Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1976/03/11 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Phase I Space Needs Study for South County Regional Center Held Thursday March 11, 1976 A joint meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors was held on the above date beginning at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: Mayor Hamilton - due to conflict of interest (owns property in the area of Third & "H" Street) Supervisors present: Supervisors Taylor, Bates, Walsh, Brown, Conde City Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg County Staff present: Dave Spear, Chief Administrative Officer; Donald Clark, County Counsel Mayor Pro Tempore Scott opened the meeting welcoming the Board of Supervisors explaining that the meeting was called to hear an explanation of the Phase I Space Needs Study for the South County Regional Center to be presented by representatives of Wilsey & Ham. He stated that the next step to be undertaken is the acquisition of the property at Third Avenue and "H" Street including the direction for a resolution of problems of mutual par- ticipation to develop the terms of a joint powers agreement to be entered into by the City and County. OPTION ON PROPERTY Mayor Pro Tempore Scott explained that the City presently holds an option on approximately 12 acres of the property (Third and "H") and are paying the sum of $15,000 per month and that the option expires at the end of this month. INCLUDING IN JOINT POWERS Mayor Pro Tempore Scott indicated that there has been some preliminary exploration of the possibility of including within the Jurisdiction of the Joint powers authority the existing Civic Center complex and having the authority direct the development of the physical plant at the Third and "H" Street site and the Civic Center STATEMENT BY SUPERVISOR WALSH Supervisor Walsh detailed the background of this matter. In 1974 h e approached the Mayor on the possibility of the City looking at its space needs (along the lines of the super block in E1 Cajon). The area discussed was the site on Fourth Avenue and "F" Street, along with other sites. When it became apparent that the Third and "H" Street site was the most feasible, Mayor Hamilton dropped his conversations with Mr. Walsh because of his (Mayor) ownership of properties across the street. It has beau the hope of the County to follow the lines of E1 Cajon - have Chula Vista provide the land and the County will come in with an investment of approximately $16,000,000. Dave Spear Mr. Spear discussed the County's proposal to Chief Administrative Officer develop a South Bay Regional Center - primarily San Diego County a Law and Jumtice Ca, tar, but not exclusively so. On June 11, 1975 the County Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting, City Council - -2- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors approved, in principle, the acquisition of the site on Third and "H" Street in Chula Vista, On September 23 they employed the consulting firm of Wilsey & Ham, who along with Tucker, Sadler & Associates and Facility Sciences Corporation, undertook the product to be presented today (Phase I: Service Program - South County Regional Center). James Fairman Mr. Fairman noted the work done: Wilsey & Ham Project Manager were responsible for environmental studies, engineering analyses, analysis of demographic characteristics, population projections and over- all project management. The firm of Tucker, Sadler & Associates studied alternative site development concepts. Mr. Fairman then presented a graphic slide pre- sentation noting the area in question: Third Avenue and "H" Street generally bounded on the north by "H" Street, on the east by Third Avenue, on the south by "I" Street and on the west by Garrett Avenue and private properties comprising approximately 11.6 acres. He commented on the population projections for the area up to the year 1995. Barry Baker Mr. Baker continued with the graphic slide Vice-President presentation noting that the courts would be the Wilsey & Ham primary occupants of the site. His firm studied the future requirements of the courts up to 1995 which they forecast as ten courts (12 courts are shown on the graphic presentation in case the need is shown) and eight (8) Superior Courts (with a possibility of an additional four). Mr. Baker discussed the court related needs among which is a Detention Center with 88 beds by 1995 (Type I facility) or 230 beds (Type II facility). As to parking, Mr. Baker projected the need for 1100 parking spaces (Option II) in 1995 if all estimated visitors and employees (at 85% percent usage) are accommodated. Space needs would be 217,661 square feet for Option II (18) courts and 26,700 square feet of additional space for health agencies. Recommendation of Wilsey & Ham Mr. Baker stated his firm is recommending Option II with 18 courts with a detention facility of 230 beds and 335,000 square feet of building space and 1100 parking stalls. There should be con- sidered the possibility of turning 14,000 square feet of this space for additional buildings and parking at a later date. Hal Sadler Mr. Sadler followed with a slide presentation Tucker, Sadler & Associates showing different alternatives for site layouts of the complex. The plan recommended by his firm is Alternate 1-B the Cluster Concept. The second choice would be the Spine Concept - Alternative 2-B. Parking spaces In answer to the Supervisors' inquiries, Mr. Baker explained that the parking spaces were determined based on the number of projected employees (70%) and the rest for business. The method of formulating the number of employees was discussed, both as to th~Type I and Type II detention facility. Joint Meeting, City Council - -3- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors Private businesses Councilman Hobel questioned whether any~thought was given to private businesses existing in the complex. Mr. Baker answered that no consideration was given to private enterprise within the building itself. Mr. Sadler explained the need for additional land to be purchased at this time adding that co~mnercial enterprises could interrelate and do a good job. Population figures Supervisor Bates noted the 226,000 population figure quoted by the consultants a 59% increase over the 20 year period. He challenged this projection indicating it was "reminiscent of the 50-60's an4 not the 70's." Mr. Fairman explained the rate of growth in South Bay over the next 20 years which he said was considerably lower than it has been over the prior 20 years. Health and Welfare facilities Supervisor Bates said he was concerned that the hsalth and welfare facilities were not included in the complex. Mr. Fairman said that mental health requires a separate building, and public health would require specialized equipment and ground floor space - both of which encountered problems in trying to incorporate them into this larger facility. As to the welfare facility, the consultants were told not to look into that aspect for the regional center. Mr. Reuben Dominguez, Head of the Regional Resource Agency, ~aid there were two factors involved: (1) the replacement for the National City office; and (2) they felt it would be better to have the office more decentralized - closer to the case load flow rather than in a centralized South Bay Regional Center. Mr. Bob Phlemlin, Real Propsrty, anewered Supervisor Walsh's query concerning the 30th Street site which has ten years to run, depending on how the options are picked. It comprises 55,000 square feet with 22,000 square feet at the 24th Street address. Supervisor Walsh in- dicated the ~wo sites could be coordinated and located at this Regional Center. Mr. Reuben declared that another ~eason for not wanting to relocate in the Regional Center is the reimbursement from the Federal government 66r offsetting the cost - building costs are covered by the Federal government if it is a separate facility. Traffic Problems Councilman Hyde asked about the potential traffic problems along Third Avenue associated with this Center. Mr. Fairman said there will be major traffic impacts - this will be focused on Third Avenue and "H" Street. In their report, they pointed out that there will have to be significant improvements in terms of signalization, various traffic controls, chanelization, etc. Joint Meeting, City Council - -4- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors Additional lands Councilman Hobel questioned the amount of additional land comtemplated by the County. Mr. Fairman said it would be 2.7 additional acres. Detention Facility Supervisor Brown noted the recommendation for a Type II Detention Facility which he supports. He asked the Council if there was any objection to that facility at that location. Mayor Pro Tempore Scott indicated there was no objection. Leased Welfare Facility Supervisor Walsh asked about leasing a welfare facility in the Center and getting reimbursed by the Federal government. Mr. Gerry Wilson, Community Services Administrator, said he would have to inquire into this. There is a case pending now which proposes a change in the existing policy. Chula Vista's share Supervisor Walsh commented that when he first of land acquisition talked to Mayor Hamilton about the possibility of this Regional Center, he used the E1 Cajon model which provided all of the land. They talked about some share participation in the acquisition of the land, meaning that Chula Vista would participate in the land and the County would make the major investment o~ the rest. He asked if this is still agreeable. City Manager Cole commented that in the early discussions, he did not recall that the City stated it would acquire the land. Supervisor Welsh remarked that, at the initial discussions, they were talking about the land on Fourth Avenue and "F" Street ~owned by the City) which the City would contribute and the County would come in and put in all the buildings. When the determination was made for unknown land, then discussions started on a joint powers. Mr. Welsh declared that there should be some sort of committment and participation on the part of Chula Vista for the County to locate a major regional center in that location (Third and Chula Vista's space needs Supervisor Welsh noted that the needs now projected by Chula Vista was manor compared to what it was when discussions first began. Now the County is coming down with its "building blocks" and the City, is helping to arrange them on a site being paid totally by the County and without any participation by the City. Chula Vista's understanding Mayor Pro Tempore Scott stated that Chula Vista's concern was to get a location for the courts - it never really was concerned about a site for the entire regional center. It agreed to put up "front money" which would be reimbursed by the Joint powers agreement to get the project started. Supervisor Brown noted that the Board had an "expression from National City of wanting the courts in National City." If National City is willing to give the land, then the Supervisors Joint Meeting, City Council - -5- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors should look very closely on this. If Chula Vista wants the Center, then it should "demon- strate'' that it wants the County to locate there (Third and "H"). Supervisor Conde felt the regional center would be a "magnet" that would attract a lot of business to the area. He stated it should not be a one-way street, and that perhaps the line of communication has broken down since he, too, was under the impression that the City of Chula Vista would financially contribute toward the mite. City Manager Cole remarked that the City of Vista has a regional center and they didn't give anything to the County to get it, and B1 Cajon had in its redevelopment district acquired that land and eo "it worked out." Chief Administratlve Officer Speer discussed the background of the proceedings and the meetings that took place between the County and City staffs. Dollar amount Mayor Pro Tempore Scott said the City has ex- pressed a willingness to do something recognizing the needs of this Center; however, there are budgetary problems and the City needs to know the dollar amount being discussed. Councilman Hyde commented that when the question was first approached, the parties were talking about a site for the court facilities and not a regional center which naturally increased the overall space requirements. Issues to be resolved Supervisor Brown stated that two issues need to be resolved: (1) financial arrangement between the City and County for construction at this site; (2) what is actually going into the site. Continuance suggested Supervisor Walsh suggested a two-week continuance so that these questions can be resolved. Supervisor Brown remarked that Chula Vista might go to 50% of the value of one-half of the 12 acres - six acres. If it got below that, he personally would feel there was not much par- ticipation on the part of the City. Don McGitchey Mr. McGitchey stated that the bank purchased First Federal Saving & Loan the Texaco station site on the southwest corner of Third and "H" and they plan to construct a multi-story building on the site which would house the bank and office spaces. He asked that the legislative bodies approve Alternate 1-A which would allow them, with the help of the Redevelopment Agency, to constrnct such a facility. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried by the Councilmen present to recess to Executive Session for purposes of possible litigation. The Council recessed to Executive Session at 4:00 p.m. and reaonvened at 4:20 p.m. Joint Meeting, City Council - -6- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors Marguerite Stein, Attorney Ms. Stein strongly urged the Council and Super- Treasurer, South Bay Bar visors to locate the facility "somewhere fast" Association as the need for the courts was a matter of grave importance. Ms. Stein discussed the problems she, as well as other attorneys in the area, are encountering with the present court system locations. Standlee McMains Mr. McMains noted that San Diego never donated any Businessman property in downtown San Diego for the County Chula Vista buildings, and as a City and County taxpayer, he objected to the City fo Chula Vista having to put up money for this project. Mr. McMains noted that this "plush piece of property" was being taken off the tax rolls. Report of Council Mayor Pro Tempore Scott reported that the Council needs to know whether there was a proposal made to the County Board of Supervisors that the City would participate in some way, and would the Supervisors, today, commit themselves to that property and take up the proposals as stated earlier -- approve Phase I, go into Phase II and accept the joint powers. Supervisors Brown stated he is willing to approve all of the recommendations with the exception of selecting a specific site plan, if Chula Vista makes a reasonable offer for participation. Supervisor Bates asked for County Counsel's comments concerning the Supervisors taking action on this proposal. County Counsel's opinion Mr. Donald Clark, County Counsel noted that the City Council adopted a resolution of condemnation to acquire a large part of this property. If the Supervisors adopt the recommendations contained in the letter dated March 3, 1976 from the Assistant County Administrative Officer, then there will be commitments for which the County would assume some liability if, at a later date, they decided to back off from the agreement. (Item 3 - directing the Department of Real Property to commence action for acquisition of the Third Avenue and "H" Street ~ite). Mr. Clark added that the bond counsel, O'Melveny & Myers, has stated that the City of Chula Vista would have to participate in the joint powers agreement more than just the furnishing of the property - but in the actual operation of the facilities. At this time, it is not certain as to what percentage that operation would be. Supervisors' Comments The individual Supervisors related their opinions as to whether or not they would be able to make a decision at this meeting based on the information received and the City of Chula Vista's position. Chula Vista's Proposal Councilman Hyde reported that the City Council, in Executive Session, i~dicated that it would be willing to share in the cost of the acquisition of the property now under escrow - to a point of one- quarter of the escrow charges based roughly on one- half of six acres (as discussed by Supervisor Brown). In return for this offer, the Council is requesting a commitment from the Board of Supervisors at this time: that the offer is acceptable and to proceed with the Joint powers agreement. Joint Meeting, City Council - -7- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors Motion It was moved by Supervisor Walsh that the offer be accepted and the County staff be instructed to write up the joint powers agreement and to bring it back to the Board (of Supervisors) for approval no later than a week from Tuesday. Under Item 3~(letter of March 3, 1976), the Department of Real Property is directed to commence action leading to the acquisition of that land in the City of Chula Vista generally bounded by Third Avenue~ "H" Street, "I" Street, and Garrett Avenue as required to accommodate Concept 1-B. Clarification of Proposal In answer to Supervisor Conde's query, Mayor Pro Tempore Scott stated that Chula Vista is willing to put np one-fourth of the cost of the present property under option. Councilman Hyde noted that this would be one- fourth of 1.75 million. Supervisor Conde indicated that the Board is talking about an additional three acres to be acquired. Supervimor Walsh declared that the County would have to bear the entire cost of any additional acreage other than that under escrow right now. Joint Powers Agreement Mr. Clark, County Counsel, referred again to the letter of March 3, 1976 explaining that item 3 relates to the acquisition of the property and item 4 to the Joint powers agreement. It is conceivable that item 3 could be enacted but not item 4 -- as bond counsel stated, it is going to take more than monetary contribution by the City - it will take involvement in the use of the property. Supervisor Brown commented that Chula Vista may have to find some uses to go into that building, which they do not now contemplate, in order to meet the requirements of bond counsel. Recommendations of County Mr. Speer asked that items 3 and 4 not be Chief Administrative Officer coupled since it would involve problems relating to the acquisition of the property. Mr. Speer recommended that in the action, the Supervisors exclude Alternate 1-B at this time as the preferred site development project since it is not essential it be done at this time and further studies need to be made on space re- quirements. Mr. Speer added that in 2-A, the space requirements be reviewed and direct the staff to amend them, where appropriate. Motion amended Supervisor Walsh amended his motion accordingly (accepting Mr. Speer's recommendations). No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Motion by County Board It was moved by Supervisor Welsh and seconded by of Supervisors Supervisor Brown that the recommendations of 2-A be adopted with staff coming back to the Super- visors with their recommendations for review and modification for space needs~ and that items 3 and 4 be adopted (County letter dated March 3, 1976) and not adopt the specific plan 1-B = this to be reviewed at a subsequsnt hearing. Joint Meeting, City Council - -8- March 11, 1976 County Board of Supervisors Clarification of motion Supervisor Walsh explained that by his mot~qn, the staff can start acquisition of the property, and development of the Joint powers agreement with bond counsel, counsel for Chula Vista and the County counsel. This will have to come back to the Board for approval. Suggested amendment to motion Mr. Speer asked that the motion be amended regarding 2-B to provide a type II Detention facility with a capacity to be subsequently determined by the Board (df Supervisors). The inclusion of the facility is fundamental to the design and operation (size to be determined later). Included in motion Supervisor Walsh included this in his motion and also the statement that the motion is contingent upon the commit~m~nt of the Chula Vista City Council which they will present to the Board. Motion carried Supervisor Brown agreed to the second and the motion carried unanimously by the County Board of Supervisors. Motion by City Goumcil It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried by those Councilmen present that a resolution be drafted formalizing an offer on the part of the City of C~ula Vista to participate in the cost of the acquisition of the property at Third Avenue and "H" Street of which the City now has an option - with the City agreeimg to pay one-fourth of the cost of such acquisition. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tempore Scott and Chairman Taylor a~journed the meeting at 4:55 p~m.