Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 11-24 CC MIN222 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 24, 1981 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Mayor Morgan. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan, Absent: Dalia. Administrative officials present: Ballard, Campbell, Gerschler, Grahl, McCabe, McLean. SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with salute to the flag led by City Manager McCabe followed with invocation by the Rev. Milo Wood, First Baptist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 1981 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalia. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS THELMA ALMSON, 218 %, 9th St. (477-9418) was present and said the residents at 910 Hoover are stacking old lumber 4 and 5' high in the yard; this is an eyesore and a fire hazard; trucks and other equipment are being parked in the yard and are leaking gasoline. City Manager McCabe said he would check this out tomorrow. ALLEN MORRELL, Imperial Beach, was present and said he is a helicopter operator working out of Montgomery Field; Colton Piano & Organ asked him to land a helicopter carrying Santa Claus on December 5, Discussion. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Van Deventer, this be referred to staff for a recommendation and be brought back at the next regular meeting. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalia, PUBLIC HEARINGS The JOINT PUBLIC HEARING before the City Council and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City on the REDEVELOPMENT PLAN and the RELOCATION PROGRAM for the National City DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT was held at this time. The Community Development Meeting was convened at this time. Roll Call: Members present: Camacho, Waters, Vice Chairman Van Deventer, Chairman Morgan. Absent: Dalla. The City Clerk reported, for the record, there were six written protests. �1Flora F. Knight 1441 L Ave., National City CA 92050 1'Re: Redevelopment Plan November 24, 1981 "In as much as the land we own is with in this boundary I would like to state that I object to the City of National City being in the REALESTATE BUSINESS, I object to the City's acquisition of our property, relocation of our home our tentents, demolition of our buildings, preparation of sites, installation of offsite improvements and the RESALE of OUR LAND FOR PRIVATE AND INCIDENTAL PUBLIC USE. 11/24/81 223 "For the past twenty five years we have requested aid on a 1911 act to improve M Avenue, a once usable street until the city raised 16th Street and installed a 36 inch drain pipe. Now the City of National City expects us to pay for the raising of our property to the height of the street and the cost of the 36 inch pipe that was not needed before the street was raised. I feel the City of National City has caused enough hardship on us and our land and before the city starts more projects it should complete what it started when it raised 16th Street. "Before National City went into REAL ESTATE BUSINESS the people bought and paid for their own homes and the people that could not afford to buy property did not live in National City. The City of National City has lowered the standard of living by the use of Olive Wood area. National City moved the people out of the property west of National Avenue and resold their land to private people at a profit to the City. To me that profit should have gone to the people that owned the land NOT the CITY. By the year 2000 the City of National City will own all of the land in National City, or resold it at a profit over and over. /.; j Flora F. Knight '' / Community Development Commission 1243 National City Blvd. National City, California 92050 '`Gentlemens '1248 Coolidge Avenue National City, California November 20, 1981 of the City of National City "As a property owner in National City I agree that the downtown area of the City of National City needs to be cleaned up. However, I do object to Section (a) which includes the entire city in this proposal and subsections (3) and (4) of Section (e), "Why should the City acquire these properties and demolish the buildings at the taxpayers expense? "Why just the area between 7th Street and 9th Street on National City Blvd.? Why not include the block on National City Blvd. between 9th Street and Plaza Blvd.? Also, ahy the parcels on National City Blvd. at the corners of 22nd Street, 26th Street and 30th Street? How about the northeast corner of 25th Street and National City Blvd.? It would appear that only certain prime locations are being singled out for redevelopment at this time. WHICH PROPERTIES WILL BE NEXT? No mention is made as to the proposed method of sale, terms of sale or planned future use of these locations. "A simple solution to this problem, in my estimation, would be to enact laws to restrict the blighting types of business which are presently permitted in the downtown area, adult bookstores, X-rated movies, pawn shops and bars. Then provide low interest loans to the property owners to remodel and clean up their property, thereby encouraging respectable business to return to this area. "How could it take twenty five years to complete this project? 11/24/81 224 "Are the taxpayers expected to finance the $20 million dollars estimated total cost? - "I am opposed to the city purchasing privately owned property in the name of redevelopment or any other name. The property owners of National City will never know when their property may be singled out as the next parcel to be redeveloped. If this proposed redevelopment plan is adopted, no investor in his right mind would purchase property in this area. *One National City Taxpayer, // Jane E. Dale " '`Nov. 19, 1981 Mr. Campbell: "I am to refer to you with my objections on the proposed redevelopment plan for National City, CA. "My home is one included in the plans. "It is the only property my husband left me and my children for our future, We have worked hard to pay the mortgage, taxes and to be remodeled, We asked for no assistance for this, We worked hard for it. I object immensely against it being taken away from us for someone else's profit and gain. "I also object to the so called existing blightness of my neighborhood. It is not a rich one, just a middle- class, Yours truly /_/Mrs, Martha Hernandez' 41239 E. 30th Street National City, CA 92050 Nov. 24, 1981 %'Re: Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the National City Downtown Redevelopment Project (merger of E. J. Christman, South Bay Town and Country, and Center City Redevelopment Projects) "National City Redevelopment Commission National City, California '' Gentlemen: "We have read the Final Environmental Impact Statement and other material relative to the Proposed National City Redevelopment Project, and were also very fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Morrow, whose explanations made the project objectives and procedures much more clear to us. As far as we understand the proposal we have no objection to it, but we do have several questions which we feel should be clarified or which we would like to have answered. 11/24/81 225 "1) We are concerned with the possibility that the inclusion of the major part of the older residential areas in the Redevelopment Project could result in piecemeal condemnation of small homes which are perfectly safe, sanitary, and well kept, but which would 'generate greater tax revenue' were the land converted to commercial use. 2) Having approximately half of the city in a redevelopment area could very well make it difficult for individual property owners to obtain loans for building, or for buyers to obtain financing because of the uncertainty of the future of the property. 3) Paradoxically, it might also lead to land speculation by people who looked forward to the usually high compensation for condemned property. "There seems to be considerable concern on the part of home- owners that city ordinance No. 1420, which seems to assure home owners that no resident of the area bounded by National Avenue (National City Blvd.) 8th Street, 24th Street and Interstate 5 would be dislocated from his permanent home, the protection of residents in other areas is rather vague. Certainly Ordinance 1420 does not give people to opportunity to vote on redevelopment projects as did Ordinance 1169, nor does it promise that homes will not be condemned, as did #1169. "We understand that the assessed value (and taxes) of all properties acquired by the CDC are 'frozen' at the time of acquisition and remain so until the property is redeveloped and sold or leased. Apparently this means that a) no taxes are paid to any taxing authority (city, county, water districts, schools, etc.) during the period of redevelopment. Does this mean that in case an old project which is practically mature and ready to be a source of tax revenue, when consolidated with newer projects, would then continue as a non -source of revenue for schools, etc? We understand that the CDC may, if so desired, pay directly to various taxing authorities such as school districts (but not to the city itself) a sum of money in lieu of taxes. Has this been the practice here? Yours truly, Alfred J. Hlawatsch° {National City, California November 23, 1981 To: The CITY COUNCIL of the City of National City From: John D. Mann, 130 East 28th St., National City "Subject: Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the National City Downtown Redevelopment Project `Reference: Ordinance No. 1169 dated 13th day of June 1967 "This Redevelopment Plan brings the threat of condemnation and eviction by Right of Eminent Domain to every home owner within its boundaries. "Project boundaries should be redefined and limited to area 'A' and 'severely blighted' adjoining nonresidential areas. 11/24/81 226 "Any and all redevelopment programs and any amendments thereto should first be submitted to the qualified voters of the City as promised by the City Council in Ordinance No. 1169. "Ordinance No, 1169 was passed by the City Council in order to get voter approval of what is now known as The E. J. Christman Business and Industrial Park. - "From Ordinance No. 1169: 'BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that no redevelopment program shall be undertaken by the National City Redevelopment Agency or the City Council of the City of National City without first submitting the issue to the qualified voters of the City so that the will of the people may be ascertained and obeyed.' "Ordinance No, 1169 was repealed April 23, 1974 The Mayor and two Councilmen who voted for that repeal make up a majority of the present City Council. "If promises made to get voter approval of one redevelopment project can be so easily repealed; Of what value are promises made in or in support of this redevelopment plan?" "It is suggested that the City Council submit the NATIONAL CITY DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN together with an alternative plan with project boundaries limited and redefined to eliminate all residential areas and to include only ACQUISITION AREA 'A' and 'severely blighted' non- residential, adjoining areas to the voters of National City for their decision.. Yours sincerely, ,. 4 John D, Mann " HITT, HARTWELL & KNIGHT Attorneys at Law HITT, HARTWELL & KNIGHT PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 1466 NINTH AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 November 24, 1981 /'City of National City Community Development Commission 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 92050 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Members of the City Council and Community Development Commission: "I am making this statement of objections on behalf of my clients, Ms. Jean Clark and Mr, Arthur and Mrs. Valerie Fast. Ms, Clark is the owner of Frontier Motors which is proposed to be acquired as a part of Acquisition Area B. Mr. and Mrs, Fast own the Santa Fe Motel which is also located in Acquisition Area B," 11/24/81 227 "According to the Plan, Mr. and Mrs. Fast's and Ms. Clark's properties would become a part of the 'Mile of Cars'. Specifically, Frontier Motors would be acquired with the stated purpose and intent of conveying it to a new car dealer, "Mr. Arnold A. Peterson, executive director and secretary of the Community Development Commission, was kind enough to discuss with me my clients' concerns via a telephone conversation on November 23, 1981, I stated as my clients' main concerns, the following: 1. An owner is effectively barred from participation in the redevelopment. 2, The property is devalued as a result of the initiation of acquisition proceedings. 3. The acquisitions are inconsistent with the Constitution and the Plan itself. 4, The property has been undervalued for the purposes of acquisition, W1. AN OWNER IS EFFECTIVELY BARRED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE REDEVELOPMENT "California Health & Safety Code, Section 33380 provides that 'An agency shall permit owner participation , .. . in conformity with the redevelopment plan . . . .' "In fact, as Mr. Peterson explained to me, such participation is impossible; the scope of the project requires that the land of several property owners be assembled. Therefore, since Ms. Clark's car dealership is on piece of property which is too small to accomodate a new car dealership, she is effectively barred from participating in the redevelopment.' "The result is that the small property owner who has labored over the years to provide herself with an honest income is now being told to scram so that big business can increase its profits. p`2. THE PROPERTY IS DEVALUED AS A RESULT OF THE INITIATION OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS "No one wants to purchase a property that is slated for acquisition by the city, The problem for the owner threatened with such acquisition is evident; he cannot sell his property at any price, let alone a favorable negotiated price. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place; even though he is demoralized by the uncertainty of whether or not he can continue to depend on his livelihood, he must somehow keep going until his property is acquired and swept into the tide of redevelopment. "Although Mr. Peterson stated to me that Ms. Clark's property would probably be acquired in April, she has no assurance that this is true, In fact, the Plan controls shall exist for some 25 years. For all Ms. Clark knows, she could be stuck for months, or even years, with a property she couldn't sell to a third party. The plan to eliminate blight then becomes itself a monger of blight.' 11/24/81 228 "In addition, this uncertainty could affect the business of the used car lot resulting in lost city revenues; potential customers could be unwilling to purchase from a vendor that they know will be out of business, "'3, THE ACQUISITIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PLAN ITSELF "Under the plan, Ms, Clark's used car dealership, which has been in her family since 1941, would be acquired from her so that it could be reacquired at highly favorable terms by the owner of a new car dealership,. "In essence, the Community Development Plan carries out the designs of a confused Robin Hood; it acquires property from the small, less wealthy landowner, and hands it over on very favorable terms to the wealthy, and growing wealthier, larger businesses. "No one should forget that one of our fundamental constitutional rights as citizens of the United States is the right to own real property, The Constitution provides that the government cannot deprive a landowner of his land except for a public use, "The Plan alleges the acquired property would be put to public use, In truth, the ultimate and primary beneficiary of this Plan would be the owner of the new car dealership, He, not the public, will acquire use and benefit from the property. "Mr. Peterson has indicated to me that the bases for the acquisition are community policy and politics. Policy and politics are not constitutional grounds for the acquisition of private property by the city, "Finally, the acquisition of these properties is inconsistent with the Plan, Although one of the avowed purposes of the Plan is to stimulate and attract private investments, it would seem that a private investor would be wary of investing large sums of money in a community where a community development commission could decide at any time that his business did not constitute, in fact, the highest and best use, In addition, the length of the Plan, 25 yeaxs, promotes economic instability, Furthermore, the Plan provides for the creation of hotel and motel centers and assumes a concomitant increase in the tax base, Acquisition of the Santa Fe Motel would be inconsistent simply because it presently fits in with the Plan: not only because of its use, but also because it contributes $15,000 a year in room and property taxes, 44, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDERVALUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION "The owners of acquired property are traditionally under - compensated for the loss of their real property. Thas has been so in spite of the fact that along with the requirement of public use the Constitution requires that an owner receive just compensation for the taking, In the case of a personal residence, a homeowner can never be adequately compensated for the loss of his familiar surroundings, In the case of a business such as Ms. Clark's, which provides the income that she lives on each month, and which has been a part of her family for 40 years, compensation equal to a low appraised value of the real property itself is not adequate, In 11/24/81 229 relation to the Santa Fe Motel, I discussed with Mr. Peterson the problem of compensation for good will. He indicated that it was the burden of the homeowner to assert and prove the good will. This policy makes business for lawyers but for the property owner who does not seek legal advice, it can mean giving up his property and business for a mere fraction of what they are worth. "I appreciate very much the opportunity to express my clients' concerns, Mr. Peterson indicated to me that he had recommended in writing to the Council that the Santa Fe Motel not be acquired. Of course, it is my hope that they follow this recommendation, In addition, I would ask that the Council and the Commission carefully consider their obligations as representatives of the business people of National City, whether they be small or large. Even more persuasive, I feel, is the requirement that the acts of this Council and the Commission comply with the federal and state law. ''Very truly yours, "HITT, HARTWELL & KNIGHT Patrice B. Rinaldo' Arnold Peterson, Executive Director and Secretary of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City was present and said: "I would like to introduce the public hearing by explaining the National City Downtown Redevelopment Project in terms of what is proposed and what is not. - "I have distributed to each person present a copy of each of the following from the proposed Redevelopment Project: "(1) Project Boundary Map, Exhibit 1 (2) Land Acquisition Map, Exhibit 4 "(3) Redevelopment Land Use Map, Exhibit 5 "NOTICE: Notice was sent, certified return receipt, to each owner of property within the proposed project area as required by law. 4,287 notices were sent. All letters returned and unsigned were resent, The Public Notice is the one included in the Report to the City Council. Each owner of real property whose property may be acquired by the Community Development Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan was sent a separate Notice so stating and including the Project Area Boundary Map, Exhibit 1 of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Land Acquisition Map, Exhibit 4 of the Redevelopment Plan. One Notice returned (DHL Realty, Inc,, Parcel A-22) was re -sent. The Public Notice was published once each week for 5 weeks prior to this hearing in the National City Star News. "THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Thomas C. Morrow, Assistant Director, Redevelopment, of the Community Development Commission will point to the Project Boundary Map and to the Land Acquisition Map*as I make reference to the information shown on these maps. '°a. The boundaries of the proposed National City Downtown Redevelopment Project are the National City north city limit on the North, the south * On file in the office of the City Clerk 11/24/81 city limit on the south, the westerly line of 1-805 on the East (excluding County land in Lincoln Acres) and the easterly line of 1-5 on the west. The Project Boundary is shown on Exhibit 1 by the arrows, Pb. The objectives of the proposed Project are: (1) (2) (3) 230 Eliminate blight, blighting influences, and environmental deficiencies. Maintain a sound and diversified economic base. Establish land uses which will best promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of all citizens of the community. "SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The scope is: 4 a. to merge E. J. Christman Business & Industrial Park I Redevelopment Project E. J. Christman Business & Industrial Park I Redevelopment Project, Amendment II South Bay Town & Country Redevelopment Project Center City Redevelopment Project for a total of 100 acres 75 acres 30 acres 100 acres 305 acres into the total Project Area which is 2,080 acres. The total Project Area is approx. 38% of the City's Area. "b. To continue the Home Improvement Loan Program within the Project Area, to continue the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program within the Project Area, and to do public works improvements in connection with Home Improvement Loans and otherwise within the Project Area. "c. To redevelop land at the locations shown on the Land Acquisition Map, Exhibit 4, for the uses shown on the Redevelopment Land Use Map, Exhibit 5. Persons present have these exhibits in their hands. Redevelopment means acquisition by the Community Development Commission, relocation of businesses, families, individuals, demolition of buildings, preparation of sites and the resale of the land to private redevelopers for the planned uses subject to Community Development Commission approval of development plans prior to construction of new buildings. -d. The duration of the proposed Project, including the existing Projects to be merged, is 25 years. The estimated total cost to complete the Project is $20 million. This includes $18.2 million in tax allocations or tax increments or bonds repaid by tax increments and $1.8 million in Community Development Block Grant Funds anticipated to be received over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. 11/24/81 f. 231 e. Jurisdiction, The Community Development Commission presently has jurisdiction, in varying degrees, within the existing redevelopment projects. The Community Development Commission would have jurisdiction under the National City Downtown Redevelopment Plan over land included for acquisition and shown on the Land Acquisition Map and on the Redevelopment Land Use Map. All other land within the Project Boundary, described in the Plan as Neighborhood Improvement Areas is land over which the Community Development Commission will not have jurisdiction and control. This is specifically and clearly provided at page 10 of the Redevelopment Plan, Within Neighborhood Improvement Areas the Community Development Commission may not under the Plan acquire real property through the use of the power of eminent domain or the threat of the use of the power of eminent domain. This is also clearly stated at page 10 of the Redevelopment Plan. Financing, The basic financing method of the Project is the increased property taxes from within the Project Area. If this Redevelopment Plan is adopted the Assessor's value of the property within the Project Area will be "frozen". This is called the frozen tax base. Taxing entities will continue to get their portion of taxes from this frozen base. The increases in value resulting from the 2% per year permitted by law, from property transfers which are taxed at 1% of sales,or purchase price, and new development taxed at 1% of value. These increased amount will go to the Community Development Commission to finance project activities as described in the Redevelopment Plano No new property taxes are proposed. These taxes are limited by Prop. 13. There is a diversion, in effect of the increased amount of property tax revenue to the Community Development Commission to finance the Redevelopment Project. THE REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL "The Report contains the following: 1. Notice of Public Hearing 2. Council Agenda Statement '3. The proposed Ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan 4. The Redevelopment Plan '•5, The Relocation Program ,6. The Preliminary Plan adopted by the Planning Commission April 13, 1981 and amended October 12, 1981. 7. Report of the Planning Commission on the Redevelopment Plan finding that the Plan meets requirements of California Community Redevelopment Law and that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with General Plan of the City, '8. Recommendatmn of the Committee for Housing & Community Development that the Redevelopment Plan be adopted. 9. Financial estimates Cost estimate Tax increment projection Redeveloper letters of interest Land Reuse Potentials -Lobar 10. Community Development Commission Design Review Procedures adopted October 13, 1981. 11/24/81 232 ''11. Community Development Commission policies governing owner participation and re-entry of businesses on redevelopment land. 12, Resolutions of the City Council establishing the Survey Area. "13. Blight Summary and Report: Blight in acquisition areas Blight in Neighborhood Improvement Areas (28% of structures need rehabilitation) Public improvements and public facilities deficiencies 14. Fiscal Reports: Report of County Fiscal Officer Report of Fiscal Review Committee 15. Environmental Impact Report Community Development Commission approved Final EIR/EIS on November 17, 1981. 16. My memo to you of November 23, 1981. "I repeat that this Plan does not permit the Community Development Commission to acquire property by condemnation except within the existing Redevelopment Projects and for the parcels listed on the Land Acquisition Map, "Owners of property within the conservation or neighborhood improvement area need not be concerned about the Community Development Commission condemning their homes because the Redevelopment Plan precludes that. The effect of the Redevelopment Plan in the neighborhoods is home loans, housing assistance payments and public improvements.» "PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED: I will review each property proposed to be acquired as shown on the Land Acquisition Map, Exhibit 4, and Mr. Morrow will point to each as shown on the blow up of Exhibit 4: Occupant(s) ,The Westerner Westerner Steak House Golden Barrel Apartments (about 5) Escalante Liquor P & L Club Vacant Lot Brandy's Bar Community Youth Athletic Assoc. Town Club Corral Vacant (Harold's Club) Acquisition Parcel(s) Names of Owner(s) A-1, 2,3, & 8 ft ►t n A-4 ft A-5 Harold F. & Ruby C. Dodd ft ft ft Gilardo Velis & Inez M. Escalante t Faith Frikart A-6 Community Development Commission tt tt ►t ft If If A-7 Patricia M. Harris & Margot McKinley Vacant A-9, A-1O George Armour Ury 11/24/81 Occupants) Acquisition Parcel(s) Vacant Bldg. A-11 Tatooing A•.12 Storage, Big Ben Market Mario's Pizza A-14 Mario's Sports Bar Dream Crystal A-15 Richard's Chop Sticks Nina's Restaurant Tahiti Restaurant Lawyer-Atogado National City Bookstore Chuck's Books Vision Records & Tapes A-1 Bowling Trophy Good Food Thrift Store Fuji Foods "Club Melody ' Antonio's Disco Fraser Drugs J. C. Furniture 11 " 11 A-16 11 11 A-17 A-19, 20, 21 A-22 A-23 1 " Checks Cashed A-24 Grandpa's General Store w. C. Ledford Painting Co. `Frontier Motors 'Santa Fe Motel La Siesta Motel "La Morena Liquor (Vacant) Sweetwater Inn Rental Unit 233 Names of Owner(s) Steve & Shirley J. Asaro Eugene Glass If Eleanor S. Hazard Eleanor S. Hazard Richard D. & Betina K. Dare /1 ft Yoshiko Grasser 11 11 Fifth Ave. Holding Co.. 11 Yoshiko Grasser 1, " Floyd Hicks DHL Realty Eugene Glass " Jerry Gausepohl, Fredrich Gausepohl, Norbert Gausepohl & Evelyn Gausepohl A-25, 26, 27 Wm. C. Ledford & Deane Ledford Jean Clark Arthur D. & Valerie E. Fast Nicholas F. & Stephanie F. Debbas McMillin Development Inc. Raymond & Frances M. Kenny " "There are a total of four households or 46 transient occupancies in the above listed properties. 28 of these transient occupancies are in the Santa Fe Motel at the northeast corner of 22nd Street and National City Blvd. (Parcel 8-2). 11/24/81 234 "PROPOSED RE -USE OF PROPERTY: "Mr. Morrow will point to the reuse areas on the Redevelopment Land Use Map as I refer to these areas. 'Redevelopment is proposed on the property to be acquired as follows: +'Area A --Northwest corner, 1 block, 100 unit motor hotel with restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, sauna, Jacuzz:. and other amenities. --Northeast corner and Southeast corner, Office buildings. --Southwest corner, another 100 unit motor motel, on the whole block. B. New vehicle dealership. Mile of cars. C. New vehicle dealership. Mile of cars. 'D. New vehicle dealership. Mile of cars. E. General commercial. Offices, financial institution, retail sales." "This completes my introduction." Discussion. ROBERT CASILLAS, 1102 Olive Ave., was present and asked what would happen after the Downtown Redevelopment Project was completed. Mayor Morgan assured him there are no other plans. PATRICE RINALDO, Attorney representing Jean Clark, owner of Frontier Motors and Arthur and Valerie Fast, owners of the Santa Fe Motel, was present and said her main concern is the City taking private property from private owners and giving it to other private owners; this is an unconstitutional act; in order for the City to exercise its power and take the property, it should be for public use. Ms. Rinaldo further stated that this redevelopment program will devaluate the properties; no one would buy the properties if they know they can be acquired by the City; the uncertainty regarding these properties could last for 25 years. JANE DALE, 1248 Coolidge Ave., was present and asked if the City planned to relocate the businesses in National City. CDC Executive Director, Arnold Peterson, said that although the City assists these businesses financially, it does not find new locations for each business; that is up to the individual businesses, Discussion. The Rev. JOSEF DE ERULE, 543 National City Blvd., was present and said he is in favor of the downtown redevelopment; there are numerous fights in his neighborhood; he has been beaten up and robbed; his cars have been vandalized; people are afraid to come into National City for fear of being mugged. IRMA RATANNA, 1630-32 Harding was present and said she is concerned about the rights of property owners in the future; what is to stop the Land Development Commission from confiscating additional property in the *.11 ;:urfa Mayor Morgan caid under the present law, the City cannot do it; the C*ty cannot take one square foot of land more than what is shown on the map. GLORIA DITCH, was present and said a year and a half ago, the small house on the back of the property she and her mother own burned down; they wanted to rebuild it in better condition than it was so they could rent it out; the City would not give her a permit to rebuild because she refused to give the City 10, of the property. Mayor Morgan recommended Ms. Ditch come in and talk to Planning Director Gerschler�., Discussion. ROBERT CASILLAS returned to the podium and said his understanding is the City is only going to redevelop the downtown area; the rest of the City was committed in order to get more funding and asked if, possibly in ten years, a new Mayor or a new Council could take the other property. Mayor Morgan said they could not do it. City 11/24/81 235 Attorney McLean said a redevelopment plan requires a public hearing, giving everyone an opportunity to comment on the plan; the plan that is adopted binds the Council until the plan is changed by the same process; the adoption of the plan and the Ordinance approving the project is subject to referendum; your protection is the ballot box. Discussion. RICHARD ENRIQUES, 1414 Harding, was present and asked how individuals who did not need home improvement loans would benefit from this redevelopment project. Mayor Morgan replied it would clean up the down- town area and build up the image of National City which has been bad for the past 25-50 years. Discussion. Councilman Van Deventer said by cleani:: up the image of National City, property values will increase. KEN BAUMGARTNER, Corky McMillan Co., 2727 Hoover, was present and said they own La Morena Liquor Store on 30th St., which has been "settling"; he agreed with declaring this area blighted, but asked that the City give them a fair market value for their property and if, through investigation into the "settling" situation, additional properties were impacted, could these additional properties be included in the redevelopment plan without further public hearings. Mayor Morgan said that would be impossible. SALVADOR VASQUEZ, 203 W. 9th, was present and spoke of the crime problems on 8th and National. Mayor Morgan said we are trying to alleviate the problems in this area. JOHN DALE, 1248 Coolidge was present and asked if this particular proposal would be on the next ballot. City Attorney McLean clarified his statement, saying that if there is sufficient discontent in the community over the adoption of this Ordinance, a referendum election can be called by the citizens; this is the ultimate protection. NICHOLAS DEBBAS, Thunderbird Lane, La Jolla, was present and said he is the owner of the La Siesta Motel at 26th and National City Blvd., and he is in favor of the Redevelopment Plan, ALFRED HLAWATSCH, 1239 E. 30th, was present and congratulated Council on the Plaza Bonita Shopping Center. Mr. Hlawatsch said a developer is talking about putting in a shopping center on 30th, across from a residential area; both the Sweetwater Shopping Center and South Bay Plaza have empty stores; we don't need another shopping center; it is wrong to take a natural canyon and put in a shopping center that we don't need. RICHARD TORRES, 1502 'L' Ave., was present and said if the "undesirables were moved out of the blighted areas, the areas of the City where they relocate will become blighted. Councilman Van Deventer stated that with our zoning laws, these businesses will not be able to relocate in National City. No one else was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Public Hearing be closed and staff's recommendation be approved (1. Certify that the City Council has considered the Final EIR/EIS for the Project as prepared by MSAL Inc., San Diego. and as approved by the CDC: 2. Certify that the City Council has considered the report of the CDC to the City Council and has considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelooment Plan for the National City Downtown Redevelopment Project,;-3. Follow the recommendation of the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission that the,Redevelopment Plan for the Project not include the acquisition of the Santa Fe Motel, Parcel B-2 on the Land Acquisition Map consis ing,of 13,054 sq. ft. of land owned by Arthur D. and Valerie E. Fast. Carried by unanimous vote,. Absent: Dalla. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the written protests become a part of the minutes. Carried by unanimous vote, Absent: Dalla. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the Community Development meeting be recessed until the conclusion of the City Council meeting. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Mayor Morgan called a five-minute recess at 8:26 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Absent. Dalla. 11/24/81 236 The PUBLIC HEARING on AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 13,404 by Resolution 13,671, Alleys 31, 30 and 105, District No. 208 (The amendment is to increase the construction estimate, raise the City contribution, and change the interest rate from 6% to 10% to be in line with the bond market; written protests are required and the protest can only address the amended items; Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Continue the hearing for a maximum of 30 days at a time, 2. Close the hearing and overrule protests and direct the work to proceed, 3, Abandon the project, 4. Direct staff to revise the project and proceed; City contribution - $9,615.00, budgeted - $7,000,00, to be funded - $2,615.00; unfunded contribution to be funded prior to award of contract; staff recommends one of the above alternatives be adopted) was held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Affidavit of Mailing, Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Posting were on file, City Attorney McLean said in the original proceedings the bonds were not at the currently authorized interest rate and the principal purpose of this amendment to the Resolution of Intention is to take advantage of the new interest rates so that the bonds will be saleable and the profit feasible. ROBERT ONLEY, Engineering Staff Assistant, was present and displayed a map of the exterior boundaries of District No. 208, showing the areas to be improved; Alley No. 31 runs between 12th and what would be llth, and 'C' and 'B' Avenues; Alley No. 50 is between Highland Ave. and what would be 'I' Ave., and 15th and 16th Streets; Alley No. 105 is between 23rd and 24th Streets, and Highland Ave, and 'I' Ave.; two protests were received on Alley No, 105. No one was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Public Hearing be closed and this referred to staff. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dallas The PUBLIC HEARING on AMENDING of RESOLUTION NO. 13,425 by Resolution No, 13,672, District No. 209, Alleys No. 75, 79 and 90 (The amendment raises the estimate, increases the City contribution and raises the bond rate from 6% to 10%; written protests are required, addressing the amended items; Council may take one of the following actions: 1, Continue the hearing for a maximum of 30 days at a time, 2. Close the hearing, overrule all protests and direct the work to proceed, 3. Abandon the project, 4. Direct the staff to revise the project and proceed; City contribution - $24,043.28, Budget - $6,500.00, to be funded - $17,543,28; unfunded contribution to be funded prior to award of contract; staff recommends adoption of one of the above alternatives) was held at this time, The City Clerk reported the Affidavit of Mailing, Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Posting were on file, City Attorney McLean said in the original proceedings the bonds were not at the currently authorized interest rate and the principal purpose of this amendment to the Resolution of Intention is to take advantage of the new interest rates so that the bonds will be saleable and the profit will be feasible. ROBERT ONLEY, Engineering Staff Assistant was present and displayed a map of the exterior boundaries of District No. 209, showing the areas to be improved; on Alley No. 79, there were 4% protests, on Alley No. 90, there were 34% protests, No one was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seccr.ded by Van Deventer, the Public Hearing be closed be referred to staff, Discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. osent: Dalia. The PUBLIC HEARING on proposed AMENDMENT to TITLE 18 (zoning) of the National City Municipal Code to allow ADDITIONAL USES within the COMMERCIAL TOURIST ZONE (CT) and the COMMERCIAL TOURIST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE (CT-PD), Case File No. A-6-81 (On October 26, 1981, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that they amend Title 18 [zoning] to allow additional "personal service" uses in the CT and CT-PD zone, including travel agency, barber shop, beauty shop, dry cleaning, shoe shine shop [indoor] and cosmetologist; the CT and CT-PD zones are intended to provide areas catering specifically to the needs of automobile oriented trade, such as transient accomodations and services; in addition to hotels and motels, these zones should also 11/24/81 237 include convenience and personal service establishments for guests in close proximity to the hotels and motels; this code amendment will allow "personal services" as a primary use of a property in the CT and CT-PD zone; staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of this amendment) was held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Certificate of Publication was on file. Planning Director Gerschler reported the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. No one was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, the Public Hearing be closed, the proposed amendment to Title 18 be approved and ail stipulations of staff be adhered to. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. The PUBLIC HEARING on proposed AMENDMENT to TITLE 18 (zoning) of the National City Municipal Code to add AMUSEMENT ARCADES to USE GROUP 6 of Appendix D of the National City Land Use Code, Case File No. A-7-81 (On October 26, 1981, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that they adopt an Ordinance amending the Land Use Code to add Amusement Arcade to Use Group 6 [Commercial Recreation - Indoor] of Appendix D, amend the definition of Amusement Arcade and strike the term "Penny Arcade" from Use Group 5 of Appendix D; Planning Commission further recommends that all Amusement Arcades be required to acquire Conditional Use Permits so that the Commission and Council will have the opportunity to review each request individually; May Centers initiated this code amendment in order to locate an Amusement Arcade in Plaza Bonita; currently the Land Use Code does not permit amusement arcades in the CSC zone; the Planning Commission found that Amusement Arcades are similar to those uses in Use Group 6 rather than Use Group 5; the Commission also determined that "Penny Arcade" is an outdated term and should be stricken from the code; staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation) was held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Certificate of Publication was on file. Planning Director Gerschler reported the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. No one was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the Public Hearing be closed and all stipulations of staff be adhered to. Discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. ^.- Absent: Dada. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the Resolutions be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. The Engineer's report on Alley No. 80, District No. 214 (construction costs - $34,898.12, incidental costs - $5,065.88, total project - $39,964.00, City contribution - $5,013.00, assessment - $34,951.00; the City contribution includes those items previously approved as to grade and/or location by the City; the above estimates are based on 10% bond rate; this project was ordered too late to have a confirmed estimate for the 81-82 budget; incidental funds are available; City contribution of $2,000, Acct. 09-934 FY 81-82; funds required to be budgeted prior to awar0 of contract; staff recommends this report be accepted) was presentee, Moved by Waters, seconded by Van Deventer, ty Engineer's rep:r : be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Dalla. Resolution No. 13,686, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING PLAT SHOWING EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Alley No. 80 from 18th to 20th Streets, between Grove and Prospect Streets, Assessment District No. 214)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No. 13,686 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Resolution No. 13,687, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (Alley No. 80, from 18th to 20th Streets between Grove Street and Prospect Street, Assessment District No. 214)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No. 13,687 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. 11/24/81 238 Resolution No. 13,688, "Resolution authorizing determination to proceed on improvement of Alley No, 80, District No. 214." was on the agenda in error. Resolution No. 13,689, "RESOLUTION OF INTENTION (Alley No. 80, from 18th to 20th Streets, between Grove Street and Prospect Street, Assessment District No. 214)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No, 13,689 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Resolutin No. 13,690, "RESOLUTION ORDERING WORK (Alley No. 31, 50 and 105, Assessment District No. 208)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No. 13,690 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Resolution No. 13,691, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING WAGE SCALE (Alley No, 31, 50 and 105, Assessment District No. 208)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No, 13,691 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalia. Resolution No. 13,692, "RESOLUTION ORDERING 4tORK (Alley No. 75, 79 and 90, Assessmext District No, 209)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No. 13,692 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Resolution No. 13,693, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING WAGE SCALE (Alley No. 75, 79 and 90, Assessment District No. 209)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, Resolution No. 13,693 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote., Absent: Dalla. Resolution No. 13,694, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF CHULA VISTA'S POUND FACILITIES AND SERVICES." Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 13,694 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote, Absent: Dalla. Resolution No. 13,695, "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 3, 1981, DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW. kHEREAS, a special municipal election was held and conducted in the City of National City, California, on November 3, 1981, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in timed form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects said election was held and conducted and the votes cast thereat, received and c{.:,assed and the returns made and declared in time, form and :..-.,nner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in cities; and u WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 13,594 adopted July 14, 1981, the Registrar of Voters in and for the County of San Diego canvassed the returns of said election and has certified the results to this City Council, said results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 11/24/81 239 "SECTION 1. That there were 17 voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said election consisting of consolidations of the regular election precincts in said City as established for the holding of state and county elections. 'SECTION 2. That at said special municipal election, the following measure was submitted to the electors of said City, to wit; Shall the members of the City Council be paid YES . :a monthly salary of $500.00 together with : : annual increases at the rate provided for by NO :general law of the State of California? : "SECTION 3. That the whole number of votes cast in said City (except absent voter ballots) was 2,526. siThat the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in E:_id City was 101, making a total of 2,627 votes cast in said City, ''That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City for and against the measure were as listed in "Exhibit A" attached. ''That as a result of said election, a majority of the qualified voters voting on said measure relating to Councilmen's salary did not vote in favor thereof, and that said proposition was not carried, and shall not be deemed adopted and ratified. 'SECTION 4, The City Clerk shall enter on the records of said City, a statement of the result of said election, showing: (1) The whole number of votes cast in the City; (2) The measure voted upon; (3) The number of votes given at each precinct for and against the measure; (4) The number of votes given in the City for and against the measure. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage nne adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the c • of original Resolutio ns of said City; and shall make a mi•.. of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. 'PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 24th day of November, 1981. ATTEST: /s/ Kile > 10 rgan MAYOR /s/ Ione Campbell CITY CLERK 11/24/81 EXTRACT CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL AND DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTIONS SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOVEMBER 3, 1981 240 PRECINCT NO. REG. VOTERS VOTES CAST NATIONAL CITY PROPOSITION L YES NO 51560 938 199 70 117 51580 658 125 37 77 51590 901 121 32 82 51600 444 103 29 71 C1610 952 192 64 113 51630 567 133 40 73 1650 340 72 19 49 51670 659 120 32 84 51700 749 207 87 102 51710 760 181 52 119 51720 849 151 60 74 51730 838 192 65 116 51750 1,270 321 103 _ 195 51790 1,068 135 43 81 51830 941 202 59 132 51880 635 113 41 65 51882 245 60 23 31 Absentee 9 - 26 75 T OTALS 12,823 2,627 882 1,656 I, Ione Campbell, the City Clerk of the City of National City, do hereby certify the above to be the results of the official canvass of the returns of National City Proposition L of the Consolidated Municipal and District Election held on November 3, 1981 in San Diego County.. Witness my hand and official seal th $.24 d'ayro£ November, 1981. done C mpbell, City CYerk of the --.City f National City, California "EXHIBIT A" 241 Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, Resolution No. 13,695 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION - FIRST READING Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Ordinance be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Ordinance No. 11/24/81-1, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City, California approving the redevelopment plan and the feasibility of relocation for the National City Downtown Redevelopment Project, National City, California." ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Ordinance be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. Ordinance No. 1761 (11/24/61-2), "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY SOUTH OF 30TH STREET OPPOSITE 'K' THROUGH 'L' AVENUES TO ADD THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE)." Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1761 (W3W24/61-2) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. NEW BUSINESS The City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for RATIFICATION OF WARRANT REGISTER NO. 19, dated November 24, 1981, in the amount of $264,926.07 (Warrants Nos. 74140 through 74202) was presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, the bills be paid and warrants drawn. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Nays: None. Absent: Della. The City Treasurer/Finance Director's STATEMENT of CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS for the month ended October 31, 1981 was presented. Approves and ordered filed by unanimous vote. The Engineer's Report on Alley No. 80, District No. 214 (See Page 237, Para. 4) The City Engineer's request for APPROVAL of construction contract CHANGE ORDERS 1 and 2 to KIMBALL PARK, Phase III -A, Spec. 920, LWCF 06-00822 (Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $10,779.71, covers the cost of installing the enderground portion of the Security Lighting System and minor costs associated with construction in the park; the complete lighting system was a deductive bid item originally, but deducted because of costs; it is prudent to install the underground portion, due to irrigation and landscaping work associated with this contract; Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $3,500 covers extra costs associated with the removal and relocation of extensive concrete rubble located at finish grade in an area to be landscaped; Change Order No. 1 is a 1.8% increase in contract costs and Change Order No. 2 is a .6% increase; total cost of these clf rci?5 is $14,279.71; allocated project funds are avFAlable; staff rec ' •:.13 these change orders be approved and City l<<:-leer be directed to Jn and process the Change Orders) was presented. Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, this request be approved. by unanimous vote. Absent: Della. The City Engineer's request for APPROVAL of construction CHANGE ORDER NO. 3, "DRAINAGE BOX CULVERT" & PARADISE CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS" as further negotiated by the City Engineer to the benefit of the City (Recent flooding of Paradise Creek Channel between 22nd and 24th streets caused some settlement of the soil covering the rip -rap and change in alignment of the turfstone at the bottom of the channel slopes; after a meeting with the City Engineer, the Contractor, the Landscape Architect, the Landscape Sub -Contractor and our Construction Representative, it was recommended the banks be hydroseeded in lieu of sod for erosion control; additional contract time of 30 calendar days has been requested by the 11/24/81 242 contractor for this work which is acceptable to the City Engineer; no additional funds are required; a credit to the City in the amount of $17,206.56 will result from this change order; staff recommends a Resolution be passed approving this change order and the City Engineer be authorized to sign on behalf of the City) was presented. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, in favor of this request. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A letter from Sgt. Frank Chenelle, National City Sweetwater Basketball Booster President, requesting a donation of $250 to assist in the Sweet- water High School Basketball Program. Moved by Waters, seconded by Van Deventer, in favor of this request. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalia. Sgt. Chenelle was present and said Sweetwater is the first high school in San Diego County to have two All -American players on the same team. OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOTICES OF DECISION The Planning Commission's Notice of Decision, Certification of final EIR, Highland Village Plaza (On November 9, 1981, the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR for Highland Village Plaza to be complete and meeting all State and local requirements; they found the project would have a significant effect on traffic in the area, but adopted a Statement of Overriding Social and Economic Considerations; this action only applies to the adequacy of the EIR; the project itself will be considered at a future date; staff concurs with the Planning Commission's action) was presented, Ordered filed by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalla. The recommendations from the October 14th and November llth meetings of the Traffic Safety Committee (1. Install a YIELD sign at the NW corner of 28th and 'Al, 2, Install a pedestrian crosswalk on 8thiSt., between the NSC Annex entrance and the Naval Station parking lot, 3. Install 2-hour parking signs on the East side of Roosevelt Ave. in the 1500 block, 4. Install a NO LEFT TURN standard regulatory sign, both visual and written [R-17 and R-17A] for customers leaving the Rosario's Store parking lot on Highland Ave.) were presented. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendations. Carried by unanimous vote, Absent: Dalla. CITY MANAGER - No report. CITY ATTORNEY - No report. OTHER STAFF - No report. MAYOR - No report. CITY COUNCIL - No report. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Camacho, seconded by Waters, the meeting be adjourned to 4:00 p.m., December 1, 1981. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Dalia. The meeting closed at 8:56 p.m. 11/24/81 243 The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of December 8, 1981, Corrections* No Corrections R CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 11/24/81 *Add to the motion, Page 235, Para. 1, "3, Follow the recommendation of the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission that the Redevelopment Plan for the Project not include the acquisition of the Santa Fe Motel, Parcel B-2 on the Land Acquisition Map consisting of 13,054 sq. ft. of land owned by Arthur D. and Valerie E. Fast." ///z V /'/