Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 01-24 CC MINBook 71/Page 17 1/24/89 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 24, 1989 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Waters. ROLL CALL Council members present Della, Inzunza, Pruitt, Van Deventer, Waters. Absent None. Administrative officials present Bolint, Eiser, McCabe, Myers, Peoples, Post SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with salute to the flag led by City Manager McCabe, followed with invocation by Councilman Dalla. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Inzunza, the minutes of the regular meeting of January 17, 1989 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. APPOINTMENTS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS/APPOINTMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS - PROPOSITION C - BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Waters recommended Councilman Van Deventer to serve as the City representative. ACTION: Moved by Pruitt, seconded by Inzunza, in favor of the Mayors' recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Waters then turned the meeting over to Vice -Mayor Pruitt PORT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT SUBJECT: The City Council's appointment to the Port Commission. ACTION: Ballots were distributed to each member of the Council and returned to the City Clerk for a count of the votes. After counting the votes, the City Clerk announced that there were five votes for re -appointment of Mr. Rip Reopelle to the Port Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: The City Council's appointment to the Planning Commission. ACTION: Ballots were distributed to each member of the Council and returned to the City Clerk for a count of the votes. After counting the votes, the City Clerk announced that there were three votes for Ted Godshalk, one for Diego Aguilera and one for Kathleen Smith. Vice -Mayor Pruitt announced that Ted Godshalk would be serving as our new Planning Commissioner. Councilman Della suggested that since Mr. Godshalk was being appointed to fill a term which would expire in two months that Council should consider making this appointment also for the four year term commencing in March of 1989. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Pruitt, in favor. Carried by unanimous vote. Vice -Mayor Pruitt turned the meeting back over to Mayor Waters. PUBLIC HEARINGS SHOPPING CENTER/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Shopping Center Development Standards and related Zoning/General Plan Issues. The City Clerk reported that the Certificate of Publication was on file. Planning Director Post reported that he had received today, one letter of protest from Richard E. Gattis (attorney for Silverado Management Corporation and Douglas L Keyes) property owners of the Northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Division Street RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council (1) Endorse the concepts contained in the Mixed Use Proposal and initiate necessary amendments to the Land Use Code and General Plan; (2) Direct staff to bring a series of zone changes and General Plan amendments to reflect the proposals outlined in this report; (3) Approve the concept of requiring a conditional use permit for the construction of shopping centers in order to regulate commercial density; (4) Allow the moratorium on the construction and approval of small shopping centers to remain in effect until all related amendments to the Land Use Code, and Combined General Plan/Zoning Map are accomplished. Book 71/Page 18 1/24/89 TESTIMONY: Tony Reed 3675 Ruffin Road, San Diego, spoke in opposition to the proposed CUP usage on Item #3 of the Staff report. He requested Council consider taking the properties with a PD overlay out of the moratorium. ACTION: Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Pruitt, to continue the Public Hearing for two weeks. Carried by unanimous vote. ASSESSMENT ROLL/DISTRICT NO. 212 2. SUBJECT: Hearing on Assessment Roll - District No. 212, 17th Street and "M" Avenue, Alley 88. The City Clerk reported that the Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Posting were on file as were three letters of protest from residents within the area (Calderon, Jerao, Noriega). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation was to hold the hearing, consider the protests, establish a fair as essment, and proceed with the confirmation of the proceedings and the assessment TESTIMONY: Lucilena Calderon (representing her father) 1341 E. 17th spoke in opposition. Rose Noriega, 1702 "N" Avenue, spoke in opposition. ACTION: Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, to close the Public Hearing and reduce the assessments by 50%. Carried by the following vote, to -wit Ayes: Delia, Pruitt, Van Deventer, Waters. Nays: Inzunza. City Engineer Myers tasked to review Mrs. Noriega's property assessment and report back to Council. Myers will send a complete explanation letter to all affected property owners. Mayor Waters called a recess at 8:15 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:27 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present Della, Inzunza, Pruitt, Van Deventer, Waters. Absent None. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CONSENT RESOLUTIONS (Resolutions Nos. 15,861 through 15,864). City Manager McCabe explained that No. 6 (Resolution No. 15,864) was not actually a Resolution but should be pulled and considered as New Business. Vice -Mayor Pruitt requested No. 4 (Resolution No. 15,882) be pulled. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Inzunza, the Consent Resolutions be (except No. 15.864 and 15.862 ) adopted. Carried, by unanimous vote CONTRACT/FUSEES/ROAD FLARES 3. Resolution No. 15,861, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY DECLARING THE JOHN C. HENBERGER CO. THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE JOHN C. HENBERGER CO. FOR THE PURCHASE OF FUSEES (road flares)." Adopted. See above. BUDGET FY 88-89/POLICE 5. Resolution No. 15,863, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING FIVE ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS BE ALLOCATED TO THE NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATING $110,000. TO THE NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT F.Y. 1988-89 BUDGET." Adopted. See above. ACQUISITION ESCROW/ CONFLICT OF INTEREST 4. Resolution No. 15,862 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BRYAN WHELCHELAND THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY FOR THE EUCLID AVENUE EXTENSION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ENTEeR INTO AN ACQUISITION ESCROW (Accessor's Parcel Number 558-190- 19)." Vice -Mayor Pruitt said he would abstain from voting as his home abuts the property. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Inzunza, Resolution No. 15.882 be adopted. Carried by the following vote, to -wit Ayes: Della, Inzunza, Van Deventer, Waters. Nays: None. Abstaining: Pruitt ASSESSMENT/WEED ABATEMENT 6. Resolution No. 15,864, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT." Per City Manager McCabe, this should not be a Resolution and should be considered under New Business. NEW BUSINESS ASSESSMENT/WEED ABATEMENT 6. SUBJECT: Resolution No. 15,864, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT." Book 71/Page 19 1/24/89 RECOMMENDATION: As stated above by City Manager McCabe, this should not be a Resolution, but is New Business. Staff recommends that the Report and Account should be accepted and set for Public Hearing. ACTION: The City Clerk set the Public Hearing date for March 14, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT/CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7. SUBJECT: Warrant Register No. 29 Ratification of Demands in the amount of $136,133.65 (Warrants Nos. 103872 through 103994 inclusive, excepting none) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the warrants be ratified. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Councilman Van Deventer said he would abstain on Warrant No. 103924 as he owns the business property. ACTION: Moved by Pruitt seconded by Inzunza, the bills be ratified. Warrant Nos. 103872 through 103994 (except 103924) rated by the following vote, to -wit Ayes: Della, Inzunza, Pruitt, Van Deventer, Waters. Nays: None. Warrant No. 103924 ratified by the following vote, to -wit Ayes: Della, lnzunza, Pruitt, Waters. Nays: None. Abstaining: Van Deventer. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SHOPPING CENTER/GREPO 8. SUBJECT: Letter from Attorney Ross C. Provence regarding property located at 1441 East 8th Street National City. TESTIMONY: Ross C. Provence, 1615 Sweetwater Road (Attorney for the Grepos - owners of the property) requested Council authorize the Planning Department to proceed with a prior site plan approval for the property. DISCUSSION: Mayor Waters - What's the pleasure of the Council?. Did anyone have any problems with this? Pruitt - No. Van Deventer to Planning Director Post - Do you have any problems with the request? Post - Well, there is a procedure for granting relief for virtually any section of the zoning ordinance and that procedure is to process a zone variance. My recommendation is that the property owners apply for a zone variance and it be routed through the proper channels. Waters - I didn't see that recommendation anywhere in the Council's Agenda. Post - I was not asked for my recommendation for the Agenda. Delia - The letter was put on the agenda by Mr. Provence. Waters - What's the pleasure of the Council. Pruitt - I have a problem with this. This has drawn on for over two years. My understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Post, is that this applicant had a parking plan approved, am I correct? Post - Correct Pruitt - And this applicant had a site plan approved? Post - This is also correct Pruitt - And this applicant has made every effort, I don't know how many times they've changed architects, to comply with new design. The applicant, I'm sure, those of us that are aware of contracting and construction, know that once you have your site plan approved and your parking approved, your financing is based upon how many square feet you're going to have, how many parking spaces you're required to have. I cannot see us continuing to delay this development We are dealing with a piece of property that has been sitting there since dirt With a hill continuing to erode away. We have an applicant that wants to deal with a very difficult piece of property to develop. 1 have no idea what they're dealing with putting up a retainer wall or crib wall, do you Mr. Ross? Provence - It's approximately $150,000. Pruitt - An extra $150,000. they're going to lay out to hold back that bank. I don't know if we're ever going to get anybody to develop that piece of property if we continue to stall these people, and I don't see for what reason this continuously happens. I'm not in favor of holding these people up anymore. I know for a fact, from years ago on the Planning Commission, when these people had to change their design to make the building more attractive, which I know they did because they changed architects to do it. To me it's a very attractive building. Everybody wins to let this development go forward and nobody wins to allow it to continue to be dragged along. That's my opinion. Waters - Mr. Inzunza. lnzunza to Provence - Is there a reason why you didn't go through the regular variance procedure. Provence - It's a question of time delay Mr. Inzunza. It's a three to five month procedure, we have continual caring costs, it goes on and on and these people have been delayed so long, that we feel it would be justifiable for the Council to allow them to proceed based on their original site approval plan. lnzunza - It would take three to five Mr. Post? Post - It certainly wouldn't take five months, it would take three at the outside. lnzunza - okay. Waters - Is there anyone else? Mr. Van Deventer. Van Deventer -1 agree that it needs to move forward, even though I didn't support moving forward on that part of it The problem I have is with the parking ratio. And that's really the issue here, is the parking ratio. If they go through the variance and they support the variance, I have no problem for it. But at this point, he's basically wanting to go back, years back, on the parking requirement If he'd conform to the new parking, I'd have no problem with it at present But he's really asking us to go back on the parking. Waters - It appears he did cut down the size of the building some, didn't he? How much did he cut down the size of the building? Mr. Post, I, even though you didn't get a report, I'm sure you're familiar with this property. Post - not greatly familiar your Honor. We haven't seen a set of plans in a very long lime. We've had plans in previously, but not for a year or so. Waters - Are Book 71/Page 20 1/24/89 you aware they did cut down the size of the building? Post - I don't recall if the building itself was cut down. I don't know. Van Deventer - Couldn't we do this George? Couldn't we hold it a week then and have you check the latest plans that he has against the parking ratio, the current parking ratio against the old parking ratio, and then you could bring that back? Post - We will have to get a set of plans from the applicant, which we don't have. We will have to do a complete plan check of those plans, prepare a report, that's going to take more than a week. Van Deventer to Provence - You don't have a set? Provence - Yes, we have a set of plans. You may recall on my previous appearance, the reason I came before you was because the Planning Department declined to accept or receive the set of plans on the basis that the moratorium existed. Pruitt - Correct Provence - So that set of plans does exist, in fact, we're essentially ready to file them for processing and application. Van Deventer - But you could bring that set of plans. Provence - Certainly. Van Deventer - We don't have a meeting next week anyway. Provence - Certainly. Pruitt - Here's the crux of the matter. Waters - Mr. Dalla's got it first We've got to get Mike in here. Della - Mr. Provence, the last time you were here on this same item, seeking relief from the moratorium, you outlined a whole history of events that related to the property and the problems that the Grepo's had with engineers and architects and those sorts of things. If my memory serves me correctly, one of the primary bases for the delays that they have incurred has been engineers, architects, some problems they've had with people that work for them. Am I taking liberties with the comments that you made? Provence - No I think that that is true. There were problems with the people that they were working with, and what those people prepared were submitted, were not acceptable to your Planning Department or the process, and they had to be redone. Della - Okay, because Mr. Pruitts' talked about this project being stalled and continuing to delay it, and I didn't get that from you when you were here the last time, that the reason this has taken so long is that the City has arbitrarily or unreasonable required certain things for the property. I think one of the problems that I have in going outside the normal process is the last time you were here we had a letter, and we had information provided by you about what happened. And because it was a letter by you requesting to be put on the Agenda, we had the same situation that we have now which is, we don't automatically have the Staff prepare any kind of a response or recommendation, partially because they don't have all the information that you propose to bring forward tonight And once again, we have that again. 1 don't know what the parking situation will be with your plans and how they compare with the existing parking. 1 don't know when you submitted the last set of plans that you referred to, in relation to when we changed the parking requirement. Because the parking requirement update, predates the moratorium. The parking was modified, I'm not sure how many months, maybe it was a year before the moratorium. So I don't know how these time frames compare. That's why we have a zone variance process. Whether it takes three weeks or three months is so that we have the benefit of all of the things being done properly, all of the information being made available. It would seem that we're intent on circumventing that by going directly to the Council and I think the end result is not to everyone's benefit But I don't see that we have delayed this as its' been represented, unreasonably when they were going to build an all, was it all metal building at one time? Provence - Well, it was a steel erection that was impossible to place on the property. Dalla - I find it hard to fault the Staff for rejecting plans that are like that. I mean I don't consider that a delay on the part of the City that is something we should criticize the Staff for. I think they were doing their job. But, those are my feelings and 1 have a question of Mr. Eiser. Can we waive current zoning and in effect grant a zone variance without going through the process? Is that possible? Eiser -1 don't know what the legal basis is for granting a request such as this other than to go through the variance process. Unless there's some difference of interpretation, something that's subject to subjective interpretation or something along that line. That seems to me that the proper method is to follow the variance procedure. Waters - But Mr. are you taking into consideration the fact that originally they went two major steps within the City with their original plans? You know, and those plans are basically the same and what they're asking is to honor those plans and the only reason why they got tied up in something different is the fact that we slapped a moratorium on everything. Then the Council here, by a majority of three to two said take them out from under that, so what 1 think he's requesting here, to me its very clear, to proceed under the existing that he started to go through City Hall to begin with. And we have to take also into consideration that that piece of property is not file most pieces of property in the City. Before they can even start to build the building, they must spend $150,000. to put grates and so forth up on that wall, to cover that bank rather. And that alone is before you ever break ground on the building. It's a very expensive piece of property so that's why they're wanting to go under the old rules and this City Council, by a majority vote said they could do that So now, what are we getting into in the way of variances and so forth? if you're talking about variances under the new, existing moratorium rules that we're setting up? What variance are you talking about? Eiser - Well. Waters - In other words, if they comply under the existing ordinances that we took them out from under the new ones that we're talking about and put them under the old ones, then they should comply to those particular ones. If they don't comply to them, then they have a problem. Eiser - Well there's two separate questions. One is the questions of the moratorium. That was resolved in favor of this applicant the last time they appeared before the Council. Waters - It relieved Book 71/Page 21 1/24/89 them from that responsibility. Eiser - From that responsibility. They still have a responsibility to comply with the parking regulations. Waters - Under the old rules. Eiser - They had some plans approved, but under the law, there's no right to proceed under the old plans, unless there's something further. And that additional step is that actual building permits are issued and substantial construction takes place. At that point, you have the situation where you have a vested right And in that case, then you have the right at that point to proceed under the old law and not under the new regulations as they were subsequently adopted. Waters - Since the Council took them out under new regulations and there's no new regulation. We haven't adopted them yet have we? Eiser - The Council hasn't taken this project out of the new parking regulation. It took this protect out of the moratorium for shopping centers. Waters - Yes. Eiser - Which makes it possible to proceed with a sh000ina center, that's one issue. Another issue, assuming they are proceeding with their shopping center, what parking requirements apply. Waters - Since the new rules are not set yet, the parking requirements should be under the old rules. it's what they're operating under to get out of the new ones to begin with. Eiser - Well, they didn't acquire a vested right because they didn't acquire a building permit and they didn't do work on the project. And after that point, after they got their plans approved, the parking standard changed. They did not get a vested right to proceed under the old standards and for that reason... Waters - Another words what you're saying, the old standards that's on the books, they don't even, not even meeting, is that what you're saying? Eiser -1 think they do meet the old standards. The question is whether they're entitled to construct their project in compliance with those standards or whether they have to meet the new standards. Waters - Why does that question come into consideration at all, when we took them out of the new ones. We voted three to two to take them out from under the new regulations which don't even exist yet that they're right now proposing and working on. Eiser - No, they weren't taken out of the new parking regulations. They were only taken out of the moratorium. The action of the Council, the last time this application came before the Council was for the moratorium. Waters - Let's clear this up. I don't like debate like this. Under the new regulations, since they took their site review and all that originally, parking regulations have changed in between that and this new moratorium, is that it? Post - No the parking regulations changed at lease a year ago, a year to two ago. Waters - I follow you then, has nothing to do with the moratorium. 1 agree. Van Deventer - That's the real issue. Waters - Mr. Pruitt. Pruitt - The fact of the matter is, that these applicants came forward before this City. They had a parking plan approved. They had a site plan approved. Granted, having these two items approved, there was no permits issued, but also granted, when any developer gets a parking plan approved and a site plan approved, he now has something to go to a bank with and say I am going to need this much money to develop this many square feet of space for whatever reason. And for us to sit here now and say, well, we know you had a parking plan approved at this many and this many square feet, but now we're going to make you have to take this many square feet off your property to comply with the new parking plan, I think is wrong. I think its wrong and for a multitude of reasons. We make literally the project financially not feasible to do. It's just that simple. And to me, to try and put these people under the new parking plan, totally destroys their financing. And we'll sit and look at that site for another fifty years waiting for a guy to come along and develop it Waters - Mr. Van Deventer, you got something. Van Deventer - no. Waters - Mr. Daila. Della - Yes. Mr. Provence, were they ready to proceed a year ago? Provence - Yes, they were processing plans, I believe a year ago and they had problems with their soils engineer and something else. We did have a meeting in May of last year with the City Engineer, I don't remember if the City Planning Director was there or not, but the City Engineer at the time, with Mr. Reid and your expert who reviews soils reports, a Japanese name, who is your soils reviewer. And there were some problems. We became involved with Mr. and Mrs. Grepo in March of 1988 and plans were pending at that time, and we have continued to push plans all along the line. Della - Okay, one year ago you say that they were processing plans, and yet we have a situation where we're saying they have a parking plan approved and a site plan approved. Waters to Provence - Do you have that with you? Provence - Yes, t have the copies of the records here in my file. Waters - Is it signed off? Provence - Yes, Mr. Howard Brile signed off the planning and zoning on July 8th 1987 and on the same date he signed off the site plan and the plot plan. The Fire Department approval was on July 10, 1987. Waters - Fire Department approval also. Provence - Yes. Waters - I see. Della - But Waters - Mike. Della - You were processing plans a year ago though? Provence - Yes, they were ongoing. Della - That's after these things were signed off? Provence - Yes. Della - So you were still working on the plans, but you had a site plan and a parking plan, but you didn't have the plans completely processed? Provence - No. The plans had been sent back for revision. That's when we came in on the scene. The revisions were still going to be too costly to construct the building in the manner that it was designed, so the design of the building, the structural design of the building, was modified to make the building economically feasible to build. Taking into consideration the cost of the crib wall and everything, the crib wall is a critical factor to this project And as Councilman Pruitt points out, this project is not economically feasible under your current parking standards. It diminishes the size of the building by one third. That original site approval induded a building of 24,000 leasable feet. The most current plan is 21,000 feet. The site plan approval had 82 parking spaces Book 71/Page 22 1/24/89 on it, we have now 78 parking spaces but, we've reduced the size of the building by 3,000 feet. That had to be done because of the engineering of the crib wall was such, that we couldn't build a crib wall without encroaching 12 to 15 feet into the property to the north cutting those people's lots back in order to get this crib wall in. The crib wall at the base is two tiers deep which is 6 foot sections. So, it would be 12 feet deep at the base, going up about 10 to 12 feet, the crib wall will go up as high as 20 feet in the center of the property. So all these things had to be reviewed and taken into consideration in order to determine how to proceed on the project Della - But, you were taking all those things into consideration and deciding how to proceed with the project, you were processing plans, which are your words, after you had a parking plan and a site plan approved. So you were still in the process of working on the plans, after you had those two items. Provence - The plans had come back Mr. Della, for revision, based on Engineering, your Engine r i g Departments corrections. Dalla - Okay. Provence - That was the processing. Dana - Thank you. Waters - Okay. I guess that's all. The Council now will have to make a decision. Provence - Thank you gentlemen. Waters - I would like to do, Mr. City Manager, I know that you prepare the Agenda, or you have it prepared and I do look it over once in a while but, I think maybe something should be done here about like the letter from Mr. Provence, and he states in here very clearly, that discussing the property located at 1441 East 8th Street, 1.35 acres, zoned commercial use, and he explains prior to the change in your City parking ordinance, our clients submitted plans for a shopping and so forth. When it does relate to something like that, maybe, I know that Roger Post definitely gets an Agenda like all of us, but maybe these items, something like this ought to be flagged through the either Engineering Department or the Planning Department with their comments. I know they only have two or three or four days to do that. But it's important enough for them to be involved in this and I know everyone has a right to come up and put a letter on, but things of this nature should have some type of more extensive report with it So, maybe you and I can work out some process so that we can have more information on these things when they come in on the spur of the moment like this. McCabe - If I can respond to that Waters - Go ahead. McCabe - We try to flag these, and we do send them to the various departments. Sometimes we get these as late as Friday and put them on. In this case, believe this came in Thursday, I'm not certain. Waters - The 19th, yes. McCabe - Our big problem is our Agenda timing and that we have to get responses back from the department in order to publish them on the Agenda in order to meet the limits of the Brown Act Many times we don't have enough time to tum around a report. Waters - Well, maybe these that require extensive reports, maybe the people who bring them in ought to be informed that you won't be able to get it on until next week, unless you want to discuss it and not have any action. McCabe - We sometimes try to do that, but we're at the mercy of the individual. If he says he'd like to have it on at the Council meeting next, we accommodate. Waters - You can, but maybe you can forewarn them that the main thing we can do is discuss because this requires reports from your departments and you can't get them that soon for him. McCabe - We will try to do that Waters - Mr. Planner, do you have something? Post - Yes, I was just going to add that I did receive a copy of this letter from the City Managers Office shortly after it did come to City Hall. Waters - Well thank you for your remarks. Well, here we are gentlemen. We have to make a decision whether this man should proceed or whether we should require him to do other things. Waters - lnzunza. lnzunza - Oh no I don't have anything. Pruitt - Your Honor, I feel these people have been delayed enough and that they should be allowed to proceed under the old approved parking plan and site plan. They have reduced the building in size already. They've, I know gone through lengths to address Staffs concerns of making the building attractive. They're experiencing exorbitant costs in developing this site. ACTION: I feel this is justifiable reason to allow these people to move forward and I put that in the form of a motion. Inzunza - I second that. Waters - Moved and seconded. DISCUSSION: Waters- Mr. City Attorney, I really don't think there's anything illegal about this. Mr. Daila. Dalia - Okay, well, I'm not an attorney, but 1 think there's some real concern about this. We have a zoning ordinance, whether you call it new, old or otherwise, it was adopted a year ago and established parking standards. Now, by a motion of the Council, we're simply going to ignore it, eliminate it, pretend it doesn't exist. That's, in my opinion, where we start getting in trouble up here. Because, we don't take our own ordinances seriously. We adopted that ordinance over a year ago. It establishes a standard. You can't just ignore the ones you don't like when you don't like them in my opinion. I think that, even though we're trying to put words in the attorney's mouth, that's what I heard him say. It's difficult to find a basis for doing this other than through the normal procedure and no one has given any reason except, in generalized statements that we've delayed these people long enough, and I haven't even heard Mr. Provence allude to the fact that we have unduly delayed them. A lot of things have delayed them, but that doesn't justify us ignoring our own ordinances. Waters - You know Mike, if we didn't require them to put the crib wall up, he'd have adequate off street parking. Would you want to make some concessions there. I mean he has a unique piece of property, not everybody has to do like he does in the way of a crib wall there. Maybe some consideration should be done there for that bank Post - That's not our requirement Book 71/Page 23 1/24/89 Waters - Huh? Post - That's not our requirement. That's their proposal. Waters - I see. But, I think you would highly recommend it considering that bank and everything and the properties above it. Wouldn't you Mr. Post? Highly recommend that crib wall? Post - Well the reason they need a retaining wall is to acquire more... Waters - Crib wall, crib wall. Post - Yes, a crib wall or retaining wall, same general purpose, is to acquire more building area. When you cut back in the slope, you increase your pad size so you can build a bigger building. That's their proposal. Waters - Okay, thank you. Do you have anymore comments? Mr. Pruitt. ACTION: Pruitt - No, I call for the question. Waters - Vote please. Carried by the following vote, to -wit Ayes: lnzunza, Pruitt, Waters. Nays: Dalia, Van Deventer. OTHER BUSINESS ANNUAL REPORT/CABLE TV FRANCHISE/COX CABLE 9. SUBJECT: Annual Status Report on cable television system operations and franchise compliance submitted by Cox Cable San Diego. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended the report be accepted and filed. ACTION: Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Pruitt, no obiection as filed. Carried by unanimous vote. CITY TOWING SERVICES REQUIREMENTS 10. SUBJECT: Report on City Towing Services Requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requested City Council provide comments and refer to staff for finalization of the selection process. ACTION: Motion by Della, seconded by Inzunza, to refer this item to Staff for finalization of the selection process. Carried by unanimous vote. CITY MANAGER - No report. CITY ATTORNEY PROPOSITION 73/DISPLAY ADVERTISING City Attorney Eiser reported that two weeks ago at the meeting of January 10, 1989, the City Council authorized a Display Ad to be published in the special edition of the Star News referred to as the "South Bay Progress". He was asked at that time whether or not that ad would be in compliance with Proposition 73. Based on the knowledge he had then, he responded that it would not be contrary to Proposition 73. He just learned at a seminar given by the FPPC yesterday, that they consider this type of ad, even though it is not mailed, even though it's published in the newspaper, to be a mass mailing and therefore, due to the fact that the photographs and names of the members of the City Council are featured in the proposed ad, it would be contrary to Proposition 73. The deadline to have this type of ad in this special edition is February 7th and for that reason, he brought this matter to Council's attention this evening. RECOMMENDATION: Eiser recommended that Council consider this item off the Agenda which would first require a finding that the need to take action arose after the Agenda was posted. If Council does take that action, they can then modify the ad to bring it into compliance with Proposition 73 or to delete it all together. ACTION: Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Pruitt, to bring it on the floor. Carried by unanimous vote. Moved by Waters, seconded by Van Deventer, to file this item (not advertise). No objection as filed. OTHER STAFF - No report MAYOR THEME RESTAURANT Mayor Waters reported that he and Councilman Van Deventer met with Serj Construction with regards to the Theme Restaurant in the downtown development site. He has asked Serj Construction people to put the report on the Agenda for February 14, 1989. POLICE/HART SETTLEMENT Mayor Waters then read into the record, information pertaining to the Hart Settlement which was released to the newspapers. Copy on file in the Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL PARKING/WESTSIDE Vice -Mayor Pruitt said he had been receiving calls of complaints from residents on the Westside whose parking was being taken up by commercial entities. He requested Staff look into this as it will need to be addressed in the near future. Councilman Inzunza agreed with Pruitt and said he and the Mayor had set up meetings with the people in the neighborhoods to ascertain the problems. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Rick Barajas 4030 Darwin Avenue, San Diego spoke regarding the parking problem on the Westside. He owns property there and has received tenant complaints. Book 71/Page 24 1/24/89 Kathleen Van Arum 1825 "I" Avenue, Member of the Traffic Safety Commissioner, spoke regarding parking problems which continually come before the Traffic Safety Committee. She recalled one gentleman who came before the committee and requested a reserved parking space in front of the business where he worked. When he was questioned as to if he had ever considered car pooling, his response was - Oh, we can't do that Some of us live in Lakeside and some five in Santee. She then wished the Council good luck as this was an example of the type of mentality they will be dealing with. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Pruitt, the meeting be adjourned to the City Council Workshop - proposed Naval Use of Bayfront Property - January 30. 1989 - 2:00 p.m. - Large Conference Room Civic Center. The next regular meeting is February 7, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 9:25 p.m. Cf(Y1.1., CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes were approved at the regular meeting of February 7, 1989. MAYOR CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CA ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED. YOU MAY LISTEN TO THE TAPES IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR THE NATIONAL CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY. COPIES OF THE TAPES MAY BE PURCHASED FROM THE CITY CLERK.