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