of Chula Vista, National City, La Mesa, etc., hadn't taken on much more capacity rights than they needed at that time. Annexing this area to Chula Vista does give them some con- trol over the development of that area, and the Council is trying to preserve the rural character of the Bonita Valley. Mayor Hamilton further explained the time element of the three agencies involved stating that because of the small amount of time (12 months for Spring Valley Sanitation District and 15 months for the City of Chula Vista), the Council felt that it was not so great and therefore, decided to pursue annexation. If the time was any greater, for in- stance, 3 months versus the 15 months, then the City would not be pursuing this matter. Director of Planning Warren discussed the proposed north/south road. He stated a plan has been adopted which calls for a north/south route~ and the need has been acknowledged for one. The need will exist whether or not the land is in the County or in the City. Councilman Scott indicated that the pressure for this north/south route is from the County; where it will actually be established is something to be de- termined by the City and the County. Councilman Hyde explained the Council's stand on this issue, stating the City is waiting and ready to provide these areas with urban services at such time as they are ready to annex to the City. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.