Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1979/03/22 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. March 22, 1979 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of Chula ViSta, C~lifornia, was held On the above date beginning at 4:0g.p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. 1. ROLL CALL Councilmen pres,ent: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Cox, Egdahl-(arrived Iat~), Gillow and Scott Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Deputy City Manager Robens, City Attorney LindherE, Redevelopment Attorney Reed, Director of Community Development Dearochers, City Engineer Lippitt, Director of Finance Grant, Director of Building and Housing Grady, Traffiq Engineer Hanson 2. AB 405 . City Manager Cole reported on the status of the Bill in the MERGING OF CHULA VISTA'S' Assembly. It will be before the Housing Committee on March . REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS 28t~ and both the Community Development Director and the Rede~elopment Attorney will attend this hearing. Cliff Reed Mr. Reed said he talked to members of the HOusing Commit'tee Redevelopment Attorney and was informed that Chula Vista Would have a. stronger pOsi- tion if it was committed to the provision in the legis'lation: a 1S% to 20% commitment of the tax increments of themerEed project areas be allocated for low and moderate housing. (Councilman Egdahl arrived at this time - 4:14 p.m.) Council discussion Discussion followed regarding the Montoya legislation; the estimated yield of $700,000 tax*increments per year for the two redevelopment projects; definition of a "low .and moderate~ income family." Motion for authorization It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by May~r Hyde ana of commitment unanimously carried thaf this be authorized: an amendmentto AB 405 will be acceptable ~ this would require up to 20% of tax increments derived from merging projectsto go to low and moderate income housing programs .as=proVided for in the Community Redevetopment Law. 3. AB S51-TRANSPORTATION: Mayor Hyde summarized the Kapil0ff Bii~l which. modifi*~S the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT : San Diego Metropolitan Transit' Board;'s functions in three .. DEVELOPMENT BOARD ways: changes the boundaries; specifies that MTDB is tlhe only eligible claimant for transportation development act funds; requires the Board to maintain bus operations within the area at the level of service which existed on Jan. 1, 1979 until Jan. l, 1982 or until the construction of the trolley line. Mayor Hyde added that Assemblyman Deddehhas asked for ChUla Vista's stand on this Bill. CPO Decision At their last meeting,1 the Comprehensive Plannin'g Organi~ation voted against the condept of thi~Bilt, ~ . Motionto oppose Bill It Was moved by CoUncilman COx, seconded by COuncilman Gitlow and unanimously carried that the staff'report on this Bill be accepted and the Council take a position in opposition to AB 55.1 because it does not give.the City .any direct representa- tion on the Board and other reasons listed by the:mayoT: (1) the Bill tends to establish an independent body for Operation of transportation in the'area; (2) it is not responsible to the CPO; (3) the City would support sometRinE that has author- ity vested in the CPO. Held~Thursday,- 4;00 p.m. . 2~ ~ ., March 22, 1979 4. STREET LI~tTING DISTRICT City Manager Cole summarized the presentation to be made by the City EnginEer'and discussed the reasons for thisI proposal (Proposition 13 impact]. Presentation by City Mr. Lippitt referred to hi~ displays discussing the question Engineer of whether or not a district be established. "Pros" to the (1) Should a lighting question were the varied service levels; upgrading the district be established lighting; fair payment for lighting services; offsetting increased energy costs; and demonstrating citizen support. "Cons" to the question included the front-end costs; complex' administrative process; and the potential for citizen_.Objec- tions. (2) ShoUld the City retain Mr. Lippitt noted the advantages: expertise; available staff an assessment engineer time; the engineer's agreed-to fee of $1.50 per parcel Or approximately $30,O00; the incident~l costs amounting to $S,OO0 to $10,000; the staff time it would take -one or two man months; computer time available. (3) Size of the District Referring to the charts, the City Engineer said it would be staff's recommendation to have a City-wide Lighting District because of the assessment spreading process; t~king in annex- ations as they are processed; and incorporating new develop- ments. - (4) Contrfbution In FY 1978-79 budget, thE City spent. S206.,000 Tot energy. costs and it still has uneq~al lighting throughout the community. If the City put up th~ front-end costs, there would be several alternates open: the City could be divided into 20 or up to 50 "z6nes"; the City can contribute,to . public and safety lighting; resldential zones can have a higher level of lighting; special 'zones for commercial and spe6ial lightings. Council discussion Discussion ensued regarding having several districts as opposed to one city-wide district; the definition of a special district; establishing the diStrictS would be another way "taxing' the people who voted for Proposition 13; level of lighting and tax assessments; possibility of establishing police districts; "bottom line" is what it is going to e~st to live in Chula Vista; comments on the plan being a'viable alternative in view of Props' Mr. Patrick Rossetti Mr. Rossetti commented that all cities are into the problems Assessment Engineer of equal lighting. Every new subdivision that comes in has to pay for its lights and maintenance. Mr. Rossetti felt the only equitable way of providing this service would be to establish the district. He said if the City decided to go into a lighting district, it should be for the whole City and new subdivisions and annexations would automatically go into the district; also, once the district is set up, it can be activated by "quadrants" acCording'to a master plan. (Councilman Co~ left at this time - S:OS p.m.) Council discussion Council discuss±on ensued concerning the-difference 'in :l~ve.ls Of i:llumination; general hene£itS provided' throughout :the · lighting district ~or p~aple .~ho 'd~i~e-in arid out as Weli aS~ residents; gbodlightlng prevent~ crim~ Co~rglaries, assaults, theft, etc.) various.economic aspectg; political aspects in ¥~ew of Proposition 1~; and once the district is set up, it~ becomes an administrative function of the Council with any changes first being approved by the Council. Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. -3 - March 22, 1979 Staff recommendation In answer to a query from Mayor Hyde, City Manager Cole said the staff is recommending that the City look into the possi- bility of establishing a lighting district. Motion to approve concept It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman Scott subject to plan for that the Council approve the concept of what the staff has implementation suggested, provided that the staff can bring back a satis- factory plan for implementation of it - a specific plaH for the manner in which this would be undertaken for further consideration of the Council. Concern regarding staff In answer to a question from Councilman Egdahl, City Manager time Cole said he has some concern regarding the staff time required to prepare a "specific plan of implementation" which the Council may not wish to approve. Suggestion for more back- Councilman Egdahl suggested rather than a detailed plan, that ground information more background information be provided in answer to the questions raised by the Council - how often does the whole district have to be re-assessed; how are the bills levied; is there separate Billing; how does a small zone get set up; who determines the boundaries. Substitute motion It was moved by Councilman Scott that the Council put this off for 'a while and think about it. No second to motion The substitute motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Hyde said he would withdraw his original motion. Councilman Scott agreed as the second. Request for staff report Councilman Egdahl recommended that the staff be requested to prepare something in answer to the questions asked - a Short paragraph on each of the questions raised - and when the Council has that in hand, they study it and then set a time to s{t down and talk about it. Motion to ask for report ' It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by MayOr Hyde and:' unanimously carried by those present that Councilman Egdaht's recommendation be accepted. The Council concurred that it would be left up to the City Manager to reschedule the report on this matter. ' 5. CITY HALL REMODELING ~ The staff presented several diagrams of alternate suggestions APPROVAL FOR COUNCIL AREA for remodeling the City Council area in the City Hall, and , recommended that Plan 1 or tA be approved Motion to approve Plan I It was moved By Councilman Scott that Plan 1 be app~oved. No second to motion The motion died for lack of a second., ' Council discussion Mayor Hyde commented on several points of concern regarding Plan 1 and spoke .against this plan indicating that it would be more a, dvantageoUs to have the City ClerkMs office located in closer proximity to the Council area. Motion to retain It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Mayor Hyde and approved plan unanimously carried by those present that the approVed plan be retained. Motion to reverse It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by CounCilman Gillow and plan unanimously carried by those present that the office location of the City Attorney and City Clerk be reversed (on the approved plan). Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. ~ 4 - March 22, 1979 6. INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR Director of Finance Grant had previously prepared a written COUNCIL MEMBERS report on all aspects of insurance coverage for the Council Members for their consideration. Motion to continue It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and Item 6 unanimously carried by those present that, in the interest of time, this matter be continued to another meeting. 7. STATUS REPORT ON Deputy City Manager Robens stated that they have had difficultZ NEGOTIATIONS WITH in contacting Mr. Crabb and he has nothing further to report MR. CRABB at this time. 8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (None) 9. MAYOR'S REPORT Appointments to Mobile The creation of the Feaster Park Rehabilitation Project for Home Loan Committee mobile homes requires that the Council establish a Mobile Home Loan Committee. It has been proposed thRt the committee be comprised of two members of the existing CHIP reh~bilitatio committee, two staff members, plus three p~ivate citizens from the census tracts that are involved. Mayor Hyde said he has appointed Joanne Gullekson, Henry Lemire, and Annie Alluns to this committee and asked for Council ratification, Motion to ratify It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by COuncilman appointments Gillow and unanimously carried by those present that the appointments be ratified. Vacancy on Local Agency Mayor Hyde said the City Selection Committee will meet on Formation Commission April 9, 1979 to consider appointment of a member to the Local Agency Formation Commission for a four-year term (5/7/79 - 5/2/83) and will vote on a replacement for Kile Morgan of National City. It was the consensus of the Council that Chula Vista should ask for a seat on this Commission. Report on meeting Mayor Hyde reported on a meeting of the South Bay Mayors with regarding new joint Transit Coordinator Bloom, .Judy Bauer (MTDB Chairwoman), and powers agreement for Bob Nelson. A discussion was held regarding the desirability bus service and mechanics of forming a joint powers agreement to provide for contractinn for bus services in the South Bay area. In creating a new transit entit~y, the City could go back to "tim, zero" in Retting full funding from LTF rather than the 50% funding for operations. A proposal must be filed by April 1, 1979. Motion for staff It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Gillow and recommendation regarding unanimously carried by those present that City Manager Cole, joint powers agreement Deputy City Manager Robens and Transit Coordinator Bloom get with National City together and consider the discussion that took place (at the Mayor's meeting), and make a recommendation to the Council on whether or not the Council shoutd actively explore forming a joint powers agreement for transit purposes with th:e City of National City, Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. - 5 - March 22, 1979 COUNCIL COMmeNTS Getsten Proposal Councilman Gillow stated that one week ago the staff was directed to lookat the Gersten proposal for the E1 Rancho del Rey area and apparently there was some confusion as to the intent of the Council as to whether the staff was to go back and start at "ground zero". Motion to clarify It was moved by Councilman Gillow, seconded by Mayor Hyde and direction to staff unanimously carried by those present that in looking at the Getsten proposal, the staff be directed to look at two things: ~ (1) To answer the question - "Has anything occurred since the adoption of the plan a few months ago to warrant an extensive re-evaluation of the plan, which was also approved by ACCORD," and (2) that staff look at the Gersten proposal and come up with a brief report on their comments as to the validity of their proposal. Film available on Councilman Gillow said he had been contacted by a member of rent control the Board of Relators indicating they had a good film in opposition to rent control approximately 15 minutes in length. He suggested the Council may wish to view it just as a matter of information. Motion to schedule It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman Gillow viewing of film that the City Manager contact the Board of Realtors and arrange for a scheduled showing at a Council Conference. Speaking against motion Councilman Scott spoke against the motion, stating that it would be best if the film was viewed on an individual basis for those who feel the information would be beneficial. Motion failed The motion failed. by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilman Gillow Noes: Councilmen Scott, Egdahl' Absent: Councilman Cox ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 5i50 p.m..to the meeting scheduled for March 27, 1979 at 7:00p.m. ~ity Clerk Deputy City Clerk