HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/03/09 Item 11r
ITEM TITTLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11
Meeting Date 3[9182
Resolution /D 7 9~ Requesting County of San Diego to relinquish their rights in
the former South Bay Court Building and declaring intent of the City of
Chula Vista to use said building as legislative field offices
SUBMITTE BY: Assistant City P~anager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On Novem er 10, 1981, Niek Slijk appeared before the City Council and suggested the County-
owned Mu icipal Court building in the Civic Center be utilized as field offices for Federal
and Stat elected officials when the new Regional Center is completed. The City Council
referred the suggestion to staff for a report. It is my
RECOMP1EN~ATION: That the City Council:
1. Adopt resolution
BOARDS/C~P1MISSION RECOP~IMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSImN
City sta f has been attempting to secure from County staff potential uses that they
see not m y for the Court building but the Health Center as well. Mayor Cox has been
communic ting with Supervisor Hamilton as well as State and Federal legislators regarding
their in Brest in locating legislative field offices in one or both of these buildings.
Mayor Co was advised early in January by Supervisor Hamilton that he supported use of
all or p rt of the County Court building for State and Federal leaislative offices and
was also open to discussions on the use of the Health building. Contact with State and
Federal lected officials has verbally brought favorable response in terms of their in-
terest i establishing their field offices at this location. Written indications of their
interest are currently being sought.
Current 'nformation as to County staff's position relative to future use of the buildings
has not Ben obtained, nor have they offered an opinion on the proposed use for legislative
field of ices. Correspondence from County staff in response to an inquiry from Supervisor
Hamilton in January only provided historical information on ownership, cost of construction
borne by the County in the early and late 1950's when the h1unicipal Court and Health
Building were constructed, and the deed restrictions contained in the deeds which essen-
tialy li it their use to "County governmental purposes or such other purposes as naturally
pertain o same." County staff is essentially still relying on a report that was made
in 1977, wherein County staff outlined various potential alternatives for the use of the
property including purchase by the City, gift-deeding of the property to the City, or
a cooper tive decision with the City whereby the property might be utilized for non-County
revenue producing uses compatible with the Civic Center. County staff has not officially
reacted to the suggestion that the County Court building be used for legislative offices.
However, they have unofficially indicated from their staff positions that they would have
to advise the County Board of Supervisors that the facilities and space are needed and
could b used for other County department operations. Past reports have pointed out that
the Dep rtment of Social Services is interested in using the Court building, and the
Departm nt of Health Services desires to remain in its present location as well as
utilizi g the Court building for health-related services. County staff does, however,
recoani a that a final decision on the future of one or both of the buildings is essentially
Form A-1~3 (Rev. 11/79) continued
Page 2, Item 11
h'eeting Date 3/9/82
a political one and they have therefore not pursued specific use of the Court building
until t ose political decisions are made.
I belie e the City Council should adopt a resolution asking the County to relinquish
their r'ghts in the former South Bay Court building and, further, that the City Council
declare its intent to use the building as legislative field offices for State and Federal
elected officials.
FIPJANCI L Ih1PACT
If the ounty gift-deeded this property to the City, potential lease/rental income could
be anti ipated.
EP,A: mab
~~ ~i~~Yy