Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988-03-16Mayor Jack Drago Counci 1: Mark N. Addiego Ri chard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room City Hal 1 March 16, 1988 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. I Side A) ROLL CALL: RECESS: --RECONVENED: Discussion to effect a Council position on the recommendation by a San Mateo County Task Force that the Northern Municipal Court complex in South San Francisco be the site for a new 125 bed jail on County owned land just north of the existing North County jail in the court complex off Old Mission Road. ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:03 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Addiego, Haffey, Nicolopulos, Teglia and Drago. None. Mayor Drago stated that he was recessing the meeting to the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, to accommodate all interested parties at 7:04 p.m. He instructed the City Clerk to put a notice to that effect on the Conference Room door and the entrance of City Hall. Mayor Drago reconvened the meeting at the Municipal Services Building at 7:16 p.m., all Council present. Mayor Drago requested the following: that the County representatives of the Task Force responsible for making the recommendation for the jail site explain the rationale to the public; after which there would be questioning by the Council; explanation of the City's legal rights were; what other methods of control the City had available; then mem- bers of the public could express their concerns; and then the Council would take a position, develop strategy, and give Staff direction. Vice Mayor requested that the County Officials identify themselves to the publ i c. Supervisor Griffin stated that she was present as a token representative of the Board of Supervisors, however, she had not been involved with the Task Force nor had the plans been presented to the Board. She stated that the Consultant, Mr. Brady, was not yet in attendance at 3/16/88 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. the meeting. She stated that the Board of Supervisors would be having a public hearing in con- junction with the study, and that it would be presented Tuesday at a 10:45 a.m. meeting, after which public testi- mony could be taken. She stated that the following people were in attendance to respond to any questions or concerns: Sheriff Cardoza, and Assistant County Manager Scannel. She stated that she would listen very care- fully, and carry back to the Board the essence of what she heard tonight from the citizens and City Council. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that the Council, at the last meeting, had requested a time frame on the Task Force process and nothing had been received. She stated that people this evening had just learned that there would be a public hearing on the 22nd - which was a very tight time frame for citizens of this community to be made aware of the jail facility recommendation. Supervisor Griffin stated that Proposition 52 did have some parameters, and that perhaps one of the County repre- sentatives could provide the information. She stated that if the public hearing was over crowded on Tuesday she was sure the time would be extended without jeopar- dizing any type of funding constraints. Vice Mayor Teglia suggested that Supervisor Griffin take back a message from the Council to postpone the 22nd hearing, at least for a week, so that the City would be well represented at the public hearing. Supervisor Griffin stated that if it could not be postponed, it could be con- tinued to another meeting. Sheriff Cardoza stated that the study was mandated by law and the Committee designated, and the study had been 3/16/88 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --1. Discussion - Continued. completed early this month. He stated that the Committee had looked at all alternatives available for beds needed for individuals incarcerated and jail facility sites. He stated that the following had been analyzed: jail trends; jail population profiles; jail projections; analysis of alternatives for incarceration, and present facility inventories. He stated that from that the Task Force had come up with alter- native recommendations for the building of new jail facilities to meet the needs of San Mateo County, and had come up with the recommendation to put the jail faci- lity at the present site of the Northern County Court House. Councilman Haffey questioned how many South San Francisco residents were on the Committee that did the study, and how the Committee was selected. Sheriff Cardoza stated that he did not believe anyone on the Committee was a South San Francisco resident. He stated that some members were mandated by law, such as the Sheriff, D.A., and a member of the Board of Supervisors, and some people from the public at large were selected by the Criminal Justice Counsel. He stated that there were twenty members on the Committee in total. Assistant County Manager Scannel stated that the State Board of Corrections was responsible for administering the funds, and set guidelines on who must be on the Committee: it must consist of a broad board representation of the local crimi- nal justice system; representatives of the County Government shall include, but not be limited to a representative of the Sheriff's Dept., the prosecution, defense, County Administration, public works or its equivalent, adult probation, City law enforcement, etc. Councilman Haffey stated that he found it ironic that South San Francisco was the third largest City in San Mateo County, and did not have one representative on 3/16/88 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. the Committee. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that she was contacted by a staff member of a can- didate from the last Council election, and that person had known in June that South San Francisco had been selected for the new jail facility - which was three months before the study was commissioned. Discussion followed: that the Committee did not include the Police Chief, a member of the Council or the community, and that it could be argued that it did not meet the criteria of the State; where the Council could get a list of the Committee members and the addresses of the cities represented, etc. Mayor Drago expressed concern over reference in the report of a North County Jail, when in reality it was a Predetention Facility. Mr. Richard Brady, Hughes, Heiss & Assoc., stated that the North County Facility was known by a number of names, the official name was the one Mayor Drago had mentioned; in the report it was referred to as the North County Jail as a method of shorthand. He stated that its function was that of a short term, pre- trial, prearraignment detention facility in which people are booked into and held for a few hours, and either released or sent down to the main jail in Redwood City, or they are held for short periods of time while that case is being heard in the County Court. Mayor Drago stated that when the Committee heard the facility being referred to as a jail it was not surprising that their recommendation was to put the jail site in South San Francisco. Mr. Brady stated that the committee discussed in depth each existing facility and its use on many occasions. He ~tated that a jail is a place in which people are held for having committed some crime 3/16/88 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. - arrested and brought into a facility. Councilman Halley stated that if the Council was to agree with Mr. Brady's definition of a jail, which was all encompassing - that a detention center was essentially a jail, then the holding facility in this building was also a jail. He continued, then by Mr. Brady's definition there were two jails in South San Francisco, and the Committee was making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a third jail. He stated that when he looked at the Committee con- siderations - that had not been a consideration. Mr. Brady stated that the two jails in this City represented less than five per- cent of the jail beds in this County, that is in spite of the fact that 1/3 of the inmates being held in custody in this County come from a definable region known as North County. He continued, in spite of the fact that 1/3 of the jail bookings in this County happen from a Northern County arresting agency. He stated that the Committee realized that there will be a great need for all types of jail beds in the County, par- ticularly for pretrial types of beds, given that it was extremely important to have a facility adjacent to a Court faci- lity, otherwise the Sheriff is going to have to expand his transportation staff. He stated that the study revealed that the jails were dangerous and extremely over crowded, and that given the trends of arrests and jail populations over the past 3 to 5 years the County would need almost twice the number of jail beds that it currently has, within ten to twenty years. He spoke in great detail of the existing jail beds in the County; that the Central Court was going to be closed down for processing; cost of transporting prisoners; the need for a new jail in close proximity to a Court; that the fac- tors of a new jail facility being adja- cent or near a Court would have to be 3/16/88 Page 5 Discussion - Continued. weighed by this City and the County for economic purposes. Discussion followed: on the time restraints before selection of the jail site; that the City had not had input into the study, even indirectly, etc. Councilman Nicolopulos noted that it was rare for the Council to get mad together as it was tonight in addition to the residents, and he felt that if the oppo- sition to the jail was measured properly, it would have a 15 rating. He stated that he would like to make a motion or a suggestion to the Council to ask cooperation from every agency con- cerned to have this jail facility placed adjacent to the San Francisco County facility in their present location in San Bruno. He stated that the new Mayor of San Francisco appeared to be trying to communicate with other Counties, and perhaps Sheriff Cardoza could communicate with the Sheriff of San Francisco and utilize the San Bruno site. Mayor Drago stated that he would like to expand and to clarify the phrase "not in my backyard" which would come out from this meeting. He continued, "but, what in my backyard, and why, in my backyard." He stated that the report should show the answers to those two questions, because he was not sure that the economics in the long run would prove to be true. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that Councilman Nicolopulos had presented an alternative that should be considered in the report. She stated that in the past there had been incidents where beds had been rented out to Santa Clara County, so a precedent had been set for sharing jail facilities. Mr. Brady stated that in conversations with the City and County of San Francisco it had been indicated quite bluntly that they did see regionalization as an option they were interested in pursuing. 3/16/88 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN -- 1. Discussion - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) Vice Mayor Teglia suggested looking at other County property to erect the jail, such as Tower Road or some other site for inmates that are already sentenced and don't have to travel back and forth to the Courts. Discussion followed: the criteria used by the Committee for selection of the jail site - economics, County owned land, and proximity to criminal justice system, especially the Courts; increased transportation cost of the Sheriff if the facility is not adjacent to a Court; that the overriding criteria was economics in the study, which was not the case with the residents of this community; that the proposed 125 bed jail site would be a relatively high security, a mixed use type of facility for pretrial and sen- tencing as proposed by the study; that there would be 60% unsentenced, and 40% sentenced inmates; that the unsentenced population would have a sentence of less than ten days; for the sentenced popula- tion, a sentence of 200 days; that the population characteristics of this County have been shifting towards the housing of people who have been sentenced for violent crimes, more violent drug related crimes or crimes against people and sen- tencing of 200 days; that the 125 beds could in reality house over 200 inmates by the Board of Corrections rating; the size and height of the proposed facility; what a 125 bed facility would be in square footage; that it would be somewhere between 100,000-150,000 square feet; that 125,000 square feet would be twice the size of the Municipal Services Building; that the building was projected to be two stories; had this City's planning criteria been considered for the jail site; that the City legally had no control over County and State property, but did have some control over the EIR; that it was not known what the projected view of the jail would be to the neigh- borhood or vice versa; that the detention facility had been proposed as having 17 beds, and now housed 33 inmates; why was it necessary to have a facility on that 3/16/88 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. site adjacent to a residential area with three schools, and a church; that the facility would house people, violent people with violent drug problems, who commit violent crimes against people and will be sentenced there for almost a year; that when prisoners were driven to the South San Francisco Detention Center because the Redwood City Jail was overcrowded, there were frequently 70-100 inmates in the facility; if a person was convicted and sentenced for one year in the County jail, he would serve nine months from the date he was arrested and back in his home ; that there were people out on bail that had committed murder, armed robbery, narcotics and rape charges that lived right next door to everyone; they go to Court in suit and tie, stand in the hallways, go to lunch at restaurants and sit next to people; that the Board of Supervisors had asked the Sheriff and all Department Heads to cut their budgets 5%; that the reduction in the Sheriff's Office amounted to $1,700,000; that it cost $236 a day to house an inmate; that transport of priso- ners by cities to Redwood City kept police officers off the street; that inmates had to have access to legal assistance and their families; that the City could play games and make it really difficult for the County to meet their deadlines for the jail construction; that if there were not jail facilities built in this County, and they are not commenced by the deadline of Proposition 52, there would be a Federal or State Court order telling the City that the jail would be built; that the Council did not disagree with the need for jail space, but questioned the study and the method to come to the recommendation of a jail facility in this City; that this City would never entertain the idea of cutting their public safety budget as the Board of Supervisors was ordering; whether the Committee had considered increasing existing jail sites rather than building a new facility; that Redwood City had beds for 297 men, and at times housed 500 which was dangerous for the Sheriff's 3/16/88 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. staff in the main jail; why South San Francisco had a 3 rating for opposition to the jail site;, etc. Mr. Jim Keegan, 1244 Crestwood Dr., complimented the Council for putting the County people to task for the recommen- dation, and questioned why $7,000,000 was to be spent when the Board would not pro- vide money to transport prisoners. He stated that the hearing before the Board of Supervisors at 10:45 a.m. on Tuesday would be inconvenient for all of the concerned South San Francisco resi- dents to attend in Redwood City. He suggested that a joint public hearing with the Board of Supervisors and City Council be held in this City in a high school auditorium in the evening to accommodate the many concerned citizens who wanted to give input. He stated that a precedent had been set with joint meetings on the South Slope. He stated that when unpopular decisions were made there was always a deadline that the Body wanted to meet, and he felt that this issue should be carefully weighed before a decision was made by the Board. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that she would move that the Council adopt that recom- mendation as a Body and made formally to Mrs. Griffin to ask that she carry that to the Board. Supervisor Griffin stated that would not be a problem, because the Board did not want to rush through this issue. Mrs. Joan Bonano stated that she lived in Sunshine Gardens, and questioned the following: in predetermination, how much land had the County acquired adjacent to the Court House and the purpose for the acquisition; visitors to the jail for an inmate sentenced to one year and their release in this City. She stated that thanks to Police Chief 3/16/88 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Discussion - Continued. Datzman the crime rate in this City was low, because of a very good police force. She stated that she worked for an attor- ney and dealt with police reports, and complimented the police reports prepared in this City. She thought that if a per- centage was taken of North County crime, she thought possibly Daly City would be number one. She stated that the Sheriff had stated that the jail housed 400 inmates when it had only been designed for 200, so if the proposed jail was meant for 125 - there would be 250. She stated that when the next election came up she hoped the resi- dents would start looking at the Supervisors rather than going after the Council candidates tooth and nail in order to have representation of its interests. Mr. Richard Blank expressed concern over the following: increased traffic on Grand Avenue from the jail; the event of a prisoner escaping after school was out and taking a child as a hostage; that residents were not aware of this recom- mendation for a jail in this City; that this use should not be allowed in a resi- dential neighborhood; the effect of a jail on home values. Mr. Jack Pacheco, 1106 Crestwood Dr., stated that the Redwood City jail was not in a residential area nor was San Francisco's jail. He stated that the area around the jails was run down and had many bail bond offices. He compli- mented the Council on a good job of expressing the concerns of the residents. Mr. Kevin McGill, 437 Forrestview Dr., stated that he had been raised in this City, and had recently purchased a home for his wife and child. He stated that he did not want a jail down the street from his home. He stated that he did not understand why anyone would want to put a jail around individual homes with churches and schools. He suggested that the jail be built on land fill away from 3/16/88 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. 02 the residential neighborhoods. He stated that homes in the area sold for $230,000, which would not be the case if the jail was built on Mission Road. Mr. Carl Johnson, 317 Holly Ave., stated that he bought his home last April, however, if he had known a jail would be built he would not have purchased the house. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To instruct the staff to prepare a Resolution very strongly indicating to the Board of Supervisors that South San Francisco is in opposition to the site of a jail on this particular location. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he would like the Council to seriously con- sider recommending the placement of the jail near or adjacent to the San Francisco jail site in San Bruno, and work to achieve that. Councilman Haffey stated that was an excellent suggestion, and suggested making another motion that the Board of Supervisors delay any action that they might want to take next Tuesday M/S Haffey/Teglia - That the Board of Supervisors delay any type of action regarding this matter. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned where his request figured in the Motion. Councilman Addiego stated that Councilman Nicolopulos' suggestion was the only constructive point that was raised this evening, and San Francisco might be interested in expanding their facility to serve both Counties. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that she had no problem with that suggestion, however, she did not want it to appear to the Board that the Council only considered 3/16/88 Page 11 AGENDA ACT'[ON TAKEN /aL] Discussion - Continued. A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE LOCATION OF A JAIL AT THE NORTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER AND SUGGESTING FURTHER EXPLORATION OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES GOOD AND WELFARE ,~o&$ b one alternative, because it was their responsibility to study some other sites. She requested that Councilman Nicolopulos' suggestion be incorporated into the Resolution, and the Board look at expansion of the Redwood City or La Honda jails. Mayor Drago stated that as taxpayers the residents would also like to know the cost factors involved. Vi ce Mayor Teglia stated that while the County may have authority to override South San Francisco, the Board should be cognizant of this City's General Plan which totally precludes a use of this sort in that area. City Clerk Battaya questioned if the Council was adopting a Resolution by title only that the City Attorney was to pre- pare, rather than directing the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution for the next Council meeting. Mayor Drago stated that the motion was to adopt the Resolution by title only. City Attorney Armento stated that the title would be a "Resolution Opposing the Location of a Jail at the North County Correctional Center and Suggesting Further Exploration of Other Alternatives." RESOLUTION NO. 31-88 Supervisor Griffin reiterated her agreement to urge her fellow Boardmembers to continue this matter on Tuesday, and also suggest the Board hold an evening meeting in South San Francisco for pur- poses of a hearing. Carried by unanimous voice vote. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. 3/16/88 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 010,5 CLOSED SESSION ® Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. RECALL TO ORDER ADJOURNMENT: CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:05 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 10:20 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:22 p.m RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. Barbara A. Battaya, Cityj~lerk City of South San Francisco Jack Drago, Mayor City of South San Francisco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 3/16/88 Page 13