Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1976/10/28 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MONTGOMERY ~NICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (~AC) Held Thursday October 28, 1976 A joint meeting of the City Council and representatives of the Montgomery Municipal Advisory Council was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Hyde, Cox, Egdahl, Hobel Councilmen absent: Mayor Hamilton Staff present City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Department Heads In the absence of Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde presided over the meeting. MMiC COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William F. Glad, Chairman; A. H. Bahrke, John Kolsters, Nancy Oliver, Donald T. Quinn, and Harold Ratay MMAC COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Vic Cherniak COUNTY STAFF COORDINATOR Lynn Skinner REASON FOR MEETING Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the questions raised by ~AC as to the possibility of annexation of that area known as Castle Park to the City of Chula Vista. The questionnaire and answers have been distributed to members of the audience. Clerk's note The questionnaire submitted by the Montgomery ~nicipal Advisory Committee (referred to as Y~4AC in these minutes) is made a part of these minutes. The questions are spelled out; however, because of the length of the questionnaire and answers (12 pages)~ the answers are not delineated in the minutes -- only discussion pertinent to the question is reported. I. GENERAL ANNEXATION POLICIES 1. Does the City of Chula Vista Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde stated that it does, the regard the Montgomery area as Montgomery area has been part of the City's General being within the Chula Vista Plan since 1964. sphere of influence? 2. If so, will the City of The answer was yes; however, staff would recommend Chula Vista annex the entire more detailed cost revenue study. area as a unit? Discussion Mr. Skinner asked if this was a qualifying answer. If the City found that the cost-revenue would not be high enough, would it decline to annex the entire area? Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde commented, that in his own personal opinion, he felt the City would be inclined to annex the whole area upon request. The only quali- fication would be the kind and level of services to be provided. Joint Meeting - -2- October 28, 1976 City Council and MMAC ~r. Bahrke asked if, in the cost-revenue study, the City would include those HUD monies that would be available for improvements in the area, or the increase monies the City would be allowed based on the additional area and population. City Manager Cole stated that the City would con- sider all sources of revenue with the area as part of the City. Councilman ttobel noted that those funds are not part of the normal operating budget of the City and con- sideration must be given for the qualification of those monies. Certain of those funds ($400,000) are designated for certain areas and must be expen- ded as such in the Montgomery area. II. SERVICES AND FACILITIES AFTER ANNEXATION 1. How soon would Chula Vista pro- Council explanation followed the answer to this vide its normal level of question. Councilman Egdahl commented that if the services to the Montgomery area? annexation election is held at such time that it fits into the City's normal budget cycle and the City can make provision for it in the coming next budget, that would be worked in. There would be problems if the City had to face annexation and provide immediate level of service upon annexation if it came in the middle of a budget year. As to Mr. Bahrke's query as to the needed time schedule, Councilman ttobel explained that the staff begins preparation of the budget before the end of the year and the Council holds its budget sessions in }lay. ~lr. Bahrke asked whether the annexation could be held to "take effect on July 1" for instance. City Attorney Lindberg stated this would be legal and explained the election process. County services ~. Ratay asked Mr. Skinner if the County would continue to provide services to the area for a cer- tain period of time if annexation to Chula Vista occurred. Fir. Skinner stated the County would not. In an annexation to the City, the City would be required to immediately provide the services. 2. What level of service would be provided with respect to the following services? (A) Police City Manager Cole noted the lengthy answer to this question indicating that it is more complicated than a "yes" or "no" answer. Joint ~eeting - -3- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~4AC Paul Green, Sr. Mr. Green referred to the questionnaire and answers Resident, Woodlawn Park noting that it was a "discussion draft." He is interested in the "firm decisions" - those which would have no compromise. He asked that a Task Force be selected in order to get down to the "nitty- gritty" on some of these items and come back to this Council at a later date for negotiations. Question of guns Mr. Green added that it was the understanding of the people in his area that some of the young men in Chula Vista have guns before they reach the age of 21 years. This is a concern and they would like to discuss this at a later time. Transition and City Manager Cole stated there would be no period of training period time under the annexation process during which Castle Park would be left without police protection. There would be a cash-flow problem with the City in hiring police before annexation and how this would be funded before the revenues start accruing from the area. Mr. Cole assured the Council that training of police personnel could take place prior to annexa- tion to become effective on the date of annexation. Explanation followed on (a) Patrol Service; (b) Investigative Service; (c) Miscellaneous; (d) Animal Shelter. (B) Street Sweeping City Manager Cole referred to the written answer in the questionnaire. Mr. Kolsters noted the fills built up around the shopping areas on private property. He asked whether the City would enforce the cleanliness of these properties which is not now being enforced in that Mr. Cole stated that the City does not have juris- diction to enforce regulations on private property. The City has talked to the merchants in shopping areas requesting them to clean up their areas, and the response has been good. Animals Mr. Kilsters remarked that they have problems with large animals on small areas (flies, bugs, etc.). He questioned whether the City has the same animal Code requirements as that in the County. Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde indicated that the City's ordinance was more stringent than that of the County. Assistant Director of Planning Williams explained the provisions of the animal ordinance. (C) Street Lighting Mr. Skinner said that the Hontgomery Council did a study of this and found that only 20% of the area is served with street lights and 80% is not. There are 135 street lights down there; however, the total need is for an additional 300. So, instead of $9,000 a year, it would cost approximately $30,000 a year. Joint Meeting - -4- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~AC Mr. Cole commented that the staff considered only the existing lights. The City would start a program whereby the lights would be brought up to the City's standards. In answer to Mr. Bahrke's question, Hayer Pro Tempore Hyde indicated that the question of the lighting program could be one of the items in the agreement preceding the question of annexation. (D) Library City Librarian Levine explained the details of the $129,500 "start-up costs" for a new branch library at the Castle Park site. It was her recommendation that the existing branch at Woodlawn Park be closed. ~. Skinner felt it would be beneficial to learn the history of tile ~oodlawn branch library. It was started as a Community Self-ltelp Project by the citizens themselves. The County assisted them in starting the book collection and providing a part- time librarian. Present Castle Discussion ensued as to maintaining the present Park library library facility (leasing or buying it from the County), purchasing the books and equipment. Mr. Bahrke asked Mr. Skinner to investigate whether the City could acquire this library should annexation occur. (E) Recreation City Manager Cole declared that the County provides no recreational services within ttle unincorporated area. The City's Loma Verde recreational center is within the area and the City has a joint powers agreement with the schools to provide recreational activities. It is expected that the City would expand this agreement, Mr. Bahrke noted that Loma Verde is overcrowded. Councilman Egdahl noted that many of the people using this Center are from the Montgomery area, Bond issue ~Ir. Glad remarked that they are in the process of voting on a bond issue for the maintenance and pur- chase of two parks (Proposition X on the November ballot), tte asked if the City would have any problem in taking over the construction project if the bond passes. Mr. Skinner noted that the Proposition X was a 5¢ tax levy in the Montgomery area for park maintenance. The County has already committed funds to buy a one- acre parcel of property for a park in the Woodlawn Park area. They have also budgeted funds from the 1964 Bond Act money to buy a park at the end of Date Street in tile Otay River bottom - approximately eight acres in size. Another park purchase is the Oxford site behind the Lauderbach School - this one is dependent upon the tax levy Proposition. Joint Meeting - -5- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~Bt~C (F) Transit Services City ~lanager Cole explained that the City is in the process of increasing its transit service. The Council has included in this years' budget a Transit Coordinator to develop a transit system. This is expected to be up to the proposal of a consultant in 1981. The transit routes would only have to be adjusted to extend the lines into the Hontgomery area. 3. Is the City willing to In answer to Mr. Quinn's questions, City Manager Cole conclude an agreement explained that the City is still in the process of with the Montgomery Fire working this out. It is the intent of the City that District regarding dispo- the employees of the Fire District would come into sition and use of its City employment with comparable salaries - the equipment, and status question of their status would have to fit into the and deployment of its City's organizational structure. personnel after any annexation? Assistant City Manager Asmus stated that they would come in as regular employees with no probationary period. As to the negotiating document concerning the de- ployment of the personnel, Mr. Cole commented that he has seen it; however, there is a problem concerning retirement which may need a revision to the agreement ~ the City is not on the same retirement as that of ~lontgomery. Terry Caper Mr. Caper said that they represent the Montgomery Vice President Firefighters at the State level. He declared that Federated Firefighters the retirement will have to be taken into concern of California with their entire contract as to the total compensa- tion picture. The Firefighters have other things in their contract that have been taken into concern as total compensation which are much more desirable than they would be receiving in coming to the City of Chula Vista. 4. Will the City maintain Mr. Cole referred to the answer in the questionnaire non-dedicated drainage in which he explained the City's policy in this regard. channels which protect The Council has directed staff to develop a policy large numbers of resi- to find out the cost of providing maintenance ofun- dences? dedicated water courses in the City. Mr. Bahrke stated that not too many of these are non- dedicated entirely - they come under the County maintenance system except for a very minimal amount of them and the County is presently maintaining them. The releases are there - there is only a short span in between whereby the property owners have not given their consent. ~r. Cole asked whether these were dedicated easements or releases. Mr. Skinner said it was a combination; however, in large measure, it is just releases because much of the development in the Montgomery area has taken place before the County's requirement for sudivisions to put in full flood control facilities. Joint Meeting -6- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~4AC 5. After annexation, would ~iayor Pro Tempore Hyde reported that the Council the Cit7 complete tile met with the County Board of Supervisors about one Orange Avenue extension? month ago with a specific request for the County to act, in conjunction with the City, on that area between Third Avenue and Albany Street. ~r. Skinner mentioned that under the County's priority system, the Board of Supervisors directed the Department of Transportation to "re-juggle" their priorities to bring Orange Avenue up higher on the list. 6o After annexation, would City ~ianager Cole noted the long answer given in the the City provide the same questionnaire referring to the staff's comment that level ofpark services (e.g., a realistic proposal would be the County's plan of acres per 1,000 people) as acquisition and development of three acres for now exists within the City? Lauderbach Park and eight acres for Otay Valley Park for a total of 11 acres in the Montgomery area. Proposition X Discussion followed on the outcome of this ballot proposition, and the use of park dedication money. 7. How will the City finance City Manager Cole commented that the City's improve- widening and reconstruction ments of major streets and prime aterials is similar of prime arterials, major to that of the County's approach. The City, however, roads, and collector streets does not use asphalt berms for curves. It does serving the public in general? attempt to get adjacent property owners to partici- Local streets? pate in the improvements of streets and install concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks either under a cash basis or 1911 Act. Truck routes In answer to ~{r. Bahrke's query, the City Hanager explained that the City has dedicated truck routes which trucks are expected to use; however, the trucks can get off those routes at any time to make deliveries. It is expected that the City's truck routes would be extended through the Hontgomery area. Improvements to major roads Mr. Skinner said that some of the arterial streets in this area are well below standard (Fifth, Naples, Moss, Oxford and parts of Palomar). He asked what kind of priority the City would put on the improve- ments of these streets in tile event of annexation. Mr. Cole answered that these streets would be analyzed and treated equally along with ali other streets in the City. bP. Skinner asked if the staff could possibly analyze these streets in the next two weeks. Mr. Cole stated it could not - the staff has been putting in a great deal of overtime working on the Public Norks Employment Act project and there simply is not time to do the street study at this time. Joint Heeting - -7- October 28, 1976 City Council and HMAC 8. Will the City construct a Mayor Pro Te~rpore Hyde referred to the answer in the second access road to Chula questionnaire noting that the idea of the City Vista Community Hospital to actually going out and constructing such a street serve the area to the south? would not be normal - construction occurs as a development occurs. The City is now committed to completing Oleander which is on the east side of 1-805 which will improve response time in the general Mr. Rather commented that there are a number of people in Chula Vista that live in that general area and with the people living on the Mesa in San Diego, and the people in the Castle Park area, one access to the hospital would not be in the interest of public safety. tie added that in February of this year, a proposal was put before the Board of Supervisors for public grant funds to improve Brandywine from Otay Valley Road through to the hospital. It was estimated that this project would cost $385,000. Supervisor Walsh did not pursue it because there was no input from the City of Chula Vista on the request to improve this area. Mr. Ratner added that, if the area is annexed, they would like to see a joint agreement with the County to improve the access road. Council discussion Further discussion followed regarding access to the hospital after an earthquake disaster, response time and paramedic services. Signalization at In answer to Mr. Ratner's comments that the Mayor Brandywine and had stated that a traffic light would be in on Telegraph Canyon Brandywine and Telegraph Canyon Road by January, Mr. Road Robens stated that no funds have been budgeted for this project at this time. III. REPRESENTATION 1. Would the City amend its Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde remarked that the Council has charter to increase the no plans to do so at this time. size of the Council to seven members? Russell Moore Mr. Moore stated that there has been an election for Harborside the NBIAC Council members and there will be an election every two years for members of the Chula Vista Council; anyone living in the annexed area could run for City Council. 2. Would the City amend its Hayor Pro Tempore Hyde stated the Council does not charter to provide for contemplate this at this time. Two years ago, the council districts (5 or 7) Council provided the Charter change which numbered with nomination by dis- Council seats so that individuals can run against a trict and election at specific person. large using the method followed by San Diego? Joint Meeting - -8- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~C 3. Would the City establish Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde declared that this provision an advisory community already exists and the ordinance is available for council elected by the examination. (Mr. Cole submitted copies of the residents of ~ontgomery? ordinance to the ~[MAC). 4. Upon annexation, what means As to Boards and Commissions, applications would be would the City use to insure considered along with all other applications in the representation of Montgomery City. residents on City Boards, Commissions and Advisory Committees? IV. GENERAL 1. Would the City continue the City Manager Cole noted that to do a comprehensive same zoning pattern that now zoning study of the ~ontgomery area would consume a exists in Montgomery? great deal of time. The City is obligated to prezone an area prior to annexation. It is, therefore, the 2. Will the City prezone the staff's feeling that the area would come in as is area prior to annexation? and then a review of the zoning would be made which may er may not result in change. 3. Would the City make adjust- ments in its land use regu- lations to accommodate exist- Councilman Hobel remarked that for the past six years, lng development built to the City has tried to work with the Board of Super- City standards? visors on the compatibility of zoning in this area and has never been successful in this effort. Had this cooperation occurred, there would have been better development in the Montgomery area. General discussion A general discussion followed regarding the ~qAC representation, legal and non-conforming uses in the area, continuation of the business that do not fall into the zoning pattern, community appearance, legal enforcement of the areas not adhering to the Code requirements and sign regulations. Advisory Committee Councilman Egdahl suggested an Advisory Committee to study land use and make recommendations to the Council through the Planning Department. ~lr. Bahrke recommended retaining the ~4Y~C members for the study of this area. 4. Many Montgomery residents This answer was covered in the past discussion on I  are concerned that the Items 1 through 5 of section Ill. appearance of some areas needs to b~ upgraded (e.g., along Main Street, Otay), and that Montgomery should not be a dumping ground for auto wrecking yards, iron works, and similar land uses. What policies will the City Council follow regarding these two concerns? Joint Meeting - -9- October 28, 1976 City Council and ~AC 5. Will the City impose its Councilman Egdahl declared that the tax could not utility tax in Montgomery? be eliminated - these revenues would have to be Would the City consider replaced in some way and property taxes seem to be eliminating the utility rather onerous. tax, either City-wide or in Montgomery? Mr. Rather asked if the utility tax could be reduced based on all the revenues that would be coming in from sales tax in the area. Councilman Hobel answered that that option is available to the Council at budget time at which time they consider all sources of revenues. 6. Some of Montgomery's neighborhoods (Castle Park, 0tay, Harborside, Woodlawn Park, and Broderick Acres) have a history, identity, and sense of connnunity reaching back several generations. Would the City recognize this sense of community identity by: (A) Continuing to designate Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde confirmed that the area would these neighborhoods on be designated on the City maps. City maps? Mr. Paul Green referred to the idea of setting up a Task Force. As a resident of Woodlawn Park, he would ask that the meetings be open to give them a chance to voice their concern, or else people from this area and Broderick Acres be appointed to the Task Force. (B) Recognizing boundaries Councilman Egdahl commented that the Council would and names when estab- want to do this to the extent that it can be done. lishing statistical, planning, park service, and similar boundaries, as appropriate? (C) Posting signs at the Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde stated this would be done. entrance to these areas? (The City of San Diego follows this practice~ A sample sign reads: "OTAY MESA, A Community of San Diego.") John Faber Mr. Faber noted that Norman Park Center has 1,800 President members. They have no Senior Citizen Center in the Del Rey Seniors Castle Park area. Hr. Faber asked for consideration of a Center in the Castle Park area which numbers 2,O00 more than that in Chula Vista (there are 13 mobile home parks). Mr. Bahrke remarked that there is a $385,000 Block Grant for a senior citizens/welfare/human relations Center for Otay. It is being considered at the present time by the Board of Supervisors. If it fails and depending on a yes vote on the Park Bond, P,~4AC is Joint Meeting - -10- October 28, 1976 City Council and MMAC attempting to negotiate with the Board of Supervisors to bring those funds to the park at Oxford and have a senior citizens center incorporated with that park. Time schedule In answer to Councilman Cox's query, Mr. Glad said it is hoped to have the annexation proposal before the people sometime in March 1977 or sooner. Mr. Skinner explained that the ~lontgomery Council is due to make some type of recommendation to the Board of Supervisors sometime in December. The Council has two options: 1) have the Board initiate a district reorganization proceeding which would take six to nine months to get on the ballot; or 2) put a straw vote -- an advisory question on the March ballot. ~tr. Bahrke stated that when the ~AC Council makes its decision, it will be fed to the Community either in pamphlet form or letter and they, in turn, will express their views back to the Council. Therefore, prior to the election, it will be known whether the community is for or against annexation. The members of the City Council thanked the Hembers of the Montgomery Municipal Advisory Council for this meeting and for the questions which were asked. ~ayor Pro Tempore Hyde asked that the members meet with the City staff for any specific answers they may wish so that no misunderstanding may occur. Copy of tape The City Clerk was directed to make a copy of the tape for the Montgomery Council. ADJOURNg~NT Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.